<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:99872.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-154
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2985
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Architect of the Capitol (except House items)
Capitol Guide Board
Capitol Police Board
Congressional Budget Office
Government Accountability Office
Government Printing Office
Joint Committee on Taxation
Joint Economic Committee
Library of Congress
Nondepartmental Witnesses
Office of Compliance
U.S. Senate
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
deg.Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
congress/index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-872 WASHINGTON : 2005
_________________________________________________________________
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
Christen Taylor
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Page
U.S. Senate: Office of the Secretary............................. 1
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 71
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Library of Congress.............................................. 121
Government Accountability Office................................. 169
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
U.S. Senate: Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper....... 209
Capitol Police Board............................................. 241
Capitol Guide Board.............................................. 261
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Government Printing Office....................................... 265
Congressional Budget Office...................................... 285
Office of Compliance............................................. 293
Material Submitted by Agencies not Appearing for Formal Hearings
Joint Committee on Taxation...................................... 303
Joint Economic Committee......................................... 314
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 317
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Allard, Cochran, 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
TIM WINEMAN, FINANCIAL CLERK OF THE SENATE
opening statement of senator wayne allard
Senator Allard. The Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch,
Committee on Appropriations, will come to order. We meet today
to hear testimony from the Secretary of the Senate and the
Architect of the Capitol on the fiscal year 2006 budget
requests.
It's my first hearing as chairman of this subcommittee, and
I look forward to learning about the key issues and budget
priorities within each of the legislative branch agencies.
Overall, the request for the legislative branch totals
$4.03 billion, an increase of $482 million, or a 13.5 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2005 level. Clearly, in the
constrained budget environment in which we will be operating,
an increase of this level will be difficult, if not impossible
to provide, so we will be seeking to ensure that all agencies
have prioritized their budget requests, are taking steps to
operate as cost effectively as possible, and are eliminating
wasteful or unnecessary spending.
Welcome to our witnesses this morning. We will hear first
from Emily Reynolds, Secretary of the Senate, who's accompanied
by the Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Mary Suit Jones, and
the Financial Clerk of the Senate, Tim Wineman.
Ms. Reynolds, your budget request totals almost $23
million, an increase of about 7 percent over fiscal year 2005,
primarily to accommodate routine pay and inflation-related
increases, as well as to make some upgrades in a few areas.
Following the Secretary of the Senate, we will take
testimony from Mr. Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol. The
AOC budget request totals $506 million, an increase of $157
million over the current fiscal year. The increase is largely
associated with several construction projects, including
completion of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), construction of
the Library of Congress storage modules at Fort Meade,
Maryland, and a new offsite delivery facility for the Capitol
Police, as well as startup costs and new personnel for the CVC.
Your budget office is to be commended for putting together
a budget justification which is transparent and thorough and
explains all increases concisely, and we certainly appreciate
that effort.
There are a number of issues I'd like to explore with you
today. Most important, of course, is the schedule and budget
for completion of the Capitol Visitor Center. As I understand
it, while much progress has been made, there's still a long way
to go before the facility can be opened to the public, and the
schedule remains unclear. There have been significant
difficulties with this project, including coordinating two
major construction contractors, weather-related delays,
unforeseen site conditions, and, frankly, serious management
problems. While it is too late to make major changes to how the
project is being run, it is my expectation that you will make
every effort to demand the best from your contractors, provide
the Congress with a balanced assessment of progress as the
project continues, and accept the counsel of the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), which has been monitoring the
project, providing recommendations from the start. GAO has done
a very professional job in this oversight effort, and we
appreciate this. Their projections on cost and schedule have
been accurate, and their recommendations have been good.
In addition to the CVC, there continues to be much
construction activity around this campus. One of the primary
reasons is security-related work that will continue even after
the CVC is complete. All of us have construction fatigue and
look forward to when this complex can be returned to a state
that we can all be proud of, free of construction activity,
dump trucks, jersey barriers, and torn-up streets. So we will
be urging you to accelerate these efforts, which have been in
the works for many years now.
The perimeter security project and the visitor center seem
to be emblematic of problems this agency continues to have with
project management. As I understand it, about half of the major
projects AOC has underway at this time are behind schedule, and
too many are over budget, as well. We look forward to hearing
what you're doing to improve project management.
There are also concerns with the morale of your workforce.
Highlighted in an article a few weeks back in The Hill
newspaper, it seems that communication with employees is not as
good as it should be. So we look forward to an update on how
you're improving communication and employee morale.
Finally, the AOC has been working to develop a long-range
master plan for the Capitol complex, as well as condition
assessments of each of the buildings. This should lead to a
plan for prioritizing spending for both capital projects and
deferred maintenance over the next 5 years. The master planning
effort has been underway for some time, so we look forward to
understanding when we will have a final product and a roadmap
for future budget requirements.
We will now turn to the Secretary of the Senate. I welcome
you to the subcommittee and look forward to your testimony, Ms.
Reynolds. And you may proceed.
opening statement of emily reynolds
Ms. Reynolds. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And we
look forward to working with you, as our legislative branch
subcommittee chairman.
I would ask, of course, that my full statement, which
includes our complete Department reports, be submitted for the
record. And today I'd like to take just a few minutes to give
you a brief overview of the Secretary's operation and, of
course, as you referenced, our budget request for fiscal year
2006.
Along with Mary Suit Jones and Tim Wineman, who, as you
said, are here today, we have a good representation of our some
26 department heads, an able team and a tremendous group of
individuals who serve the Senate.
Our budget request, as you said, is right at $23 million,
representing almost $21 million in salary costs and $1.9
million in operating costs. This is a slight increase from
fiscal year 2005, mostly in COLA and merit increases, so that
we can continue to attract and retain the kind of talent the
Senate requires and, indeed, deserves for its operations. We
also have a small increase of $200,000 in that operating budget
to prepare specifically for a specialized and much-needed
storage space for our curator and upcoming relocations for
Senate security and our closed-captioning services operation.
We also anticipate some additional costs for the support and
maintenance of systems that are currently underway--systems
upgrades that are currently underway in both the gift shop and
the stationery room.
Since the first Secretary was elected by the Senate in
1789, our office has served the Senate in three principal ways;
that is, to provide legislative, financial, and administrative
support. And I'd like to briefly highlight some our
accomplishments from last year in each of these areas.
The legislative department, of course, consists of nine
offices dedicated to ensuring that the Senate can carry out its
constitutional responsibilities. And, to that end, one of our
priorities remains the crosstraining among their specialties.
In election years, our parliamentarians play a key and perhaps
even little-known role. Following the elections, the
parliamentarian must attest to the accuracy of each State's
certificate of election for Senate races, a process that we
have to have completed, obviously, before our Members can be
sworn in. The parliamentarian also reviews the electoral
ballots for the President and Vice President, and assists the
Vice President and his staff in preparation for the joint
session of Congress to count those electoral ballots.
On the financial side, our disbursing office pays the
Senate community every 2 weeks, of roughly 6,500 individuals,
and we process over 125,000 bills each year. Of course, as you
well know, this office also administers health insurance, life
insurance, and all of the retirement programs for our Members
and staff.
We continue to make significant progress on the
implementation of the financial management information system
(FMIS), a 5-year strategic plan which this subcommittee
generously provided the funding for now 3 years ago. Of course,
FMIS' high priority is to provide efficiency, accountability,
and ease of use for the 140 Senate offices that rely on the
disbursing operation.
On the administrative side of our operation, there were
several noteworthy accomplishments from last year. With the
assistance of our Senate curator, late next month we will
unveil the portrait of former Majority Leader George Mitchell,
and, soon after, we will add to our collection the portrait of
another Maine Senator, Margaret Chase Smith. We have underway a
commission to add to the Senate reception room a portrait to
commemorate the authors of the Connecticut Compromise, Senators
Ellsworth and Sherman.
You might well have seen the ``Catalogue of Fine Art'',
which we released last year, a beautiful piece of work. We hope
to add a companion piece this Congress, the Senate ``Catalogue
of Graphic Art'', which will be a compilation of our collection
of 900 historic engravings and lithographs.
And one of the most exciting initiatives we have underway,
which this subcommittee has generously supported, is our work
with the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board, which has now
completed its second meeting. The board provides us with expert
advice regarding our collections and preservation program. It's
a group of 12 highly knowledgeable and esteemed experts in
their fields of art, preservation, architecture, and they are
giving generously of their time and talent to the Senate.
In addition, our newly formed Senate Preservation Board of
Trustees will meet next month. This group will supplement the
work of the Curatorial Advisory Board and assist us in
acquisitions and to facilitate preservation projects for the
Senate. You may recall that your former colleague from
Colorado, Senator Campbell, sent us on a search for a chair
that was given to Vice President Charles Curtis to celebrate
his Native American heritage. And that chair, now on loan to
us--the search was victorious--and the chair now resides in the
Vice President's ceremonial office.
Since that acquisition, I'm pleased to report we've made
progress on other fronts, as well. We have subsequently
acquired a Brumidi oil sketch, which was a preliminary
treatment for the signing of the first Treaty of Peace with
Great Britain, which, of course, in its finished form, is on
the first floor of the Capitol, in the Brumidi corridors. And I
would add, just coincidentally, this year happens to mark the
200th anniversary of Brumidi's birth. We are working with the
Architect of the Capitol on several ways that we can
commemorate that historic occasion in the Capitol this summer.
Our historical office also came into possession, this last
year, of a wonderful treasure of scrapbooks that contain
photographs of nearly 900 Senators, from the Senate's early
days up to the early 20th century. Many of these were from
Members for whom we had no prior photograph or record. Some we
believe may even be the photographs done by Matthew Brady, the
very famous Civil War photographer. This treasure actually came
to us from a lifelong Washington resident. He grew up on
Capitol Hill, and one of his fondest memories is that he was
often walked to school by Chief Justice Taft. Thanks to his
generosity, our historical office is now putting together, for
the first time ever, a pictorial directory of the images of all
Senators who have served since 1789, by State and class.
While we focus on the rich history and tradition of the
Senate in the Secretary's office, we certainly don't ignore the
fact that technology continues to dramatically change the way
we deliver services to the Senate in this 21st century. The
Senate Library, for example, just late last year completed an
ambitious project to provide its entire catalog online through
the Senate intranet, Webster, so you can now review our catalog
of 158,000 items literally from your desk. In addition, the use
of our public website, senate.gov, continues to grow, a 9
percent increase last year, with almost 3.3 million visitors
per month.
The second of our two mandated systems, the Legislative
Information System (LIS), is a technological achievement, in
and of itself. I'm delighted to report that, already in this
Congress, working in conjunction with the Office of Senate
Legislative Counsel, we've used this system to draft
legislation, and 75 percent of the introduced and reported
bills have been created as XML documents through this project.
Once again, this subcommittee has generously supported that
initiative.
And, quickly, there are two special projects I want to
mention that don't necessarily fall tidily within our mission
of legislative, financial, and administrative responsibilities,
but they are two projects that we have the unique opportunity
to work on in election and inaugural years. In November, we
organized and executed the orientation program for our nine new
Senators, their spouses, and staffs, and we were very fortunate
to have the guidance of four of your colleagues, current
Members, Senators Alexander, Carper, Pryor, and Voinovich, who
wanted to set a new standard for orientation. And, thanks to
their leadership, I believe we did, with an intensive 4-day
program, with over two dozen Senators, on a bipartisan basis,
serving as facilitators and instructors for their new
colleagues.
Our staff was also honored to assist the Joint
Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in the
preparation and execution of the 55th inaugural. From the
closed-captioners, who provided the captioning for the
jumbotrons, to the curator and Historian serving on the JCCIC
website design team, it was really our honor to take a small
role in that presentation.
Our operation, as you can see, is one that relies heavily
on its human capital. While our operating budget is small, it
is the teamwork, it is our employees, that make the Secretary's
operation click. We are collaborative partners in so many ways,
and in so many different levels within our departments
themselves, within the office, also with disbursing, reaching
out to administrative managers on the applications of FMIS. We
work closely with Mr. Hantman and the entire team in the
Architect's office, on the construction issues, and the
planning of the CVC. And, finally, in so many ways, we're
joined with the Sergeant at Arms in the ongoing important
effort of continuity of Government planning and preparation.
prepared statement
It's a real privilege to be part of that team and to serve
as the Senate's 31st Secretary, to be part of that rich
tradition and heritage of the Senate, but also to be planning
and preparing for its future. On balance, I believe we've
presented a budget for you today that will enable us to
continue to provide the best possible legislative, financial,
and administrative services to the United States Senate.
I thank you for your time and look forward to any
questions. Thank you, sir.
[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
2006.
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 2006 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 2006 budget request
I am requesting a total fiscal year 2006 budget of $22,766,000.
The fiscal year 2006 budget request is comprised of $20,866,000 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 2005 budget as a result of (1) the costs associated with the
annual Cost of Living Adjustment in the amount of $672,000 and (2) an
additional $608,000 for merit increases and other staffing. The
operating budget represents an increase for (1) costs to be incurred
for the support and maintenance of systems upgrades for the gift shop
and stationery room and (2) costs to be incurred for the Curator's
storage space along with the relocation of Senate Security and
Captioning Services.
The net effect of my total budget request for fiscal year 2006 is
an increase of $1,480,000.
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 States 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
2005, Public fiscal year
Law 108-447 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental operating budget:
Executive office............................................ $525,000 $550,000 +$25,000
Administrative services..................................... 1,135,000 1,290,000 +155,000
Legislative services........................................ 40,000 60,000 +20,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total operating budget.................................... 1,700,000 1,900,000 +200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (100 Senators' offices, 20 Committees and 20
Leadership and support offices). Consistent with our five year
strategic plan, the Disbursing Office continues to modernize processes
and applications to meet the continued demand by our Senate offices for
efficiency, accountability and ease of use. Our goal is to move to a
paperless voucher system, improve the Web-FMIS system, and make payroll
and accounting system improvements.
During fiscal year 2004 and the first half of fiscal year 2005,
specific progress made on the FMIS project included:
--Web FMIS has been completely rewritten as a ``zero-client''
application accessed via a website, ``webfmis.senate.gov''. Our
implementation began in August 2004 with a pilot of 15 offices,
including Senators, Committees and Leadership & Support
offices. During the Fall, it continued for new office managers,
and in January the intranet version of Web FMIS was provided to
the new offices of the 109th Congress. As of the end of March,
it was in use by 60 offices. Roll out to the remaining offices
has been announced with a schedule of completion by the end of
April.
--The new version of Web FMIS provides functionality desired by the
Web FMIS users group, which participated in the design process.
The functionality enjoyed most by users is the automatic
determination of funding year to which a payment is charged
based on the obligation start date. This seemingly small change
has improved efficiency and reduced mistakes substantially.
Additionally, it has no files on the users PC, which improves
our ability to function in a disaster recovery situation.
--For the SAVI system, which enables Senate staff to create Expense
Summary Reports online and to check the status of reimbursement
payments, over a course of several upgrades, we provided
additional user functionality. Specifically, the upgrades
enabled users to prepare and submit Non-travel Expense Summary
Reports (in addition to Travel Expense Summary Reports), to
request e-mail notification of payments made via direct
deposit, to define their own log-on ids and to maintain their
own e-mail addresses; completed security enhancements; and
implemented a simplified web address ``savi.senate.gov'' and
architectural changes, which simplify disaster recovery
infrastructure at the ACF.
--As a non-Treasury disbursing office, the Senate pays bills via
direct deposit and checks. During 2004, we made substantial
progress on both fronts.
--In March 2004, we implemented use of laser checks. Staff and
vendors not receiving payments via direct deposit now
receive checks printed on a laser printer. This has several
benefits. Use of a standard laser printer enhances our
ability to work off-site, should the need arise, and
produces a higher quality print which prevents negotiation
of checks for an unintended dollar amount and helps the
Postal Service to deliver checks. Use of laser checks
required that the U.S. Treasury create a check and stub
form for use by the Senate.
--In May 2004, we offered direct deposit payment to all external
vendors. In 2002, we began making reimbursements to Senate
staff via direct deposit and in June 2003 we made our first
direct deposit payments to external vendors on a pilot
basis. Of the approximately 6,000 non-payroll payments made
in February 2005, overall, 59 percent were made via direct
deposit; of the approximately 2,000 reimbursements to
Senate staff, 87 percent were made via direct deposit and
of the approximately 4,000 payments to external vendors, 47
percent were made via direct deposit.
--The Sergeant at Arms staff use ADPICS and FAMIS, the mainframe
components of FMIS, for procurement activities. In 2004 we
contracted with Bearing Point to make system and reporting
enhancements to these systems that align system functionality
with SAA business practices. By the end of March 2005, the
requirements for the system enhancements were approved by the
SAA staff and the reports were delivered for testing.
--One of the goals of FMIS is to implement paperless voucher
processing. This requires implementation of electronic
signatures, and imaging of supporting documentation, both of
which present complex and challenging issues. Our focus has
been on revising the requirements for these functions,
including a phased approach for implementation (i.e., a pilot
vs. long term). In addition, we assessed the risks associated
with paperless voucher processing, identified policy and
process issues to be resolved, and began to analyze the
appropriate hardware/software acquisition strategy.
--Disaster operation services for FMIS are provided at the Alternate
Computer Facility. In December 2004, we conducted an intensive
two-day test of operating critical FMIS subsystems at this
location. Our tests of all mainframe systems (i.e., payroll,
ADPICS and FAMIS) were successful and we were able to simulate
making payroll and voucher payments via direct deposit and
check. Additionally, we were able to create, post, and print
documents via Web FMIS and ADPICS. Document printing has always
presented problems during past tests at other facilities;
however, the system configuration at the ACF has resolved this
problem.
--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 is implementation of a
new version of the mainframe operating system software, ``Z/
OS'', scheduled for the end of April 2005. This required two
steps, installation of an upgrade to the current operating
system, OS390, which was completed in October 2004, and the
upcoming implementation of Z/OS. These upgrades require FMIS
testing, both before implementation to identify and resolve any
incompatibilities, and after implementation to verify that all
functions are working properly.
During the remainder of fiscal year 2005 the following FMIS
activities are anticipated:
--Complete implementing the intranet version of Web FMIS in all
Senate offices.
--Implementing the system and reporting enhancements for the Sergeant
at Arms.
--Completing analysis of the appropriate hardware/software
acquisition strategy for electronic signatures, and imaging of
supporting documentation, and begin acquisition.
--Conducting an additional test of FMIS functionality at the
Alternate Computing Facility, including testing two FMIS sub-
systems, Web FMIS reports and SAVI, that were not previously
tested.
--Implementing e-mail notification to vendors of payments made via
direct deposit.
During fiscal year 2006 the following FMIS activities are
anticipated:
--Conducting a pilot of the technology for paperless payment. This
assumes identification of satisfactory hardware and software
for electronic signatures and imaging of supporting
documentation, and resolution of related policy and process
issues.
--Developing requirements for integrating the Funds Advance Tracking
System (FATS system) into FMIS. The FATS system, 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 on-line distribution of payroll system reports.
A more detailed report on FMIS is included in the departmental
report of the Disbursing Office which follows.
Legislative Information System (LIS)
The LISAP project team is developing the Senate's legislative
editing XML application (LEXA), and the Office of the Senate
Legislative Counsel (SLC) began using it last year to draft
legislation. The SLC offered valuable feedback throughout the year
regarding LEXA's continued development as existing features were
enhanced and additional document types, such as amendments and reported
bills, were added to LEXA. The use of LEXA by the SLC has gradually
increased, and so far in the 109th Congress, approximately 75 percent
of the introduced and reported bills have been created as XML
documents. The LISAP project team is now working with the Office of the
Enrolling Clerk toward preparing engrossed and enrolled bills in XML.
The document management system (DMS) for the SLC will be
implemented once the SLC has completed the transition from XyWrite to
LEXA and a substantial number of drafts are created in XML. The SLC's
DMS will be integrated with LEXA and will provide a powerful tracking,
management, and delivery tool. The software used to convert locator
documents to XML was updated to provide a more robust tool, and a joint
project to convert the compilations of current law to an XML format is
nearing completion.
The Government Printing Office (GPO) also began using LEXA last
year to prepare and print XML documents as requested and to provide
support for LEXA as directed in the 2004 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act. GPO took over maintenance and support of the coding
and style sheet portion of LEXA that converts an XML document to
locator for printing through Microcomp. GPO also developed the style
sheet that will be used to display XML documents on the LIS website
(www.congress.gov) and on thomas.loc.gov in a format that more closely
resembles the printed document (without page and line numbers).
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 operations 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, to address the
expansion space plans for the Senate and any issues with regard to the
CVC's construction that may directly impact Senate operations.
Although the construction creates numerous temporary inconveniences
to Senators, staff and visitors, completion of the Capitol Visitor
Center 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, we have successfully implemented COOP plans during the
anthrax and ricin incidents, and have conducted roughly one dozen
drills and exercises to test and refine our plans. In conjunction with
the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Capitol Police, the Office of the
Attending Physician, and the Architect of the Capitol, we have
established and exercised Emergency Operations Centers, Briefing
Centers and Alternate Senate Chambers, both on and off Capitol Hill.
In addition, we have identified equipment, supplies and other items
critical to the conduct of essential functions, and have assembled
``fly-away kits'' for the Senate Chamber, and for each department of
the Office of the Secretary. Multiple copies of each fly-away kit have
been produced. Some are stored in 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 in 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 an emergency: support Senate Floor operations in an
Alternate Senate Chamber within twelve hours on campus, and in 24 to 72
hours off campus, depending upon location; support an emergency
legislative session at a Briefing Center, if required; support Briefing
Center Operations at any of three designated locations within one hour;
and activate an Emergency Operations Center on campus or at Postal
Square within one hour.
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: Activated an
Emergency Operations Center, Leadership Coordination Center and
selected departmental COOP plans during the ricin incident response;
participated in the Capitol Police Incident Command during the ricin
incident response; provided supplies to temporary offices in the
Capitol and Postal Square during the ricin incident response; conducted
an offsite Alternate Chamber exercise and a Briefing Center exercise;
and reviewed and updated the COOP plans of all departments of the
Office of the Secretary.
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 perform 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--all supervised by the Secretary through the Legislative Clerk.
The Parliamentarian's office is also within 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 is 20 years. There
is not one supervisor with less than 14 years of service. The
experience of these senior professional staff is a great asset for the
Senate. As in previous years and in order to ensure continued well-
rounded expertise, the legislative team has cross-trained extensively
among their specialties.
1. bill clerk
The Office of the Bill Clerk collects and records data on the
legislative activity of the Senate, which becomes the historical record
of official Senate business. The Bill Clerk's Office keeps this
information in its handwritten files and ledgers and also enters it
into the Senate's automated retrieval system so that it is available to
all House and Senate offices via the Legislative Information System
(LIS). The Bill Clerk records actions of the Senate with regard to
bills, resolutions, reports, amendments, cosponsors, public law
numbers, and recorded votes. The Bill Clerk is responsible for
preparing for print all measures introduced, received, submitted, and
reported in the Senate. The Bill Clerk also assigns numbers to all
Senate bills and resolutions. All the information received in this
office comes directly from the Senate floor in written form within
moments of the action involved. As a result, the Bill Clerk's Office is
generally regarded as the most timely and most accurate source of
legislative information.
The Bill Clerk's Office continues to provide Senate offices and the
public information on Senate legislative status with a high degree of
accuracy and speed, both through the Senate LIS system (when questions
on status concern legislation from prior days) and over the phone
(mostly for same-day information).
Legislative Activity
The Bill Clerk's Office processed less legislation and fewer roll
call votes during the second session of the108th Congress compared to
the first session of the 108th Congress. Below is a comparative summary
of the second sessions of the 107th and the 108th congresses, as well
as a comparative summary of both sessions of the 107th and the 108th
congresses:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
107th 108th
Congress, 2nd Congress, 2nd
Session Session
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Bills............................ 1,298 1,032
Senate Joint Resolutions................ 23 16
Senate Concurrent Resolutions........... 67 66
Senate Resolutions...................... 170 204
Amendments Submitted.................... 2,287 1,857
House Bills............................. 298 322
House Joint Resolutions................. 12 12
House Concurrent Resolutions............ 84 87
Measures Reported....................... 406 317
Written Reports......................... 219 208
-------------------------------
Total Legislation................. 4,864 4,121
===============================
Roll Call Votes......................... 253 216
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For comparative purposes, here is a final cumulative summary of
both sessions of the 107th and the 108th congresses:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
107th Congress 108th Congress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Bills............................ 3,181 3,035
Senate Joint Resolutions................ 53 42
Senate Concurrent Resolutions........... 160 152
Senate Resolutions...................... 368 487
Amendments Submitted.................... 4,984 4,088
House Bills............................. 562 604
House Joint Resolutions................. 29 32
House Concurrent Resolutions............ 175 165
Measures Reported....................... 653 659
Written Reports......................... 351 428
-------------------------------
Total Legislation................. 10,516 9,692
===============================
Roll Call Votes......................... 633 675
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistance from the Government Printing Office (GPO)
The Bill Clerk's office maintains a good working relationship with
the Government Printing Office with a common goal to provide the best
service possible to meet the needs of the Senate. Toward this end, the
Government Printing Office 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 printing of priority
matters for the Senate Chamber. Specifically, the Secretary requested,
through the Bill Clerk, that GPO reprint (star print) roughly 40
measures during the course of the Congress, and that GPO expedite the
printing of slightly more than one hundred measures for consideration
by the Senate.
Projects
Amendment Tracking System (ATS).--Rules Committee staff approached
our office with the task of scanning submitted amendments onto the
Amendment Tracking System on LIS. The Rules Committee has 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. The Rules Committee also requested that the Secretary
through the Bill Clerk assess the feasibility of lifting the page
limitation for scanning amendments onto the ATS Indexer. In response,
the Bill Clerk contacted the Technology Development division of the
Sergeant at Arms office to outline the technical requirements needed to
implement such a request. A draft has now been completed. Once the
final version is delivered, the Secretary through the Bill Clerk, in
consultation with the Legislative Clerk, will ascertain the legislative
requirements needed in order for the staff to implement this request.
The system must be designed and implemented without sacrificing
critical services to the functioning of the Senate Chamber, and
specifically the amendment process.
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 a electronic version of the official
Senate ledgers in order to ensure the integrity of the information
recorded in the ledgers. The electronic version will be portable for
use during possible emergency scenarios. At the clerk's request, the
Technology Development division of the Sergeant at Arms is working to
develop two separate functions of this electronic 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 is a search function. Both of these programs will be housed on a
separate server to maintain the integrity of the ledger data. The
electronic ledger system is currently under development. To further
advance the project, the ELS project team at Postal Square has spent
much time updating and converting data.
2. office of captioning services
The Office of Captioning Services provides realtime captioning of
Senate floor proceedings for the deaf and hard-of-hearing and
unofficial electronic transcripts of Senate floor proceedings to Senate
offices via the Senate Intranet.
Accuracy remains the watchword of Captioning Services. Overall
caption quality is monitored through translation data reports,
monitoring the captions in realtime and reviewing the caption files on
the Senate Intranet.
A cooperative effort between the Senate Rules Committee, the
Judiciary Committee, the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the
Senate in fiscal year 2002 to develop a Pilot Project to realtime
caption Senate Committee Hearings resulted in a Judiciary Committee
Captioning Committee Pilot Project.
Voice recognition technology continues to improve and the Office of
Captioning Services is on the cutting edge of testing and evaluating
these products as they evolve. The Pilot Project to realtime caption
Judiciary Committee hearings employed the newest hardware and software
developed for voice recognition captioning.
During fiscal year 2005, considerable energy was expended to update
the hardware, software and documentation in our COOP flyway kit to
enhance the ability to successfully caption from a remote location.
The primary objective for fiscal year 2006 is to plan for the
procurement and installation of equipment and relocation of the Office
of Captioning Services to the Capitol Visitors Center.
3. 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
has become public law.
--To publish on the first legislative day of each month in the Daily
Digest a ``Resume of Congressional Activity'' which includes
all Congressional statistical information, including days and
time in session; measures introduced, reported and passed; and
roll call votes.
--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 787 meetings during the second
session, as contrasted with 930 meetings during the second session, of
the 107th Congress.
As more specifically defined above, 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 web-based applications system
(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 133 days, for a total of 1,031
hours and 31 minutes. There was one live quorum call and 216 recorded
votes. (A 20-Year Comparison of Senate Legislative Activity follows).
20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Convened..................................... 1/3 1/21 1/6 1/25 1/3 1/23 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/25
Senate Adjourned.................................... 12/20 10/18 12/22 10/21 11/21 10/28 1/3/92 10/9 11/26 12/01
Days in Session..................................... 170 143 170 137 136 138 158 129 153 138
Hours in Session.................................... 1,25231" 1,27815" 1,21452" 1,12648" 1,00319" 1,25014" 1,20044" 1,09109" 1,26941" 1,24333"
Average Hours per Day............................... 7.4 8.9 7.1 8.2 7.4 9.1 7.6 8.5 8.3 9.0
Total Measures Passed............................... 583 747 616 814 605 716 626 651 473 465
Roll Call Votes..................................... 381 359 420 379 312 326 280 270 395 329
Quorum Calls........................................ 20 16 36 26 11 3 3 5 2 6
Public Laws......................................... 240 424 240 473 240 244 243 347 210 255
Treaties Ratified................................... 6 12 3 15 9 15 15 32 20 8
Nominations Confirmed............................... 55,918 39,893 46,404 42,317 45,585 42,493 45,369 30,619 38,676 37,446
Average Voting Attendance........................... 94.64 95.72 94.03 91.58 98.0 97.47 97.16 95.4 97.6 97.02
Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon.................... 119 117 131 120 95 116 126 112 128 120
Sessions Convened at 12 Noon........................ 38 25 12 12 14 4 9 ............ 6 9
Sessions Convened after 12 Noon..................... 13 1 25 5 27 17 23 10 15 17
Sessions Continued after 6 p.m...................... 104 92 97 37 88 100 102 91 100 100
Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight................ 7 15 6 7 9 13 6 4 9 7
Saturday Sessions................................... 3 2 3 ............ 1 3 2 2 2 3
Sunday Sessions..................................... 1 ............ 1 ............ ............ 2 ............ ............ ............ ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY--Continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Convened..................................... 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/27 1/6 1/24 1/3 1/23 1/7 1/20
Senate Adjourned.................................... 1/3/96 10/4 11/13 10/21 11/19 12/15 12/20 11/20 12/9 12/8
Days in Session..................................... 211 132 153 143 162 141 173 149 167 133
Hours in Session.................................... 1,83910" 1,03645" 1,09307" 1,09505" 1,18357" 1,01751" 1,23615" 1,04223" 1,45405" 1,03131"
Average Hours per Day............................... 8.7 7.8 7.1 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.0 8.7 7.7
Total Measures Passed............................... 346 476 386 506 549 696 425 523 590 663
Roll Call Votes..................................... 613 306 298 314 374 298 380 253 459 216
Quorum Calls........................................ 3 2 6 4 7 6 3 2 3 1
Public Laws......................................... 88 245 153 241 170 410 136 241 198 300
Treaties Ratified................................... 10 28 15 53 13 39 3 17 11 15
Nominations Confirmed............................... 40,535 33,176 25,576 20,302 22,468 22,512 25,091 23,633 21,580 24,420
Average Voting Attendance........................... 98.07 98.22 98.68 97.47 98.02 96.99 98.29 96.36 96.07 95.54
Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon.................... 184 113 115 109 118 107 140 119 133 104
Sessions Convened at 12 Noon........................ 2 15 12 31 17 25 10 12 4 9
Sessions Convened after 12 Noon..................... 12 7 7 2 19 24 21 23 23 21
Sessions Continued after 6 p.m...................... 158 88 96 93 113 94 108 103 134 129
Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight................ 3 1 ............ ............ ............ ............ 2 3 8 2
Saturday Sessions................................... 5 1 1 1 3 1 3 ............ 1 2
Sunday Sessions..................................... 3 ............ 1 ............ ............ 1 ............ ............ 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by the Senate Daily Digest--Office of the Secretary.
Technology Updates and Government Printing Office
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 preparing 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 Daily Digest continues the practice of discussing 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 or
transcript errors are infrequent.
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 back
in 1999 as a server-based web-enabled application that is browser
accessible to all Senate offices on Capitol Hill. It was designed to
replace the committee scheduling functions and reports that were
supported by the mainframe-based Senate Legis System.
Office Summary
The Daily Digest consults 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
legislation passed by the Senate prior to its transmittal to the House
of Representatives, the White House, the National Archives, the
Secretary or State and/or the United States Claims Court.
In 2004, 86 enrolled bills (transmitted to the President) and 14
concurrent resolutions (transmitted to Archives) were prepared,
proofread, corrected and printed on parchment.
A total of 673 additional pieces of legislation in one form or
another were passed or agreed to by the Senate, requiring processing by
the Enrolling Clerk.
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 Executive Journal 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 second session of the 108th Congress, there were 340
nomination messages sent to the Senate by the President, transmitting
24,420 nominations to positions requiring Senate confirmation and 26
messages withdrawing nominations previously sent to the Senate. Of the
total nominations transmitted, 336 were for civilian positions other
than lists in the Foreign Service, Coast Guard, NOAA, and Public Health
Service. In addition, there were 4,077 nominees in the ``civilian
list'' categories named above. Military nominations received this
session totaled 20,003 (6,077--Air Force, 5,324--Army, 7,375--Navy and
1,227--Marine Corps). The Senate confirmed 27,047 nominations this
session. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph six of Senate Rule
XXXI, 4,129 nominations were returned to the President during the
second session of the 108th Congress.
Treaties
There were 14 treaties transmitted to the Senate by the President
during the second session of the 108th Congress for its advice and
consent to ratification, which were ordered printed as treaty documents
for the use of the Senate (Treaty Doc. 108-15 through 108-28). The
Senate gave its advice and consent to 18 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 14 executive reports relating to treaties ordered
printed for the use of the Senate during the second session of the
108th Congress (Executive Report 108-9 through 108-14). The Senate
conducted 32 roll call votes in executive session, all on or in
relation to nominations.
Executive Communications
For the second session of the 108th Congress, 4,932 executive
communications, 212 petitions and memorials and 39 Presidential
messages were received and processed.
Legislative Information System (LIS) Update
The staff consulted with the Senate Computer Center during the year
concerning the ongoing improvements to the LIS concerning the
processing of nominations, treaties, executive communications,
presidential messages and petitions and memorials.
The Senate Computer Center developed a new program for the
Executive Calendar that has proved more efficient and error free. The
SAA computer programming and systems design staff have were very
helpful in consulting with our office concerning our requirements. The
SAA also has underway a much needed redesign of a program for creating
and publishing the Executive Journal.
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
2004, the Journal Clerk completed the production of the 1,146 page
Senate Journal for 2003.
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 publication.
After extensive testing, the LIS Senate Journal Authoring System
was completed in early 2004. The Journal staff utilized this system
through all phases of production for the first time to successfully
compile the 2004 Journal which was sent to the Government Printing
Office for printing in mid-March.
7. legislative clerk
The Legislative Department provides support essential to Senators
in carrying out their daily chamber activities as well as the
constitutional responsibilities of the Senate. 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.
This 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. This office is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of information entered into the
LIS system by the various offices of the Secretary.
Additionally, the Legislative Clerk acts as supervisor for the
Legislative Department providing a single line of communication to the
Assistant Secretary and Secretary, and is responsible for overall
coordination, supervision, scheduling, and cross training.
Summary of Activity
The second session of the 108th Congress completed its legislative
business and adjourned sine die on December 8, 2004. During 2004, the
Senate was in session 133 days and conducted 216 roll call votes. There
were 317 measures reported from committees, 663 total measures passed,
and there were 296 items remaining on the Calendar at the time of
adjournment. In addition, there were 1,857 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 are trained to perform the basic
floor responsibilities of the Legislative Clerk, as well as the various
other floor-related responsibilities of the Secretary, approximately
half of the legislative staff are currently involved or have recently
been involved in cross-training.
Legislative Information System (LIS) Enhancement
In an effort to monitor and improve the Legislative Information
System (LIS), the Legislative Clerk acts as the liaison between
legislative clerks and technical operations staff of the Sergeant at
Arms by scheduling and conducting meetings when necessary. Also, the
Legislative Clerk reviews, prioritizes, and forwards change requests
from the clerks to the technical operations staff. Over the past year,
45 change requests submitted by the clerks to improve the system have
been implemented.
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 are
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 further 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 Record.
The office updated its ProCat transcription software at the
beginning of last year. With the help of the Information Systems
department, the office was able to make the necessary adjustments to
accomplish the latest software update.
9. parliamentarian
The Parliamentarian's Office continues its performance of normal
legislative duties. These 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 to coordinate all of the business on
the Senate floor. The Parliamentarian or one of his assistants is
always present on the Senate floor when the Senate is in session,
standing ready to assist the Presiding Officer in his or her official
duties, as well as to assist any other Senator on procedural matters.
The Parliamentarians work closely with the staff of the Vice President
of the United States and the Vice President himself whenever he
performs his duties as President of the Senate.
The Parliamentarians monitor all proceedings on the floor of the
Senate, advise the Presiding Officer on the competing rights of the
Senators on the floor, and advise all Senators as to what is
appropriate in debate. The Parliamentarians keep track of the
amendments offered to the legislation pending on the Senate floor, and
monitor them for points of order. In this respect, the Parliamentarians
reviewed more than 1,000 amendments during 2004 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 2004, the Parliamentarian and his assistants referred
1,271 measures and 5,183 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, which now has responsibility for hundreds of issues
previously in the jurisdiction of other Senate committees, by the
adoption of S. Res. 445 reorganizing intelligence and homeland security
jurisdiction in the Senate, 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 Homeland Security, nominations for
positions which existed before the department was created but whose
responsibilities have changed, and hundreds of legislative proposals
concerning the department's responsibilities.
The staff of the Parliamentarian's Office is also frequently called
on to analyze and advise Senators on a great number of issues arising
under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The decisions made by the
Parliamentarians on these matters were a significant factor in the
consideration of the President's budgetary proposals, and the overall
Congressional approach to its budget.
Additionally, in the last four 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 houses of
Congress.
The Parliamentarians have taken the lead in the Senate in analyzing
the need for emergency procedural authorities of Congress generally,
and the Senate in particular. The Parliamentarians took the initiative
that led to the adoption of S. Res. 296 on February 3, 2004, which
granted certain emergency authorities to enable the Senate leadership
to alter the Senate's schedule in certain emergency situations.
In 2004, as in all election years, the Parliamentarians received
all of the certificates of election of Senators elected or reelected to
the Senate, and reviewed them for sufficiency and accuracy, returning
those that were defective and reviewing their replacements. Also in
2004, as in all Presidential election years, the Parliamentarians
worked with other professional staff of the Secretary of the Senate and
our House counterparts to prepare for the orderly conduct of the joint
session of Congress to count the electoral ballots for President and
Vice President. The Parliamentarians reviewed the electoral ballots for
President and Vice President sent by all the states and the District of
Columbia to the Vice President, and held several briefings with the
Vice President and his staff and the House Parliamentarians regarding
the Vice President's routine duties while presiding over the joint
session of Congress to count the electoral ballots.
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. The DO provides 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 judgement, and
interpersonal skills that reflect the unique nature of the United
States Senate.
Deputy for Benefits and Financial Services
The primary 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. Planning and project management of new
computer systems and programs is also a key function. Ensuring that job
processes are efficient and up to date, modifying computer support
systems, implementing regulatory and legislated changes, and designing
and producing up to date forms for use in all three sections are
additional areas of responsibility.
In November 2003, it was determined that the new IBM Mainframe
operating system being released would not support our payroll system.
An accelerated system implementation was required, so instead of the
normal eighteen-month window, this implementation had to be completed
in only eight months. A team to address the situation was composed of
Disbursing Office staff with the Deputy as the project lead, key
Sergeant at Arms personnel and outside contractors. The system was
successfully tested and implemented as planned on August 1, 2004. The
payroll system was brought up to web accessible status, a myriad of
small problems was corrected, and a number of new functions were added
to enable payroll to more efficiently handle the Senate's needs.
In January, final touches on the Document Imaging System were
completed and the first documents, the 2003 W-2s, were loaded into it.
The Front Office, Employee Benefits, Payroll and Administrative
sections' personnel were trained in the use of the system and the old
procedure for the reissue of W-2 copies was discontinued. During the
next few months, copies of the W-2s going as far back as 1998 were
added to the files.
In March, many of the forms and procedures for the Student Loan
Repayment Program were examined and revised to increase accuracy and
efficiency of processing.
In September, the monthly payroll data provided to the Accounting
Section was converted to e-format for transmittal to the Office of
Personnel Management.
In November, reports and projections for Agency contributions to be
uploaded into the Accounting system were addressed. Requirements were
detailed, and during the month the payroll upload portion was completed
and the Accounting group is now working on their portion of the
project.
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 identification 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 2,100 cash advances,
totaling approximately $1.2 million and initialized 700 check/direct
deposit advances, totaling approximately $780,000.
Received and processed more than 27,000 checks, totaling over
$3,450,000. Administered Oath and Personnel Affidavits to more than
3,200 new Senate staff and advised them of their benefits.
Maintained brochures for 10 Federal health carriers and distributed
approximately 4,000 brochures to new and existing staff during the
annual FEHB Open Season.
Provided 36 training sessions to new Office Managers.
The Front Office operations continued its daily reconciliation of
operations without any auditable variation; continued to provide
training and guidance to new Office Managers and business contacts; and
spearheaded the advance processing of paperwork of the nine incoming
offices resulting from the November elections. 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
and is responsible for the following: 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, prepared by
this section. 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, 2004 cost of living
increase of 2.12 percent. This was a preliminary cost of living
increase based on the President's recommended plan at the time. The
payroll section later processed a second cost of living increase on
March 1, 2004 when Congress set the final cost of living rate of 4.42
percent. Payroll was able to offer the offices several scenarios to
retroactively implement the COLA.
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 14 percent/$13,000.00 maximum. For those
employees over 50 years of age the TSP catch-up programs provided them
an opportunity to make additional contributions in excess of the
standard program.
January 2004 represented the first full year for the processing of
Flexible Spending Accounts and Long Term Care Accounts. The section has
found that the files received for each of the above items were
challenging as the third party vendors had not done business with the
Federal Government in the past and were unfamiliar with standard
processing procedures.
The section helped the SAA's Information Technology staff upgrade
the Payroll/Personal System from 31 bit technology to 64 bit
technology. This upgrade enabled better security and additional Web
based access to Disbursing Office Data. Each member of the section
assisted in the testing and evaluation of the new product. The upgraded
system was successfully put into production August 1, 2004.
The elections of 2004 focused the efforts of the Payroll Section on
preparing the system for the opening of incoming members' offices and
the closing of departing members' offices.
The Payroll Section participated in the December disaster recovery
testing at the Alternate Computer Facility (ACF). Members of the
section were able to access and process data to the computer at ACF
from several locations and various computer connections. Finally, set-
up of the ACH Fedline II system was completed. It established proper
connections with the Federal Reserve to ensure that processed payrolls
and vouchers could be transmitted from the ACF.
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 staffers 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. Designations of Beneficiary for FEGLI,
CSRS, FERS, and unpaid compensation are filed and checked by EBS.
In 2004 OPM announced that there would be a FEGLI Open Season for
employees to elect new or additional life insurance coverage. EBS
drafted Open Season informational flyers and notified employees
electronically and via mail outs. An innovative step taken with this
mail out was to have FEGLI send direct notification to Senate
employees, which provided more timely notice and saved mailing expenses
to the Senate. Numerous employees were counseled and approximately 350
Senate employees made FEGLI changes during the Open Season.
In 2003 as part of our COOP goals, EBS worked with the Deputy for
Benefits and Financial Services, the Senate Computer Center and other
DO staff to outline the needs and parameters required for development
and implementation of a document imaging system for use in
electronically reproducing employee personnel folders. During 2004 EBS
redesigned the file room to accommodate a new employee hired to assist
with the document scanning as well as the document imaging hardware. In
mid-2004 implementation of the document imaging system was achieved.
This required extensive training and modification of many procedures
and the forms-flow from EBS and Payroll to the file room as well as the
flow of forms within the file room. Modification of procedures will
continue as warranted. This system will allow computer-based access to
new employee personnel folders and documents as well as the ability to
access them from an off-site facility. To complete our COOP readiness
with respect to employee personnel folder access, one future goal is to
contract out the scanning of all ``prior'' employee personnel folder
documents that are housed in the DO file room.
Shortly before the onset of the FEHB Open Season, OPM announced
that it would offer a new type of health plan to employees: High
Deductible Health Plans, which incorporate a Health Savings Account
(HSA) and a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA). As these plans are
vastly different than those previously offered in the FEHB program, EBS
worked diligently to become educated in all aspects of these plans and
to understand the similarities and differences between HSAs, FSAs and
HRAs. Many employees were counseled on the aspects of these new plans.
The annual FEHB Open Season was held and approximately 500
employees changed plans. These changes were processed and reported to
carriers in record time. This year we were again able to offer an
exciting tool for Senate employees. The Checkbook on-line Guide to
Health Plans was made available to research and compare FEHB plans.
This tool will remain available to staff throughout the year. As
awareness and understanding of this valuable tool has increased,
feedback is positive. Once again, the Disbursing Office hosted an FEHB
Open Season Health Fair, which was attended by about 700 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 in
attendance as well.
While retirement case processing was about average for the year,
retirement planning and counseling was brisk in the second half of 2004
due to the impending retirement of 8 Senators, and the dissolution of
their staffs and the potential changes to committee staffs. This
resulted in the counseling of hundreds of employees including extensive
research and calculation of Statements of Tentative Retirement
Computations. Approximately 95 retirement cases were processed
(including 8 death cases).
Seminars were held for outgoing Members' staffs, as well as
committees facing potential reorganization. Information disseminated
spanned retirement, Thrift Savings Plan, health and life insurance, and
unemployment compensation. Due to the large post-election turnover, EBS
also hosted a seminar with the D.C. Office of Employment Services for
outgoing staff who wished to apply for unemployment compensation. This
opportunity for staff was well received.
There was a great deal of turnover and rehire in 2004, as employees
left staff to work on campaigns and then returned to the Senate after
the elections. This caused an 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 registrations to be processed. Transcripts of service
for employees going to other federal agencies, and other tasks
associated with employees changing jobs remained constant this year.
These required prior employment research and verification, new FEHB,
FEGLI, CSRS, FERS and TSP enrollments, and the associated requests for
backup verification.
The government-wide CLER program for health insurance enrollment
reconciliation, now in its third year, has finally become a usable and
effective tool. Through much diligence and effective problem solving,
EBS was able to assist with the improvements to this program.
EBS continues to upgrade the information available on the DO
Webster site and has added more downloadable forms. Newer video
technologies and links are routinely used. In addition, EBS has been
developing many computer-based forms and calculators for use in
providing benefits information and estimates.
Two detailed Power Point retirement seminars on CSRS and FERS were
updated and conducted for interested Senate staff. The seminars were
well attended and well received.
Additionally EBS staff regularly provided a panel participant for
the monthly New Staff Orientation seminars and quarterly Senate
Services Fairs held by the Office of Education and Training.
Interagency meetings were attended with time being spent on the
FEGLI Open Season, guidance on the new FEHB plans, as well as
continuing education and guidance on the FSA
Program, LTCI, and the continuing TSP program changes and
enhancements.
Based on the continued operations in Iraq and the call to active
duty of military reservists, the volume of Senate employees being
placed in a Military Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status and subsequently
returned to pay status continued to be elevated throughout 2004.
Counseling and administration of their retirement and benefits was
handled by EBS.
Telephone inquiries, though not specifically tracked, continued at
high levels, with the EBS staff of 7 pressed to answer calls
thoroughly, yet quickly enough to keep lines open.
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 all
three departments, establishes central financial policies and
procedures, acts as the primary liaison to the Human Resources
Administrator, and carries out the directives of the Financial Clerk
and the Secretary of the Senate.
Accounting Department
During fiscal year 2004, the Accounting Department approved nearly
48,000 expense reimbursement vouchers, processed 1,300 deposits for
items ranging from receipts received by the Senate operations, such as
the Senate's Revolving Funds, to canceled subscription refunds from
Member Offices. The number of vouchers that the Accounting Department
approved decreased compared to fiscal year 2003, due to the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration increasing the sanctioning
authority delegated to the Financial Clerk of the Senate from $35.00 or
less to $100.00 or less. 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 9.0 and the upgrade to a 64 bit
mainframe operating system. During January 2004, the Accounting
Department, with assistance from a contractor, Bearing Point, completed
the 2003 year-end process to close and reset revenue, expense and
budgetary general ledger accounts to zero. During June 2004, 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 2005. With the September
2004 closing and as a result of looking into ways to modernize the
monthly reporting of checks written by reel tape, the Accounting
Department tested and implemented (with assistance from the SAA and
Bearing Point) the electronic transmission of check data to Treasury
via a secure dial-up.
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. Starting in August, the Accounting Group
began transmitting electronically all employee withholdings and agency
contributions for life and health insurance, and federal retirement
programs to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
In addition to Treasury's external reporting deadlines there are
some 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. Monthly, it is the
responsibility of the Accounting Department to review and verify the
accuracy of the statements before Senate-wide distribution. During the
course of this year, various table changes were made to the ledger
extract to suppress lapsed fiscal years and appropriations that do not
require the monthly reports.
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 the pro-forma financial statements auditability
assessment. Based on the results of this exercise, 23 corrective
actions were suggested including an action plan and proposed schedule
to have them corrected. Some of the actions were rather simple to
implement while others will take significantly longer. Of the 23
corrective actions noted, 14 have been completed and 9 are still in
process. As part of this project, the Accounting Group continues to
work with the SAA to complete the draft of the Senate-wide
capitalization policy and is assisting with the reconciliation between
FAMIS and the newly implemented asset management system, Asset Center.
The Accounting Group also drafted and finalized state taxes, stop pays,
EFT payments, vendor file and travel advance procedures and is in the
process of updating various additional sections of the financial
policies and procedures book.
As part of the financial statement initiative, steps were taken
this year to procure a software package to assist with the compilation
of data and automate the process of preparing the Senate-wide financial
statements. The financial statement software will facilitate the
preparation of closing, elimination and reclassification entries as
well as provide the appropriate audit trails. The software was up and
running in March 2005. As part of this initiative, the Accounting Group
drafted the first internally developed set of unaudited financial
statements to be used as our baseline on the testing of the newly
acquired software following the guidance provided by OMB Bulletin 01-
09, ``Form and Content of Agency Financial Statements.''
On a consulting basis, the Deputy for Financial Management assisted
the Senate Gift Shop on the implementation of their new accounting
system and in the completion of their reconciliations for fiscal year
2004. In addition, the Deputy was part of the task force to procure and
acquire a new point-of-sale and accounting systems for the Senate
Stationery Room.
Toward the end of the calendar year, the Deputy for Financial
Management also participated in successful disaster recovery testing at
the ACF.
Accounts Payable--Vendor/SAVI Section
Created in the fall of 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 DO's web-based payment
tracking system known as SAVI. This section also assists the IT
Department with periodic testing and monitoring of the performance of
the SAVI system.
Currently, there are more than 12,300 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 paying vendors by
electronic funds transfer (EFT). Besides updating mailing addresses,
the Vendor/SAVI section facilitates the use of EFT by switching the
method of payment requested by the vendor from check to EFT. Whenever a
new remittance address is added to the vendor file, a standard letter
is mailed to our vendors requesting tax and banking information. If a
vendor responds to our letter and indicates they would like to receive
EFT payments in the future, the method of payment will be changed. In
August, this section coordinated a large mailing requesting EFT
information from our home state office landlords and our largest
commercial vendors. The mailing was a success. More than 40 percent of
the targeted vendors responded to this mailing. Currently, more than
650 vendors and over half of the home state office landlords are being
paid by EFT.
Service to Senate staff was significantly improved with the release
of SAVI version 3.1 in late October. This version allows Senate staff
to electronically create, save, and file expense reimbursement forms,
track their progress, and get detailed information on payments made by
DO. The most common service requests are requests for system user ids,
system passwords and to reactivate 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 can have their vouchered expenses be 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 return EFT issues.
The Vendor/SAVI section continues to electronically scan and store
supporting documentation of vendor file requests. In the near future,
this section will assist the IT Department test an automatic email
notification system which will alert vendors when an EFT payment has
been made and will give them information on the payment made.
This year, the Vendor/SAVI section processed over 2,800 vendor file
requests, completed nearly 1,300 SAVI service requests and mailed
nearly 2,000 vendor information letters.
Accounts Payable--Disbursements Department
In 2004, well over 100,000 expense claims were received and
processed by the department. More than 35,000 expense checks were
written and approximately 50,000 direct deposit reimbursements were
transmitted. The department performed at a high level to ensure that
all vendors and employees continued to receive timely and accurate
payments.
After vouchers are paid, they are sorted and filed by document
number. The number is an alpha-numeric code beginning with the letters
D, PADV, V, IV, or CV and followed by numbers representing the fiscal
year in which they were created, and another series of numbers
representing, in ordinal sequence, the actual document number. Vouchers
are grouped in 6-month ``clusters'' to accommodate their retrieval for
the semi-annual Report of the Secretary of the Senate. Currently, files
are maintained for the current period and three prior periods. Filing
is current and accurate as few problems are encountered retrieving
documents.
A major function of the Department is to prepare documents,
internally classified as ``adjustments.'' Such adjustments are varied
and include the following: preparation of Foreign Travel advances and
vouchers, reimbursements for expenses incurred by Senate Leadership,
reissuance of items held as accounts receivable collections, reissuance
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 the Automated Clearing House (ACH).
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.
The Accounts Payable Disbursements Department prepares for the
distribution of the monthly ledgers to the 140 accounting locations
throughout the Senate. At month's end, they are printed and delivered
to Disbursing, usually to the attention of the Accounting Department,
and received in Disbursements. The statements are sorted and
disseminated according to special handling instructions from the
office. 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.
A/P Disbursements also prepares the quarterly state tax returns.
The dollar amounts are provided by the Accounting Department, and
payment coupons are prepared for the 43 state jurisdictions. The
coupons are obtained from each jurisdiction either in hard copy or on-
line via the Internet. Vouchers are prepared electronically via an
uploaded spreadsheet, which is used to generate check payments to the
taxing authorities. Once the checks are written, letters of transmittal
are prepared and mailed to the appropriate state jurisdictions and the
District of Columbia.
The Department also prepares the forms required by the Department
of Treasury for stop payments. Stop payments are requested by employees
who have not received salary or expense reimbursements, and vendors
claiming non-receipt of expense checks. During this year, the A/P
Disbursement Supervisor and the Accounts Payable Manager continued
using the Department of Treasury--Financial Management Service (FMS)
on-line 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 email. This process has been well received by
Senate offices as well as vendors. This saves time and significantly
reduces reliance on the Postal System. All 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.
In October of 2004, the Accounts Payable Disbursements department
began using laser checks. The tractor fed check writer system has been
dismantled and a new, improved system was developed and implemented.
The replacement was comprehensive in scope as new software, hardware,
and new Treasury designed laser checks were introduced. The result is a
user friendly, and more secure system. Accuracy has also improved as
the new laser check printer font is much clearer than one from the old
printer. This resulted in an immediate reduction in returned checks
from the United States Postal System. It is anticipated that a new
folder/inserter designed for our use will be purchased to eliminate
manual hours spent on folding and hand stuffing checks into envelopes.
Testing and demonstrations continue in efforts to find a machine which
is both economical and efficient.
A major project which has seen tremendous progress this year is 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. There were over 250 unresolved items covering a
variety of issues. Persistent and determined revenue collection
procedures have resulted in the reduction of the unresolved items and
fewer than 20 remain outstanding.
The warehousing of documents has improved, and continues to evolve.
Vouchers were housed at two facilities, but now all have been
transferred to a single location. This location is larger, but there is
need for expansion. Meetings with the Sergeant at Arms and consultants
continue in an effort to provide state-of the-art warehousing. Plans
call for current space requirements, anticipated space requirements,
and the need for ``staging'' areas, telephone, copier, and fax access,
climate control, and security.
Accounts Payable--Audit Department
The final section under the Accounts Payable Department is the
Audit Section. The Accounts Payable Audit Section is responsible for
auditing vouchers and answering questions regarding voucher preparation
and the permissibility of expenses. 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 new Office
Managers and Chief Clerks about Senate financial practices, trains
Office 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. The Section also monitors 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 advances are repaid in the time specified by the advance
travel regulations.
The Accounts Payable Audit Section, currently a group of 12, has
the responsibility for the daily processing of expense claims submitted
by the 140 accounting locations of the Senate. The section processed
approximately 133,000 expense vouchers in fiscal year 2004. 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 $100.00 that do
not have any issues or questions are received, audited, sanctioned by
Rules and paid by DO within 10 business days of receipt.
During fiscal year 2004, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and
Administration increased the delegated sanctioning authority for
vouchers from $35.00 or less to $100.00 or less. The workload within
this group increased by almost 50 percent with the responsibility to
sanction vouchers whose totals are less than or equal to $100.00. These
vouchers comprise approximately 60 percent of all vouchers processed.
The responsibility for sanctioning rests with the Certifying Accounts
Payable Specialists and are being received, audited, and paid within 5
business days of receipt. The increase in sanctioning authority came as
a direct result of passing two post-payment audits performed by the
Rules Committee.
Additionally, advance documents and non-Contingent Fund vouchers
are now posted in Audit. The increase in sanctioning responsibilities
allowed for two staff promotions to Certifying Accounts Payable
Specialist and for the creation of one additional A/P Specialist
position. One staff member was promoted from the Disbursements section
to the Audit section to fill this newly created position.
The reduced flow of vouchers to the Rules Committee also brought
that committee into the on-line sanctioning process. Initially, four
Senators' offices and the Committees comprised the pilot group.
Currently, all vouchers over $100.00 are sanctioned electronically by
the Rules Committee using Web FAMIS.
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 15 new Administrative Managers and
Chief Clerks and conducted 4 informational sessions for Senate staff
through seminars sponsored by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
The Accounts Payable group also assisted the IT department and
Vendor/SAVI group in the testing and implementation of the new on-line
travel and non-travel expense summary reports (ESR). The new reports
are not only available on-line, but they can be imported into a
corresponding Web FMIS voucher, thus facilitating the preparation and
accuracy of the voucher document. Routinely, during voucher processing,
vendor information is verified against invoices, and corrections made
as needed. The Audit Group has been fully trained in the new travel
advance system and in the use of the four new WEB inquiries to assist
offices with questions. Additionally the section provided testing
support for the release of Web FMIS version 9 and is scheduled to
assist in the testing of Version 10 this year.
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. Cancellation
procedures for other Web vouchers is scheduled for testing during a
later system release. The A/P sections within the Policies and
Procedures Manual are in the process of being updated and revised.
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 2004, the budget justification
worksheets were mailed to the Senate accounting locations at the end of
November, processed in December and reported the budget baseline
estimates for fiscal year 2006 to OMB by mid-January, via the MAX
database.
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 Information System (FMIS) which is used by
approximately 140 Senate accounting locations (i.e., 100 Senator's
offices, 20 Committees, 20 Leadership & 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.
The activities associated with each of these responsibilities are
described in more detail in the sections that follow. Work during 2004
was supported by the Sergeant at Arms (SAA) Technology Services staff,
the Secretary's Information Technology staff, and contracts with
Bearing Point.
The SAA Technology Services staff is responsible for providing 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, 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 DO 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 three releases of Web FMIS including pilot
implementation of an intranet-based version;
--Implementation of two releases of SAVI, including a release that
allows users to create Non-travel Expense Summary Reports in
addition to Travel Expense Summary Reports;
--Implementation of laser check printing which substantially improves
the readability of checks by the postal service and banks;
--Support of the Rules Committee's post payment audit for the Rules
Committee Audit staff whereby they can do a statistically valid
sample of vouchers of $100.00 and under (an increase from
$35.00 effective January 1, 2004) for which sanctioning was
delegated to the Financial Clerk;
--Roll out of direct deposit payments to external vendors;
--Coordinating and participating in the FMIS portion of a disaster
recovery exercise for the Alternate Computing Facility; and
--Conducting monthly classes, seminars, and demonstrations 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 follows.
SENATE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsystem Functionality Source Primary Users Implementation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMIS (Mainframe)............ Financial 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 payments. adapted to Senate's requirements
by Bearing Point.
Web FMIS (Client-server and Preparation of vouchers, travel Custom software developed under All Senators' offices..... October 1999
intranet). advances, vouchers from advance Senate contract by Bearing Point. All Committee offices.....
documents, credit documents and simple All Leadership & Support
commitment and obligation documents. offices.
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 Disbursing Office......... Spring 1983
advances (available to Committees only). Services.
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--
employees receiving reimbursements. July 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 their
Office 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 Disbursing Office Senate Winter 1999
database extracts, and are sent to all Senate ``accounting Services. Accounting Locations.
crystal reports). 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.
reports, client server, and summary and detailed levels. Data is
Intranet). updated as an overnight process and can
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''; answer
hundreds of phone calls a year; and meet with Chiefs of Staff,
Administrative Managers, Chief Clerks, and Directors of various
Senate offices as requested;
--Technical problem resolution--ensure that technical problems are
resolved;
--Monitor system performance--check system availability and
statistics to identify system problems and coordinate
performance tuning activities for parallel load and database
access optimization;
--Security--maintaining 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;
--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 $100.00. The authorization
directed Rules and DO 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 2004 resulted in a favorable finding of zero discrepancies. The
audit conducted in April 2004 for the six-month period ending March 31,
2004, covered 18,368 vouchers and the audit conducted in November 2004
for the six-month period ending September 30, 2004, covered 25,853
vouchers.
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 and help-desk provider. During 2004 there was an
upgrade of the mainframe operating system (OS390) in preparation for
the implementation of the Z/OS operating system. This required that the
Disbursing Office test all FMIS subsystems both in a testing
environment and in the production environment.
Managing and Testing New System Development
During 2004, development and extensive integration system testing
was performed and implemented with changes to the following FMIS
subsystems: Web FMIS; Senate Vendor Information (SAVI) and Online ESR;
and Checkwriter.
Web FMIS
The goal for 2004 was 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. The Web FMIS Users Group worked closely with the team
to rethink processes and redesign Web FMIS screens to maximize ease-of-
use. The transition included four releases of Web FMIS during 2004:
--Web FMIS r8.0.--Implemented in March 2004, focused on the list
maintenance functions, and conducted a pilot of a new version
of the report generation software, Crystal Reports version 9;
--Web FMIS r8.1.--Implemented in June 2004, upgraded the version of
the report generation software for all users, and concurrently
addressed obtaining reports from ``archived years'' (i.e.,
fiscal year 1999 and 2000), the data for which was archived
from FAMIS. In addition, a ``report favorites'' function was
added;
--Web FMIS r9.0.--Implemented for pilot offices in August 2004, was a
complete re-writing of the functions most used by offices,
Document Entry and Budget Entry. In addition, it allows the
start date to determine the funding year (thus eliminating the
need to select a funding year from which to pay a bill), added
the ability to import Non-travel Expense Summary Reports, and
revamps the user security function to be based on ``roles''
which provide the Web FMIS system administrators more
flexibility in providing (or not providing) specific user
functionality.
--Web FMIS r9.1.--Implemented for pilot offices in November 2004,
made system changes based on the pilot offices' use of Web FMIS
r9.
At the end of 2004, testing was conducted on Web FMIS r10, which
reduces the files required on the PC for printing reports, adds new
reports for committees that show expenses in the format required for
their biannual budget justification, rewrites the DO functions as
WebSphere web pages and provides additional DO functions such as an
online deposit (CD) log, standard text for notes, and additional
inquiries. Web FMIS r9.1 will be given to all new 109th Congress
offices and to all new office managers from existing offices. All other
offices will be transferred to the WebSphere version of Web FMIS when
Web FMIS r10 is implemented.
During 2004 work was conducted with Bearing Point to define the
requirements for adding electronic signature and documentation imaging
functionality, two key components for paperless voucher processing.
Additionally, appropriate technology is being explored to provide these
functions.
Senate Automated Vendor Inquiry (SAVI) and Online ESR
SAVI enables Senate staff to check the status of reimbursements,
whether via check or direct deposit and whether or not referencing an
on-line ESR. The on-line ESR function enables Senate staff to create
expense summary reports. These documents can be imported into Web FMIS,
reducing the data entry tasks for voucher preparation. The SAVI system
was upgraded three times in 2004. Release 2.2, implemented in March
2004, completed several security enhancements. Release 3.0, implemented
for pilot offices in June 2004 and 3.1 implemented for all offices in
October 2004, allow users to prepare and submit Non-travel Expense
Summary Reports and to define their own logon ID.
Checkwriter
The Disbursing Office makes payments via direct deposit and via
check.
--Direct Deposit.--In 2002 the Disbursing Office began making expense
reimbursements to Senate staff via direct deposit. In 2003 this
was expanded to include external vendors. The initial pilot
vendors provided materials to the Keeper of Stationery; and our
first payments to them were transmitted on June 3, 2003. After
a very successful initial pilot, the program was expanded
larger-volume vendors, such as FedEx. During 2004, direct
deposit was rolled out to all vendors.
--Laser Checks.--In 2004 the printing of checks was switched from a
continuous-feed impact printer to a laser printer when
checkwriter version 5 was implemented in March 2004. The laser
version provides more flexibility for continuance of operations
by eliminating dependence on a harder-to-find printer. It also
produces a higher print quality, which will help the Postal
Service in the delivery of checks and will prevent checks from
being negotiated for an unintended dollar amount. Use of the
laser check printer required that Treasury create a 8.5 0A 10
inches check and stub form. A folder-inserter machine was used
for these checks, but the checks are incompatible with the
machine. During 2005, work continues to identify a machine that
will accept this heavy-grade check paper.
Planning
There are 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 2004, two types of meetings were held among the DO, SAA and
Bearing Point to co-ordinate schedules and activities:
--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 coordination among the active projects, including
scheduling activities and resolving issues.
Strategic Planning
The FMIS strategic plan has a longer time horizon than the rolling
12-month time frame of the technical meeting schedule. It is designed
to set the direction and priorities for further enhancements. In 2002 a
five-year strategic plan was written by the IT and Accounting staff for
Disbursing Office Strategic Initiatives. This detailed description of
five strategic initiatives formed the basis 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 Sub-system 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 and overseeing their work. In 2004, three new
task orders were executed: Web FMIS r10; Fiscal Year 2004 Extended
Operational Support (September 2004-August 2005); and SAA Finance
System and Reporting Enhancements.
In addition, work continued under two task orders executed in 2003:
Web FMIS Thin Client; and Web FMIS Imaging and Digital Signature Design
and Electronic Invoicing and Remittance Enhancements.
Administering the Disbursing Office's Local Area Network (LAN)
The DO 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; Projects for the Accounting Section; and Projects for the
Payroll and Benefits Section.
Office-wide LAN maintenance and upgrade
Existing workstations were maintained with appropriate upgrades
including:
--Configured and installed a new Windows 2000 server and transferred
all critical DO data to this server;
--Implemented an automatic update for the virus scanning software on
each PC in the DO;
--Selected and supervised installation of new printers for DO staff
and placed multi-purpose printer/scanner/copier machines in
strategic locations;
--Installed new stand-alone PCs for communication with the Federal
Reserve's Fedline system in the DO and at the Alternate
Computing Facility; and
--Maintained the Office Information Authorization form log which
provides easy access from DO staff desktops to up-to-date
information about the authorized contacts for each Senate
office.
Projects for the Accounting Sections
The activities of the Accounting Section were supported with the
implementation of a direct connection to the Treasury Department. This
eliminated creating and delivering a monthly magnetic tape.
Projects for Payroll and Employee Benefits Sections
Activities of the Payroll and Employee Benefits sections were
supported with three specific projects:
--Implemented a Payroll Imaging system, developed by SAA staff. This
system captures payroll documents turned in at the DO front
counter electronically;
--Assisted Benefits staff on transferring data electronically to
other agencies; and
--Training Payroll and Benefits staff on creating fillable PDF forms.
Coordinating the Disbursing Office's Disaster Recovery Activities
During 2004, the Sergeant at Arms' office completed the build out
of the Alternative Computing Facility. In December 2004, a two-day test
was performed to operate FMIS subsystems from this location. The tests
of all mainframe systems (i.e., payroll, ADPICS and FAMIS) were
successful and payroll and voucher payments were made via direct
deposit and check. Additionally, documents were created, posted, and
printed via Web FMIS and ADPICS. Document printing has always presented
problems during past tests; however, system configuration at the ACF
has resolved this problem. The next test is planned for May 2005, when
additional FMIS sub-systems will be tested.
Disbursing Office COOP Activities
The DO staff wrote a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) in 2001.
This document addresses issues beyond the scope of disaster recovery.
Normal maintenance is performed on this document to ensure that it
remains up-to-date and viable. In addition to the success of the
disaster recovery testing in December, the DO's most significant COOP
related activity was the setup and pre-positioning of essential
equipment and supplies in the dedicated space at the ACF. This
accomplishment significantly improves the DO's ability to quickly
respond to and complete its core responsibilities.
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 office's initiatives include
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 275 books and matted and framed 525 items for the Senate
leadership. The office is especially proud to be a part of a Senate
tradition. For more than 23 years, the office has bound a copy of
Washington's Farewell Address for the annual Washington's Farewell
Address ceremony. In 2004, a volume was bound for and read by Senator
John Breaux.
As mandated in the 1990 Senate Library Collection Condition Survey,
the Office of Conservation and Preservation continued to conduct an
annual treatment of books identified by the survey as needing
conservation or repair. In 2003, conservation treatments were completed
for 65 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 4,100 volumes.
This office assisted the Senate Library with 531 books sent to the
Library Binding section of the Government Printing Office (GPO) for
binding and with 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 & 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 (``Commission''), 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 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
Portraits of Senators Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan and Robert
Wagner of New York were officially unveiled on September 14, 2004 in
the Senate Reception Room. The new paintings join portraits of the
``Famous Five'' Senators commissioned for the room and installed in
1959.
The painting of Senator George Mitchell for the Senate Leadership
Portrait Collection was completed and approved by the Commission on
Art, and the portrait of Senator Margaret Chase Smith is in its final
stage. Both will be unveiled in 2005. Another important commissioned
work in progress is a portrait of Senator Bob Dole.
S. Res. 177 directed the Commission to commission a mural
commemorating the Connecticut Compromise. The Rules Committee directed
that the mural be added to the Senate Reception Room, and the
Commission empaneled an advisory board of experts in the field to
select and recommend an appropriate scene and three potential artists.
These artists developed proposals, and the advisory board reviewed
these sketches and have recommended a final candidate to the Commission
for consideration.
Fourteen objects were accessioned into the Senate Collection,
including a Senate Reception Room chair from the 1860's (private
donation); a reproduction Senate Chamber desk used on the set of the
movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and'' ``Advise and Consent'' (gift
of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society); an 1870's cabinet card album
attributed to the Mathew Brady studio (private donation); and several
historic prints and political cartoons.
At the direction of the Commission, the Curator's Office
facilitated the acquisition of a Cornelius & Baker armorial chandelier
owned by Tudor Place in Washington, D.C. The purchase of this rare
historic fixture, which is similar to one that hung in the second floor
corridor of the Senate wing, is an important addition to the Capitol's
decorative and lighting history.
Twenty-four new foreign gifts were reported to the Select Committee
on Ethics and transferred to the Curator's Office. They were
catalogued, and are maintained by the office in accordance with the
Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act. Appropriate disposition of 12
objects in the collection was completed following established
procedures.
As construction continued on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), the
office worked with the Architect of the Capitol's CVC staff to plan the
two storage rooms designated for Senate Collection objects, to ensure
the highest level of preservation standards. A conservator specializing
in museum facility planning reviewed the design drawings and provided
recommendations, including outfitting the storage spaces. A detailed
survey of the entire collection was completed, and the findings will be
incorporated into a Collection Storage Plan.
An off-site collection storage facility, made available for use
through a lease arranged by the Senate Sergeant at Arms (SAA) in 2003,
continued to provide much needed secure, climate controlled, museum
quality storage for objects in the Senate Collection. An additional 18
objects were transferred to the storage facility.
The office has worked for several years with the SAA regarding
plans for the construction of a warehouse space to meet the stringent
requirements for storing fine and decorative art. In 2004
specifications developed by the office were used by the SAA to create
plans and begin construction on such a space, in association with the
larger effort to build a new Senate warehouse.
The Curator's Office initiated a comprehensive 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. Twenty desks were photographed in 2004; the project is
scheduled to be completed in December 2007.
In keeping with established procedures, all Senate Collection
objects on display were inventoried noting any changes in location. 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, submitted every six months, are compiled by the Curator's
Office with assistance from the SAA and the AOC's Senate
Superintendent's office.
Conservation and Restoration
A total of 24 objects received conservation treatment in 2004.
These included 15 Senate Chamber desks, two large sculptures, three
plaster reliefs, three oil on canvas paintings, and one manuscript
collection.
The initiative to conserve the 100 historic Senate Chamber desks
began in 1999. Twice a year, during Senate recess periods, desks are
removed from the Senate Chamber and sent out for restoration. Treatment
is extensive, and follows a detailed protocol developed to address the
wear and degradation of these historic desks due to continued heavy
use. To date, 91 desks have been restored and the project is on track
to be completed in 2005. A condition survey completed in 2003 stressed
the necessity of installing rubber bumpers to the arms of the Senate
Chamber chairs to protect the front of the desks from continued damage.
Seventy-eight chairs are now modified with bumpers.
Due to numerous construction projects in the Capitol, several works
of art were relocated. The large sculpture, Justice and History,
displayed in the Senate subway terminal, was moved in 2003 due to CVC
construction. Work entailed separating the large sections of marble
that comprise the sculpture and moving each half individually.
Arrangements were made during January 2004 to restore the plaster
surface by repairing the seam between the two halves and treating other
minor damage and stains to the plaster coat. The conservator also
performed treatment and cleaning on three plaster relief sculptures
located nearby.
In May 2004, the portrait, George Washington (Patriae Pater), and
the sculpture, Eagle and Shield, were removed from display in the Old
Senate Chamber to protect them from possible damage during construction
on the roof above. A fine art handling company deinstalled and crated
the art works. The office took the opportunity to have conservators
assess the condition of the pieces and perform surface cleaning. The
conservators also collected samples from the surface of the Eagle and
Shield to document the historic finishes. Analysis of the samples will
provide invaluable information to guide future restoration decisions.
The Isaac Bassett Manuscript Collection will be microfilmed during
2005. A conservator was hired to conduct an assessment of the
collection, carry out necessary conservation treatment prior to
microfilming, and rehouse the papers for preservation.
The office initiated a detailed condition and identification survey
of the nearly 100 historic mirrors in the Senate wing. A conservator
was contracted to undertake the work, which will include extensive
written and photo documentation for each piece. 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. Half the mirrors have been
surveyed, and the project will be completed in 2005.
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 the housekeeping personnel on maintenance
issues related to the fine and decorative art collections.
Historic Preservation
Preservation work included extensive research, documentation,
record keeping, and project review. The program emphasizes
infrastructure development and oversight.
The office worked with the AOC and the SAA to review, comment, and
document Senate construction projects. In addition to offering
direction in project development and methodology, the office maintains
records on all known Senate wing projects. Documentation associated
with those files varies in accordance with office involvement and
impact on historic resources. Projects that required considerable
review and assistance included: Brumidi corridor restoration phase
VIII; window shutter refinishing; emergency strobe and horn
installation; grand stairwell plaster replacement; marble step repair;
plaster assessment program; Brumidi west corridor egress installation;
and cell phone antenna installation. Additionally, the office is
working closely with the AOC in the creation of an historic structures
report for the Senate vestibule, adjacent stairwell, and small Senate
rotunda. When completed, the report will provide critical documentation
regarding the architectural history of these spaces, and will serve as
the foundation for any future preservation work.
The architectural chronology and social history databases
established in 2003 were further refined, with new information entered
as it became available and existing files systematically incorporated.
While the office databases and files provide a significant resource for
room and object histories, a project initiated in October will greatly
increase the office's research capabilities. Currently, the historic
preservation officer is working with the Senate Library to create an
electronic database of all AOC, SAA, and Secretary of the Senate annual
reports. Related to this effort, is a new initiative to photo document
leadership suites during each Congress. This will allow the office to
report on ``decorative'' changes in leadership rooms over time. With
requests from Senate offices for information pertaining to room
histories, architectural features, and historic images dramatically
increasing, these initiatives allow for quick retrieval of necessary
information.
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 most Senate recesses in 2004, the historic room was opened to
tours. Twenty-six requests were received from current Members of
Congress for after hours access to the chamber. Of special significance
was the filming of a documentary history on the Capitol by C-SPAN using
high definition equipment. B-roll footage was also requested and
provided to Lion Television in Scotland for a documentary on Charles
Dickens in America. Twenty-one requests were received by current
Members of Congress for admittance to the Old Supreme Court Chamber
after hours. The office also coordinated with the AOC to install
emergency strobe lights in each chamber as part of the life-safety
upgrade program.
Loans To and From the Collection
A total of 76 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 two portraits for leadership
suites, returned 11 paintings and prints at the expiration of their
loan periods to their respective owners, and renewed loan agreements
for 18 other objects. In addition, the office coordinated the loan of
six oil study sketches by Robert Chester La Follette of Senators Clay,
Calhoun, Webster, La Follette, and Taft, which relate to the 1958
commission for the Senate Reception Room portraits. The sketches are
currently on loan from the daughter of the late artist, and have been
approved for accession into the Senate Collection in 2005.
The Curator's Office obtained an oil sketch by Constantino Brumidi
for study and appraisal. The painting is a preparatory sketch completed
around 1874 by the artist for his fresco mural, the Signing of the
First Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, located above room S-118 in
the Brumidi Corridors. The sketch has now been acquired for the Senate
Collection.
The office continued to work with CVC staff to assemble information
on Senate Collection objects. Condition reports were conducted on those
objects currently being considered for loan, and exhibit labels were
written for all Senate-related artifacts planned for the exhibition.
The office also assisted in developing a CVC Art Task Force, composed
of prominent curators, architects, and designers, to recommend short-
and long-term plans for art in the Visitor Center. The first meeting
was held in December, and a white paper will be developed in the next
few months.
The Secretary's china was distributed and returned six times in
2004. It was used for events including a dinner for the Senate spouses,
and luncheons for the current First Lady and former First Lady Nancy
Reagan. The official Senate china was inventoried and used at 28
receptions for distinguished guests, both foreign and domestic.
Publications and Exhibitions
Work continued on the United States Senate Catalogue of Graphic
Art, to be published in 2005. 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 are
co-authors of the publication. It is a companion volume to the United
States Senate Catalogue of Fine Art published in 2003.
In August 2004, the office de-installed the popular photographic
exhibition, The United States Capitol: Photographs by Fred J. Maroon,
and installed World War II: The Senate and the Nation's Capital, an
exhibition of photographs exploring how the Senate ``went to war'' and
how the war came to Washington, D.C. The Senate Historical Office and
Curator's Office developed the exhibit, which is located on the first
floor of the Senate wing.
In association with the Office of Web Technology and a web design
contractor, the office worked on developing and posting two interactive
exhibits to the Senate web site. The exhibits, Take the Puck
Challenge!, and Advise and Consent: The Drawings of Lily Spandorf, were
originally produced for stand-alone kiosks in the Capitol. They are
being translated into Flash presentations to become internet
compatible. Take the Puck Challenge! features quizzes, games, and
puzzles to introduce viewers to the political cartoons of the
nineteenth-century satirical magazine, Puck. Advise and Consent
explores the work of Lily Spandorf, an artist who sketched the filming
of the Otto Preminger movie of the same name, filmed in and around the
Capitol in 1962. Ms. Spandorf's drawings are owned by the Senate.
The internet exhibit, ``I Do Solemnly Swear'': A Half Century of
Inaugural Images, was developed for the Joint Congressional Committee
on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC), and features images from the Senate's
Graphic Art Collection illustrating inaugural events from 1853 to 1905.
Several brochures were reprinted in 2004, and one new publication
produced, The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee. The office also
continued to be a significant contributor to Unum, the Secretary of the
Senate's newsletter.
As part of an ongoing program to provide information about the
Capitol's art and historic spaces, new informational panels were
installed for the paintings of George Washington at Princeton and
Recall of Columbus.
Policies and Procedures
In 2004, the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board was established by
statute. Composed of respected scholars and curators, this board was
established to (i) provide expert advice to the Commission regarding
the Senate's art and historic collections and preservation program, and
(ii) assist in the acquisition and review of new objects for the
collections. During 2004, the 12-member board was empaneled and the
first meeting was held.
Additionally, the Commission established the Senate Preservation
Board of Trustees. This board, composed of eminent citizens, was
established to enable the acquisition of significant art works and
historical objects and to facilitate preservation projects for the
Commission. Currently, the Commission, through the Curator's office, is
fielding nominations for the board from Commission members and an
initial meeting will be held in the spring of 2005.
Collaborations, Educational Programs, and Events
In preparation for the presidential inauguration, the JCCIC
requested various assistance from the Curator's Office. The staff was
responsible for handling all details regarding the historic painting
and podium for display at the inaugural luncheon; assisting with the
printed programs and gift portfolio; and developing a collecting plan
to ensure appropriate material would be saved for the Senate
Collection. The Curator's Administrator served on the JCCIC design team
for the web site, while the Curatorial Assistant was assigned to the
Committee, serving as its Deputy Capitol Coordinator.
Office Administration
As part of the continuing effort to safeguard collections and
records against possible disaster, work began to microfiche and
digitize the collection object files. These files are the primary legal
title, research, and management records for all art and historical
objects in the Senate's collections. Copies of the fiche 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.
Automation
The office upgraded its electronic collection management database,
allowing for more efficient and accurate conversion of collection
information into web site applications. The staff is participating in a
pilot program to introduce Groove project management software to the
Secretary's Office.
In 2004 a PDF version of the publication, United States Senate
Catalogue of Fine Art, was posted on the web site, and work is
proceeding to add the essays from that volume to the web pages for each
piece of art. In addition, the office completed photographing and
scanning the 980 historical engravings and political cartoons in the
Graphic Art Collection; work on adding these to the site will begin
shortly. Due to an increased presence of the Senate Collection on the
Senate.gov web site, requests for collection images increased
dramatically.
Objectives for 2005
A major initiative in the upcoming year will be the creation of
several new museum quality storage areas for the Senate Collection. At
the end of 2004, a site was selected for a new Senate warehouse
facility that will be outfitted to include a room with climate control,
security, and equipment to house Senate Collection objects. Work will
include research and review of appropriate museum storage equipment and
monitoring systems, and planning the move of collections into the new
facility. Additionally, planning for the Curator's storage spaces in
the CVC will be guided by the results of the contract with the
conservator specializing in collections storage.
Conservation and preservation concerns continue to be a priority.
Projects in 2005 will include the restoration of nine Senate Chamber
desks--completing the seven year conservation treatment program;
assessment and conservation of the painting, the First Reading of the
Emancipation Proclamation by F.B. Carpenter; and restoration of the
Senate's historic portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart. Two
conservators from the National Gallery of Art recently provided an
assessment of the condition of paintings on display in the Senate wing,
and provided recommendations for the conservation of the Stuart
panting. Two recently commissioned paintings, of Blanche Kelso Bruce
and James O. Eastland, will receive light cleaning and application of a
varnish coat to enhance and protect the portraits now that the paint
has properly cured.
The Senate Preservation Board of Trustees will hold its first
meeting. The Senate Curatorial Advisory Board will continue to meet
semi-annually and address such issues as the Commission and the office
of the Senate Curator may bring before it.
Work on the United States Senate Catalogue of Graphic Art will be
completed in 2005. Information panels for three paintings will be
developed: The Florida Case before the Electoral Commission, The Battle
of Lake Erie, and First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Internet exhibits will include sites on Isaac Bassett and the
Senate Chamber desks. The Isaac Bassett exhibit will feature art works,
historic images, and objects from the Senate Collection, as well as
portions of the Bassett manuscript, highlighting the 64-year career of
this nineteenth-century Senate employee. The Senate Chamber desk
exhibit will bring together all historical information on the desks, as
well as discuss the conservation efforts. The site will prove
invaluable to anyone seeking information on desk occupants, desk
styles, and Senate floor seating configurations. Other web activities
include increasing the art and historic information on the site, and
posting new acquisitions.
To streamline the process for adding new objects to the Senate
Collection, a tracking system for potential accessions will be
developed. The system will improve the collection of information and
the availability of collection documentation. A thorough review and
consideration of the Incoming Objects Register collection will commence
with the development of the tracking system. Additionally, the
Registration department will implement an electronic tracking system to
improve the accuracy and efficiency of loan renewals.
Collection activities will include efforts to locate and recover
historic Senate pieces long associated with the institution. Work has
begun to find an early Senate Chamber chair by Thomas Constantine, a
Russell Office Building desk by George Cobb, and furnishings associated
with the Old Supreme Court Chamber.
The office will proceed with the Connecticut Compromise mural and
the portrait of Senator Bob Dole. Unveilings will be held for the
Senator George Mitchell and Senator Margaret Chase Smith paintings.
An oral history program will be developed, based on the Senate
Historical Office's successful format, to document the history of the
Senate's collections. Artists, cabinetmakers, donors, and others will
be interviewed, and appropriate information posted on the Senate web
site.
Microfiching of the fine art collection files and microfilming of
the Isaac Bassett papers will be completed, as will the project to
digitize the annual reports from the AOC, SAA, and Secretary of the
Senate. The office will continue to photograph the Senate Chamber
desks.
The office plans to expand its use of Groove project management
software. It is hoped that by the end of the year all staff will
achieve a reasonable level of proficiency in the program and that many
projects will be managed and their status reported to the Secretary
using this application.
With the recent acquisition of the Cornelius & Baker armorial
chandelier, the office will oversee the transfer and storage of the
fixture, and will work with the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board to
review options for the future use of the fixture within the Senate
wing.
The office will undertake several major research initiatives.
Research on the Old Senate Chamber Eagle and Shield will be conducted
in conjunction with major decorative art museums and scholars, and it
is hoped that it will result in determining the origin, maker, and
original condition of this important symbolic image. Research will
begin on the Senate Chamber chairs. No original 1819 chairs remain in
the chamber, and as new chairs were constructed over the years, many
design features and materials changed. Documenting these changes will
help determine the authenticity and age of any chair that might appear
for sale or donation; currently several such chairs are being
considered for acquisition.
Of importance is the development of a five year plan for the Senate
Preservation Program. In creating the plan, the Curator's staff will
further their knowledge of state capitol preservation efforts by
visiting other sites and meeting with local and state preservationists,
and will seek advice from the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board. This
will be a major initiative in advancing the Preservation Program.
3. joint office of education and training
The Joint Office of Education and Training provides employee
training and development opportunities for all Senate staff both in
Washington D.C. and in the states. 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. The computer training staff
provides instructor-led classes; one-on-one coaching sessions;
specialized training provided by vendors, 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 581 classes in
2004. 5,252 Senate employees participated in these classes. The
registration desk handled 20,467 requests for training and
documentation.
Of the above total, in the Technical Training area 265 classes were
held with a total attendance of 1,093 students. An additional 702 staff
received coaching on various software packages and other computer
related issues.
In the Professional Development area 316 classes were held with a
total attendance of 4,159 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 2004, 40 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 year. During the last quarter of the year, training was offered via
video teleconferencing to two state offices.
In the Health Promotion area, 708 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 1,310 staff participated in the
Annual Health Fair held in September.
The Joint Office of Education and Training has actively worked with
the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness to provide security
training for Senate staff. In 2004, the Office of Education and
Training coordinated 53 sessions of escape hood and other security
related training for 1,683 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 2004,
two sessions of this program were offered to state staff. This office
also conducted our annual State Directors Forum for the second year. In
addition, this office has implemented the ``Virtual Classroom'' which
is an internet based training library of 300+ courses. To date, 396
state office and DC staff have used 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 all legal defense of
Senate offices in all employment law cases at both the administrative
and court levels. Also, on a day-to-day basis, the office provides
legal advice to Senate offices about their obligations under employment
laws. Accordingly, each of the 180 offices of the Senate is an
individual client of the SCCE, and each office maintains an attorney-
client relationship with the SCCE.
The areas of responsibilities of the SCCE can be divided into the
following categories:
--Litigation (Defending Senate Offices in Federal Court)
--Mediations to Resolve Lawsuits
--Court-Ordered Alternative Dispute Resolutions
--Preventive Legal Advice
--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
--Litigation; Mediations; Alternative Dispute Resolutions
The SCCE represents each of the 180 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.
Union Drives, Negotiations And Unfair Labor Practice Charges
In 2004, no employees attempted to unionize. Therefore, the SCCE
handled no union drives.
OSHA/ADA Compliance
The SCCE provides advice and assistance to Senate offices in
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 2004, the SCCE
assisted all Senate offices in preparing for OSHA/ADA inspections, pre-
inspected 12 offices, and gave 9 OSHA/ADA seminars.
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 2004, the SCCE
gave 51 legal seminars to Senate offices. Among the topics covered
were:
--Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace;
--The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995: What Managers Need to
Know About Their Legal Obligations;
--Managers' Obligations Under the Family and Medical Leave Act;
--The Legal Pitfalls of Hiring the Right Employee: Advertising,
Interviewing, Drug Testing and Background Checks;
--Disciplining, Evaluating and Terminating an Employee Without
Violating Employment Laws;
--Management's Obligations Under the Americans With Disabilities Act;
--Equal Pay for Equal Work: Management's Obligations Under the Equal
Pay Act;
--The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA): Steps Your
Office Must Take to Verify Employment Eligibility;
--Enhancing Diversity and Avoiding Discrimination in the Workplace;
and
--Workplace Violence.
Preventive Legal Advice
At times, a Senate office will become aware that an employee is
contemplating legal action, and the office will request the SCCE's
legal advice and/or that the SCCE negotiate with the employee's
attorney before the employee files a lawsuit.
Also, the SCCE advises and meets with Members, Chiefs of Staff,
Administrative Managers, Staff Directors, Chief Clerks and General
Counsels at their request. The purpose is to prevent litigation and to
minimize liability in the event of litigation. For example, on a daily
basis, the SCCE advises Senate offices on matters such as disciplining
or terminating employees in compliance with the law, handling and
investigating sexual harassment complaints, accommodating the disabled,
determining wage law requirements, meeting the requirements of the
Family and Medical Leave Act, and management's rights and obligations
under union laws and OSHA.
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). The Gift Shop provides
services to Senators, their spouses, staffs, and constituents, and the
many visitors to the U.S. Capitol complex. 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.
Facilities
For several years the services offered by the Senate Gift Shop were
over-the-counter sales to walk-in customers at a single location.
Today, after more than 10 years in operation, and as a result of
extended services and continued growth, the Gift Shop now provides
service from three different locations. Services from these locations
include walk-in sales, telephone orders, fax orders, mail orders, and a
variety of special order and catalog sales.
Plans for the movement of inventory from the offsite warehouses to
the soon-to-be completed SAA warehouse are currently being formulated.
Plans include but are not limited to taking a physical inventory of
Gift Shop merchandise stored at both offsite warehouses, devising
methods for securing product on pallets and carts in preparation for
transportation, transporting the merchandise, and the shelving of
inventory upon delivery to the new warehouse.
Operational procedures for the new location such as staffing
requirements, receiving, shipping, and security are currently under
consideration. These issues as well as other procedural considerations
will be more clearly defined through a series of meetings and
communications between SAA and SOS Gift Shop staff as the warehouse
construction nears completion.
Sales Activity
Sales recorded for fiscal year 2004 are $1,494,744.51. Cost of
goods sold during this same period are $1,005,348.34, accounting for a
gross profit of $489,396.17.
In addition to tracking gross profit from sales, the Senate Gift
Shop maintains a revolving fund and a record of on-hand inventory. As
of October 1, 2004, the revolving fund balance was $1,683,079.32 and
the on-hand inventory was valued at $2,090,474.06.
Additional Activity
One of the most important objectives for 2003 and 2004 was
replacing point-of-sale and accounting software, Basic Four, which was
more than twenty years old and no longer meeting the increasingly
unique needs of the Gift Shop.
The company providing the hardware and performing the system
installation of the new retail and financial management system, has
completed the bulk of the contract work and is nearing completion of
the last few deliverables of the contract. The deliverables that remain
to be fulfilled include the ability to export and import financial data
from the Senate Disbursing Office into the Gift Shop's Great Plains
accounting system, the delivery of a basic Web Store/Kiosk database
engine and the development of an e-commerce storefront.
The selected software packages, Microsoft Retail Management System,
Headquarters, Store Operations and Great Plains, are off-the-shelf
products that required little modification to meet the specific
requirements of Senate Gift Shop operations. Currently Gift Shop staff
continue to modify and create databases that will serve as the
foundation for the new retail system. Databases include inventory,
financial data and other information required for detailed reports.
Contractors are currently working to solve programming issues and are
confident that they will be able to complete the contract obligations
in the very near future.
It is important to note that the new system not only will meet the
Gift Shop's current and near-future requirements, but will also
accommodate potential add-on features such as intranet and internet
sales.
Accomplishments and New Products in Fiscal Year 2004
Official Congressional Holiday Ornaments
The year 2002 marked the beginning 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 in the office of the Architect of the
Capitol.
Our 11th annual ornament was released in 2004 and shows the Capitol
enlarged with new marble wings and cast-iron dome designed by
Philadelphia architect Thomas U. Walter who was appointed architect of
the Capitol extension in 1851. Walter enlivened the foreground of his
drawing with a spirited scene of carriages, horses and crowds of
people. 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 2004 holiday ornament exceeded 33,000, of which more
than 7,400 were personalized with engravings designed, proofed and
etched by Gift Shop staff. Sales revenue from this year's ornament
generated more than $40,000 in scholarship funds for the Senate Child
Care Center.
Pickard China Porcelain ``Executive Authority'' Box
Executive Authority, released in 2004, is the third in a series of
four porcelain boxes that display different images from the Constantino
Brumidi fresco paintings on the ceiling of the President's Room in the
Senate Wing of the United States Capitol. The first and second boxes in
the series, Liberty and Legislation, were released in 2002 and 2003.
The final piece of this series, Religion, will be released later this
year.
United States Senate Catalogue of Fine Art
The Gift Shop purchased for resale the book, United States Senate
Catalogue of Fine Art. In order to ensure availability of this
publication for an extended period of time, a large quantity was
secured.
Projects and New Ideas for 2005
108th Congressional Plate
The series of Official Congressional Plates will continue this year
with the design, development and manufacture of the 108th and 109th
Congressional Plates. The design stage for both plates has been
completed and prototypes are being produced by Tiffany & Co.
In addition to determining the design for the 108th and 109th
Congressional Plates, final artwork is under development with Tiffany's
for the 110th and 111th Congressional Plates.
Constantino Brumidi Birthday Celebration
This year marks the 200th Birthday of Constantino Brumidi, ``The
Artist of the Capitol.'' In celebration of this special occasion, Gift
Shop staff will work closely with the staff of the Curator's Office
throughout 2005 on an initiative to add to our collection of Brumidi-
inspired merchandise.
Intranet/Webster
The Gift Shop actively continues to develop its website. Primary
considerations include website policy, design and layout, content and
products to be featured. It is the Gift Shop's intention to quickly
include links to the offices of the Historian, Curator and Senate
Library so the Senate community using Webster will have ready access to
additional information pertaining to the product or subject of their
interest.
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 1,784 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 web site.
Editorial Projects
Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress, 1774-2005.--In May
2003, both Houses of Congress adopted H. Con. Res. 138, authorizing
printing of the sixteenth 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. Since 1989, the assistant historian has added
many new biographical sketches, expanded bibliography entries, and
revised and updated most of the database's 1,875 Senate entries. In
preparation for the new print edition, scheduled for release in late
spring/early summer of 2005, the assistant historian has updated the
Congress-by-Congress listing of members through the 108th Congress,
updated the listing of executive branch officers, and completed the
editing and proofing of all Senate-related information. In addition,
existing information has been edited to allow for expanded search
capabilities on the online version at http://bioguide.congress.gov.
Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC).--In
early 2004, the Office began consulting with the JCCIC to develop
historical content for the JCCIC's web site. The Office conducted
historical research and compiled files for every inauguration since
1789. Based on the information collected, staff provided historical
data for each inauguration, and wrote brief articles on all aspects of
inauguration day, from the morning prayer service to the evening's ball
(including the procession to the Capitol, the swearing-in ceremony, the
inaugural luncheon, and the parade). The photo historian located and
provided photographs and illustrations to accompany the inauguration
profiles and articles. Office staff assisted JCCIC staff with
publishing these materials to the Web site. In addition to the Web
site, the Office assisted the JCCIC with developing the inaugural
theme, and wrote and edited content for printed materials, including
the platform program, luncheon program, and the luncheon portfolio.
Capitol Visitor Center Exhibition Content Committee.--Staff
historians continued to assist the Capitol Preservation Commission in
drafting text for the exhibition gallery of the Capitol Visitor Center.
During 2004, the Office worked with Donna Lawrence Productions to
develop a script for a CVC visitor orientation film.
Administrative History of the Senate.--During 2004, the assistant
historian continued the research and writing of this historical account
of the Senate's administrative evolution, taking advantage of newly
discovered archival resources and improved search capabilities for
contents of nineteenth-century newspapers and periodicals. This study
traces the development of the offices of the Secretary of the Senate
and Sergeant at Arms, considers nineteenth and twentieth-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.
``Anchor of the Republic: The United States Senate, 1789-2006''.--
The Office began work on a one-volume illustrated history of the
Senate, intended for publication in late 2006. This book will focus on
the Senate's unique constitutional responsibilities, the development of
its traditions and prerogatives, and the contributions of significant
personalities.
Rules of the United States Senate, 1774-1979.--This work in
progress will present a narrative history of the evolution of the
Senate's standing rules, from their antecedents in the Continental
Congress through their most recent recodification in 1979. Following
the narrative section, a documentary section will include 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
recodifications (1806, 1820, 1828, 1868, 1877, 1884, and 1979) along
with changes adopted between each recodification. Appendices will
contain rules of the Continental Congresses, the Senate of the
Confederate States of America, and the abandoned joint rules of
Congress.
Member Services
Members' Records Management and Disposition Assistance.--The Senate
archivist continued to assist members' offices with planning for the
preservation of their permanently valuable records, with special
emphasis on archiving electronic information from computer systems and
transferring valuable records to a home state repository. The archivist
updated the archival sections of the handbook, ``Closing a Senate
Office'' and participated in meetings with all offices of retiring
Senators to plan for the disposition of their records. The archivist
worked 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 worked
with the Committee on Rules and Administration to recommend a change in
the source of Senate funding for shipment of members' official records
to home-state archival repositories. Public Law 108-447 (December 8,
2004) changed the funding from individual office accounts to the
``Miscellaneous Items'' appropriations account within the contingent
fund of the Senate. The archivist worked with the Sergeant at Arms to
develop protocols for the use of an electronic document management
system operated by the Office of Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail.
The system is available to all offices for scanning projects and it
simultaneously produces a microfilm version suitable for archival
preservation purposes. The Historical Office began using the system to
produce security copies of its thirty years' accumulation of historical
subject files. The archivist identified and worked with three pilot
project members' offices to implement its use. The archivist conducted
a seminar on records management for Senate offices.
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. Over 1,365 feet
of Senate records were transferred to the Archives. The archivist
updated and published Records Disposition Procedures for Offices of the
Secretary of the Senate. 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 a database format covering records'
transfers for the past five years. The archivist analyzed these reports
to provide committees with suggestions for improvements. The archivist
also worked with all committees to transfer a set of mark-up
transcripts to the Archives for security purposes. The archivist
continues revision of 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 Governmental Affairs and its archivist developed and
successfully implemented a project using this protocol. In the project,
all electronic information pertaining to the development of homeland
security legislation was appraised, organized, and sent to the
archives.
Senate Historical Minutes.--The Senate historian continued an
eight-year series of ``Senate Historical Minutes,'' begun in 1997 at
the request of the Senate Democratic Leader. In 2004, the historian
prepared and delivered a ``Senate Historical Minute'' at twenty-four
Senate Democratic Conference weekly meetings. These 400-word Minutes
were designed to enlighten members about significant events and
personalities associated with the Senate's institutional development.
More than 200 Minutes are available as a feature on the Senate Web
site.
Association of Centers for the Study of Congress.--In May, the
Historical Office cosponsored the second annual meeting of the
Association of Centers for the Study of Congress in Washington. 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, Margaret Chase Smith, George Aiken, Thomas Dodd,
Wendell Ford, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, John Stennis, and John
Glenn. The Association elected Senate archivist Karen Paul as its
secretary.
Oral History Program
The Historical Office conducts a series of oral history interviews,
which provide personal recollections of various Senate careers. This
year, oral history interviews were completed with Chuck Ludlam, former
staff member of the Separation of Powers Subcommittee; Arthur
Rynearson, former deputy Senate Legislative Counsel; and Leonard Weiss,
former staff director of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Several
other interviews are currently in progress.
Photographic Collections
The photo historian continued to catalog, digitize, and expand the
Office's 40,000 item photographic collection. Photos and other images
were added to the online collection of Senate Historical Minutes. A
photographic exhibition (``Capitol Scenes: 1900-1950'') was developed
for display on the Capitol's second floor, and a virtual exhibit was
created of the same images for the Senate Web site. Working closely
with the Senate Curator's Office and the Office of Conservation and
Preservation, the photo historian helped to create and mount on the
first floor of the Capitol's Senate wing a photographic exhibition
entitled ``World War II: The U.S. Senate and the Nation's Capital.''
The office acquired a late 19th and early 20th century collection of
scrapbooks containing the photographic images of nearly 900 Senators
who served from the Senate's earliest years through the 1920s. The
photo historian also began working on a pictorial directory that will
include an image of every Senator who has ever served, organized by
state and class. This first-of-its-kind publication will offer a unique
visual representation of the collective Senate from its beginnings to
the present.
Educational Outreach
In coordination with the Joint Office of Education and Training,
Historical Office staff provided seminars on the general history of the
Senate, Senate committees, women Senators, and Senate floor leadership.
Office staff also participated in seminars and briefings for specially
scheduled groups. The historian and associate historian joined the
Secretary of the Senate in making formal presentations at the June 2004
Institute on Congress and American History at the Lyndon B. Johnson
Library and Museum in Austin, Texas. Staff also made several
international presentations. The historian addressed the ``Parliaments,
Representation, and Society Seminar'' at the University of London's
Institute of Historical Research and the associate historian was a
featured speaker at a conference of the International Association of
Oral History in Rome, Italy. Finally, on November 19, 2004, C-SPAN's
``Washington Journal'' devoted an hour-long program to the history of
the Senate and the work of the Senate Historical Office.
7. human resources
The Office of Human Resources was established in June 1995 as a
result of the Congressional Accountability Act. The Office develops and
implements human resources policies, procedures, and programs for the
Office of the Secretary of the Senate that not only fulfill the legal
requirements of the workplace but which complement the organization's
strategic goals.
HR's responsibilities include recruiting and staffing; providing
guidance to managers and staff; training; 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.
Ongoing projects for 2005
Classification and Compensation Review Completed
HR conducted a complete classification and compensation study. The
classification study included a comprehensive collection of current job
classifications and specifications for every position in the Office.
For 2005 and beyond, HR will for maintain and update the entire system.
Policies and Procedures
The Secretary, through HR, will update and revise the Employee
Handbook of the Office of the Secretary. With nuances in employment law
and other advances, the policies will be reviewed, coordinated with
counsel (if necessary), revised and updated annually.
In regard to potential violations for said procedures, the
Secretary, through HR and the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment, has
developed an effective method to coordinate inquiries.
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 kept 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 maintain accurate contact lists for emergencies or
other contingencies.
New Leave Tracking System
In the past, employees of the Secretary of the Senate had to
maintain ``timesheets'' for each day of work throughout the year. This
system was maintained by each employee and signed off on by the
supervisor and/or department head. HR created a new leave tracking
system whereby attendance is only recorded by the exception, or
absence. Leave slips have been created for staff to complete and submit
prior to needing to take leave. The supervisor approves the request and
forwards it to HR to be entered into the system. Staff now have access
to their leave balance which is maintained by HR. As a result of this
new tracking system, directors and HR are able to generate a multitude
of reports to analyze leave usage by department and organization-wide
and to review leave balances.
Attraction 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.
Outreach
HR has initiated development of an Elder Care Fair that will be
available for all Senate staff interested in learning more about local
and nationwide services available to assist the elderly and those
responsible for their care. HR is working closely with the Senate
Office of Education and Training and the Employee Assistance Program to
identify and contact agencies that may be of assistance to Senate
staff. The goal is to conduct this one day event in the last quarter of
2005.
Training
In conjunction with the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment, HR has
worked on preparing training for department heads and staff. The
training topics include Conducting Background Checks, Providing
Feedback to Employees and Goal Setting. These skills will further
enhance the ability to our staff to comply and succeed in the
development of the staff of the Secretary of the Senate.
Orienting New Staff
Because first impressions make such a lasting impression, HR has
developed a new consistent means of orienting new staff joining the
Office of the Secretary. This new system allows for a seamless
transition from the orientation of HR, policies, parking, and metro
subsidy, to the particular department the staff member is joining.
Interns and Fellows
HR has been instrumental in the internship program and coordination
of the Heinz Fellowship program. The next group of summer interns will
begin in June 2005.
Employee Feedback and Development
A key to maintaining and improving performance standards, as well
as ensuring completion of organizational objectives, is providing
employee feedback. HR, in conjunction with the Executive Office and
department heads, has established a new comprehensive tool to evaluate
staff at all levels of 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 work closely with the
application and network development groups within the Senate 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 the 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 Secretary of the
Senate's operation. 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.
Functional responsibilities for supporting other departments were
expanded, as staffing levels were maintained. 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 stretch support across all
Secretary departments. Several departments, namely Disbursing, Office
of Public Records, Chief Counsel for Employment, Page School, Senate
Security, and Stationery and Gift Shop have dedicated information
technology staff within those offices. Public Records, Stationery, and
Gift Shop remote support was added in 2004. Information Systems
personnel continue to provide a multi-tiered escalated hardware and
software support for these offices.
For information security reasons, Secretary departments implement
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 inter-departmental
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 support provided by the Information Systems
Department, and augment that support with assistance from the SAA
whenever required. The Secretary's network supports approximately 300
user accounts and patron accounts in the Capitol, Hart, Russell,
Dirksen, and the Page School locations.
Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
The Office of Information System began disaster planning for the
Secretary's office in June, 1998. In January, 2001, this planning
process had evolved to include other working groups within the Senate .
Working with the Office of Senate Security, SAA, GSA, and GAO
personnel, the Information System COOP plan was developed in March
2001. Initial emphasis was placed on the continuation of legislative
and financial business elements within the Senate.
Beginning in January 2001, new product technology was implemented
to migrate and store legislative data off-line. This success of the
initial pilot project was used to facilitate solutions in other
Secretary offices. The same technology was applied to provide the
department of Public Records with off-line storage capabilities in July
2001.
Near-line server storage solutions augment the normal tape archival
process. Individual server data continues to be backed up each night.
At present snap servers are deployed in key locations and smaller units
are located off-site and are rotated on a bimonthly basis.
Fiscal Year 2004 Highlights
1. Active Directory and Message Infrastructure Project
(ADMA)
The original plan involved replacing all CC:MAIL servers and
gateways with a decentralized Microsoft Outlook solution. The
Secretary's office previously had six Post Offices in six different
server domains. There was no central Public Address Book for all
Secretary employees. Additionally, Secretary Mail requirements needed
to be refined to insure the implemented solution was both cost-
effective and reliable for the Office of the Secretary.
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 initial plan outlined that all staff employees be enrolled in one
central Active Directory Secretary enterprise. Each department (except
the Disbursing and Employment Counsel office) is to be structured as a
Organizational Unit within the new enterprise. In November 2004, the
Office of Employment Counsel migrated to ADMA. Completion of the
remaining offices will occur in fiscal year 2005.
2. Office of Public Records (OPR) Upgrades
Upgrades to all OPR hardware and software were implemented in
fiscal year 2004. This involved replacing four (4) new servers at the
PSQ location, and consolidating all OPR data to a new hardware platform
in SH-232. Operating System software was ungraded and Database software
was transferred to a Windows2000/SQL2000. During the February ricin
event, OPR staff relocated and were able to operate and continue their
scanning operation.
3. Senate Library Catalog Project
The existing Senate Library hardware and software server operation
in SRB-20 was mirrored to facilitate access to the Library Web Catalog
for all Senate offices on the Senate Intranet. Previously only
workstations within SOS could access the catalog. Home and state
offices can now take advantage of the numerous library resources. The
mirrored server operation at another location provides a redundant data
backup to the primary Russell location. Future migration of the catalog
information to the Storage Area Network (SAN) located at the Alternate
Computing Facility is now possible.
4. Legislative Operation Upgrades
The Journal Clerk hardware and software business applications was
updated in fiscal year 2004. The previous version of software was last
updated in 1997, and this new software application now takes advantage
of the LIS repository located at PSQ. Composition of the Senate Journal
is more accurate and takes advantage of the internal LIS architecture.
5. Gift Shop Procurement
A search began early in 2002 to investigate and find a solution for
a replacement hardware and software system for the Senate Gift Shop and
Stationery operations. A procurement was awarded in 2002. New hardware
servers and Point-Of-Sale workstations were installed in January 2004,
the older POS applications retired, and new system integration
completed in February 2004. This is a long-term project which involves
the creation of a new product database, an e-commerce point-of-sale
application, inventory control software, and Disbursing Office reports
generation package.
6. Stationery Room Renovation Procurement
Similar to the Gift Shop renovation project, the Stationery Room
awarded a contract to replace the existing business method. This
process had not been updated in over ten years. Additional hardware and
software was installed in 2004 to support the new point-of-sale system.
In May 2004, an enhancement to the Metro Subsidy system began which
would allow Senate offices to request allotted subsidies in advance
using a web-browser based connection. SAA provided the web-entry portal
and the Secretary installed the necessary SQL database server. An
additional hardware server and new workstations were installed in
December 2004 to support the PTI solution.
7. Curator Project Management Software
In May 2004, the Curator's office desired a method to more
efficiently 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 (Groove) to track and monitor these
numerous projects. In parallel, working with SAA Research &
Development, this solution was deemed valuable to other Senate offices
as this package allows staff to communicate and share files regardless
of location.
9. interparliamentary services
The Office of Interparliamentary Services (IPS) has completed its
23rd 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 45th Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S.
Interparliamentary Group was held in Idaho. 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
assist staff members of Senators and committees in filling out 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 44th Annual Meeting of the Mexico-U.S.
Interparliamentary Group, and the second meetings of both the U.S.-
Russia Interparliamentary Group and the U.S.-China Interparliamentary
Group, all of which will be held in the United States in 2005. Advance
work, including site inspection, will be undertaken for the 46th Annual
Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group meeting to be held in the United
States in 2006. 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 on-line systems used to provide nonpartisan, confidential, timely,
and accurate information services to the Senate. The library also
authors content for three Web sites: Legislative Information Service,
Senate.gov, and Webster.
Notable Achievements
Senate Library catalog available to all Senate staff via Webster.
Web inquiries increased 73 percent and overall inquiries increased
61 percent.
Final design requirements for the off-site storage facility
submitted to SAA.
Adjourn time and vote information added to Floor Schedule on
Senate.gov.
Information Services
Research
Legal, legislative, business, and general research is the library's
primary mission. The complexity of research requests may require
several hours of staff time and numerous resources, while working under
strict deadlines. While these request totals are fewer than the Web-
based inquiries, they dominate daily library activity. This year the
library answered 33,750 research inquiries that resulted in the
delivery of 3,265 information packages. Activities supporting research
requests included 2,747 faxes, 156,891 photocopies, and 6,945 pages
printed from the microform collection. The library also loaned 2,165
books and congressional documents to Senate offices. In addition, 371
Senate staff established new borrowing accounts, bringing total
accounts to 2,754.
These research skills are critical in the librarians' ability to
author material for three different Web sites. Since the 2002 redesign
of senate.gov--the Senate's official public Internet site--the
librarians have also become essential content providers, organizational
consultants, and text editors. The 73 percent increase in visitors to
library-authored online resources underscores the library's role in
creating and delivering quality information products on the Web.
Traditional inquires--which are telephone, fax, walk-in, and e-mail
inquiries--plus visitors to library-authored Web resources increased
total requests by 61 percent over last year.
TABLE 1.--SENATE LIBRARY INQUIRY HISTORY, 2000 TO 2004
[Traditional Requests and Visitors to Library-Authored Web Information]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category
-----------------------------------------------
Year(s) Traditional
Phone, Fax, E- Web See Table Total
mail & Walk-in 2 for details
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004............................................................ 33,750 602,236 635,986
2003............................................................ 46,234 348,198 394,432
2000-2002 Average............................................... 38,660 2,003 40,663
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate.gov
The Senate Library's mission includes providing accurate, timely,
and professionally organized information about the U.S. Senate on
Senate.gov--the most widely read publication authored by the Office of
the Secretary. The librarians' expert knowledge of the legislative
process and sophisticated research skills are used to develop,
customize, and deliver meaningful and relevant information. They are
able to tailor information to meet the needs of various Web audiences
and they possess the critical skills required to provide organized and
meaningful content.
Senate.gov accomplishments for 2004:
--The Floor Schedule posted on the home page was enhanced this year
by including the adjournment time and a link to the day's
recorded votes, an expansion of the library's original 2003
mandate to publish the convene time and the Senate's daily
program. Prior to nightly posting of the interactive Schedule,
Senate staff were solely dependent upon cloakroom recorded
messages.
--Librarians designed Statistics & Lists to provide easy access to
more than 80 lists of Senate information, including 28 that
detail senatorial biography and service records. Librarians
created a subject arrangement for quick access to the varied
lists. Topics range from Active Legislation (subject-organized
research aids providing bill numbers), to Senators who have
cast more than 10,000 votes, to books about art and
architecture in the U.S. Capitol.
--Librarians researched and designed an historically important page
featuring links to the final Resume of Congressional Activity
for each year since the Resume was created in 1947. To maintain
currency, the latest monthly Resume is posted upon publication
in the Congressional Record. Web designers for both LIS and
THOMAS--the public site for legislative status information--
quickly adopted the senate.gov Resume page to enhance their
existing content.
The library's Web experience benefits offices under the Secretary
needing to publish Internet information. The library designed a page
for Senate Printing and Document Services that provides location,
hours, and contact information, including an e-mail address for public
document requests. The page also includes links to guides on
identifying bill numbers and online texts of legislation, and provides
definitions of the various categories of legislation. Librarians also
coordinate with several Secretary's offices in the posting of monthly
senate.gov articles, which complement Senate business. For instance,
presidential cabinet nominations or an article announcing the United
States Senate Catalogue of Fine Art, was prominently featured for Web
visitors.
The importance of long-range planning to meet the rapidly changing
technical environment was the subject of a series of senate.gov vision
meetings conducted this year. The meetings focused on four topics: the
value of a taxonomy for site organization and content access;
developing a structured workflow and standard editing style; acquiring
appropriate software; and designating staff to support the expanding
Web responsibilities.
TABLE 2.--SENATE.GOV AND LIS VISITORS TO LIBRARY RESOURCES IN 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visitors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Legislation on Senate.gov........................ 213,014
Reference homepage on Senate.gov........................ 281,836
Virtual Reference Desk on Senate.gov.................... 86,637
Hot Bills List on LIS................................... 11,363
Appropriations Tables, Fiscal Year 1987-2005 on LIS..... 9,386
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 602,236
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative Information System (LIS)
The Legislative Information System (LIS) serves as a gateway to
electronic resources critical to the work of legislative branch staff.
The Senate Library serves on an editorial committee with Congressional
Research Service (CRS) staff tasked to meet the constantly changing
information needs of legislative staff. The committee responds to
congressional staff needs by adding features, reorganizing and
improving content, and enhancing design elements. Among the library's
most popular LIS products for Senate staff are the Hot Bills List and
Appropriations Tables.
The library is also working on improvements in LIS nomination and
treaty chronologies. The project will ensure that all Senate hearing
information is fully identified, regardless of when the hearing was
conducted. The research and data entry strategies will be determined in
2005.
Webster
A major accomplishment in 2004 was the establishment of Senate-wide
access to the online library catalog via Webster--the Senate's
Intranet--which required a coordinated effort by staff from the Office
of the Secretary, the Sergeant at Arms, and the catalog vendor. On-site
installation and reliability testing of the catalog began in January.
The server was transferred to Postal Square in July, where subsequent
security testing was completed before the October 25, 2004 official
release. The catalog provides staff with desktop access to more than
158,000 bibliographic records. These records include legislative
materials dating from the 19th century, executive and judicial branch
documents, and more than 35,000 books on the Senate, American history,
politics, political biography, and legislative issues. Staff may
request same-day book delivery via a catalog link. The catalog also
provides full-text electronic access to selected congressional
hearings, executive branch documents, and periodicals.
The Webster home page announcement feature was successfully used to
promote service seminars, National Library Week events, and the release
of the library catalog. More than 150 staff attended the Webster-
announced events.
Instructional Services
The Information Services team serves as the Search Help Desk for
the Front Page on Webster. Front Page is an information gateway to
commercial databases such as LexisNexis, Westlaw, ProQuest, Leadership
Directories, Congressional Quarterly, Bureau of National Affairs,
National Journal, Federal Document Clearinghouse, Associated Press, and
Reuters. This responsibility requires that each librarian maintain
expert search skills and the ability to instruct staff in the use of
these electronic resources.
Library staff, in conjunction with the Joint Office of Education
and Training (JOET), provide monthly LIS training sessions in which
Senate staff are instructed in the latest electronic research
strategies. Students learn efficient LIS search strategies for the
Congressional Record, bill summary and status reports, roll call votes,
and committee actions. As the LIS Help Desk, the library continues
staff training by answering content and search strategy questions and
providing personalized instruction. The JOET also requested the
library's assistance in developing a survey to determine the best
strategies for delivering information to Senate staff.
Public Relations
The library hosted 25 public relations events in 2004, including
``Services of the Senate Library'' seminars, new staff and state staff
orientations, Senate Page School seminars, and a Secretary of the
Senate ``block party.'' The library also provided tours to several
visiting groups, including Catholic University, University of Maryland,
University of North Carolina, federal librarians, GPO staff, and a
delegation from Japan.
Technical Services
Acquisitions
The library received 11,553 new acquisitions in 2004. Of this
number, 7,523 were congressional documents, 3,314 were executive or
judicial publications, and the remaining 716 items were books related
to politics, American history, or biography. There were several major
acquisitions in 2004, including 127 bound volumes of Senate and House
bills from the 107th Congress; a 42-volume reprint of the Annals of
Congress, containing the congressional debates from 1789-1824; and a
significant portion of the 28 volumes of the John C. Calhoun papers.
As a participant in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP),
the library receives categories of legislative and executive and
judicial branch publications from the Government Printing Office (GPO).
In 2004, the library received 3,314 items through FDLP. The trend to
distribute government publications electronically has significantly
reduced the number of paper documents issued. GPO reports that 86
percent of new government documents will only be distributed
electronically. The library responded by adding more than 8,300
government document links to the online catalog. The links provide
Senate staff with immediate desktop access to the materials.
A major project is the ongoing review of the items received through
FDLP. During this fourth year of the project, 2,031 items were
withdrawn from the collection and 1,660 (79 percent) of the items were
donated to requesting federal libraries. The project's final phase
improves document access by integrating executive branch documents with
other collections under a single library classification system. This
year the cataloging staff reclassified and integrated 326 government
documents.
The library's acquisitions committee meets monthly to review and
approve all book purchases. The committee is composed of the Librarian,
two reference librarians, and the acquisitions librarian. Library staff
make recommendations to the committee through a Web-based selection
tool that allows staff to suggest titles for possible purchase.
Cataloging
The library's highly productive cataloging staff draws on years of
experience to produce and maintain a catalog of 158,111 items. During
the year, 8,172 items were added to the catalog and an overall 8
percent increase in titles cataloged was realized.
Cataloging efforts in 2004 focused on historic treaties, Senate
executive reports, and older Senate hearings. In many instances, the
Senate's collection holds the only known copy of the document. This
work contributed to a 33 percent increase over the previous year in
cataloging historic material. As a result, the library contributed 636
new personal and treaty name records through the Name Authorities
Cooperative program (NACO), a total that exceeds that of many larger
institutions. The privilege to participate in NACO recognizes the
professional expertise of the library's catalogers.
Offsite Storage and Collection Maintenance
A warehouse facility, scheduled for completion in 2005, will
provide the Senate with permanent, well-designed offsite storage. The
facility will meet the library's long-term need to preserve the
Senate's archival collections. The warehouse will provide storage for
50,000 volumes, security and fire suppression, museum-standard humidity
and temperature control, and air filtration. An archive of 20,000
historic and rare congressional documents is scheduled for the initial
transfer to the warehouse. To meet Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
requirements, the warehouse will have access to the Senate network and
telecommunications systems. Space for collections and equipment
belonging to the Historical Office and Office of Conservation and
Preservation will also be provided.
An important preservation project in 2004 involved 19th century
editions of the Annals of Congress--the official record of
congressional debate from 1789-1824. Multiple sets were carefully
examined to identify the best candidates for preservation. The selected
sets were cleaned, wrapped, boxed, and labeled for eventual rebinding.
Another aspect of collection maintenance is binding contemporary
materials for permanent retention. These materials include the
Congressional Record, Federal Register, and committee publications. In
2004, five shipments of 685 volumes were processed for binding at GPO.
Administrative
Budget
Budget reductions in 2004 totaled $11,009.52. Eight years of
aggressive budget monitoring has resulted in reductions totaling
$70,940.37. Continual review of purchases has eliminated materials that
do not meet 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 way.
Professional Staff Development
During 2004, Library staff participated in 124 training sessions,
workshops, conferences, tours, and professional development seminars.
The emphasis on continuing education and training is necessary to
maintain and upgrade skill levels, particularly in the ever-changing
field of technology. In addition to classes on news and legal
databases, staff attended technical training sessions that included Web
design, Internet research, taxonomy construction, cataloging
techniques, and book preservation. Senior staff also conducted several
review sessions on the application of cataloging rules.
Library staff toured the Senate Page School, the National Archives,
and several Library of Congress divisions including Maps, Photographs
and Prints, Loan, and Recorded Sound. Staff also attended several
professional conferences including Computers in Libraries, Federal
Depository Library, and the American Association of Law Libraries.
Unum, Newsletter of the Office of the Secretary of the
Senate
Unum staff coordinated a photo of the entire Secretary's staff, the
first since April 1994. The photo was published in the Autumn 2004
issue. The Secretary's quarterly newsletter, produced by Senate Library
staff since May 2000, is a continued success. With distribution to
approximately 1,200 readers, Unum serves as an historic record of
accomplishments, events, and personnel in the Office of the Secretary
of the Senate.
Major Library Goals for 2005
Acquire an XML editing tool for Web publishing.
Implement an organizational structure for the library's home page
on Webster.
Complete integration of library resources onto the Secretary's
network.
Implement an LIS standard for committee hearing data entry.
Transfer 20,000 volumes to the new warehouse.
SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2004--ACQUISITIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Books Government Documents Congressional Publications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports/ Total
Ordered Received Paper Fiche Hearings Prints Bylaw Docs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January.............................................. 25 67 275 103 192 15 74 113 839
February............................................. 5 30 176 76 204 14 68 112 680
March................................................ 20 69 243 103 313 25 208 202 1,163
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Quarter.................................... 50 166 694 282 709 54 350 427 2,682
==================================================================================================
April................................................ 14 70 171 56 212 15 138 292 954
May.................................................. 33 75 167 0 334 27 88 158 849
June................................................. 18 51 151 6 331 20 119 192 870
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Quarter.................................... 65 196 489 62 877 62 345 642 2,673
==================================================================================================
July................................................. 16 62 237 0 281 32 77 295 984
August............................................... 12 37 134 166 392 23 80 316 1,148
September............................................ 15 42 222 242 233 14 61 354 1,168
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Quarter.................................... 43 141 593 408 906 69 218 965 3,300
==================================================================================================
October.............................................. 15 90 160 43 203 10 115 289 910
November............................................. 30 66 173 80 252 16 75 343 1,005
December............................................. 22 57 220 110 233 6 68 289 983
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Quarter.................................... 67 213 553 233 688 32 258 921 2,898
==================================================================================================
2004 Total..................................... 225 716 2,329 985 3,180 217 1,171 2,955 11,553
2003 Total..................................... 355 1,034 2,484 992 3,171 266 596 3,155 11,698
==================================================================================================
Percent Change....................................... -36.62 -30.75 -6.24 -0.71 +0.28 -18.42 +96.48 -6.34 -1.24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2004--CATALOGING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliographic Records Cataloged
S. ------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing Government Documents Congressional Publications Total
Numbers ------------------------------------------------------- Records
Added to Books Docs./ Cataloged
LIS Paper Fiche Hearings Prints Pubs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January......................................................... 21 97 5 0 327 7 20 456
February........................................................ 39 16 1 0 188 108 60 373
March........................................................... 12 22 5 0 393 2 60 482
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Quarter............................................... 72 135 11 0 908 117 140 1,311
=======================================================================================
April........................................................... 2 32 6 1 221 6 45 311
May............................................................. 15 30 4 0 267 0 65 366
June............................................................ 5 33 2 0 284 19 65 403
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Quarter............................................... 22 95 12 1 772 25 175 1,080
=======================================================================================
July............................................................ 3 24 8 0 338 2 35 407
August.......................................................... 26 28 5 8 187 6 21 255
September....................................................... 24 81 5 0 277 4 75 442
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Quarter............................................... 53 133 18 8 802 12 131 1,104
=======================================================================================
October......................................................... 17 23 9 9 385 0 60 486
November........................................................ 67 21 28 7 186 7 69 318
December........................................................ 9 18 10 16 276 3 87 410
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Quarter............................................... 93 62 47 32 847 10 216 1,214
=======================================================================================
2004 Total................................................ 240 425 88 41 3,329 164 662 4,709
2003 Total 221 618 159 81 2,713 490 294 4,355
=======================================================================================
Percent Change.................................................. +8.60 -31.23 -44.65 -49.38 +22.71 -66.53 +125.17 +8.13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2004--DOCUMENT DELIVERY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micrographics Photocopiers
Volumes Materials Facsimiles Center Pages Pages
Loaned Delivered Printed Printed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January........................................... 125 219 173 523 5,128
February.......................................... 148 227 81 421 6,320
March............................................. 222 376 260 599 9,834
-------------------------------------------------------------
1st Quarter................................. 495 822 514 1,543 21,282
=============================================================
April............................................. 152 288 160 318 11,705
May............................................... 210 283 158 143 8,444
June.............................................. 195 308 208 707 12,818
-------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Quarter................................. 557 879 526 1,168 32,967
-------------------------------------------------------------
July.............................................. 193 322 235 640 5,435
August............................................ 179 260 112 275 9,588
September 215 240 175 225 8,009
-------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Quarter................................. 587 822 522 1,140 23,032
=============================================================
October........................................... 220 241 112 146 7,983
November.......................................... 168 259 112 323 7,250
December.......................................... 138 242 118 202 7,122
-------------------------------------------------------------
4th Quarter................................. 526 742 342 671 22,355
=============================================================
2004 Total.................................. 2,165 3,265 1,904 4,522 99,636
2003 Total.................................. 1,664 4,078 2,747 6,945 156,891
=============================================================
Percent Change.................................... +30.11 -19.94 -30.69 -34.89 -36.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 4, 2004, and January 14,
2005, the last day of school for each semester.
Orientation and course scheduling for the Spring 2004 and Fall 2004
pages were successfully completed. Needs of incoming students
determined the semester schedules.
Extended educational experiences were provided to pages. Twenty-one
field trips, two 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. Nine field trips to educational
sites 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 SAA,
Secretary, Party Secretaries, Page Program, and Page School continues.
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, Iraq, and the USO in
Frankfurt, Germany where distribution of the boxes to troops en route
to war zones take place. Pages included letters of support to the
troops serving in Operation Enduring Freedom. Several recipients of
gift packages wrote letters to Pages expressing appreciation.
The evacuation and COOP plans have been reviewed and updated. Pages
and staff continue to practice evacuating to primary and secondary
sites.
Staff and pages participated in escape hood training.
Tutors were trained in evacuation procedures.
Updated materials/equipment were purchased. These included math
software, ten graphing calculators, supplemental English textbooks, a
chemistry textbook, and three pieces of equipment to provide for
computer experiments in science.
Faculty have pursued learning opportunities. The entire faculty and
principal attended a Learning and the Brain conference. Michael Bowers,
history instructor, participated in a seminar conducted in
Williamsburg, VA: ``The Unpleasantness in the Colonies: The American
Revolution From A British Perspective.'' Raymond Cwalina, math
instructor, completed three graduate courses in mathematics and
attended an Advanced Placement calculus seminar. He also attended the
regional and national conventions of the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics.
Facility re-design to maximize space was completed.
Upgrading science laboratory equipment was accomplished which
allows computer labs to be performed and reduces quantities of supplies
used.
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, and Latin.
--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 the Joint Office of 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
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 2004, the OPDS prepared 4,515 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 reviews and assures accurate GPO invoicing and
plays an active role in providing the best possible bidding scenario
for Senate publications.
In addition to processing requisitions, the Printing Services
Section coordinates proof handling and job scheduling and tracking for
stationery products, Senate hearings, Senate publications and other
miscellaneous printed products, as well as monitoring blank paper and
stationery quotas for each Senate office and committee. The OPDS also
coordinates a number of publications for other Senate offices, from the
Curator, Historian, Disbursing, Legislative Clerk, and Senate Library
to the U.S. Botanic Garden, U.S. Capitol Police and Architect of the
Capitol. These tasks include providing guidance for design, paper
selection, and specifications for quotations, monitoring print quality
and distribution. Last year's major printing projects included the
Report of the Secretary of the Senate, the Semiannual Report of the
Architect of the Capitol and a variety of printed materials required
for the Presidential Inauguration including invitations, parking
passes, maps, tickets and signage. The office also provided guidance
and informational packets for new Senate office staff. Current major
projects for the office include a full color version of the ``History
of the U.S. Botanic Garden 1861-1991'' and the ``U.S. Senate Catalogue
of Graphic Art'' a companion volume to the fine art catalogue produced
by the Senate Curator's office in 2003.
Hearing Billing Verification
Senate committees often use outside reporting companies to
transcribe their hearings, both in-house and in the field. The OPDS
processes billing verifications for these transcription services
ensuring that costs billed to the Senate are accurate.
During 2004, OPDS provided commercial reporting companies and
corresponding Senate committees a total of 787 billing verifications of
Senate hearings and business meetings. This translated to an average of
41.4 hearings/meetings per committee, an eight percent decrease from
2003, typical of an election year. Over 56,000 transcribed pages were
processed at a total billing cost of approximately $367,000.
The OPDS utilizes a program developed in conjunction with the
Senate 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 2004 the office reached its goal of
increasing efficiency and accuracy by processing all file transfers
between committees and reporting companies electronically. Department
staff continue training to apply today's expanding digital technology
to improve performance and services.
HEARING TRANSCRIPT AND BILLING VERIFICATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent change
2002 2003 2004 2004/2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billing Verifications........................... 953 975 787 -8.0
Average per Committee........................... 50 51.3 41.4 -8.0
Total Transcribed Pages......................... 71,558 70,532 56,262 -8.0
Average Pages/Committee......................... 3,766 3,712 2,961 -8.0
Transcribed Pages Cost.......................... $471,807 $461,807 $366,904 -8.0
Average Cost/Committee.......................... $24,832 $24,288 $19,311 -8.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Service Center within the OPDS is staffed by
experienced GPO detailees that provide Senate committees and the
Secretary of the Senate's Office with complete publishing services for
hearings, committee prints, and the preparation of the Congressional
Record. These services include keyboarding, proofreading, scanning, and
composition. The Service Center provides the best management of funds
available through the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation
because committees have been able to decrease or eliminate additional
overtime costs associated with the preparation of hearings.
Document Services Distribution, Inventory & On Demand Publication
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.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD STATISTICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pages Printed:
For the Senate.............................................. 14,489 16,835 12,642
For the House............................................... 15,201 16,259 14,243
-----------------------------------------------
Total Pages Printed....................................... 29,690 33,094 26,885
===============================================
Copies Printed & Distributed:
To the Senate............................................... 439,953 307,917 227,192
To the House................................................ 301,383 441,735 331,165
To the Executive Branch and the Public...................... 532,813 449,750 323,957
-----------------------------------------------
Total Copies Printed & Distributed........................ 1,268,603 1,199,402 882,314
===============================================
Production Costs:
Senate Costs................................................ $6,339,539 $9,886,805 $7,961,741
House Costs................................................. $6,609,307 $9,563,592 $9,026,893
Other....................................................... $539,535 $693,141 $555,010
-----------------------------------------------
Total Production Costs.................................... $13,488,381 $20,143,538 $17,543,644
===============================================
Costs Per Copy Cost............................................. $12.14 $16.79 $19.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although accessing legislative documents through the Internet is
popular, there is still a strong need for printed documents, especially
for larger sized legislation like the omnibus conference reports. 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. Document waste has decreased
significantly over the past several years.
The office supplements depleted legislative documents where needed
by producing additional copies in the DocuTech Service Center which is
staffed by experienced GPO detailees that provide Member offices and
Senate committees with on-demand printing and binding of bills and
reports. In March 2004, the office coordinated the installation of a
new and improved DocuTech high speed digital copier and production
publisher. This machine helps to decrease the quantities of documents
printed directly from GPO and increases the ability to reprint
documents on-demand on a larger scale. In 2004, the DocuTech Center
produced 471 tasks for a total of 660,554 printed pages. The DocuTech
is networked with GPO allowing print files to be sent back and forth
electronically, which provides an advantage of quickly printing
necessary legislation for the Senate floor and other offices in the
event of a GPO COOP situation.
The primary responsibility of the Documents Services Section is to
provide services to the Senate. However, the responsibility and this
office's dedication and assistance to the general public, the press,
and other government agencies is virtually indistinguishable from the
services provided to the Senate. Requests for material are received at
the walk-in counter, through the mail, by fax, and online. In addition,
the office handled over 20,000 phone calls in 2004 pertaining to
document requests and legislative questions. Recorded messages, fax,
and e-mail operate around the clock and are processed as they are
received along with mail requests. The office stresses prompt,
courteous and accurate answers to the various public and Senate
requests.
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CUSTOMER SERVICE STATISTICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress/ Public FAX Counter
Calendar year session mail request E-mail request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002..................................................... 107/2nd 3,637 1,866 662 55,930
2003..................................................... 108/1st 1,469 2,596 735 53,040
2004..................................................... 108/2nd 1,137 2,229 564 36,780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-line Ordering
The past year has brought significant changes in providing new
services and improving existing ones. In 2004 many more Senate offices
have taken advantage of the on-line blank paper ordering system
implemented in 2003. With help from the Secretary's Office of Web
Technology Department, OPDS expanded its content on senate.gov
including new links to other sources of legislative information. The
ability to order documents on-line, once reserved for staff only, has
been opened for public use. The Legislative Hot List Link, where
Members and staff can confirm arrival of printed copies of the most
sought after legislative documents is still very popular. The site is
updated several times daily--each time new documents arrive from GPO in
the Document Room. 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 2003, through September 2004, the Public
Records office staff assisted more than 2,000 individuals seeking
information from reports filed with the office. Additional assistance
was provided by telephone, and given to lobbyists attempting to comply
with the provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. A total of
93,655 photocopies was 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 filing requirements.
Fiscal Year 2004 Accomplishments
The Public Records office revised and improved the lobbying pages
on senate.gov based upon recommendations of an independent survey of
North American disclosure web sites. The office also completed
transition to the next generation of server hardware. During the ricin
incident, the office COOP plan was activated and operational in three
hours.
Plans for Fiscal Year 2005
The office intends to develop on-site redundancy in conjuncture
with other offices under the Office of the Secretary that have scanning
functions. The office also plans to modernize the on-site public access
software.
Automation Activities
During fiscal year 2004, the Senate Office of Public Records
automated the Foreign Travel Reports filed under the Mutual Security
Act of 1954. This is the first time that these records have been
automated. The value to the Senate is that in the event of a COOP
activation, they become easily accessible off-site.
Federal Election Campaign Act, as Amended
The Act requires Senate candidates to file quarterly reports, and
pre and post election reports in the case of candidates running for
office in 2004. Filings totaled 4,677 documents containing 290,592
pages.
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
The Act requires semi-annual financial and lobbying activity
reports. As of September 30, 2004, 6,231 registrants represented 19,758
clients and employed 30,402 individuals who met the statutory
definition of ``lobbyist.'' The total number of lobbying registrations
and reports was 51,496.
Public Financial Disclosure
The filing date for Public Financial Disclosure Reports was May 17,
2004. The reports were available to the public and press by Friday,
June 11th. Copies were provided to the Select Committee on Ethics and
the appropriate state officials. A total of 2,692 reports and
amendments were filed containing 15,695 pages. There were 328 requests
to review or receive copies of the documents.
Senate Rule 35 (Gift Rule)
The Senate Office of Public Records has received over 1,392 reports
during fiscal year 2004.
Registration of Mass Mailing
Senators are required to file mass mailings on a quarterly basis.
The number of pages was 519.
14. senate security
Introduction
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 security 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.
Personnel Security
Five hundred twenty-three Senate employees held one or more
security clearances at the end of 2004. This number does not include
clearances for employees of the Architect of the Capitol nor does it
include clearances for Congressional Fellows assigned to Senate
offices. OSS also processes these clearances.
In the past year, OSS processed 1,904 personnel security actions, a
21.3 percent decrease from 2003. One hundred twenty-two investigations
for new security clearances were initiated last year, and 61 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 year, reinvestigations were initiated
on 62 Senate employees. OSS processed 137 routine terminations of
security clearances during the reporting period and transmitted 310
outgoing visit requests. The remainder of the personnel security
actions consisted of updating access authorizations and compartments.
The length of time required for the Department of Defense (DOD) and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to process Senate staff for
security clearances has increased from 207 days to 260 days. The
average time for investigations has increased by 25.6 percent relative
to 2003. Since the previous increase for 2002 to 2003 was 66.7 percent,
this represents a very significant increase in the last two years. The
average time for an initial investigation conducted and adjudicated by
the Department of Defense (DOD) is 256 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 30.6 percent. The periodic
reinvestigation process averages 270 days, a increase of 2.7 percent
relative to 2003. The average time for an initial investigation
conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and adjudicated
by DOD is 252 days while the periodic reinvestigation process averages
264 days. The FBI times represent an decrease of 5.6 percent and 29.0
percent respectively.
Two hundred seven records checks were conducted at the request of
the FBI. This represents a 4.0 percent increase in records checks
completed by OSS.
Security Awareness
OSS conducted or hosted 63 security briefings for Senate staff.
Topics included information security, counterintelligence, foreign
travel, security managers' responsibilities, office security
management, and introductory security briefings. This represents a 20.3
percent decrease from 2003.
Document Control
OSS received or generated 2,802 classified documents consisting of
86,109 pages during calendar year 2003. This is a 5.0 percent increase
in the number of documents received or generated in 2003. Additionally,
63,750 pages from 2,670 classified documents no longer required for the
conduct of official Senate business were destroyed. This represents an
18.2 percent decrease in destruction. OSS transferred 1,185 documents
consisting of 43,970 pages to Senate offices or external agencies, up
57.2 percent from 2003. 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 6,657 document
transactions and handled over 193,829 pages of classified material in
2004, a decrease of 0.4 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 multiple storage areas throughout the Capitol
and Senate office buildings, thereby affording greater security for
classified material.
Secure Meeting Facilities
OSS secure conference facilities were utilized on 1,145 occasions
during 2004. Use of OSS conference facilities decreased 16.7 percent
from 2003 levels. Six hundred seventy-three meetings, briefings, or
hearings were conducted in OSS' three conference rooms. Of those, nine
were ``All Senators'' briefings and five were hearings. OSS also
provided to Senators and staff secure telephones, secure computers,
secure facsimile machine, and secure areas for reading and production
of classified material on 472 occasions.
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 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 purchased supplies to the requesting
offices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2004 2003
Statistical Statistical
Operations Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross Sales............................. $4,740,221 $4,843,716
Sales Transactions...................... 58,682 61,140
Purchase Orders Issued.................. 6,741 7,545
Vouchers Processed...................... 7,485 8,689
Metro Fare Media Sold................... 67,836 52,279
$20.00 Media........................ 60,564 46,260
$10.00 Media........................ 4,124 3,023
$5.00 Media......................... 3,148 2,996
===============================
Full Time Employees (FTE)............... 13 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2004 Highlights and Projects
Communications.--The Stationery Room stressed communication with
the Administrative Managers Steering Group to keep in touch with the
customers' needs.
Flag Modernization Project.--The Stationery Room was tasked to
serve on a committee with the other three business unit owners of the
flag process. This effort was facilitated by staff of the Senate
Sergeant at Arms and a consultant. The consultant was contracted by the
SAA to outline all of the processes involved and to identify how each
user of the process interacted with the other business unit owners. The
consultant was also tasked to make recommendations to streamline the
process.
Mass Transit Electronic FORM.--During the first quarter of the
fiscal year, the Stationery Room began a pilot project to expedite and
streamline the purchase processes of the Mass Transit Subsidy Program.
Evolving from the pilot, the concept was to develop a Web-based
application that could provide the same functionality and ease of use
by the Program Administrators, yet be supported within the Senate
community. In cooperation with the SAA IT Development Group, the
application was written as a Web-based product. This electronic version
is now being deployed through the use of the Senate's intranet server.
Computer Modernization Project.--During the first half of fiscal
year 2004, Stationery Room staff spent considerable time working with a
consultant to develop a requirements document, to outline the
technological needs of the Department in order to move from technology
now two decades old to a more robust application. As a result of the
requirements document, in May 2004, Stationery Room staff began working
with key staff members of the Secretary's Executive Office and the SAA
Procurement staff to develop a ``Statement of Work'' to be used for the
Request for Proposal phase and awarding of a contract. In September
2004, a contract was executed to provide software tailored to the needs
of the Senate Stationery Room.
Warehouse Project.--The Senate Stationery Room has been involved in
this long-term SAA project. The project mission was to determine the
warehouse needs by each business user and then find a facility to meet
those needs. Current usage, along with future requirements were
determined with the assistance of SAA staff and consultants.
Additionally, the Stationery Room took the opportunity to factor in
COOP requirements that could support this department should a
displacement occur.
16. web technology
The Office of Web Technology is responsible for web sites that fall
under the purview of the Secretary of the Senate, including: the Senate
Web site, www.senate.gov (except individual Senator and Committee
pages); the Secretary web site on the Senate intranet, 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.
Senate Web Site (www.senate.gov)
Senate Web site content is maintained by over 30 contributors from
7 departments of the Secretary's Office and 3 departments of the
Sergeant at Arms. Throughout 2004, senate.gov content providers focused
on fine-tuning and reorganizing content for usability, based on
personal experience and feedback from the public. Collaboration
continued throughout the year resulting in the coordinated posting of
monthly feature articles in the major areas of the site.
Several new items were added to the site as well, including: A new
subsection in the Reference Section called ``Statistics & Lists''; the
Placement Office web page posting their brochure & employment bulletin;
and a collection of several Classic Senate Speeches.
Activities contemplated and/or underway at year's end include: A
search feature, already available to Senate offices for use on their
own sites; a redesign of the Homepage, bringing additional content up
to the front page; several multimedia/animated presentations: The
Political Cartoons of Puck--completed and soon to be posted; the
Drawings of Lily Spandorf--75 percent complete; and Issac Bassett's
papers Senate Desks Redesign and expansion of the Virtual Tour.
The Senate Web site (www.senate.gov) content is managed using the
Documentum Web Content Management System which allows content providers
to create and post information to the web site without knowing the
format language of the web, HTML. The Department of Web Site Technology
completed several system-enhancing development projects in 2004.
--Creation of a Java Servlet Page (JSP) Slideshow application
--Development of templates for Statistical Tables
--Authoring in XML--The Cloture Motions Project
--Sending Graphic Art Prints Data to GPO
--Upgrading Documentum 4i to Documentum 5i
--Publishing to Webster from Documentum--the Library Catalogers
Project
Below is a description of several projects and how specific
problems were solved or the Documentum content management system was
enhanced to provide more functionality for the content providers.
JSP Slideshow
The Request: Several offices requested a slideshow application
where images could be shown in an effective and interesting manner. The
original template was designed for the Inaugural Print Objects the
Curator's Office planned to exhibit for the inauguration.
The Solution: All needed objects from the Curator's database were
exported into an XML format. Then, using another style sheet,
individual XML files and all associated files (five different-sized
graphics for each print, and an XML file that contains descriptive
information about the graphics and links the graphics to the CMS
object) were created. This method was highly effective since it allows
the Curator's Office to keep information only in one place and then
offers unlimited repurposing of this information by sending the data in
an XML format to the Content Management System.
The Slideshow template makes an actual JSP, java servlet page, file
that includes all necessary information about the slideshow. This
project was the first time JSP technology was used on the Senate's
central site, which was recently made possible through the upgrade of
the Cold Fusion Application Server. Besides being able to offer users
more interaction, and thus a more enjoyable web visit, using JSP
technologies was also a proof of concept for using Java through Cold
Fusion.
Individual instances of the slideshow template were made for each
inauguration in the exhibit, 1853-1905. The Curator's Office can easily
modify the data in any part of the exhibit without knowledge of web
technologies. The final aspect of this project was to make a slideshow
of the slideshows, thus connecting each small slideshow into one large
cohesive exhibit. This was done through the modification of the
original slideshow template to allow seamless integration as users
click through the exhibit.
Moving Forward:
The Curator's Office has already found other uses for the slideshow
template, such as a timeline for the unveiling of two portraits in the
Senate Reception Room and is now in the midst of an exhibit on Daniel
Webster. The slideshow template has been enhanced in several different
ways to allow for other purposes. The Historical Office used a simpler
version for their Capitol Scenes: 1900-1950, on-line exhibit. The
Historical Office also plans to use a slightly modified version of this
same template for two upcoming online exhibits.
Many more slideshows will be appearing on the Senate web site
through the extension of the JSP Slideshow template.
Examples:
``I Do Solemnly Swear'': A Half Century of Inaugural Images http://
www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/common/image_collection/inauguration_
slideshow.htm
Capitol Scenes: 1900-1950 RLINK"http://www.senate.gov/
artandhistory/history/common/slideshow/capitol_scenes.jsp" http://
www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/slideshow/
capitol_scenes.jsp
Vandenburg and Wagner Time Line http://www.senate.gov/
artandhistory/art/common/slideshow/vandenburg_wagner.jsp
Daniel Webster Objects http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/
common/slideshow/daniel_webster.jsp
Statistical Tables
The Request: The Senate Library requested a way to post their
statistical information online. None of the currently existing
templates gave them the control they desired for their information.
The Solution: New content templates were created specifically for
tables. These ranged from two-column tables up to seven-column tables
that offer controls to the content authors on how the information is
displayed. For example, they can choose to have a print friendly
version, if the information is applicable, or to include standard
header information, which is encapsulated separately and thus reusable,
or to display vertical lines to make the information more readable.
This office worked very closely with the Senate Library to make
these various table templates work for all their complex information
needs. Through XML we are able to offer multiple renditions of the same
information for different displays (i.e., viewing online, printing, or
pdf formats). This solution greatly appealed to the librarians since it
now enables them to update the information in just one file and have
all the various presentations of this information updated automatically
from their one source file.
Moving Forward:
The Senate Historical Office has plans to begin using these same
templates to disseminate some of their data well suited for a table.
Additionally, they would like to have more renditions made from the
same data source, XML file, such as a rich text format (RTF) for
internal use.
The Senate Curator's Office has asked for the same abilities,
arranging data in columns for some of their information. Pieces of the
program for the original tables have been reused to accomplish their
goals.
Examples:
Statistics & Lists Home Page (two-column) http://www.senate.gov/
pagelayout/reference/two_column_table/stats_and_lists.htm
Measures Proposed to Amend the Constitution (three-column) http://
www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/three_column_table/
measures_proposed_ to_amend_constitution.htm
Votes by Vice Presidents to Break Tie Votes in the Senate (four-
column) http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/four_column_table/
Tie_Votes.htm
Sunday Sessions of the Senate (since 1861) (five-column) http://
www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/five_column_table/
Sunday_Sessions.htm
George W. Bush Cabinet Nominations (six-column) http://
www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/six_column_table/Bush_cabinet.htm
Inaugural Luncheons (Curator's Office) http://
wip.cmsprod.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/common/collection_list/
inaugural_luncheons.htm
Authoring in XML--The Cloture Motions Project:
The Request: The Senate Library maintains statistical information
on the various Cloture Motions filed during a Congress. This
information is very complicated in terms of the special cases that
occur with these proceedings. This statistical information is highly
sought after and required in several different formats. Due to the
complexity of this information none of the previously created table
templates would suffice and a new solution was requested.
The Solution: The seven-column table template was used as a base
for the cloture motion tables. Using the advances made in the seven-
column table we were able to greatly reduce the development time of the
cloture motion table template.
One of the major obstacles to overcome was how to fit all the
information within the normal width of the screen. We worked very
closely with the Library Staff to find a solution acceptable to all.
These solutions included using footnotes for certain sections, legends,
hyperlinks to measures and bills, and customized codes for indenting
and spacing issues. These are highly specialized tables that contain
advanced business logic to most accurately display the information in a
very useful manner.
Since this information is so useful to a variety of organizations
we also enabled the publishing of the XML document directly. This
allows other groups to take the data maintained by the Senate
librarians and to utilize the data in a manner most efficient for them
(i.e., database querying and RSS feeds). Organizations can access this
information online, so no files will need to be transferred through
other means, and the most current information is always available.
An additional advance accomplished through this project was the
authoring of the XML data. Since many cloture motions may exist in a
single Congress and each one can contain a great deal of information it
became impractical to use the XML editor that came packaged with the
Content Management System. We explored several other options for the
librarians to edit the data and came up with two solutions that are
acceptable to all offices involved.
Moving Forward:
Information that changes often, is displayed in several different
formats, and that could possibly be used by other organizations is an
excellent candidate for XML technologies. Creating the XML application
that delivers Active Legislation/Hot Bills information to
www.senate.gov and INK"http://webster"http://webster was a springboard
for this application. As content authors experience the reduction of
tedious work, updating the same information in many files, more and
more of these types of XML applications will prove themselves
invaluable. The Library is always adding additional categories of
information they maintain that would be enhanced through these
applications. Additionally, the Historical Office would like to keep
similar information in a rich text format (RTF) to be used by word
processors. This is a relatively simple extension of the already
existing application.
Examples:
Cloture Motions--108th Congress http://wip.cmsprod.senate.gov/
pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/test_108_2.htm
Cloture Motions--108th Congress (Print Version) http://
wip.cmsprod.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/
test_108_2.shtml
Cloture Motions--108th Congress (Raw XML Data) http://
wip.cmsprod.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/
test_108_2.xml
Graphic Art Prints to GPO
The Request: The Curator's Office needed to provide to the
Government Printing Office the information about their graphic art
prints for the Senate Graphic Art Catalogue. All information about the
graphic art objects is currently maintained in their database. The
titles of each one of these objects are very specific and have many
styles applied to them inside the database to ensure their proper
presentation. Upon exporting this information all the style information
was lost and would have needed to be reentered. This opened up the
possibility of unnecessary additional work for the Curator.
The Solution: An XML application was developed that was able to
preserve the styles of the data, along with all other relevant
information. The first step was to export the data into XML. Then,
using FileMaker Pro's built-in website functionality, a web page
displaying only the object titles was created. Using a product that
automates computer keystrokes, a program was written to cycle through
each title on the generated website, copying each title to a Word
document (still preserving style data), advancing one record, and
repeating the process until it traversed through all 1,000 Graphic
Print Objects. The Word document containing the titles was converted to
an XML file using a third-party product and was merged with the
original XML data export, thus producing one XML file with all the
style information preserved.
The final XML file was transformed into a word document and a PDF
file sent to GPO. Development of this automated conversion process
greatly reduced the amount of work that needed to be performed,
decreasing the time required to generate the necessary data and
improving the quality of the data sent to GPO.
Moving Forward:
Since the Curator's Office uses a FileMaker Pro database, which
produces XML reports, this was a great proof of concept of how we can
manipulate the data into necessary forms. Some third party software was
used due to the complexity of the project, but the knowledge gained of
these add-on XML tools will assist toward solving complex formatting
and printing needs in the future.
Library Catalogers Publishing to Webster
The Request: The cataloging group in the Senate Library wished to
have certain pdf files and graphics of book covers available to the
Senate Community. They wanted something that was easy to use and thus
did not require much training.
The Solution: We added a new cabinet to the Content Management
System just to be used by the catalogers. Next, we created a new web
publishing configuration to push the content from the newly created
cabinet to the Secretary's portion of http://webster. This required the
installation of software on the Webster Server, which we accomplished
by working closely with the developers and administrators of that
server.
Moving Forward:
Establishing this link between http://webster and our Documentum
Content Management System opens up many possibilities for the future.
We now could utilize the same system to manage the Secretary's portion
of Webster. This would enable non-technical employees to control the
information disseminated to Senate Staff without involving a
programmer. Additionally we can add more complexity for the catalogers
as their needs grow.
Web Site Activity Statistics
Senate Web Site Statistics
In 2003, only 24 percent of visitors to the site saw the main
Senate Homepage, the majority coming to the site via a bookmarked page
(possibly directly to their Senator's site) or to a specific page from
a search engine. That figure rose to 35 percent in 2004, as more people
found the main Senate Homepage. Statistics on individual page activity
show substantial increases in all areas of the main Senate site.
In 2004 the number of visitors to the entire web site (Senators'
and Committees' sites included) increased about 9 percent, however, the
number of visitors to the Senate Homepage increased by 57 percent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 Visitors/ 2004 Visitors/ Percent
Title of Web Page Month Month Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visits--Entire Site............................................. 3,029,666 3,293,721 9
Senate Homepage................................................. 734,094 1,152,367 57
Senators Home................................................... 264,190 273,841 4
Legislation & Records Home...................................... 65,904 84,765 29
Committees Home................................................. 60,747 73,147 20
Reference Home.................................................. 20,593 23,486 14
Art & History Home.............................................. 14,807 20,413 38
Visitors Home................................................... 12,095 16,123 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewing statistics on web page usage help the content providers
better understand what information the public is seeking and how best
to improve the presentation of that data. The main Senate homepage and
the homepages of the six subject areas (buckets) receive the most
visits as people navigate around the site (see chart above). Within the
buckets we find that visitors are consistently drawn to the following
content items, listed in order of popularity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
2004 Top Pages 2003 Visitors/ 2004 Visitors/ increase 2003-
Month Month 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Votes................................................. 34,860 39,408 13
Leadership Page................................................. 12,789 17,469 37
Active Legislation List......................................... 12,311 17,751 44
Session Schedule for 2004....................................... 10,121 15,219 50
Organization Chart.............................................. 11,405 14,140 24
Committee Hearing Schedule...................................... 10,552 13,318 26
Bill and Resolutions Page....................................... 7,289 12,806 76
Statistics & Lists.............................................. .............. 12,005 ( \1\ )
Congressional Record Page....................................... 5,247 11,899 127
Virtual Tour of the Capitol..................................... 7,335 11,052 51
Individual States Page.......................................... 5,437 10,139 86
Calendars & Schedules........................................... 7,425 10,081 36
Historical Office Page.......................................... 5,341 9,608 80
Nominations Page................................................ 6,682 8,813 32
Virtual Reference Desk.......................................... 4,561 7,182 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New in 2004.
Webster Statistics
Statistics for the Secretary's web site on Webster, the Senate
Intranet, show that the vast majority of visitors go directly to the
Disbursing Office section. This section contains information on
Employee Benefits (insurance, retirement, payroll, etc.) and provides
access to the many forms employees need to complete to obtain or modify
these benefits. Other popular items include the Office of Printing and
Document Services Document Order and Print Order Forms, and the page
that lists all Secretary of the Senate services.
E-Mail to the Webmaster
The nature of e-mail to the webmaster has changed over the past two
years. The improved site navigation has reduced, to only one or two a
day, the number of questions regarding how to find information on the
main site. In late 2003 improved error-handling was added to the site
to prevent a visitor from getting the standard ``page not found'' error
when a broken link was encountered. A message is now displayed that
provides the Webmaster's e-mail address and the visitor is
automatically directed back to the main Senate Homepage or the
Senator's Homepage, depending on where the error occurred. Many
visitors take the opportunity to write the Webmaster alerting us to
broken links. This, in turn, has fostered more communication between
this office and Senators' System Administrators as we work together to
clean up the broken links on the entire site.
Search Engine Implementation
In 2003 a search engine was installed, configured, and tested for
senate.gov. In 2004 testing has continued, focusing on how to improve
the search results by adding or editing metadata associated with the
content items. It was hoped that more relevant and standardized
keywords, and better descriptions and titles would improve the
relevance ranking of the search results. Further research and
investigation is required as to how to configure the search engine for
best results. Meanwhile, the search engine has been made available to
Senate offices for use on their own web sites.
Training
In December 2004 the Web Site Technology staff and several content
providers in the Secretary's office joined SAA staff in an onsite three
day XML class. In addition to teaching valuable technical skills and
familiarizing staff with XML tools, this class gave content providers a
good understanding of the power and scope of XML.
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.
In early January 2004, LEXA was installed throughout the SLC, and
the 40-member office of attorneys and staff assistants participated in
a two-day training course, designed by a contractor, to transition from
XyWrite to LEXA and from locator codes to XML. It takes several months
for a drafter to learn to use XyWrite and the locator formatting codes.
Following the two-day LEXA training course, SLC staff immediately began
producing XML documents using LEXA, and the first XML draft to become a
bill was introduced on January 22, 2004. The SLC first used LEXA to
draft short and simple bills and resolutions, gradually adding longer,
more complex documents. The SLC also offered valuable feedback
throughout the year regarding LEXA's continued development as existing
features were enhanced and additional document types, such as
amendments and reported bills, were added to LEXA. Following the
January training course, the contractor also created a reference
manual. As new features were added to LEXA, the LIS Project Office
continued to update the manual. The updated, comprehensive manual was
distributed in January 2005. The manual provides screen shots and step-
by-step instructions for all LEXA features. The Office also developed
additional training materials and provided a one day training session
in December for all SLC staff on new LEXA features, including a one-
click process to change a document prepared for the 108th Congress to
one for the 109th Congress. The SLC intends to use LEXA for as many
drafts as possible and will gradually increase the number throughout
2005. Through April 1, 2005, 75 percent of the 770 introduced and
reported bills and resolutions for the 109th Congress have been created
as XML documents.
The LIS Project Office worked closely with several key House,
Library of Congress, and Government Printing Office (GPO) groups
involved in the XML project to ensure that changes to the House and
Senate XML authoring applications do not adversely affect the exchange
of electronic documents among all organizations processing the
documents. A new document type definition (DTD) change and approval
process was developed so that all parties have an opportunity to test
and comment on all proposed changes to the exchange DTDs before changes
are made and distributed.
Another important joint project of Senate and House offices
involves the conversion of locator documents to XML. The locator
conversion software was recently updated to provide a more robust tool,
and a joint project is underway to convert the compilations of current
law to an XML format. The compilations are updated by both the House
and Senate Legislative Counsel Offices and are used as the basis for
many legislative drafts. The compilations conversion project will be
completed by July 2005.
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 GPO to provide
support for LEXA much as they have for XyWrite for many years, and GPO
has made steps toward providing that support. GPO purchased Xmetal, the
base software, and installed LEXA in late July. In August, the LIS
Project Office conducted two evenings of LEXA training for the second
shift of GPO staff who support the bill printing process. GPO now uses
LEXA to update XML documents as requested via the Senate Bill Clerk,
and the XML drafts are used to create the printed and locator versions
of bills. In October, GPO took over maintenance and support of the
coding and style sheet portion of LEXA that converts an XML document to
locator for printing through Microcomp. GPO has also developed a style
sheet that is used to display XML documents on the LIS website
(www.congress.gov) and on thomas.loc.gov. The XML display more closely
resembles the printed version (without page and line numbers). House
XML bills are currently being tested, and once a majority of Senate
bills are available in XML, the Senate XML versions will be posted on
LIS as well.
The LIS Project Office provides support for LEXA via the LEXA
HelpLine and LEXA web site. The HelpLine is provided through a single
phone number that rings on all the phones in the office, and the
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 document management system (DMS) for the SLC will be
implemented once the SLC has completed the transition from XyWrite to
LEXA and a substantial number of drafts are created in XML. Since mid-
2004, the Systems Development Services group of the Office of the
Sergeant at Arms has been working on updating the DMS to the most
recent release of Documentum which was a major change for the base
software of the DMS. 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.
The LIS Project Office will continue to work with the SLC to refine
and enhance LEXA, including developing software to create and print
conference reports and to use and update the XML versions of the
compilations of current law. The team will next address the specific
needs of the Office of the Enrolling Clerk. Additional functionality to
produce engrossed bills and amendments and enrolled bills will be added
to LEXA, and that office will receive training. Other Senate offices
that do drafting with XyWrite may follow, including the Committee on
Appropriations.
The legislative process yields other types of documents such as the
Senate and Executive Journals and the Legislative and Executive
Calendars. Much of the data and information included in these documents
is already captured in and distributed through the LIS/DMS database
used by the clerks in the Office of the Secretary. The LIS/DMS captures
data that relates to legislation including bill and resolution numbers,
amendment numbers, sponsors, co-sponsors, and committees of referral.
This information is currently entered into the database and verified by
the clerks and then keyed into the respective documents and 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.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
STATEMENT OF ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Senator Allard. I think we'll start, Mr. Hantman, with your
testimony, and we may have to interrupt it shortly, but let's
go ahead and see.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, look forward
to working with you as the new Chair of the subcommittee.
There's an awful lot for us to talk about, and I certainly look
forward to that opportunity to do so.
I want to thank the subcommittee for its support in the
past, without which we could not have completed many critical
projects, continued to provide exemplary services, and assured
continuity of operations in the U.S. Capitol, Senate office
buildings, and throughout the Capitol complex.
Mr. Chairman, the AOC has served Congress since 1793, the
year President Washington helped lower the cornerstone into
place and construction of the Capitol began. Today, the AOC's
responsibilities include the care and maintenance of nearly 300
acres and approximately 15 million square feet of historic
buildings, which will soon include the Capitol Visitor Center.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL STRATEGIC PLAN
When we implemented our strategic plan 2 years ago, we
developed four goals that guide us in setting priorities when
submitting budget requests, balancing our workload, and
assessing and measuring our accomplishments. As we work to
achieve these goals, we evaluate our efforts to improve and
excel in growing as an organization; thereby, meeting and
exceeding customer expectations. Accordingly, we're requesting
$506 million across all AOC-managed appropriations to provide
operations and renovation activities, while also focusing on
security, upgrading fire and life-safety elements, and
addressing customers' requests and priorities.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 MAJOR PROJECTS
Major capital projects included in this budget are the
construction of Library of Congress storage modules 3 and 4
that you mentioned, the planned construction of the U.S.
Capitol Police offsite delivery center, the installation
upgrade of fire and life-safety and security measures,
completion of additional fire egress and protection projects,
and a variety of other renovations and upgrades throughout the
Capitol complex.
Noteworthy, of course, is the Capitol Visitor Center
project, which is the largest addition to the U.S. Capitol in
its history, increasing the size of the existing building by
some 70 percent. Included in the 580,000 square foot center is
the construction of 170,000 square feet of expansion space for
the Senate and House. Construction completion of the visitor
center portion of the project is scheduled for September 2006.
With regard to the Senate office buildings, in fiscal year
2004 we completed 45,892 work orders requested by Senators and
their staffs. So far this fiscal year, we have completed some
22,250 Senate work orders to date. In addition, we've been
working on a number of priority projects, including modernizing
elevators, upgrading public restrooms, opening and maintaining
the Senate staff exercise facility, completing election year
moves in record time, and renovating, restoring, and upgrading
several committee rooms to accommodate state-of-the-art
equipment.
With the increased need for perimeter security measures,
we're installing new security features throughout Capitol Hill.
In addition to bollards and other features compatible with
Senate building design installed to date along Constitution
Avenue, we anticipate similar installations to complete the
outer Senate perimeter over the next 2\1/2\ years.
EMPLOYEE FEEDBACK PROGRAM
Our strategic plan contains two goals which focus on our
employees, while providing the highest-quality services. One of
our objectives was to develop a comprehensive employee feedback
program. Accordingly, in September 2004, I invited more than
300 employees from across the AOC to participate in 25 focus
group sessions. We asked them to identify problems and
challenges, to help us find ways to solve them, and to make
improvements within the organization. In October 2004, the
Human Resources Management Division surveyed all employees,
asking them to pinpoint specific areas where we needed to
improve customer satisfaction. Our employees spoke, and we are
listening.
Over the next several months, we will be rolling out action
plans, meeting with our employees to address the issues they
raised, and share concerns, ideas, and suggested solutions with
one another to continuously improve the organization.
In conclusion, over the past several years, the AOC has
undergone significant change, and we have reaffirmed our
commitment to providing superior services for the Congress and
the American people. My team of 2,000 dedicated employees and I
are committed to fulfilling our objective, to ensure our
continuous improvement across all of our areas of
responsibility.
Our request for funds for fiscal year 2006 supports our
activities as good stewards to maintain and preserve the
national treasures under our care, as well as to respond to our
customers' requests for priority projects and programs. In
addition, we continue to strive to achieve the level of safety,
security, preservation, and cleanliness expected across the
Capitol complex.
We have completed tens of thousands of work orders, to our
clients' satisfaction, and have achieved many of our goals due
to the hard work and dedication of AOC employees. I am very
privileged and honored to lead such a professional team. The
subcommittee's support in helping us achieve these goals is
greatly appreciated.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Once again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify
today. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. And
good morning, Senator Durbin. Thank you for your support.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, members of the Committee, thank you
for this opportunity to testify today. I want to thank the Committee
for its support, without which we could not have completed many
critical projects, continued to provide exemplary services, and assured
continuity of operations in the U.S. Capitol, in the Senate Office
Buildings, and throughout the Capitol complex.
The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) has served
Congress since 1793--the year President George Washington helped
tradesmen lower the cornerstone into place and construction of the U.S.
Capitol began. Since that time, the men and women who make up the AOC's
workforce have focused on preserving, maintaining, and enhancing the
national treasures entrusted to us. Today our responsibilities include
the care and maintenance of approximately 300 acres and nearly 15
million square feet of historic buildings, with the newest increment of
growth being the upcoming Capitol Visitor Center (CVC).
strategic planning
When we implemented our Strategic Plan two years ago, we developed
four goals that encompass the primary responsibilities of our
organization. They are: Facilities Management, Project Management,
Human Capital, and Organizational Excellence. These goals drive our
day-to-day activities. They guide us in setting priorities with regard
to submitting budget requests, balancing our workload, and assessing
and measuring our accomplishments. As we work to achieve these goals,
we evaluate our efforts so we continue to excel, meet and exceed
expectations, and grow as an organization.
overview of budget request
The AOC fiscal year 2006 budget incorporates the needs of our
clients, including the Library of Congress and the U.S. Capitol Police.
We believe we have met the challenge of building a budget that supports
stewardship of our national treasures, while balancing fiscal
responsibility and the needs of the Congress. Our fiscal year 2006
budget was developed to continue to provide routine operations and
renovation activities while also focusing on security, upgrading fire
and life-safety elements, addressing clients' requests and priorities,
and identifying operational, transitional, and cost-to-complete needs
associated with the CVC.
Accordingly, we are requesting $506 million across all AOC managed
appropriations ($438 million not including items specific to the House)
for fiscal year 2006 to support the maintenance, care, and operations
of the buildings and grounds of the Capitol complex, which consists
primarily of the Capitol, Senate and House Office Buildings, Library of
Congress, U.S. Capitol Police headquarters, Botanic Garden, and Capitol
Power Plant. This includes a request for an operating budget of $280
million ($242 million not including operations specific to the House),
$17 million for annually funded projects, $137 million for capital
projects ($107 million not including items specific to the House), $37
million for the completion of the construction of the CVC, and $35
million to transition to operating the CVC.
operating budget
The request for an operating budget of $280 million (less CVC
operations) includes mandatory payroll increases; price level
inflationary increases for materials, services, and utilities, and
other general operations increases. Additional increases in our
operating budget incorporate client-driven requirements for leases of
facilities and related operations and maintenance costs.
annual projects budget
The fiscal year 2006 budget for annually funded projects totals $17
million. Noteworthy proposed annual projects include: Copyright Office
Move/Reconfiguration for the Library of Congress Buildings ($5.5
million); Conservatory Claim for the Botanic Garden ($3.5 million);
Restoration of East Front Bronze Doors for the Capitol Building
($702,000); and the Upgrade Filtration Efficiency Project for the
Library of Congress Buildings ($700,000).
capital projects budget
Two key elements used in preparing our capital budget are the
Capitol Complex Master Plan and the Facility Condition Assessments
(FCAs). The Capitol Complex Master Plan identifies preservation and
maintenance requirements for proposed new facilities, while FCAs
determine preservation and maintenance requirements for existing
facilities. Based on the Capitol Complex Master Plan and FCAs, all
proposed and existing facility requirements feed into the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) which prioritizes and incorporates project needs
over a five-year period (fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010).
Accordingly, the CIP process was utilized in determining the fiscal
year 2006 Capital Projects multi-year request of $122 million, $72
million of which directly addresses specific client needs. Noteworthy
proposed capital projects include:
--The Library of Congress Modules 3 & 4 ($40.7 million) entailing the
construction of two environmentally-controlled storage
buildings to be located in Fort Meade for the storage of
Library of Congress collections.
--The U.S. Capitol Police Off-Site Delivery Center ($23 million)
which includes the acquisition of land, design, and
construction of an off-site delivery facility.
--Life-safety and security projects ($14.5 million) which include
requirements for emergency exit signs and lighting upgrades,
upgrades to air filtration systems, and building upgrades to
address other life-safety issues.
--Fire egress and protection projects ($12.6 million) which address
deficiencies in egress from buildings, stairwells, and fire
wall boundary protection.
--Renovation projects ($24.7 million) to include renovations in
emergency electrical service, refinishing historic woodwork,
legislative call system upgrades, restroom upgrades, high-
voltage switchgear replacement, and heating ventilation/air
conditioning replacement.
capitol visitor center budget
The CVC project is the largest addition to the U.S. Capitol in its
history. Included in the 580,000 square foot Visitor Center is the
construction of 170,000 square feet of expansion space for the Senate
and House. Building a major underground three-story facility, adjacent
to the world's most recognizable symbol of democracy, which is a fully
functioning office building, conference center, and museum, is truly a
significant challenge. The project is now 55 percent done and scheduled
for completion in fall 2006.
Many obstacles have been faced since we broke ground in 2000. Yet,
despite these challenges, our project team recently met a critical,
major milestone. On January 20, 2005, President Bush exited the Capitol
onto the Rotunda steps where he reviewed the troops marching across the
new granite pavers installed across the East Front Plaza, thereby
continuing an Inaugural tradition.
The Sequence 1 contractor responsible for excavation and structural
work has essentially completed its tasks. The Sequence 2 contractor has
been working to install fireproofing, masonry block, interior wall
stone, mechanical ductwork, and piping. The award of construction
contracts is imminent for the exhibit space and the Senate expansion
space.
My budget request for the CVC consists of several major components,
the most significant being the construction cost-to-complete of $36.9
million. While no Congressional decision has been made regarding
governance, startup and operational costs of $15.3 million are
anticipated. Therefore, until such decision is reached, the AOC has
included these expenses in its budget submission. This incorporates
initial estimated costs associated with the daily care, maintenance
activities, operation of the facility, and associated payroll and
benefits costs. Additionally, the multi-year project budget of $20
million supports the required activities and programs for the
transitional and start-up costs for visitor services, exhibits, food
services, gift shops, telecommunications, and information technology
infrastructure support.
Mr. Chairman, the progress made on the CVC in just the past 12
months has been remarkable. At the same time, the Capitol building has
been open, fully functional, and accommodating of Members and staff, as
well as the visiting public throughout construction and during these
times of heightened security. When the CVC opens, it will complement
and support the U.S. Capitol as the ``People's House,'' offering free
and open access for all people so they may learn about, and experience,
our legislative process.
senate office building improvements
In fiscal year 2004, we completed 45,892 work orders in the Senate
Office Buildings. To date, we have completed nearly 22,250 work orders
in fiscal year 2005. In addition, we have been working on a number of
important projects including:
--Modernizing elevators.--The Hart Office Building Elevator
Modernization Project was completed in December 2004, six
months ahead of schedule and on budget. The Russell Office
Building elevators have been completely modernized. The Dirksen
Office Building Elevators Cab Modernization Project will begin
this summer.
--Upgrading public restrooms.--The Hart Office Building northwest
restroom stack and the Dirksen Office Building north stack was
completed last year. Currently, the Dirksen Office Building
basement level restrooms are under construction, which will be
followed by the ground floor restrooms, which will complete the
renovations in that building. There are two remaining stacks to
be completed in the Hart Office Building, which will begin this
year and be completed in fiscal year 2006.
--Staff Exercise Facility.--In May 2004, our office opened the Senate
Staff Exercise facility.
--Russell Office Building Basement Corridor Renovation.--The
renovation of the C Street corridor of the Russell Office
Building was completed and the Delaware Avenue corridor is
currently being renovated.
--Renovation of the Dirksen Swing Suite Space.--The renovation of
this space provides for the consolidation of support functions
and adds two swing suite spaces thus improving the temporary
office conditions for newly-elected Senators and speeding the
Senate move process.
--Election Year Moves.--Election year moves were completed on
February 26--the earliest we have ever accomplished this task.
--Committee Room Renovations.--Room 106 in the Dirksen Building and
Agriculture Committee Hearing Room were completely renovated to
upgrade the infrastructure, and add state-of-the-art sound and
video capabilities, while at the same time, preserving the
historic architecture of the rooms. In fiscal year 2005, five
committee rooms will be renovated, followed by an additional
five in fiscal year 2006.
capitol building
The U.S. Capitol has been the stage for several high-profile events
this past year. In June 2004, the world's eyes turned to us as we bid
farewell to President Ronald W. Reagan. Our employees, working together
with Congressional leadership and other Legislative branch
organizations, did a tremendous job to ready the building and grounds
for the respectful and historic lying-in-state ceremonies.
In January, the West Front of the Capitol was readied for the 55th
Presidential Inaugural ceremony. Our team worked diligently to design,
plan, and construct the platform; contract for the sound system,
Jumbotron screens, and ramps and crossovers; install security fencing
and crowd control features; set up 28,000 chairs; build the media
platform; hang flags, draperies, and bunting; prepare Statuary Hall for
the inaugural luncheon, and draft a contingency plan to move the
ceremony to the Rotunda in case of inclement weather. Most importantly,
on January 19, we worked throughout the night to remove all the snow
from the Grounds, leaving a pristine setting for the Inaugural on the
East and West Fronts of the Capitol.
In fiscal year 2004, we completed more than 20,000 work orders in
the Capitol Building. To date this fiscal year, we have completed more
than 10,000.
capitol power plant
An on-going project, designed to meet the current and future needs
of the Capitol complex, is the expansion of the West Refrigeration
Plant at the Capitol Power Plant. This project addresses the advancing
age of the East Refrigeration Plant, and the need to reliably meet
future cooling requirements of the expanding Capitol complex. The
chilled water capacity will be online by November 2005, with the
overall project scheduled for completion in April 2006. When finished,
the expanded facility will enable the Capitol Power Plant to reliably
meet cooling requirements through 2025 and will significantly increase
overall plant efficiency.
In addition to addressing future energy needs, the Power Plant
staff is also working to beautify the facility and the grounds
surrounding it. This month, we began efforts to install 20-foot-wide,
brick-paved sidewalks, which will be shaded by two rows of trees,
alongside the Plant's newly-created park area. In addition, a
decorative wrought iron fence will be erected to replace the security
fence now surrounding the Power Plant. The AOC has been working closely
with the Ward 6B Advisory Neighborhood Committee, the National Capital
Planning Commission (NCPC), and other agencies to improve and transform
the South Capitol Street corridor into a grand urban boulevard.
perimeter security
With the increased need for permanent security measures throughout
the Capitol complex, we are installing effective, aesthetically-
pleasing, perimeter security features on Capitol Hill. Senate perimeter
security efforts completed over the last year include the installation
of bollards along Constitution Avenue, extending from the Russell,
Dirksen, and Hart Senate Office Buildings. We also installed 14
hydraulic vehicle barriers stations in Constitution Avenue. Over the
next year, we anticipate installing the remaining bollards and vehicle
barriers that complete the outer Senate perimeter.
project delivery
We have taken several steps to improve our project delivery. Last
September, we established a pilot Project Management organization
comprised of project managers, construction managers, and construction
inspectors. The proposed alignment establishes clear performance
expectations for delivering projects on time and within budget now that
the project and construction management functions reside, for the first
time, within the same organization.
A good design equals good construction. Construction management is
intrinsically linked to project management. Through this new project
management organization and process, we will ensure that the design and
construction teams interact daily. This alignment is endorsed by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to, ``align project management
staff and resources with AOC's mission-critical goals.''
In accordance with our Strategic Plan, an annual ``lessons
learned'' exercise is conducted for projects identified by our clients.
During this time a comprehensive assessment of each project is
undertaken to apply lessons learned to future projects and facilitate
continuous improvement.
human capital/organizational excellence
Our Strategic Plan contains Human Capital and Organizational
Excellence goals which focus on employees and providing the highest
quality services to both our internal and external clients through
improved business programs, processes, and systems.
One of our objectives under the Human Capital Strategic Plan goal
was to develop a comprehensive employee feedback program that will
utilize focus groups, surveys, and other related mechanisms. In
September 2004, I invited more than 300 employees from across the AOC--
all divisions, levels, and shifts--to participate in 25 focus group
sessions. We asked them to identify problems, help us to find ways to
solve them, and make improvements within the organization. In October,
the Human Resources Management Division (HRMD) asked all employees to
share their opinions in a customer satisfaction survey. The questions
focused on the services HRMD provides and how well they deliver those
services.
By coupling the feedback and the survey results, we were able to
pinpoint specific areas where we needed to take action. In other words,
our employees spoke and we listened.
They told us that we needed to do a better job communicating, that
we needed to provide clearer, easier-to-understand information, and
that we needed to better explain work processes, policies, and
procedures. They also indicated that we needed to provide clearer
direction with regard to expectations and job performance, and
recognize employee accomplishments more often. These issues also
applied to setting internal standards so our employees receive
satisfactory customer support from our Human Resources, EEO, and other
service organizations.
Over the next several months, we will be rolling out action plans
and meeting with employees to address the issues they raised. This
effort will help us to continue to foster an environment where we can
share concerns and ideas with one another to continue to improve the
organization.
employee safety
One area we continue to make great strides in is our effort to
reduce the injury and illness rate. I am pleased to report that for the
fourth consecutive year, our rate decreased dramatically. During fiscal
year 2004, we saw a 26 percent reduction in the injury and illness
rate. Since fiscal year 2000, this rate has been reduced by 67 percent
and is now below the Federal average.
We attribute this reduction to a number of initiatives, including
inspections of project worksites, daily safety discussions in our shops
at the beginning of each shift, the posting of monthly safety messages
throughout our shops and offices, active participation by employees in
our Jurisdictional safety committees, and most importantly, to the
constant diligence of each AOC employee and supervisor who is committed
to doing their job safely and correctly. To assure that our employees
have the requisite skills and equipment needed to do their jobs safely,
I will continue to maintain robust training and safety budgets.
While I am very proud of my workforce and our past accomplishments,
I will not be satisfied until we achieve our ultimate goal of a
workplace free of injury and illness. Toward this end, I have
challenged my colleagues to reduce the injury rate by an additional 10
percent. I look forward to reporting on our progress toward an injury-
and illness-free workplace to this Committee next year.
conclusion
Over the past several years, the AOC has undergone significant
change, and we have reaffirmed our commitment to providing high-quality
service to Congress and the American people. In its August 2004 report
to Congress, the GAO indicated that:
--``AOC has made progress in preparing agency-wide financial
statements; supporting an audit of its September 30, 2003,
balance sheet; and establishing related internal control
policies and procedures.''
--``. . . AOC has made progress addressing employee communications by
developing a number of policies and procedures, such as a
strategic communications plan, a draft employee feedback
manual, a customer satisfaction survey manual, and a focus
group guide.''
--``Our January 2003 report provided AOC with recommendations for
establishing and implementing an effective information security
program. In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC had made
progress toward implementing these recommendations.''
--``AOC has fulfilled our worker safety recommendation by developing
performance measures to assess the long-term impacts and trends
of workers' compensation injuries and costs.''
--``During the six-month review period, AOC took steps to develop the
Capitol Complex Master Plan.''
--``AOC made progress in the development of its environmental program
and its movement toward a more strategic approach. In
particular, AOC has completed the baseline assessment as well
as the waste stream analysis for its facilities and
operations.''
Although we still have much more to accomplish as outlined in our
Strategic Plan, GAO has noted, ``organizational transformation does not
come quickly or easily and the changes underway at the AOC would
require a long-term, concerted effort.'' My team and I are committed to
fulfilling our responsibilities over the long-term to ensure that our
transformation continues as planned.
Our request for funds for fiscal year 2006 is in direct response to
our responsibility to maintain and preserve the facilities under our
care, as well as to respond to our customers' requests for priority
projects and programs. In addition, we continue to strive to achieve
the level of safety, security, preservation, and cleanliness expected
across the Capitol complex. We have completed tens of thousands of work
orders to our clients' satisfaction and have achieved many of our goals
due to the hard work and dedication of AOC employees. I am very
privileged and honored to lead such a professional team.
The Committee's support in helping us achieve these goals is
greatly appreciated. Once again, thank you for this opportunity to
testify today. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Senator Allard. I'd like to also welcome Senator Durbin. I
had indicated earlier, Senator Durbin, that, when you arrived,
we'd give you an opportunity to make some opening comments if
you wish. And then, also, I just wanted to thank both Ms.
Reynolds and Mr. Hantman for taking the time to testify here
before us today.
We're ready to move to a question and response period, but
I wanted to give you an opportunity to present your opening
statement first. So why don't you proceed?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, first let me welcome you to
the subcommittee.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. It's an honor to serve with you. I think
you are the third Chair that I've served with on this
subcommittee, and I'm looking forward to working with you. And
in the interest of time, let me put my statement in the record,
and you can go straight to questions, and I'll follow you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Mr. Chairman, first of all I'd like to welcome you,
Chairman Allard, to the Legislative Branch subcommittee. I had
the pleasure of working with your former colleague from
Colorado, Senator Campbell, as the last Chairman of this
subcommittee and I look forward to working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling today's first
budget oversight hearing of fiscal year 2006 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
third 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 is 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, good morning and welcome. Your budget request
this year is $506 million, which is an increase of $156.5
million or 44 percent over fiscal year 2005 enacted. I realize
that a large portion of your request is for Library of Congress
and Capitol Police project items. All in all, your operating
budget request seems fairly straightforward.
I was encouraged to read that the rate of accidents and
injuries within the Architect's office continues to improve.
This has been a major area of concern to me, as you know, and I
am glad to see these numbers are coming down so dramatically.
I hope you will talk a little about the Capitol Visitor
Center project. I hope you will update the Subcommittee on when
you believe the CVC will open and what the final cost will be.
I realize that the project has grown in size and scope from the
original design when we broke ground back in 2000, but I don't
think those changes account for the magnitude of the delay and
cost overruns.
Last year, I asked you if you thought the spring 2006
estimated completion date for the CVC was accurate. While I
don't recall your answer off-hand, I think I know what your
answer would be if I asked you the same question today. So now
I'd like to ask you if you think the fall 2006 date is
accurate. In your testimony you state that since breaking
ground in 2000, the CVC is now 55 percent complete. I find it
hard to believe that the remaining 45 percent of this project
can be finished in the next 17 months.
Mr. Hantman, as you know, this subcommittee is responsible
for providing adequate funding to complete AOC projects such as
the CVC. However, in order to do that, it is critical that we
receive the most accurate information available from you and
your staff. It appears that the Government Accountability
Office has been far more effective than your office in
providing accurate information to the members of this
subcommittee and our staffs on your funding requests.
I was very concerned to read a February 23, 2005 article
from ``The Hill'' newspaper entitled, ``Fear and Loathing at
the AOC,'' which addressed the results of a 22-page survey
taken by 300 of your employees. I hope that you and your
management team are making every effort to address the
allegations of abuse and mismanagement alluded to by these
employees. It troubles me that some long-standing issues at AOC
continue to exist, such as poor communications and very low
morale. You are responsible for 2,000 employees. It is critical
that these employees feel they can trust you and your front
office. Without the trust and confidence of your employees, you
cannot effectively run this organization.
Finally, Mr. Hantman, I'm eager for you to update the
Subcommittee on your progress in making the Capitol complex a
safer work environment.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
INAUGURAL ADDRESS EFFORTS
Senator Allard. Very good, thank you.
Ms. Reynolds, you did mention, in your testimony, that you
did a lot of work on the inaugural, and I want to just thank
you, your staff and the Architect of the Capitol, for your work
during the Inaugural Address. I think it was a very successful
effort, and I think most Members appreciate all the fine work
that went into that. And I just think that's worth mentioning
at this particular point in time.
Which leads me into a question, Ms. Reynolds, what were all
your responsibilities in coordinating that effort? I'd like to
know some of the challenges you faced. We just had an election,
and then we had the inaugural in January. And if you can share
some challenges with us, we'd appreciate it, perhaps suggestion
of what might be done differently at the next inaugural.
Ms. Reynolds. No, I appreciate that. We certainly took our
lead from the Joint Committee on the Inaugural, from Senator
Lott and his team. And I think one thing that we found--
clearly, the Joint Committee did a beautiful job, and came, to
us with the numerous things that were needed. I think, for us,
one legacy I'd like to leave behind is a very distinct record
of the precise things that the Secretary's office is involved
with in that inaugural effort. For example, the official
reporters of debates actually have a position on the platform
so that they're there to transcribe the inaugural. For me, it's
the first time I've been through that, while, again, the
institutional memory, that important part of our staff that
have been here for years, they know the things they do every 4
years, but we found that it wasn't in our own operation in any
sort of concise record.
One thing I'd like to leave behind for the next Secretary
is that concise record of exactly what expectations that a
joint committee on the inaugural will have for us. The second
piece of that is, we were delighted to work with the committee
on the inaugural luncheon, which is staged in Statuary Hall.
That was a huge effort on the part of our staff; again, taking
the lead from Senator Lott and his team. But they did an
extraordinary job in executing the lunch. And, most especially,
the Curator's Office takes the lead in whichever historical
painting is displayed at that luncheon, which is a reflection
of the theme of the inaugural itself.
So, we're involved in a variety of different levels, a
variety of different ways. It was a learning experience for me,
as well. And I would add, also, that many of our staff, and
myself included, had the opportunity and the high honor to
serve as escorts that day; again, assisting the Joint
Committee.
So, we play in this at a variety of different levels. Some,
were well informed going in; others, learned along the way. But
with the Joint Committee providing the leadership, I think
we're even better prepared to step up to the plate in the next
4 years and have that clear and concise knowledge, of precisely
what our role is.
CURATORIAL ADVISORY BOARD AND PRESERVATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Senator Allard. You mentioned, in your testimony, the new
boards, the Curatorial Advisory Board and the Preservation
Board of Trustees. What, specifically, are you doing to promote
the efforts to the Senate community and beyond that these two
boards were set up to carry out?
Ms. Reynolds. Thanks for asking that, because this is
such--as I said, it's such an important initiative for all of
us. And much of this really is an education process, it's a
building process. The Curatorial Advisory Board, again, as I
mentioned--12 really outstanding individuals, 13 counting our
curator, who serves as its chair--they have already been a
significant help to us in helping us identify possible
acquisitions, in spreading the word, with all of them as
professionals, whether it's from Monticello, Winterthur, the
retired White House curator--their network of associates,
people they've worked with through the years, has already been
very helpful to us in identifying some possible acquisitions,
and we've relied on their counsel very heavily already.
The Preservation Board, which, as I said, will meet in
May--I'm anxious for that meeting--again, an esteemed group of
individuals, who will come at this from both a business
perspective, a philanthropic perspective--so I'm interested in
working with them, at their first meeting, to begin to paint
that blank canvas, if you will, of what specific direction that
board takes.
Within our Senate community, we unveiled the Brumidi oil
sketch that I mentioned, very recently, thanks to Senator
Stevens, in the President pro tempore's office, and Roll Call
covered that. We've done a feature in our Secretary newsletter
of UNUM, which we do every quarter, and will continue to
educate our own community about the efforts underway. And,
again, through both of these boards, people who have a reach,
not only within our Senate community, but certainly well
beyond, I anticipate that we'll continue to see renewed
interest in the possibility of both returning some historic
artifacts to the Senate that perhaps we've lost through the
years, and also pinpointing acquisitions that will reflect the
history and the tradition of this institution.
CHANGING TECHNOLOGIES
Senator Allard. Technology is changing all our lives
rapidly, both at home and, I think, here in the Capitol. And
I'll have to admit that I have a certain fixation for high
technology, myself, and am not reluctant to step into some of
the challenges of new technology in my own personal office. I'm
curious to know how you stay on top of those advances, and
then, once you decide to bring them in, how can we be assured
that they're going to operate as advertised.
Ms. Reynolds. Well, probably, to the latter portion of your
question, the best way we're assured that they operate as
advertised is the feedback from our own Senate community, and
that's why having folks, for example, like the administrative
managers involved with our FMIS, the various pilot projects
that we roll out. Having folks involved early on to help us in
knowing what works and what doesn't is key.
But, quickly, I would say, in terms of how we stay abreast
of technological developments, it's really threefold.
First of all, we have, internally, a top-notch information
systems department that's on the cutting edge and that helps
us, across the board, in remaining there and providing that
sort of service internally to the Secretary's office.
Second of all, our department heads are all continually
looking for better ways to do business, whether it's, as I
said, working through the process of putting the library
catalog online, to something as simple as providing an online
service for individuals to order their paper through printing
and document services, but, again, those simple things that now
can be done with the click of button, if you will. And our
department heads are very much involved in that process.
And, finally, again, part of that collaborative effort,
since our Sergeant at Arms takes the lead on technology in the
Senate, we, again, work very closely with them on technological
advances. They're a huge help to us in that regard.
Senator Allard. Now I would like to go ahead and call on
Senator Durbin. And Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that you're able to
join us this morning, chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
Senator Cochran.
SENATE CLERKS
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Reynolds, thank you for being here, and thank you for
your service to the Senate.
In your capacity, you're responsible for the professional
staff that supports our legislative activity in the Senate. The
clerks process the work we perform on the floor. What is the
current status of that group, in terms of hires and
qualifications and vacancies?
Ms. Reynolds. Right now, we are fully staffed on that
legislative team. And I appreciate you asking about them,
because they are really, in so many ways, the quiet, unsung
heroes of the Senate. You know, because you're there, the hours
that they put in on a daily basis. And, at the end of the day,
when the Senate adjourns, when those four bells go off, their
work, in essence, really begins, in so many ways. They return
to their offices to prepare the Calendar of Business, the
Executive Calendar, to complete the transcriptions and send
those to the Government Printing Office for the printing of the
Congressional Record overnight, the completion of the Daily
Digest, which, of course, is completed in that record. So it
really is a remarkable team.
But it's important, with that team, because of the
importance of the Senate's constitutional responsibilities, to
make sure that we have a balance of Senate professionals, many
of whom have 20 plus years of experience in that team, and also
constantly bring in fresh blood--younger people, if you will,
folks who are here to serve the Senate in a nonpartisan way,
and hopefully make it a career so that we have that continuity.
It's so important on that team, when you look at--in the
fact that, within the last two decades, there have been 11
Secretaries, so you see the importance of that institutional
memory, that constant learning process. For example, in one of
our departments, where we knew we had a retirement coming in a
very critical position, we began the transition process, if you
will, the succession planning, 1 year in advance, so that we
were assured, on the day that that individual departed, we
weren't going to miss a beat; again, in that very critical
service. So we try to look--we try to look to the future, we
remain as constant as we possibly can; again, recognizing that
your constitutional responsibilities are first and foremost in
our minds.
STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM
Senator Durbin. And, of course, in addition to long hours
and important job responsibilities, they face the cruel and
unusual punishment of listening to our speeches all day, so
they deserve some recognition and reward for that. How is the
Student Loan Repayment Program coming along?
Ms. Reynolds. It's coming along. It's growing.
Senator Durbin. Tell me how you use it.
Ms. Reynolds. The legislation specifies that the program be
used for retention and recruitment; and, that, of course, is
the byword for the Senate offices. As you well know, with each
Member as his or her own employing office, it is up to each
office, at the current time, to decide how they administer the
program. And you and I have spoken about this before in--I
think, at last year's hearing. We conducted a fairly in-depth
survey now about 1 year ago. We had 60 something odd offices,
out of the 140 in the Senate, respond. But we found, obviously,
great support for the program. We found that folks--they set
their parameters in different ways as to how they employ the
program. Many require at least 6 months of service before the
individual is eligible for the student loan. Some set various
and different caps within the office as to how much they
actually give for the loan. I think the amount is up to $500.
But that will vary among offices. So the administration of it
is actually driven by each individual office.
What we are constantly looking for are ways to streamline
the process, because it can be a cumbersome process. And, to be
honest, you know, sometimes we're chasing up to as many as 100
lenders, if you will, to make sure those payments are going to
the right place. And, obviously, loans, of course, within the
industry are constantly being sold and repackaged. That's a
challenge for us. And within the course of the last few months,
we've introduced a paperwork process that we hope will help
both the disbursing office and the individual receiving the
loan.
We currently have just under 900 individuals participating
in the program, at a cost of about just over $3 million to the
Senate right now. And, at last report, Senator Durbin, we had
about 126 offices participating. That's roughly the same number
as the previous year.
RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT
Senator Durbin. What has been your personal experience
about the retention and recruitment angle? When I first brought
this up, it was in the hopes that student loan repayment would
be an incentive for good, talented graduates to come work here
on Capitol Hill and not be discouraged by the, perhaps, lower
startup pay than they might find in another place, or to retain
those who enhance their education, and we'd like to keep on and
use their talents. So what has your experience been in that?
Ms. Reynolds. I think, again, I'm going to refer back to
the surveys that we received, because that's one area that we
specifically addressed in the surveys of the offices. Many
offices--and, again, this is anecdotal evidence--but they
mentioned to us instances where they wanted to hire--you know,
an office wanted to hire a young lawyer, obviously who had
significant bills from law school, and they said, frankly, that
without the opportunity to use that as a recruitment tool, they
might have lost that talent somewhere else; again, because of
the pay structure here.
So while much of this is anecdotal evidence, it was very
strong anecdotal evidence that the offices take that retention
and recruitment tool seriously, as do we in the Secretary's
office, as well. So we employ the program, as well, and use it
in the same ways.
Statistical evidence, hard to come by on that; but the
anecdotal evidence from the offices, very positive in using it
as a tool.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I don't know, maybe it's been
2 or 3 years since we've had this, and it kind of started in an
odd way; let a thousand flowers bloom, we said to each office,
``Here's what we're--here are the goals. See how they work with
your policies, personnel policies.'' I'm hoping that we can
gather this information and maybe harmonize some of this. I
don't want a top-down rulemaking procedure, but if there are
ways to put in some safeguards, to avoid abuses, to make sure
there's no waste, to enhance the initial goals of the program,
I'd like to do that, too.
Thank you, Ms. Reynolds.
Ms. Reynolds. We look forward to working with you on that.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Well said. And I would note that we do have
a lot of people here today that are part of the office of the
secretary, the parliamentarian, enrolling clerk, Senate
security, and they do a tremendous job. I don't know how they
keep the place running sometimes, but they're able to do it,
and with a good deal of grace and finesse, keeping a lot of big
egos happy, and they're to be commended for their job.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Congratulations to you are in order for----
Senator Allard. Thank you.
Senator Cochran [continuing]. Your assuming the
chairmanship of this important subcommittee. We welcome you,
not only to the Committee on Appropriations, but in your new
undertaking as chairman of this subcommittee, and we look
forward to working closely with you and trying to support you
in every way.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
THE SENATE DISBURSING OFFICE, ``THE FRONT COUNTER''
Senator Cochran. Welcome to the subcommittee, Ms. Reynolds
and Mr. Hantman. We appreciate very much your cooperation with
our Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee and the good
work that each of you do in carrying out your responsibilities.
These are very important jobs. I am impressed. When I read
the summary of your responsibilities, I always come across some
item of information that surprises me. Today, for example--and
I don't know why I had overlooked this in the past--I found out
that the front counter is the place where the financial
business of the Senate is handled, and that's under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary. Could you tell us what the
origin of the phrase ``the front counter'' is?
Ms. Reynolds. That is a great question, and I'm going to
defer to our financial clerk, Tim Wineman, to answer that.
Mr. Wineman.
Mr. Wineman. It is literally just that, a front counter. It
kind of resembles an old banking organization. We used to be
located in the second floor of the Capitol Building, right down
from the Senate Chamber, and there was a huge counter that
Senators and staff would come in to conduct daily business with
the Disbursing Office, and we'd have staff behind the counter.
And it's just evolved over the years as, kind of, the receiving
point for the work that comes in from the Senate offices.
General business is conducted there, inquiries, new staff are
sworn in there, financial transactions, as far as issuing cash
advances for travel. So it's kind of similar to a bank lobby
atmosphere, and it literally is just that, there's a big
counter there, and that's the term that's been used over the
years.
Senator Cochran. But it doesn't function as the House Bank
used to.
Mr. Wineman. No, sir.
Senator Cochran. No.
I just want to be sure that----
Mr. Wineman. In fact, I'd like to be very clear on that.
Having been here during that time, and there was a
significant amount of publicity, no, it does not function as
the House Bank.
Senator Cochran. Right. Well, it is, obviously, an
important responsibility, and the offices are physically
located in the Hart Senate Office Building?
Mr. Wineman. First floor of the Hart Building, yes, sir. We
were asked to move a number of years ago, after spending a lot
of time in the Capitol, when we--we literally outgrew the space
that was in the Capitol building. And so, when the Hart
Building was opened, in 1982, we moved over there and are
located on the first floor, yes, sir.
Senator Cochran. Well, we appreciate your good work in
supervising that operation.
Mr. Wineman. Thank you, sir.
Senator Cochran. Is there sufficient request in the budget
for the operation of the front counter?
Mr. Wineman. Yes, sir. The Secretary has been very
supportive of, not only the entire Disbursing Office, but our
front-counter operation, as well.
Senator Cochran. That's great. Well, we thank you for that
explanation and information.
Mr. Wineman. Yes, sir.
Senator Cochran. Now, could I ask a question of the
Architect?
Senator Allard. You may, Mr.----
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a moment?
Senator Cochran. Sure.
Senator Durbin. I just wanted to make a record here that
when I was elected to the Senate, in 1996, and came to sign up
for my payroll, they said, ``You've worked here before,'' and I
said, ``Yes, I was an intern here in 1966, 30 years ago.'' And
they said, ``Yes, we kept your file,'' and they brought it out.
So pretty good file work there.
Senator Cochran. Very good, thank you.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Mr. Hantman, thank you for being here and participating in
this exercise, too. I think the biggest challenge you're facing
is the new visitor center. I appreciate very much your taking
time to take me on a tour recently and show me the work that
was in progress. It is really quite an impressive undertaking.
And, of course, it's very expensive, as well.
What efforts are you making to try to hold down the costs?
I hear rumors about overruns and schedule deadlines not being
met. What are you personally trying to do to help get control
over that project?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, it is, as you know, a very
complex project. And perhaps what we can best explain it by
using some things that I don't expect you to be able to
visualize or see very clearly from the dais.
If we could just set up a board or two over here.
This project, as you know, Mr. Chairman, has evolved since
its inception. The budget for the CVC was first set in 1998. We
talked a little bit about the inaugural, with the Secretary a
little while ago, and the inaugural that we just celebrated was
really key to how the entire visitor center was framed.
Before I get into that, if I may, I think I would be
remiss, if I could----
Senator Cochran. Well, I'd just rather for you to
succinctly respond to the question that I asked, rather than go
into the history and the description of the project in detail.
That'll come later, I'm sure, when the chairman is asking
questions.
Mr. Hantman. Well, we have a full-time accountant on the
job, Mr. Chairman. Every change order or any purchase order
that comes on through is reviewed by our accounting group. Our
project executive, Mr. Bob Hixon, who is behind me right now,
reviews all of those, and we make sure that we pay only those
that are really appropriate and that we authorized the work for
in the first place.
What we are trying to do is get the remaining contracts on
the street and awarded as soon as we can, because the inflation
rate continues to rise. And if we can award them, we can hold
the rates that we currently have; otherwise, we might have to
rebid areas such as the expansion spaces for the Senate, for
the House, for the exhibition areas, for the tunnel under the
House office--House Capitol side of the connector.
So we're trying to move forward as quickly as we can to
make sure that we lock in the prices and the bids that we have
at this point in time, to make sure that the contractors
understand that we're going to be holding them to their
responsibilities, as well, and that we monitor that effectively
on a day-to-day basis.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here and
participate in the hearing.
Senator Allard. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
appreciate you taking a personal interest in this. I had an
opportunity to have a tour by Mr. Hantman.
I thought it was a very good tour. I'm, like you, very
impressed with the scope of the facility. I look forward as I
think many members do, at getting into that facility. The
sooner we can get there, the better I think everybody will
feel.
BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) PROCESS
I know that it's a particular challenge for you, Mr.
Hantman. You are requesting a pretty sizeable increase--45
percent--over the current budget. That type of increase does
catch the attention of all of us. How have you scrubbed that
budget? Have you tried to set priorities within the budget so
that if we're unable to meet your request, where would you
recommend that we make reductions?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, you alluded, in your opening
statements, on the issues of project management and master
planning, two very key areas, in terms of improving our control
and our projections on what the costs will be going forward,
not only on individual projects, but in budgets that we will be
bringing forward to this subcommittee in years to come. So, we
have a CIP process, which is a Capital Improvements Plan. In
that process, we rank all of the proposed projects that come
forward, on a strong basis. If we could put up that board, that
would be pretty helpful, I think. But what we do is, first, we
have to identify projects, we have to evaluate those projects,
we have to rank them and rate them before going into the budget
process. So this CIP process that we have used this year for
the first time is something that gives us a prioritization of
those projects based on fire and life-safety issues, based on
physical security issues, historic preservation and stewardship
issues, impact on our mission, and the economics of it. We rank
all of these projects on a scale that gives a real value to
each one of them as they relate to each other and to those five
key areas.
So, if we were told to cut back on our projects at this
point, Mr. Chairman, what we would do is go back down to our
list of elements we currently have been asking for, and start
at the bottom. Those things that are ranked the lowest in the
project budget, we would start eliminating, to the point at
which you are willing to fund the rest of it.
Senator Allard. And does our staff have this list and these
rankings on these projects that we can look at, at some point
in time?
Mr. Hantman. We certainly could review all of those
projects with a full background, in terms of how we prioritized
them in the first place. And we'd be happy to sit down and
review that. And certainly we wouldn't cut anything unless we
specifically worked with you and your staff.
Senator Allard. We could be facing a pretty tight budget
here.
Mr. Hantman. Yes.
Senator Allard. And it would be nice if we could give it
some thought ahead of time. And so, the sooner you could share
where your priorities are with our staff, I think it would be
very helpful to them, and helpful to members on this
subcommittee, to see where you're thinking is on those
reductions.
Mr. Hantman. We have that prioritization, already, sir.
It's how we established the budget request. We'd be more than
happy to sit down and review it. We can start from the bottom
up, and whatever we have to eliminate because of budget
criteria, we'd be ready to do that.
Senator Allard. Very good.
[The information follows:]
TABLE 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2006 LINE ITEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT EVALUATION SCORING
PROJECT PROJECT TITLE PROGRAM AREA JURISDICTION PROJECT PROJECT COST -------------------------------------------- NOTES
NUMBER MANAGER \1\ A B C D E TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 1--
PROJECTS
(EXCLUDING SUPREME
COURT) ATTAINING A
SCORE OF 90 OR
HIGHER IN AT LEAST
ONE EVALUATION
CATEGORY \2\
000231D Smoke Detector BIM-SER....... LOC............. PRichards..... $3,700,000 80 90 80 80 20 350 ..........
Upgrades, JAB
000231E Smoke Detector BIM-SER....... LOC............. PRichards..... 3,700,000 80 90 80 80 20 350 ..........
Upgrades, JMMB
020188 Emergency BIM-SER....... USC............. JScuderi...... 2,980,000 40 90 60 80 60 330 ..........
Electrical
Service Upgrade,
USC
970711D High Voltage BIM-SER....... SOB............. ZBajbor....... 540,000 ..... 90 80 70 40 280 ..........
Switchgear
Replacement, HSOB
970711E High Voltage BIM-SER....... HOB............. ZBajbor....... 2,120,000 ..... 90 80 70 40 280 ( \3\ )
Switchgear
Replacement, FHOB
& RHOB
Ford House .............. ................ .............. (1,070,000) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... ..........
Office
Building
(FHOB)
Rayburn House .............. ................ .............. (1,050,000) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... ..........
Office
Building
(RHOB)
970711F High Voltage BIM-SER....... LOC............. ZBajbor....... 2,270,000 ..... 90 80 70 40 280 ( \3\ )
Switchgear
Replacement, TJB
& JMMB
Thomas .............. ................ .............. (1,090,000) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... ..........
Jefferson
Building
(TJB)
James Madison .............. ................ .............. (1,180,000) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... ..........
Memorial
Building
(JMMB)
970269GA Compartment BIM-GEN....... USC............. KSchonbgr..... 2,630,000 50 90 40 60 30 270 ..........
Barriers and
Horizontal Exits,
USC
970269GB West Terrace REG-FIR....... USC............. KSchonbgr..... 1,700,000 ..... 90 10 ..... 20 120 ..........
Egress Doors and
Stairs, USC
SECTION 2--
REMAINING PROJECTS
(EXCLUDING SUPREME
COURT)
020238 Book Storage BIM-GEN....... LOC............. MVarga........ 40,700,000 80 40 80 70 10 280 ..........
Modules 3 & 4,
Fort Meade, LOC
000018A Emergency Lighting REG-FIR....... HOB............. SSethi........ 4,790,000 ..... 80 40 10 40 170 ..........
Upgrade, RHOB
000018C Emergency Lighting REGFIR........ HOB............. SSethi........ 2,700,000 ..... 80 40 10 40 170 ..........
Upgrade, LHOB
000018D Emergency Lighting REG-FIR....... HOB............. SSethi........ 1,030,000 ..... 80 40 10 40 170 ..........
Upgrade, FHOB
000207B Emergency Lighting REG-FIR....... SOB............. RSoriente..... 3,600,000 ..... 80 40 10 40 170 ..........
Upgrade, HSOB
020202A Emergency Exit BIM-SER....... USC............. JScuderi...... 1,000,000 ..... 80 40 10 20 150 ( \4\ )
Signs and
Lighting, USC
030293 East Front BIM-SIT....... CG.............. ACoulson...... 740,000 80 ..... 60 ..... ..... 140 ..........
Plantings, CG
030130 Window BIM-SHL....... HOB............. RIngram....... 3,710,000 ..... 30 20 60 20 130 ..........
Replacement, FHOB
930281D Public Restrooms BIM-INT....... SOB............. KOlmsted...... 2,400,000 10 20 40 20 ..... 90 ..........
Upgrade, South
Stack, HSOB
020100B Public Restrooms BIM-INT....... HOB............. KOlmsted...... 1,500,000 10 20 40 20 ..... 90 ..........
Upgrade, Phase I,
FHOB
960043 Off-Site Delivery/ BIM-GEN....... USCP............ WPerlenfn..... 23,000,000 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .......
Screening
Facility, USCP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--Se .............. ................ .............. 104,810,000 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... ..........
ctions 1
and 2
SECTION 3--SUPREME
COURT PROJECTS \2\
030302 Building Security BIM-SEC....... SC.............. ACopeland..... 1,800,000 ..... 20 30 20 90 160 ( \5\ )
Upgrade, SC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--Se .............. ................ .............. 1,800,000 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... ..........
ction 3
================================================================================================================
TOTAL--Secti .............. ................ .............. 106,610,000 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... ..........
ons 1, 2
and 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Project Costs'' shown represent funding as identified in the fiscal year 2006 Budget Request; with the exception of the last three
projects in Section 2, ``Project Costs'' are ``Final Project Estimates'' as developed by the AOC's Cost Estimating Group based on completed
drawings and a completed Project Check List.
\2\ Projects receiving a score of ``90'' or higher in one or more of the Project Evaluation Categories are considered highly desirable for
accomplishment within the fiscal year identified.
\3\ Project Nos. 970711E and 970711F have been separated into two parts so as to accommodate notation of costs associated with each building
comprising the project.
\4\ Original funding request in fiscal year 2005 was $2 million; only $1 million was approved; this project covers the additional $1 million
still needed to accomplish the project.
\5\ This is the Second Phase of a 2-phase project; the 1st phase was approved in the fiscal year 2005 LICP of the Supreme Court.
Senator Allard. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Hantman. And, being a
liberal arts major, I don't have a clue what that chart means,
so I'm just going to ask you some general questions here.
What's the final cost of the Capitol Visitor Center?
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER COST CHANGES
Mr. Hantman. The final cost of the visitor center, as being
projected by GAO right now, is $517 million.
Senator Durbin. Can you recall the first estimated cost and
what the difference might be?
Mr. Hantman. The original estimate for the visitor center,
set back in 1998, was $265 million.
Senator Durbin. And if you were asked, and you're about to
be, how would you explain the difference?
Mr. Hantman. I think that one of the charts we can put up
right now is one--as the chairman mentioned earlier, the
Government Accountability Office has been sitting with us since
the inception of the job. This is basically, a report that they
are just putting out right now, which talks about the summary
of the construction cost increases.
The first bullet talks about three-quarters of the $250
million increase is due to ``factors beyond, or largely beyond,
the AOC's control.'' Scope additions is the first item. The
first is the House and the Senate expansion space. When the
original project was designed, Mr. Durbin, we were going to be
designing just shells, just the concrete floors, no electrical,
no mechanical systems. There was no program to tell us what the
Senate space might ultimately be, what the House space might
ultimately be. After 9/11, we were given $70 million to finish
off those spaces. That was without a program, without a design.
As the design evolved, as the House and the Senate approved the
programs and we went out to bid on those, that $70 million was
found to be low, in terms of the quality of materials and the
type of program that we were directed to do. So even that $70
million was not inadequate, but that essentially added to the
base of $265 million. New scope of work.
The next bullet item is the security and life-safety
enhancements. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cochran, this
project has really lived through the same type of loss of
innocence, if you could say, that our country has, due to the
9/11 attacks and the anthrax attack on the Senate office
buildings. We have seen multiple infusions of new dollars for
new criteria go into this project.
Another one of the changes, certainly after the anthrax
incident, was, to redesign our mechanical room once again to
incorporate major filtration systems to take care of the type
of threats that we were facing.
Security threats throughout the history of this project
have been added to its costs, just as Homeland Security has
been adding to their responsibilities. And the big challenge,
Mr. Durbin, that we've had on this project has been that it's
no longer the same project we started with. We're talking about
adding $140 to $150 million of new work to the project that we
had to do, while we were under contract. After the design was
done, we had to try to get change orders and all of this new
work incorporated and still try to meet a schedule for an
inaugural in 2005. And that basically became fairly impossible
to do with all the mechanical changes.
So, these changes forced us, basically, to split what we
anticipated originally as a single contract for the whole
project into several pieces. First of all, we split it into a
preconstruction contract so that our construction manager,
Gilbane, could remove all of the utilities from inside the
footprint of the project, so that we would not slow up the work
of the major contractors, to come later. Then, because of the
multiple redesigns of the mechanical spaces, we had to break
out the excavation, the foundations, the structural work so
that we could begin to work on that right away and try, still,
to keep our schedule to complete this project within the
parameters of the 2005 inaugural. So, that contract went ahead.
In the next contract, which we were redesigning for the
changed mechanical spaces, we gave a criteria to the bidders to
meet the 2005 inaugural. Out of five bidders, three dropped
out, saying that was impossible. And in order to change--to at
least retain competitive bidding, we said, okay, we need to
support the inaugural in 2005, we recognize we're not going to
be finished, and we need to work on an extended schedule to be
able to do that. And that's essentially what we did. We did a
top-down construction, put on all the granite. The President
actually stood on the central rotunda steps, as you know, and
the troops passed in review. We got that work done.
So the challenge has been----
Senator Durbin. That was a pretty expensive review, wasn't
it?
Mr. Hantman. In terms----
Senator Durbin. Never mind. We set that as your goal. And I
know you were living up to it. And I'm glad we did it. It
apparently called for additional work and expense. And you
lived up to your responsibility there. The President--the
inaugural went off, I think, flawlessly in that regard, except
for the outcome of the election, which I won't get into.
Let me ask you, when will the CVC be open to the public?
Mr. Hantman. Our construction schedule calls for us to be
completed in the fall of 2006. We're looking at--our contractor
schedule talks about September 2006 right now.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER FTES
Senator Durbin. So why would you have such a dramatic
increase in a request for FTEs if we're--for this next fiscal
year, when the CVC won't be open until the very end of that
fiscal year?
Mr. Hantman. We're actually phasing that in, Mr. Durbin.
We're taking a look at--right now, our operations plan--and we
have consultants, Zell Corporation, that came in, folks who are
experts in visitor flow and operations of major spaces like
this, and we've been meeting with Emily Reynolds and people
from the Capitol Preservation Commission, 1\1/2\ years now,
with the Zell group. What they're recommending is that we
actually have an executive director for that group and a core
staff. They should be onboard right now, basically, planning
for the ultimate phasing in of the 260 people that Zell
projects will need. And that executive director could certainly
look at the Zell report and say that that number is off this
way----
Senator Durbin. These 260 are for the CVC exclusively.
Mr. Hantman. That's correct.
Senator Durbin. And you're asking for those FTEs in this
year's fiscal appropriation, though the center will not be open
until September of this next fiscal year?
Mr. Hantman. We have authorization now, I believe, for 16
of those 260 people. And of those 16, what we've started to do
is actually hire--rather interview people--we can't hire them
until we have an obligation plan signed for us--the people who
are looking at the operations of the building. Potentially an
assistant superintendent for the Capitol Building so that he or
she could get together a staff that will make sure that the
mechanical systems, the electrical systems, all of the things
that are being installed correctly. They will be able to review
that, be familiar with the systems when the building is
essentially turned over. Those are the first people we want to
bring on.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER COMPLETION AND OPERATIONS
Senator Durbin. Open to the public September 2006 is what
you're saying?
Mr. Hantman. From a construction perspective. From an
operational perspective, Senator, the issue is, we have not yet
hired that executive director. We've not been authorized to
bring on any staff to do the operations side of it. We need
that component, as well, so that whatever the operations group
brings to the building, we'll be able to integrate it.
And I don't know if, Ms. Reynolds, you have anything to say
about that. We talked about this just this Monday evening.
Senator Allard. If I might interrupt, Senator Durbin, and
follow up on this, you're certain, from a construction aspect,
that September 2006 would be when it's completed, open for
occupancy.
Mr. Hantman. That will depend, again, on the operations
team, when they come on and what kind of work they can do early
enough. In the best of all possible worlds, Mr. Chairman, this
operations group would come on, and they would work in parallel
with us, in terms of their programs--and the hiring that they
need to do to get their staff together.
STRATEGIC PLAN NEEDED
Senator Allard. Do you have a strategic plan in place
where, when you reach this stage, we have some assurance that
there's a step-by-step approach on how everybody's going to
move into the offices and, a time schedule in which you
anticipate that's going to happen? If you could elaborate
further on whether you have the strategic plan.
Mr. Hantman. Two points. First of all, let me clarify the
September date again, in terms of construction. We have not
gotten authority yet to award the expansion space for the
House, for the Senate, for the exhibits.
So I'm not sure. As soon as we can award that, we can
assess what their completion date for those components of it
will be. But in terms of the operations of the visitor center,
the Congress has not yet determined who will be responsible for
operating the visitor center, who they will report to, what
committee they will report to; and, therefore, no decision has
been made whether it will be an AOC responsibility or it will
be another committee's responsibility, another group.
Senator Allard. And why aren't those decisions being made?
Ms. Reynolds. With your permission, let me just add a note
here, Mr. Chairman.
Those decisions have not been made. They are an ongoing
discussion between Senate leadership, House leadership, and
members of the Capitol Preservation Commission. They've been
going on for several months now, most predominantly at the
staff level, obviously with feedback to the respective members.
I think, clearly, if we're looking at an 2006 opening date,
clearly the need for those decisions is sooner, rather than
later. Suffice it to say, we're working closely with the
Architect on it, and it's--this is another one that's a team
effort. We'd certainly appreciate your advice and counsel on
this, as well, but, again, being done at the leadership level
and with the Capitol Preservation Commission.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I just might say that we hold
our witnesses and agencies accountable. Now we ought to hold
ourselves accountable. I think the leadership on both sides of
the Rotunda need to get together immediately and work this out.
And I know it's contentious, and it hasn't been easy, but we
can't blame them if the CVC doesn't open because we can't
explain who's going to be in charge and make these key
decisions. So, if you would like to reach out to Senator Frist,
I'll reach out to Senator Reid, and let's see--Senator
Cochran--maybe we can get some movement here on this.
Senator Allard. I do think that we need to sit down with
the leadership and put together some kind of strategic plan on
how we're going to go through this and make these decisions,
step by step. Has any kind of proposal been made to the
leadership at all from your office? Have we suggested anything
to them? Say, ``Look, we think this is realistic now. Can you
agree to this?'' Have we taken that step?
Ms. Reynolds. We took a step about 6 months ago, I think,
and went back to the leadership with--not so much with an
overall governance proposal, but we did provide to the
leadership on both the Senate and the House side, really, more
of an update, a working update, as a result of the operational
meetings that have been held over the course of the last year
with Zell, with this consultant, and really just looking
broadly at the organization itself. As I said, the
conversations have taken place over the last few months, with
both Senate and House officers and staff. Obviously, this--
because it is an extension of the Capitol, this will be,
presumably, a decision of the joint leadership and the CPC, of
course, which has members from both sides.
We've made progress. We are not yet prepared, I will say,
at least at the staff level, with an overall recommendation.
Again, we'd be--I'd love the opportunity to brief you all on
the various and different proposals that have been made, the
various and different discussions. And, you're absolutely
right, this is one that needs our time and attention.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Senator Allard. Mr. Hantman, I know when the project
started out we had a couple of different contractors, and they
didn't get along very well at the very start. Do we have an
overall contractor that's in charge right now? It seems to me
one of the things that needs to happen in a project, you need
to have one contractor that's in charge, and you put incentives
in place for them to perform and carry out what they say they
will do. And it seems to me if we have one contractor who's in
charge, he can be helpful to the staff in putting together some
sort of strategy on how we can get this thing wrapped up in a
timely manner, while holding down our costs.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, with the help of the General
Services Administration, we conducted a nationwide search for a
construction manager. We hired the Gilbane Corporation to be
that construction manager and make sure that they coordinated
the work of all of our contractors on the job. Our first-phase
contractor for the excavation, for the structure, for all of
that work, Centex Corporation, has completed their work.
They're off the job. Our second-phase contractor, who is doing
all the electro-mechanical and architectural finishes work, is
Manhattan Corporation. And, in terms of coordination for the
expansion spaces, to minimize complications, we're expecting
that they, also, would be running the work, although we go for
competitive bids on the expansion spaces, on the exhibit areas,
things of that nature.
So, yes, we do have people in place, both from Manhattan
and the Gilbane side, and we are giving whatever advice that we
possibly can to the Capitol Preservation Commission about
what's going to be in place at what point in time, and how we
can phase this work, so that we can get that center opened
appropriately and in good order.
Senator Allard. Well, then, who's ultimately accountable
for getting this done on time? Is this Gilbane?
Mr. Hantman. Our construction manager, Gilbane, is
accountable to us. We have the fiduciary responsibility,
certainly. And under our project executive, Bob Hixon, they
report through to Bob Hixon, and Bob Hixon reports through to
me.
Senator Allard. Gilbane--are they doing their job? It seems
to me this is their responsibility, to help you put together a
strategic plan. Are they doing their job in that regard?
Mr. Hantman. Well, in terms of strategic plan, relative to
operations, that is not their responsibility. It is the
construction side of it only, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Go ahead, Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Are there any incentives or penalties in
the contract with Gilbane, for performance?
Mr. Hantman. For the contractors, we have liquidated
damages. For Gilbane, they are a fee-based organization, and if
they're not performing--it's up to us, basically, to make sure
that they do perform or to take away work from them and give it
to somebody else who can perform, when they don't.
Senator Durbin. How much has Gilbane been paid?
Mr. Hantman. I believe it's something like $15.5 million
for the CVC Base and $2 million for the Senate shell.
Senator Durbin. Okay.
Mr. Hantman. I can verify that number.
[The information follows:]
As previously stated, I would like to verify the
information referring to the amounts paid to Gilbane. In
reference to the CVC base contract with Gilbane $15.5 million
has been obligated and $13 million has been paid or expended.
For the Senate shell space $2 million has been obligated and
$1.6 million has been expended.
Senator Durbin. But there are no incentives for them, as
the management side of this. The incentives relate to the
actual construction.
Mr. Hantman. We have incentives for the contractors, in
terms of--if they meet their schedules, they move ahead. We
have awards for them, yes.
Senator Allard. You know, it's not entirely clear to me who
figures out the costs and the timeline schedule. Is that
Gilbane, or is that your office or one of the contractors? Who
puts that schedule together and says that it gets us to
September, gets us to some kind of date after that, which we
don't seem to be able to get specified.
Mr. Hantman. Gilbane has the responsibilities for the
master schedule. We have a schedule that came in from Manhattan
Corporation, who is the contractor onsite now charged,
basically, with all the work to finish the job. The issue,
then, is--what Gilbane needs to do is take the schedules for
the expansion space, for the exhibit areas, areas that we've
not yet awarded, integrate them into a schedule, and make sure
that we can all finish when we need to finish.
Senator Allard. And why haven't those other spaces been
awarded yet?
Mr. Hantman. We need to have obligations plans signed by
the House and the Senate to allow us to spend the dollars to do
that, and we've not yet got those signatures.
Senator Allard. I see. Okay.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER SCHEDULE
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman?
If I might ask Mr. Hantman--the GAO, when they took a look
at this, agreed with your final cost figure, but disagreed with
the occupancy--or maybe not disagreed, but said they felt that,
by schedule, it wouldn't be completed until March 2007. Do you
take issue with that date that they came up with?
Mr. Hantman. Again, when we talk about the project, if we
could define the nature of the project. The Capitol Visitor
Center portion of it, the area that will welcome visitors,
where people will walk down the entry ramps--and I'd welcome
the opportunity to take you on a tour, Mr. Durbin--be screened,
come into the great hall, go to the information booths, go see
the orientation film, go on the tour, go to the cafeteria, go
to the restrooms--all of that is projected in the current
contracts that we have with Manhattan Corporation. The part
that has not yet been awarded, and the part that will not be
ready, at this point in time, in the fall of 2006, is, in fact,
the expansion space, which has not yet been awarded. And that's
where GAO is going and pushing that off. And until we get the
contractor onboard and we work with them, we don't know what
the schedule is for that work.
Senator Durbin. And the contractor decision depends on
leadership in Congress to decide responsibility----
Mr. Hantman. We have bids on that now, Senator. The issue
is--we can't award those bids, because we don't have the
obligation plans signed to award them. Then we could move ahead
and move with that contractor to nail down a completion time.
Senator Durbin. Okay.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER EXHIBITION SPACE
Senator Allard. Well, are there other things, other than
the expansion space, that could be causing a delay on this
project?
Mr. Hantman. The exhibit areas, Mr. Chairman. There's a
wonderful exhibit area, which I showed you as we walked
through--and, again, I'd welcome the opportunity for anybody
who's not seen it, to take them through that again--we have not
been able to award the contract for the construction of the
exhibition areas. The Secretary of the Senate and the whole
senior staff on the Capitol Preservation Commission, has the
concern of, should we open the visitor center if the exhibition
area is not ready to be opened, as well? And that's a debate
that the Preservation Commission staff have been having. From
my perspective, the best of all possible worlds, it should all
be ready. We should be able to have full exhibits, have the
air-conditioning system tested, so the original documents,
amendments to the Declaration, amendments to the Constitution,
all of those original documents that we're planning to put into
the exhibition area, would safely be able to be installed
there. We need to award the contract and move ahead and see
just how we can shake it out. We still think we can make that.
Senator Allard. I want to move on, but Ms. Reynolds, did
you want to respond?
Ms. Reynolds. I just wanted to add a word to what Mr.
Hantman said, in terms of bringing the documents into the
building and readying the exhibition space. And I certainly
appreciate the commitment and the drive that the Architect has
to get this facility up and running for all of us. It will be
tremendous when it's done. But from an archival standpoint,
both the Clerk of the House and I have the responsibility to
work with the National Archives, who, of course, are the
repository of the records of Congress. So one thing we would
like very much to do--and I believe we have a meeting scheduled
in this regard--is to have Mr. Hantman fully brief both the
Archives and the Library of Congress, from whom we anticipate
we will also borrow some documents, so that those
preservationists, those archivists, can understand both the
project in full, how the work will proceed, potentially, around
the exhibition space, so that they have the assurance, before
they loan precious documents to us, that they have the
assurance and feel good about the prospect that those documents
will be protected in this exhibition space if we still have
ongoing work going on in other aspects of either the CVC or the
expansion space itself.
So, again, we'll keep you posted on that, but I think we
have one additional important step to make, if you will, and I
certainly didn't want to leave the impression that there's a
delay, if you will, from our end. But we do have that
responsibility, to protect the records of Congress, and need to
make that one additional stop with those archival experts.
Senator Allard. I think it would be helpful for this
subcommittee if we can get some sort of timeline set down here
with some estimated costs, and then we can check it off as we
go along. And if for some reason AOC doesn't meet the timeline,
we can ask why. And if you're under budget, we can have a
celebration, when we reach those various milestones. I think a
lot of Members in the Senate would feel more comfortable if we
could have some sort of timeline out there to get things nailed
down as best as we possibly can.
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL MANAGEMENT
Senator Allard. I think it would make life much easier.
The other thing that I would want to bring up, there's an
article here about the AOC staff survey, and your staff
expressed some dissatisfaction. I think you need to have
workers that have bought into what you're doing. Noting some of
the things several employees expressed concern about charges of
favoritism and uneven and unfair work distribution, hire and
promotions that were not necessarily based on qualifications
and experience but based on personal connections. Those are the
kind of comments that have been pulled out and that I have
before me here. Is that a problem that you think truly exists?
And even if it's a few employees, perhaps it is something to
correct. I'd like to know what your suggestions are in that
regard.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, we take those kind of charges
very seriously, and we investigate every one of them. What we
have tried to do, over the 8 years that I have been here, is to
create a human resources division that is responsible, not only
to external clients, but to internal clients. Our staff are the
backbone of the agency. The AOC is a service agency, and the
2,000 people we have essentially are our most valuable
commodity. So, we are making sure that we have fair and open
hiring practices, promotion practices, that we post jobs
between jurisdictions, which never used to happen. Basically--
somebody who worked for the House office buildings wouldn't
apply for a job in the Senate office buildings. They do that
now. We make sure that the benefits are the same. If you're
doing the same work, you get the same benefits. The
classification of all jobs are just the same. So anytime that
we hear something like that--and I hear it, I will talk to
people, we will talk to our human resources folks and make sure
that we get a full answer and that these people are treated as
fairly as possible within the guidelines of the Federal
Government-type regulations.
Senator Allard. I do recognize there is a challenge----
Mr. Hantman. There is.
Senator Allard. But I'd encourage you to sit down and work
with the employees and see if we can get it resolved. It sounds
to me like maybe you've made some efforts in that regard, and I
appreciate that.
Mr. Hantman. If I could make a statement, Mr. Chairman,
that was a very disturbing newspaper article. The headline was
``Fear and Loathing in the AOC.'' Those are very, very heavy
words. I had our folks go back to all the surveys. First of
all, please be aware, we initiated 25 task groups; 300 people
around our agency from all areas were invited in to talk, to
give their points of view in an open manner, with an outside
facilitator, impartial people, to talk about, what was wrong
with their jobs. We wanted to know basically what the problems
were, what the challenges were, how we can start addressing
those challenges. We also conducted a survey that went across
the entire agency, talking about the quality of services and
how we can improve them.
As a result of the surveys we've set up eight committees on
communications--no question about that, we have to improve our
communications--human resources, procurement, senior
leadership, strategic planning, all of these issues. We have
groups that have been set up to address these issues.
But I think it's important to note that we went back to the
surveys, and we studied these words that we saw. And the word
``loathing,'' ``repercussions,'' ``payback,'' those with
negative connotations did not appear in any of the surveys that
came back from our employees. Ninety-six employees, out of 215
participating, used the word ``fear.'' But the word ``fear''
was used regarding their concern about having their jobs
outsourced following a study we're conducting as a
congressional mandate. They did not use it in the context of
fear in the workplace. I'm thinking that, clearly, there are
some people who are not open enough or secure enough to express
their opinions. We had a celebration for people who have
Government service of, 30 to 35 years, last week. And I told
the people in the labor division who were talking there that we
want them to speak openly and talk about that. But I think it's
important to note that that headline had nothing to do with
what the surveys and the focus groups showed.
So, basically, our conclusion really is, the journalist's
choice of words were the journalist's choice of words. The fear
was--related to outsourcing, not to the way people are treated.
Most people stated that they liked their jobs. There was
certainly room for improvement in communications and other
areas, but it was a totally inappropriate headline.
Senator Allard. I wanted to give you an opportunity to
respond to that, because I think that you needed to have that
opportunity.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT
Now, let me go on to the GAO report. And I know you have a
chart over here. You just must be itching to use that chart.
I want to give you an opportunity to respond to some of the
criticism from the GAO report, and I think that's what that
chart's all about. So why don't you go ahead and respond to
those comments from the GAO report?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, the Capitol Visitor Center, I
call it a magnificent challenge. It truly is that. As I
indicated earlier Senator Durbin, the nature of the project has
changed significantly since its inception, adding roughly $150
million of new work to the project as it was under design and
construction.
If we could put the GAO summary of reasons back again,
please.
The GAO does talk about management. They talk about--we
could have done a better job doing management. In retrospect,
when you look at the issues that we have to deal with, managing
all the changes, the multiple changes--from the security
perspective, from the expansion perspective--we needed to
manage them, and we could have managed them more effectively,
but we have managed them very well right now.
So where we talk about three-quarters of the $250 million
increase due to factors, ``beyond, or largely beyond, AOC's
control,'' that's GAO's language, ``77 percent of their $250
million increase was beyond our control.'' The next line talks
about design-to-budget items impacted by market conditions.
The market volatility--since the budget for the House and
the Senate expansion spaces was established in 2001, there have
been material price increases. We have two estimates done for
every piece of costs, Mr. Chairman. One of them is done by
Gilbane, our construction manager; another is done by an
outside firm, Hanscomb Corporation. We compared the two
estimates for the work. With the escalating costs, the Hanscomb
group indicates, in the Washington metropolitan area, some 22
percent escalation has occurred within the last 12 months,
alone. So when you've established a budget years ago, and you
see that kind of escalation, the $35 million budget set for
each of the expansion spaces for the House and the Senate did
not conceive of that level of additional dollars. So that has
impacted us tremendously.
Limited competition due to a saturated construction market.
You can see construction cranes all over the Washington
metropolitan area. The pool of labor is down. The competitive
bidding is down also, because there's enough work to go around,
and contractors don't have to cut their prices; they can pick
their jobs.
Added costs to bidders due to security. As you know, Mr.
Chairman, we have trucks being checked on The Mall. Thousands
of trucks are being inspected by--and going through a big
screening area--by the Capitol Police. They're double-checked
when they come onto First Street, before they come on site. All
of the workers that come onto our site are screened. They
undergo retinal scans and police background checks. People in
the construction industry who have a police record are not able
to work on our job. That's a premium that contractors add to
their contracts.
Added--low estimates, and design not changed to meet the
budget. When our numbers have come in higher than we
anticipated, higher than our outside contractors and cost
estimators have said, we come up with lists of things that
could be eliminated from the project, could be changed. One of
the things, which you may be aware of, we have a Buy America
situation. If we had been able to bid our stone work on the
international market, our contractors tell us, we could have
saved $10 million. We have stone from Tennessee, from Ohio,
from Pennsylvania. We fabricate in Wisconsin, in Vermont. All
of this is American, and we're paying for that premium.
So the issue is, we could cut out some of that stone, we
can go to sheetrock, we can go to wood. What we're doing here,
Mr. Chairman, is, we're building for the future. This is not a
speculative office building. This is not a normal building.
This is something that complements and supports the Capitol
that's survived for 200 years; and, with the good Lord's grace,
will survive for hundreds more. So this is a complement. It
supplements what, in fact, is happening in the building. And
the quality of the finishes--the stone, the bronze work, there
is stone on the floor, there are quality woods, there are
materials that make sense, and that your great-grandchildren
will be proud to visit in future years. So, if we come up with
lists of things to cut because our numbers come in high, we are
told, no, we cannot cheapen the work. And I don't want to
cheapen it, either.
So the budget cannot be, as a normal job would be, one
where you cut things out, you change it, you eliminate
components of it. That is not an option open to us right now.
So we are living with what the--essentially, the industry tells
us the costs are going to be by those who choose to bid our
projects.
Senator Allard. Based on the GAO report and your experience
up to this point, what have been your lessons learned? If you
were to start back over with the project again, what would you
do differently to make it a better project than what it is
today?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, any architect or engineer who
does a major project, and it's underway, under construction,
has a tremendous fear of the words, ``While you're at it, why
don't you''--add a piece to the exhibit areas, add new security
criteria, change this, do a change order to your contract,
because I don't like the way that's coming in. With the outside
pressures we've had since 9/11, Mr. Chairman, nobody could have
foreseen all the security issues that we have.
As far as the expansion spaces are concerned, there's no
doubt in my mind that those were meant to be future expansion
spaces. When 9/11 hit, we got the money to finish them off, we
made basic changes. We had to redesign our structure so that
hearing rooms could have the long spans that they now have
while they were under construction basically, this is in terms
of the structure.
So have your programs set on everything that you're going
to do. Go to a single contractor--that was our original goal,
but, because of the timeframe--and that was the timeframe that
Senator Durbin referred to--we had this inaugural date to hit.
It turned out to be impossible once all of these $150 million
worth of changes were put in the project. Yet, we were still
driving our contractors to do that, and we put out bids on that
basis. We shouldn't have put out bids on that basis. We should
have recognized earlier that that's a criteria that will lose
us the bidders and the competitiveness of the bidding process.
Senator Allard. I think that's a comment well made. As soon
as you start changing the original order, you open up the
contract, and it just becomes a blank check, and it's very
difficult to control costs once you've done that. I've been in
the position where I had a construction project. You know, I
was building a veterinary hospital. And as soon as I started
requesting a change here or there, you just open the whole
thing up. And I can imagine, with this size of a project,
that's a huge, huge issue. Do you think there might be any more
major changes coming forward that could impact cost?
Mr. Hantman. Well, as was indicated in your opening
remarks, GAO, last time around, when we came before the
subcommittees for costs, they said, ``There's further risk out
there.'' GAO still indicates that there is further risk out
there. Hopefully, not on the magnitude that we're talking about
to date.
We need to award the contracts that we have yet to award,
and make sure that we can move ahead as expeditiously as
possible. That's the best way to control the costs.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions or
comments while we wrap this up?
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I'm very glad that we've had
an opportunity to have this exchange, and the question and
answers have been very informative and helpful to our
understanding of where we are with the visitor center project
and the responsibilities of these fine individuals, who serve
as Architect and Secretary of the Senate. We appreciate your
service and your cooperation with our efforts to help make sure
we're getting what we're paying for and we are not being frugal
and living up to our responsibilities to the general public and
to the Congress, itself, and the American people, in
particular.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more with
your comments, and I also understand the frustration when you
have numerous bosses, like the Architect of the Capitol has. We
all have our own views, and I understand the challenges of your
position, but I do think the more we can get down as a plan,
the better off we'd all be so we can understand that. So,
again, I would encourage you to get something in writing to us,
some kind of a plan. It would be helpful, I think, for the
subcommittee.
I agree with the chairman, this has been a very helpful
hearing, from both of you. And I know there's a lot of
dedicated people here that want to do the right thing for
Congress, and want to do the right thing for the people. We do
want this to be something we're all proud of, and I do see a
lot of things in that visitor center that are just great. I
want to make sure we can get through this with as few bumps as
we possibly can toward completion.
I want to thank all of you for your effort. Thank you.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Reynolds. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Allard. And I would request, of the witnesses,
that, within 1 week, if you could respond to additional
questions in writing, then we'll make those a part of the
record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Offices for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Emily Reynolds
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
Question. What are your recommendations for the closed captioning
of Senate hearings based on the pilot project your office conducted in
conjunction with the Judiciary Committee?
Answer. In September, 2003, the Office of the Secretary, in
coordination with the Judiciary Committee, agreed to implement a pilot
program for the closed captioning of Senate committee hearings, based
on language included in the fiscal year 2003 Legislative Branch
Appropriations report.
The pilot is summarized based on the request given to us by your
committee to assess the feasibility, use and cost of the closed
captioning pilot for committee hearings.
The original plan called for the pilot to run for a period not to
exceed 90 days with the Secretary's Office of Captioning Services to
provide the hardware and software using voice recognition technology, a
technology selected at the suggestion of the Judiciary Committee. The
Judiciary Committee provided funding for the product contract.
The Secretary's office invested almost $18,000 in support of the
project, which included equipment and training. In addition, the
director of captioning services served as the project manager and
provided extensive counsel and training. A room on the mezzanine level
of Hart 216 was prepared and furnished by the Architect of the Capitol
and the Sergeant at Arms for the captioners' work given the need for a
noise-free environment. The Senate Recording Studio also assisted in
providing the necessary feed and encoding equipment.
The project concluded on October 6, 2004, following the completion
of two captioned hearings for the Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately,
the project encountered delays involving both the contractor and the
technology, which eventually led to the selection of a second
contractor in order to complete the pilot.
The first contractor began work on January 21, 2004, and conducted
its first dry run on a committee hearing on February 25. A second dry
run followed approximately one week later on March 3. The contractors
were not familiar with the realtime captioning software, and on-site
training was provided. In addition, software bugs with the technology
had to be addressed and remedied. The contractors also experienced
numerous hardware problems, making it difficult to determine at times
whether the problems were software or hardware related. An overall lack
of experience in the use of voice recognition technology led to a high
error rate, so high the captions could not be understood.
The Judiciary Committee opted to terminate their contract with the
first contractor in mid-March, 2004, and proceeded to engage a second
operator just over one month later. The second contractor began
training in late August, and two dry runs of committee hearings were
conducted in September.
The contractor employed the voice recognition technology on
September 22 and again on October 6 to cover two Judiciary Committee
hearings that were broadcast on the Senate's internal television
committee channel. In the first hearing, the average percentage of
sentences with recognition errors was 55 percent. In the second
hearing, the captioners showed improvement with the technology reducing
the average percentage with recognition errors to 42 percent. (As a
standard of comparison, captioning services for Senate broadcasts posts
an accuracy rate of 99 percent).
The second contractor's captioners continued to experience setbacks
with both the software and hardware, and have rendered their opinion
that at least currently, the realtime captioning project is not
appropriate for Senate committee work, particularly given the unique
language of the Senate and the requirement for accuracy.
The Secretary's office provided a means for the Senate community to
respond to the pilot, with comments, creating an e-mail address,
ccpilot@sec.senate.gov. Two e-mail notices were sent prior to the
internal broadcasts of the two closed captioned hearings.
Four responses were received at the e-mail address. One was an
inquiry as to how to access the hearing; a second was from a committee
staffer inquiring further about the pilot. Two responses came from a
Congressional Research Service staffer who suggested transcript
corrections.
To the best of our knowledge, voice recognition technology has not
yet been employed to realtime caption television programming. In
addition, the availability of voice writers is minimal in the region,
particularly those with captioning experience. While the technology may
hold promise for the future, on the basis of the pilot project, it is
not a feasible technology for the Senate's use at this time.
Question. What information can your office provide to Senate
offices on employment compensation, hiring and benefit practices,
particularly for those newly-elected Senators who are in the process of
setting up shop? Would it be useful for Senate offices to have an
outside organization study compensation, hiring and benefit practices
for Senate staff, and in your view, would it be appropriate for us to
fund such a study?
Answer. Two departments under the direction of the Secretary, the
Disbursing Office and the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (SCCE)
can and do provide information to Senate offices, including newly-
elected Senators' offices, regarding compensation, hiring and benefit
practices.
With respect to hiring and benefit practices, the SCCE does the
following: (1) informs offices about how and where to advertise job
openings, how to interview candidates, how to conduct reference and
background checks, how to establish appropriate criteria for selecting
among job applicants, and how to finalize and document job offers; (2)
provides each office with dozens of sample employee policies that are
used across the Senate and assists the office with customizing the
policies; (3) assists offices with preparing employee policy manuals
and supervisors' manuals; (4) educates the offices about the range of
benefits customarily offered by Senate offices, such as the number of
days of paid leave, paid holidays, and paid FMLA leave, and assists
offices in establishing their benefits; (5) educates the offices about
all of their legal obligations and employees' legal rights under
employment laws, which include compensation, hiring and benefit
practices.
Like the SCCE, the Disbursing Office provides extensive and
detailed information to newly elected Senators' offices during the
Senators-elect orientation program and in one-on-one training with all
new offices. The training includes both written and verbal information
on the budget structure and available funds by fiscal year for the
office, the salary limitations for the office, the appointment and
hiring procedures including the statutory prohibitions on when
appointments and transfers can be effective, other employment
restrictions, procedures and requirements for salary adjustments and
termination processing, guidelines and procedures for processing
overtime and paying for unused annual leave, and any other relevant
employment and payroll procedures. Counseling on all federal benefits
(retirement, Thrift Savings Plan, health insurance, life insurance,
flexible spending accounts) is also provided to all new Senate
employees.
With respect to compensation, because each member's office is, by
law, an individual employer, each office establishes its own salaries.
Twice each fiscal year, the Report of the Secretary of the Senate is
published in compliance with Section 105 of Public Law 88-454, approved
August 20, 1964, as amended. The Report is a full and complete
statement of the receipts and expenditures of the Senate.
Based on the work of both the Disbursing Office and the Senate
Chief Counsel for Employment, it would be neither useful or necessary
to hire an outside organization to study compensation, hiring and
benefit practices. Because each office is an individual employer,
employee positions and job responsibilities are not the same across
offices, and salaries and benefits often reflect issues unique to each
state. To the extent policies and benefits are common across offices,
that information is already shared across, and provided to, Senators'
offices.
______
Questions Submitted to Alan Hantman
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
budget
Question. AOC is in the process of conducting a mid-year review of
the current year budget. Based on this analysis, do you believe there
will be any funding this year that could be reprogrammed to any
projects AOC is requesting in the fiscal year 2006 budget? If there are
savings, please explain why.
Answer. The mid-year review resulted in satisfying some emerging
fiscal year 2005 needs and a few fiscal year 2006 needs as well. The
review identified potential sources of funding to pay the Botanic
Garden claim, the closing costs for the ACF purchase and the Capitol
Power Plant-Replace Ash Handling.
strategic plan
Question. In December 2003, AOC issued a strategic plan for the
agency. How is the implementation of that strategic plan specifically
affecting your organizational structure and the resources you need for
fiscal year 2006?
Answer. Resources in terms of both dollars and FTEs are needed to
continue to make progress in implementing improvements (outlined in our
Performance Plan) in key areas such as project management, IT security,
Enterprise Architecture, worker safety, financial controls, and
employee communications. We have not requested additional FTEs to
implement these improvements and have ensured that the dollars
requested in our budget are aligned with our strategic action plans. As
part of our internal process to develop our budget, we require each
responsible manager to include discussion on how the requested budget
is linked to accomplishing one or more of AOC's Strategic goals.
In addition, the AOC proposed organizational structure would allow
us to more effectively manage day-to-day operations and achieve our
strategic goals. It will facilitate delegations of authority and
clarify lines of communications by formally recognizing the official
management structure of the agency.
Question. In your testimony you say ``we are continuously
evaluating our efforts so that we continue to excel, meet and exceed
expectations.'' On what basis can you say AOC is excelling, meeting and
exceeding expectations?
Answer. The AOC is constantly reviewing our progress and looking
for ways to improve our operations. Examples of improvements that allow
us to excel, meet, and exceed expectations include:
--Financial Management
--Developed a Management Control Program Policy--currently in the
review and approval process. Implementation team is forging
ahead as the policy receives final approval. The team has
completed the initial review of the first two internal
control cycles: payroll and procure-to-pay.
--Project Management
--Implemented a ``pilot'' PM organization to align staff with
mission critical goals.
--Continued to implement a Program Development Process that
includes the prioritization of projects by a senior-level
panel comprised of all jurisdictional superintendents. The
project prioritization process was most recently used in
the summer of 2004 in conjunction with determining the
fiscal year 2006 Line Item Construction Program (LICP) as
recently submitted to The Congress.
--Developed tools to effectively communicate priorities and
progress of projects. Formal Program Development Process
procedures have been developed and communicated to all
parties through various means. Briefings have occurred.
Portions of these procedures, as appropriate, have been
included in AOC manuals. The process, to include its
specific application to the recommended fiscal year 2005
Line Item Construction Program (LICP), has further been
communicated through the AOC's Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) prepared in February 2004. These procedures, to
include their application to the recommended fiscal year
2006 LICP, are similarly being captured and communicated
through the revised CIP currently nearing completion.
--Created an employee feedback process manual (undergoing final
review of procedures for implementation).
--Conducted Focus Groups and a Human Resources Management Division
Customer Satisfaction Survey--action plans are being developed
to address opportunities for improvement especially in the
areas of communication, on a wide variety of AOC issues,
policies and procedures.
--Completed the 2004 Building Services Customer Satisfaction Survey
(BSCSS) and reported findings and action plans to stakeholders.
--Linked senior executive and employee performance management systems
to our strategic goals and objectives.
--Launched our workforce planning office which is currently
developing a workforce plan/strategy to outline the process for
AOC long-range workforce planning.
--Continued to implement IT Investment Management, Enterprise
Architecture and Security programs.
Question. What are the most significant challenges you face in
meeting your strategic plan goals and how does your budget attempt to
address these priorities?
Answer. One of the biggest challenges we face, like many government
agencies, is the aging of our workforce and the need to transfer
knowledge to the next generation of skilled workers.
Maintaining our aging and historic facilities is another challenge
we face. This is why the Facility Condition Assessment (FCAs) are so
critical to achieving our Facilities Management Goal. The funding
request for a FCA of the Library of Congress is an example of this.
In our fiscal year 2006 budget development process, we aligned the
requests by budget line item to ensure our budget was consistent with
the Strategic Plan goals and objectives. This was our first attempt to
move towards a performance based budget. We are continuing to refine
this process as we prepare future budgets.
As outlined in our strategic plan, a significant impact on the
achievement of these goals is the time and money spent responding to
data calls, and meeting with various groups that are conducting reviews
of the AOC. The AOC staff is devoted to ensuring these various groups
have the most accurate and complete information available to support
the reviews.
chief operating officer position
Question. I understand you are working with a panel made up of the
Public Printer, the Comptroller General, the Chief Administrative
Officer of the House and someone yet to be appointed from the Senate
Sergeant at Arms to select a new Deputy ACO/COO. Could you please
explain to the committee the process you are using to review applicants
and make a selection? Has the panel ever met to discuss and approve
this selection process? Have criteria been established for use by the
panel in evaluating candidates? Did the panel participate in the
establishment of these criteria and approve them? When do you expect a
selection to be made? How many people applied?
Answer. As instructed by the Committees, in mid-December, 2004, we
initiated contact with several executive employment search firms to
identify and select one to conduct a nation-wide recruitment for a new
COO. After a review of several executive employment search firms, we
contracted with Korn/Ferry International on December 22, 2004.
--Korn/Ferry initiated their recruitment search process and suggested
that AOC also initiate a recruitment announcement through the
Federal U.S.A. Jobs system.
--AOC staff coordinated the vacancy announcement language with Korn/
Ferry and the announcement was posted from January 21 through
March 4, 2005.
On March 15, 2005, candidate review criteria, developed by Korn/
Ferry for their use to narrow the number of candidates to be referred
to the panel, were submitted to the panel for review and input.
Received input on the review criteria from each of the panel members,
(last one dated March 30, 2005). In addition to the review criteria
panel members also suggested steps they would like to follow in
completing their review and interview of candidates.
On April 5, 2005, the panel was provided with a matrix documenting
their input on the review criteria to be used by Korn/Ferry in
completing the candidate review process. The panel was also provided
information on suggestions they submitted for ``next steps'', and on
information they requested from Korn/Ferry for the panel's review and
interview of candidates.
On April 14, 2005, the Committees were sent an update on the
process, including the matrix outlining the criteria that Korn/Ferry
would use in their review of candidates; In addition, we have outlined
the ``next steps'' that the panel wanted to follow for their review and
interview of candidates.
While Korn/Ferry was completing their review of the candidates, the
AOC began to work with the panel members' staff to block out times when
the panel could convene to review and interview the candidates. Based
on the initial information received on the panel members' availability,
the earliest date when all the members could convene is May 26, 2005.
On April 28, 2005, I sent a letter to all the panel members asking
that they review their calendars to see if they could meet before May
26. From the information received to date, the panel will have their
initial meeting on May 17. Based on the travel schedule of some of the
panel members, it currently appears that the next date they can convene
is May 26. I anticipate that the panel will likely need to convene
several times to complete their review.
On May 3, 2005, Korn/Ferry delivered the candidate books to the AOC
and they in turn were delivered to the panel the next day.
Next steps (as suggested by the panel):
--The panel reviews the candidate information for the top 12
candidates that have been submitted to them.
--The panel narrows the number of candidates to a short list of best
qualified.
--The panel interviews the best qualified to determine the top
candidates (not less than three).
--The panel refers (not less than three) candidates for my
consideration, interview and selection.
Completion of my part of the review and interview of candidates is
dependent on the panel completing its work. If they cannot complete
their review until late in May or early June, we may need an extension
of time. If it appears that this will be necessary, I will make such a
request for the Committee's consideration as soon as we have that
information.
project management
Question. Project management was one of the areas cited by the
Government Accountability Office as needing improvement in its 2003
report on the AOC. What improvements have you made in this area and
what specific examples can you cite of ``lessons learned?'' Over half
of AOC's current construction projects over $250,000 are behind
schedule. Why? What is AOC doing to control schedule overruns? I
understand AOC established a pilot project management organization last
September and that is an improvement over the old way of operating,
including better accountability for managers. Why is it still a pilot
and why are employees reporting to both their ``old'' boss and their
``new'' boss? Isn't it time to move ahead with this and finalize the
structure, as recommended by GAO?
Answer. Organization Improvements: On September 1, 2004 the AOC
implemented a ``pilot'' Project Management organization. This
organization is comprised of Project Managers, Construction Managers,
and Construction Inspectors. The proposed alignment establishes clear
performance expectations for delivering high quality design and
construction projects on time and within budget mainly because the
project and construction management functions reside, for the first
time, within the same organization. The alignment is based largely on
recommendations and observations made by GAO, specifically to ``align
project management staff and resources with AOC's mission-critical
goals'' and that ``too many hats'' are being worn by those assigned
project management responsibilities.
The pilot Project Management organization is tasked with delivering
the projects identified through our Program Development Process that
leads to the development of Capitol Improvement Plans. Smaller projects
are managed by staff in the Engineering and Architecture Divisions, and
some projects are managed directly by staff in the Superintendent's
offices. In addition, there are four projects that are being managed by
dedicated teams hired specifically for these one-time capital
improvements efforts: the Capitol Visitor Center, the West
Refrigeration Plant expansion, the Supreme Court Modernization, and
most recently, the Hill-wide Perimeter Security program. Decisions as
to who manages which projects are made jointly by Project Management,
Architecture and Engineering and Superintendent's management staff. The
primary goal, however, is to have the Project Management organization
manage CIP projects, with the remaining project work being managed by
others. Since September 1, 2004, an effort has been made to transition
the aligned organization and its assigned workload while ``bridging''
those projects in transition to avoid losing institutional knowledge.
Lessons Learned: The AOC continues to show progress in using its
best practices to successfully executing design and construction
projects. Key findings from last year's Lessons Learned surveys (fiscal
year 2004) concluded that the AOC needed to focus on project planning,
scope development, and design coordination. In the ensuing months the
AOC developed critical check lists and sign-off sheets to assure that
all necessary project elements had been considered and appropriately
addressed before proceeding. The Program Development Process leading to
CIP development is serving as a gate-keeping mechanism to assure that
inadequately-developed projects do not proceed forward in the funding
request stream.
In addition, development and publication of the Program of
Requirements (Pre-design Manual) and assuring consistency with IDIQ
design task Orders will also significantly improve project scoping and
documentation before they are sent forward as part of developing the
CIP.
Schedule Overruns: One of the key components to creation of the
pilot Project Management organization was to establish clear
performance expectations for delivering projects on time and within
budget. Success in achieving these performance indicators is
anticipated because the project and construction management functions
reside, for the first time, within the same organization. When
variances with schedule, quality or budget arise, the project team is
required to work together in an attempt to overcome the variance and
keep the customer apprised accordingly.
In addition, each of the jurisdictions at the AOC have been
assigned a Jurisdictional Executive from the Project Management
organization. Each Jurisdictional Executive acts as the liaison between
the customer and the project-delivery organizations for resolution of
project-related issues. The goal with this arrangement is to foster
continuous communications and to keep projects moving forward on-time
and within budget.
Although the pilot organization has made several positive steps
with respect to project delivery and reporting, it must be recognized
that achieving an optimal goal for ``on schedule'' is a multi-step and
multi-year endeavor. As noted previously, many measures and processes
have been put in place, but the AOC has not yet delivered a CIP project
developed with the benefit of the Pre-design Manual, and there are
additional refinements to the Program Development Process that need to
be defined, such as creating an Acquisition Strategy process. The
expectation that a seven-month-old organization can overnight correct
problems inherent in projects developed years ago without benefit of
the new processes and organizational structured and accountability is
overly optimistic. GAO pointed out in its original General Management
Review that such changes take years to accomplish in an orderly and
measured manner. The AOC is confident that it continues to make steady
progress in project delivery and reporting.
Pilot Organization Approval: On April 22, 2005, letters were sent
by the Architect of the Capitol to both Appropriation's Committees,
providing notification of his plan to implement a new organizational
structure for the Agency. The proposed organizational chart delineated
changes to the current, higher-level management structure, which in-
turn would modify the reporting structure for the Project Management
organization, upon implementation. The letters indicated that the
proposed organizational structure would be implemented in May, unless
other feedback was provided by the Committees. It was thought prudent
to await the implementation of the higher-level management structure,
before implementing the pilot organization. Subsequent feedback to the
letters has been received by the Committees and the requested follow-on
information is being provided. Procedures for implementation of the
pilot organization will commence immediately after implementation of
the AOC organizational structure.
When the pilot organization was established in September 2004, it
was made clear to the impacted employees that their official management
structure would remain unchanged and that supervisory actions such as
performance evaluations would continue to be performed by their current
supervisor. This direction has not changed. Communications between the
Acting Director of Project Management and the management of the
impacted employees are continuous in an attempt to minimize confusion
and disruption to the staff. It is acknowledged that implementation of
the pilot organization will eliminate any perceptions of a ``dual''
reporting structure for the employee.
perimeter security
Question. Approximately $120 million has been appropriated for
perimeter security since 1999. I understand on the Senate side, the
work is at least a year behind the schedule that we were given last
year, with completion now planned for fall of 2007. Why has it slipped
by a year? Will additional funds be required to complete the overall
perimeter security work around the Capitol complex? How much and when
is it needed?
Answer. Work was prioritized to complete those items necessary for
the Inauguration. Completion of all remaining work presently funded is
scheduled for fall of 2006, with the exception of First St., N.E.,
which will be complete in fall of 2007 and Maryland Avenue, N.E., which
will be complete the fall of 2008. Additional funding will be required
for the completion of perimeter security for the Capitol Complex. The
total amount and date required, is needed as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding
Jurisdiction Required Date Required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Office Buildings........... $5,985,000 2007 Budget
House Office Buildings............ 4,319,000 August 2005
Supreme Court..................... 2,885,000 2007 Budget
Library of Congress (Phase 1)..... 5,637,000 June 2005
Capitol Square \1\................ 8,200,000 June 2005
-------------------------------------
TOTAL....................... 27,026,000 ....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplemental.
master plan and facility condition assessment
Question. In July 2001, this Committee directed AOC to develop a
master plan for the Capitol complex since the existing master plan is
25 years old. What is the status of the master plan? AOC has also been
working to develop condition assessments for each of the buildings.
What is the status of that effort and what are the most significant
capital requirements should we expect over the next 5 years?
Answer. In August 2004, a contract was awarded to a consulting team
to undertake development of the Capitol Complex Master Plan. In
December, a draft Vision Statement for the plan was completed and
reviewed by an Expert Advisory Panel through meetings convened by the
National Academies of Science and Engineering. Based on that meeting,
the consultants moved forward with the development of various complex-
wide concept plans. A second meeting with the Expert Advisory Panel was
convened by the National Academies during the week of March 7, 2005 for
the purpose of reviewing the various concept plans. We are now entering
the stage where more detailed facility plans are developed for each
jurisdiction. This will involve extensive interaction and consultations
so as to accommodate each jurisdiction's facility needs within an
overall Concept Plan for the Capitol Complex. The Capitol Complex
Master Plan initiative is on schedule for completion in late 2006, and
remains within budget.
Contracts for Facility Condition Assessments (FCAs) for the Capitol
Building, House and Senate were completed in early 2005. Projects
identified as a result of these studies will begin to appear with the
AOC's submission of its fiscal year 2007 Budget Request. FCAs for all
other jurisdictions, except for the Library of Congress, are ongoing
with completion of the House, Senate, and Capitol scheduled for
completion Spring 2005 and the remaining jurisdictions are scheduled
for late 2005. Funding for the Library of Congress FCA was requested in
the AOC's fiscal year 2006 Budget Submission and, subject to the
receipt of funding, would start in the fall of 2005.
Capital Projects are classified as one of four types with Deferred
Maintenance (DM), Capital Improvement (CI), and Capital Renewal (CR)
identified primarily through FCAs while Capital Construction (CC),
which is new construction of a building or construction that enlarges
and existing facility, identified primarily through the Capitol Complex
Master Plan. Because the Capitol Complex Master Plan is ongoing, and
because 7 of the 10 jurisdictions do not yet have completed Facility
Condition Assessments, it will be 2 to 3 years before a comprehensive
and complete list of Major Capital Projects, defined as those over $10
million, will be available. In the interim, and based only on the three
FCAs completed to date, the following Major Capital Projects, have been
identified:
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJ NO PROJECT TITLE COST RANGE TYPE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HB05004A Cable TV System Upgrade, $10-20 CI
Phase I, HOB
950042 Infrastructure 10-20 CI
Improvements, Phase I,
DSOB
SB05004A Cable TV System Upgrade, 10-20 CI
Phase I, SOB
000228 Fire Damper Installation, 10-15 CI
FHOB, RHOB & LHOB
990347 480V Switchgear and 10-20 CR
Transformer Replacements,
RHOB
900265H Dome Rehabilitation, Phase 50-60 CR
II, USC
970280 Interior Renovations, HUGE 40-50 DM
& HUGW
970279 Domestic Hot and Cold 10-25 DM
Water System Replacement,
RHOB
990364 Exterior Stone and Metal 30-50 DM
Preservation, USC
970351 Subway Upgrade, RSOB to 10-25 CI
Capitol, RSOB
030335 Emergency Evacuation and 10-25 CI
Notification System
Upgrade, USC
990401 Window Restoration and 10-20 CR
Replacement, USC
970278 Heating System Conversion-- 10-20 CR
Steam to Hot Water, LHOB
980298 House Chamber Renovation, 25-50 CR
USC
980050 HVAC System Upgrade, Phase 20-30 CR
1, HOB
980433 Garage Concrete 20-40 DM
Replacement , RHOB
990402 Sprinkler System 40-50 CI
Installation, USC
040234F Fire Alarm System Upgrade, 20-30 CI
RHOB
030320 Fire Damper Installation, 20-30 CI
DSOB
030319 Smoke Management System 20-30 CI
Installation, HSOB
030309B Enhanced Filtration for 70-90 CI
Air Handling Systems,
DSOB
030309B Enhanced Filtration for 60-80 CI
Air Handling Systems,
RSOB
030309B Enhanced Filtration for 30-40 CI
Air Handling Systems,
HSOB
030309A Enhanced Filtration for 30-40 CI
Air Handling Systems,
LHOB
030309A Enhanced Filtration for 25-35 CI
AC1-15 & AC22-25, CHOB
030309A Enhanced Filtration for 10-20 CI
Air Handling Systems,
FHOB
000299 Smoke Management System 20-40 CI
Installation, RSOB
980050 HVAC System Upgrade, Phase 20-30 CR
2, HOB
030004 Parking Garage, Lot 9, 30-40 CC
RHOB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
capitol power plant
Question. GAO recently made recommendations to cut operating costs
at the Power Plant. Do you have any plans to implement these
recommendations in fiscal year 2006? How much funding might be saved by
proceeding with GAO's recommendations?
Answer. The start-up, testing, and post construction activities for
the expansion of the West Refrigeration Plant and the new plant central
control system will commence in the 1st quarter of fiscal year 2006 and
tentatively complete in the 3rd quarter. Due to the nature of these
manpower intensive activities, it is unlikely that we will implement
manpower changes until fiscal year 2007. The major cost saving
recommendation for the efficient use of fuel has been implemented and
we expect to save approximately $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2006.
fire and life safety projects
Question. AOC has been provided close to $190 million in the past 5
years for fire and life safety projects to ensure the buildings in the
Capitol complex meet appropriate codes and standards. How much more
needs to be done and at what cost? What is the schedule for completion
of all fire and life-safety related projects?
Answer. Considerable improvements in Fire Protection and Life
Safety of the buildings in the Capitol complex have been completed and
implementation of others continue throughout the complex. As shown in
the Capital Improvements Plan there are numerous additional projects
including fire alarm, smoke detector and fire sprinkler upgrades,
emergency lighting and exit light upgrades, firefighter telephone
installations, audibility and intelligibility upgrades, kitchen exhaust
system upgrades, and egress improvements which remain to be completed.
For fiscal year 2006 there are nine projects totaling $24,850,000. The
total projected cost for projects included in fiscal year 2007 through
fiscal year 2010 in the CIP ranges from $264 million to $499 million.
It will take approximately 8 years to complete all currently defined
projects. In addition, there are several egress studies and designs
which will be completed in fiscal year 2007 for which cost and schedule
projections cannot be made at this time.
capitol police off-site delivery facility
Question. The pending supplemental appropriations bill in the
Senate includes $23 million as requested by the Capitol Police Board
for a new off-site delivery facility for the police. This project was
first identified as a ``top 5 priority'' in the Capitol Police 1999
Master Plan, yet the project has been very slow to gain momentum. It is
now urgent with the new baseball stadium forcing USCP out of the
current space within the year. Can you assure us that you will make
this project a very high priority and obligate funds this fiscal year?
Answer. The safety and well-being of those who work in and visit
the Capitol and the ability to facilitate the legislative process are
our top priorities. To ensure we achieve these objectives, all items,
for use in the Capitol complex undergo an inspection process prior to
entering the Capitol perimeter. Having an acceptable Capitol Police
Off-site Delivery Facility is critical to the entire community and our
goal is to obligate the funds this fiscal year.
fort meade storage modules
Question. The budget includes $41 million for the construction of
two additional storage modules for the Library of Congress at Fort
Meade, MD. Could you explain the status of construction of the first
and second modules at Fort Meade? I understand this is a long-term
project, with many more modules to be constructed to meet the Library's
storage needs. What is the total cost and timeframe for the Fort Meade
storage modules project?
Answer. The first Book Storage Module is complete and the building
is occupied. The second Book Storage Module is 98 percent complete and
should be occupied by the latter part of May, 2005. The Library of
Congress currently plans to design and contract a total of 13 High
Density Book Storage Module at Fort Meade. If Modules 3 and 4 are
appropriated in fiscal year 2006, the Library of Congress desires to
construct a new Book Storage Module every two years. At this pace, the
thirteenth module will be complete and ready for use in 2026. The total
cost in current year dollars, excluding design fees, is expected to be
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book Storage Module 1................................... $3,500,000
Water Tank.............................................. 4,100,000
Book Storage Module 2................................... 9,500,000
Book Storage Modules 3 & 4.............................. 40,700,000
Supporting Infrastructure............................... \1\ 20,000,000
Book Storage Module 5................................... 11,000,000
Book Storage Modules 6-13 ($11,000,000 each)............ 88,000,000
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 176,800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be split among all projects.
privatization
Question. I understand GAO has been asked to look at whether
privatizing any AOC functions would make sense. Do you have any
suggestions as to whether consideration ought to be given to
contracting-out any of AOC's in-house functions?
Answer. We have been and will continue to look for areas that may
be appropriate for consideration. We have outsourced a number of areas
including trash and waste removal; shuttle bus service; pest control;
some janitorial functions; a variety of A/E support functions;
information resources help desk operation and most of IRM's server
support; lawn mowing and snow removal; several audit and accounting
functions; art work conservation; emergency elevator repair; equipment
repair and maintenance (fork lifts, floor machines); kitchen exhaust
hood/duct inspection, testing and cleaning; testing, inspection and
certification of elevators; testing and certification of fire alarm
systems; testing and certification of fire extinguishers; and window
cleaning. We are considering options to outsource facilities management
of the ACF (assuming purchase) and for Capitol Police Buildings and
Grounds; and outsourcing of replacement of high efficiency HVAC
filters.
gao management review
Question. What is the status of AOC meeting GAO's recommendations
from its 2003 review of the AOC relative to financial management
improvements, including preparing auditable financial statements? What
remains to be done in the financial management area? Are the resources,
including staffing levels, in your budget request adequate to meet
these requirements?
Answer. August 2004 report (GAO-04-966) says the following in
relation to Auditable Financial Statement and Related Internal
Controls: ``The ability to prepare agencywide financial statements
that, along with related internal controls, can be independently
audited represents a key component of an organization's ability to
institutionalize financial management best practices and establish a
sound foundation of accountability and control. AOC has made progress
in preparing agencywide financial statements; supporting an audit of
its September 30, 2003, balance sheet; and establishing related
internal control policies and procedures. As part of its efforts to
prepare agencywide financial statements, AOC put in place internal
control policies and procedures related to funds control, financial
reporting, and inventory management, and is starting work on other
actions to further enhance financial control and accountability.''
Question. How has AOC improved its internal control framework,
including establishing an environment in which management and employees
maintain a positive and supportive attitude toward internal controls
and conscientious management (see p. 41 of GAO/03/231)?
Answer. For the past two years as a part of our financial audit,
our auditors have conducted a review of internal controls. All of their
stated concerns have either been addressed or are being addressed. We
are in the process of establishing an Internal Control Program. This
program will assist us in establishing an ``accountability'' framework
that will include training of all management employees on their
responsibilities with respect to internal controls.
Question. What has AOC done to develop and communicate consistent
human capital policies and procedures at all levels (p. 43 GAO/03/231),
including provision of pay raises, bonuses, and awards?
Answer. As part of its Human Capital Plan, AOC has continued to re-
write policies that need revision, or write new AOC wide policies that
didn't previously exist. Listed below by fiscal year are the policies
in supervisor's offices and available on AOC's intranet. For policies
that have a direct impact on employees, hard copies are distributed to
every AOC employee. To facilitate understanding of some policies,
briefings are given to supervisors and/or employees where they are
given an opportunity to ask questions. In addition, supervisors and
managers use a variety of methods to communicate policies to their
employees. As part of reviewing the focus group result findings, AOC
management is currently considering other measures that should be
taken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2003:
Determining Eligibility for Sunday 6/15/03
Premium Pay.
Performance Review Plan for Exempt 7/1/03
Personnel.
Hours of Duty...................... 9/2/03
Fiscal Year 2004:
Holiday Pay........................ 11/21/03
Absence and Leave.................. 12/5/03
Awards............................. 12/19/03
Leadership Development Program..... 6/14/04
Clearance of Separating Employees.. 7/19/04
Fiscal Year 2005:
Avenues for Assistance............. 10/04
Pay Under the Architect's Wage 3/1/05
System.
Career Staffing.................... Completed, awaiting approval
Performance Communication and Completed, awaiting approval
Evaluation System.
Currently under development:
Pay Under the General Schedule.....
Employee Development...............
Exempt Personnel...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Why did it take AOC 18 months from the time the GAO's
report was issues, to initiate an employee survey, to begin to address
GAO's recommendation to comprehensively collect and analyze data from
employee relations groups?
Answer. GAO made the following recommendation in their January 2004
report ``Gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or
surveys before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is
taking actions to address any identified employee concerns.'' The AOC
addressed this recommendation in September 2004 by conducting employee
focus groups. This was completed ahead of the GAO recommended date and
in line with our Performance Plan.
capitol visitor center
Question. Several changes to the CVC contract appear to be due to a
simple lack of coordination with both internal officials, such as the
fire marshal, and other organizations including the Supreme Court. Why
did this happen and what are you doing to prevent this in the future?
Answer. Several changes such as stair pressurization and fire
damper monitoring are a result of professional disagreements between
the Fire Marshal and the designer of life safety systems for the CVC.
The uniqueness of a below grade building and inherent conflicts between
the desire for increased security and the often inflexible nature of
building code contributes to areas of disagreement on how to best
handle life safety issues. These differences came about during normal
review of building life safety systems as the details were developed.
The Supreme Court issue you are referring to is the requirement
that the book tunnel between the Supreme Court and Library of Congress
be undisturbed when the utility tunnel is constructed. Apparently the
construction sequence requiring removal of the book tunnel for
excavation of the utility tunnel and subsequent rebuilding was not
known to Supreme Court security personnel, and could not be
accommodated. We are proceeding to build the utility tunnel up to the
book tunnel on both sides with minimal impact to the utility tunnel
construction.
Question. Why was the Government responsible for all of the CVC
Sequence 1 delay when monthly CVC progress reports indicated that the
Sequence 1 contractor was not devoting sufficient resources to keep the
project on schedule?
Answer. The CVC contract requires the government to compensate the
contractor in time and money for delays cause by differing site
conditions or owner changes that delay his work. Weather delay is
compensable only with time. During negotiation with the Sequence 1
contractor and all of the subcontractors, a portion of the delay was
attributed to weather. However, most of the delay was due to differing
site conditions and changes to the Sequence 1 contract for added scope.
These problems created inefficiencies that kept the Sequence 1
contractor from fully staffing the project while awaiting direction on
corrective action.
Question. GAO's risk-based cost and schedule estimates for the CVC
to date have been much more accurate than the AOC's or that of their
construction management firm. What is AOC doing to integrate risk
assessment in its future estimates?
Answer. The estimates prepared by AOC and our construction manager
have been based on what was known at the time. We did not ask for
additional funding beyond the needs that could be identified. The delay
costs for Sequence 1 in Spring 2003 were based on the delay of a couple
of months that had occurred to date, and did not contemplate an
additional eight and a half months of delay to Sequence 1 that
followed. There was also an expectation at that time that the delay
impact on commencing Sequence 2 work would be minimal since it was felt
the two contracts could be overlapped to make up most of the two month
delay.
Today the risk is reduced to the delay in award of the Expansion
space contract, the Exhibit construction contract, the House Connector
tunnel and the Jefferson Building work. Had these contracts been
awarded in February or March 2005, the risk would be minimal; however
with the current delay in awarding those contracts, the impact is
uncertain. The risk of differing site conditions remains for the House
Connector tunnel and Jefferson Building.
organizational structure
Question. What steps is AOC taking to address concerns raised by
the Comptroller General regarding AOC's organizational structure, in
response to a letter (2/8/05) from the Architect seeking the CG's
comments? Will AOC enable the CVC Project Director to report directly
to the Architect?
Answer. We developed and submitted for your information a revised
organizational structure incorporating most of GAO's recommendations
after follow up discussions with the Comptroller General. The CVC
director reports directly to the Architect.
capitol visitor center utility tunnel
Question. According to GAO, over $1 million in additional costs was
incurred due to AOC's indecision on how to construct the utility
tunnel. Why did this happen?
Answer. The utility tunnel work in the Sequence 1 contract did not
include new requirements by WASA for the tie-in of utilities at Second
Street that was estimated to cost approximately $1 million. In order to
reduce the cost for this work, a Bulletin G was created by the
Architect to use precast concrete sections in lieu of poured in place
concrete. Pricing received for Bulletin G was not as good as expected
so other alternatives such as drilling, use of utility trench or direct
burial were investigated. Ultimately, the Bulletin G scope of work was
determined to be the best value to the government for first cost and
long term maintenance. Pricing was available from both Sequence 1 and
Sequence 2 for the work, and since Sequence 1 was nearly finished with
their work and Sequence 2 was slightly lower in cost, the decision was
made to award work to Sequence 2. During the period of tunnel
evaluation, the cost of steel pipe and other metals, which were always
in Sequence 2, went up significantly in cost. The Sequence 2 contractor
could not order this material until a decision was made on the tunnel
configuration, since that could affect the pipe required. The added
cost for Sequence 2 materials escalation is $1 million.
capitol visitor center construction
Question. In November 2004, GAO recommended AOC use incentives to
keep CVC contractors on schedule, and rigorously track, document, and
analyze the reasons for delays. What specific steps have you taken to
implement these recommendations? The fiscal year 2006 budget request
includes $36 million to complete the CVC. Are you confident this will
be sufficient? Does this leave you with sufficient contingency? What
steps are you taking to ensure the project stays within this new budget
of $517 million? You say that delays in the job were due in part to a
record year of bad weather--Why wasn't weather listed as one of the
reasons for delay when the change order was settled?
Answer. The Sequence 2 contract has an award fee of $1.2 million
available to the contractor that is used as a positive incentive for
good contractor performance including timely completion. The first
portion of that award for $150,000 is currently being evaluated. The
Sequence 2 contractor's schedule is being evaluated monthly to resolve
any delay issues and track their progress against the schedule. In
addition, the construction manager has developed a more integrated
Master Schedule for the project that includes all those activities in
addition to construction that are required to complete the CVC facility
for opening. To date, aside from the 10 month delay for Sequence 1 to
complete their work and allow Sequence 2 to begin, there have been no
delays in the Sequence 2 contract. We believe the $36.9 million
requested in fiscal year 2006, together with the reprogramming request
of $26.3 million in fiscal year 2005, provides sufficient funds and
contingency to complete the project, providing those funds are forth
coming to avoid delays in Sequence 2 for award of contracts such as
Exhibit construction and House and Senate Expansion space. This also
assumes our estimate of $15 million is adequate to cover the 10 month
delay for Sequence 2 to commence work while awaiting the completion of
Sequence 1 work, that there are no significant added costs for the
House Connector tunnel and no significant owner changes to the current
project including the Jefferson Building work, the Expansion spaces or
the CVC.
Unusually severe weather is excusable time, but not compensable.
Total delay was 235 working days. The sequence 1 contractor was
compensated for a maximum of 217 days. (Some subcontractors experienced
a greater weather impact than others, and their settlements were based
on a lower number of compensable days).
Question. Has AOC formally evaluated the performance of its CVC
construction management firm? If not, why not? If so, when and with
what results? What incentives or penalties are provided in their
contract for performance?
Answer. We have evaluated the construction managers' performance
twice to date, in August 2004 and February 2005. The result indicated
improvement was needed in schedule management, dispute resolution, and
the preparation of change order packages. Since their last evaluation
significant improvements have been made in dispute resolution and
change order preparation, with schedule management currently being
addressed. Their contract does not provide for either incentives or
penalties, which has been normal for this type contract.
project management
Question. AOC does not maintain consistent baseline data in its
Project Information Center to track changes to project costs and
schedules. What progress have you made developing information systems
that quickly collect and roll up information on all ongoing capital
projects to senior management and congressional committees? What still
needs to be done?
Answer. One of the greatest challenges the AOC has faced is how to
satisfy the many demands to report project status both internally and
externally. Each entity wants to know basically the same things: is a
project within budget, is it on time, and will it meet the customer's
needs? The challenge in the past has been that the various entities
have asked for project performance indicators in many different ways.
In the attempt to satisfy the many different but similar questions, the
AOC has not done as good a job as it could have.
In September 2004, when the pilot organization was initiated,
project reporting through PIC was suspended pursuant to senior
management's interest in reporting on contract status in lieu of
project status. A manually-produced report was developed that clearly
indicated contract status, and the data could easily be verified by
comparison to financial and procurement documents. These so-called COTR
reports have been kept internally for six months.
Over the past few months, the AOC has been working closely with the
Government Accountability Office during the current cycle of its
General Management Review. The GAO had asked that the AOC provide yet
another series of project performance indicators. On a parallel path,
the AOC project management team had been developing a report format
that would answer recurring questions asked over the past several
years, as well as satisfy a requirement to report project status on a
quarterly basis. The report format uses project performance indicators
based on verifiable contract and financial data, but also includes a
text status. The format has been reviewed by some of the
Superintendents, who have given it favorable comments related to its
ability to accurately portray project status. Together, the AOC and the
GAO are working to assure that this format, along with definitions,
will satisfy project reporting requirements. The AOC's published a
manually produced version of this report at the end of March 2005.
Feedback will be gathered before any attempt is made to make changes in
PIC to produce the report from an automated system.
Question. How will the new (pilot) project management organization
improve your ability to manage projects? How will you determine if this
new organization is a success?
Answer. The pilot organization has established clear performance
expectations for delivering high quality design and construction
projects on time and within budget. Now that the project and
construction management functions reside, for the first time, within
the same organization, these expectations can be managed by recognizing
success and poor performance. Internally, the AOC has developed
customer satisfaction surveys to measure performance as viewed by the
jurisdictions. External customer satisfaction feedback will be sought
in the future.
In its transitional state, only a few projects funded in fiscal
year 2005 have begun the construction phase with the benefits of better
planning and scope development. As the organization matures and
delivers more design and construction projects, performance results are
anticipated to improve.
Question. You recently released to employees a set of manuals
containing project management best practices that are to be followed.
How will you ensure that AOC employees actually follow those best
practices?
Answer. Key components of the best practices manual processes are
summarized in checklists that accompany project development through its
scope development, design, construction, and closeout phases. These
checklists serve as quick references to assure adherence to critical
processes. Projects without completed checklists are not permitted to
proceed without a senior level exemption being granted. However, due to
the significant competition for funding resources, project managers and
their clients, the Superintendents, are increasingly rigorous in
developing project data to satisfy justification requirements. Project
managers who utilize the manuals will be successful in completing their
checklists.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
organizational issues
Question. In February, ``The Hill'' newspaper published an article
entitled ``Fear and Loathing at AOC'', which reported on the results of
a recent AOC employee feedback survey. According to the article, the
survey showed that senior management at AOC is dysfunctional,
inconsistent, and lacks leadership qualities. It also reiterated some
long-standing issues at AOC, such as poor communications and very low
morale. Why do these issues still persist? What actions are you taking
to respond to employee concerns?
Answer. The article stems from an initiative we took to solicit
employee feedback to identify specific areas for improvement.
In September we asked over 300 employees, from all organizations,
divisions, levels, and shifts, to partake in 25 focus groups. The
purpose of holding the focus groups was specifically to get employee
feedback on areas for improvement. The participation and the outcome
were beyond our expectations: 215 employees shared their opinions on
our way of doing business. We also obtained very good feedback on
opportunities for improvement.
In addition to these focus groups, the Human Resources Management
Division (HRMD) invited employees to share their opinions in a customer
satisfaction survey in October. The questions focused on the services
HRMD provides and how well they deliver those services. The findings
from the HRMD survey were compiled and validated against the issues
raised during the focus groups. This process took some time in that
both electronic and paper copies of the survey had to be processed and
analyzed. By coupling this information, the senior management team had
a broader cross-section of employees' views, opinions, and suggestions
to evaluate.
Through our employees active participation in this feedback-
gathering process we identified the following areas where we need to do
a better job:
--Communicating (provide clearer, easier-to-understand information,
obtain more employee input, explain work processes, policies,
procedures, publish an organizational chart);
--Providing clearer direction (explain internal procedures and
policies including job expectations, manage shifting
priorities, coordinate assignments, set service standards);
--Recognizing employee accomplishments (more acknowledgment of
individual accomplishments by senior managers, use of awards);
--Explaining our Mission and Vision;
--Outlining customer service expectations (define the standards for
excellence, hold internal organizations accountable for quality
service, clearly communicate standards); and
--Setting Agency standards that provide responsive customer support
to meet AOC employee needs from HR, Procurement, EEO and other
service organizations.
Based on the information and feedback received, we have created
eight cross-jurisdictional work teams that are taking each of the areas
identified for improvement and they are developing action plans to
address them as expeditiously as possible.
capitol visitor center
Question. What do you expect the final cost of the CVC to be? What
do you see as the major reasons for cost increases in this project and
what are you doing to control costs during the remainder of the
project?
Answer. We expect the final cost for the construction of the CVC
facility to be $517.6 million. The major reason for the cost increase
to date is the addition of $141.8 million in budgeted added scope, and
$29.1 million in delay costs due to the added scope and differing site
conditions. Sequence 1 delay costs totaled $10.3 million, and $18.5
million is expected to be required to fund Sequence 2 costs as a
consequence of the 10 month delay while Sequence 2 waited for Sequence
1 to complete their work. Controlling costs for the remainder of the
project requires that there be no significant changes to the contract
and Expansion space, no significant differing site conditions in the
House Connector tunnel or Jefferson Building work, and timely release
of the project funding so contracts can be awarded and change orders
processed.
Question. Without additional appropriations, when will the CVC
project run out of money?
Answer. The CVC project has 24 line items. We are already out of
funding for the item to fund change orders for the Sequence 2 contract
and will be out of authority for funding CVC Administration in mid May
2005. Until we receive additional funding we cannot award the House and
Senate Expansion space. We have funding available in other line items,
but those funds are required for construction of the Exhibit area, $6.6
million; security equipment, $4 million; perimeter security, $2
million; House Connector tunnel, $2.5 million; and Jefferson Building
work, $3.3 million.
Question. GAO's risk-based cost and schedule estimates have been
much more accurate that the AOC's or their construction management
firm. What is AOC doing to integrate risk assessment in its future
estimates?
Answer. The risks remaining on the CVC project relate primarily to
our complicated building systems, and those elements of work not yet
under contract which includes the House Connector tunnel, the House and
Senate Expansion space, and the Jefferson Building work. The systems
include the filtration system since it involves a new technology, and a
very complicated fire safety and smoke evacuation system. To minimize
the above risk the entire team, including subcontractors, is working to
ensure we understand all of the issues required to complete and turn
over these systems.
Question. According to GAO, over $1 million in additional costs was
incurred due to AOC's indecision on how to construct the Utility
tunnel. Why did this happen?
Answer. The utility tunnel work in the Sequence 1 contract did not
include new requirements by WASA for the tie-in of utilities at Second
Street that was estimated to cost approximately $1 million. In order to
reduce the cost for this work, a Bulletin G was created by the
Architect to use precast concrete sections in lieu of poured in place
concrete. Pricing received for Bulletin G was not as good as expected
so other alternatives such as drilling, use of utility trench or direct
burial were investigated. Ultimately, the Bulletin G scope of work was
determined to be the best value to the government for first cost and
long term maintenance. Pricing was available from both Sequence 1 and
Sequence 2 for the work, and since Sequence 1 was nearly finished with
their work and Sequence 2 was slightly lower in cost, the decision was
made to award work to Sequence 2. During the period of tunnel
evaluation, the cost of steel pipe and other metals, which were always
in Sequence 2, went up significantly in cost. The Sequence 2 contractor
could not order this material until a decision was made on the tunnel
configuration, since that could affect the pipe required. The added
cost for Sequence 2 materials escalation is $1 million.
Question. When can we expect the CVC to be open to the public and
will the Senate expansion space be ready for use at the same time? What
are the liquidated damages for the CVC and are they the same for
completion of the Senate expansion space?
Answer. We expect the CVC portion of the project to be available
for public use in September 2006. The Senate space will probably not be
ready, especially since we still do not yet have the funding approved
to make the award of the contract. The liquidated damages on the CVC
are $16,000 a day and the liquidated damages for the House and Senate
Expansion Space work is $4,750 per day.
Question. Considering that the CVC will most likely not open until
fiscal year 2007, why have you asked for so much in your fiscal year
2006 operations budget for the CVC? Additionally, why have you
requested so many FTE's?
Answer. The operations and maintenance costs included in my fiscal
year 2006 budget request were based on a June timeframe as opposed to
September opening date. It is estimated that the costs for operations
and maintenance will be $10.4 million rather than $15.3 million as
originally requested. I have included these requirements in the AOC
budget submission until a determination is made on who will have
oversight of the facility. An additional $20 million was included for
start-up and opening costs for gift shops, Visitor Center services,
Capitol police furniture, fixtures and equipment, House recording
studio, data network wiring and equipping of the House shell space.
Since the House shell space estimate was also included in the fiscal
year 2006 Budget request of the Chief Administrative Officer of the
House, this request can be reduced to $9.1 million for this portion of
the budget. As a result of the September opening date, the payroll
estimate can be revised from $12 million to $7 million with an
associated reduction in FTEs.
Question. In November 2004, when GAO presented its most recent
estimate of the cost to complete the project, it recommended that you
immediately enhance the CVC project team's schedule management
capacity, use incentives and other means to keep contractors on
schedule, and rigorously track, document, and analyze the reasons for
delays. What specific steps have you taken to implement these
recommendations?
Answer. The Construction Manager contracted with a scheduling
consultant to help their field staff in schedule management. In
addition, we have contracted with the firm that prepared the ``Cost to
Complete'' in 2004 to review those efforts and offer recommendations.
To date those efforts still require improvement and a senior official
has assumed those responsibilities.
We currently have a $1.2 million award fee that is used as an
incentive for outstanding performance by the Sequence 2 construction
contractor.
Question. Who was responsible for ensuring that adequate contract
and project summary schedules were developed, kept current, and adhered
to and for documenting delays and their causes as they occurred? How
well in your view, was this done over the course of the project?
Answer. The construction manager has responsibility for ensuring
that adequate contract and project summary schedules were developed,
kept current, and adhered to as well as documenting delays and their
causes as they occurred. That work has been marginal to date, and they
are changing the personnel responsible for that effort to a senior
official on site.
Question. How much has AOC paid Gilbane to manage the CVC
construction work and how well has Gilbane performed? Has AOC formally
evaluated Gilbane's performance? If so, when and what were the results?
If not, why not? What incentives or penalties are provided for in
Gilbane's contract for performance?
Answer. Gilbane's contract for construction management for the CVC
portion totals $15.5 million. Payments to date total $12,772,847. We
have evaluated the construction managers' performance twice to date, in
August 2004 and February 2005. The results indicated improvement was
needed in schedule management, dispute resolution, and the preparation
of change order packages. Since their last evaluation significant
improvements have been made in dispute resolution and change order
preparation, with schedule management currently being addressed. Their
contract does not provide for either incentives or penalties, which has
been normal for this type contract.
Question. In view of the cost and completion increases for this
project, what incentives are there for your various consultants to
control these items?
Answer. The design and construction manager consultants' primarily
incentive is the reputation they receive on projects such as this one.
They are very concerned that this project be viewed in the end as a
success, and that they personally are viewed as having successfully
overcome huge scope additions and differing site conditions to complete
the project in a timely and cost effective manner, in spite of the
challenges imposed upon them.
Question. What is the overall status of AOC's efforts to correct
the internal control weaknesses reported from the fiscal year 2003
audit?
Answer. The AOC has approved a policy to establish an Internal
Control program modeled after the program at the Library of Congress.
It has been modified to comply with the intent of the Sarbanes Oxley
Act of 2002 and OMB Circular A-123. Development of the policy is
partially complete with a target implementation date of September 30,
2005. The program's development is currently being handled by
contractors. The program will require additional resources for its
implementation.
Question. When does the AOC expect the fiscal year 2004 audit to be
completed?
Answer. All field work has been completed. The final requirement to
complete the audit is for AOC management to sign representation letters
which we are in the process of accomplishing.
Question. Could the AOC provide a copy of the fiscal year 2004
audit report to this committee as soon as they receive it from their
auditors?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Is the AOC expecting any new, significant internal
control findings from the 2004 audit?
Answer. The auditors have not yet provided us with a ranking of the
audit findings as to significance. The answer though is clear, there
are significant findings. The audit found 15 new findings not all of
which were material. There were also 6 repeat findings from the
previous year. Most of the significant internal controls findings were
weaknesses in the Payroll, Personnel and Procurement areas.
Question. The proposed AOC organization chart dated December 2004
shows the Project Executive for the CVC directly reporting to the
Architect of the Capitol. Has this reorganization taken place?
Answer. Reorganization proposal has been submitted for Committee
review and we propose to implement in May. CVC Project Executive
reports to the Architect of the Capitol.
Question. The proposed AOC organization chart dated December 2004
shows a Chief of Staff reporting directly to the Architect of the
Capitol. What are the duties of the person in this position? Will there
be any overlap in the duties of the Chief of Staff and the Chief
Operating Officer?
Answer. The Chief of Staff assists both the Architect and COO in a
variety of agency outreach communication and Congressional support
needs. With the COO's extensive internal operational functions, on a
strategic as well as day to day basis, the support of the Chief of
Staff allows the COO to concentrate more fully on these
responsibilities. Following are the duties of the COO and Chief of
Staff.
Duties of the Chief Operating Officer/Deputy:
--Responsible for reviewing and directing the operational functions
of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol including:
facilities operation and maintenance; safety; design,
construction and project management; administration and
modernization of information technology systems employed by the
Office; productivity and cost-savings measures; strategic human
capital management, including performance management and
training and development initiatives; financial management,
including the integration of operational functions and
financial management to ensure that budgets, financial
information, and systems support the required strategic and
annual plans.
--Serves as senior advisor to and representative of the Architect.
The individual will provide advice and assistance on all
aspects of the management and operations of the AOC; provides
advice on all operational aspects of AOC business functions
including facilities operation and maintenance; safety; design,
construction and project management; procurement and
contracting; budget and financial management; information
technology; human resources, and other administrative
management matters.
--Assists the Architect in promoting reform and measuring results,
and is responsible to the Architect of the Capitol for the
direction, operation, and management of the Office of the
Architect of the Capitol. Additionally, the individual is
responsible for implementing the Office's mission and goals;
and providing organization management to improve the Office's
performance.
--Responsible for developing, implementing, annually updating, and
maintaining a long-term strategic plan covering a period of not
less that 5 years.
--Responsible for developing and implementing an annual performance
plan that includes annual performance goals covering each of
the general goals and objectives in the strategic plan and
including to the extent practicable quantifiable performance
measures for the annual goals.
--Responsible for proposing organizational changes and new positions
needed to carry out the Office of the Architect of the
Capitol's mission and strategic and annual performance goal and
will ensure that the AOC's organizational structure promotes
efficiency and effectiveness.
Duties of the Chief of Staff:
--Assist the Architect and the COO in exploring and developing
program and management ideas, evaluating problems and
developing suggested course of action in program and policy
development and evaluation; conducts research and provides data
to assist the Architect and COO in their review and evaluation
or program and policy proposals from staff, incorporates the
perspective of Members and or Congressional staff in the
evaluation of AOC programs, operations and policy.
--Assists the Architect and the COO in day-to-day information
management, priority initiatives, meetings and meeting
information, and may represent the Architect or the COO in
meetings with staff and stakeholders.
--Manages legislative affairs; develops and nurtures relations with
Members and staff; tracks legislative mandates; facilitates
Congressional meetings for the Architect and COO; assists in
leading AOC outreach to Congressional staff to help ensure that
the Agency is addressing Congressional support needs.
--Manages and coordinates Agency communications; assesses agency
internal and external communications processes and develops
appropriate improvement initiatives; develop proposals for
communications alternatives to address Agency communications
gaps or focused initiatives to meet identified needs.
procurement irregularities
Question. Mr. Hantman, we understand in part from The Hill article
titled ``Fear and Loathing at the AOC'' that your Focus Group findings
noted the following customer service concerns with your entire
Procurement Department:
--Your process, roles, and responsibilities are either ill defined or
not defined at all;
--There is a general lack of understanding of the businesses they are
procuring for; and
--Procurement procedures are not applied consistently.
We also understand that your fiscal year 2003 financial audit
uncovered procurement irregularities at the CVC and in fiscal year 2004
the auditors have found these same irregularities throughout the AOC.
What steps have you taken to correct this serious situation of work
being performed before a contract is awarded?
Answer. In January 2004, the Procurement Division began requiring
more information when an unauthorized procurement was discovered. This
information includes a description and quantity of the unauthorized
procurement, why it was needed, the benefit acquired, why a requisition
was not prepared and a Contracting Officer allowed to place the order/
contract, the circumstances that led to the unauthorized procurement,
the name of the vendor used, the vendor's invoice, how the vendor was
selected, the basis for determining if the price was fair and
reasonable, other vendors and prices considered, the date the service
or supply was received and requested by the Government, documentation
from the Budget Office that funds are available if the unauthorized
procurement utilized prior year funds, actions taken to prevent future
unauthorized procurements, and an explanation why the unauthorized
procurement should be ratified rather than holding the individual who
made it personally responsible. At the same time, a Standard Operating
Procedure was established in the Procurement Division to provide policy
and guidance to Procurement Division staff when they discover an
unauthorized procurement. On June 21, 2004, the Deputy Chief of Staff,
issued a memorandum to all Superintendents and Division Directors
stating that the practice of unauthorized commitments was unacceptable.
On March 14, 2005, the Deputy Chief of Staff issued a second memorandum
requiring that the Superintendents and Division Directors who had
issued unauthorized procurements since June 2004 meet with the Deputy
Chief of Staff and the Director, Procurement Division regarding this
issue. On March 22, 2005, Architect of the Capitol Order 34-01-01
Ratifications of Unauthorized Procurements was signed by the Deputy
Chief of Staff to establish AOC-wide policy and underscore the
importance of complying with procurement regulations and the
ratification process.
Question. What processes does your Procurement Department have to
detect and prevent these situations from recurring in the future?
Answer. As previously stated, several processes were put in place
to address and prevent unauthorized procurements. The implementation of
these processes began January 2004 and culminated on March 22, 2005
with the Architect of the Capitol Order 34-01-01 Ratifications of
Unauthorized Procurements.
The Procurement Division typically detects unauthorized
procurements in three manners. First, an AOC employee may contact the
Procurement Division directly to discuss a possible unauthorized
procurement. Second, a contractor may contact the Procurement Division
to inquire about recent and/or on-going work, at which time it becomes
apparent that an unauthorized procurement has occurred. Third, the
Procurement Division recently teamed with the Accounting Division to
establish a notification process when an invoice is received that
predates the contract or order. In all three instances, the Procurement
Division responds by investigating to determine if the occurrence is
actually an unauthorized procurement. If it is, then the appropriate
Jurisdiction/Organization's official is required to submit the
information required by the ratification process.
Question. In the last year, how many times did your Procurement
Department discover this situation where a contractor performed work
prior to a valid contract being awarded?
Answer. During the time frame of April 1, 2004-April 30, 2005, the
Procurement Division discovered 28 situations where a contractor
performed work prior to a valid contract being awarded.
Question. How many times was the responsible AOC employee required
to submit a statement for contract ratification?
Answer. In all 28 situations that were discovered, the responsible
AOC employee was requested to provide a sufficient explanation to
determine if a ratification would be issued.
Question. Who is the ratifying official if not you and what steps
do they take to ensure these serious irregularities are prevented in
the future?
Answer. The March 22, 2005, Architect of the Capitol Order 34-01-04
Ratifications of Unauthorized Procurements specifies that the ratifying
official is the Architect of the Capitol, the Chief Operating Officer,
the Deputy Chief of Staff, or their designee.
personnel controls
Question. Mr. Hantman, your employees in the Focus Group findings,
and your auditor, in the two audits (fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
2004) have identified numerous findings in the Personnel Office. The
findings of the Focus Group and the auditor are similar in many ways,
for example:
--Focus Group--Employee questions receive either incorrect
information or no information at all, answers depend on who you
ask since not all staff is knowledgeable.
--Audits--Information is not properly maintained for an employee,
official personnel files are not up-to-date, information is
routinely entered incorrectly into the payroll/personnel
system, and no checking and verification is performed.
What are you doing to address the numerous serious Focus Group and
Audit findings?
Answer. As a result of preliminary findings from the financial
audit, Human Resources requested an expert assessment of our Payroll
and Personnel processing by the National Finance Center (NFC). The
assessment was completed in March 2005, and we expect a final report at
the beginning of May. Although checking and verification is performed,
we have determined that it needs to be accomplished earlier in the
process to prevent errors, rather than discovering errors and
correcting them. Based on preliminary findings from both the Audit and
NFC assessment, a number of internal controls have been instituted. In
addition, Human Resources is considering a consolidation of personnel
processing functions to provide greater internal controls, but we will
review NFC's assessment report and recommendations before a final
decision is made.
As part of AOC's Human Capital Plan, Workforce Management and Human
Resources are working jointly to review AOC's Human Resources
competency model, management will assess employee's using the model,
and developmental needs will be addressed.
Question. When your Personnel Office's processes and systems lack
fundamental internal controls, you open your agency to waste or worse,
to fraud. Have any overpayments been made to AOC employees or has any
fraud in the payroll area been brought to your attention? If so, what
corrective action have you taken?
Answer. Incorrect payments have been made to employees through both
corrections to time and attendance records, and corrections to
personnel records. In cases of underpayment, the corrected action
properly pays the employee. In the case of overpayments, we follow a
systematic process to collect monies due from employees. Only one case
of potential fraud was identified, and we are currently investigating
the specific case, which involves two employees. The investigation is
complete for one employee, and appropriate disciplinary action is being
initiated. We are still reviewing additional records for the second
employee, and appropriate disciplinary action will be initiated if
warranted.
financial management reforms
Question. In the Senate Report on Legislative Branch
Appropriations, 2002, I specifically sought the urgent need for a Chief
Financial Officer at the AOC to begin essential financial management
reforms. From every GAO General Management Review progress report, I
have been pleased to learn that substantial progress has been made.
Mr. Hantman, can I expect your commitment to continue in this most
important area?
Answer. Yes. We are examining the resource needs of the CFO's
organization to ensure the people, tools and skills necessary to
continue this process are in place. I am communicating to every
employee especially our management employees that sound financial
management is everyone's responsibility not just the CFO's.
Agency Heads in the Executive Branch are now required (similar to
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) to lead by example and assert that
their fiscal year 2006 financial controls will result in timely,
accurate, and useful financial and management information.
Question. Mr. Hantman, if you had the same requirement, when would
you be able to make this same assertion?
Answer. Our Internal Control Program is scheduled to be in place by
September 30, 2005. The reality is that I would like the program to
have been in place for one year, fiscal year 2006, before we
implemented full assertion as I understand is required now by OMB
Circular A-123 for executive branch agencies. I recognize that this may
impact our Audit results, but request time to allow our internal
control program to mature.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Allard. I want to thank you for your testimony.
And, with that, we'll recess the subcommittee. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., Wednesday, April 13, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:27 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Allard and Johnson.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BILLINGTON, Ph.D., THE LIBRARIAN
OF CONGRESS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GENERAL DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
MARY BETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. The Legislative Subcommittee on
Appropriations will come to order. We meet today to take
testimony from the Librarian of Congress and the Comptroller
General on the fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Library
of Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). We
will also receive testimony for the record on the Open World
Leadership Program.
I welcome our witnesses this morning. We will hear from Dr.
James Billington, the Librarian, who is accompanied by General
Donald Scott, the Deputy. We will hear from Dan Mulhollan,
Director of the Congressional Research Service, Mary Beth
Peters, Register of Copyrights, and many others.
The Library will be followed by Mr. David Walker,
Comptroller General, who is accompanied by Gene Dodaro, GAO's
Chief Operating Officer; Sallyann Harper, the Chief
Administrative Officer; and Stan Czerwinski, the Controller.
The Library is requesting a budget of $628 million, 7
percent above the fiscal year 2005 level. The amount requested
would support 4,365 employees and would accommodate all
anticipated pay and price level increases, as well as continue
some ongoing projects, such as the copyright reengineering
effort and the completion of the National Audiovisual
Conservation Center.
While the areas for which the Library has requested
additional resources are important, it will be very difficult
for this subcommittee to approve large increases since it is
very unlikely the overall level of discretionary spending will
even keep up with the rate of inflation.
Following the Library, we will hear from Mr. Walker on the
Government Accountability Office's budget request, which totals
$493.5 million over the current year, an increase of 4 percent.
GAO's request is one of the more conservative ones we have seen
in the legislative branch this year and we appreciate the fact
that you have attempted to restrain programmatic increases.
The budget would provide for 3,215 staff and would
accommodate normal pay and inflation-related increases. GAO has
been involved in a number of legislative branch assignments
over the past few years, helping to oversee the Capitol Visitor
Center construction project, making recommendations on
management improvements within the Architect of the Capitol,
and tracking Capitol Police administrative reforms to name a
few. We appreciate these efforts and believe they are resulting
in improvements to legislative branch operations.
One of my interests will be to continue and even accelerate
efforts to hold legislative branch agencies to the highest
standards of performance and accountability.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize
Stan Czerwinski, GAO's Controller. I was fortunate enough to
work with Stan in his previous capacity as a managing director
overseeing housing matters and I also found his insight
helpful. I am looking forward to the opportunity of working
with him once again as the legislative branch chairman.
However, I understand that Stan will be going back to program
work. While this is unfortunate for our work on this
subcommittee, I look forward to regaining his expertise on
program matters.
Stan, thank you for your outstanding service as Controller.
I would ask the witnesses to stick with the 5-minute rule.
Go ahead and make your presentations so we will have plenty of
time to get into questions and ask you questions that I may
have or any member here of the subcommittee may have.
So we will start this morning with Dr. Billington with the
Library of Congress.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE LIBRARIAN
Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
and an honor to come before you today and first of all to thank
the Congress for being for more than two centuries the greatest
single patron of a library in the history in the world. The
Library that Congress has created is the world's largest
collection of human knowledge and the principal source of
research support for the Congress itself.
You know that the Library receives books and other works
submitted for copyright registration to the Copyright Office,
thus preserving the immense ongoing record of American
creativity. We also collect and preserve materials in 486
languages from abroad, thus adding to the wide scope of
knowledge available to our citizens. The ways in which we
perform these vital services are changing rapidly in response
to digital technologies, which are also generating new kinds of
resources. We collect films and recordings in addition to
books, journals, manuscripts, maps; we must now collect digital
audiovisual resources, digital documents, electronic databases,
and even web sites.
In 2004 our unique universal collection of 130 million
items added 2.6 million new books and other artifacts and our
richly stocked web site attracted more than 3.3 billion
electronic hits. We are also leading a national program to
archive materials that are unique, important, and dependable
from the flood of digital material on the Internet, and we are
moving our national service to the blind and physically
handicapped into digital formats. We are now in fact in the
advanced stages of converting almost all our processes from
manual to digital and into electronic formats. At no other time
has technology so directly affected how the Library performs
its work.
Beyond mandatory pay raises and unavoidable price
increases, our request includes additional funds for the
National Audiovisual Conservation Center, for copyright
reengineering, for storage modules at Fort Meade, and for
direct service to the Congress, a one-time adjustment to the
Congressional Research Service's budget to sustain its staff
capacity, and an adjustment to the CRS acquisition base, and
funds to make accessible law library materials that are
important for the Congress.
NAVCC--CULPEPER
An unprecedentedly generous private donation from the
Packard Humanities Institute is enabling us to create a
facility that will provide state-of-the-art preservation at
Culpeper, Virginia, for all of our massive and hitherto
scattered audiovisual materials. We need 23 FTEs that will
greatly increase production and meet the demands of this
complex technical system.
COPYRIGHT REENGINEERING
We are in the last year of the 7-year plan that Congress
approved for copyright reengineering. We need one-time funds to
keep our technical team united for the completion of this
project, support for the move to an offsite location, and
funding in the AOC budget for reconstructing space in the James
Madison Building.
FORT MEADE PROJECT
Congress has generously funded two modules at Fort Meade
for storage of books and journals to address the long-delayed
preservation needs of 26 million unique and often priceless
special format materials. We request funds to begin building
Modules 3 and 4.
These and other requests illustrate the ways in which the
Library must continue to change if we are to maintain in the
electronic age our vital historic role as the preeminent
steward of the world's knowledge and of America's creative
heritage.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We are deeply grateful for what Congress has already
created and admirably sustained in this time of transition. The
appropriations we request for fiscal year 2006 will enable us
to continue providing you with comprehensive nonpartisan
research and will provide future generations of your
constituents with the wonderful learning resources that digital
technology is making possible. You will be supporting more than
just a great cultural repository. Appropriations for today's
Library will be investments in tomorrow's minds.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James H. Billington
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 2006 budget request. This Committee has
always supported the Library's programs and I ask for your help again
in securing the investments we need to keep the Library as useful to
the Congress in the new millennium as we have been in the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries.
For 205 years, the Congress of the United States has sustained the
Library of Congress in its efforts to acquire, preserve, and make
accessible the mint record of American creativity and the world's
largest collection of human knowledge. We share this knowledge with the
Congress, principally through the Congressional Research Service and
the Law Library, and we protect the artistic and literary legacies of
our citizens through our Copyright Office. We also serve your
constituencies through our National Library for the Blind and
Physically Handicapped, through our cataloging and other services to
your local libraries and by offering rich educational content to your
teachers and students through our acclaimed Internet site.
the library today
The Library of Congress contains more than 130 million items in
more than 470 languages and in virtually every media. Every workday the
Library adds more than 10,000 new items to its collections and provides
numerous specialized services. In fiscal year 2004, the Congressional
Research Service performed exclusive public policy research and
analysis for Congressional Members and Committees, covering more than
200 active legislative issues, preparing and updating nearly 1,000
reports and delivering nearly 900,000 responses to inquiries. Of
particular note in fiscal year 2004, CRS experts responded with
immediate support on matters that suddenly were on the Congressional
agenda, including a comprehensive interdisciplinary response to the 9/
11 Commission Report that involved 70 written products; legal analysis
related to the Abu Ghraib prison controversy; and an assessment of
implementation issues of the new Medicare prescription drug benefits.
The Copyright Office administered the U.S. copyright laws and acquired
copyrighted works for the collections of the Library while registering
more than 661,000 copyright claims in the past year. The Books for the
Blind and Physically Handicapped program circulated more than 23
million books and magazines free of charge, to the blind and disabled.
The Library assisted the nation's local libraries by cataloging more
than 300,000 books and serials, and providing the bibliographic records
to libraries everywhere. Finally, the Library provided free internet
access to more than 75 million records and recorded more than 3.3
billion hits on its website in fiscal year 2004.
accomplishments
Throughout fiscal year 2004 and into fiscal year 2005, the Library
continued to reach important milestones. We moved forward with our
massive film preservation facility in Culpeper, Virginia, slated to
open in the Fall of 2006. Phase 1 of the project will be completed this
year, allowing the initial transfer of the Motion Picture,
Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division collections to Culpeper in
August. Years of planning for off-site storage of other collections at
Fort Meade, Maryland came to fruition when Module 1 opened in November
2002. This facility represented the start of the Library's program to
use custom-built offsite facilities to relieve overcrowding on Capitol
Hill, and to ensure an excellent preservation environment. During
fiscal year 2004, 567,000 items were transferred to the facility,
bringing the total number of items transferred to Module 1 to 1.2
million. This module is now completely full. Completion and commission
of Module 2 is scheduled for Spring 2005.
Under the mandate of the Congress's 2000 National Digital
Information Infrastructure and Preservation (NDIIPP) Act, we continue
to build a strong nationwide network of partners. We awarded nearly $14
million to eight partner institutions who agreed to provide matching
funds and to help collect and preserve a diverse range of important,
at-risk digital material that could prove useful to current and future
generations of researchers, scholars and lifelong learners. NDIIPP also
partnered with the National Science Foundation to establish the first
digital archiving grants program that will fund cutting-edge research
to support the long-term management of digital information.
In fiscal year 2004, the Library added approximately 2.6 million
new items to its collections through all sources of acquisitions,
including purchase, exchange, gift, federal transfer, and copyright
deposit. Through the Federal Library and Information Network (FEDLINK),
which makes available an array of print serials, books, electronic
publications and preservation services, the Library contracted with
more than 100 major vendors to provide services to approximately 1,200
Federal offices participating in the program saving the offices an
estimated $8.9 million in cost avoidance benefits and more than $11
million in vendor volume discounts.
The Copyright Office exceeded its 90-day target for processing of
claims. The Office now processes claims on an average of 80 days; this
is a 60 percent improvement since 2001. The Copyright Office also cut
average recordation processing time in half, reaching 33 days at the
end of 2004, an 85 percent improvement since 2001.
The Library organized and sponsored, with the funds raised from the
private sector, the third National Book Festival with 85,000
attendees--the most ambitious National Book Festival to date. Through
other fund raising activities this past year, the Library received a
total of $11 million, representing 828 gifts from 713 donors. The
Library awarded the first John W. Kluge Prize for Lifetime Achievement
in the Human Sciences in fiscal year 2004. The $1 million prize--made
possible by an endowment established by the Madison Council Chairman
John W. Kluge--is given for lifetime achievement in the humanities and
social sciences, areas of scholarship for which there are no Nobel
Prizes. Finally, for the ninth consecutive year, the Library received
an unqualified ``clean'' opinion on its fiscal year 2004 consolidated
financial statements.
building a 21st century library
Shifting media formats, the greatly increased flood of important
material available only in perishable digital form, and increasingly
complex data rights issues--have combined to create immense new
challenges for the Library. At no other time has the emergence of
technology so directly affected how the Library acquires, catalogs,
preserves, serves and secures its vast collections and holdings.
In order for the Library to continue fulfilling its historic
mission, we must embrace the rapidly unfolding technology revolution,
build and maintain an internal infrastructure and recruit, educate, and
train a new staff of knowledge navigators able to sort out, prioritize,
and help mediate to Congress and the Nation what is worth saving from
the increasingly unfiltered information online.
library's fiscal year 2006 plan
In preparing the fiscal year 2006 budget, the Library considered
the areas that will be most changed by the transition from a largely
print-on-paper collections to a hybrid collection that incorporates
great numbers of digital materials. As we shape the Library of the
future, we recognize the need to concentrate on three areas:
technology, acquisition, and preservation. Specifically:
Technology
Develop an infrastructure to support the digital library.
Build a stronger connection between the Library and the wider
library community to create a national digital library to make widely
useful material locally available through the Internet, even if not
always physically housed at the Library of Congress.
Redefine the Library's leadership role in describing and organizing
information--adjusting cataloging methods and setting standards for the
digital environment.
Preservation
Preserve at-risk ``born digital'' materials and work in partnership
with educational and corporate partners to keep such materials
available for subsequent generations.
Acquisition
Reconceptualize our special collections development policies to
include the creations of writers, artists, cartographers,
photographers, and musicians that are available only online (or born
digital).
fiscal year 2006 budget request
Our fiscal year 2006 budget represents in many ways, a transition
to closure on several multi-year projects that are essential for
building a 21st century library.
The Library is requesting a total budget of $628 million for fiscal
year 2006. This includes $591 million in net appropriations and $37
million in authority to use receipts, a net increase of $43 million or
7 percent above the fiscal year 2005 level. This total includes $24.3
million for mandatory pay and price level increases needed to maintain
current services and to prevent a reduction in staff, which would
severely impact the Library's ability to manage its diverse and complex
programs.
The requested funding will support 4,365 full-time equivalent
(FTEs), a net increase of 74 FTEs above the fiscal year 2005 level of
4,291, but still 355 FTEs short of the fiscal year 1992 total--despite
the fact that we are doing far more work now than in fiscal year 1992.
unfunded mandates
A total of $2.5 million and 3 FTEs is requested for two new and
unfunded mandates: $1.2 million for the Administration's Department of
State Capital Security Cost Sharing program, and $1.3 million and 3
FTEs for the new Copyright Royalty Judges Program.
Two years ago, the Department of State launched a 14-year program
to finance the construction of approximately 150 embassy compounds. The
Library was assessed $2.4 million for fiscal year 2006 based on the
number of staff we have in overseas acquisition field offices attached
to an embassy. The Library has argued for a reduction in the
assessment, based on the services provided to the Library by the
Department of State in diplomatic facilities, but the matter has not
been resolved. We hope the amount requested by the Department of State
will be less, but until a decision is reached, the Library must request
full funding. It is essential that we not risk losing our overseas
offices, which collect vast amounts of important and otherwise
unavailable material for many of the world's trouble spots.
The Copyright Royalty Distribution Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law
108-419), signed into law on November 30, 2004, created a new program
in the Library to replace most of the current statutory
responsibilities of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARP)
program. The new Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJ) program will determine
distributions of royalties that are disputed and will set or adjust
royalty rates, terms and conditions, except satellite carriers'
compulsory licenses. The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and
Reauthorization Act, signed into law on December 8, 2004, extends
satellite compulsory licenses and requires CARPs, rather than CRJs, to
set new rates for satellite retransmission. The CARPs will be funded by
participants in the proceedings and/or by royalties. Unlike CARP, the
new Copyright Royalty Judges program will be funded by new permanent
net appropriations and nominal filing fees. Funding supports the
salaries and related expenses of the three royalty judges and three
administrative staff required by law to support this program.
major projects
The Library is requesting $7.284 million and 45 FTEs for projects
that are either in the last year of development or on a time-sensitive
schedule that must be maintained if the entire project is to be
successful. The projects support preservation, electronic delivery of
services, acquisitions and access functions. The first of these
projects is the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC) in
Culpeper, Virginia.
A gift of $120 million from the Packard Humanities Institute (PHI)
three years ago launched the National AudioVisual Conservation Center,
an unparalleled conservation facility for the special formats that are
uniquely held by the Library of Congress. The construction project at
Culpeper, Virginia is proceeding well, and the collections from five
disparate storage collections will be moved to Culpeper during the
summer, 2005. The staff will be relocated to Culpeper in 2006.
During fiscal year 2006, the Library's ability to procure, deliver
and install NAVCC furnishings, equipment and infrastructure must again
be carefully managed in concert with PHI's schedule for finishing,
testing and commissioning Phase 2 of the facility, slated for
completion and move-in by April 2006. For this reason, no-year
authority is again required to accommodate unforeseen fluctuations in
the construction schedule. The Library is requesting a net decrease of
$3 million and an increase of 23 new FTEs in fiscal year 2006. This
request follows the original five-year plan submitted for Culpeper.
Funding supports several components for which timing and funding
flexibility will be especially desirable, including the bulk of the
staff relocations, the completion of collections relocations (including
nitrate film), and completing the design, procurement and integration
of the complex digital preservation systems with the NAVCC's audio-
visual laboratories. Of the total amount requested for fiscal year
2006, approximately $11 million reflects one-time costs. After the
staff and collections have been relocated, the Culpeper budget will
only require funding for ongoing operations.
Fiscal year 2006 is the final year of the Copyright Office's
reengineering initiative that requires new funding. The reengineering
program is an extensive multi-year effort to redesign the Office's
business processes, including the development of a new information
technology infrastructure, new work flows, new job roles, and new
facilities design. The new environment will support electronic delivery
of copyright services, including electronic submissions of copyright
registrations and receipt of digital deposits. During fiscal year 2006,
the Copyright Office will relocate staff to a temporary off-site leased
space, reconfigure its main facilities, and install new furniture and
equipment. Final implementation is scheduled the first half of fiscal
year 2007, after relocation of the staff to the reconfigured space in
the Madison Building. A total of $4 million in one-time funding is
requested in the Copyright Office's budget to fund the temporary
offsite relocation of the staff. Completion of the reengineering
initiative is contingent upon the Architect of the Capitol's budget
request of $5.5 million to pay for construction costs to reconfigure
existing Madison Building space. These requests will permit the
Copyright Office to move forward on the facilities work so critical to
the final implementation of the reengineering project.
The Library is requesting a total of $2 million for the GENPAC
program and $1 million for CRS to recover lost purchasing power of
critically needed research materials. This funding will support the
purchase of serial subscriptions and/or electronic resources--ensuring
that the CRS analysts and other Library staff have access to the highly
specialized research materials and data needed to support the work of
the Congress and other Library customers.
The boundaries of the world become ever smaller as information
production increases across the globe. There are great opportunities to
acquire new materials from parts of the world we had little knowledge
of up until now. The Library collects little known and hard-to-find
materials because it is in the national interest to have the resources
that document other cultures and nations. We are interested in
acquiring the emerging electronic publications from all parts of the
world, including the Web sites for advocacy as well as education. In
selecting the most important electronic resources, the Library places
special emphasis on those databases and scholarly journals containing
information to support the work of Congress in the development of
public policy.
Preservation is a unique responsibility of the Library of
Congress--a library that all other libraries expect to keep materials
in perpetuity. The Library requests $3.375 million and the retention of
22 NTE FTEs to continue the preservation efforts required to place 4.5
million items (most of them audio-visual materials or special
collections) in proper storage containers and through proper
transshipment to Fort Meade, Culpeper, or other off-site repositories.
Other projects are critical to the Library's acquisition and
preservation programs. Specifically, funding of $52 million is
requested by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) to support essential
and long deferred projects specifically requested by the Library. This
total includes $41 million for construction of Book Modules 3 and 4 at
Fort Meade. These modules are already designed and will provide
critically needed collections processing and storage space and cold
vaults for unique and growing special format collections. This program
is critical to providing relief to collections storage and resulting
safety problems in the Library's Capitol Hill buildings. Of the
remaining $11 million requested, $5.5 million supports the Copyright
Re-engineering construction project and $5.5 million supports minor
construction, design, and/or the operation and maintenance of the
Library's Capitol Hill, Fort Meade, and Culpeper buildings.
major library-wide projects
In addition to these major projects, the Library is requesting $5.5
million and 7 FTEs for several Library-wide infrastructure projects
that support all organizational entities within the Library and are key
to performing the Library's mission efficiently and effectively. The
first is in the all-important area of Information Technology (IT),
where the Library is requesting a total of $3.3 million and 5 FTEs,
needed to keep pace with rapid technological changes. Included in this
total is $571,000 and 5 FTEs for the ITS Systems Engineering Group
(SEG) to support a workload that has grown dramatically in recent
years. The current staff of SEG operates with single individuals
shouldering responsibilities without backup. This situation presents a
high-level risk and places the Library in a serious and highly
vulnerable position. The Library must mitigate this risk and protect
itself against the potential loss of knowledge and breakdown of
services in the event of illness or other unforeseen circumstances. The
total also includes $1 million to support the increased costs
associated with the IT service provider contract. Our IT staff is
struggling with the vast increase in the Library's digital services and
will have to either curtail services or decrease equipment purchases if
funding is not provided. Finally, the total includes $720,000 for
contract support for the certification and accreditation of the
Library's IT systems as required by the Federal Information Security
Management Act of 2002 and $1 million to implement the next phase of
the Library's new financial management information system.
The Library is requesting a total of $1.4 million and 2 FTEs to
support space management of all the Library's buildings--the Madison
Building alone is one of the largest in the Washington, DC area, with
over 2 million square feet of space. With more shifts outside Capitol
Hill to Fort Meade and Culpeper and resulting shifts on Capitol Hill as
space utilization is redefined, the Library must have the ability to
remap and maximize critical space needed for staff, collections and
business operations and in a timely manner to ensure continuity of
operations. The requested funding supports two additional in-house
staff and the use of contracted staff support to supplement in-house
resources with a full range of professional services, including project
management, interior design, safety, engineering, construction
administration and custodial support. Without the requested funding,
valuable space will go unused or be used inefficiently, impacting the
acquisition and preservation of the Library's collections, safety of
its employees, and the operation of its programs.
For those working on Capitol Hill, the value of emergency
preparedness cannot be overstated. The Library is requesting $746,000
to implement its Continuity of Operations and Shelter-in-Place plans,
and to purchase medical supplies in the event of a large scale
emergency that may affect Library personnel and visitors. We continue
to work with our Capitol Hill counterparts to coordinate emergency
planning efforts.
sustaining staff capacity
Closely related to the mandatory and price level increases, the
Library needs two critical payroll adjustments to maintain payroll
purchasing power to sustain staff capacity. CRS is requesting a one-
time permanent base adjustment of $2.9 million to align its funding
with the current staffing mix, level, and benefits costs to achieve a
total capacity of 729 FTEs. This request will enable CRS to continue to
fulfill effectively its mission by rebuilding and sustaining a level of
research capacity that meets the changing needs of the Congress--needs
which are increasingly more demanding and highly complex. CRS has
proven to be a solid, long-term investment for the Congress with a high
return on the investment through its shared pool of highly skilled
experts who serve ``around-the-clock'' as the research arm of the
Congress by assisting every Member and Committee of Congress in every
phase of the legislative process.
Because of the fiscal year 2005 rescission, the Library reduced pay
in all offices by a total of $3 million. The Library is requesting
restoration of the $3 million in fiscal year 2006 to maintain its
future payroll purchasing power needed to sustain staff capacity. Over
time, the Library will be forced to reduce staff in all offices, in
spite of growing workloads and new challenges and responsibilities if
the payroll budget is not restored.
other projects
The Library is requesting $8 million and 52 FTEs for five other
initiatives. Included in this amount is $493,000 and 7 FTEs to support
the new Chinese acquisition strategy in which Chinese scholars identify
unique materials to add to the Library's collections. The total also
includes $445,000 to begin reclassifying one-third of the Law Library's
legal collections from the obsolete ``Law'' shelving arrangements to
the Library of Congress Class K international standard, to ensure
retrievability of invaluable and unique legal materials.
Of the $8 million total, $1.6 million in one-time funding is
requested to procure and implement a comprehensive, new, web-based
classification and staffing system that will track all human resources
functions. Replacement of the current system is needed to add new
functionalities and to allow the integration with the Library's
emerging Human Resources Information System. Also included in the total
is $1.5 million in no-year funding to continue the renovation and
refurbishment work in the Thomas Jefferson and John Adams buildings.
Maximizing available space on Capitol Hill is a priority for the
Library and the restoration projects will provide much needed space for
staff and programs. Finally, the total includes $4 million and 45 FTEs
to continue addressing the police staffing shortfall of approximately
77 FTEs.
proposed changes to legislative language
The Library has proposed language under the National Digital
Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP) Section,
to set aside $25 million of the $75 million provided under the fiscal
year 2001 appropriations act, and exempt the set-aside from the dollar-
to-dollar match requirement. The set-aside is to provide competitive
grant funding for state governmental entities, who meet NDIIPP
preservation partnership network building and digital content
preservation grant guidelines, to preserve significant, at-risk, and
born digital state and local government information.
The Library has also proposed new appropriation language to address
the new Copyright Royalty Judges program, authorized by the Copyright
Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004.
The fiscal year 2005 administrative provision that limits the
Library's assessment for embassy construction (to an amount equal to or
less than the unreimbursed value of the services provided to the
Library on State Department diplomatic facilities) is also maintained
in fiscal year 2006.
conclusion
The Library must continue to sustain and perform its traditional
core mission for the Congress, the Nation, and the world of acquiring,
preserving and making accessible its knowledge. At the same time, we
must develop new ways to perform this historic mission in light of the
plethora of digital information that must be harvested and cataloged.
The fiscal year 2006 budget request will enable the Library to complete
crucial projects of modernization, while laying the foundation for our
future.
I thank the Committee for its continued support of the Library's
programs, projects, and people. Together, we can accomplish much today
and more tomorrow.
______
Prepared Statement of James H. Billington
open world leadership center
Chairman Allard, Senator Durbin, and Members of the Subcommittee:
The United States Congress initiated the Open World Russian Leadership
Program as a pilot exchange program at the Library of Congress in 1999
(Public Law 106-31). Congress in December 2000 established an
independent Legislative Branch entity, the Open World Leadership
Center, to conduct the Open World Program. The Center is governed by a
Board of Trustees.
The Open World Program was crafted in 1999 to bring emerging
federal and local Russian political and civic leaders to the United
States to meet their American counterparts and gain firsthand knowledge
of American civil society. Program participants experience American
political and community life and see democracy in action, from the
workings of the U.S. Congress to debates in local city councils.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report \1\ on the Open
World Program concluded that ``Open World has exposed a large, broad,
and diverse group of Russians to U.S. economic and political systems''
and stated that many of the alumni interviewed for the report said they
have ``taken concrete actions to adapt what they learned from their
U.S. visits to the Russian environment.'' GAO analysis indicates that
Open World has achieved a remarkably high degree of proportional
geographic representation, and that U.S. ambassadors and embassy
officials consider Open World ``a valuable tool to complement U.S.
mission activities and outreach efforts'' in Russia in part because of
its unique place in the Legislative Branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ General Accounting Office, International Exchange Programs,
Open World Achieves Broad Participation; Enhanced Planning and
Accountability Could Strengthen Program, GAO-04-436, Washington, D.C.,
March 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since July 1999, Open World has brought 8,900 current and future
decision makers from all 89 regions of the Russian Federation to more
than 1,300 communities in all 50 states. In 2003, as testament to the
success of the Open World model, Congress expanded Open World to
include cultural leaders in Russia and political leaders in the 11
remaining Freedom Support Act countries and the Baltic republics
(Public Law 108-7). The Open World Leadership Center Board of Trustees
in 2003 approved pilot programs in Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Lithuania
and also approved a new cultural leaders program for Russia. From
countries other than Russia, 370 young leaders have experienced the
practice of American democracy and community life through Open World in
the past two years. The Board has expressed concern that program
expansion not jeopardize the strength of the Center's original and
continuing commitment to the Russian Federation.
In December 2004, Public Law 108-447 expanded Open World program
eligibility to any other country that is designated by the Board of
Trustees, provided that the Board notify the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees of such a designation at least 90 days before
it is to take effect. Over the life of the program, Congress has
signaled its intention for Open World to function flexibly and
strategically for U.S. interests around the globe. With key Members of
Congress on its board, Open World has supported parliamentary
relationships led by the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority
Leader and remains a flexible and important tool for public diplomacy
within the Legislative Branch.
board of trustees
As Chairman of the Board of Trustees, I am honored to serve on the
Board with several of your distinguished colleagues, as well as
regional experts and private citizens. The Congressionally appointed
members are Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN), Senator Carl Levin
(MI), and Representative Robert E. (Bud) Cramer (AL). Senator Ted
Stevens (AK) is honorary chairman. Former Ambassador to Russia James F.
Collins and Walter J. Scott, Jr., Chairman of Level 3 Communications,
are the current citizen members. We are awaiting an appointment by the
Speaker of the House to replace the seat held by retired House member
Amo Houghton.
Since its inception in 1999 in the Legislative Branch, the Open
World Program has gained from the active interest and direction of this
Committee. In accordance with a recommendation made by our Board of
Trustees last year, Congress has added the Chair of this Committee and
the Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch to the
Board. Your membership on the Board will greatly enhance our ability to
provide effective direction for the future of the Open World Leadership
Center.
fiscal year 2006 budget request
The Center's fiscal year 2006 request of $14 million (Appendix A)
will allow Open World to continue to operate the core Russian programs,
including work with alumni and cultural leaders, and to continue
funding for expansion programs in selected countries. The requested 4.5
percent increase above fiscal year 2005 funding represents unavoidable
price increases and the weakened purchasing power of the dollar abroad.
program objectives
Open World was created by the Congress both to make a contribution
to democratic developments in Russia and to combat negative and
manipulated images of America fostered by long years of isolation from
the West under Soviet power. Through Open World, emerging leaders in
previously authoritarian countries experience short but intensive
immersion in the reality of civil society and the rule of law in the
United States. George F. Kennan summarized what an effective public-
diplomacy effort like Open World is about when he suggested that our
system is most persuasive not when we talk about it, but ``when we show
other people what can be done in a democracy, and nothing is more
useful than that.''
Open World was created to allow participation by non-English
speakers, and, as a result, the program has successfully engaged a very
broad sector of young political leadership in each participating
country. Programs are matched carefully to participants' professional
interests and responsibilities, and almost all include the following
elements:
--Meeting U.S. government, business, and community leaders at the
federal, regional and local levels;
--Understanding the separation of powers, checks and balances,
freedom of the press, and the transparency and accountability
of democratic government;
--Experiencing a free market economy;
--Learning how U.S. citizens organize voluntary and nongovernmental
initiatives to address social and civic needs;
--Building a continuing relationship with the U.S. hosts;
--Sharing approaches to common challenges;
--Participating in American family and community activities.
strategic goals
As the Open World Program has matured from its six-month Russian
pilot in 1999 to its current scale in four countries, the Board and
staff have been guided by strategic goals that shape the annual budget
submission and our year-round operations.
Goal I: Improving U.S.-Open World program-country relations and
mutual understanding.
The Open World Program is located in the Legislative Branch, housed
in and administratively supported by the Library of Congress, but its
work abroad is shaped and implemented in cooperation with the embassies
in each Open World country. All elements of the program--its focus,
candidate nomination and selection, parliamentary delegations--are
closely coordinated with the U.S. Embassy and such organizations as the
Helsinki Commission.
Goal II: Provide the highest caliber program within the United
States so that Open World participants return with a good understanding
of America's democracy, market economy, and civil society.
Open World has improved the quality of its programs by continuous
monitoring of programs, site visits, post-visit evaluations, and annual
participant surveys. There is an annual review and evaluations of all
program elements. The program has increasingly focused on a few key
themes central to building democracy and the rule of law.
Goal III: To extend the catalytic effect of a 10-day U.S. stay by
fostering continued, post-visit communication among Open World
participants, with alumni of other USG-sponsored exchange programs, and
with their American hosts and counterparts.
Open World's multilingual website maintains communication among
participants, American hosts, and other interested parties. The visit
to the United States is just the beginning of a Russian delegate's
association with the Open World Program. Open World encourages
continued contact with U.S. hosts and among participants themselves. In
2004, Russian alumni participated in more than 250 workshops,
interregional conferences, meetings, and professional seminars. An
alumni bulletin and web forums are available to all 8,900 Russian
participants.
Many of Russia's larger cities now also boast Open World alumni
associations and clubs organized by the alumni themselves--supporting
special projects, such as support for orphanages or environmental
efforts and career development seminars. Alumni-led activities in 2004
included a youth health fair in Tver and a seminar for Novgorod
educators on how to encourage volunteerism among high school students.
strategic decisions
Russian Federation
The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator
Richard G. Lugar, at a recent hearing on ``Democracy in Retreat in
Russia'' said, ``The states of the former Soviet Union present a
special challenge to the advancement of democracy . . . The biggest
concern in the region for democracy advocates is . . . Russia. Despite
elections and the experience of post-Soviet personal freedoms . . . the
fate of democracy in Russia is perhaps more ambiguous now than at any
time since the collapse of the Communist system.'' Noting the decline
in State Department funding for democracy programs, Senator Lugar
commented: ``With so much at stake in Russia, this is not the time to
diminish our funding in this area.''
Despite the authoritarian direction of much recent Russian policy,
Russia remains a key ally for the United States in antiterrorism and
nonproliferation efforts. Open World's 8,900 alumni in all 89 regions
are a strategic asset in the continuing struggle to secure a
constitutional democracy in Russia. Assessments of Russia's current
political state by the International Republican Institute (IRI) point
to the dichotomy of suppression of democratic voices at the national
level, but ``re-invigoration at the regional level.'' [Testimony of
Stephen B. Nix, Director, Eurasia Programs, IRI; appearance before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee; February 17, 2005.] Open World's
base of participation in Russia spans the entire country and is not
concentrated in Moscow at the federal level.
Expansion Beyond Russia
Meanwhile, Open World offers a unique and effective tool for
Congress to respond to new realities and opportunities around the
globe. The Open World Board's decision in 2003 to invest in a Ukraine
pilot has yielded a broad-based program in operation before the Orange
Revolution that brought the first delegations to the United States in
the wake of the 2004 presidential elections. A pilot program in
Lithuania focused on building regional government expertise and pointed
the way toward important regional activity that Open World might
undertake in Kaliningrad and Belarus. Similarly, Open World's prior
experience in the largely Islamic regions of Russia helped shape a
successful investment in Uzbekistan. Despite continuing and legitimate
concerns about the repressive central government, Uzbekistan remains
strategically important to the United States, and Open World delegates
have returned to strengthen independent media and economic development
and lead efforts to combat trafficking in the region.
With a Congressional authorization to operate in any country in the
world, Open World represents an asset that deserves continued
investment to allow its continued development as an important tool of
American public diplomacy, particularly in regions of the world that
are not the principal focus of State Department efforts.
what the investment has yielded
Russia
Russia Civic and Cultural Program
The Open World Russia Program completed its fifth year in 2004.
Open World's core exchange program--with the Russian Federation--
brought 1,567 young leaders in calendar year 2004, with wide regional
representation (87 of the 89 Russian regions), diverse hosting
experiences throughout the United States (44 states), a high percentage
of women delegates (58 percent), and multiethnic representation. The
selected themes for 2004--economic and social development, environment,
health, rule of law, women as leaders, and youth issues--focus on key
areas essential to democracy-building. The focus on rule of law,
especially in the context of current evaluations of Russia's commitment
to an independent judiciary and a constitutional democracy, deserves
special mention.
In 2004, Open World emphasized programs on the elections process
and media coverage of the presidential and local elections process.
Participants in all themes who traveled during the months leading up to
the election came away with unique election-year experiences of
watching the debates with their host families, seeing signs for
presidential and local government candidates posted in front lawns, and
observing volunteers of all ages as they supported their candidates at
campaign headquarters.
Eight delegations received an insider's view into Election Day in
the United States. Three Russian delegations consisting of government
officials and aides visited Baltimore, Maryland; Moorhead, Minnesota;
and Saratoga Springs, New York. The delegations observed the activities
of polling stations in their host communities, visited voter advocacy
organizations, and witnessed firsthand the reactions of individual
citizens as they watched television coverage of the voting results.
Five delegations of print and television media professionals visited
Atlanta, Georgia; Louisville, Kentucky; Portland, Oregon; Reno, Nevada;
and Rochester, New York. These groups visited local news outlets to
discuss and watch election coverage, interviewed election workers and
voters, and even wrote on-the-spot news articles to be published in
Russia.
Additional examples of Open World's impact in Russia and elsewhere
in our participants' own words are found in Appendix B.
Open World in Colorado
As I speak to you today, four women leaders from Russia--a
businesswoman, a president of a regional NGO, an education
administrator, and a legislative staff assistant--are visiting
Longmont, Colorado to examine women's leadership roles. Highlights of
the delegation's agenda include a meeting with an NGO director; a
discussion with senior women bankers on banking relationships with
women-owned businesses; talks with Colorado senators and
representatives about elections, government and the role of women in
politics; and a panel discussion with a district attorney and chief
district judge. Their visit is being conducted by the Longmont Rotary
Club, a five-time Open World host organization that has helped make it
possible for Colorado to welcome 200 other Open World participants.
Rule of Law Program
Open World's specialized rule of law program is the largest U.S.-
Russia judicial exchange. Working in close cooperation with federal
judges associated with the International Judicial Relations Committee
of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and with a network of
state judges, Open World sponsors intensive, 10-day U.S. professional
visits for Russian judges, judicial branch officials, prosecutors,
defense attorneys, legal educators, and court staff. Since its
inception in 2001, the program has enabled prominent jurists from all
over Russia to observe and participate in the U.S. judicial system and
to form lasting working relationships with their American judicial
hosts and counterparts.
Just last month, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy hosted a high-level
Open World delegation at the U.S. Supreme Court for two days of
intensive working sessions on U.S.-Russian judicial cooperation and the
status of judicial reform in Russia. Our distinguished delegates were
Russian Supreme Court Chief Justice Vyacheslav M. Lebedev, Justice
Yuriy I. Sidorenko, who chairs Russia's Council of Judges, and a top
regional judge. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John
Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
David Hackett Souter, and Stephen G. Breyer all participated in the
Russians' Supreme Court visit, as did U.S. District Judge Michael M.
Mihm of Peoria, Illinois, and other prominent U.S. judges. Not only did
the Russians discuss jury trials, judicial independence, and the rule
of law with the highest judges in the land, they also saw the U.S.
judicial system in action by observing oral argument at the Supreme
Court and attending proceedings at the federal courthouse in
Alexandria, Virginia.
As the Lebedev delegation visit illustrates, the Open World
specialized rule of law program contributes to Russia's progress toward
judicial reform by demonstrating the concepts and practices that
underpin the United States' strong, independent judiciary. By observing
and discussing the workings of the U.S. legal system with their
American counterparts, participants have developed a better
understanding of some of the new procedures that they are being
required to adopt by Russia's judicial reform legislation, and they
have demonstrated great enthusiasm for implementing many U.S. practices
that are relevant to their own situations. Another important program
outcome is the establishment and strengthening of a number of sister
relationships between the courts of our U.S. host judges and those of
their Open World participants. And American host judges have made
return trips to Russia to participate in follow-up alumni work on the
all-important issue of ethics.
In 2004, 258 participants (43 delegations) visited 30 communities
in 25 states and the District of Columbia on the specialized rule of
law program. A total of 31 federal and state judges hosted for Open
World in 2004. An illustrative example of Open World's work in this
important area:
Cultural Leaders Program
The late Academician Dmitri Sergeevich Likhachev was co-chairman of
the original Russia-focused Open World Program in 1999. Likhachev was a
lifelong advocate of the need for Russia to learn about and have
contact with Western culture. The expansion of Open World to Russian
cultural leaders is based on this principle.
In 2004, 44 young folklorists, writers, and jazz musicians
participated in Open World exchanges designed to foster an
understanding of American culture and how it is sustained. The goal is
to forge better understanding between the United States and Russia by
enabling Russian cultural leaders to experience American cultural and
community life, and to share their talents with American artists and
audiences. Performances and readings are an essential component of the
visit.
The jazz musicians, creative writers, managers of folk arts
institutions, and arts administrators who took part in the 2004 program
were hosted by prominent arts organizations and educational
institutions in five states. Each host community selected by Open World
boasts rich cultural institutions and is the center of a flourishing
arts scene.
The cultural leaders program has continued in 2005. Currently, the
University of Mississippi is hosting four young Russian authors who
specialize in poetry, fiction writing, literary criticism, and
translation. The delegation participated in the twelfth annual Oxford
Conference for the Book, and is taking part in translation workshops
with students and faculty in the Ole Miss creative writing program and
panel discussions on Russian and American culture. The National
Endowment for the Arts provided financial support for this hosting.
Pilot Programs
Ukraine
Ukraine was selected for an Open World pilot program in 2003
because of its strategic position in Eurasia, its large and educated
population, its mounting difficulties in democracy-building, and its
important potential contribution to regional stability.
Elections formed a central focus for the Open World Program's 2004
Ukrainian exchange, which took place in August, when both the American
and Ukrainian presidential campaigns were in full swing. The 50
Ukrainian participants came from 19 of the country's 27 regions and
represented a wide range of political views. Two delegations of
Ukrainian party activists, NGO election monitors, and campaign experts
participated in the ``electoral processes'' theme, and three
delegations of print and broadcast journalists took part in the
``independent media'' theme, which included a concentration on
political and election coverage. The five Ukrainian delegations that
visited under the NGO development theme also had opportunities to learn
about campaign practices and citizen engagement in politics in the
United States.
In March, Open World held the first major post-Orange Revolution
exchange in the United States, hosting 45 Ukrainian judges,
journalists, elections experts, NGO leaders, and researchers. Their
U.S. community visits, which had been rescheduled from December 2004
(when the presidential election was still unresolved by the courts),
focused on the rule of law, elections, and the role of an independent
media.
This exchange was very much a two-way learning process, as everyone
the Ukrainians met with was interested to hear about the Orange
Revolution and the current political climate. The Ukrainian delegates
were here to strengthen ties to the United States and their own
professional understanding of their role in a democracy. On arriving in
Washington, delegates had frank and future-oriented discussions with
Representative Marcy Kaptur of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus,
Supreme Court Justice David Souter, and two former U.S. ambassadors to
Ukraine.
Ukraine Program in Ohio
The March exchange marked the debut of Open World's rule of law
theme for the Ukraine program, and our highest-ranking judicial
delegation was hosted in Columbus, Ohio, by state Supreme Court Chief
Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Judge Robert Cupp of the Ohio Third
District Court of Appeals. The visit began with a Ukrainian bread-and-
salt welcoming ceremony at the Ohio Judicial Center and concluded with
a live television broadcast of a symposium on Ukrainian democracy with
the Ukrainians and Chief Justice Moyer. In between, the delegation--
which included a Ukrainian Supreme Court justice--observed court
proceedings, including a jury trial; took part in roundtables with Ohio
judges; and met with Governor Bob Taft. Rule of law delegations
simultaneously visiting Georgia, Minnesota, New York, and Pennsylvania
had similar experiences.
Lithuania
Lithuania was selected for an Open World pilot because of its
prospects for building a successful market economy and democracy and
because of Congressional interest in including a Baltic country.
Lithuania's independent parliament (Seimas) and historical ties with
the United States made a legislative-based program very welcome.
Open World launched its Lithuania pilot program in 2004, bringing
mayors, journalists, business and NGO leaders, environmental experts,
and youth activists from nine of the country's 10 administrative
districts to the United States in February and September. Lithuanian
Ambassador Vygaudas Usackas held receptions for both travel groups at
his embassy during their Washington, D.C., orientations.
Open World's newest program received high marks from the 100
Lithuanians who participated. Higher education, lobbying, business
associations, health care, Social Security, and citizen participation
in local government were rated among the most useful topics studied. In
a representative comment, a delegate on a Fort Collins, Colorado,
program on youth issues stated, ``My best moments were when I realized
that people in the United States work very hard in order to accomplish
their goals, especially helping the youth. This motivates me to work
harder in Lithuania.''
Chicago, Illinois, hosted several of our inaugural Lithuanian
delegations in 2004, with significant participation by the large
Lithuanian-American community there. Among the highlights of the
Chicago visits were a Q-and-A session for Lithuanian journalists at the
Chicago Tribune, a fundraising workshop for NGO leaders at the Donors
Forum, and, for a Lithuanian business-development delegation, a nuts-
and-bolts overview of how U.S. business incubators work at the
Industrial Council of Nearwest Chicago.
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan was chosen for an Open World pilot on the basis of its
large population, its cultural and intellectual prominence among the
new independent states of the former Soviet Union that are principally
Islamic, and its strategic position in Central Asia. The Open World
Board believed that furthering democracy and a market economy in
Uzbekistan would promote stability in the entire region.
Open World hosted its second Uzbek exchange in October 2004. The
50-person group included senior representatives from Uzbekistan's
ministries of economics, finance, and public health; Central Bank
officials; judges; prominent journalists; agricultural experts; women
entrepreneurs; and health advocates. Delegates came from 10 of
Uzbekistan's 14 political subdivisions.
Open World has received numerous reports on how participants have
used the knowledge they gained while in the United States. A business
consultant running for the Nukus City Council campaigned on themes
inspired by her U.S. visit: creating favorable conditions for private
business through legislation and defending the rights of female
entrepreneurs. The head of the Agro-Industrial Stock Exchange in
Tashkent reports that, as a result of his visit to the Kansas City
Board of Trade, his exchange has now introduced electronic trading.
A doctor who practices in the populous Fergana Valley conducted a
workshop on premature infant care for 45 of her colleagues to share the
neonatal techniques she had seen at Tampa General Hospital. And a
Tashkent newspaper reporter is publishing two long articles, ``Two-
Story America'' and ``The White Stele [Monument] of Washington,'' that
describe in detail how his impressions of America and Americans changed
for the better as a result of his Open World visit to Chattanooga,
Tennessee, and Washington, D.C. He writes, ``The one thing that really
impressed me in the United States is the people. To tell the truth,
having watched Hollywood films, I expected to see an undisciplined
public where people did whatever they felt like. But already in
Washington, I was sincerely surprised by the proper and polite
Americans that I met. On the street, people were smiling . . . and no
one looked at us with unfriendliness. At the end of my stay in the U.S.
capital, I felt as though I were at home in Tashkent.''
Future Directions
In 2004 the Senate requested that Open World study the feasibility
of expansion to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Open World model, with
appropriate U.S. in-country support, has demonstrated its suitability
in a variety of environments. The key question for the Open World
Board, which includes the Chairman of this Subcommittee, as well as the
Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is to decide the
allocation of available resources among the countries in which Open
World is authorized. Recent concerns have been raised by Members of
Congress about Belarus, Moldova, and Georgia. Congressional interest in
Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Lithuania have remained strong. Yet
Open World's annual budget has been modest since its inception. In the
current budget environment, significant expansion is unlikely;
therefore, decisions will be influenced by available resources.
A regional approach, centered in Russia, the western NIS, and
Central Asia, would allow Open World to respond flexibly to U.S.
strategic interests but avoid the upfront investment devoted to setting
up a new country-focused program. Open World might offer a cost-
effective means of delivering current exchange programs in a number of
countries. If Congress so approves, the Board could request that a new
regionally aimed model be developed for fiscal year 2007. The fiscal
year 2006 budget request is based on the current country-specific
model. The staff evaluation of the feasibility of pilot programs in
Afghanistan and Pakistan is included as Appendix C.
fiscal year 2006 budget request
The Center's budget request for fiscal year 2006 reflects an
increase of $.612 million over fiscal year 2005, in order to continue
the Center's proven mission of hosting young political and civic
leaders from Russia and other countries of the region. The Board of
Trustees believes that maintaining a robust Open World presence in
Russia is necessary and important for future U.S.-Russia relations.
Program capacity in fiscal year 2006 at the requested level remains far
below the limitation of 3,000 set in the Center's authorizing
legislation.
The budget request maintains hosting and other programmatic
activities at a level of approximately 1,400 participants total
(continuing a decrease in hosting levels begun in fiscal year 2003),
based on airfare and other travel increases above the overall inflation
rate, and projected higher foreign exchange rates. The Department of
State Capital Security Cost Sharing charge for the Center's two Foreign
National Staff is also included. Actual participant allocations for
individual countries will be based on Board of Trustees recommendations
and on consultations with the Committee.
Major categories of requested funding are:
--Personnel Compensation and Benefits ($.883 mil/11 FTEs)
--Contracts ($8.435 mil)
--Management of delegate nomination and vetting process
--Visa and other document processing
--Travel arrangements, including international and domestic air
travel
--Management and coordination with grantees on delegate host
placement
--Database maintenance and development
--Information services
--Grants ($4.354 mil) (U.S. host organizations)
--Professional program development
--Food and (limited) lodging
--Cultural activities
--Local transportation
--Interpretation
The requested funding support is also needed for anticipated fiscal
year 2006 pay increases. Overall administrative costs remain at a low 6
percent of the Center's annual expenditures.
other program contributions
Major financial support to the Open World Program is contributed by
American citizens who host program participants in their homes and
communities. Private American citizens freely provide cultural
activities, community-wide activities, and housing for one week, which
often reduces the program's per diem expenses--by a substantial amount
when estimated over the life of the program. During 2004, Open World
also received financial support from The Russell Family Foundation for
support of environmentally focused programming and from TNK-BP for
general support of Open World programming and alumni activity in Russia
and Ukraine.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2006 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.
I thank the Subcommittee for its continued support of the Open
World Program.
appendix a
OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Description 2006 estimated
obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.1 Personnel Compensation............................. $702,000
12.1 Personnel Benefits................................. 181,000
21.0 Travel............................................. 80,000
22.0 Transportation..................................... 3,000
23.0 Rent, Comm., Utilities............................. 204,000
24.0 Printing........................................... 21,000
25.1 Other Services/Contracts........................... 8,435,000
26.0 Supplies........................................... 4,000
31.0 Equipment.......................................... 16,000
41.0 Grants............................................. 4,354,000
---------------
Total, fiscal year 2006 budget request............ 14,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
appendix b
open world delegate quotations
Russia
``During my Open World visit to America I was struck by the well-
functioning educational system, social programs, and the people
themselves, full of life and purpose, wanting to help others. Our mayor
Aleksandr Yermoshin and vice-mayor for legislative relations Yuriy
Sukhoruchenkov have also had the opportunity to travel to the U.S. on
Open World. I consider that all that we saw and experienced has
definitely influenced our work in municipal development. Key to our
social policy are current programs for children, improving their health
(infant mortality has decreased between 2002 and 2004), finding
placement for orphans, providing therapy to children in dysfunctional
families and those with disabilities, creating employment and
activities for youth, and working with gifted children.''
Yuriy Kostev
First Vice-Mayor of Aleksin, Tula
Region
San Diego, CA
``While visiting the United States on the Open World Program I
became aware of the genuinely constructive interaction that can exist
between government bodies and the community. Upon my return home, I
decided to take action. I told the people of Voronezh how they can
protect their right to adequate accommodations, and prevent unsuitable
living conditions resulting from the inaction of local government. The
`Citizen Inspection' project was born, providing information (letters)
from local authorities on budgetary information and deadlines for the
refurbishment of houses and buildings in the community. I received many
letters and telephone calls informing me about what really goes on in
housing and communal services. This information led to the creation of
the Citizen Inspection television program. A second project called `My
Rights' was also successful. This project provides information about
property registration rights and opportunities. Our brochures describe
the registration procedure, rates, and free services that the community
can and must demand from the authorities.''
Aleksandr Vladimirovich Sysoyev
Deputy, Voronezh City Duma
Milwaukee, WI
``A close working relationship exists between school and family in
both Russia and the U.S. Parents and older classmates are actively
recruited to work with children. Promoting a healthy lifestyle should
begin with pre-schoolers.''
Svetlana Safonova
Psychologist/Nakhodka City
Department of General
Professional Education
Information and Curriculum
Development Center
Denver, CO
``I became enamored with American crisis centers in Chicago where
all resources--counselors, medical help, lawyers, etc.--are available
in one place, unlike in Russia (where a child has to relive the horror
of domestic abuse several times at several different agencies).''
Sergey Vitalyevich Belashev
Head/Children's Department Rostov-
on-Don Psycho-Neurological
Center
Chicago, IL
``It is clear that Americans rigorously defend their rights that
are guaranteed by the Constitution. This also raised a sense of
patriotism in us for our country and our Constitution. Order can be
established through a set of laws in which all people are truly equal.
This is one of the fundamental principles of civil society that we need
to strive for. That is good enough reason to study the American
example.''
Alyuset Mezhmedinovich Azizkhanov
Freelance radio journalist and
member of the Russian
Journalists Association
Durham, NC
``These organizations [U.S. NGOs] have just a few paid workers. The
vast majority spends it own time and effort and work without pay. We
asked: `For what?' And they answered: `I need this, my children need
this, my country needs this.' For us, volunteer efforts are surprising,
for them it is the norm. What also surprised us is the belief of
ordinary Americans that much depends on them in their personal lives as
in the life of the city, state, and nation.''
Mariya Abramova
Public and International Relations
Specialist and Assistant to the
Deputy Governor of the Tomsk
Region Administration
Baltimore, MD
``America showed me our different attitudes in our relations
between man and government and man and society. I learned from my host
that she believes that her participation in the life of her country,
community, and government matters and that the future of America
depends on the actions of every American. This lesson allowed me to
take a fresh look at my work for the past ten years. I first met the
parents of Down's Syndrome children in the early 1990s. The government
considered these children unteachable. Parents united to deal with the
situation themselves. This resulted in a decorative arts workshop where
some of the adults and teens with Downs Syndrome now work, in a group
that prepares athletes for Special Olympics, and another group that
works with severely mentally retarded children. So we discovered that
those with Down Syndrome are teachable and employable and that they
should be taught and employed. I wanted to work with them, first as a
volunteer and later as a professional art therapist. I now teach
specialists how to teach the learning disabled. Never before was there
such a demand for all my talents. Thank you, Fran Satina (OW host), I
now know that I can change my country for the better.''
Marina Rodkevich
Moscow City Psychologist and Art
Director, ``Same as You''
organization
Akron, OH
``I was very impressed with the plans of Vicksburg, Tupelo, and
Oxford, Mississippi. Although the population of Nizhniy Novgorod is
more than one million people, much of the planning of these small towns
could be applicable to Nizhniy Novgorod's own development. Strategic
community planning at the city level is a new trend in economic
development in the Russian Federation. As a new trend, it seems likely
that we can adapt American experiences with such planning and
effectively apply these principles in the development of Russian
cities.''
Galina Yuryevna Topnikova
Head/Social-Economic Development
Projection Section, Nizhniy
Novgorod City Administration,
Economic Development and
Planning Department
Oxford, MS
Ukraine
``I think it [his Open World visit] will expand all of my horizons,
as well as everyone else's. I also have ambitions at some time in the
future to help draft legislation for my country. I think these
experiences will help that as well.''
Judge Valentyn Paliy
Judge/Kyiv Commercial Court
Corvallis, OR
``We saw that Americans live in this democracy every day, but every
day they create it. We realize more and more how difficult is the path
ahead of us.''
Maryna Bohdanova
Deputy chief editor and columnist/
Ria weekly newspaper
Pittsburgh, PA
``The important thing about this program is that it will bring
about change--change in the participants personally--and that it will
serve as a stimulus for greater effort in Ukraine.''
Olena Morhun
Crises Prevention Program
Coordinator/Woman for Woman
Center
Washington, DC
``I was impressed with the members of the group with which I worked
over the past ten days because I realized their immense potential in
Ukraine, thanks to the high level of their competence and experience.
It is very important that we met in this group from Ukraine, and I
expect that we will continue our work there together.''
Valentyna Kyrylova
Director/Osnovy Publishing House
Washington, DC
``Especially useful for me was to see democracy in action,
exercising its influence on the government, and the role of society in
the decision-making process of government.''
Lyudmyla Merlyan
Head/Gender Committee of the Civil
Parliament of Ukrainian Women
Washington, DC
Uzbekistan
``The one thing that really impressed me in the United States is
the people. To tell the truth, having watched Hollywood films, I
expected to see an undisciplined public where people did whatever they
felt like. But already in Washington, I was sincerely surprised by the
proper and polite Americans whom I met. On the street, people were
smiling . . . and no one looked at us with unfriendliness. At the end
of my stay in the U.S. capital, I felt as though I were at home in
Tashkent.''
Viktor Krymzalov
Special Correspondent/Private
Property newspaper
Chattanooga, TN
``It wasn't just a trip to America; it was a trip to the future,
the future that I thought would never see in my lifetime or in my
country. Owing to this opportunity, I now know what it is, and I will
try to bring something from the future that I saw back home to
Uzbekistan.''
Zhumanazar Melikulov
Deputy Editor-in-Chief/Fidokor
newspaper
Chattanooga, TN
``I have unforgettable impressions of the Open World Program. My
understanding of America as a country and Americans has completely
changed. Before my trip, I had a very vague insight of what it is. My
comprehension now: it is a great country, which is as it is owing to
its free, honest and direct people. I was impressed by a high
motivation and energy of American entrepreneurs and especially by the
fact the legislation and the system as a whole support them. The
significant result of my trip was elaboration of a new system for
exchange trade--Internet--trading. I'm proud to say that we've
implemented it successfully and today there is no analogy of it in CIS
countries. I'd like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to
the organizers of the Open World Program.''
Temur Valitov
Chair/Agro-Industrial Exchange
Kansas City, KS
Lithuania
``My best moments were when I realized that people in the United
States work very hard in order to accomplish their goals, especially
helping the youth. This motivates me to work harder in Lithuania.''
Youth Issues program participant
Fort Collins, CO
``Local grass-roots initiatives really left a big impression on me.
I have both learned how to better communicate with city and village
communities and realized the need to consult with them more regularly
on policy issues.''
Virgilijus Skulskis
Head, Information and Analysis
Department/Institute of Agrarian
Economics
Middlebury, VT
``In Vermont, much of your success depends on the trust you've
built through working relationships. This is something that we need to
improve among ourselves.''
Linas Vainus
Project Manager/Atgaja Green
Movement
Middlebury, VT
``While we did not even know each other as recently as last week,
it now feels like we have known each other for a long time--like
classmates, and I know that we will be friends for a long time to
come.''
Algirdas Ronkus
District Administrator/Klaipeda
District Municipality
Omaha, NB
``I was surprised to find out that many NGOs in the United States
work without any government support . . . Our NGOs should follow this
example rather than expecting support from the government.''
Women's Issues and NGOs program
participant
Portland, OR
``At the Shelburne town meeting we understood that this was a
useful way for a small community to influence local government's
decision-making process . . . We were able to make new contacts and an
idea for a project in Lithuania emerged.''
NGO development program participant
Burlington, VT
appendix c
assessment of proposed open world expansion into afghanistan and
pakistan
Background.--In December 2004, Public Law 108-447 expanded Open
World program eligibility to any other country that is designated by
the Open World Leadership Center Board of Trustees, provided that the
Board notify the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of such a
designation at least 90 days before it is to take effect. During Senate
floor consideration of the Open World legislation, Open World Board
Chairman James Billington and Open World staff were requested explore
the possibility of expanding the program to Afghanistan and Pakistan,
two countries crucial to U.S. interests. (Congressional Record, Sept.
21, 2004, S9425.)
Summary of Assessment Efforts to Date.--Open World staff met with
Congressional Research Service experts on the region, the Library of
Congress Field Director at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad and his staff,
and Open World grantees with hosting experience in both target
countries. Open World contractors conducted logistical assessments and
contacted key State Department, embassy and AID personnel.
Overall Comment.--Each country has different, overarching obstacles
to applying the Open World model successfully. Afghanistan's societal
structure and civil society have very little in common with what is
found in the United States. Pakistan's population is so large and
diverse that it is questionable how much impact a program involving
only a few hundred delegates would have (details below).
Afghanistan
Political Situation.--Afghanistan is stabilizing after more than 22
years of warfare, and the successful presidential election appears to
be accelerating political and economic reconstruction. The United
States is committed to a secure and stable Afghanistan. Many observers
are looking forward to the September 2005 parliamentary elections and
the next major step toward stable governance.
Viability of Open World Candidates/Themes.--Afghanistan currently
has very few identifiable civic leaders because there are few
identifiable elements of civil society, but small U.S. exchange
programs have been implemented. (For example, in 2004, Meridian
International, an Open World grantee, hosted 30 Afghans in themes such
as civil society, local government, democracy building, cultural
heritage, and civic education.) These exchanges do not have homestays,
but do include visits to American homes. Women travel in all-female
groups. Delegates do not have English-language capability.
Embassy Support.--It would be very difficult for the U.S. Embassy
to lend logistical support to an Open World program, both for security
and workload reasons, but the embassy would need to handle the actual
selection process and is willing to do so under the scenario given in
the recommendation below.
Visas.--All candidates must be flown to Islamabad for their visa
interview. A minimum of six weeks is required from the time of the
interview until a final decision is made on issuance or nonissuance of
the visa. In 2004 there was a high incidence of nonissuance to Afghan
exchange candidates.
Costs.--The estimated cost is $18,000-$19,000 per person, almost
150 percent above the cost for a Russia civic program delegate.
Recommendation.--State Department officials have expressed support
for an Open World pilot program for new Afghan parliamentarians that
would bring them into direct contact with their American federal and
state legislative counterparts. If Congress directs Open World to
implement a pilot program, Open World staff would recommend hosting one
pilot delegation of 8-10 parliamentarians and/or parliamentary staff
following the September 2005 parliamentary elections.
Pakistan
Political Situation.--Hopes that the October 2002 national
elections would reverse Pakistan's history of unstable governance and
military interference in democratic institutions were eroded by the
actions of the Musharraf government. The United States has continued to
express concern over lack of progress on political rights and civil
liberties, but Pakistan's stability and cooperation in the war against
terrorism are of vital importance to the United States.
Viability of Open World Candidates/Themes.--Exchange programs in
Pakistan are well established and growing. Several Open World grantees
have extensive experience hosting Pakistani participants. Certain
segments of urban Pakistani society are very well educated, know
English, and are enthusiastic about interacting with Americans. We
continue to assess whether this segment of society would benefit from
Open World programs, which usually reach into the far regions of
participating countries. Because of the current security situation in
Pakistan, travel by State Department employees from the embassy and
consulates is restricted. This limits their ability to identify
qualified candidates for exchange programs outside Islamabad.
Visas.--The visa application process takes a minimum of six weeks
and there is a high rate of rejection, especially for males. The
Library of Congress Field Office will report to us in late March on
their discussions with the consular section to identify more
specifically the level of support for Open World available under
current staffing and security conditions.
Costs.--$12,000 per person (nearly twice the cost for most Open
World Russia delegates)
Recommendation.--If Congress directs Open World to implement a
pilot program, Open World staff would recommend hosting one or two
delegations of 8-10 delegates each on Open World's Federalism or Women
as Leaders themes.
______
Prepared Statement of Marybeth Peters
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:Thank you for the
opportunity to present the Copyright Office's fiscal year 2006 budget
request.
For fiscal year 2006, the Copyright Office is seeking the
Committee's approval of one major request for the Office and support
for two of the Architect of the Capitol's (AOC) requests on behalf of
the Copyright Office. First, in the BASIC appropriation we are
requesting a $4.161 million increase in new net appropriation authority
and a $500,000 decrease in offsetting collections authority. Four
million dollars of the requested funds will be used for offsite lease
costs to temporarily relocate the Office while its existing space in
the Madison Building is under construction. I am pleased to report that
we have made great progress on our Reengineering Program and expect
full implementation in the first half of fiscal year 2007. The
remaining $161,000 is a request for restoration of the fiscal year 2005
rescission. Additionally, in recognition of new legislation that
terminated funding, we are requesting a $1.872 million decrease in the
CARP offsetting collections authority.
As part of AOC's budget, we request your support to provide $5.5
million for reconstruction of existing Copyright Office space in the
Madison Building to accommodate the reengineered processes and new
organizational structure. Also, as part of the AOC's budget, we request
$800,000 to do a design study for construction of a Copyright Deposit
Facility at Fort Meade. This facility will provide environmental
conditions for copyright deposits that allow us to meet our legal
requirements to retain, and be able to produce copies of, these works.
I will review these requests in more detail, but first will provide
an overview of the Office's work.
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 and its House counterpart. In July I testified on S. 2560,
the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004, which would have
created a new cause of action for intentionally inducing copyright
infringement. After the hearing the bill's sponsors, Senators Hatch,
Leahy, Frist, Daschle, Graham of S.C. and Boxer asked me to meet with
the interested parties to discuss alternatives, evaluate whether these
parties could reach consensus on an approach to this legislation, and
to provide them with the Office's recommendations. The parties failed
to reach consensus, and late in September I submitted our recommended
approach which accommodated the legitimate concerns of all parties,
provided a basis of moving forward, while at the same time meeting the
goals of the bill's cosponsors. Unfortunately, there was not sufficient
time to move this bill forward in the remaining days of the 108th
Congress.
The Office's general counsel testified on my behalf on the
Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act of 2004, which was enacted as part
of Public Law 108-447, and we assisted in reform of the Copyright
Arbitration Royalty Panel System (the Copyright Royalty and
Distribution Reform Act of 2004, enacted as Public Law 108-419).
I testified in the House, and we worked closely and extensively
with staff, on the proposed Family Movie Act, which is now part of S.
167, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, passed by the Senate
on February 1, 2005. H.R. 357, the House's companion bill, cleared the
House Judiciary Committee on March 9, 2005. We have also worked
extensively on issues concerning the existing compulsory license for
the making and distribution of phonorecords of musical compositions,
including digital phonorecord deliveries of music. Other issues
included proposals to create criminal and civil penalties for
camcording by individuals in theaters, providing statutory damages for
``pre-release works,'' and creating a system of pre-registration for
certain classes of ``pre-release works,'' which are included in S.167
and H.R. 357, mentioned above.
On January 5, 2005 Senators Hatch and Leahy asked me to study the
issue of ``orphan works,'' copyrighted works whose owners are difficult
or impossible to locate, and to report our findings and recommendations
to them by the end of the year. We are in the process of seeking
initial comments on the scope of the problem and possible solutions.
The Office also intends to hold hearings during the year.
During fiscal year 2006, the Office will initiate and conduct most
of the required work on its triennial rulemaking on exceptions from the
section 1201 prohibition on circumvention of technological measures
that control access to copyrighted works. The purpose is to determine
whether there are any particular classes of works as to which users
are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make
noninfringing uses due to the prohibition. (In 2003, the Librarian of
Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register, exempted four narrow
classes until October 27, 2006.) Comments proposing exemptions will be
solicited, comments on the proposals will be sought, and hearings will
held.
The Office has been extremely active in a number of important
copyright cases, many of which challenged the constitutionality of
various provisions of the Copyright Act. In these cases the Office
assisted the Department of Justice in defending the law. The Office
also assisted the Department of Justice in the government's Supreme
Court amicus brief of the United States in MGM Studios v. Grokster,
Ltd., on whether providers of ``file sharing'' network software can be
held secondarily liable for copyright infringement when the vast
majority of uses of the providers' network constitute copyright
infringement. (Oral argument was heard on March 29, 2005.)
As always, the Office continued 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 participated in numerous multilateral,
regional and bilateral negotiations.
Registration including Renewals and Recordation
Registration of authors' and other copyright owners' claims to
copyright, including claims in renewals, and recordation of documents,
such as assignments, security interests, and mergers are important
parts of the U.S. copyright system. The Office has significantly
improved its delivery times for registration and recordation services
since 2001.
During fiscal year 2004, the Copyright Office received 614,235
claims to copyright covering more than a million works and registered
661,469 claims received during fiscal year 2003 and 2004. Registration
is now two and a half times speedier than in 2001, when the average
time between receipt of a claim and the issuance of a registration
certificate was 200 days. At the end of fiscal year 2004, the Office
has shortened the average time to process a claim to 80 days.
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 14,979 documents covering more
than 470,000 titles of works in fiscal year 2004. At the end of the
fiscal year, the average time to record a document was 33 days, more
than six times faster than the average of 210 days in fiscal year 2001.
These achievements took place during a period of increased security
concerns. In early February 2004, ricin-contaminated mail was delivered
to a Senate Office. This incident stopped the Office's postal mail
delivery for an entire month while enhanced screening processes were
put in place. The disruption affected mail processing until early June,
when the last of the delayed mail was delivered. The Office worked to
restore normal processing levels, and the improvement in timeliness
reflects efforts to overcome the disruption.
However, processing time for the creation and making available of
online cataloging records increased in fiscal year 2004 because of the
Office's focus on improving the efficiency of registration processing.
The result was an increase in the Cataloging Division's work on hand.
For the remainder of fiscal year 2005, the Office will concentrate on
improving processing time for these records.
With respect to renewal registrations, the Office is facing the
fact that the number of renewal registrations will decrease
significantly in fiscal year 2007. 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
with 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 year for 28th year renewals is the end of this
year, December 31, 2005.
Additionally, the law was changed in 1992 to make renewal
registration voluntary. There are certain benefits that are gained by
renewing in the 28th year. However, if no renewal claim is registered
in the 28th year of the term, renewal is automatically secured on the
last day of that year. The 1992 law applies to works copyrighted
between January 1, 1964 and December 31, 1977. 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.
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 decreased each
year. Last year the Office received approximately 17,000 renewal
claims. We believe that between 1,500 and 2,000 renewal claims were
post 28th year renewals. Our records show that approximately 5,500
renewal claims were received in October, November and December, 2004.
The renewals unit consists of a staff of five.
The Office currently receives approximately $1 million a year for
renewal services. We project that the Office will take in significantly
less money in fiscal year 2006 for the 28th year renewals received in
October, November, and December 2005 and for renewals submitted after
the 28th year. During fiscal year 2006 we will assess the impact of
this loss of revenue and the decreased workload. However, it is likely
that in the fiscal year 2007 budget submission, the Office will request
a permanent decrease in its offsetting collections authority and a
reduction in FTEs.
Public Information and Education
The Copyright Office responded to 381,845 requests for direct
reference services and electronically published thirty issues of its
electronic newsletter NewsNet a source that alerts subscribers to
Congressional hearings, new and proposed regulations, deadlines for
comments, new publications, other copyright-related subjects, and news
about the Copyright Office to 5,297 subscribers.
The Office website continued to play a key role in disseminating
information to the copyright community and the general public. The
Office logged 20 million hits by the public in fiscal year 2004,
representing a 25 percent increase over the previous year. The Spanish
language pages on its website received approximately 130,000 hits
during the fiscal year.
The website received an updated look to coincide with the January
1, 2004, introduction of the new office seal, logo, and wordmark. The
website displayed the new symbols along with new colors derived from
those used in the Office's printed materials. The pages' appearance was
also standardized, streamlined, and designed for faster loading. The
Department of Health and Human Services selected the Copyright Office
website as an example of a government site that meets user expectations
with regard to navigation, content, and organization.
The Copyright Office, with the Library's Office of Strategic
Initiatives, initiated the Copyright Records Project to determine the
feasibility of digitizing millions of Copyright Office paper records
covering 1790-1977. In 2004, the project team researched and documented
the various types of paper records, developed a strategy, and issued a
Request for Information seeking expressions of interest. In early
fiscal year 2005 three potential vendors conducted a test of their
capabilities to digitize and index sample records and we expect a
report on the results by the end of April 2005.
Licensing Activities
The Copyright Office administers the copyright law's statutory
licenses and obligations. The Licensing Division collects and
distributes 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 fiscal year 2004, the Office
collected $212.9 million in royalty funds and distributed $154.1
million to copyright owners.
With the passage of the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform
Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-419), a new program was established in the
Library of Congress, the Copyright Royalty (CRJ) program, which assumed
most of the functions of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels
(CARPs). The interim Chief Copyright Royalty Judge is submitting a
separate statement to request funding for the new CRJ Program.
fiscal year 2006 budget request
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 fully funded and completed in fiscal year 2006, to
include moving staff offsite so that its space in the Madison Building
can be renovated in one phase. However, due to infrastructure and
offsite lease requirements, the program cannot be completed until the
first half of fiscal year 2007.
The relocation of the Copyright Office staff and the Madison
Building construction need to be done concurrently. Because of the
complexity and integrated nature of the various steps in the
registration and recordation processes, they must be located in one
place. The Library of Congress does not have sufficient swing space to
accommodate such a large group of staff and operations; therefore,
there is no choice but to relocate most staff to leased offsite space.
The $4 million request for new one time funding is to cover most of
the fiscal year 2006 expenses associated with moving staff offsite,
specifically lease and utilities, furniture rental, security guards,
and voice and data line leases. With the committee's support for the
new fiscal year 2006 funding, the Office will relocate staff to leased
offsite space, reconfigure its main facilities, install new equipment
and staff workstations, and bring the new IT systems infrastructure
online. In late 2006, staff will move back from the leased offsite
location to a new organizational structure to begin reengineered
operations. This represents the fourth and last net appropriations
increase to the Copyright Office BASIC appropriation base to complete
the Reengineering Program. The project will be fully implemented in
fiscal year 2007 with no new funding requested for fiscal year 2007.
Rather, the Office plans to reduce its net appropriation base in fiscal
year 2007 and return non-recurring Reengineering Program funds.
The reengineering initiative is contingent upon the AOC receiving
its fiscal year 2006 request for $5.5 million to undertake the
construction of the current Copyright Office space in the Madison
Building.
Sustaining Staff Capacity
Because of the fiscal year 2005 rescission, the Copyright Basic
fund reduced pay by $161,000. The Library is requesting the restoration
of the $161,000 in fiscal year 2006 to maintain payroll purchasing
power needed to sustain staff capacity.
Copyright Deposit Facility at Fort Meade
The Copyright Office is required by law (title 17) to retain
unpublished copyright deposits for the full-term of copyright, which is
life of the author plus 70 years, and published deposits for the
longest period considered practicable and desirable by the Register of
Copyright. A retention period of 120 years has been established for the
unpublished deposits and 20 years for the published deposits. A
certified copy of a copyright deposit may be used in legal proceedings
as evidence of the scope of copyright in a work.
Currently, the Copyright Office archives more than 800,000
copyright deposits annually in a variety of media as part of the
registration process which results in an annual storage increase of
approximately 3,500 cubic feet of published deposits and records and
3,500 cubic feet of unpublished deposits. From fiscal year 2007 through
2020, the storage requirement is projected to expand to a total of
approximately 245,000 cubic feet.
Copyright deposits are currently stored at two locations: leased
space in Landover, Maryland, a GSA facility, and at a commercial
records management facility in Sterling, Virginia, managed by Iron
Mountain. Both facilities are subject to wide temperature variances and
high humidity levels, and therefore fail to provide the appropriate
environmental conditions necessary to ensure the longevity of the
deposit materials. According to the Library of Congress Conservation
Division, continued storage under present substandard environmental
conditions will accelerate the aging of the deposit material and reduce
the useful life span by 75 percent, placing these deposits at risk,
especially after 25 years.
In 1994, the U.S. Army transferred a 100-acre site at Fort Meade,
Maryland, to the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) for use by the
legislative branch for the construction of storage modules. The master
plan envisioned 13 buildings for the Library of Congress of which one
was dedicated to the storage of copyright deposits. Both the design and
construction documents were completed in August 2003. In recognition of
the tight budgetary environment, the Copyright Office is recommending
that the Fort Meade facility be redesigned for modular construction so
that the facility can be built in phases in order to spread out the
costs over multiple funding cycles. The AOC is requesting $800,000 in
fiscal year 2006 funds for this redesign effort with construction of
the initial phase being deferred until fiscal year 2008. We ask your
support for this request.
CARP offsetting collections authority
The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARP) system funded by
royalty fees and by participants is being replaced by the Copyright
Royalty Judges (CRJ) Program, created by the Copyright Royalty and
Distribution Reform Act of 2004, signed into law on November 30, 2004.
However, there are still some proceedings that will or may operate
under the old CARP system during fiscal year 2006. In accordance with
the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004,
signed into law on December 7, 2004, the satellite carrier statutory
license rate setting procedures will be conducted by CARPs. Therefore,
the cost of the arbitrators for the CARP proceedings will be paid for
by the participants, and staff and other expenses will be funded from
the royalty pools. The Office is requesting a $1.872 million decrease
in the CARP offsetting collections authority, leaving $300,000 to fund
the fiscal year 2006 program.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I ask that you support the fiscal year 2006 Copyright
Basic budget request for a one time $4 million increase in net
appropriations and a $500,000 decrease in offsetting collections for
the BASIC appropriation to implement the Reengineering Program, and a
$1.872 million decrease in offsetting collections authority in the CARP
appropriation. Your support is also requested to approve the $5.5
million in the AOC budget for reengineering costs to construct the
redesigned facilities.
Our fiscal year 2006 request permits us to move forward on the
facilities work critical to the final implementation of our
Reengineering Program. We appreciate the past support you have given us
for this project. We are now at the point that we cannot turn back,
and, with your continued support, we look forward to bringing the
Office into the electronic environment that is so prevalent today.
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.
______
Prepared Statement of Bruce Forrest, Interim Chief Copyright Royalty
Judge
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to present the Copyright Royalty Judge program fiscal year
2006 budget request.
The Copyright Royalty Judge (CRJ) system was created by the
Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, Public Law 108-
419, signed into law on November 30, 2004 (``Reform Act''). The
Copyright Royalty Judges will assume the duties formerly carried out by
the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels and the Librarian of Congress
with respect to setting rates for the statutory copyright licenses
(with the exception of certain rate-setting proceedings being conducted
this year for the satellite television license under 17 U.S.C.
Sec. 119, which remain under the CARP system) and distributing
royalties from the royalty pools maintained by the Copyright Office.
The CRJ program will provide an important improvement over the CARP
system because it lowers the cost to the participants, requires
decision makers to have certain subject matter expertise, and makes use
of institutional knowledge to render consistent decisions.
The Reform Act specifies that the new CRJ system, which will be
part of the Library of Congress, will have three Copyright Royalty
Judges (CRJs) and three staff employees. The three judges will be
responsible for setting the rates and terms for the statutory licenses
that allow for: (1) the retransmission of copyrighted broadcast
programming by cable systems and satellite carriers; (2) the making and
distribution of phonorecords; (3) the reproduction and performance of
sound recordings by means of digital audio transmissions; and (4) the
use of certain copyrighted works in connection with noncommercial
broadcasting. In addition, the judges will conduct distribution
proceedings for the cable and satellite royalty fees deposited with the
Copyright Office and the fees collected for the making and distribution
of digital audio recording devices and media. The CRJs will have
authority, unlike the CARPs, to determine the status of a digital audio
recording device or digital audio interface device under chapter 10 of
the Copyright Act. The CRJ program also vests the judges with the
continuing authority to correct any technical or clerical errors, or to
modify any terms in response to unforeseen circumstances, and grants
them authority to promulgate notice and recordkeeping requirements for
use of certain licenses.
Congress took care to insure that the Copyright Royalty Judges
would have adequate qualifications to perform these highly technical
and difficult tasks. Under the Reform Act, each Copyright Royalty Judge
must be an attorney with at least 7 years of legal experience, and the
Chief CRJ must have at least 5 years of experience in adjudications,
arbitrations, or court trials. Of the other two Judges, one must have a
significant knowledge of copyright law and the other must have a
significant knowledge of economics.
review of copyright office work and accomplishments
In fiscal year 2005, you approved the Library's request to
reprogram $540,000 and three FTEs from the Copyright Arbitration
Royalty Panels (CARP) to the Copyright Royalty Judge program, since the
Library's fiscal year 2005 budget did not include funds to cover the
costs of the new program. This allowed the Library to use existing
offsetting collections authority funded by royalties to cover the
personal and nonpersonal costs of the new CRJ program during the
transition phase of the program, as provided for under the Act. As
required by the Act, one interim CRJ has been sworn in to draft new
regulations to govern the rate setting and distribution proceedings
under the new statutory guidelines and to initiate immediately a rate
setting proceeding to establish rates for the statutory licenses that
allow for the public performance of sound recordings by means of
digital transmissions, e.g., webcasting.
fiscal year 2006 budget request
This fiscal year 2006 budget, which is the first budget request for
Copyright Royalty Judge (CRJ) operations and proceedings under the
Reform Act, requests new permanent funding ($1.3 million) in
appropriations with no-year authority. The level of funding is
essentially ordained by the requirements of the Reform Act. The funding
will support three full-time Copyright Royalty Judges and three staff
positions, whose salary levels are specified in the Reform Act, and
other non-personal expenses. The CRJs' primary task will be to set
rates and terms for the various statutory licenses and to determine the
distribution of royalty fees collected by the Copyright Office.
In summary, I ask that you support the fiscal year 2006 Copyright
Royalty Judge Program budget request for new permanent $1.3 million
increase in total appropriations.
conclusion
I thank the Committee for its consideration of this request.
Senator Allard. Thank you very much, Dr. Billington.
General Scott, do you have any additional comments for the
committee?
General Scott. No, sir, I do not.
Senator Allard. Okay, thank you.
Now I will recognize Senator Johnson for his opening
comments.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
forego opening statements. I have a statement I can submit. I
simply want to welcome Dr. Billington and Mr. Walker to the
hearing today and thank them for their leadership. I look
forward to working with you as well as ranking member Durbin as
we wind our way through the appropriations process in a year
that is going to be a difficult one for all of us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again to our panel
today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's hearing to
examine the budget requests for the Library of Congress and the
Government Accountability Office. I want to first welcome you,
Mr. Chairman, to the Appropriations Committee and as the
chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. I look forward
to working with you and Ranking Member Durbin as we work on the
Legislative Branch appropriations bill this year.
I also want to welcome Dr. Billington and Mr. Walker to the
hearing today. So much of what we do here in Congress is made
easier and better because of the work done by the Library of
Congress and Government Accountability Office. The Library,
with such a unique array of collections, is truly a national
treasure. I enjoyed visiting the Library to see the Lewis and
Clark exhibit that was on display in the Jefferson Building. I
had a particular interest since the Lewis and Clark expedition
came through South Dakota and reportedly first saw the vast
buffalo herds of the Great Plains from Spirit Mound near my
hometown of Vermillion, South Dakota.
The Library's Congressional Research Service continues to
be one of the best sources of information and analysis provided
to members and our staffs on even the most obscure subjects. I
want to publicly thank the dedicated staff at CRS for their
timely and thorough responses to inquiries from our offices.
Mr. Walker, I also want to thank you and everyone at GAO
for the professional work done under what can sometimes be
extraordinary circumstances. Without GAO's investigative
abilities, Congress would be hard pressed to fulfill its
oversight role. My staff and I have relied upon GAO to look
into matters ranging from country of origin meat labeling to No
Child Left Behind Act implementation in rural states. Thank you
for the work GAO does to assist us in Congress, especially
GAO's ongoing assistance to this Subcommittee on the Capitol
Visitor Center.
I look forward to your testimony and to working with both
of you in the coming months as we move through the
appropriations process. Obviously, we find ourselves in a very
difficult budget situation, so funding will be tight across the
board. However, the roles the Library of Congress and GAO play
are vital to helping Congress meet its constitutional
responsibilities.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
FUNDING PRIORITIES AND CHALLENGES
Senator Allard. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Just for your
information, we are going to use the 5-minute rule and we will
rotate around a little. If we have to have several rounds of
questioning, we will do that. My hope is that we will get out
this morning about 11:45 or so, when we have scheduled votes on
the floor.
Let me start with you, Dr. Billington. You talked a little
bit about the budget priorities. The Library's budget request
is an increase of $45 million or 7 percent over the current
year budget. In the event we are unable to provide the full
amount requested, please explain what your highest budget
priorities will be?
Dr. Billington. Well, our budget request basically supports
every aspect of our basic historic mission and enables us to
continue, hopefully, our transition to the new digital world.
That mission is, as I have indicated, acquiring, preserving,
making accessible this enormous collection.
The business of acquisition and preservation cannot be
deferred. Maintenance cannot be deferred for very long, and
basic services I do not think should be curtailed, although
that is ultimately for the Congress to determine. But to
maintain our historic role in knowledge management, the
traditional key to the investments we seek are to maintain our
construction schedule, long delayed, for storage and
preservation at Fort Meade and Culpeper, to regain some of our
purchasing power for acquisitions, which has been seriously
eroded over the last 10 years for acquisitions and for CRS
research materials. Of course reengineering our business
processes for outdated manual systems, particularly this last
year of the copyright program, is important. And of course the
whole question of revitalizing our human capital resources and
infrastructure, particularly information technology, is of
central importance.
NAVCC--CULPEPER
Senator Allard. Thank you, Dr. Billington.
I also want to just take a moment here and thank the
Packard Foundation for their generous support of the National
Audiovisual Conservation Center. Hopefully, later on in the
year I would like to have an opportunity to go out there and
take a look at that facility.
The Library's budget requests $16 million and 47 FTEs, an
increase of 23 new positions, for the National Audiovisual
Conservation Center, which is scheduled to open next year. Why
are these additional staff needed now and what will be the
total annual operating cost for the NAVCC once it is fully
operational?
Dr. Billington. Well, the increase is 23 FTEs. First of
all, the Packard donation is a capital donation that is almost
unprecedented.
Senator Allard. It is.
Dr. Billington. It is somewhere between $120 and $130
million. So the building is basically being built with private
funds. The increase of FTEs, first of all, is consistent with
the 5-year plan we submitted and was approved by the Congress 3
years ago. But the point is that we are not simply relocating
people and materials to a new facility. We are creating a
national conservation center, which we have never really had,
with a new digital preservation system for audiovisual
materials that will allow the Library to preserve the
collection for at least 100 years, the same standard that we
have for paper.
So this is a totally new achievement that will be made
possible. The new technical system and the enhanced capacities
of the conservation center require additional and more
technically qualified staff. Even with the increase in
staffing, total funding requested in the Federal budget for
this year for the Culpeper center is $3 million less than the
funding was last year.
Our new restoration lab that we are setting up there will
operate 24 hours a day and the new system will allow us to
increase preservation productivity 10 times the current rate.
So this is a fundamental revolutionary escalation of our
capacity to exercise and realize the congressional mandate of
1976 to create a real national archive for the preservation of
radio and television, as well as recorded sound, film, and
other audiovisual materials.
So it is a major undertaking. I cannot give you today the
exact projection figures for what the operating costs will be.
I do not want to just guess at that. But a good deal of what we
have been asking the last couple of years for the appropriation
are one-time things to get us in there, to get us established.
So I think we have to get over that bump. But that is a small
bump compared to the mountain that the Packard Foundation is
contributing.
Senator Allard. Well, we would appreciate that response. We
will be looking forward to getting those figures and showing
some more detail on that.
[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,
using existing base funds and new resources will start in
fiscal year 2009, with ongoing annual operating costs beginning
that year of $22.5 million. This figure includes $6 million for
preservation digitization, $3.5 million for storage, $1.5
million for facilities management, and $11.5 million for staff.
It includes existing base funds and staff from the Motion
Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division. 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
gift of the state-of-the-art NAVCC facility will allow us to
take advantage of these technologies for the first time.
Senator Allard. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. I do not have any questions.
FORT MEADE STORAGE
Senator Allard. Senator Johnson indicates he does not have
any more questions, so I will move on to Fort Meade storage
modules. The Architect's budget includes $40 million for
additional storage modules at Fort Meade. I would like to have
you explain the importance of these storage modules and what
the future requirements the Library expects to have at the Fort
Meade location. My understanding is that there will be a
considerable number of modules that are being projected out
over the years to bring into that Fort Meade location.
Dr. Billington. Well, let me just say briefly, and I can
let General Scott speak mainly to this, but the purpose of the
two modules, Modules 3 and 4, is to house 26 million special
format collections, including maps, prints, photographs,
microfilm, manuscripts, things of a special nature, almost all
of which are one of a kind.
Senator Allard. Excuse me for interrupting you, Dr.
Billington. Are they refrigerated or special humidity
controlled?
Dr. Billington. Modules 1 and 2 are for book storage. The
beauty of these new modules is that they are really not simply
storage, they are--for instance, from Module 1, we have had a
100 percent retrieval rate on all things; it happens within 24
hours. So they are very efficient for storing and retrieving.
But most important of all the collections to be stored in
Modules 3 and 4 are practically all one of a kind items of
which there are no other copies. They will be in state-of-the-
art preservation conditions, which is important, as with the
Culpeper audiovisual collections. So the creation of these
Modules is an investment simply prolonging the lifespan of
priceless things, of which we are the custodian of so many, in
this case 26 million items in the special format collections,
which cannot be just stacked the way books are, but have to be
handled in a special manner.
So that is it. But I will let General Scott speak further
to the whole project, except to say that we submitted a
detailed plan for the various modules quite some time ago with
the Congress. So we are on schedule, even though we were 5
years behind getting construction started according to the
original plans and are already 1 more year delayed beyond the 5
years for these important modules for these special
collections.
Senator Allard. And you do not see any change on those
plans that were submitted, any modifications or anything? The
time line is the same; it is just the total time line has been
moved back?
Dr. Billington. That is right, that is right.
Senator Allard. Okay. General?
General Scott. Yes, sir. You had asked about future storage
needs for the Library. We do have a complete plan that
envisions having 13 buildings out at Fort Meade that would
carry us up through the year 2027. Module 1, which was
completed in 2002, is completely filled. It was at capacity in
about 2\1/2\ years with some 1.5 million items.
Module No. 2, which is slated to open very soon, has a
capacity of 2 million items and similarly it too will house
books. Our projection is that Module 2 will also be filled
within 2 years once it opens.
The 13 modules that are either in design or construction
will hold books and special format collections as well as other
treasures from the Library. To date, funding has been provided
for Modules 1 and 2. We are requesting funding for Modules 3
and 4.
We would be happy to submit for the record a table that
highlights our future storage and capital requirements.
Senator Allard. I wonder if you would do that, General
Scott. I think that would be helpful for the committee.
[The information follows:]
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS FUTURE FORT MEADE CAMPUS STORAGE (CAPITAL) REQUIREMENTS
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Plans
Storage Requirement ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Projected Materials To Be Stored
Design Construction Occupancy Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Meade Module 2................ Completed.................... Fiscal year 2005............... Fiscal year 2005...... NA General collections (2M items)
Fort Meade Modules 3 & 4........... Completed.................... Requested fiscal year 2006..... ...................... $40.7 Special format collections: maps, prints, photographs,
manuscripts, microfilm (26M items)
Fort Meade Copyright Deposits \1\.. Requested fiscal year 2006 Requested fiscal year 2008..... ...................... $45 $800,000 re-design funding requested fiscal year 2006
($800,000). will permit modular, phased construction. Will house
Published and Un-Published Copyright Materials.
Fort Meade Logistics Warehouse..... Completed.................... Requested fiscal year 2007..... ...................... $56 Preservation materials, Exhibit Cabinets, Office
supplies, equipment, computers, business records,
Library publications, and material staging
Fort Meade Modules 5............... Completed.................... Requested fiscal year 2007..... ...................... $11 General collections (2M items)
Fort Meade Modules 6-13............ Module....................... ............................... Through 2026.......... \2\ $88 General collections. Eight additional modules planned
through 2027.
-----------
Total........................ ............................. ............................... ...................... $240.4 Through Year 2027
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: As a result of the fiscal year 2005 construction request of $59 million for the Copyright Deposit, the committee requested that the Library research other options. The options
included an analysis of the second building at the Alternate Computer Facility in Massases, VA. The re-designed facility will introduce a modular approach with a goal of reducing the cost to
$45 million.
\2\ $11 million each.
Dr. Billington. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I must just say
that as far as Culpeper is concerned, the beauty of that
facility is that it is very capacious and we will not need any
supplementing of that for a very long period.
POLICE MERGER
Senator Allard. I want to talk a little bit about merging
the Library police force with the Capitol Police Force. As I
understand it, this effort was to try and streamline and unify
the security for the Capitol complex. The Congress authorized
in fiscal year 2004 any new Library police positions to be
filled by the Capitol Police officers. Late last year the
Library and Capitol Police entered into an memorandum of
understanding (MOU) to enable 23 Capitol Police officers to be
assigned to the Library.
How would you assess the effectiveness of this merger to
this point, Dr. Billington?
Dr. Billington. I will let General Scott speak to that.
Senator Allard. That would be fine. General.
General Scott. As you indicated, the Congress did approve
23 police FTEs for the Library back in the 2004 budget. To set
that in context, the Library had indicated in the 2004 budget
that we would need at least 100 FTEs spread over a 3-year
period. In 2004, we received an appropriation for 23 of those
FTEs with the directive that the Capitol Police hire those
officers for the Library.
To facilitate the hiring, the Library and Capitol Police
entered into a memorandum of understanding. The MOU laid out
the procedures through which we would receive the 23 officers
who came on board in December 2004. The augmentation was
seamless and it is working well.
However, the Library still needs to continue building
toward the 100 FTEs and is therefore asking for 45 new police
officers in fiscal year 2006. The MOU does not provide the
Capitol Police the authority to hire those 45. Additionally, we
think that the MOU does not resolve our long-range police
staffing requirements as we will still need to have 32 more to
round out the 100 that we requested in 2004.
Finally, the MOU does not address or protect the
fundamental authority of the Librarian to protect the
buildings, the staff, and the collections of the Library.
Dr. Billington. Could I just add that if the hiring of the
45 additional police officers, which we are requesting in this
budget, continues to go through the U.S. Capitol Police, that
what we are in fact seeing is a de facto police merger taking
place without authorization from the appropriate congressional
committees and without their knowledge of the full fundamental
change that will be made in the Librarian's historic and
statutory responsibilities.
Senator Allard. Now, you have requested 45 police officers.
Did you consult with the Capitol Police on this request?
General Scott. Yes, sir, we did.
Senator Allard. You did?
General Scott. Right.
Senator Allard. And this is a number that they felt they
needed to have? Here is the issue and the reason I structure it
this way. My understanding is that right now there is no
authorization for more police officers as far as the Library is
concerned, that has been passed over then. So I am a little
perplexed why you make that request under this budget here and
why we did not get the request through the Capitol Police
budget. I wonder if you can respond to that.
General Scott. Yes, sir. We have been consulting with the
Chief of the Capitol Police over the staffing issues, as well
as other police issues. The 45 that we are asking for is based
on the staffing model and the guide that the Capitol Police
have. We are asking for officers that would augment our current
force, and make us consistent in our entrance and exit posts
with the staffing of the Capitol Police.
Senator Allard. I hope that we can have some uniformity.
During my tour of the Capitol Visitor Center we had a good look
at the tunnel and everything, which I am excited about, the
direct access over to the Library. But not only do we increase
access to the Library, but we also increase access back into
the Capitol. I think if we have not given any thought to that,
I think we have to think about that in the process, because we
have a security issue coming back into the Capitol from the
other side.
So it is something that I just made note of here and I want
to check out a little further. I appreciate your response on
this. I understand that Roll Call had an article on this.
Apparently they talked to Library employees and I think it was
an anecdotal type of story. But anyhow, they viewed the Library
as a possible weak link on the Hill, as far as security.
Do you agree with that article? Do you think that is
something to be concerned about?
General Scott. I cannot comment about the article, Senator.
I had not read the article. But I can say this, that we are in
complete agreement that security on Capitol Hill is our highest
priority and we are determined to meet all the security
requirements. We want to mirror the Capitol Police augmentation
on our posts.
I would also add that the inspector, who is in charge of
the Library's police and an employee of the Capitol Police, has
made significant improvements in the liaison role that we now
have with the Capitol Police.
Senator Allard. I tell you what. I do have a copy of that
article that staff has just handed me. What I thought I would
do is I will give you a copy of it, I will make it a part of
the record, and then you can maybe respond to any issues that
are raised in this article if you will.
General Scott. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. I think it would be helpful.
General Scott. Okay.
[The information follows:]
The Library is not a weak link in the security of the
Capitol complex, as depicted in the recent Roll Call article
(April 5, 2005). We do agree that it is critical for the
Library to maintain a level of security commensurate with the
rest of Capitol Hill. The Library has been effectively
addressing the protection of its employees, visitors, and
assets for years, as well as contributing toward strengthening
the security of the Capitol complex as a whole, with the goal
of creating seamless security throughout the complex.
Since the mid-1990s, the Library has aggressively
implemented major security improvements consistent with the
many security improvements that have been put in place
throughout the Capitol complex. Examples of the Library's
improvements include major perimeter security enhancements,
implementation of full building entry screening, expanded
emergency communications capabilities, and establishment of a
robust emergency preparedness program.
The Library Police are an integral component of the
Library's steady progress toward strengthening Library security
programs. Over the past several years, the Library Police have
achieved major improvements in operations and personnel
readiness. Although the Library Police force is comparatively
small and does not have all the resources available to the
Capitol Police, the Library Police work closely with the
Capitol Police to maximize the level of support for daily
operations and for emergency situations. There has been
significant enhancement in the coordination efforts between the
Library Police and the Capitol Police in those areas where the
capabilities of the Library Police are limited because of
resource considerations or to avoid costly duplication of
effort. With the continued commitment and assistance of the
Capitol Police, we see no discernable differences in response
capabilities of either police force.
The Library Police recently underwent an audit by the
Library's Inspector General. The audit did not identify any
significant systemic weaknesses or program vulnerabilities that
would place any employee, visitor, facility, or any part of the
collections at risk. The goal of the Library Police is to
achieve cooperative parity with the Capitol Police. The Library
Police have been working diligently for some time to ensure
that the Library receives the same level of protection as the
remainder of the Capitol complex.
The unique security and enforcement requirements of the
Library have developed a police culture having somewhat
different responsibilities than most federal police agencies.
The successful record of the Library Police in both detecting
and deterring crimes against the facilities, personnel, or
property of the Library demonstrates that the Library Police
are fully capable of meeting their statutory requirements and,
as demonstrated through the ongoing detail of Capitol Police
officers, can work effectively with other agencies. There is no
evidence that the Library Police constitute a weakness in
meeting their law enforcement and security requirements, and
the Library Police's aggressive implementation of the
recommendations from the Inspector General's audit indicates
their willingness to improve processes and procedures to
enhance their capabilities and professionalism.
In summary, Library management has confidence in the
Library Police that they will continue to provide the required
level of security and law enforcement to meet their statutory
responsibilities in the ever-improving security climate on
Capitol Hill.
COPYRIGHT REENGINEERING
Senator Allard. The Library of Congress budget included $4
million to complete the Copyright Office's reengineering
initiative. It includes funds for the lease of temporary office
space. Please explain how the copyright process will be
improved through the reengineering effort, which I am pleased
to see you doing, because if there is one criticism that I get
it is the copyright procedure and how long it takes to get
approval. My hope is that this will speed things up and it
sounds like you are on that, and I want to compliment you on
that.
General Scott. Thank you, sir. Marybeth Peters, who is the
Director, the Register of Copyrights, has had a visionary
insight in recognizing that commerce and the digital network
environment now demands that we meet customer expectations by
electronically making it possible to receive copies of digital
works, web sites, databases, and various filings, such as
applications for registrations, and to process them
electronically.
Five years ago the Register of Copyrights announced a very
well thought-out plan that would change the copyright processes
to support our electronic environment. Fiscal year 2006 is the
last year that new appropriated funds will be needed to
complete this project.
Deferring the project beyond 2006 will not only result in
the loss of $19.7 million in past investments, but the Library
will also lose the contract staff who built the new systems and
the related expertise which is needed to complete this project.
These resources, if we lost them, would not be available beyond
2006 due to other commitments.
The new system cannot be implemented without, of course, a
reconfiguration of the Copyrights Office space since the
current floor plans are not aligned with the flow of the new
business processes. Without the 2006 funding, this project may
never be implemented, that is why we are making this request.
Dr. Billington. Don's basic point is that the registration
will be much quicker, which has been a constant concern and
complaint, and in the long run it will be much more economical
because it can be done electronically.
Senator Allard. Both of those are very worthy goals. I am
just trying to think through the process. If you are an author,
do you submit the book in written and electronic form? Your
book then would go into storage and then you add the book to
your electronic database?
I would like you to clarify that for the subcommittee.
General Scott. At this point I would really like to call
upon Mary Beth because she is the expert in this, sir.
Senator Allard. If you feel uncomfortable talking about
that, we will be glad to put something in the record.
Ms. Peters. No, I am not in the least bit uncomfortable
talking about it.
Dr. Billington. She has been dealing with this for 40
years.
Ms. Peters. That is right.
Senator Allard. I notice I brought a smile to your face.
You must enjoy it.
Ms. Peters. The truth is I love it.
COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION PROCESS
If you have authors today and they choose to register as
soon as they write their books, before they send the manuscript
to a publisher----
Senator Allard. Then it gets a Library of Congress number,
is that correct?
Ms. Peters. Not if it is the submission of the author's
manuscript and it is unpublished. If I write a book and I have
not sent it to a publisher, I may want to get a registration
before I send it out to publishers, I would send the copyright
office a paper copy because today we are not equipped to take
it in electronically.
Starting this fall, we will be experimenting with taking in
all types of material electronically and processing them
electronically.
Senator Allard. Would that not help your process if you
expected the author to provide an electronic one when it goes
to the publisher.
Ms. Peters. Absolutely. When the publisher gets the
author's manuscript, it is in electronic form. Then the
publisher converts it to print form. The print copy is used to
register the publisher's claim to copyright. The print copies
usually go into the collections of the Library of Congress, and
could end up at storage Module 1 or 2 at Fort Meade.
Senator Allard. Depending on its perceived importance, is
that right?
Ms. Peters. Depending on the Library's acquisition
policies.
Senator Allard. I see, okay.
Ms. Peters. So, we hope that we are able to provide all of
our services within 2 weeks. Reengineering will totally
revolutionize the way that we do business.
Senator Allard. I was trying to visualize it. That is what
I was visualizing, we are making it more efficient. We can also
keep a hard copy in case something happens to the electronic
one.
Ms. Peters. Yes, a digital file will come in to the
copyright office for registration. If the Library wants print
copies of a literary work, the publisher will send two print
copies for the use of the Library, but the copyright office
will have a digital file of the work.
Senator Allard. Very good, thank you.
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP
Senator Allard. I have just one question on the Open World
program and then we will hear from the CRS.
Your statement indicates that Russia alone has nearly 9,000
Open World alumni, Dr. Billington, each of whom has visited a
U.S. community for a 10-day stay under the program. I am
curious as to what continuing communication is needed and
desirable beyond the original introduction to America, which is
a 10-day stay here with a host family as I understand the
program.
Dr. Billington. Well, this has been an extraordinary
program in a lot of ways. One of the ways is that it has
created a lot of sister relationships. For instance, we have
been emphasizing the rule of law. We have had 800 judges and
prosecutors. Many of them have established sister court
relationships. That is a very common thing. Or there are
oftentimes return visits that are at the invitation of the
Russian visitor.
The alumni of this program have set up an internal web site
to communicate, giving a sense of identity and community among
these people exchanging their own perceptions and ideas once
they are there. They have had alumni meetings all over Russia.
As you know, they have come from all 89 political districts of
Russia, all 50 States of the Union. So there is a very
substantial continuity. Recently, we had the first major
Ukrainian visit for the Ukrainian program since the so-called
Orange Revolution there and they established a lot of contacts
that I am sure are going to be useful. One of the participants
was then subsequently elected to higher office. This is a
frequent phenomenon.
There are all kinds of linkages. There is an upcoming
alumni event in the Russian Far East, but I would like to give
you a full itemization of the program. I am just speaking off
the cuff here. Overall, 44 percent of the participants have
been women with an average age of about 37, which is something
totally new in Russia. Not a single one of the Russian
participants has stayed in this country. That is almost unheard
of in relations between Russia and America. As you know, people
often want to stay when they come to America. The open world
participants are tremendously impressed by the time they have
because it is a total immersion. It is not a series of lectures
or dialogues where people just give speeches to each other.
We just had a delegation of their version of the Supreme
Court and the top jurists, and our Supreme Court met with them
here for a couple of days and it was really quite exciting. I
believe some of the U.S. Justices will be returning the visit.
So this is really the opening up of contacts with a new
generation of Russian leaders, which is very much the hope of
that country if it is going to make it as a functioning
democracy.
The one thing they all take back, the most important thing
is the excitement over nongovernmental organizations, the
extent to which many social services, many problems are dealt
with at the community level.
This is the biggest exchange program of its kind since the
Marshal Plan. It is something that has been done entirely
within the legislative branch of Government and it is having an
extraordinary effect, even though it is a short period of time.
The participants stay in homes. They see the real America. They
shadow people, and the cooperation is extraordinary--we have
many more volunteers across the country to take these people in
than we are able to accommodate. So it is a good sign that the
American people everywhere in all communities are really
interested in getting better informed about what is going on in
Russia.
Senator Allard. There is follow-up, then, so that at some
point in time we would like to be able to measure results. I
hope that we have follow-up on the program. The only way I see
us being able to measure results is to see what happens to
these folks 5 years or 10 years down the road.
Dr. Billington. Absolutely. It is a long-term investment
because these people have to work their way up through the
system. We can give you a lot of information on this.
Senator Allard. Good.
Dr. Billington. But we do follow up and they do have a
continuing existence both as alumni, on their web site, and in
answering to the host organizations in America.
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Senator Allard. Very good. Thank you.
Now on the Congressional Research Service (CRS) increase,
there is an increase of $9 million or 9 percent that is
requested for CRS, for a total budget of $105 million. The
budget request would provide for 729 staff compared to the 700
staff you are now operating with. Now, why is that level not
sufficient? I think Mr. Mulhollan is here to answer that
question. Could you tell us why you think such an increase for
CRS should be given preference over other legislative branch
priorities? So you have got two questions there.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN
Mr. Mulhollan. This is a question of why is CRS a priority
for the Congress. I would argue that it is the fact that we are
a cost-effective extension of congressional staff. In other
words, we are a shared pool of experts that helps each Member
and every committee. The Congress draws upon CRS to get
thorough analysis, that are context-based, and provide a
framework for considering and comprehending the issues and
potential consequences of legislative options. CRS supports
equally the majority, the minority, and each chamber. CRS is a
shared resource, so each committee and office does not have to
acquire such expertise because you have it available. CRS
expertise and products are targeted to your needs. CRS
guarantees the confidentiality of all our work for you.
Given the need to sustain this shared pool of expertise,
and recognizing the budget difficulty you face, half the
request is for the mandatories and price level increases. The
next $3.6 million is to keep us whole at the level of 729 FTEs.
CRS is at a tipping point. Three major factors contribute to
this request.
One is that the level of expertise CRS must hire is greater
than it has been in the past and costs more. Back in 1995 our
average new hire was a GS-7 step 9. Today it is GS-13 step 9.
You face more compelling, complex, and interrelated problems,
such as terrorism and homeland security layered onto the
massive domestic issues that the Nation faces. The nature of
your work dictates that CRS hire individuals with high levels
of formal education and specialized experience.
Second is staff participation in the newer retirement
system. The committee has been very supportive of CRS in our
succession planning. To that end, we have been very thoughtful
in identifying what kind of expertise the Congress needs and
who we need to hire. As we lose our older employees, who for
many years have participated in the older Federal retirement
system where the employer-paid portion of the benefit is 13.5
percent per employee. Virtually all those coming into CRS are
under the newer Federal employee retirement system, FERS. Under
FERS, the employer-paid benefit is 27 percent per employee,
twice as much.
The third element is that in the past 10 years, with one
exception, 1998, we faced a gap between what we have
anticipated and asked for with regard to the mandatory pay
adjustments and what was enacted. For example, in fiscal year
2004 the adjustment we anticipated was 3.7 percent. What the
President signed into law was 4.42 percent. That caused a
$400,000 shortfall in our budget and that is four FTEs.
We are seeking a one-time catch-up to keep us whole on that
staffing level.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the fiscal year 2006
budget request for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). I also
wish to express my gratitude to the Committee for its support of the
Service's budget requests in years past, as I am well aware of the
fiscal environment and the difficult funding decisions you face.
The Service's request for fiscal year 2006 represents not a
workload increase but instead reflects our need to replenish the levels
of staffing and resources required to enable us to meet our statutory
mission of serving all Members of Congress with comprehensive,
accurate, and timely research and analysis. As such, CRS' fiscal year
2006 budget request is composed of two parts: funding for our mandatory
pay- and inflation-related costs and two increases necessary to sustain
our staff and resource capacities.
These are challenging times for lawmakers. The environment within
which the Congress works is fluid and dynamic, with multiple pressures
vying every day for your attention and for the resources each Member is
charged to manage. The major policy issues facing Congress, such as the
ongoing war efforts, Social Security reform, tax reform, immigration
and border control, homeland security, and issues relating to
terrorism, are more complex, are politically charged, and have global
consequences. These and many other issues are complicated and multi-
faceted. Congress is functioning under ever-increasing pressures and
expectations to be conversant on all the issues and serve as an expert
on virtually every topic as it deliberates these highly consequential
issues.
CRS assists every Member and committee. Our assistance responds to
your full range of legislative needs, from identifying and evaluating
authoritative, reliable sources of research and information to offering
and analyzing legislative and policy options that might best address
complex, high-stakes public policy problems. All of our work is
confidential and focuses solely, directly, and specifically on the
needs of the congressional community.
Everyone at CRS takes seriously the trust that the Congress has in
our work. I believe this trust is earned daily through the interactions
CRS staff have with you and your staff. Each of us at CRS, no matter
what role we play, strives to improve and excel in every aspect of the
service that we provide.
fiscal year 2006 budget request
Mr. Chairman, my fiscal year 2006 budget request presents to you
only what CRS needs to achieve its statutory obligations. I am keenly
aware of the budgetary pressures facing this Committee and the
Congress. My responsibility as Director of CRS is to weigh these
pressures against the basic needs of the Service and to offer you a
fiscally responsible assessment of the condition of the Service.
The 2006 request would fully fund our mandatory and price-level
increases, our first and highest priority, along with two baseline
adjustments that would enable us to recuperate from shortfalls that are
straining our ability to acquire staff and research tools.
Specifically, CRS is requesting a total of $105.289 million for fiscal
year 2006, an increase of $9.171 million over fiscal year 2005. The
increase is comprised of $5.097 million for mandatory and price-level
increases and $4.619 million for increases to recover lost purchasing
power. The request also includes a $544,000 reduction for the one-year
funding provided last year to implement XML capacity.
staff capacity
CRS' strength is its people: 88 percent of our budget is devoted to
staffing. The remaining 12 percent of the CRS budget covers the non-
personals expenses, the day-to-day business operations of the Service,
including the monthly phone bills, hardware and software maintenance
agreements, technology refreshment, and permanently contracted
operations. These non-personals costs offer little financial
flexibility for adding to staff capacity. Because our work is dependent
on the skills and abilities of the people, I am continually reviewing
the composition of CRS' staff so that we have the right mix of
individuals with the right expertise to assist the Congress as it
frames and considers major policy problems. CRS staff are ready to meet
today's needs and, at the same time, are anticipating and preparing for
the major policy issues on the horizon.
CRS is proposing a one-time budgetary adjustment of $3.6 million to
sustain its staffing level of 729 full-time equivalents (FTEs). Without
this additional funding the Service would have to reduce permanently
down to about 700 FTEs. There are three factors contributing to the
need for $3.6 million: CRS' need to sustain a higher level of staff
expertise, the gap between the funding provided in the budget process
and the federal pay raises enacted, and the impact of a workforce
shifting from the old to the new federal retirement system.
The first factor evolves from the change in CRS' workforce
composition. The variety and range of expertise of CRS staff must match
the expertise needed by the Congress as it develops and undertakes its
legislative agendas, both current and anticipated. We routinely conduct
two Service-wide examinations: to identify the major policy areas
Congress is likely to address and to assess and forecast the
availability of CRS experts to assist the Congress in those issue
areas. The results of these assessments guide my decision-making in our
annual staffing plan and subsequent staffing selections. The nature of
your legislative work requires a higher level of CRS expertise. As we
recruit and interview prospective employees, we are finding that the
work competencies we need are best met by those seeking positions in
the higher general schedule pay ranges. This is confirmed by CRS
statistics on new hires: in the period from fiscal year 1995 to the
present, the grade level of the average CRS hire has increased from a
GS-7, Step 9 to a GS-13, Step 9. The complex and often technical nature
of the policy problems you face requires us to ensure that we have the
right expertise to correspond to the myriad sources having stakes in
the policy outcomes of your work.
The second factor contributing to the need for this baseline
increase is the cumulative shortfall in funding that has resulted from
pay raises enacted at a higher rate than provided for in the
Legislative Branch annual appropriations, albeit you have provided what
we asked for. Since 1995, with the exception of 1998, the Service's
budget has been increased for staff salary and benefits costs in an
amount less than what was ultimately required by law to be paid to the
employees. For example, in fiscal year 2004, the budget process
anticipated an annual rate increase of 3.7 percent; however, the actual
enacted pay raise was 4.2 percent, costing CRS about $400,000 (or four
FTEs) more to sustain the current staff. The cumulative impact over the
past ten years contributes to the need for our current budget request
for sustaining staff capacity.
It is costing the Service more to subsidize retirement benefits. As
of right now, about 42 percent of the CRS workforce participates in the
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Based on fiscal year 2004 data,
a CSRS participant is costing the agency about 13.5 percent in
employer-paid fringe benefits. This compares to the 27 percent in
employer-paid benefits for a Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)
employee. For the past few years, virtually all of the CRS retirements
are staff participating in CSRS, while the majority of new hires are
eligible to participate only in the more expensive FERS. As the
proportion of the FERS workforce continues to grow, the fiscal impact
has been, and will continue to be a dramatic rate of increase in agency
costs.
The budget I am requesting will allow CRS to rebuild and replenish
to its authorized ceiling of 729 FTEs, the staffing level needed to
sustain current services. A single example will allow me to illustrate
the level of service that I am committed to providing to the Congress
and that the Congress has come to expect from this agency. When the
congressional leadership last July identified the newly released 9/11
Commission report as its top priority, CRS acted. Within one week over
70 CRS analysts and information professionals came together to provide
Members with thorough analyses of the report. Those analyses were
context-based, providing a framework for considering and comprehending
the report's contents in view of other relevant factors and their
potential impact. Most importantly, we provided real-time, round-the-
clock analysis. We were ready when your deliberations began and
remained at your side as you considered the Commission's
recommendations and as you took steps to enact the policy changes
deemed most appropriate.
We were able to provide this kind of specialized and close support
because our staff work collaboratively across disciplines, are experts
in their fields, and are available on-demand to consult individually
with Members and committees. Because of our proximity to the Congress,
because of the close working relationship we enjoy with you and your
staff, and because our experts prepare analyses that benefit the entire
congressional audience, we were able to deliver the services Congress
has mandated and come to expect. This is the kind of work the Congress
has outlined for CRS in our organic statute. However, our ability to
sustain this level of assistance, as you deliberate the wide range of
policy problems facing the Nation, will be in jeopardy if our staffing
capacity is reduced further.
CRS is a cost-effective extension of congressional staff. As a
shared pool of experts, CRS has the ability both to address high-
priority issues from a multi-disciplinary perspective and to provide a
wide range of high-level, specialized expertise. Individual committees
and Members could not retain such a valuable resource for their own
offices, but CRS, as a centralized, shared pool, proves to be very
cost-effective when meeting total congressional demand.
crs research materials
The third component of my request is a one-time, $1 million
baseline adjustment for research materials. There are a number of
critical electronic materials continually requested by our subject-
matter experts that CRS is currently unable to procure.
Annually, the Service carefully considers each subscription and
database renewal to ensure that the available funding is used to
acquire only the highest priority materials. Even with this close
scrutiny and the elimination of lesser used items, CRS has barely been
able to maintain a stable inventory of the resources most pertinent to
our work, let alone add any newly requested resources. However, sound
analysis depends on authoritative sources covering the full range of
subject areas that the Congress may consider.
CRS' work requires materials that are timely and authoritative,
particularly in emerging public policy issue areas, such as homeland
security and global terrorism. Your approval of our fiscal year 2006
request would enable us to buy resources such as Oxford Analytica,
Inside Washington publications, prescription-drug proprietary
databases, and the PIERS database. These represent highly specialized
and technical research resources and are not acquired by the Library of
Congress for CRS use. These materials are, however, available to others
who provide you information and who lobby for particular positions and
policy outcomes. Without access to those resources, CRS experts'
capacity to capture the range of knowledge available on an issue, to
prepare you for challenges you may face in defending your position, and
to provide you with the consequences of policy options is diminished.
management initiatives
Congress holds me accountable for managing responsibly, and in the
last 11 years I have gratefully undertaken that charge. I take
seriously my responsibility to assure you that the budgetary support
you give the Service results in a cost-effective organization that is
dedicated to its statutory mission and that offers you the highest
quality of service. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize
briefly some actions I have and continue to take that reflect this
commitment.
We continually examine and adjust our organizational structure to
maximize direct service to the Congress. We consolidated some CRS
facilities in the House congressional buildings with the assistance of
the Committee on House Administration. We made use of flexible hiring
programs, such as the Presidential Management Fellows and Hispanic
Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) programs. We have taken
advantage of the cost savings that can be achieved through outsourcing
by implementing contracting services for our messenger service, copy
operations, and technology help-desk, and continually seek out new
opportunities.
Another initiative affecting personnel and improving efficiency is
the reorganization of our information professionals into a single
organizational unit. The thrust behind this major re-engineering effort
is to increase collaboration between information professionals and
analysts, which in turn will maximize efficiencies. Through
collaboration each functional unit can ensure that the work is handled
by the individual with the appropriate expertise to accomplish that
work.
Earlier I noted that 88 percent of CRS' budget is salaries and
benefits. The remaining 12 percent also merits close attention in my
efforts to streamline. Although this 12 percent of the CRS budget
represents our relatively fixed costs, we look carefully at those costs
to see if any component of that expenditure can be reduced or
eliminated. To achieve this we conduct an annual ``zero scrub'' of the
entire CRS budget. We look at every single cost category from the
ground up; we do not simply roll over the budget for these categories
from one year to the next. Also, we have initiated audits of every on-
going activity within CRS. These comprehensive audits will help us to
continue to secure a well-executed and cost-effective program, with the
assurance that every dollar spent contributes to the Service's singular
mission. I hope that you would contact me directly if you have any
concerns about our management activities, processes, or direction.
conclusion
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to inform
the Committee about the state of CRS and the near-term challenges we
face in our continuing ability to serve the Congress. As the first
branch of government, the Congress must ensure that it maintains its
independent capacity to analyze the complex challenges that the Nation
confronts, especially during a time of war. I hope that you agree that
CRS contributes significantly to this independent capacity and that we
are fulfilling our mission in a way that warrants your ongoing support.
I am, of course, always available to answer any questions that the
Committee may have.
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE RESPONSE TIME
Senator Allard. Thank you for your explanation.
Are you measuring the length of time it takes you, or do
you have some idea about the length of time it takes you to
respond to the average Congressional request?
Mr. Mulhollan. The majority of information requests are
answered in 24 hours. But a significant amount of time can be
spent on more complex questions--for instance, a study for a
committee dealing with, let us say, prescription drug pricing
and what changes are being considered in medicare benefits. The
use and manipulation of the drug pricing database can take
several months--and that could be considered one request.
Meanwhile, let us say an LA calls and says, ``I have a
Member who is looking at this language; can you explain this
language to me? We have just gotten it and the subcommittee
meeting is in a half hour.'' So it is also this kind of rapid-
response expertise that is drawn upon daily by the Congress.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Senator Allard. As you can tell, for those of you here at
the table and in future testimony, I have a lot of interest in
performance and measurement. We require that on executive
branch agencies. We do not require it on the legislative
branch. But I do think that we ought to set an example here in
the legislative branch for the rest of the agencies. So I am
going to request more and more definitive assessment through
what we call GPRA, Government Performance and Results Act.
I think it has been a good business tool. When I did my
business, I set goals that were measurable, measured them, and
then it helped me evaluate as a manager in my own business
exactly whether we were meeting those goals or not.
So some of my questions are being laid out to prepare you a
little bit for when we get into the next year and then I will
be asking questions about how you are doing setting down
performance standards and then measuring the results. I think
as administrators it helps us all understand what is going on
and then we can focus on results and do not have to focus about
the nitty-gritty of management, we will leave that to you, but
we just look at results and then we have something that is
measurable, hopefully.
CRS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
Mr. Mulhollan. Mr. Chairman, may I add for the
Congressional Research Service, we welcome that. We have been
spending a significant amount of time on considering meaningful
performance measurements. You can look at the workload measures
that we have identified. I think there are significant success
stories. For example, in fiscal year 2002 we responded to a
total of 811,000 requests, and in fiscal year 2004 we responded
to almost 900,000 requests.
We break that down further, for example to track hits on
the CRS web site, which is solely for use by the Congress. No
one else has the depth of expertise covering roughly 170 major
public policy areas, where you can have it targeted to meet the
needs of each chamber, whether in committee or on the floor,
and where the analysis anticipates the consequence of your
decisions there. We have now, almost 5,000 reports, continually
updated on more than 300 issues and available for the Congress.
Two years ago we had 4,000. So it is an additional 1,000
reports that we are keeping updated along this line.
Another measure is e-mail exchanges. Following up with a
Congressional request we now have an encrypted e-mail exchange
between the Senate and the House and ourselves. As a
consequence of that effort, last year we counted 77,000
exchanges. As of the first quarter of the current fiscal year,
we have seen a 13 percent increase from last year.
So our measures I think on our focused assistance are good
and solid, and we are working to improve them.
Senator Allard. Very good. Thank you.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
Dr. Billington. Mr. Chairman, let me just add----
Senator Allard. Dr. Billington.
Dr. Billington [continuing]. A point, that we are not
actually required to use the Government Performance and Results
Act, but we do use it as a guide.
Senator Allard. I am glad to hear that.
Dr. Billington. I would only say also that, as we were just
saying with the Open World program, which actually is a
separate line item but I happen to chair the board, so I am
happy to answer for it and it is in the legislative branch as
well, in that as in the Library as a whole performance has to
be seen over a long period of time. One would have said that
there was very little justification for keeping old German
archaeological records. Every other library in the world
discarded them. But when it came to verifying whether the tanks
that did the flanking motion in southern Iraq would sink in the
sand or be able to sustain them, it was that kind of material
that enabled them to verify, because the Germans pedantically
reported how much they dug and how long it took, with what kind
of shovel, in Mesopotamia, which is where a lot of the
archaeology was.
So what I am saying is that having this extra margin, which
is what we are talking about when we talk about the need for
acquisitions and the use of our overseas offices--Islamabad,
Cairo, all these places--where valuable information is gathered
that really does not exist anywhere else, it is a long-term
investment. You do not know when you are going to cash in the
investment, but it is of incalculable value to have so much
knowledge because you cannot possibly anticipate what kinds of
questions are going to be essential for this country.
Senator Allard. I recognize the complexities of getting
measurable goals out there. It is not always easy. And I
recognize the fact that you cannot look at it just on a short-
term basis, but you do need to collect this data on an annual
basis and see over a trend line over several years, and then
that gives you some idea of how your programs are operating.
Dr. Billington. Oh, absolutely, and we welcome it. And as I
say, we try to follow these guidelines.
Senator Allard. That is one of the issues I am going to
take a little time exploring with all the legislative agencies.
Thank you, Dr. Billington. Thank you, General Scott. Dan,
thank you, and Mr. Mulhollan. I appreciate your testimony.
Thank you.
General Scott. Thank you, sir.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Allard. Also, we will be making your full statement
a part of the record.
If there are any additional questions, they will be
submitted to you for your response.
[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
impact of technology
Question. According to LOC's budget justification, ``To help
researchers quickly find information that is relevant, authoritative
and verifiable, the Library must adapt its traditional strengths of
acquiring, describing, serving and preserving information to an
environment that is not bound by time or physical space.'' How do you
balance the Library's traditional mission with this new requirement?
How does technology help streamline and make more cost-effective the
Library's ability to meet its mission, and even reduce costs?
Answer. The Library's traditional mission is being pushed by the
expectations of users, who increasingly demand and rely on electronic
resources in addition to the traditional reference, descriptive, and
access services for physical collections that the Library provides.
While the Library continues to make accessible and preserve its print
and multimedia collections, it requires additional resources and new
skill sets among staff to purchase and serve electronic resources such
as subscription databases, which are the cornerstones of research in
many academic disciplines today.
Technology enables the Library to increase its services to the
Congress and to its other constituencies in many ways:
--Entire Library collections of primary source materials are
available online via American Memory and Global Gateway to be
shared in libraries and classrooms around the country and
around the world.
--Reference questions are asked and responded to via the Web.
--Guides to Library manuscript and other special format collections
are available online for researchers to peruse before they come
to the reading rooms, making their time in the Library more
productive.
--Catalogers are pioneering Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
applications to share bibliographic and authority control
records with other national libraries and library services
vendors.
--Publishers share pre-publication galleys of books electronically
with the Cataloging in Publication (CIP) program to streamline
cataloging processes and shorten publication time.
The Library offers direct services to Congress electronically as
well. ``LCnet'' premiered this spring as an online portal devoted
solely to Members of Congress and their staff to interact with the
Library on a number of fronts--to reserve rooms and plan special
events, to arrange tours for constituents, to receive customized
calendars of Library events, and to fulfill other special services or
information needs that arise.
cvc tunnel
Question. The Capitol Visitor Center will include a tunnel to the
Library of Congress' Jefferson Building. Do you have any estimate of
how much visitation will increase? Will you need additional staff for
tours or security? Do you plan any new activities that will necessitate
additional resources?
Answer. The number of visitors to the Library could triple to more
than three million annually with the opening of the Capitol Visitor
Center tunnel. Should the number of visitors exceed building safety
requirements, the entrance through the tunnel to the Thomas Jefferson
Building will be limited on an hourly basis or through a ticketing
system. At present, we are assuming that security screening will take
place on the Capitol Visitor Center side and that visitors entering the
Library through the tunnel will not be re-screened.
The Library is studying the impact the Capitol Visitor Center
tunnel will have on the level of visits to the Thomas Jefferson
Building in particular and to the Library and its services for visitors
as a whole. Planning is underway to enhance the visitor experience, and
it is not yet clear whether the experience will be largely self-guided
and enhanced by interactive kiosks and audio tours, or whether it will
be more traditionally led by staff and volunteer docents. Internal and
external planning expertise is being deployed on this front, and the
results of these consultations will determine whether additional
resources will be necessary.
books for the blind and physically handicapped
Question. The Library has been working for several years to develop
a design for a ``digital talking book'' to replace the current cassette
tape system to make books available to the blind. When do you expect to
need the funds necessary to begin the full conversion to the digital
format? How much will be required in total?
Answer. The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped projects that a total of approximately $76.5 million will
be required to fund the transition from analog cassette to a digital
format over a period of four years. An initial request of approximately
$19 million will be submitted in fiscal year 2007.
national digital information infrastructure and preservation program
Question. Library has been spearheading a $100 million effort aimed
at preserving ``born-digital'' materials. There are now 8 NDIIP
grantees/partners, who were awarded $14.5 million. What has been
accomplished to date and what do you expect to accomplish in the year
ahead? Why is the Library requesting a waiver for state government
entities of the dollar-for-dollar match requirement? Do you anticipate
additional funds will be needed in the future for this effort? Are
other federal agencies, such as the National Archives, providing
resources for this effort?
Answer. NDIIPP Accomplishments to date and expected accomplishments
include the following:
--The goal of the NDIIPP is to build a national preservation program
for reliable digital content. The Library is following the plan
approved by Congress in 2002, executing three areas of
investment: building a network of partners to share in this
responsibility; developing the technical architecture to
support that network (standards and protocols); and creating
the tools for digital preservation. Continuing investment in
these three areas is expected in the coming years.
--An 18-month test of 6 existing technical architectures was
completed with 4 other large research libraries. This work
advances the development of the architecture necessary support
a network of partners.
--NDIIPP launched its first partners in January 2004--8 consortiums
with a total of 36 organizations to collect at risk digital
content in excess of 60 terabytes. The content is diverse and
consists of web sites, social science data sets, geo-spatial
materials, business history, and digital television
programming. These partners provided $15 million in pledged
matching funds over the next 3 years.
--A Copyright Working Group, made up of representatives of the
content creator/distributor communities, libraries, and
archives, was just launched to examine Section 108 of the
copyright law dealing with libraries and archives. This work is
sponsored by NDIIPP working with the U.S. Copyright Office. The
working group will make recommendations to Congress about
revisions to the law.
--Working with NSF, the Library is funding 7 advanced research grants
for developing tools and techniques for digital preservations.
--The Library is working with E-Archives, the San Diego Super
Computer Center and the Los Alamos National Laboratories to
develop repository software for archiving different types of
digital content.
In 2005, we are developing a program to bring state and local
organizations into the preservation network. The request for a waiver
results from the Library's experience in building collaborative NDIIPP
relationships in the last few years. The Library recognizes that there
are limited discretionary funds available, especially from state
governmental entities, to meet common digital preservation challenges
faced by all preserving institutions. Building sustainable preservation
network partnerships is a long-term process. By requesting the state
waiver, the Library plans to encourage the active building of broad
collaborative relationships within and among state entities. By not
subjecting these entities immediately to the match provision, the
Library hopes to catalyze states to seek out building sustainable long-
term collaborative relationships during and after the grant period, and
not before.
The Library does not anticipate additional funds, beyond that which
already has been authorized for NDIIPP, will be needed to execute the
NDIIPP program by 2010.
The Library works collaborative with other federal agencies through
their participation in the National Digital Strategy Advisory Board
(NDSAB), joint participation in developing technical digital
preservation guidelines and best practices, and their work with the
Library's collaborating partners in the NDIIPP program. Other federal
agencies do not provide direct resources to the Library and its NDIIPP
program.
outsourcing
Question. Is the Library seeking opportunities to outsource any
activities, as a way to reduce costs? Please explain.
Answer. The Library outsourced a significant number of activities
and continually seeks to identify additional activities that are
appropriate for outsourcing in order to improve service, reduce cost,
increase responsiveness, and promote efficiency in the agency. Some
examples of activities that are currently outsourced include:
--Infrastructure support services (custodial services, food services,
furniture and furnishings installations and maintenance, trash
removal and recycling pick-up, vehicle leases, secure mail
operations, messenger service, graphics and design services,
etc.)
--Human Resource Services (employee assistance program, retirement
services, management of personnel records, job analysis,
selected training, etc.);
--Information technology (help desk and user support);
--Security (security within reading rooms, exhibit areas, and
outlying annexes, and ID card and finger printing functions);
--Financial (payroll processing, travel services, implementation of
new financial systems, etc.); and
--Program support (translation services, receptionist support).
In addition, several of the Library's major programs are either
outsourcing some of their work or investing in outsourcing pilots. For
example:
--Library Services has issued a contract to an Italian bookseller for
a pilot project in which Italian books bought for the
collection will also be cataloged by the bookseller. If this
pilot is successful, outsourcing the cataloging of some of the
foreign language collections is a possibility--both to reduce
costs and to gain language expertise that is not always
available on staff.
--The Copyright Office outsourced its registration certificate
production (i.e., printing and quality checking for over half a
million copyright registration certificates per year). In
addition, data entry of titles from recorded copyright
documents, totaling anywhere from 300,000 to 500,000 titles per
year, and contracting for selected divisional IT technical
support are partially outsourced.
--The Law Library outsourced work related to its Global Legal
Information Network (GLIN), including scanning of documents,
data input, and quality control of laws, regulations and other
legal sources that comprise the GLIN. The Law Library has also
outsourced a number of core services related to collection
management, such as processing new receipts, binding
preparation, loose leaf filing and shelving.
--In addition to actions taken and planned within the Library, the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) has done a significant
amount of outsourcing and continues its efforts to seek out
additional opportunities. In response to the recent Legislative
Branch Agency Self-Certification Survey, CRS described a number
of activities that have been outsourced and for which the
tangible benefits have already been factored into the Service's
annual Operating Plan. Over the past eight to ten years, CRS
has permanently outsourced a number of on-going business
activities, including its messenger service; mail operations;
copy centers; technology help-desk and user support; foreign
language translations; receptionist positions; job analysis;
graphics design work; and general laborers/movers. CRS utilizes
contractors to produce specific deliverables within a limited
timeframe where securing in-house capability is not warranted
given the temporal nature of the need. Examples of this type of
outsourcing include library support functions; professional
librarians; on-site group training and staff development
services; assistance with developing a performance management
system; professional survey instruments; professional services
to help develop new authoring policies and procedures as well
as meeting federal archiving obligations under the Federal
Records Act; and cataloguing services.
Savings gained through these outsourcing measures has provided CRS
with some interim financial flexibility to absorb cost increases in
other aspects of the Service's budget, e.g., software maintenance,
research materials, employer-paid benefits costs for staff, and staff
performance awards. While the Service believes that it has reached a
level of critical mass with paring down its expenses and defraying
unavoidable cost increases, CRS continually evaluates its programs,
activities, and projects to determine the feasibility of undertaking
them through outsourcing mechanisms.
Further, CRS conducts in-depth program/financial audits of each of
its on-going business activities every two years to ensure that the
level of service is both appropriate for and contributes directly to
meeting the mission and strategic objectives and performance targets
set forth by the Director. In addition to the on-going activity
reviews/audits, CRS conducts other internal studies to assess
organizational structure or performance in comparison to the Service's
total program needs. The results of these studies inform business
decisions about the proper skills levels and mix needed throughout the
Service, the right distribution of those skills and capacities, and the
most cost effective way to deliver the skills and capacities--
specifically, via in-house staffing or by outsourcing. Using
information gleaned from its quarterly/annual performance reviews and
annual management control reviews, CRS is continually probing its own
operation to ensure that every aspect of the day-to-day business is
carried out in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible and
contributes to the singular goal of meeting the analytic research and
information needs of the Congress.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GENE DODARO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
SALLYANNE HARPER, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
STAN CZERWINSKI, CONTROLLER
Senator Allard. Now we will call the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), please. We are having Mr. David
Walker, Comptroller General; Gene Dodaro, Chief Operating
Officer; and Sallyanne Harper, Chief Administrative Officer;
and then Stan Czerwinski, who is our Controller.
Mr. Walker, when you are ready you may proceed. We will ask
that you limit your testimony to 5 minutes or so, and we will
go into question and answer. We will make your full statement
part of the record.
OPENING REMARKS
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
back before this subcommittee to talk about our fiscal 2006
budget request. As you mentioned, accompanying me on my
immediate right, Sallyanne Harper, our Chief Administrative
Officer and Chief Financial Officer; on her right, Stan
Czerwinski, about whom you had very kind comments, our
Controller; on my left, Gene Dodaro, our Chief Operating
Officer. We appreciate your having us before you, because all
of these individuals and others have played an important part
in putting together this budget submission.
I respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that my entire
statement be included in the record. Therefore, I will
summarize the highlights.
Senator Allard. So ordered, without objection.
Mr. Walker. Thank you very much.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, GAO is the third largest agency
in the legislative branch based upon budget authority. Our job
is to help the Congress discharge its constitutional
responsibilities, basically geared toward helping to improve
the performance of Government and assure the accountability of
Government for the benefit of the American people. I was
encouraged and had a very favorable reaction to your
conversation before about performance and results.
I would note that we voluntarily comply with the Government
Performance and Results Act. Our objective is not just to
comply with the Act; it is to lead by example and to be the
best in Government in anything that we do. I would respectfully
suggest that when you have a chance you may want to take a look
at GAO's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Accountability
Highlights Report, because I think you will be proud of what it
has to say.
We have an important philosophy of leading by example,
because we are the agency that audits, investigates, and
evaluates others. Therefore, I believe we have a responsibility
to be as good or better than the agencies we audit, investigate
or evaluate. This adds to our effectiveness as well as our
credibility. In fact, one of our four goals under our strategic
plan for serving the Congress is to be a model Federal agency
and a world class professional services organization.
MEASURING SUCCESS
We have four key success measures: results that are outcome
based, not activity based; the feedback we get from clients;
what our most valuable asset, our employees, say about us; and
what our partners within and outside of Government, say about
us, namely whether we are a good partner.
For fiscal year 2004 we had record results, all-time record
results for GAO. For example, we achieved $44 billion in
financial benefits, a $95 return for every dollar spent by
GAO--an all-time record. Number one in the world, nobody is
even close. Second, with regard to clients, a 97 percent client
satisfaction rate. Also, an all-time record. With regard to
employees' views on our overall operations and work
environment, GAO will probably receive one of the highest
ratings in the federal government based upon past reported
activity. With regard to our partners, we get very positive
feedback.
With regard to our budget, we are very well aware that the
federal government faces a large deficit and a long-range
fiscal imbalance. Therefore, for several years we have tried to
lead by example in this regard as well. We have had very modest
budget requests, as is the case this year.
There is some risk, Mr. Chairman, in trying to lead by
example in this regard, because it means that we count on you,
your capable staff, and others to make sure that there is a
level playing field in scrubbing these budget requests before
you make final decisions. For example, if this subcommittee
were to approve the request of every legislative branch
agency--and I know you are unable to do that because of the
fiscal pressures--and if you were to see how much of a budget
increase would have been achieved in the last 3 years, from
fiscal years 2004 to 2006, versus the average for the
legislative branch, GAO's increase if we got everything that we
asked for, which is based on need versus want, would be a total
of 7.4 percent. That is basically inflation. The average for
the legislative branch would be 18.4 percent.
So I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is
important not just to look at 1-year budget requests, but also
to look, as you pointed out before, at the trendline of what
has happened over the last several years, where do things stand
on a relative basis as well as hopefully be able to look at
return on investment. By having a modest budget request and a
strong return on investment, we hope that puts us in a strong
position to get our fair share.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The last thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is I appreciate
this subcommittee's past support of GAO. I look forward to
working with you. I congratulate you on your appointment to the
chairmanship, and I know that it is going to be a tough year
and series of years. But I think by focusing on minimizing
budget requests, maximizing return on investment, and focusing
on positive, outcome-based results, I hope that it will make
your job a little bit easier.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David M. Walker
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to
appear before you today in support of the fiscal year 2006 budget
request for the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). This
request is necessary to help us continue to support the Congress in
meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for
the benefit of the American people.
We are grateful to the Congress for providing us with the support
and resources that have helped us in our quest to be a world-class
professional services organization. I am proud of the work we
accomplish as we continue to provide our congressional clients with
professional, objective, fact-based, non-partisan, non-ideological,
fair, balanced, and reliable information in a timely manner regarding
how well government programs and policies are working and, when needed,
recommendations to make government work better. We believe that
investing in GAO produces a sound return and results in substantial
benefits to the Congress and the American people. In the years ahead,
our support to the Congress will likely prove even more critical
because of the pressures created by our nation's current and projected
budget deficit and long-term fiscal imbalance. These fiscal pressures
will require the Congress to make tough choices regarding what the
government should do, how it will do its work, who will help carry out
its work in the future, and how government will be financed in the
future.
We summarized the larger challenges facing the federal government
in our recently issued 21st Century Challenges report.\1\ In this
report, we emphasize the critical need to bring the federal
government's programs and policies into line with 21st century
realities. Continuing on our current unsustainable fiscal path will
gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of
living, and ultimately our national security. We, therefore, must
fundamentally reexamine major spending and tax policies and priorities
in an effort to recapture our fiscal flexibility and ensure that our
programs and priorities respond to emerging security, social, economic,
and environmental changes and challenges in the years ahead. I believe
that GAO can be of invaluable assistance in helping the Congress
address these challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the
Federal Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today will focus on our (1) performance and results
with the funding you provided us in fiscal year 2004, (2) streamlining
and management improvement efforts under way, and (3) budget request
for fiscal year 2006 to support the Congress and serve the American
people.
summary
In summary:
--The funding we received in fiscal year 2004 allowed us to audit and
evaluate a number of major topics of concern to the nation and,
in some cases, the world. For example, we reported on the
reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq; important
concerns about pay and other support for the National Guard and
Reserve forces; numerous topics related to homeland and
national security, including improving operations of the
Departments of Homeland Security and Defense; curbing the use
of counterfeit identity documents; and making the nation's
transportation system safer from potential acts of terrorism.
We also continued to raise concerns about the nation's long-
term fiscal imbalance, summarized key health care statistics
and published a proposed framework for related reforms, and
provided staff support for the 9/11 Commission. In fiscal year
2004, we exceeded or equaled our all-time record for six of our
seven key performance indicators while continuing to improve
our client and employee feedback results. I am especially
pleased to report that we documented $44 billion in financial
benefits--a return of $95 for every dollar spent, or $13.7
million per employee. In fiscal year 2004, we also recorded
1,197 other benefits that could not be measured in dollar terms
including benefits that helped to change laws, to improve
services to the public and to promote sound agency and
governmentwide management. Also, experts from our staff
testified at 217 congressional hearings covering a wide range
of important public policy issues during fiscal year 2004.
--Shortly after I was appointed Comptroller General, I determined
that our agency would undertake a transformation effort. This
effort is consistent with the elements of House Report (H.
Rpt.) 108-577 that focus on improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of operations at legislative branch agencies. Our
transformation effort has enabled us to eliminate a management
layer, streamline our organization, reduce our overall
footprint, and centralize many of our support functions.
Currently, over 50 percent of our support staff are
contractors, allowing us to devote more of our staff resources
to our mission work. We recently surveyed managers of agency
support operations and identified additional activities that
potentially could be filled through alternative sourcing
strategies. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we will further
assess the feasibility of using alternative sourcing for these
activities. I would be pleased to brief you at a later date on
our preliminary analyses.
--In developing our fiscal year 2006 budget, we have taken into
consideration the overall federal budget constraints and the
committee's desire to lead by example. Accordingly, we are
requesting $493.5 million which represents a modest increase of
4 percent over fiscal year 2005. This increase is primarily for
mandatory pay costs and price level changes. This budget
request will allow us to continue to maximize productivity,
operate more effectively and efficiently, and maintain the
progress we have made in technology and other areas, but it
does not allow us sufficient funding to support a staffing
level of 3,269--the staffing level that we requested in
previous years. Even as we are tempering our budget request, it
needs to be acknowledged that there are increasing demands on
GAO's resources. For example, the number of congressional
mandates for GAO studies, such as GAO reviews of executive
branch and legislative branch operations, has increased more
than 15 percent since fiscal year 2000. While we have reduced
our planned staffing level for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 in
order to keep our request modest, we believe that the staffing
level we requested in previous years is a more optimal staffing
level for GAO and would allow us to better meet the needs of
the Congress and provide the return on investment that both the
Congress and the American people expect. We will be seeking
your commitment and support to provide the funding needed to
rebuild our staffing levels over the next few fiscal years,
especially as we approach a point where we may be able to
express an opinion on the federal government's consolidated
financial statements.
fiscal year 2004 performance and results
In fiscal year 2004, much of our work examined the effectiveness of
the federal government's day-to-day operations, such as administering
benefits to the elderly and other needy populations, providing grants
and loans to college students, and collecting taxes from businesses and
individuals. Yet, we remained alert to emerging problems that demanded
the attention of lawmakers and the public. For example, we continued to
closely monitor developments affecting the Iraq war, defense
transformation, homeland security, social security, health care, the
U.S. Postal Service, civil service reform, and the nation's private
pension system. We also informed policymakers about long-term
challenges facing the nation, such as the federal government's
financial condition and fiscal outlook, new security threats in the
post-cold war world, the aging of America and its impact on our health
care and retirement systems, changing economic conditions, and the
increasing demands on our infrastructure--from highways to water
systems. We provided congressional committees, members, and staff with
up-to-date information in the form of reports, recommendations,
testimonies, briefings, and expert comments on bills, laws, and other
legal matters affecting the federal government. We performed this work
in accordance with the GAO Strategic Plan for serving the Congress,
consistent with our professional standards, and guided by our core
values. See appendix I for our Strategic Plan Framework for serving the
Congress and the nation.
Outcomes of Our Work
In fiscal year 2004, our work generated $44 billion in financial
benefits, primarily from recommendations we made to agencies and the
Congress (see fig. 1). Of this amount, about $27 billion resulted from
changes to laws or regulations, $11 billion resulted from agency
actions based on our recommendations to improve services to the public,
and $6 billion resulted from improvements to core business processes,
both governmentwide and at specific agencies, resulting from our work
(see fig. 2). Our findings and recommendations produce measurable
financial benefits for the federal government when the Congress or
agencies act on them. The funds that are saved can then be made
available to reduce government expenditures or be reallocated to other
areas. The monetary effect realized can be the result of changes in
business operations and activities; the structure of federal programs;
or entitlements, taxes, or user fees.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
For example, financial benefits could result if the Congress were
able to reduce its annual cost of operating a federal program or lessen
the cost of a multiyear program or entitlement. Financial benefits
could also result from increases in federal revenues--due to changes in
laws, user fees, or sales--that our work helped to produce. Financial
benefits included in our performance measures are net benefits--that
is, estimates of financial benefits that have been reduced by the costs
associated with taking the action that we recommended. Figure 3 lists
several of our major financial benefits for fiscal year 2004 and
briefly describes some of our work contributing to financial benefits.
FIGURE 3.--GAO'S SELECTED MAJOR FINANCIAL BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL
YEAR 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminated Medicaid's upper payment limit loophole. We $10,073
identified a weakness in Medicaid's upper payment limit
methodology that allowed states to make excessive payments
to local, government-owned nursing facilities and then
have the facilities return the payments to the states,
creating the illusion that they had made large Medicaid
payments in order to generate federal matching payments.
Closing the loophole prevented the federal government from
making significant federal matching payments to states
above those intended by Medicaid. The amount shown
represents the net present value of estimated financial
benefits for fiscal years 2005 and 2006--the final years
for which benefits can be claimed.........................
Updated the Consumer Price Index (CPI). We recommended that $5,074
the Bureau of Labor Statistics periodically update the
expenditure weights of its market basket of goods and
services used to calculate the CPI to make it more timely
and representative of consumer expenditures. The bureau
agreed to do this every 2 years, and the CPI for January
2002 reflected the new weights. For federal programs that
use the CPI as an index for determining benefits, the
adjustments have resulted in decreased federal
expenditures (e.g., reduced Social Security cost-of-living
adjustments) and increased federal revenues, such as
reductions in the growth of personal exemptions for
federal income taxes. The amount shown represents
projected financial benefits for fiscal year 2007, the
fifth and final year for which we will allow benefits to
be claimed for this action................................
Reduced costs associated with Medicare spending on home $4,661
health care. We reported in 2002 that Medicare's payments
for home health care episodes were, on average, about 35
percent higher than the estimated costs of home health
care provided in the first 6 months of 2001. Our report
helped to ensure that the Congress did not delay or
eliminate a scheduled reduction in Medicare home health
payments that had risen rapidly from the late 1980s
through the mid-1990s.....................................
Reduced the cost of federal housing programs. We determined $3,638
that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
did not have the information it needed to routinely
calculate and track unexpended balances in its housing and
community development programs. As a result of our work,
the Congress required HUD to prepare quarterly reports on
unexpended balances for each program, and HUD management
committed to closely monitor these balances and identify
amounts available for recapture...........................
Improved the use of the Iraqi Freedom Fund. We reported $3,490
that the military services may not obligate all of the
funds appropriated for the global war on terrorism in
fiscal year 2003 as required. Thus, the Congress rescinded
$3.49 billion from the September 2003 balance remaining in
the Iraqi Freedom Fund as part of the fiscal year 2004
Department of Defense Appropriations Act. These funds were
made available for other purposes.........................
Reduced costs associated with preparing the Department of $2,057
Defense's (DOD) financial statements. We determined that
DOD's initial plans to obtain a favorable fiscal year 2004
audit opinion were not feasible or cost-effective.
Therefore, instead of moving $2.2 billion to fund the DOD
components' efforts focused on a fiscal year 2004 audit
opinion, the DOD Comptroller shifted $184 million to begin
auditability assessments and audits, as applicable, as
part of a long-term strategy to improve DOD's fiscal
accountability. The Comptroller's decision not to
reprogram the funds allowed DOD to use over $2 billion for
other purposes during the fiscal year.....................
Modified the focus of funding for DOD's V-22 Osprey $1,618
aircraft program. We highlighted for DOD officials--before
full production of the aircraft was scheduled to begin--
numerous risks and unknowns that existed in the V-22
Osprey program because of inadequate testing and
evaluation. We reported these concerns to a blue-ribbon
investigative panel established after a second fatal crash
of the V-22. As a result of our work, the blue-ribbon
panel recommended that DOD temporarily reduce the
production of the V-22 to a minimum level to free up funds
to better address the research and development issues we
raised. The Congress reduced the procurement funding for
purchasing V-22 aircraft from the planned 37 to 11 for
each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004. This action allowed
some funds to be used for development testing of the V-22
aircraft, but the remaining funds were made available for
other purposes............................................
Eliminated unnecessary military funding from the budget. We $1,353
recommended that requested fiscal year 2004 funds be
eliminated for three terminated military operations
involving Iraq's compliance with various United Nations
resolutions, Operations Northern and Southern Watch and
Operation Desert Spring. These funds were made available
for other purposes........................................
Improved DOD's contracting and acquisition practices. We $868
developed a strategic framework--based on the best
practices of leading private-sector companies--to guide
DOD's services contracting reforms and recommended changes
in DOD's organizational structure and approach to
acquiring goods and services, such as using cross-
functional teams and spend analyses to coordinate key
purchases and leverage buying power for the agency. As a
result of work done by us and others, the Congress cut
DOD's budget in its fiscal year 2003 appropriation in
anticipation of expected savings. This accomplishment
amends a financial benefit we claimed in fiscal year 2002
and represents an additional benefit in fiscal year 2004--
the final year for which a benefit can be claimed.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO.
Many of the benefits that result from our work cannot be measured
in dollar terms. During fiscal year 2004, we recorded a total of 1,197
other benefits (see fig. 4). We documented 74 instances where
information we provided to the Congress resulted in statutory or
regulatory changes, 570 instances where federal agencies improved
services to the public, and 553 instances where agencies improved core
business processes or governmentwide reforms were advanced (see fig.
5). These actions spanned the full spectrum of national issues, from
ensuring the safety of commercial airline passengers to identifying
abusive tax shelters. See figure 6 for examples of other benefits we
claimed as accomplishments in fiscal year 2004.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
FIGURE 6.--GAO'S SELECTED OTHER (NONFINANCIAL) BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO CHANGE
LAWS
Vision 100-Century of Aviation We worked closely with the Congress to draft language that was included in
Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108- this law related to curriculum and certification requirements for
176. aviation mechanics. The language, which was based on recommendations we
had made, included a requirement that the Federal Aviation Administration
update and revise curriculum standards for aviation mechanics.
Medicare Prescription Drug, Congress included six provisions in the law based on analyses and
Improvement, and Modernization Act recommendations we made. For example, our work found that Medicare's
of 2003, Public Law 108-173. method for establishing payment rates for drugs obtained under Medicare
Part B--which covers doctors' services, outpatient hospital care, and
some other nonhospital services--was flawed because it based payments on
nonmarket-driven price estimates. The law addressed these issues by
lowering payment rates in 2004 for drugs covered by Part B to more
closely reflect acquisition costs and by changing the method for
calculating these payment rates in 2005, basing these rates on a market-
driven estimate. Also, partly on the basis of our work, the Congress
modified the eligibility criteria for small rural hospitals to qualify as
critical access hospitals under the Medicare program. This change
provides flexibility for some additional hospitals to consider
conversion. Because of Medicare's payment methodology, converting to a
critical access hospital may help bolster a hospital's financial
condition, allowing it to continue to provide services to patients.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, We found that HUD could make more accurate eligibility decisions for
2004, Public Law 108-199. individuals seeking housing assistance if it had access to more timely
income information available from the Department of Health and Human
Service's Office of Child Support Enforcement's National Directory of New
Hires. We recommended that HUD match applicants and current recipients of
its rental housing assistance programs with the new hires database. This
law gives HUD access to information from the database that will better
ensure that only eligible individuals receive housing assistance.
National Defense Authorization Act We testified that most existing federal performance appraisal systems,
for Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law including a vast majority of DOD's systems, are not designed to support a
108-136. meaningful performance-based personnel system, and agencies should have
to demonstrate that these systems are modern, effective, and valid in
order to receive any additional performance-based flexibilities. We
suggested that the Congress establish a governmentwide fund whereby
agencies could apply for funds to modernize their performance management
systems and ensure that those systems have adequate safeguards to prevent
abuse. This law established the Human Capital Performance Fund to support
all executive agencies as they plan for and carry out performance-based
rewards for their civilian employees.
OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO
IMPROVE SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC
Helped to Ensure the Safety of In July 2001, we reported that the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)
Shellfish. oversight of states' shellfish safety programs was not risk-based and
thus FDA was not using its limited resources wisely. To better ensure
shellfish safety, we recommended that FDA identify risk factors for each
of its program elements (growing area classification, processing and
shipping, and control of harvest). FDA developed a scoring system for
these factors. FDA shellfish specialists compute a total risk score of
high, medium, or low that determines the frequency of the evaluation of
that program element. High-risk elements were to be evaluated every year
beginning in fiscal year 2003, medium-risk elements every second year
beginning in fiscal year 2004, and low-risk elements every third year
beginning in fiscal year 2005.
Identified the Need for Better Our report found that states did not have the information needed to
Criteria to Determine Highly determine whether teachers had met criteria to be considered highly
Qualified Teachers. qualified, as required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Specifically,
states did not have the information they needed to develop methods to
evaluate the subject area knowledge of teachers. To help states determine
the number of highly qualified teachers they have and the actions they
need to take to meet the requirements for highly qualified teachers by
the end of the 2005-2006 school year, we recommended that the Secretary
of Education provide more information to states about methods to evaluate
subject area knowledge of current teachers. In January 2004, Education
issued a revised version of the guidance ``Improving Teacher Quality,''
which contains more information on how to evaluate subject area knowledge
to meet the federal definition of a highly qualified teacher.
Specifically, the guidance includes a new section that, among other
things, defines evaluation standards and factors to consider when
developing them.
Encouraged VA to Clarify the Array We recommended that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) specify in
of Home Health Care Services policy whether three home health services--home-based primary care,
Available to Veterans. homemaker/home health aide, and skilled home health care--are to be
available to all enrolled veterans. In response, VA published an
information letter on October 1, 2003, clarifying that, according to VA
policy, the three home health services are to be available for all
enrolled, eligible veterans in need of such services. The information
letter was distributed to all facilities through e-mail and is available
on the VA Web site.
OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO
PROMOTE SOUND AGENCY AND
GOVERNMENTWIDE MANAGEMENT
Identified the Need for More We found that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is investing more in
Specific Criteria to Select for audits of large corporations and getting less in return. To improve the
Audit Tax Returns from Large audits of tax returns filed by large corporations, we recommended that
Corporations. IRS provide more specific objective criteria and procedures to guide the
selection of large corporate tax returns and classification of tax issues
with high audit potential across the districts. In March 2002, IRS
implemented a process for scoring returns in order to fully implement a
plan to place these returns in the field for audit. IRS has begun to
identify high-risk returns from corporate and partnership tax returns
using the Discriminant Analysis System.
Helped to Centralize the Oversight We examined various DOD initiatives underway that are intended to better
of Major DOD Contracts. manage acquisition of services, including drafting policy to provide
better oversight on purchases of high-dollar value services. In response
to our work, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics and each of the military departments now have a management
structure in place and a process for reviewing major (i.e., large-dollar
or program-critical) service acquisitions for adherence to performance
and other contracting requirements. The new policy establishes a
threshold of $500 million or more for selecting service purchases for
review and approval by the military department and possibly DOD
headquarters, allowing DOD to adequately plan major purchases before
committing the government to major expenditures.
Helped to Reduce Fraud, Waste, and In a series of reports and testimonies beginning in 2001, we highlighted
Abuse of Agencies' Purchase Cards. pervasive weaknesses in the government's $16 billion purchase card
program. Our work identified numerous cases of fraud, waste, and abuse at
DOD, HUD, and the Federal Aviation Administration. These agencies have
taken significant steps to implement the hundreds of recommendations we
made to upgrade their controls. Major improvement areas include enhanced
controls over card issuance and cancellation, reduced span of control for
approving officials, increased human capital resources and training, new
performance measures and goals, required advance approval of purchases,
and independent receiving and acceptance of goods and services. These
efforts will substantially reduce the government's vulnerability to
fraud, waste, and abuse in agencies' purchase card programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO.
Recommendation Acceptance Rate
At the end of fiscal year 2004, 83 percent of the recommendations
we made in fiscal year 2000 had been implemented (see fig. 7),
primarily by executive branch agencies. Putting these recommendations
into practice is generating tangible benefits for the American people.
As figure 8 indicates, agencies need time to act on our
recommendations. Therefore, we assess recommendations implemented after
4 years, the point at which experience has shown that, if a
recommendation has not been implemented, it is not likely to be.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Testimonies That Serve the Congress
During fiscal year 2004, experts from our staff testified at 217
congressional hearings (see fig. 9) covering a wide range of complex
issues. For example, our senior executives testified on the financial
condition of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's single-employer
program, the effects of various proposals to reform Social Security's
benefit distributions, and enhancing federal accountability through
inspectors general. Nearly half of our testimonies were related to
high-risk areas and programs. See figure 10 for a summary of issues we
testified on, by strategic goal, in fiscal year 2004.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Figure 10.--Topics on Which GAO Testified During Fiscal Year 2004
Goal 1: Well-being and financial security of the American people
Student loan programs
Child welfare
Pension plan insurance programs
Energy Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation Program
Social Security reform's effect on benefits and taxes
Medicare spending
Intergovernmental Medicaid transfers
Private health insurance
Defense and veterans' health care
U.S. gasoline markets
Farm program payments
Security challenges at chemical facilities
Oil and gas activities on federal lands
Postal Service transformation
Rail security
Federal real property
Federal aviation management and modernization
Pipeline safety
Telecommunications
Goal 2: Changing security threats and challenges of globalization
Gulf War illnesses
International broadcasting
Border security
Terrorist financing
United Nations Oil-for-Food program
Oversight of government-sponsored enterprises
Securities and Exchange Commission operations
Mutual funds
Use of Reserve forces
Destruction of chemical weapons
Mail delivery to deployed troops
Defense personnel clearances
Unmanned aerial vehicles
Military base closures
Operations in Iraq
Challenges in inspecting oceangoing cargo containers
Homeland security advisory system
Security at nuclear facilities
Counterfeit identities
Information security
Critical infrastructure protection
International defense sales
U.S. Army combat systems
Military aircraft
Defense's space systems
National strategy for homeland security
Goal 3: Transforming the Federal Government's role
Army Reserve and Army National Guard pay
Defense contractor tax system abuses
Fraudulent diplomas
Illicit Internet pharmacies
Information technology management
Information technology continuity of operations
Electronic government
Border and transportation security
Electronic voting
Abusive tax shelters
Diversity among senior federal executives
Transformation of the federal government
Long-term federal budget issues
Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool
The impact of the Government Performance and Results Act
District of Columbia government
Federal financial management and fiscal challenges
Federal purchase and travel cards
Excess Defense property
Space shuttle program
Defense contract management
GAO's High-Risk Program
Issued to coincide with the start of each new Congress, our high-
risk update lists government programs and functions in need of special
attention or transformation to ensure that the federal government
functions in the most economical, efficient, and effective manner
possible. Our latest report, released in January 2005, presents the
status of high-risk areas identified in 2003 and lists new high-risk
areas warranting attention by the Congress and the administration.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2003, we identified 25 high-risk areas; in July 2003, a
twenty-sixth high-risk area was added to the list (see table 1). Since
then, progress has been made in all areas, although the nature and
significance of progress varies by area. Federal departments and
agencies, as well as the Congress, have shown a continuing commitment
to addressing these high-risk challenges and have taken various steps
to help correct several of their root causes. GAO has determined that
sufficient progress has been made to remove the high-risk designation
from the following three areas: student financial aid programs, FAA
financial management, and Forest Service financial management.
Also, four areas related to IRS have been consolidated into two
areas.
This year, we designated four new high-risk areas. The first new
area is establishing appropriate and effective information-sharing
mechanisms to improve homeland security. Federal policy creates
specific requirements for information-sharing efforts, including the
development of processes and procedures for collaboration between
federal, state, and local governments and the private sector. This area
has received increased attention, but the federal government still
faces formidable challenges sharing information among stakeholders in
an appropriate and timely manner to minimize risk.
The second and third new high-risk areas are, respectively, DOD's
approach to business transformation and its personnel security
clearance program. GAO has reported on inefficiencies and inadequate
transparency and accountability across DOD's major business areas,
resulting in billions of dollars of wasted resources. Senior leaders
have shown commitment to business transformation through individual
initiatives in acquisition reform, business modernization, and
financial management, among others, but little tangible evidence of
actual improvement has been seen to date in DOD's business operations.
DOD needs to take stronger steps to achieve and sustain business reform
on a departmentwide basis. Further, delays by DOD in completing
background investigations and adjudications can affect the entire
government because DOD performs this function for hundreds of thousands
of industry personnel from 22 federal agencies, as well as its own
service members, federal civilian employees, and industry personnel.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is to assume DOD's personnel
security investigative function, but this change alone will not reduce
the shortages of investigative personnel.
The fourth high-risk area is management of interagency contracting.
Interagency contracts can leverage the government's buying power and
provide a simplified and expedited method of procurement. But several
factors can pose risks, including the rapid growth of dollars involved
combined with the limited expertise of some agencies in using these
contracts as well as recent problems related to their management.
Various improvement efforts have been initiated to address interagency
contracting, but improved policies and processes, and their effective
implementation, are needed to ensure that interagency contracting
achieves its full potential in the most effective and efficient manner.
Lasting solutions to high-risk problems offer the potential to save
billions of dollars, dramatically improve service to the American
public, strengthen public confidence and trust in the performance and
accountability of our national government, and ensure the ability of
government to deliver on its promises.
TABLE 1.--THE YEAR THAT AREAS ON GAO'S 2005 HIGH-RISK LIST WERE
DESIGNATED AS HIGH RISK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
Area designated
high risk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicare Program........................................ 1990
DOD Supply Chain Management............................. \1\ 1990
DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition.......................... 1990
DOE Contract Management................................. 1990
NASA Contract Management................................ 1990
Enforcement of Tax Laws................................. \2\ 1990
DOD Contract Management................................. 1992
HUD Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and Rental Housing 1994
Assistance Programs....................................
DOD Financial Management................................ 1995
DOD Business Systems Modernization...................... 1995
IRS Business Systems Modernization...................... \3\ 1995
FAA Air Traffic Control Modernization................... 1995
Protecting the Federal Government's Information Systems 1997
and the Nation's Critical Infrastructures..............
DOD Support Infrastructure Management................... 1997
Strategic Human Capital Management...................... 2001
U.S. Postal Service Transformation Efforts and Long-Term 2001
Outlook................................................
Medicaid Program........................................ 2003
Managing Federal Real Property.......................... 2003
Modernizing Federal Disability Programs................. 2003
Implementing and Transforming the Department of Homeland 2003
Security...............................................
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer 2003
Insurance Program......................................
Establishing Appropriate and Effective Information- 2005
Sharing Mechanisms to Improve Homeland Security........
DOD Approach to Business Transformation................. 2005
DOD Personnel Security Clearance Program................ 2005
Management of Interagency Contracting................... 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This area was formerly entitled DOD Inventory Management.
\2\ One of the two high-risk areas that were consolidated to make this
area--Collection of Unpaid Taxes--was designated high risk in 1990.
The other area--Earned Income Credit Noncompliance--was designated
high risk in 1995.
\3\ IRS Financial Management has been incorporated into the IRS Business
Systems Modernization high-risk area. Both areas were initially
designated as high risk in 1995.
Source: GAO.
In fiscal year 2004, we issued 218 reports and delivered 96
testimonies related to our high-risk areas and programs, and our work
involving these areas resulted in financial benefits totaling over $20
billion. This work, for example, included 13 reports and 10 testimonies
examining problems with DOD's financial management practices, such as
weak internal controls over travel cards, inadequate management of
payments to the Navy's telecommunications vendors, and abuses of the
federal tax system by DOD contractors, resulting in $2.7 billion in
financial benefits. In addition, we documented $700 million in
financial benefits based on previous work and produced 7 reports and 4
testimonies focusing on, for example, improving Social Security
Administration and Department of Energy processes that result in
inconsistent disability decisions and inconsistent benefit outcomes.
streamlining and management improvement efforts
Shortly after I was appointed in November 1998, I determined that
GAO should undertake a major transformation effort to better enable it
to ``lead by example'' and better support the Congress in the 21st
century. This effort is consistent with the House Report 108-577 on the
fiscal year 2005 legislative branch appropriation that focuses on
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of operations at legislative
branch agencies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mandate:
H. Rpt. 108-577 directed GAO to work closely with the head of each
legislative branch agency to identify opportunities for streamlining,
cross-servicing and outsourcing, leveraging existing technology, and
applying management principles identified as ``best practices'' in
comparable public and private sector enterprises. H. Rpt. 108-577 also
directed the legislative branch agencies to be prepared to discuss
recommended changes during the fiscal year 2006 appropriations hearing
cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Our agency transformation effort has enabled GAO to become more
results-oriented, partnerial, client-focused, and externally aware, and
less hierarchical, process-oriented, ``siloed,'' and internally
focused. The transformation resulted in reduced organizational layers,
fewer field offices, the elimination of duplication in several areas,
and improved our overall resource allocation. We began our
transformation effort by using the GAO Strategic Plan as a framework to
align our organization and its resources. On the basis of the strategic
plan, we streamlined and realigned the agency to eliminate a management
layer, consolidated 35 issue areas into 13 teams, and reduced our field
offices from 16 to 11. We also eliminated the position of Regional
Manager--a Senior Executive Service level position--in the individual
field offices and consolidated the remaining field offices into three
regions--the eastern region, the central region, and the western
region, each headed by a single senior executive. Following the
realignment of our mission organization and field offices, GAO's
support organizations were restructured and centralized to eliminate
duplication and to provide human capital, report production and
processing, information systems desk-side support, budget and financial
management, and other services more efficiently to agency staff. This
has resulted in a 14 percent reduction in our support staff since 1998.
As shown in figure 11, these and subsequent measures improved the
``shape'' of the agency by decreasing the number of mid-level managers
and by increasing the number of entry level and other staff with the
skills and abilities to accomplish our work.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
During my tenure, GAO has outsourced and cross-serviced many
administrative support activities, which has allowed GAO to devote more
of its resources to mission work. In fiscal year 2004, about two-thirds
of our nonhuman capital costs were spent to obtain critical mission
support services for about 165 activities from the private and public
sectors through outsourcing. Outsourcing contracts include a wide range
of mission support activities, including information technology systems
development, maintenance, and support; printing and dissemination of
GAO products; operation and maintenance of the GAO Headquarters
building; information, personnel, and industrial security activities;
records management; operational support; and audit service support. GAO
also meets many of its requirements through cross-servicing
arrangements with other federal agencies. For example, GAO uses the
Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center to process its
personnel/payroll transactions. Also, GAO uses the legislative branch's
long-distance telephone contract, which has resulted in continual
reductions in long-distance rates. GAO also uses a wide range of
contracting arrangements available in the executive branch for
procuring major information technology (IT) services. GAO also uses the
Library of Congress' Federal Library and Information Network to procure
all of its commercial online databases.
Currently, as shown in figure 12, over 50 percent of our staff
resources in the support area are contractors, allowing us to devote
more of our staff resources to our mission work. We recently surveyed
managers of agency mission support operations and identified additional
activities that potentially could be filled through alternative
sourcing strategies. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we will assess the
feasibility of alternative sourcing for these activities using an
acquisition sourcing maturity model and cost-benefit analyses.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Utilizing IT effectively is critical to our productivity, success,
and viability. We have applied IT best management practices to take
advantage of a wide range of available technologies such as Web-based
applications and Web-enabled information access, as well as modern,
mobile computing devices such as notebook computers to facilitate our
ability to carry out our work for the Congress more effectively. We
make wide use of third-party reviews of our practices and have scored
well in measurement efforts such as total cost of ownership, customer
service, and application development. In fiscal year 2002, an
independent study of GAO's IT processes and related costs revealed
that, ``GAO is delivering superb IT application support and development
services to the business units at 29 percent less than the cost it
would take the Government peer group to deliver.'' In confirmation of
these findings, in fiscal year 2003, GAO was one of only three federal
agencies to receive the CIO Magazine 100 Award for excellence in
effectively managing IT resources to obtain the most value for every IT
dollar. We were named to the CIO Magazine's ``CIO 100'' for our
excellence in managing IT resources in both 2003 and 2004.
Because one of our strategic goals is to maximize our value by
serving as a model agency for the federal government, we adopt best
practices that we have suggested for other agencies, and we hold
ourselves to the spirit of many laws that are applicable only to the
executive branch. For example, we adhere to the best practices for
results-oriented management outlined in the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA). We have strengthened our financial management by
centralizing authority in a Chief Financial Officer with functional
responsibilities for financial management, long-range planning,
accountability reporting, and the preparation of audited financial
statements, as directed in the Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO Act).
Also, for the eighteenth consecutive year, independent auditors gave
GAO's financial statements an unqualified opinion with no material
weaknesses and no major compliance problems.
In the human capital area, we are clearly leading by example in
modernizing our policies and procedures. For example, we have adopted a
range of strategic workforce policies and practices as a result of a
comprehensive workforce planning effort. Among other things, this
effort has resulted in greatly upgrading our workforce capacity in both
IT and health care policy. We also have updated our performance
management and compensation systems and our training to maximize staff
effectiveness and to fully develop the potential of our staff within
both current and expected resource levels.
gao's fiscal year 2006 request to support the congress
We are requesting budget authority of $493.5 million for fiscal
year 2006. This budget request will allow us to continue to maximize
productivity, operate more effectively and efficiently, and maintain
the progress we have made in technology and other areas. However, it
does not allow us sufficient funding to support a staffing level of
3,269--the staffing level that we requested in previous years. In
preparing this request, we conducted a baseline review of our operating
requirements and reduced them as much as we felt would be prudent.
However, with about 80 percent of our budget composed of human capital
costs, we needed to constrain hiring to keep our fiscal year 2006
budget request modest. We plan to use recently enacted human capital
flexibility from the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 as a
framework to consider such cost savings options as conducting one or
more voluntary early retirement programs and we also plan to review our
total compensation policies and approaches.
There are increasingly greater demands on GAO's resources. Since
fiscal year 2000, we have experienced a 30 percent increase in the
number of bid protest filings. We expect this workload to increase over
the coming months because of a recent change in the law that expands
the number of parties who are eligible to file protests. In addition,
the number of congressional mandates for GAO studies, such as our
reviews of executive branch and legislative branch operations, has
increased more than 15 percent since fiscal year 2000. While we have
reduced our planned staffing level for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we
believe that the staffing level we requested in previous years is a
more optimal staffing level for GAO and would allow us to successfully
meet the future needs of the Congress and provide the return on
investment that the Congress and the American people expect. We will be
seeking your commitment and support to provide the funding needed to
rebuild our staffing levels over the next few fiscal years, especially
as we approach a point where we may be able to express an opinion on
the federal government's consolidated financial statements. Given
current and projected deficits and the demands associated with managing
a growing national debt, as well as challenges facing the Congress to
restructure federal programs, reevaluate the role of government, and
ensure accountability of federal agencies, a strong GAO will result in
substantially greater benefits to the Congress and the American people.
Table 2 summarizes the changes we are requesting in our fiscal year
2006 budget.
TABLE 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST, SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CHANGES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative
Budget category FTEs Amount percentage
change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 budget authority to support GAO operations... 3,215 $474,565 ...............
Fiscal year 2006 requested changes:
Nonrecurring fiscal year 2005 costs....................... .............. (4,122) (0.9)
Mandatory pay costs....................................... .............. 20,778 3.5
Price level changes....................................... .............. 1,428 3.8
Relatively controllable costs............................. .............. 899 ...............
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--requested changes............................. .............. $18,983 4.0
=================================================
Total fiscal year 2006 budget authority required to 3,215 $493,548 4.0
support GAO operations.................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO.
Our budget request supports three broad program areas: Human
Capital, Mission Operations, and Mission Support.
In our Human Capital program, to ensure our ability to attract,
retain, and reward high-quality staff and compete with other employers,
we provide competitive salaries and benefits, student loan repayments,
and transit subsidy benefits. We have undertaken reviews of our
classification and compensation systems to consider ways to make them
more market-based and performance-oriented and to take into
consideration market data for comparable positions in organizations
with which we compete for talent. Our rewards and recognition program
recognizes significant contributions by GAO staff to the agency's
accomplishments. As a knowledge-based, world-class, professional
services organization in an environment of increasingly complex work
and accelerating change, we maintain a strong commitment to staff
training and development. We promote a workforce that continually
improves its skills and knowledge.
We plan to allocate funds to our Mission Operations program to
conduct travel and contract for expert advice and assistance.
Travel is critical to accomplishing our mission. Our work covers a
wide range of subjects of congressional interest, plays a key role in
congressional decision making, and can have profound implications and
ramifications for national policy decisions. Our analyses and
recommendations are based on original research, rather than reliance on
third-party source materials. In addition, GAO is subject to
professional standards and core values that uniquely position the
agency to support the Congress in discharging its oversight and other
responsibilities under the Constitution.
We use contracts to obtain expert advice and or assistance not
readily available within GAO, or when expertise is needed within
compressed time frames for a particular project, audit, or engagement.
Examples of contract services include obtaining consultant services,
conducting broad-based studies in support of audit efforts, gathering
key data on specific areas of audit interest, and obtaining technical
assistance and expertise in highly specialized areas.
Mission Support programs provide the critical infrastructure we
need to conduct our work. Mission support activities include the
following programs:
--Information Technology.--Our IT plan provides a road map for
ensuring that IT activities are fully aligned with and enable
achievement of our strategic and business goals. The plan
focuses on improved client service, IT reliability, and
security; it promotes effectiveness, efficiency and cost
benefit concepts. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we plan to
continue to modernize outdated management information systems
to eliminate redundant tasks, automate repetitive tasks, and
increase staff productivity. We also will continue to modernize
or develop systems focusing on how analysts do their work. For
example, we enhanced the Weapons Systems Database that we
created to provide the Congress information to support budget
deliberations.
--Building Management.--The Building Management program provides
operating funds for the GAO Headquarters building and field
office locations, safety and security programs, and asset
management. We periodically assess building management
components to ensure program economy, efficiency and
effectiveness. We are currently 8 percent below the General
Services Administration's (GSA) median costs for facilities
management. We continue to look for cost-reducing efficiencies
in our utility usage. Our electrical costs are currently 25
percent below GSA's median cost. With the pending completion of
our perimeter security enhancements and an automated agency
wide access control system, all major security enhancements
will have been completed.
--Knowledge Services.--As a knowledge-based organization, it is
essential for GAO to gather, analyze, disseminate, and archive
information. Our Knowledge Services program provides the
information assets and services needed to support these
efforts. In recent years, we have expanded our use of
electronic media for publications and dissemination; enhanced
our external Web site, resulting in increased public access to
GAO products; and closed our internal print plant and increased
the use of external contractors to print GAO products,
increasing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of our
printing operation. Due to recent budget constraints, we have
curtailed some efforts related to archiving paper records. We
currently are implementing an electronic records management
system that will facilitate knowledge transfer, as well as
document retrieval and archival requirements.
--Human Capital Operations.--In addition, funds will be allocated to
Human Capital Operations and support services to cover
outplacement assistance, employee health and counseling,
position management and classification, administrative support,
and transcription and translation services.
concluding remarks
We appreciate your consideration of our budget request for fiscal
year 2006 to support the Congress. GAO is uniquely positioned to help
provide the Congress the timely, objective information it needs to
discharge its constitutional responsibilities, especially in connection
with oversight matters. GAO's work covers virtually every area in which
the federal government is or may become involved anywhere in the world.
In the years ahead, GAO's support will prove even more critical because
of the pressures created by our nation's large and growing long-term
fiscal imbalance.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions the Members of the Subcommittee may have.
appendix i: serving the congress--gao's strategic plan framework
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
SOURCES OF GAO WORK
Senator Allard. Well, thank you for your testimony.
You talked quite a bit about your staffing levels. You have
requested fewer staff for 2006, FTEs is 3,215 employees, than
you had in 2005, which is also down from 2004. At the same
time, you report that the number of congressional mandates for
GAO studies has increased by more than 15 percent. How do you
plan to meet the Congress' increased expectations with fewer
staff?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, first, if you look at the trend
line over the last 3 years you will see that the number of
mandates we received and the percentage of staff time spent on
them has gone up. What this means is that we will have to
respond more and more to requests from committee and
subcommittee chairs, such as yourself, and committee and
subcommittee ranking members. We will have less ability to
respond to requests from Members who may be on a relevant
committee of jurisdiction but not in a leadership capacity.
Basically what happens is that when we have more mandates,
when we have constrained resources, it limits our ability to be
able to deal with non-leadership requests. It also can have an
effect on how long it might take us to get to a particular
issue. That is the fallout.
I did say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that we also are
trying to lead by example on what we are requesting. Since 80
to 81 percent of our total costs are people costs, to the
extent that we have funding constraints it very quickly affects
our people, and our head count, because we do not have a whole
lot of flexibility in other areas.
BACKLOG OF REQUESTS
Senator Allard. Do you have a backlog in some areas on work
that is requested from the Congress? Are there some areas where
you do not have enough flexibility to permit you to initiate
work on your own? Could you comment on that?
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, 90
percent of the work that GAO did in fiscal 2004 was either a
mandate from the Congress or a written request from the
Congress, typically a chair or ranking member of a committee or
subcommittee of jurisdiction. The other 10 percent includes
about 5 percent that represents events of broad interest to the
Congress that I do under my own authority as Comptroller
General because many committees are interested and it is not
appropriate for one committee to capture it. For example, the
work that we are doing on Iraq contracting, and the work that
we are doing with regard to a variety of other issues of broad
interest to the Congress.
About 5 percent has to do with items where we may not get a
request, but relate to significant issues in our strategic plan
that we know are of interest to the Congress, but they may not
be an immediate concern. For example, we did work on Social
Security reform starting several years ago, when Congress was
not focused on it, so we are well ahead of the curve. We have
done work on health care reform before Congress was focused on
it, to be well ahead of the curve. We did work on
counterterrorism before 9/11 to be ahead of the curve.
We do have varying backlogs. Our biggest backlog is in
health care, as you can imagine, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Not a surprise.
HEALTH CARE BACKLOG
Mr. Walker. Probably our single biggest domestic policy
challenge is health care. That has been and continues to be our
biggest backlog. We are continuing to do the best that we can
to recruit as many people as possible in the health care area
to staff up. There is a tremendous amount of demand from other
organizations. It is a highly competitive marketplace. As a
result, we continue to work with the relevant committees of
jurisdiction to try to rebalance the portfolio and reset
priorities.
There are some areas where we do not have as large a
backlog, but that can be explained in part because many times
committees want us to do work, but they do not necessarily want
to put their name on it. For example, we do a lot of work in
the defense area. I can assure you that the work that we do in
the defense area is highly valued and sought after. At the same
point in time, from time to time Members do not necessarily
want to put their name on a request to look at a particular
weapons system because of the potential implications that that
might have for employment levels or other issues.
So we would be happy to provide for the record if you like
a detail of exactly where our backlogs are and how they are
trending. But I think we are very actively managing these
backlogs. As I said, we would not have 96 percent client
satisfaction unless we were doing a decent job. But it is a
constant challenge.
PERFORMANCE RECOGNITION
Senator Allard. Well, I do agree that there is a lot of
good work coming out of the Government Accountability Office.
You have changed your name a little bit. I have to think about
it, the Government Accountability Office. And I like your
approach. I like your pay for performance effort that you are
implementing.
Do you think that it has improved the overall performance
of employees throughout GAO, your results-driven management
style?
Mr. Walker. I think the numbers speak loudly, Mr. Chairman.
If you look at GAO today, we actually have slightly fewer
people today than we had 5 years ago. But our outcome-based
results--financial benefits, nonfinancial benefits, client
feedback, employee feedback, client satisfaction, et cetera--
have gone up dramatically. In fact, with regard to our
financial results, they have more than doubled during that 5-
year period of time.
Now, that is for a lot of reasons. Strategic planning. We
did our first strategic plan in Spring 2000. GAO never had one
before that. We realigned our organization based on that plan.
We eliminated a layer of management, reduced the number of
field offices, reduced the number of units from 35 to 13,
redeployed resources horizontally and externally. We redefined
success for GAO as outcomes and developed results-based
measures. We linked institutional, unit, and individual
performance measurement and reward systems.
We did a number of things and the combination of all these
initiatives, which were done in partnership with my colleagues
here with me today as well as others, has had a dramatic and
profound effect, not only on the results but I think, quite
frankly, on the culture and the reputation of our agency.
Senator Allard. Well, I think you bring a good news story
here to the subcommittee and I am delighted to hear what you
have to say.
MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN GOVERNMENT
Mr. Walker. Gene Dodaro has been with GAO, we like to say,
since the beginning, since he graduated from college. He might
be able to give you a little perspective.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We track why people come to
GAO to work and then why they stay with us. The basic reason is
they want to make a difference. They want to make Government
better, they want to improve the situation. To the extent to
which we say, we are going to reward you for bringing about
positive change in Government, either saving money or improving
programs, public safety, et cetera, they are energized by that.
They are not here just to produce reports, although at times,
as you know, for policy issues we give information without
recommendations to the Congress to help you make decisions.
We are making more recommendations in our reports, and our
recommendation implementation rate is at an all-time high--83
percent of the recommendations we made in fiscal year 2000 got
implemented within a 4-year timeframe. So it is very important
to the employees.
PERFORMANCE AWARDS
Senator Allard. Well, thank you. I would suspect an
important part of your employee motivation is your rewards and
bonuses. I see where your budget request increases rewards and
recognition by 8 percent, for a total of $2.6 million. Maybe
you can explain that.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, part of our philosophy is we want
to be able to have as many people as our budget will allow. But
it is very, very important that, however many employees we
have, they be reasonably compensated and rewarded based upon
results. Consequently, our whole philosophy is that we want a
market-based and performance-oriented compensation system. We
want to recognize both team and individual outcome-based
performance geared toward our strategic plan for serving the
Congress and the country.
That means by definition that we need to make sure we have
adequate funding to be able to recognize and reward people when
they generate positive results. That is what that budget
request is.
Sallyanne, I do not know if you have anything else you want
to add to that.
Ms. Harper. We are also implementing this year, Mr.
Chairman, for the first time pay-for-performance for the
administrative staff of the agency. They previously were under
the General Schedule (GS) system and only got the within-grade
increases based on length of service and, perhaps, a special
recognition award.
Mr. Walker. In fact, Mr. Chairman, now virtually all of
GAO's employees are not only in broadbanding, but also pay-for-
performance systems. So we are a window to the future, I think,
with regard to the Federal Government.
Senator Allard. Well, I think you are doing a great job and
I think you set a good example for the legislative branch. As
you heard in my previous comments, I think that is important
when we are setting policy throughout the Government. I think
it is incumbent on this subcommittee to hold each of the
agencies accountable so that Members of the Senate and House do
not get embarrassed because somehow we have a different
standard here than you have for the rest of the government.
I know in my own personal office I make an effort to set an
example so that when you are asking other agencies to be frugal
that you can show in your own office you are frugal. I think
the same thing applies here.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I compliment you on the way you are running your agency and
your office. I think that you reflect in a positive way what is
happening here in the legislative branch and I think that is
something that all the Members need to appreciate in the
Senate. So I am going to carry a very positive message as to
what you are doing to my colleagues, and I thank you for your
testimony and I thank you for your good work.
[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. Your report on 21st Century Challenges emphasizes a need
for dramatic change to federal government programs and policies if we
are to avoid serious damage to our economy, our standard of living and
our national security. You say that we need to fundamentally reexamine
major spending and tax policies and priorities if we are to meet the
challenges that lie ahead. What role do you believe GAO, and you as the
Comptroller General of the United States, should play in addressing
these challenges?
Answer. In our report and testimony on 21st Century Challenges, we
stated that nothing less than a fundamental review, reexamination, and
reprioritization of all major spending and tax policies and programs is
needed. Given our role in supporting the Congress, we believe that GAO
has an obligation to provide policymakers in Congress with the support
they need in identifying issues and options that could help to address
these fiscal pressures. Of course, while answers to these questions may
draw on the work of GAO and others, only elected officials can and
should decide which questions to address and how and when to address
them.
GAO and I stand ready to assist the Congress as it develops its
agenda and to help collect facts, develop options, conduct analyses and
perform other work in connection with the questions the Congress wishes
to pursue. The challenges identified in the report are based upon our
past and pending work, a vast majority of which was performed at the
direction or request of the Congress. In addition, the reexamination
questions are based heavily on GAO's issued work, our strategic plan,
and the institutional knowledge of our staff. However, the size of the
problem is so large and the programs and issues covered span such a
wide range that the process of rethinking government programs and
activities will in all likelihood rely on multiple approaches and
sources of analysis (e.g., GAO, your staff, other Congressional support
agencies and OMB) over a period of years.
GAO and I may also be useful to the Congress by helping to raise
public awareness of issues and problems thereby preparing the way for
the Congress to take related actions. Our past and pending work has
addressed and will continue to address such items, including federal
spending and tax programs, existing budget processes and financial,
fiscal, and performance management activities. Inevitably, given the
breadth of our work, some of our past and current engagements touch on
many of the reexamination issues and questions, but it is up to the
Congress to determine the issues and questions that merit GAO's
resources.
Question. Is GAO currently structured properly with adequate
resources in the right places to address the complexities of the issues
you raise?
Answer. Yes. We believe we are well positioned to help the Congress
address these issues. We are currently organized to align our work in
support of our strategic plan for serving the Congress. This plan
reflects the same emerging themes discussed in our 21st Century
Challenges report. Importantly, we can both cover broad cross-cutting
government-wide issues while providing support to Congressional
Committees on their specific areas of interest.
We have worked very hard over the past several years to build and
modernize the structure that will best address our client's needs and
make GAO a model for other federal agencies. We believe it is working
very well. In particular, we are greatly encouraging a risk-based and
matrix management oriented approach to our work that facilitates and
motivates staff in different areas to work together to produce analyses
of very complicated issues. Accordingly, we are not planning to change
our basic structure at this time. Of course, we will continue to
monitor our services to the Congress for the benefit of the American
people and make changes as needed.
Question. Will the role you envision for GAO require additional
resources in future years?
Answer. Yes, but not to any significant extent. We will work with
our congressional clients to prioritize our work so that we are most
beneficial to them while assisting them in this reexamination. Also, as
mentioned above, we envision this to take place over several years and
involve numerous organizations in addition to the GAO. The most
challenging issue we may face in accomplishing this is to harness the
great potential of our new staff, a very sizable portion of our agency,
and give them the experience they will need. We are working very hard
to help develop them so that they can make meaningful contributions to
the Congress for years to come. We do, however, expect that additional
staff and resources will be necessary when the federal government comes
closer to being able to receive a qualified opinion on the consolidated
financial statements.
Question. Your budget submission shows very little change in the
distribution of FTE resources among your teams between fiscal year 2005
and fiscal year 2006. Do you expect that to continue or do you think
you will need to redistribute to better help the Congress meet the
challenges you say we are facing?
Answer. Although small, our fiscal year 2006 request does reflect
some adjustment to our team FTEs to better meet the Congress' needs.
Each year we adjust our FTE distribution based on a systematic
assessment of the workforce that we will need to carry out our work in
support of the Congress, the American public, and our strategic
priorities. Our total FTE request, as well as our internal allocation
of FTEs, is based on a number of factors including: Congressional
requests and interests, strategic priorities, emerging issues, current
staffing data, identified skill shortages, succession and knowledge
retention issues, results achieved with staff resources, and budgetary
considerations. Based on our analysis of this data, GAO's leadership
team makes fact-based decisions about our FTE needs and the optimal
deployment of our staff resources to most efficiently accomplish our
work. Since 2002, we have used this process to make refinements to our
unit-specific staffing allocations to reflect shifting strategic
priorities. For example, as tax policy issues rise to the forefront of
federal budget and deficit issues, we combined our tax group with other
areas that address cross-cutting, broad-based fiscal issues. We also
reallocated existing resources to create the Homeland Security and
Justice team to focus on these areas after a major realignment of
executive branch departments and agencies. While we have not finalized
our fiscal year 2006 workforce plan, we do expect some changes to the
team allocations, but not of a significant nature.
In addition to our workforce planning process, we also foster a
spirit of cooperation throughout GAO whereby staff on several teams
will work together under a matrix management approach to produce the
most efficient product. Much of our workforce is now working in this
manner. This provides flexibility and helps minimize the need for major
realignments of resources. Of course, we will continue to monitor the
need for organization structure changes and will notify the Congress of
any major realignment.
Question. You mention in your budget materials that over 50 percent
of your mission support staff resources are contractors and that during
your tenure you have outsourced many administrative tasks allowing you
to devote more resources to mission work. Have you found that
contractors actually cost less than performing the same functions with
GAO employees or are you adding contract money and moving FTE's and
salary money to mission units? If you have an analysis of cost
comparison between in-house and contractor operations could you share
that analysis with the Subcommittee? What factors other than cost
savings led you to decide to turn so much of your administrative
operations over to contractors?
Answer. In an environment of increasing fiscal restraint, we have
in recent years reduced our overall FTE staff usage from 3,275 in
fiscal year 1999 to 3,215 FTEs planned for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
Through a number of targeted initiatives, including reengineering,
technology applications, and contracting out, we have also reduced the
number of administrative, professional and support (APSS) staff from 21
percent at the beginning of fiscal year 1999 to less than 18.9 percent.
Some of this reduction in APSS staff has allowed GAO to devote more
FTEs and salary funds to core mission operations. Since fiscal year
1999, we have also leveraged more contractor resources, increasing the
level of contract funds from $45.7 million to $69.7 million.
GAO contracts out for many reasons, such as improving service
delivery, obtaining specialized expertise not readily available within
GAO or when needed within compressed timeframes, providing technology,
and minimizing demands on the agency's resources. Contracts provide an
efficient, flexible vehicle to obtain technical assistance and
expertise in highly specialized areas, and allow us to better respond
to fluctuating demands. When GAO contracts-out for cost-effectiveness
reasons, it is to take advantage of firms with lower cost structures
than GAO. While direct salary and benefit costs for GAO staff and
contractor staff in many instances are comparable, contractors do not
always have lower costs. Contractor costs include management time and
other fees that make up corporate overhead, equivalent to indirect
costs an agency would pay to provide supervision, staff development,
equipment, and other overhead costs. In addition, contractor costs also
include profit not found in the federal environment. In other
instances, the federal sector cannot compete with salaries paid by the
private sector to staff in highly specialized disciplines, such as
information technology (IT).
Independent of cost, technical factors specific to the service area
are identified and assessed to ensure quality services or products are
obtained. A technical evaluation of contract proposals would assess
such items as, qualifications and skill levels of the proposed staff,
contractor's approach to providing services, ability to integrate
services in GAO's environment, and customer impact. Use of contract
staff provides the agency the flexibility to maintain operational
capabilities and obtain specific expertise for a limited duration--
expanding or shrinking the workforce as demands change for specific
skills--without the constraints of the federal recruitment and
retention processes. It also allows an agency to focus its own staff on
core functions, inherently governmental functions, and critical or
sensitive issues, while managing and overseeing contractor functions to
ensure accountability. For example, we found that we are able to reduce
the number of staff working in our financial management area. Vendor
invoice processing could be performed more cost effectively through a
cross-servicing arrangement with the Department of Interior's National
Business Center. In addition, as a result of travel management system
improvements made in fiscal year 2004, we are able to further reduce
our staffing requirements in this area. Our new travel management
system streamlines and expedites transaction processing, reduces
administrative processing requirements, and reduces the number of
manual external processes needed by GAO to manage this function.
A cost benefit analysis is conducted for each situation where GAO
considers utilizing contract resources. For example, in fiscal year
2003, GAO conducted a study of its mail operations center. GAO decided
to retain its in-house operation managed by GAO staff, and supplemented
by contract services for selected functions, after comparing GAO's
operation with other federal mail operations and assessing the cost to
outsource the operations. This decision resulted in a cost-avoidance of
about $250,000. Nine years ago, the mail center had 19 staff. Through a
series of changes, the mail operation has been reduced to a small, but
efficient operation with six staff.
In the area of library services and records management support,
however GAO has been able to obtain contract staff at less cost than
GAO staff. For example, the contract costs of a contract supervisory
library technician is about $61,000 compared to a salaried employee
whose fully-loaded cost is about $76,000. As current staff retire or
separate, we plan to increase our reliance on contract resources,
especially in the area of interlibrary loan services.
In the IT area, the costs for contract labor is higher than that of
salaried GAO staff and reflect the marketplace. Current fully-loaded
contract costs for an entry-level IT employee are about $30,000 above
that of an entry level IT salaried GAO employee. Most of our IT
contracts are GSA schedule contracts. In addition, we further negotiate
with vendors to obtain best value services and rates. Given the rapidly
changing IT environment, our contracts are structured to provide GAO
maximum flexibility to quickly obtain staff with the appropriate skill
mix to meet both short and long-term needs.
Question. The Subcommittee applauds GAO's efforts to transform the
agency to become more results-oriented and to devote more of its
resources to the agency's core mission. However, we also note that GAO
is asking for an increase in resources for mission support in fiscal
year 2006. Why?
Answer. In developing our fiscal year 2006 budget, we have taken
into consideration the overall federal budget constraints and the
committee's desire to lead by example. We have continued to streamline
our agency, modernize our policies and practices, and leverage
technology in manners that help us achieve our mission more effectively
and efficiently. These efficiencies have allowed us to maintain our
support of the Congress and enhance our overall performance without the
need for large budgetary increases. In addition, we conducted a
baseline review of our operating requirements and allocated our
resources to achieve the greatest return on investment. These actions
led us to request a modest increase of 4 percent over fiscal year 2005.
However, in order to keep our request modest, we needed to constrain
our staffing levels. We will be seeking your commitment and support to
provide the funding needed to rebuild our staffing levels over the next
few years. This will be essential when we get closer to the time when
GAO may be able to render our opinion on the consolidated financial
statements of the U.S. Government.
GAO is requesting a 3 percent increase in mission support
operations costs to support our infrastructure and cover the cost of
mandatory price-level increases and targeted investments, such as
information security and building management improvements. This
increase is less than the total requested increase in our budget
authority of 4 percent. We have been able to minimize the requested
increase by conducting base reviews of our support costs and through
offsets of non-recurring requirements. For example, our facilities
management program cost estimates assume that a GAO staff person will
retire and can be replaced by a more junior contract staff person.
Question. What is the percentage of staff allocated to mission
support activities?
Answer. The administrative and professional staff responsible for
GAO's mission support activities currently comprise less than 18.9
percent of total staff, down from 21 percent at the beginning of fiscal
year 1999. We expect this percent to decline to 18.5 percent by the end
of fiscal year 2006. The staff provides essential services for IT,
building management, knowledge services, human capital operations and
other support services. These services are vital to ensuring
consistency in the delivery of quality products to our clients and
customers.
Question. What is the percentage of costs allocated to mission
support activities? Where do you see these percentages going in the
next few years? What do you believe is the appropriate level of
investment in mission support?
Answer. Administrative and professional support staff and mission
support operational costs represent about 26 percent of GAO's total
budget authority. We believe that we have achieved a core level of
administrative and professional support staff and operating costs
necessary to provide the appropriate infrastructure for staff to
conduct their work. While we continue to seek opportunities to
streamline operations and leverage outsourcing mechanisms for
efficiency and economy purposes, we believe our investment is the
appropriate level without sacrificing quality in our administrative and
professional support services.
Question. GAO has established a strategic goal of being a model
agency. Your fiscal year 2004 Performance and Accountability Report
indicates three major management challenges, human capital, physical
security, and information security. Why were these areas identified as
management challenges? What actions have been taken to address these
challenges? What additional actions and funding are required to address
current weaknesses in these areas? Are there other areas that you
consider to be challenged?
Answer. At GAO, the Comptroller General and the agency's senior
executives through the agency's strategic planning, management, and
budgeting processes identify key management challenges. The three
challenges identified are all areas in which we have, and will continue
to experience substantial and continual change and challenges. They are
also areas that significantly impact our ability to support our
mission. We must focus our efforts and resources on maintaining our
flexibility to adapt to changing technology and world events, while
ensuring the security of our information assets and systems, and
ensuring that our human capital resources are best suited to meet the
needs of our congressional client. These are all internal challenges.
Our key external challenge is to assure that Congress adequately funds
GAO for the benefit of itself and the country.
Human Capital Management
In the area of human capital management, during the last few years,
we developed our first formal and comprehensive strategic plan for
human capital which communicates GAO's strategy for becoming a model
professional services organization, including how we plan to attract,
retain, motivate, and reward a high-performing and top-quality
workforce. We also fully implemented our workforce planning processes,
addressing the size, deployment, and profile of our staff to ensure we
have the appropriate resources strategically placed to pursue our goals
and objectives now and in the future. We continue to build on our
accomplishments in attracting and retaining a diverse workforce with
the knowledge, skills, and abilities to meet the new century's
challenges through succession planning activities and training and
development. For example, we implemented revised policies to expand the
use of flexi-place to provide employees additional options. Such
initiatives are particularly important given our employee profile where
about 50 percent of our staff are recent hires.
During fiscal year 2004 we completed establishment of market-based
and performance-oriented compensation systems and competency-based
appraisal systems for all our staff, and we began monitoring,
reviewing, and assessing these systems to identify enhancements that
may be needed. In fiscal year 2005, a consulting firm assisted us in
establishing pay rates that are competitive with comparable
organizations and these rates were used for certain purposes in our
annual pay for performance process for analysts, specialists, and
attorneys. We also began implementing policies and processes to
implement the human capital flexibilities authorized by Congress under
GAO's Human Capital Flexibilities Act of 2004. Other actions we have
taken include initiating strategy formulation for the annual adjustment
of GAO employees' salaries; revising and issuing our regulations on pay
administration to implement the satisfactory performance requirement
for GAO analysts and related specialists and attorneys; drafting and
issuing for review a regulation applicable to employees placed in lower
grades or bands as a result of workforce restructuring or
reclassification; revising and issuing for comment our leave policies
and procedures regulation, which includes the provision permitting
designated key employees with less than 3 years of federal service to
earn 6 hours of annual leave; and drafting and issuing for comment our
regulation implementing the Executive Exchange Program.
We anticipate that we will implement a number of the human capital
flexibilities authorized by Congress and for which we are drafting,
revising, and issuing for comment a number of regulations in fiscal
year 2005. In addition, we will implement a streamlined, user-friendly
guide to government and non-government professional development
opportunities; develop and implement an expedited and coordinated new
hire process; determine the feasibility of implementing a development
program for new hires with previous experience; and enhance our
competency-based performance systems. No additional funding will be
needed for these actions.
Physical Security
The challenge to provide a safe and secure work environment for
employees remains a government-wide issue in light of changing security
threats, which can have a profound impact on the way GAO conducts
business in the United States and around the world. Protecting our
people and our assets is paramount to agency operations. We continue to
devote time and resources to the assessment of security operations as
we further enhance GAO's security posture. Within the next few months,
our perimeter security enhancements will be complete. These
enhancements include protective barriers, such as installation of walls
and bollards around the building, vehicle restraints at the garage
ramps, ballistic-rated security guard booths, and vehicle surveillance
equipment at the garage entrances. We also plan to install a state-of-
the-art electronic security system during fiscal year 2005.
During fiscal year 2004, we developed a continuity of operations
plan and held communications drills to test our plan this fiscal year.
As part of our plan to ensure our continuity of operations should we
have to vacate our headquarters because of an emergency, we identified
an alternative facility to house our continuity-of-operations team. We
have also updated our Shelter in Place plan and Emergency Response
Handbook for headquarters and prepared similar plans for the field
offices. We continue to hold annual security fair seminars to
disseminate information on security and emergency preparedness at the
workplace and at home. We have no additional funding requirements at
this time.
Information Security
Following the events of September 11, 2001, expanded internet
access, and global technology, information security remains a
government wide issue. In the area of information security we
implemented a centralized reporting system to track audit findings
through a Plans of Action and Milestones tool; established monthly
remediation meetings for regular remediation effort tracking; completed
updates to our security awareness training presentation; began
performing weekly vulnerability assessments of our information systems
to ensure our scheduled patching process and configuration management
practices are working; and installed a firewall and spyware on our
workstations.
New initiatives for fiscal year 2006 include establishing annual
specialized training for various levels of management and IT staff with
elevated system privileges; and combining the IT Disaster Recovery and
the Continuity of Operations Plan into an integrated security plan, and
completing training for these plans. In addition, activities that will
be completed during fiscal year 2006 include completion of the
integration of a Web caching proxy and a firewall for Web-based traffic
into the GAO network architecture to provide additional information
security protection at the network level; continuing efforts to harden
our network and desktops with upgraded authentication devices,
exploring intrusion protection devices and external monitoring services
for after hours network security monitoring of our intrusion detection
devices; and completing the information sensitivity program to provide
system data sensitivity in accordance with FIPS Pub 199 and NIST SP
800-60. We anticipate additional funding of $487,000 will be needed to
complete these actions.
Question. Have you assessed the costs and benefits associated with
being a ``model'' agency?
Answer. No. While we have not conducted a formal cost/benefit
analysis, there is little question that our actions result in enhanced
value and better cost management. They also serve to enhance GAO's
image externally and our credibility within the government and the
accountability profession, both domestically and internationally.
Question. Your fiscal year 2006 budget request indicates that the
two main focal points for increased funding and new initiatives in IT
for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 will be in the areas of IT security and
business systems development. Please provide the Subcommittee an update
on your efforts to date in these areas. Please elaborate on the
opportunities that you have identified to affect economies and
efficiencies?
Answer. GAO has redesigned and automated numerous business and work
processes, as well as taken advantage of numerous electronic tools, to
foster productivity, improve cost savings and enhance timeliness. As
reliance on technology has grown, our technology efforts have and will
continue to directly affect the quality of our mission work and the
service GAO staff provide to the Congress through audits and analyses.
Our GAO fiscal year 2004 Performance and Accountability Report
highlights a number of efforts that have directly affected economies
and efficiencies while improving the quality, responsiveness, and
timeliness of GAO services. Several of these initiatives best
illustrate our efforts.
Acquisition Systems Management (ASM) Weapons Systems Database
This system has enabled GAO to become Congress' primary source of
annual evaluations of DOD acquisitions. The system expanded staff's
ability to query and view information across weapons systems programs,
perform micro and macro trend analysis, and shortened turnaround times.
Major benefits of this system include more comprehensive and
sophisticated analyses and improved multi-year reporting on weapons
acquisitions practices. The tool has significantly increased staff
productivity while contributing to recommendations that resulted in
$1.6 billion in programmatic savings in fiscal year 2004.
Financial Management and Assurance (FMA) Consolidated Financial
Statement Audit Database
This system, whose development is currently underway, documents the
planning, internal control and testing, and reporting phases of GAO's
annual audit of the U.S. Government's Consolidated Financial Statements
(CFS). Major efficiency benefits will include (1) shortened audit cycle
and ability to perform increased audit work; (2) increased
functionality and accessibility of audit tool to project users; (3)
improved reliability of the financial data collected and analyzed; (4)
improved security and backup capability; (5) increased potential for
data analysis as needed to improve the reliability of information of
the U.S. Government; (6) ability to conduct in-depth analyses to
support rendering opinions on CFS; and (7) ability to document audit
work performed to support auditor's reports on the CFS. In addition, by
reducing the staff days required for database maintenance, staff would
be able to devote more time to analyses and improved service to
clients. Plans are to also make this system available to the Inspector
General community for their individual department and/or agency audits.
Staffing Information System
This subsystem of the Engagement Management System will support
team decision-making and facilitate matrixing, multitasking, and
sharing of staff. It will support team decision making by balancing
staff preferences/development needs and provide real time access to
staffing data. By integrating data from all related systems, it will
eliminate staffing cuff systems and reduce the administrative burden on
teams.
Electronic Records Management System
This system automates management of GAO's records to leverage
institutional knowledge within and across agency functions. It
establishes a foundation for knowledge management in GAO, while
providing the ability to manage and dispose of records electronically.
It will also afford a seamless records system for GAO's move to
electronic business processes. Several significant benefits include:
Reduced in time spent by mission and administrative staff managing and
locating records; ready access to and retrieval of GAO records; reduced
costs for offsite storage, secure destruction, and courier services to
records centers; and more efficient and effective records management
processes.
Question. What savings will you be able to achieve by fiscal year
2006?
Answer. IT initiatives enable GAO to increase productivity and
ensure economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in performing GAO's work.
Many of the initiatives cited in the previous response are good
examples of these efforts. In many of our IT projects a residual
benefit is enabling staff to redirect time once spent on redundant,
time-consuming, and unproductive activities to more productive,
mission-related work. For example, the ASM Weapons Systems Database
enabled staff to shift time once spent on data collection and entry to
more analyses of greater breath and depth. Prior to this database, ASM
reviewed about 10 weapon systems programs per year with estimated costs
of $78.9 billion. In fiscal year 2004, ASM was able to review 60
programs and report on 51, covering estimated costs of $672 billion. As
a result, GAO was able to identify for the Congress a total potential
reduction in funding of $1.5 billion in these programs.
There are also IT efforts that provide opportunities for cost
savings in IT and non-IT areas. Remote access improvements are an
effort that resulted in a reduction in IT operational costs. The
movement to AT&T remote access services provided local access points
and eliminated reliance on costly ``800#'' dial-up services. It also
increased efficiencies by giving staff the ability to access the GAO
network using a wider range of devices such as DSL and cable modems.
The videoconferencing expansion project was an IT effort that
reduced non-IT costs. We provided a second videoconferencing system in
most field offices and expanded the number of units in headquarters.
This has resulted in increased communications and matrixing across
geographic locations and increased staff productivity. It also created
the potential for reductions in travel time and costs.
Question. What is the status of your efforts to upgrade your
financial management system?
Answer. This year we initiated efforts to replace our financial
management system by obtaining these services through cross-servicing
with another government agency. To date we have:
--Assembled a project team consisting of staff from our Financial
Management and Information Systems and Technology Services
organizations which has developed a steering committee charter
and identified steering committee members and a management team
that will oversee requirements definition, system selection,
procurement activities and system deployment.
--Conducted initial rounds of interviews to identify user-specific
requirements and major pain points with the current financial
management.
--Developed a Government-off-the-shelf (GOTS) evaluation process
methodology.
--Identified potential cross-service agencies.
We plan to select a system early in fiscal year 2006 and implement
the system for operational use in fiscal year 2007.
Question. Your focus in recent years has been on implementing
technology improvements and tools that enhance business practices, as
well as improve staff productivity. Which of these improvements has the
ability to create efficiencies throughout the legislative branch?
Answer. Two improvements that could create efficiencies throughout
the legislative branch for those agencies that utilize the Department
of Agriculture's National Finance Center (NFC) computer services are
WebTA and I*CAMS. Both GAO and the Library of Congress are using these
systems.
In 2004, GAO deployed WebTA, a user-friendly Web-based time and
attendance (T&A) system that replaced a costly and inefficient T&A
process. Benefits of this system include: Elimination of duplicate
entry of T&A data; an automated interface with NFC; on-line supervisory
approval; reduced time to process T&As; and decrease of T&A errors.
The second initiative that could benefit other legislative branch
agencies is the utilization of a Web-based human capital front-end to
the NFC personnel/payroll system, I*CAMS (Agriculture's Internet-based
Combined Administrative Management System). To date GAO has implemented
the transaction processing system that supports and integrates
transaction processing, position management, and awards processing.
There are a variety of benefits agencies may realize: Improved data
accuracy and timeliness; customized and real-time reports; elimination
of paper driven and standalone, automated ad hoc systems for tracking
and supporting transactions; reduced duplicate data entry; and human
capital portal capability for role-based and personalized access to
human capital information.
healthcare backlog
Question. Are there some areas in GAO where there is a backlog of
work requested by Congress and other areas where there is enough
flexibility to permit you to initiate work on your own? Explain to the
Subcommittee the process you use to prioritize and address
congressionally requested work.
Answer. Yes. GAO has a backlog of congressionally-requested work,
but it is not uniformly spread across all of our teams. The backlog in
a few areas like health care and natural resources and the environment
is particularly large. At any point in time, the backlog may not
reflect all of the work that our clients would like us to do, as some
of them prefer not to send requests when they know that we do not have
the resources to begin the work.
To ensure adherence to GAO's core values, effective management
practices, and efficient use of available resources, GAO generally
initiates work according to the following priorities: Congressional
mandates; Senior congressional leader and committee leader requests for
issues within a committee's jurisdiction; and Individual Member
requests, with additional consideration given to requests from Members
who are on a committee of jurisdiction.
After receiving a mandate or a request, GAO will initiate a meeting
with the committees of jurisdiction staff to gain a better
understanding of the need for information, the nature of the research
questions and related timing issues.
Question. Do you routinely move resources from areas where backlogs
are small or non-existent to areas where they are significant?
Answer. Yes, we do move resources, but only to the extent that we
believe it can be done efficiently and without harming our long-term
responsibility to serve the entire Congress. We have also reassigned
work from overbooked areas to others that may be able to address the
work more quickly. For example, six requesters asked us to do a review
of the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program. One
of our teams--Natural Resources and Environment--was unable to do it
because of their backlog, so we assigned the work to our Financial
Management and Assurance team. In another case, our Homeland Security
and Justice team had difficulty staffing a review of reprogramming of
air marshal program funds, so it was assigned to our Strategic Issues
team.
We also work hard to foster matrix management in our work, wherein
we have staff from one team work with other teams without making a
permanent reassignment. This allows us to work more efficiently.
Nonetheless, in some cases, a specific expertise is needed that cannot
be met through matrixing or by using staff from another area. In those
cases, we may need to wait for the staff with the proper expertise to
be available before we can start the work. We also work periodically
with some committees to have them help prioritize the backlog of work
attributable to their committees.
Question. The organization chart in your budget submission shows 13
teams that perform the substance of GAO's work. Would you please
provide the Subcommittee with a breakout by team of the number of
congressionally mandated jobs in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005,
the average amount of time that elapsed from receipt of a Congressional
mandate to when data gathering actually began on the job, and the
number and age of requests currently on hand for each team?
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Median Age in
Fiscal Year 2005 Ongoing Months from Number of
2004 Completed and Completed Request Requests Median Age in
Team Mandates/ Mandates/ Receipt to Pending as of Months
Requests Requests as of Engagement 3/31/2005 \1\
3/31/2005 Initiation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO............................. 1,061 894 1.1 278 3.7
Goal 1--Address Current and
Emerging Challenges to the Well-
Being and Financial Security of
the American People
Education, Workforce, and Income 79 79 1.3 16 1.5
Security.......................
Financial Markets and Community 50 46 1.0 11 3.7
Investment.....................
Health Care..................... 75 79 2.1 \2\ 48 13.2
Homeland Security and Justice... 83 70 2.3 29 1.9
Natural Resources and 105 106 3.1 \3\ 55 7.2
Environment....................
Physical Infrastructure......... 79 64 .5 15 5.4
Goal 2--Respond to Changing
Security Threats and the
Challenges of Global
Interdependence
Acquisition and Sourcing 54 46 1.8 28 1.1
Management.....................
Defense Capabilities and 92 57 .1 10 2.9
Management.....................
International Affairs and Trade. 75 46 .5 19 1.6
Goal 3--Help Transform the
Federal Government's Role and
How it Does Business to Meet
21st Century Challenges
Applied Research and Methods.... 8 12 .2 .............. ..............
Financial Management and 181 168 .2 5 3.6
Assurance......................
Information Technology.......... 95 58 .4 25 1.0
Strategic Issues................ 85 63 .6 17 1.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These figures exclude legislative mandates and those requests that are dependent on (1) a triggering event
(e.g. an agency action), (2) a distant future due date that does not require GAO to start too early, and (3)
sequencing situations where other GAO work must be performed before work can logically be started.
\2\ Ten of these jobs have been started, but the engagement initiation paperwork is pending.
\3\ The team has made steady progress in reducing its backlog. Some requests await staff with appropriate
clearances; others have been sequenced by requesters. Ten requests are from individual members and are,
therefore lower in priority and have been in the backlog for some time.
Question. How much work do you initiate each year that is not
requested by Congress? How many FTE's and how much money do you spend
on that work?
Answer. In fiscal year 2004, about ninety percent of our audit
resources were spent on congressional requests and legislative
mandates, and about 10 percent on work performed under the CG's legal
authority. Importantly, a significant majority of the CG initiated
requests relate to areas of broad interest to the Congress. Under our
Congressional protocols, such items, especially when they are
precipitated by a significant event, can be done under the CG's
authority in order to facilitate broad sharing of related information
with the applicable congressional committees, e.g., election reform,
Iraq contracting. Many requests under the CG's authority represent
items of interest to Committees and/or Members, but they would prefer
not to be identified as the requester, e.g., defense related work.
We have further categorized the ten percent of our audit resources
initiated under the Comptroller General's authority (CGA). They include
--Engagements initiated by GAO that provide an opportunity for us to
do work on a wide range of issues we believe have particular
value but have not been requested (5.5 percent).
--GAO's High-Risk program, which focuses on selected federal programs
that are more vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement than other programs or have major challenges with
their economy, efficiency, or effectiveness (1.6 percent).
--Our budget justification reviews that are of considerable help to
the Congress in authorizing and appropriating funds for federal
programs every year (1.6 percent).
--Work that addresses the broad interests of the Congress on longer-
range, crosscutting, and transformational issues; the topics
may be heavily requested by numerous Congressional clients, as
was the case on some of our most recent work on elections and
Iraq (0.6 percent).
--Presentations and guidance given on GAO's key responsibilities such
as the recently revised Government Auditing Standards or
accounting issues (0.5 percent).
The amount of work done under the CGA also varies from team to team
in GAO as shown in the following table for fiscal year 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Fiscal Year 2004
Audit Resources Spent
Team -------------------------------
Requests and Engagements
Mandates Under the CGA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal 1--Address Current and Emerging
Challenges to the Well-Being and
Financial Security of the American
People
Education, Workforce, and Income 85 15
Security...............................
Financial Markets and Community 93 7
Investment.............................
Health Care............................. 99 1
Homeland Security and Justice........... 99 1
Natural Resources and Environment....... 97 3
Physical Infrastructure................. 97 3
Goal 2--Respond to Changing Security
Threats and the Challenges of Global
Interdependence
Acquisition and Sourcing Management..... 75 25
Defense Capabilities and Management..... 68 32
International Affairs and Trade......... 97 3
Goal 3--Help Transform the Federal
Government's Role and How it Does
Business to Meet 21st Century Challenges
Applied Research and Methods............ 74 26
Financial Management and Assurance...... 98 2
Information Technology.................. 99 1
Strategic Issues........................ 90 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Do you believe that there is a need to maintain a certain
level of work that is not requested by Congress?
Answer. Absolutely. This allows the GAO to address significant
current or emerging issues having broad-based Congressional interest
that may have a significant effect on the nation's future. Indeed, a
very significant portion of our financial \1\ and other non-
quantifiable benefits are attributable to work initiated by us and
eventually used by the Congress. In fact, every engagement initiated by
us under our CGA relates to our strategic plan and is expected to be of
significant value to the Congress and the American people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2004, $16.4 billion of the $44 billion in GAO's
financial benefits (37 percent) flowed directly from our work performed
under GAO's CGA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of this work include work assessing: major DOD weapon
programs, funding for the global war on terrorism, offshoring of
American jobs, reporting of uncollectible debt to IRS, SBA's
disposition of disaster assistance applications, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, factors influencing gasoline prices,
and issues associated with the future of intercity passenger rail
transportation.
Question. How do you decide what that work should cover?
Answer. The GAO has a comprehensive strategic planning effort that
lays the foundation for all of the work we do. This effort, which draws
heavily upon our staff's knowledge of federal programs and issues, is
also heavily dependent on the views of Congress and others in the
government and elsewhere who are interested in the work of the GAO. We
would be pleased to provide additional copies of this plan if needed.
Our Web site (www.gao.gov) also features this plan.
Our most senior executives, including the Comptroller General and
Chief Operating Officer, must approve engagements initiated by the GAO.
Our senior executives meet every week to discuss new engagements,
routinely consider each job and the likelihood that it will be of
significant use to our Congressional clients and produce results such
as financial benefits to the American people and improvements in the
management of the nation's government.
Question. You have been using a pay for performance system for some
years now. Have you done any analysis to determine whether your system
costs more than what the rest of the Government is doing? Also, please
describe your efforts to establish a market-based compensation system.
Do you have benchmark data available on GAO salaries?
Answer. No, GAO has not analyzed the cost of the agency's pay for
performance system in relation to other federal government agencies.
There are a variety of pay for performance systems operating throughout
the federal government, so there is no single model which can be used
for cost comparison. Importantly, in our view, given the operational
flexibility provided to GAO in 2004, it would be more appropriate to
consider conducting any such analyses after our pending changes have
been in effect for several years.
In July 2004, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a leading compensation
consulting firm, assisted us in establishing pay ranges that are
competitive with comparable organizations including selected
government, not-for-profit, and professional services entities in the
labor markets where GAO staff are located. Watson Wyatt worked closely
with GAO executives and representatives of our Employees' Advisory
Council to assure that the GAO positions were appropriately matched to
positions in the numerous published compensation surveys from which
compensation data were extracted. Watson Wyatt presented their
recommendations for compensation ranges to GAO's Executive Committee in
November 2004. After consideration of the unique aspects of the roles
and responsibilities of some GAO positions in relation to the
applicable markets, as well as the need to assure internal equity among
positions doing similar work, the Executive Committee made some minor
adjustments to the compensation ranges recommended by Watson Wyatt. The
proposed compensation ranges were presented to all GAO employees in a
Comptroller General Chat in December 2004. These proposed ranges were
used for certain purposes in making individualized performance-based
compensation decisions for fiscal year 2004 performance, but our new
overall compensation ranges will not be formally adopted and fully
implemented until January 2006. Initially, we focused on establishing
competitive pay rates for the analysts, specialists, and attorneys, who
make up about 77 percent of our workforce, but we will also establish
competitive pay rates for our administrative and professional support
staff by the end of 2005.
The establishment of competitive pay ranges, along with the
development of a new methodology for making individualized performance-
based compensation decisions, was undertaken as part of a comprehensive
classification and compensation review that is guided by seven
principles:
--Enable GAO to attract, retain, motivate, and reward top talent.
--Result in equal pay for work of equal value over time.
--Be reflective of the roles and responsibilities that we expect GAO
staff to perform.
--Be reasonable, competitive, performance-oriented, and based on
skills, knowledge, and role.
--Be affordable and sustainable based on current and expected
resource levels.
--Be in conformity with applicable statutory limits.
--Try to assure a reasonable consistency in ratings and related
compensation results within and between teams.
Watson Wyatt was able to benchmark 34 of the 36 positions for which
GAO requested assistance in developing competitive pay rates. We were
very pleased with this result, which greatly exceeded the 40-60 percent
of positions that Watson Wyatt indicated would normally be benchmarked
to the market and gave us increased confidence in the reliability of
the market matches. GAO's proposed compensation ranges set the
``competitive rate'' at the 50th percentile relative to our comparable
organizations. The most robust data was found for positions in the
Washington, DC market. GAO's 12 field locations are grouped into five
zones. The salaries for each zone are adjusted using a geographic
differential that contemplates the cost of labor for that geographic
location against the market data collected for positions in Washington,
DC.
One of the significant findings of the compensation study was that
the cap for our Band I analysts and specialists should be lowered from
$81,986 to $74,000. When GAO validated its new competency-based
performance management system, we found that there were two different
roles for analysts and specialists at the Band II or ``Senior'' level--
that of an ``individual contributor'' and that of an ``engagement
leadership.'' In doing the compensation study, we asked Watson Wyatt to
see if the market made a distinction in how the two roles are
compensated. They found the market did distinguish between the two
roles. In fact, the distinction led them to recommend that we increase
our current pay range for Band IIs from $114,987 to $125,000, but only
for individuals who are in a leadership role. For individual
contributors, the market data indicated that the current pay range
should be lowered from $114,987 to $99,000. Over the next few months,
as we prepare for the full implementation of these market-based
compensation ranges, we will be developing the final pay ranges, as
well as the criteria and a process we will use to make pay range
placement decisions for our current Band II staff. We recognize the
importance of assuring that both the criteria and the process are
objective, transparent and non-discriminatory. We will also assure that
staff have an opportunity to appeal their placement.
At the Band III level, the current statutory cap of $135,136 limits
our ability to fully implement the compensation ranges the market
indicates would be competitive, especially for attorneys and PhD
economists, and to a lesser extent, for analysts and specialists with
management or senior leadership responsibilities. For example, the true
competitive rate for attorneys is $143,000, which would put the pay
range maximum at $178,750. That is 32 percent higher than the current
cap. Even attorneys at the current cap will be below the market rate by
about 5.4 percent.
Question. Will changes in your compensation system improve your
ability to retain staff?
Answer. Yes, we expect that it will and believe that it will not
have an adverse effect. As I mentioned earlier, one of the principle
objectives in undertaking the development of our market-based
compensation system was to enhance GAO's ability to attract, retain,
motivate, and reward top talent within current and expected resource
levels. Individuals generally cite the nature of the work, the
opportunity to make a difference, and the reputation of the agency as
primary reasons they choose to work for GAO. While it is true that for
individuals who choose public service, salary is not the primary
motivator, it is nonetheless an important factor. Except as I discussed
above with respect to the limitations the current statutory cap places
on our ability to adopt market-based pay ranges reflective of the true
competitive rate for Band IIIs, I am confident that we will be
competitive with entities that we regularly compete with for talent. I
believe that our competitive position will over time be enhanced by our
approach to individualized performance-based compensation that assures
that top performing staff are identified and well rewarded. I also
believe that it is important in adopting a market-based compensation
philosophy that we have reasonable flexibility to implement the
competitive pay ranges that are applicable to our workforce. As a
result, I am planning to request legislative authority to exceed the
GS-15/10 statutory cap when the market-based data indicates a higher
cap is reasonable and appropriate given the relevant facts and
circumstances. This will help us to more effectively compete with the
SEC, banks, regulatory agencies, and other federal entities.
Question. How will planned changes impact your average annual
salary?
Answer. I have made a commitment to our staff that no GAO
employee's current salary, including accumulated locality pay, will be
reduced irrespective of their current position, pay, performance, or
location. I also have made a commitment that they will receive annual
adjustments that will at least maintain their purchasing power, if they
are performing at the ``Meets Expectation'' level or above on all of
the competencies relevant to their band level and if their current
salary is not in excess of their applicable pay range limit. While
annually we will review and adjust, as appropriate, our pay ranges to
reflect changes in labor market rates, the salaries for individuals
being paid in excess of their pay range limit will be frozen. That
means that they will not receive an annual salary adjustment until
their salary falls within the expected pay range. However, they will
still have an opportunity to earn an annual performance bonus if their
rating places them in the top 20 percent of their band level within
their team. This ``floor guarantee'' will be paid as a cash bonus. In
addition, they will still be eligible for various other incentive
awards, e.g. spot awards.
Over time, an employee's average annual salary will be based more
on the competitive rate for their position and band level, with only
top performing staff receiving salaries that are above a certain point
in the pay range (e.g., the 75th percentile) that is referred to as a
``speed bump''. This is a key aspect of a performance-oriented and
market-based compensation philosophy and is markedly different from the
pay philosophy under which GAO and most federal agencies have been
operating. When GAO went to pay banding in 1989, we adopted pay ranges
that followed the GS schedule, and we assumed that staff were correctly
classified. In retrospect, that may not have been the case. However,
the underlying pay philosophy was that everyone had the right to
advance to the pay cap in the absence of performance issues--it was not
a matter of ``if'', but only ``when''. As we transition to a
performance-oriented and market-based compensation philosophy where pay
ranges are set to be competitive with entities that compete with GAO
for talent, everyone has the opportunity to advance to the pay cap--but
individuals must have performance in excess of a certain level to
advance beyond ``speed bumps''. That will limit the number of staff who
will advance to the pay cap. It will also help to assure that the only
individuals who are paid in excess of the minimum pay rate for the next
higher level of responsibility are strong performers.
Within a few years after implementing the market-based compensation
ranges, I expect that the combined effect of managing salaries around
the competitive rate and implementing a performance ``speed bump'' will
result in a lower average annual salary (in today's dollars) as
compared to what would otherwise occur under our current system.
However, that won't necessarily translate to a lower average total cash
compensation because of the impact of our new individualized
performance-based compensation system, which allocates pay earned on
the basis of performance between a salary increase and a one-time cash
bonus payment. Individuals whose current salaries are below the
competitive rate receive more of their performance pay as a salary
increase, while individuals whose current salaries are above the
competitive rate receive more of their performance pay as a one-time
cash bonus. For 2005 pay adjustments, all Washington, DC-based
employees received across-the-board and locality increases of 3.71
percent. In addition, analysts, specialists, attorneys, and economists
received an average performance-based compensation increase of 1.65
percent, allocated between salary increase and cash bonus.
With the flexibilities provided by the GAO Human Capital Reform Act
of 2004, more of individuals' annual pay adjustments in future years
will be determined by their performance. The allocation process is a
key element in managing salaries around the competitive rate, but it is
also justifiably a source of concern for GAO staff because the portion
received as cash is not a component of the calculation of an
individual's ``high-3'' for retirement or of the salary base upon which
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) contributions are computed. Therefore, in
order to address these concerns, I am planning to request legislation
that would permit calculation of ``high-3'' and TSP contributions on an
individual's total cash compensation, rather than on base salary plus
accumulated locality pay as required by current law. I believe such
authority could significantly facilitate more widespread use of more
market-based and performance-oriented compensation systems that
allocate annual performance pay between salary increases and bonus
payments.
Question. Please elaborate on the cost savings options that you are
considering as part of your revised human capital framework.
Answer. By implementing a more market-based and performance-
oriented compensation system, GAO is continuing to work towards our
strategic goal of maximizing the agency's value under current and
expected resource levels. Our compensation initiatives have involved
the assessment of positions to ensure appropriate classification of
various career streams and levels of responsibility along with a
market-based determination of the appropriate salary range for
positions. Each year as part of the annual performance-based
compensation process, GAO provides employees with pay adjustments that
reward performance, are reflective of the market value of positions,
consider changes in purchasing power, and are financially sustainable.
For increases effective October 1, 2005, GAO will develop and apply its
own methodology for annual cost-of-living and locality pay adjustments.
For example, pay ranges in Washington, DC, and in other cities in which
GAO employees reside, will be based on the results of an independent,
market-based compensation study conducted for GAO.
While cost savings are not the impetus for our market-based,
performance-oriented compensation system and other human capital
initiatives, the Congress will likely place increasing emphasis on
fiscal restraint given large budget deficits and the nation's long-
range fiscal imbalance. GAO is planning for the possibility of
significant and recurring constraints on the available agency
resources. Since 80 percent of our budget is composed of people-related
costs, any serious budget situation will have an impact on our human
capital policies and practices. Using our recent human capital
flexibility as a framework, GAO would consider such options as
conducting early out offers, reviewing our policies and approaches to
total compensation, delaying or reducing investments in discretionary
programs that support the workforce, rethinking our current approach to
hiring, and considering workforce restructuring actions on the basis of
organizational need and budgetary considerations.
Question. Can you tell us what the average cost per FTE is for your
Band II and Band III employees and how that compares to the average
cost per FTE for GS-13 through GS-15 employees in agencies like OMB and
OPM? How does the percentage of Band II and Band III employees in GAO
compare to the percentage of GS-13 through GS-15 in OMB and OPM?
Answer. The average salary for GAO Band II and Band III employees
at September 30, 2003, the most recent year when comparable data is
available, was $98,426. The average salary for GS-13 to GS-15 staff was
$98,333 for OMB and $112,174 for the SEC. We do not consider OPM
comparable to GAO since over 72 percent of OPM staff perform clerical,
administrative and compliance related work which is typically
compensated at lower salary levels than staff performing work of an
analytical nature. We believe that work performed by the SEC is more
comparable to that performed by GAO. The average salary for GS-13
through GS-15 employees at OPM at September 30, 2003, was $89,099.
As of September 30, 2003, Band II and III employees accounted for
51 percent of GAO's staff. OMB and SEC GS-13 through GS-15 employees
accounted for 54 percent and 55 percent, respectively. At the OPM, the
percentage of GS-13 through GS-15 employees was 25 percent.
Question. Does your pay for performance and broad banding system
cover all GAO employees?
Answer. No. We have 5 Wage System employees who will not be
converted to a broad banded pay for performance system and 20 criminal
investigators who we are in the process of converting to a broad-banded
system. All GAO employees who are covered by a pay-banding system will
be eligible for pay for performance.
Question. Do you believe there is a need to further refine your
system to make it more effective? If so, what changes do you plan to
make and how much will they cost? Do you expect these refinements, once
implemented, to reduce overall compensation costs? If compensation
costs are reduced, can the savings help you to restore your FTE levels?
Answer. Yes. After the completion of each performance appraisal
cycle and performance based compensation process, GAO conducts an
evaluation by reviewing data and by soliciting feedback from managers
and employees. As part of our continuous improvement process, we have
made modifications to the performance appraisal and pay process every
year based on this evaluation. We are currently analyzing the results
of our evaluation of the fiscal year 2004 process to determine what, if
any, modifications will be recommended for next year. Continuous
improvement costs are minimal, as the majority of changes require minor
adjustments to the existing system. We do anticipate a review of the
analyst band structure and the competencies associated with the band
levels in connection with the implementation of market-based
compensation ranges. We anticipate the cost of this effort to be
minimal because the compensation work has already been completed and
the majority of the work on the competencies was completed when GAO
initially undertook revising its performance appraisal system.
While cost savings are not the impetus for our competency-based
performance management and compensation systems, by implementing a more
market-based and performance-oriented compensation system, GAO is
continuing to work towards our strategic goal of maximizing the
agency's value while managing its costs. Our compensation initiatives
have involved the assessment of positions to ensure appropriate
classification of various career streams and levels of responsibility,
along with a market-based determination of the appropriate salary range
for positions. Each year as part of the annual performance-based
compensation process, GAO will provide employees with pay adjustments
that reward performance, are reflective of the market value of
positions, consider changes in purchasing power, and are financially
sustainable. For increases effective on or after October 1, 2005, GAO
will develop and apply its own methodology for annual cost-of-living
and locality pay adjustments. For example, pay ranges in Washington,
DC, and in other cities in which GAO employees reside, will be based on
the results of an independent market-based compensation study conducted
for GAO.
Within a few years after implementing the market-based compensation
ranges, I expect that the combined effect of managing salaries around
the competitive rate and implementing a performance ``speed bump'' will
result in a lower average annual salary (in today's dollars) as
compared to what otherwise would occur under the current system.
However, that won't necessarily translate to lower average total cash
compensation because of the impact of our new individualized
performance-based compensation system, which allocates pay earned on
the basis of performance between a salary increase and a one-time cash
bonus payment. Individuals whose current salaries are below the
competitive rate, set at the 50th percentile of the compensation ranges
compared to comparable organizations, will receive more of their
performance pay as a salary increase, while individuals whose current
salaries are above the competitive rate will receive more of their
performance pay as a one-time cash bonus. For 2005 pay adjustments, all
Washington, DC-based employees received an across-the-board and
locality increase of 3.71 percent. In addition, analysts, specialists,
attorneys, and economists received an average performance-based
compensation increase of 1.65 percent, allocated between salary
increase and cash bonus. Finally, benefits costs also need to be
considered when determining total compensation and average compensation
amounts.
Question. Could you also explain the process you use to determine
who gets monetary awards, how many GAO employees received them last
year and what the amount of the award was for each?
Answer. GAO employees receiving performance-based compensation are
eligible for an increase to base pay, a bonus or a combination of the
two. A summary of the performance-based compensation is as follows:
Each year, the Comptroller General determines the budgetary
parameters for performance-based compensation, the methodology by which
amounts will be calculated and awarded to employees and the effective
date on which it will be paid. The methodology used to award
performance based compensation for fiscal year 2004 considered an
employee's appraisal, current salary and the applicable competitive
compensation range. Employees' appraisal averages were converted to
statistically standardized rating scores in order to minimize the
impact of any variability in raters' applications of the standards.
Performance based compensation amounts were calculated as a percentage
of the midpoint of the employee's band. The distribution of the
compensation amount between a permanent salary increase and a lump sum
was based on the employee's salary with employees at the lower portion
of the salary range receiving their awards primarily as base increases
and those employees at or near the top of the pay range receiving their
awards as lump sum payments. Performance based compensation is prorated
for those employees who have less than a full year of service during
the performance cycle.
In addition to performance-based compensation, GAO employees are
eligible for incentive awards. Agency regulations describe the
categories of incentive awards, the forms the award may take, e.g.,
plaque, money, time off, etc., and the recommendation and approval
process associated with each category of award.
GAO-wide honor awards, GAO's highest awards, recognize individuals
and teams for their noteworthy achievements and extra effort through
the performance-based compensation system and provide incentives for
employees to strive for greater achievements. These awards consist of
plaques and may include monetary recognition for individual recipients
(not teams) based on annual guidance. Each year, a request for
nominations is issued agency-wide and a screening committee reviews the
resulting nominations. The screening committee, which is selected by
the Executive Committee, comprised of the agency's top management team,
makes recommendations to the Executive Committee. Two SES level
employees lead the committee which is comprised of nine other members
representing mission teams, mission support and field operations. GAO
provides the following agency-wide honor awards: Comptroller General's
Award, Distinguished Service Award, Meritorious Service Award, Equal
Employment Opportunity Award, Customer Service Award, Client Service
Award, Community Service Award, Integrity Award, Grand Finale Award,
Big Picture Award and Human Capital Management Award.
GAO also provides Results through Teamwork Awards, which recognize
the accomplishment of teams working collaboratively across
organizational lines beyond what is normally expected and recognized
through the performance based compensation system. Awards may be
provided in the form of a monetary, time off, or a certificate award.
Managing Directors submit team nominations for the Executive
Committee's review and approval.
Employees are also eligible for unit awards, which are designed to
reward deserving individuals or teams for extra effort above and beyond
what is normally expected and recognized through the performance-based
compensation system. Rewards may include cash, paid time off, and
written expressions of appreciation, or combinations thereof. Unit
awards must be approved by the SES-level unit head and each unit is
responsible for developing a process to make award decisions that
ensures that all staff are fairly considered, and that awards are based
on performance, contributions, and extra effort above and beyond what
is normally expected and recognized through the performance-based
compensation system.
In fiscal year 2004, cash incentive awards were provided as
follows:
--Number of Awards: 2,293
--Average Amount: $471
--Median Amount: $300
--Total Cost: $1,080,000.
Question. The GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 provided you
with a number of flexibilities in the human capital arena, including
the ability for the GAO to decouple itself from annual executive branch
pay adjustments. Please provide the Subcommittee an update on each of
the provisions of the Act, including expected implementation timeframes
and outstanding issues.
Answer. Public Law 108-271 contained various human capital
flexibilities. As required by section 10 of the act and consistent with
GAO's long standing practice, the human capital flexibilities
authorized by sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 are being implemented in
continuing consultation with GAO's employees and executives. The status
of each of these flexibilities is as follows:
--Section 2 amended Public Law 106-303, the GAO Personnel
Flexibilities Act of 2000, to permit the Comptroller General to
offer voluntary early retirement and voluntary separation
incentive payments on a permanent basis. GAO's regulations for
offering voluntary early retirement were issued on November 15,
2004. Since fiscal year 2002, GAO has held several early
retirement opportunities. To give the fullest consideration to
all interested employees, any employee may apply for
consideration when an early retirement opportunity is
announced, even if he or she does not meet the stated criteria.
The Comptroller General may also authorize early retirements
for applicants on the basis of the institutional needs of GAO
subject to certain statutory limits. The following table
summarizes data on the voluntary early retirement program.
SUMMARY DATA ON VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
Applications/Status of applications year year year year Total
2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants separated by voluntary early retirement................. 54 28 21 9 112
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment in section 2 also removed the December 31, 2003
sunset date on the CGA to offer voluntary separation incentive
payments. The voluntary separation incentive provision, which
is now permanent, has not yet been implemented by regulation.
The costs associated with voluntary separation incentives can
be considerable. GAO anticipates little, if any, use of this
authority because of the associated costs. For this reason, as
well as to avoid creating unrealistic employee expectations,
GAO has not developed and issued agency regulations to
implement this section of the act.
--Section 3 of the act amended 31 U.S.C. 732(c), which required GAO
employees' pay to be adjusted at the same time and to the same
extent as the General Schedule and instead authorizes the
Comptroller General to determine the amount of annual pay
adjustments subject to the factors enumerated in section 3.
Additionally, section 3 establishes a requirement that an
employee must be performing at a satisfactory level in order to
receive an annual pay adjustment.
The CGA under section 3 is effective for increases on or after
October 1, 2005. We are formulating strategies for determining
the appropriate methodology for establishing alternatives to
the annual adjustment and anticipate the issuance of
regulations prior to January 2006--the first opportunity for
the Comptroller General to exercise this authority. GAO Order
2500.1, Pay Administration in the GAO Regulations, was issued
January 4, 2005 and implemented the satisfactory performance
requirement for GAO's analysts and related specialist and
attorneys. These groups of employees have been covered by
validated competency-based appraisal systems for at least one
full appraisal cycle. The regulations provided for withholding
annual increases from any employee whose performance on any
competency was rated as below expectations. Our regulations
will be revised to make this requirement applicable to the
analysts and related specialists and attorneys prior to the
January 2006 annual adjustment. The administrative,
professional and support (APSS) staff were recently converted
to a pay for performance system. We are continuing to implement
components of the APSS system and have not yet determined the
methodology for establishing annual adjustments.
--Section 4 authorizes the Comptroller General to establish pay
retention regulations applicable to employees who are placed in
lower grades or bands as a result of workforce restructuring,
reclassification or other appropriate circumstances. Draft
regulations are currently under review. It is our intention to
complete the review and consultation process and implement this
section prior to January 2006.
--Section 6 authorizes GAO to provide increased annual leave to key
employees. After consultation, GAO Order 2630.1, Leave Policies
and Procedures, was issued for employee comment on December 29,
2004. These regulations contain a provision permitting
designated key employees with less than 3 years of federal
service to earn 6 hours of annual leave. The 45-day comment
period closed on February 14, 2005 and employees' comments are
being analyzed and will be considered by GAO's Executive
Committee before finalizing the regulations. We anticipate
finalization of the regulations and implementation of this
provision on or before June 1, 2005. In addition, in January
2005, we updated GAO Order 2317.1, GAO's Senior Executive
Service and Senior Level Positions, to allow senior executives
and senior level staff to accrue annual leave at the rate of 1
day for each full biweekly pay period without regard to the
length of their service with the federal government.
--Section 7 authorized GAO to establish an Executive Exchange
Program. Draft regulations implementing the Executive Exchange
Program were provided to employees for comment on January 31,
2005. The comment period closed on March 4, 2005 and review and
analysis of the comments is in process. We anticipate issuing
final regulations on or before June 1, 2005, and are
concurrently working on the operational implementation of the
program.
--Section 9 amended 31 U.S.C. 732(d) and incorporated additional
requirements for GAO's competency-based performance management
system. GAO's competency-based performance management system,
including its competency-based appraisal systems, addresses all
of these factors. However, we conduct an annual review and
assessment of our performance appraisal policies and processes
as part of ongoing continuous improvement of the system.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Allard. The subcommittee stands in recess until
Wednesday, April 27, when we will take testimony from the
Senate Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police Board. Thank you
very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., Tuesday, April 19, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 11 a.m., Wednesday,
April 27.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 11:02 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Allard and Durbin.
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. PICKLE, SERGEANT AT ARMS
AND DOORKEEPER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
LYNNE HALBROOKS, DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS
J. GREG HANSON, ASSISTANT SERGEANT AT ARMS AND CHIEF
INFORMATION OFFICER
CHUCK KAYLOR, ASSISTANT SERGEANT AT ARMS FOR SECURITY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
AL CONCORDIA, ASSISTANT SERGEANT AT ARMS FOR POLICE OPERATIONS
ESTHER GORDON, ASSISTANT SERGEANT AT ARMS FOR OPERATIONS
RICK EDWARDS, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT AND ASSISTANT SERGEANT
AT ARMS
NANCY ERICKSON, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order.
This morning we will be taking testimony on the fiscal year
2006 budget request for the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of
the Senate, the U.S. Capitol Police, and the Capitol Guide
Service.
We welcome our witnesses this morning. First we will hear
from the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, Bill
Pickle. Welcome.
Mr. Pickle. Thank you, sir.
Senator Allard. Fellow Coloradan, I might add. Mr. Pickle
is accompanied by his deputy, Lynne Halbrooks, and his Chief
Financial Officer, Chris Dey.
The Sergeant at Arms budget request totals $220 million, an
increase of $42 million, or 24 percent over the current year.
The Sergeant at Arms takes care of a wide assortment of needs
here in the Senate, ranging from ensuring our security;
processing our mail and ensuring its safety; providing us with
computers, Blackberries, and telephones; and carrying out
protocol responsibilities for visiting dignitaries.
The Sergeant at Arms' role has grown significantly since
September 11 to include many new security and emergency
preparedness activities. The Sergeant at Arms has accomplished
a great deal this year, from implementing better mail
processing protocols following the ricin attack last February,
to preparing for the Reagan state funeral.
Thank you for all your hard work and that of your staff,
Mr. Pickle.
Mr. Pickle. Thank you.
Senator Allard. For fiscal year 2006, a large part of the
increase SAA requests is associated with the need to replace
our 20-year-old telephone system here in the Senate. I
understand security needs also account for a significant
portion of the increase, as well as information technology
requirements.
Following the Sergeant at Arms, Mr. Pickle will put on his
hat as Chairman of the Capitol Police Board and he will be
joined by fellow board members, House Sergeant at Arms Bill
Livingood, and Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman, and the
Capitol Police Chief, Terry Gainer. So we are going to have
three panels. You will be the first panel, Mr. Pickle. You will
be one panel and then we are going to have the Police Board as
the second panel, and then the Guide Board will be the third
panel.
Mr. Pickle. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. All right. Now in reference to the Capitol
Police Board, the Board is requesting $290 million for the
Capitol Police, an increase of $59.7 million, or 26 percent
over the current year, excluding any supplemental funds which
may be provided in the bill which is pending in conference, of
course. The amount requested would enable the Capitol Police to
increase sworn officers by 122, for a total of 1,714.
Also, additional funds are needed to support new security
equipment and systems installed in recent years.
The Capitol Police are to be commended for all their hard
work recently in ensuring that the Presidential inauguration
went forward without incident.
Finally, we will again hear from Mr. Pickle, this time as
Chairman of the Capitol Guide Board, along with Mr. Livingood
and Mr. Hantman. Also present is Tom Stevens, the very capable
head of the Capitol Guide Service and a 20-year veteran of the
Guide Service.
The Board is requesting $4.1 million for the Guide service.
This is an increase of $254,000 over the current budget.
Before turning to my ranking member for his opening
statement let me say, as I have at the other legislative branch
hearings, that the increases being sought will be very tough to
accommodate, as you are probably well aware of. While they may
be meritorious, we may be left with no choice but to make
reductions to comply with the budget resolution.
So I ask each of you to consider carefully what your
highest priorities might be, and which projects might be
deferred, and whether you have looked at how to operate most
efficiently.
Having made those opening comments, we will now turn to
you, Mr. Pickle, and we will hear your testimony.
OPENING STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PICKLE
Mr. Pickle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
the opportunity to be here today. It is an honor to serve the
Senate along with the almost 900 people that we have on the
Sergeant at Arms staff. I have my senior staff with me today
and I would like to take just a moment to introduce them to
you, if I may.
Lynne Halbrooks is the Deputy Sergeant at Arms. Mr. Greg
Hanson is the Chief Information Officer and Assistant Sergeant
at Arms as well. Chuck Kaylor is the Assistant Sergeant at Arms
for Security and Emergency Preparedness. Al Concordia is the
Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Police Operations. Esther Gordon
is our newest Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Operations. Our
third statutory officer, Mr. Rick Edwards, is the
Administrative Assistant and Assistant Sergeant at Arms. And
finally and not least is Nancy Erickson, the Executive
Assistant, and she represents the Democratic leader.
We have made significant progress this year, and you
touched on some of that during your opening remarks. We have
many established plans to make this place continue to work
better. As you know, 9/11 changed much of what we do here. It
has changed dramatically, as many of you who have been here
much longer than I have realize.
As you indicated, in 2006 we are asking for $219,968,000.
This is a substantial increase, Mr. Chairman. It is 23 percent
more than our 2005 budget. I know it is a large increase. And I
know how you demand fiscal responsibility, and I know how this
subcommittee desires to keep spending down. But I think as we
go into the testimony, and especially our written testimony, if
we do not get into it in the questions, you will see that our
budget request is meritorious and will enable us to meet Senate
requirements. This request is not driven by me or my staff. It
is driven by the needs of the Senate.
The request will help us institutionalize many of the
changes that we have made since 9/11, since the anthrax attack
in 2001 and since the ricin attack last year. It will help us
to incorporate many of these changes into our normal business
practices.
We are a much more agile and flexible agency since 9/11. We
have been forced to become so. The leadership has been very
clear that security is its number one priority for my office,
and technology is right up there with it. It is demanded that
we provide state-of-the-art technology to the Senate. And that
is what we are working to do.
The changes that we have implemented in both regards really
ripple across the entire Sergeant at Arms organization. But
more importantly, they ripple across the entire Senate. Before
9/11, I would say less than 20 percent of the time spent by the
Office of the Sergeant at Arms was dedicated to security. Today
it is probably 50 percent. The large increase that you have
seen in FTEs since 2001 are almost all dedicated to technology
or security.
We do all we can to make this institution safe. And I think
your office, the subcommittees, and other offices realize that
and see it. We train. We train. We train. We equip. We equip.
We equip. And we try to make sure that people know what to do
in an emergency.
I am not talking about anything that is classified when I
say that we are a target. We realize we are a target. It is
arguable which is the number one target, the White House or the
Capitol. But we plan for the worst and we certainly hope for
the best. And that is our goal here, and that is why we have
such a large budget increase.
The other part of this budget increase, the
telecommunications systems which you alluded to, or the
telephone system, is a very important part of our budget. It is
one of these expenses that we pay now or we pay later.
As you know we have a 20-year-old telephone system. This
system technically could go on, I guess, for many years to
come. But it does not allow us the flexibility of using the
voice-over Internet protocol. It does not allow us to have more
flexibility with voice, data and video.
There is even a bigger part of this, which I am just going
to touch on, and that is security. The new telecommunications
system will provide a very important security benefit to the
Senate. It will provide redundancy, and in today's environment,
that is critical.
Now, can we implement this system in incremental steps?
Yes, we can. I know that funding is going to be tough to get,
and we will certainly work with Carrie Apostolou and do the
best we can to meet your needs and the subcommittee's needs,
but this project is important.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to belabor the point. I would
be happy to take questions. I have some more testimony I would
like to introduce for the record.
Senator Allard. Without objection, we will make your full
testimony a part of the record.
Mr. Pickle. Thank you. I would like to end my remarks,
however, by simply saying that I am so honored to represent the
almost 900 people who work for the Sergeant at Arms office.
When you look at the many hundreds of different types of
services we perform, some people say as many as a hundred
businesses. When you look at the job that these people do, it
is truly remarkable. They are dedicated. They are talented.
Many of them are with me here today. And I am so proud of them.
And I truly think that the taxpayers get their dollar's worth
out of these people who work for you here today. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Allard. Thank you for your comments. We appreciate
your testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of 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 2006, the Sergeant at Arms respectfully requests a
total budget of $219,968,000, an increase of $42,151,000 (or 23.7
percent) over the fiscal year 2005 budget. This request will allow us
to maintain the significant improvements and level of service we
provided the Senate community over the past year. It will also fund
several important initiatives including replacement of the Senate
telephone system, state-office security enhancements, and outfitting
the Senate space in the Capitol Visitor Center with furniture and
equipment. Appendix A, accompanying this testimony, elaborates the
specific components of our fiscal year 2006 budget request.
Last year I testified before this Committee and reported on our
progress in accomplishing two priorities: (1) ensuring the United
States Senate is as secure and prepared for any emergency as possible;
and (2) providing the Senate outstanding service and support, including
the enhanced use of technology. These priorities continue to guide my
office and we are moving forward in a number of crucial areas.
An outstanding senior management team leads the efforts of the
dedicated Sergeant at Arms staff. Until recently this team included
Deputy Sergeant at Arms J. Keith Kennedy, who chose to move to the
position of Chief of Staff of this esteemed Committee. We miss him, but
know that his skills already have served this Committee well. I have
tapped the very capable Lynne Halbrooks to take over as the Deputy
Sergeant at Arms in his stead. I look forward to a great tenure with
her. Lynne and I are joined by Administrative Assistant Rick Edwards,
Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and Emergency Preparedness
Chuck Kaylor, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Police Operations Al
Concordia, Assistant Sergeant at Arms and Chief Information Officer J.
Greg Hanson, and the newly appointed Assistant Sergeant at Arms for
Operations, Esther Gordon. The many accomplishments set forth in this
testimony would not have been possible without this team's leadership
and commitment.
major events of the past year
The Office of the Sergeant at Arms faced several challenges this
past year; some were planned, some were not. In particular, in 2004 we
faced the ricin attack in February, the Reagan funeral in June, the
transition to the 109th Congress beginning with the November elections,
and the recent Inauguration. I am pleased to report that the staff
performed capably and enabled the Senate to function effectively
throughout these events.
Ricin Attack.--The discovery of ricin in the Dirksen Senate Office
Building on February 2, 2004, tested the emergency planning we had
undertaken over the past several years. In response to the attack, SAA
staff coordinated our efforts with those of the United States Capitol
Police, the Committee on Rules and Administration, the Office of the
Secretary of the Senate, the Office of the Attending Physician, and
numerous other agencies and organizations to support Senate operations
while all three Senate Office Buildings were closed.
The incident prompted significant revisions to our mail testing
protocols and modifications to our mail processing facility. The SAA
Post Office staff adapted to working within a controlled environment
while wearing personal protective equipment. Over the past year, they
have opened, tested, and delivered over 12,500,000 articles of United
States Postal Service mail and over 68,500 packages. To accommodate
time-sensitive items addressed to Senate offices while maintaining the
Senate's safety, the Congressional Acceptance Site processed and
delivered over 98,000 items within our community from 3,200 couriers.
Reagan Funeral.--During the week beginning June 6, 2004, the United
States Capitol was the site of the first State Funeral since 1973. On
Wednesday, June 9, the remains of former President Ronald Wilson Reagan
arrived on the West Front of the Capitol by a horse-drawn caisson in a
formal military procession. I had the distinguished, yet somber, honor
of greeting Mrs. Reagan upon her arrival at the Capitol for the State
Funeral in the Rotunda.
The SAA staff played a key role in the preparations for this
national event and demonstrated tireless dedication to meeting the
Senate community's needs. The Capitol Facilities staff cleaned and set
up holding rooms, the Photography and Recording Studios captured the
event for historical purposes, and others provided behind-the-scenes
support. We also focused on protocol and security throughout the week.
The Executive Office staff coordinated attendance at the service in the
Capitol Rotunda with Senate offices, assisted the Senators and Officers
who participated in the program, and were responsible for the official
Senate delegation's attendance at the National Funeral Service that was
held at the Washington National Cathedral. The SAA security team had a
continuous presence in the Capitol Police Command Center, and helped
the Capitol Police, U.S. Secret Service, and other federal agencies
ensure that Washington, DC was safe. As a result, almost 105,000
mourners were able to pay their respects to the former President while
complying with the enhanced security measures added since the last
State Funeral.
Transition.--The SAA staff facilitated the transition to the new
Congress by equipping, staffing, and running the Transition Office for
newly elected Senators, and by moving and setting up equipment for
temporary and permanent office suites. They installed equipment in the
transition office space, and provided administrative and mail services,
as well as Web sites, documents, and placement services to facilitate
new Senators' entry to the Senate. The Office of Education and Training
assisted with in-depth training for new Senators, and provided training
to their Chiefs of Staff and to Administrative Managers.
Inauguration.--SAA staff also provided guidance on protocol,
created the Web site, recorded the video feeds, photographed the
events, produced documents and posters, helped set up the Capitol, and
developed and implemented the infrastructure, computers, telephones,
and applications to support the Inauguration. In addition, as part of
the Inaugural security team, which also included the Capitol Police,
the Metropolitan Police Department, the U.S. Secret Service, and the
Armed Forces, we put effective security measures into place that
enabled people to participate in Inaugural events, but also ensured
that the events were safe.
These examples are representative of how the staff of the SAA
serves the Senate. This dedication is often unnoticed, but I wanted to
let you know that it happens, even when there is no emergency.
continuing emphasis on security and preparedness
The Senate was in a heightened security posture for much of the
past year, starting with the increased threat levels of the 2003/2004
winter holiday season. In addition, the ricin attack in February,
President Reagan's funeral in June, the 2004 conventions, Senators'
campaigns, and the Inauguration all increased the demand on the SAA's
security team and the Capitol Police. These challenges reflect the new
reality of our security environment; we cannot and have not become
complacent in our approach to the security of the Senate. The Senate's
layered security strategy provides a framework that we use to address
security challenges. In implementing the strategy, we integrate good
intelligence, threat-driven protective measures, response capabilities,
comprehensive emergency plans, and an aggressive training and exercise
program to create comprehensive, Senate-wide security and preparedness.
I would like to highlight some of our security efforts for you.
The Senate Security Team
The Senate's security team includes the SAA Offices of Security and
Emergency Preparedness and of Police Operations, along with the U.S.
Capitol Police, the Secretary of the Senate, the Architect of the
Capitol, and other supporting agencies. Together, these groups provide
the Senate with a security team that is strong and well coordinated.
Senate Leadership, this Committee, and the Committee on Rules and
Administration are also strong and supportive members of this team.
Prevent and Protect
Threat Intelligence Sharing.--The Capitol Police exchange threat
intelligence information with the law enforcement and intelligence
communities. Along with the Capitol Police, SAA security experts
evaluate threats against Senators and certain visitors to the Capitol
area, and take appropriate measures to eliminate or mitigate those
threats.
Personal Safety
Security for Senators Who Participate in Foreign Congressional
Delegation (CODEL) Visits.--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 are developing policies and
procedures to implement this new authority.
Security for Senators at Special Events.--With the Capitol Police,
we have created a standard for assigning security resources to Senators
when they attend special events, whether the events occur on the
Capitol campus or out of town. Special events include public
appearances by Members in and out of Washington, DC, off-site
conferences and policy retreats that Members attend, and offsite
Committee hearings. This initiative allows us to align our efforts with
those of other law enforcement agencies and allocate resources to
ensure Members' safety and security.
Safety on the Capitol Campus
Mail, Packages, and Freight.--All mail and packages coming into the
Senate are tested, whether they come through the U.S. Postal Service or
from other delivery services. Last year, with guidance from our science
advisors and Senate Leadership, we improved our mail- and package-
testing and security procedures. With over a year of experience with
the improved procedures, I can report to you that they are working.
An outside contractor currently provides the Senate's testing and
processing service for mail and packages coming into the Senate, but
this year we will move this service in house and to a larger, less
costly (per square foot) facility. We expect this change to save the
Senate $250,000 annually.
In addition to mail testing and security procedures, we support the
efforts of the Capitol Police to screen vehicles and freight by using
technology, K-9 units, and officers. The Capitol Police will implement
new security measures when they construct and move into a new screening
facility.
Perimeter Security.--Significant progress has been made in our
perimeter security over this past year as we neared completion of
Capitol Square perimeter security measures and of the bollard line
along Constitution Avenue next to the Senate Office Buildings. In the
coming year, this work will continue on Capitol Square and around the
remainder of the Senate perimeter.
Vehicle Security.--The Capitol Police implemented vehicle-screening
checkpoints around the Capitol grounds last summer to counter the
threat of vehicle-borne explosives. In addition, Senate Leadership
closed First Street NE between D Street NE and Constitution Avenue,
based on the strong recommendation of the Capitol Police. Since then,
the Capitol Police periodically have modified the vehicle-screening
procedures in response to intelligence and threat information with the
goal of preventing vehicular attacks.
Other Initiatives.--The SAA is involved in a number of additional
ongoing projects that improve security, emergency response, and law
enforcement across the Capitol campus. We support the efforts of the
Capitol Police to enhance the physical security of the Senate Chamber,
improve their response to incidents reported in Senate buildings and on
the Capitol grounds, revise access control procedures for personnel and
vehicles, and activate a program of anti-terrorism measures.
Beyond Capitol Hill
State Office Security Enhancements.--Over two years ago, the SAA
began a security enhancement program for Member state offices. Since
the program started in late 2002, we have completed security
assessments of over 450 state offices and security enhancements for 60
offices. We are in the process of delivering enhancements to 150 more
offices. This accounts for all existing state offices, and we implement
procedures for assessing new offices as they open. We place the highest
priority on offices located in commercial properties, but we also have
strong relationships with the General Services Administration, the
Federal Protective Service, and the U.S. Marshals Service to support
offices in federal buildings.
Prepare
Our emergency preparedness plans and programs encompass emergency
procedures, office emergency planning, emergency equipment fielded
throughout the Senate, education and training programs, regular drills,
and exercises. Combined, these plans and programs provide the Senate
with the guidelines, equipment, and confidence to react effectively in
an emergency.
Evacuation Procedures.--The Senate's security team devoted much of
this past year to improving the Senate's emergency procedures, its
emergency procedures training, and its ability to notify staff. One
item of note is the implementation of evacuation procedures for
mobility-impaired staff and visitors. We implemented these procedures
during evacuation drills and worked with offices to provide equipment
and personal training to all mobility-impaired staff members and their
supporting buddy teams.
Emergency Equipment.--Over the past few years, the SAA fielded
emergency items, such as escape hoods and wireless annunciators,
throughout the Senate. This year we provided every Senate Member and
Committee Office with emergency supply kits that contain a variety of
emergency items. Over 18,000 items of emergency equipment were
distributed to Senate offices and throughout the Senate Office
Buildings. Last fall, an inventory of the Senate's emergency equipment
was conducted to account for all items and to ensure that they function
properly. I am pleased to report that Senate Offices have kept their
equipment current and accounted for; we believe this reflects the
importance offices place on their emergency equipment.
Planning Support.--To enhance support to Senate offices, we
recently published a guide for office security planning, the Roadmap to
Readiness. This document provides concise guidelines, tips, and
templates, and it directs offices to resources that can help them in
their security planning. We also established a presence for continuity
of operations, security, and emergency preparedness on Webster, the
Senate's intranet, and published a number of brochures on emergency
equipment and procedures.
We are working with a small number of state offices on training in
emergency preparedness and on exercising continuity of operations plans
to determine how best to support their needs. Our Web-based continuity
of operations planning tool is available to state offices, and we are
extending training resources and planning tools to help state office
staff improve their security awareness and emergency plans.
Practice
Training and Education.--In the past year, SAA staff conducted over
300 security-related training sessions for Senate offices and staff. We
delivered 53 training sessions, including general training courses on
escape hoods and Office Emergency Coordinator training, and seminars on
personal preparedness and the District of Columbia's evacuation plans.
These courses and seminars are part of the regular Office of Education
and Training curriculum. Over 250 additional training sessions to
smaller groups on specialized security topics were also delivered.
Additionally, we offer in-office training on sensitive or office-
specific topics and consulting to office staff on preparing emergency
action plans and continuity of operations plans. These training and
education efforts complement the training offered by the Office of the
Attending Physician on First Aid and CPR and that offered by the
Capitol Police on security awareness.
Exercise Program.--Together with the Secretary of the Senate and
other legislative branch agencies, we have established an aggressive
plan to rehearse our emergency plans and procedures throughout the
year. Our exercises range from quarterly evacuation drills and monthly
communications tests to full-scale exercises of relocation sites
involving transportation, special communications equipment, and staff.
An aggressive exercise agenda for the coming year includes joint
exercises with the House of Representatives.
Our training and exercise program has enabled the Senate to respond
effectively to emergencies twice in the past four years. The exercise
program ensures that we continue to rehearse, evaluate, and improve our
plans and procedures.
The SAA's Office of Police Liaison and Office of Security and
Emergency Preparedness focus on improving our security environment and
the readiness of the Senate every day. With the support of Senate
Leadership, this Committee, and the Committee on Rules and
Administration, we continue to improve the Senate's security
capabilities.
information technology
The Office of the Sergeant at Arms places special emphasis on using
technologies to deliver security, emergency preparedness, service, and
support to the United States Senate. The SAA's CIO organization
executes our strategic information technology plan to accomplish these
goals.
I want to take a minute to thank Assistant Sergeant at Arms and
Chief Information Officer J. Greg Hanson for the vision and dedication
with which, over the past two years, he has transformed our already
fine Information Technology group into a group that offers best-in-
class service and support. Greg ensures that we consistently provide
the Senate with state-of-the-art technology and service, and he has
taken a personal interest in his customers. Because of this, Greg was
named to this year's Federal 100, the one hundred top executives from
government, industry, and academia who had the greatest impact on the
government information systems community in 2004. Congratulations,
Greg.
Over the past year, our most significant accomplishments in the
information technology area include:
--Completion of a state-of-the-art alternate computing facility for
continuity of operations and continuity of government;
--A 13 percent improvement in customer satisfaction, exceeding our
internal goal of 10 percent;
--Implementation of a robust information security awareness program
that includes enterprise technology tools, enhanced
communication, and technical training;
--Cost avoidance of at least $2 million by developing an information
technology strategic plan, a comprehensive technology level
matrix, and a state-of-the-art application for tracking
information technology projects and issues; and,
--An enhanced ability to evaluate and deliver technology solutions to
the Senate through teamwork and collaboration with Member
Offices, Committees, and steering groups.
Information Technology--The Road Ahead
Last year's testimony stated, ``Information technology is crucial
to security in the Senate and to the Senate's ability to accomplish its
day-to-day activities. With a strong emphasis on providing advanced
technology capabilities and outstanding customer support to the Senate,
the SAA is adopting a comprehensive approach to delivering technology
solutions and services.'' This year we are delivering on these goals
with a strategic information technology plan that aligns with the
Senate's business requirements. The plan, titled An IT Vision for
Security, Customer Service, and Teamwork at the United States Senate
(or Senate IT Vision) is found in Appendix B of this testimony. The
Senate IT Vision sets forth: Our strategic technology vision; our
strategic technology mission; our core values and guiding principles;
and, five broad information technology strategic goals for the next two
years.
The strategic information technology vision is to deliver state-of-
the-art information technology that directly supports efficient,
effective, secure legislative action, communication, and constituent
service through our infrastructure, processes, and talented workforce.
This vision stresses the importance of collaboration and teamwork in
delivering information technology services and solutions.
The strategic mission, which supports the vision, is to leverage
technology so the Senate can function efficiently and effectively to
serve the American people under any circumstance. We are developing a
technology team composed of staff members from my office, Member and
Committee offices, and other Senate offices to work together to provide
technology options, solutions, and world-class customer service so the
Senate can accomplish its mission.
The core values and guiding principles in the strategic plan define
the CIO organization's culture and ensure that it aligns with the
Senate's business priorities. The values and principles emphasize
people, teamwork, leadership, and a relentless pursuit of
organizational excellence so we can deliver information technology that
meets the Senate's requirements quickly and effectively.
The five strategic information technology goals and their
supporting objectives drive all our information technology programmatic
and budgetary decisions. The five strategic goals are:
--1. Secure. A secure Senate information infrastructure.
--2. Customer Service Focused. A customer-service culture top-to-
bottom.
--3. Effective. Information technology solutions driven by business
requirements.
--4. Accessible, Flexible & Reliable. Access to mission-critical
information anywhere, anytime, under any circumstance.
--5. Modern. A state-of-the-art information infrastructure built on
modern, proven technologies.
The five objectives encompass broad-based security, customer
service, and emerging technology initiatives. The objectives complement
the vision and mission, which directly tie all information technology
activities to the business of the Senate. Our accomplishments this past
year reflect the notable progress we have already made in achieving the
five objectives.
Security and Continuity Communications
Alternate Sites.--This year, the SAA technology staff completed the
information infrastructure that will enable us to replicate all the
systems housed at the Senate's Washington, DC primary computing
facility to the alternate computing facility (ACF). Together with the
Architect of the Capitol, we upgraded the physical infrastructure of
the ACF by adding a fully redundant backup power system and increasing
the ACF's primary power capacity. We have also completed and tested all
mission-critical information systems, and they can be live within a
matter of hours. During the upcoming year, we will add a satellite-
communications ground station to the ACF, and we plan to offer expanded
replication and backup capabilities if the Architect of the Capitol
purchases the facility.
We will expand the storage area network this year to accommodate
increased traffic from the enterprise Active Directory and Messaging
Architecture (ADMA) systems and from new replication options that we
are offering to Senate Committee and Leadership Offices. We completed
fiber connectivity to the primary alternate chamber site, systems to
support the Sergeant at Arms and Secretary of the Senate Emergency
Operations Centers and Briefing Centers, and the extension of the
communications infrastructure to backup locations.
Contingency Communications.--A comprehensive array of
communications systems and options enable us to communicate under any
circumstance. This year, we tested new communications technology for
connectivity between the Senate's primary computing facility and a
Briefing Center at another location. In addition, both of the state-of-
the-art communications vehicles mentioned in last year's testimony have
passed initial acceptance testing and have moved into the final
acceptance testing phases.
This year, we will complete the in-building wireless
infrastructure, which will improve signal strength for the major
cellular telephone and BlackBerry service carriers. With this
infrastructure, the Senate will have coverage in areas where it was
previously poor or nonexistent and Senate staff can connect to their
offices via wireless remote computing. The system will substantially
pay for itself because the carriers are paying us for the right to use
it.
The technology and security groups collaborated during the past
year to improve the Senate's overall security. The two groups created a
specialized emergency communications unit with personnel from both
offices who gather requirements and translate them into integrated,
highly reliable systems. One result of this partnership is a system for
Office Emergency Coordinators that we are now moving from prototype to
production. In an emergency, the system provides the ability to account
for Senate staff using wireless tablet computers.
Securing Our Information Infrastructure.--This year, we witnessed
new, more sophisticated methods of attack with more severe
consequences. In response, we enhanced and strengthened our defense-in-
depth approach to network and computer security over the past year. We
continue to see great success in the enterprise-wide anti-virus
program, with almost 10,000 desktop anti-virus suites installed. We
perform intrusion detection in house, and we have executed a contract
to augment our capabilities. The contract helped us contain a
particularly insidious Randex virus attack. Our information security
group coordinates with other outside federal agencies to ensure we have
the most up-to-date information and techniques for combating threats to
our information infrastructure. These efforts are part of the defense-
in-depth strategy that protects the Senate's infrastructure and reaches
from the software running on Senate desktops to the edge of our
networks.
In the first three months of 2005, nearly 4 million viral events
have been detected, and nearly 99 percent of them were automatically
blocked from infecting Senate machines. Our security processes are
reducing the number of infections per computer per day. In spite of the
fact that the threat environment is getting worse with more malevolent
viruses and worms, it is rare that a Senate computer is infected.
In addition, we introduced a software update services program to
help offices protect themselves from virus and worm attacks. In
participating offices, the program automatically installs patches on
the offices' computers, once we have certified that the patches will
not adversely affect Senate systems.
Next year, we will build and begin operating a comprehensive
security operations center that will monitor the security of Senate
information systems and detect and combat viruses and other computer-
based attacks. We will continue to coordinate with Leadership
Organizations, Committees, and groups such as the Joint Security Best
Policies and Practices Working Group to develop security training,
policy, and information security processes.
Customer Service
The SAA continues to measure how well we meet the Senate's
technology needs. Our second annual CIO Customer Satisfaction survey
revealed a 13 percent overall improvement against a goal of 10 percent.
In addition, we saw improvements in every category, with some
categories up by as much as 26 percent. Our customer satisfaction
action plan stresses strong communication and relationships,
introducing modern technology faster, and providing offices options and
choices of products, solutions, and services.
Customer Service, Satisfaction, and Communications.--We maintain a
comprehensive outreach and communication program with information
technology newsletters, quarterly project status reviews, participation
in the Majority Leader's Information Technology Working Group, and
joint monthly project and policy meetings with the Committee on Rules
and Administration, the Senate System Administrators Association, and
the Administrative Managers' Working Group.
In addition to conducting an annual comprehensive survey, we
monitor our service every day. After service calls, we send customers
satisfaction surveys. We track survey results and evaluate them for
service-level-agreement trends. We discuss the results in weekly
business process and technology review meetings that staff, support
contractors, and customers all attend. This past year our help desk
contractor consistently posted customer satisfaction results at or
above 95 percent and the telecommunications support staff posted
customer satisfaction results at 98 percent.
Business Applications.--This past year, we renewed Senate contracts
that provide research services and resources for Senate offices. We
also replaced the old Senate News Wire with a state-of-the-art, real-
time, NewsWatch service; outfitted the financial management system
supporting the Secretary of the Senate's Disbursing Office with a Web-
based interface; and completed new SAA Human Resources and Senate
Employee Assistance Program Web sites.
Later this year we will complete a prototype services portal that
we are developing in conjunction with Senate Leadership and the
Committee on Rules and Administration. The prototype will serve as a
modern platform for launching many new Web-based applications Senate-
wide.
In preparation for modernizing and expanding our constituent
correspondence management systems, we started gathering formal
requirements from offices last summer. We will complete the
requirements analysis this year, and anticipate recompeting the
correspondence management system contracts in fiscal year 2006.
Enhanced Communications and Infrastructure.--Several information
technology projects enhance communications within and between Senate
offices. An improved network infrastructure features 100 Mbps of
connectivity for desktop and 1 Gbps connectivity between servers. The
enterprise fax program replaces stand-alone fax machines with an
integrated, server-based fax system that eliminates paper.
Increased frame relay bandwidth to the state offices supports video
teleconferencing and data replication. The Senate video
teleconferencing program, with nearly 300 installed endpoints Senate-
wide, allows staffs in Washington, DC offices to conduct video
conferences with state offices and other remote locations.
The Senate Telecommunications Modernization Program is a
comprehensive, multi-year project to replace the Senate telephone
system with a state-of-the-art telecommunications system that will take
advantage of the convergence of voice, data, and video traffic on a
single network. The convergence will provide new services, reduce the
cost of existing services, and eliminate single-points-of-failure in
the telephone system. We expect to start implementation in fiscal year
2006.
We also anticipate completion of the enterprise tape backup system
this fiscal year. The system runs over our storage area network, and it
already automatically backs up over fifty servers located in our
primary computing facility.
In addition, the Senate is now the employer of all Capitol Exchange
Operators. The staff of the Capitol Exchange serves both the Senate and
the House of Representatives, but as of March 1, 2005, they are all
employees of the Senate. This change will increase efficiency and
establish a unified team with common management, benefits, policies,
and practices.
Modern Technology Aligned With Business Processes
Process Management & Innovation.--This year, we established a
Process Management & Innovation organization that aligns our
information technology, strategies, and solutions with Senate business
processes. This staff is responsible for technology infusion and for
tracking relevant emerging technologies against the Senate's
information technology requirements. Part of this effort is the Senate
Emerging Technology Conference and Exhibition Program that shows new
technologies and concepts to Senate staff. The two conferences held
last year featured knowledge management, communications, and
information technology best practices. The first-ever emerging
technologies exposition displayed new, inexpensive products for
consideration by Senate offices. We held the latest Senate Emerging
Technology Conference and Exposition on April 14, 2005, and it featured
new information security technologies and products.
Modern Information Technology Processes and Performance Metrics.--
In order to deliver new technologies quickly and efficiently, we
created system development processes tailored to the Senate's needs.
These processes form the foundation of a state-of-the-art project and
issue management tracking system called the Dashboard. The Dashboard is
a Web-based tool that we use to monitor and maintain the status of all
information technology projects. The tool is useful for both management
and communications. Next year, we will give our customers access to
parts of the Dashboard so they can track projects and issues. The next
phase of the Dashboard, which we will implement later this year, will
track performance of key infrastructure components and mission-critical
systems. Completion of the next phase will enable us to track all
information technology initiatives.
operational support
The commitment to exceptional customer service is a hallmark of the
Sergeant at Arms organization and the cornerstone of our operational
support. The groups that make up our Operations team continue to
provide exceptional customer service and support 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. This past year, we improved our customer
service by implementing three major initiatives:
--Performance Management Process.--We implemented a performance
management process that helps Capitol Facilities management and
staff improve their job performance each year. Using this
process, we have been able to improve communication within
Capitol Facilities and increase the quality of service we
deliver to our customers.
--Work Order System.--We implemented a Work Order System that tracks
requests and automatically sends them to supervisors for
immediate scheduling and completion. The system enables
Facilities staff to respond to requests promptly, and provides
management better information on the resources required to
fulfill requests.
--Computer-Aided Design.--In our Furniture and Furnishings shop, we
invested in a Computer-Aided Design, or CAD system. The system
serves as a database of construction drawings of historical
furniture. This information enables us to reduce the amount of
time needed to create custom-built furniture for Capitol
offices.
We undertook these three initiatives because we will soon have a
significantly larger area to maintain, and we need a more efficient way
to manage the workload of the Capitol Facilities staff. Specifically,
the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center will add 66,500 square feet
of Senate space to the responsibilities of the Capitol Facilities
group: 41,000 square feet of office space, 8,000 square feet of meeting
space, and 17,500 square feet of other space. Compared to their current
obligations, the Environmental Services Division will clean and
maintain almost one-third more office space and three times more
meeting space, and the Furnishings Division will need to furnish over
50 percent more office and meeting space.
Employee Assistance Program
Over the past year we have enhanced and expanded our Employee
Assistance Program. The program supports staff across the Senate. It
improves supervisors' ability to manage troubled employees, enhance the
work environment, and improve employee job performance. It helps
employees find the resources they need to address some of the personal
challenges they face every day. It also coordinates with Security staff
to train people on reacting to emergencies and to ensure that processes
are in place to deal with emergencies.
Photo Studio
We completed the Photo Studio's transition to an entirely digital
operation. With the new photo browser database, Senate staff can use
their desktop computers to place orders, download high-resolution
images, e-mail images, and track the progress of their orders online.
Staff members from more than 110 Senate offices use the new system,
which can make digital images available within hours, when necessary.
This system has improved our service to our customers and increased
their satisfaction.
Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail
During the past five years in Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail,
our capital investments and process improvements have enabled us to
increase production by over 54 percent with 12 percent fewer staff.
During fiscal year 2004, we provided guidance to Members' staffs on
addressing outgoing mail in a format that took full advantage of
postage discounts. As a result, offices saved over $2.2 million in
postage expenses.
We also implemented a Web-based system that archives and manages
documents for Senate offices. The system enables Senate staff members
to search, view, and print documents from their desktops. In its first
eight months of operation, we used the system to scan nearly one
million documents for offices.
Finally, we are moving forward on a new warehouse facility. SAA
staff identified a site and they are working with the Architect's
office to create an effective space for the Senate. The building's
shell is complete, and we are planning the interior. The lease was
approved and signed, and we expect the build-out to be completed by
September of this year. The new facility will provide considerable
security and operating benefits to the Senate.
Recording Studio
The Recording Studio records the activity on the Senate floor and
Committee hearings, and it provides a production studio and rental
equipment. Last year, it recorded all 1,034 hours and 31 minutes of
Senate Floor proceedings, and 593 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 implemented audio upgrades in three hearing rooms,
SR-332, SR-301, and SD-106. Three more are scheduled for this calendar
year. The 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 project also includes system diagnostic monitoring and
redundancy that enable Recording Studio staff to detect and resolve
problems. For example, if a Member is speaking at a relatively low
volume, the system can automatically raise the volume of that
microphone; if a Member forgets to turn on a microphone before
speaking, the Committee clerk can turn it on remotely.
The project's video upgrades add broadcast-quality television
cameras on robotic systems to Committee Rooms, and cabinetry to conceal
the cameras when they are not in use. The cameras can be remotely
controlled from the Recording Studio. Once this project is completed,
the Recording Studio will be able to broadcast more Committee hearings
while simultaneously maintaining production capabilities in the
television studios.
Chamber Proceedings and News Programming Browsing System.--For
years, the Senate has had the ability to search Chamber proceedings by
text and listen to audio playback from desktop computers; in fact, we
were a pioneer in this area, and accomplished it in the early years of
computer browsers. As a major advance, we will replace our audio and
text browsing systems with a state-of-the-art audio/text/video browsing
system that will enable Senate staff to search and play back Chamber
proceedings and news programming from any computer on the Senate LAN.
This browsing system is the result of a modernization of our
technical plan for the Senate Recording Studio that incorporates
technology so new that it is operational in only a handful of
facilities in the country. This new technology will enable the
Recording Studio to record, edit, and play proceedings and programming
without ever using tape machines. It will make the information
available for simultaneous online searching and streaming.
Education and Training
The Office of Education and Training provides employee training and
development opportunities for all Senate staff in Washington, DC and in
the states. The Technical Training group provides technical training
support for approved software packages through instructor-led classes,
one-on-one coaching sessions, specialized vendor-provided training,
computer-based training, and informal training and support services.
The Professional Training group delivers courses on management and
leadership development, human resources issues and staff benefits,
legislative and staff information, and new staff and intern
information. The Health Promotion group offers seminars, classes, and
screening on health-related and wellness issues, and it coordinates one
annual Health Fair for all Senate employees and four annual blood
drives.
This year, we will be undertaking an outside assessment of our
training program to ensure we are meeting the needs of the Senate
community.
Training Classes.--The Education and Training group offered 581
classes in 2004, with 5,252 Senate employees taking advantage of these
classes and the registration desk handling 20,467 requests for training
and documentation.
Of the above total, the technical training group offered 265
classes to 1,093 staff members, and provided coaching on various
software packages and other computer-related subjects to 702 staff
members. The professional development area offered 316 classes to 4,159
students, and delivered 40 special training and team building sessions
to Members and Committees. 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 via video
teleconferencing to two state offices; we plan to continue this
practice. In the Health promotion area, 1,310 staff members
participated in the Annual Health Fair held in September, and 708
participated in Health Promotion activities throughout the year,
including cancer screening, bone density screening, and seminars on
health-related topics.
Together, the Office of Education and Training and the Office of
Security and Emergency Preparedness provide security training for
Senate staff. They delivered 53 sessions of Escape Hood and other
security related training to 1,683 Senate staff in 2004.
State Training.--Most of the classes we offer are practical only
for Washington, DC-based staff, but we are expanding our offerings to
state office staff through the State Training Fair, which began in
March 2000. In 2004, we offered two sessions of this program to state
staff, and conducted our annual State Directors Forum for the second
year. The ``Virtual Classroom,'' an internet-based training library of
over 300 courses, also enables state office staff to take advantage of
the Senate's training resources; 396 staff members from state offices
and Washington, DC have taken advantage of this training option.
conclusion
The SAA staff provides consistent service, and their dedication is
evident in the number of years people stay with the organization. Last
year, we had 5 people celebrate 30 years with the SAA, 10 people
celebrate 25 years, and 23 people celebrate 20 years. These are
talented people who have devoted their skills to the Senate.
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 photo studio records historic events,
takes official Senate portraits, provides the whole range of Capitol
photography services, and delivered thousands of pictures last year
alone. The SAA's printing shop provides layout and design, graphics
development, and production of everything from newsletters to floor
charts; last year, it printed 13,067,071 sheets of color printing (a
300 percent increase over the 2003 volume), and it produced 8,521 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 work 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 answer questions.
attachment i.--financial plan for fiscal year 2006
office of the sergeant at arms--united states senate
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Percent
Year 2005 Year 2006 Amount Increase/
Budget Request Decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries................................................... $50,635 $57,743 $7,108 14.0
Expenses................................................... $55,725 $67,423 $11,698 21.0
------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance................... $106,360 $125,166 $18,806 17.7
================================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments............................... $53,714 $56,452 $2,738 5.1
Capital Investment............................................. $13,453 $34,399 $20,946 155.7
Nondiscretionary Items......................................... $4,290 $3,951 ($339) -7.9
------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................................................... $177,817 $219,968 $42,151 23.7
================================================
Staffing....................................................... 875 893 18 2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that we provide the highest levels and quality of
security, support services and equipment, we submit a fiscal year 2006
budget request of $219,968,000, an increase of $42,151,000 or 23.7
percent compared to fiscal year 2005. The salary budget request is
$57,743,000, an increase of $7,108,000 or 14.0 percent, and the expense
budget request is $162,225,000, an increase of $35,043,000 or 27.6
percent. The staffing request is 893, an increase of 18 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
$57,743,000, an increase of $7,108,000 or 14.0 percent compared to
fiscal year 2005. The salary budget increase is due to the addition of
18 FTEs, a 3.9 percent COLA, and merit funding. The additional staff
will augment our security team, improve operations, expand services,
and meet new requirements for the Senate community.
The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request for
existing and new services is $67,423,000, an increase of $11,698,000 or
21.0 percent compared to fiscal year 2005. Major factors contributing
to the expense budget increase are emergency preparedness in security
operations and planning, $4,572,000; price adjustments and annual
escalations in the IT support contract, $3,281,000; increased cost of
expanded intrusion detection monitoring services and software,
$1,075,000; contract renewal expenses of Senate Information Services
(SIS) contracts, $303,000; and upgrade of data center equipment in
Postal Square, $177,000.
The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
$56,452,000, an increase of $2,738,000 or 5.1 percent compared to
fiscal year 2005. This variance is primarily due to an increase in
state office security enhancements of $3,600,000, offset by decreases
in telecommunications and state office lease costs.
The capital investment budget request is $34,399,000, an increase
of $20,946,000 or 155.7 percent compared to fiscal year 2005. The
fiscal year 2006 budget request includes funds for equipment purchases
and implementation of the replacement of the telephone system,
$20,950,000; the multimedia equipment for the CVC, $3,700,000;
replacement of printing production equipment, $2,712,000; CVC Senate
Expansion Space furniture and equipment, $2,500,000; data network
engineering, $1,346,000; CMS redesign, $1,000,000; and the Network
Upgrade project, $971,000.
The nondiscretionary items budget request is $3,951,000, a decrease
of $339,000 or 7.9 percent compared to fiscal year 2005. The request
funds three projects that support the Secretary of the Senate: contract
maintenance for the Financial Management Information System (FMIS),
$2,996,000; maintenance and necessary enhancements to the Legislative
Information System (LIS), $865,000; and maintenance and enhancements to
the Senate Payroll System, $90,000.
attachment ii.--fiscal year 2006 budget request by department
The following is a summary of the SAA fiscal year 2006 budget
request on an organizational basis.
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Percent
Year 2005 Year 2006 Amount Increase/
Budget Request Decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Division................................................ $18,636 $31,898 $13,262 71.2
Operations...................................................... $56,269 $56,507 $238 0.4
Technology Development.......................................... $37,137 $41,370 $4,233 11.4
IT Support Services............................................. $55,343 $77,507 $22,164 40.0
Staff Offices................................................... $10,432 $12,686 $2,254 21.6
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... $177,817 $219,968 $42,151 23.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each department's budget is presented and discussed in detail on
the next pages.
CAPITOL DIVISION
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Percent
Year 2005 Year 2006 Amount Increase/
Budget Request Decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries.................................................... $12,816 $14,797 $1,981 15.5
Expenses.................................................... $5,820 $9,801 $3,981 68.4
-----------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance.................... $18,636 $24,598 $5,962 32.0
===============================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments................................ $0 $3,600 $3,600 100.0
Capital Investment.............................................. $0 $3,700 $3,700 100.0
Nondiscretionary Items.......................................... $0 $0 $0 ..........
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... $18,636 $31,898 $13,262 71.2
===============================================
Staffing........................................................ 271 273 2 0.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Capitol Division consists of the Executive Office, the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness, the
U.S. Capitol Police Operations Liaison, Post Office, Recording Studio and Media Galleries.
The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
$14,797,000, an increase of $1,981,000 or 15.5 percent. The salary
budget increase is due to the addition of two FTEs, COLA and merit
increases and other adjustments. The Office of Security and Emergency
Preparedness requires an additional emergency preparedness planner, and
the Recording Studio will add a broadcast production assistant.
The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
$9,801,000, an increase of $3,981,000 or 68.4 percent, and will
primarily will fund security consultants and services required by the
Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness and the United States
Capitol Police Liaison.
The mandated allowances and allotments budget request for state
office security initiatives is $3,600,000.
The capital investment budget request is $3,700,000, for the
Recording Studio purchase of multimedia equipment for the CVC.
OPERATIONS
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Percent
Year 2005 Year 2006 Amount Increase/
Budget Request Decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries................................................... $14,901 $16,897 $1,996 13.4
Expenses................................................... $5,717 $6,026 $309 5.4
------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance................... $20,618 $22,923 $2,305 11.2
================================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments............................... $28,251 $28,002 ($249) -0.9
Capital Investment............................................. $7,400 $5,582 ($1,818) -24.6
Nondiscretionary Items......................................... $0 $0 $0 ..........
------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................................................... $56,269 $56,507 $238 0.4
================================================
Staffing....................................................... 294 302 8 2.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Operations Division consists of the Central Operations Group (Director/Management, Parking & ID 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
$16,897,000, an increase of $1,996,000 or 13.4 percent. The salary
budget increase is due to the addition of 8 FTEs. These increases will
fund three Parking & ID Office FTEs: administrative support and two
additional parking attendants due to the increased demands to address
security and enforcement. Printing, Graphics & Direct Mail will add
four FTEs: two archival technicians to prepare documents for scanning,
one production data specialist to scan documents, and an Operations
Manager for our primary printing facility. The Photo Studio expects to
add one photographer.
The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
$6,026,000, an increase of $309,000 or 5.4 percent.
The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
$28,002,000, a decrease of $249,000 or 0.9 percent. This decrease is
due to projected decreases in commercial and federal office rents.
The capital investment budget request is $5,582,000, a decrease of
$1,818,000 or 24.6 percent. Funding is provided to replace printing and
production equipment in $2,712,000 and furnish and equip the Senate
Expansion Space, $2,500,000, as well as several smaller initiatives.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Percent
Year 2005 Year 2006 Amount Increase/
Budget Request Decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries................................................... $10,470 $12,004 $1,534 14.7
Expenses................................................... $19,649 $22,948 $3,299 16.8
------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance................... $30,119 $34,952 $4,833 16.0
================================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments............................... $0 $0 $0 ..........
Capital Investment............................................. $2,728 $2,467 ($261) -9.6
Nondiscretionary Items......................................... $4,290 $3,951 ($339) -7.9
------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................................................... $37,137 $41,370 $4,233 11.4
================================================
Staffing....................................................... 127 134 7 5.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
$12,004,000, an increase of $1,534,000 or 14.7 percent. The salary
budget increase is due to the addition of seven FTEs, an expected COLA,
and merit funding for fiscal year 2006. Technology Development Services
requires seven FTEs to replace more costly contract personnel and to
eliminate a growing backlog of development projects.
The general operations and maintenance expense budget request is
$22,948,000, an increase of $3,299,000 or 16.8 percent. Major factors
contributing to this increase are increased costs of expanded intrusion
detection services and software, $1,075,000; increased costs of
applications supporting the Office of Security and Emergency
Preparedness, $715,000; and enhancements to the Asset Management
System, $700,000.
The capital investment budget request is $2,467,000, a decrease of
$261,000 or 9.6 percent. Major on-going projects include the Data
Network Engineering, $1,346,000, and Network Upgrade Project, $971,000.
The nondiscretionary items budget request is $3,951,000, a decrease
of $339,000 or 7.9 percent. The request consists of three projects that
support the Secretary of the Senate: contract maintenance for the
Financial Management Information System (FMIS), maintenance and
necessary enhancements to the Legislative Information System (LIS), and
maintenance and enhancements to the Senate Payroll System.
IT SUPPORT SERVICES
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Percent
Year 2005 Year 2006 Amount Increase/
Budget Request Decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries................................................... $5,198 $5,819 $621 11.9
Expenses................................................... $21,607 $24,663 $3,056 14.1
------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance................... $26,805 $30,482 $3,677 13.7
================================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments............................... $25,463 $24,850 ($613) -2.4
Capital Investment............................................. $3,075 $22,175 $19,100 621.1
Nondiscretionary Items......................................... .......... .......... ........... ..........
------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................................................... $55,343 $77,507 $22,164 40.0
================================================
Staffing....................................................... 89 89 ........... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
$5,819,000, an increase of $621,000 or 11.9 percent. The salary budget
increase is due to an expected 3.9 percent COLA and merit funding for
fiscal year 2006.
The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
$24,663,000, an increase of $3,056,000 or 14.1 percent. The most
significant factors contributing to this increase are expanded services
and annual escalations in the IT Support Contract.
The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
$24,850,000, a decrease of $613,000 or 2.4 percent. Major factors
contributing to this budget request are voice and data communications
for Washington D.C. and state offices, $17,937,000; procurement and
maintenance of Members' constituent mail systems, $4,255,000;
procurement and maintenance of office equipment for Washington D.C. and
state offices, $2,857,000; and Appropriations Analysis and Reporting
System, $100,000.
The capital investment budget request is $22,175,000, an increase
of $19,064,000 or 315.0 percent consisting primarily of equipment
purchases for the replacement of the Capitol Hill telephone system,
$20,950,000. This major project will fund procurement, implementation
and documentation, and support the replacement or upgrade of systems as
identified in the Telecom Modernization study conducted in fiscal year
2004 and fiscal year 2005.
STAFF OFFICES
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Percent
Year 2005 Year 2006 Amount Increase/
Budget Request Decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries.................................................... $7,250 $8,226 $976 13.5
Expenses.................................................... $2,932 $3,985 $1,053 35.9
-----------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance.................... $10,182 $12,211 $2,029 19.9
===============================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments................................ .......... .......... .......... ..........
Capital Investment.............................................. $250 $475 $225 90.0
Nondiscretionary Items.......................................... .......... .......... .......... 100.0
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... $10,432 $12,686 $2,254 21.6
===============================================
Staffing........................................................ 94 95 1 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
$8,226,000, an increase of $976,000 or 13.5 percent. The salary budget
increase is due to the addition of one FTE, an expected 3.9 percent
COLA, and merit funding for fiscal year 2006. Financial Management in
Staff Offices will add one FTE to operate and maintain the document
management and archive system for the department.
The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
$3,985,000, an increase of $1,053,000 or 35.9 percent. This increase in
funding results from Financial Management's funding for consultant
expenses in support of developing, documenting and maintaining adequate
procedures and controls, and PMI's professional services and
consultants in order to support information technology prototypes and
innovation research and development.
The capital investment budget request is $475,000, an increase of
$225,000 or 90.0 percent. This increase is due to two projects: the Web
Infrastructure Expansion and Video Conferencing Enhancements.
united states senate information technology strategic plan 2005-2007:
an it vision for security, customer service and teamwork at the united
states senate
united states senate sergeant at arms, office of the chief information
officer
A state-of-the-art United States Senate information technology
organization that directly supports efficient, effective, secure
legislative action, communication, and constituent service through its
infrastructure, processes, and talented workforce
introduction
Developing a strategic information technology plan for a
decentralized organization such as the United States Senate poses
interesting challenges. The Senate consists of one hundred Senators
(Members), twenty-four committees, and fourteen officers, leadership
and support organizations, each with unique needs. Yet, the Senate must
function as a legislative body under any circumstances. Political
aspects also provide a unique environment for developing systems,
solutions, and infrastructure.
Unique Challenges and Opportunities.--Membership changes and the
decentralized nature of the Senate result in a great variety of
requirements. Within the context of satisfying the Members' individual
business needs and ensuring efficient, effective, and enduring
operation of the institutional Senate, the challenges include:
--Developing coherent requirements and managing customer
expectations;
--Providing an information infrastructure for continuity of
operations (COOP) and continuity of government (COG);
--Protecting the information infrastructure from internal and
external threats;
--Providing an agile, customer-focused, information technology
organization that is aligned with Senate business requirements;
--Realizing economies of scale associated with ``enterprise''
solutions while respecting the unique posture of each office
and being responsible stewards of American taxpayers' dollars;
--Keeping the Senate ``on top'' of the rapidly-evolving ``technology
curve'';
--Dealing with issues of information and data privacy and
confidentiality; and
--Effective strategic planning--gaining consensus from all the
stakeholders.
Though the institution is decentralized there are common business
requirements that drive high-level functional requirements.
A Common Business Model.--Senate offices share basic business
goals: (1) Efficient, effective conduct of legislative business, (2)
Representing constituents' interests, and (3) Being accessible and
responsive to constituents. The following functional requirements
spring from the business goals:
--A need to be informed--ability to track (in near-real-time) current
events that affect constituents, the United States, and the
world;
--A secure environment--ability to perform their duties in any
circumstances;
--Ability to communicate among themselves;
--Ability to communicate externally with the public and other
government entities;
--Ability to operate and communicate among offices and staffs
(Washington D.C. and state offices) efficiently and
effectively; and
--Ability to collect, organize, analyze, and present information.
This United States Senate Information Technology Strategic Plan
outlines strategic goals to satisfy these functional requirements and
address challenges presented by the environment. The Office of the
Assistant Sergeant at Arms and Chief Information Officer (CIO) is
committed to providing world-class services and solutions and we are
committed to pursuing innovative solutions and providing our Senate
customers with technology choices. We are committed to working with
other groups to erase barriers between organizations and provide
seamless support. Finally, we are committed to working as team members
within the larger Senate community whose stakeholders include every
Member and Officer of the Senate as represented by their administrative
managers, chief clerks and system administrators, with guidance from
the Rules Committee on policies and priorities, and the Appropriations
Committee on funding.
vision
A state-of-the-art United States Senate information technology
organization that directly supports efficient, effective, secure
legislative action, communication, and constituent service through its
infrastructure, processes, and talented workforce.
mission
Leverage technology so the United States Senate can function
efficiently and effectively under any circumstances to serve the
American people. Develop a technology team consisting of SAA, Member/
Committee office staffs, and other Senate Officers' staffs to provide
technology options, solutions, and world-class customer service
enabling the United States Senate to accomplish its mission.
core values
Personal attributes expected of every CIO employee:
Integrity.--``Service Before Self.'' Each of us serves something
far greater than ourselves. To our nation, we represent the Senate. We
will faithfully execute the duties and responsibilities entrusted to us
and we will maintain the highest ethical and professional standards.
Customer Relationship Focus.--``Customer Care, Top-to-Bottom.''
Each of us, regardless of our job title or function in the CIO
organization, is a customer care specialist first. To best serve our
customers, when they call for help, we will: Own the problem; work the
problem; and follow up to ensure their complete satisfaction.
Organizational Excellence.--``Relentless Pursuit.'' In everything
we do, we will relentlessly pursue excellence: Every task--respecting
our customers; building our team--respecting one another; delivering
solutions; and representing the Senate.
guiding principles
People First.--We will take care of our people. We will strive to
recruit, retain, and develop top talent. Mutual respect and teamwork
will be the norm in a friendly workplace where everyone is valued as an
individual.
One Team.--We will develop solutions, introduce technologies, and
attack problems leveraging the best talent from across our
organization. We will work in concert with the larger Senate
information technology community including every Member and Officer of
the Senate as represented by their administrative managers, chief
clerks and system administrators, with guidance from the Rules
Committee and the Appropriations Committee.
Accountable.--We will measure our performance and solicit feedback
from our customers. We will analyze results, compile lessons learned,
and incorporate industry and government best-practices to enhance
performance. We will communicate progress to our customers, operate as
transparently as possible, and routinely measure our effectiveness.
Relationships with Customers.--We will know our customers through
meaningful relationships. We will strive to know and act on their needs
even before they call on us. We will develop these relationships by
continual, varied communication and by building bridges to each of
them.
Right Tools for the Job.--We will never seek to apply technology
for technology's sake. Systems we build, solutions we deliver, and
vendors we select will be directly tied to the business needs of the
Members, Committees, and Officers of the United States Senate.
``Always-On'' Senate.--We will provide technologies, solutions, and
infrastructures that will enable continuous Senate operations wherever
and whenever needed.
Innovate.--We will introduce and apply new concepts and creative
approaches to meet the challenges of the present and anticipate the
needs of the future. We will support innovation, agility, and a culture
of rapid prototyping to identify and deliver viable solutions quickly.
Above all, we will always strive for improvement.
goals and objectives
Secure
Strategic Goal 1: A secure Senate information infrastructure.--
Provide a secure information infrastructure that protects Members,
Committees, and Officers' data, respects their privacy, enables
continuous Senate operations, and supports continuity of operations
(COOP) and continuity of government (COG). Identify and understand
threats, assess vulnerabilities, identify failure points and
bottlenecks and determine potential impacts and remedy them before they
adversely impact operations. Work as a team with system administrators,
information technology staffs, security staffs, and training
organizations to increase vigilance and awareness and be proactive in
thwarting threats to the Senate information infrastructure.
Supporting Objectives:
Objective 1.1: Vigilance, awareness, education--know our systems'
vulnerabilities and potential threats and work to educate and inform
Senate system administration and information technology staffs on how
to avoid them.
Objective 1.2: Emergency preparedness--be prepared to support any
and all Senate continuity of operations plans (COOP) and continuity of
government (COG) plans. Deploy an information infrastructure that is
flexible and agile enough to respond to adverse events.
Objective 1.3: Detect threats, defend (defense-in-depth), preempt
when possible.
Customer Service Focused
Strategic Goal 2: ``Customer Service Culture'' top-to-bottom.--
Everyone on the CIO team is focused on providing excellent service and
achieving customer satisfaction in everything we do: introducing new
technologies, providing support, developing systems, streamlining
processes, and day-to-day interactions.
Supporting Objectives:
Objective 2.1: Develop and nurture an agile CIO team with the
skills, capabilities, and drive to provide excellent customer service.
Objective 2.2: Develop and execute a customer care process
including communications processes, goals, an annual customer
satisfaction survey, CIO staff training, and a customer satisfaction
action plan.
Objective 2.3: Implement systems and solutions focused on
supporting Senate Members', Committees', and Officers' ability to serve
their constituents.
Effective
Strategic Goal 3: Information technology solutions driven by
business requirement.--In addition to always striving to be more
efficient (streamlining processes, more output per unit time) and
continuously searching for ways to be more effective (discovering new
ways to satisfy requirements, leveraging technology to enable Members,
Committees, and Officers to expand or enhance their missions and
capability), the CIO organization will establish information technology
solutions to enable legislative processes: collaboration,
communications, and information access.
Supporting Objectives:
Objective 3.1: Move business to the web.
Objective 3.2: A prototyping culture throughout the CIO
organization.
Objective 3.3: Modern business processes driven by Senate business
requirements.
Accessible, Flexible & Reliable
Strategic Goal 4: Access to mission-critical information anywhere,
anytime, under any circumstances.--Eliminate bottlenecks and potential
failure points. Monitor, track, insure system performance and quality
of service.
Supporting Objectives:
Objective 4.1: Reliable state-of-the-art, high-bandwidth wired
infrastructure supporting Washington D.C. campus, alternate and
relocation sites, and state offices.
Objective 4.2: Develop, implement, and operate a comprehensive
Senate wireless infrastructure.
Objective 4.3: Telecommunications modernization--a new
telecommunications infrastructure built on convergence technologies.
Objective 4.4: All critical data and processing facilities
replicated and backed up at alternate computing facilities.
Objective 4.5: Secure remote access capabilities to allow Members,
Committees, and Officers access to their information resources from any
location through a variety of secure and reliable devices.
Modern
Strategic Goal 5: A state-of-the-art information infrastructure
built on modern, proven technologies.--Keep the Senate on top of the
``technology curve'' by seeking, testing, and employing leading-edge
technologies and solutions to help the Senate accomplish its mission.
On-going investigation and evaluation of new and emerging technologies
and innovation to provide Members, Committees, and Officers solution
choices and flexibility within a framework based on Senate business
requirements and industry best practices.
Supporting Objectives:
Objective 5.1: Tie capabilities and solutions to Senate business
requirements. Through effective two-way communication with Member,
Committee, and Officer Staffs, identify Senate business needs
(requirements) that can be met better with technology.
Objective 5.2: Capabilities, solutions, choices within standards
coordinated with the Rules and Appropriations Committees.
Objective 5.3: Architecture, technology roadmap with focus on
emerging technologies.
Objective 5.4: An effective new technology infusion process that
gets modern solutions in the hands of our customers quickly.
cio organization
The CIO is an Assistant Sergeant at Arms (ASAA) charged with
providing technology vision and leadership for the United States
Senate. The CIO organization, with approximately 250 full-time Senate
employees and supplemented by about the same number of contractors
builds, operates, and supports the Senate's information infrastructure.
The CIO is also responsible for information security, technology
infusion, and information technology and office equipment help desk
functions.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
CIO Organizational Structure.--The CIO organization consists of
three departments--Process Management & Innovation, Technology
Development Services, and Information Technology Support Services.
Autonomous from the CIO organization, but critical to its success, are
the Customer Support Analyst and Technical Training organizations. The
customer support analysts (CSA) serve as the interface between the
Sergeant at Arms (SAA) and the Senate (customer) community. CSAs
translate office requirements to the CIO organization for
implementation and they ``market'' the CIO organizations' products and
solutions to the offices. Technical trainers support every CIO
initiative with focused customer training. They also provide technical
training and resources to enhance the skills and competencies of the
CIO organization.
CIO Functional Structure.--The CIO organization functions as three
centers of excellence--Innovation, Integration, and Development and
Support. Systems and solutions pass through a virtual pipeline of these
functions taking them from concept/idea/proposal to fielded, fully-
supported, operational system. A key component is constant customer
input and feedback at every stage of the pipeline.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
This functional organization approximates the classic system
development life cycle (SDLC) approach for fielding solutions.
Technology exploration (rapid prototyping, rapid application
development, product testing) and new technology infusion occur in the
Innovation and Integration centers and system development, operation,
and maintenance (full-scale development) occur in the Development/
Support Centers.
Agility and Teamwork.--The CIO organization has immense and varied
talents. To foster innovation and respond to our customers faster we
will apply those talents and capabilities whenever, and wherever,
needed. Simply put--the CIO organization will be flexible and agile and
we will deploy cross-functional teams to address customer requirements.
Our planning, technology infusion and testing processes, development
approaches, and responses to unforeseen events will feature teams of
individuals from some or all our departments working in concert with
our customers. We will be visible and accessible to our customers. This
plan features strategic goals and objectives to these ends.
implementation
Aligned With Sergeant at Arms' Priorities.--This two-year, rolling
United States Senate Information Technology Strategic Plan focuses on
systems and solutions to directly support the SAA's priorities--
leveraging modern technology to: Ensure the Senate is as secure as
possible and prepared for an emergency; and provide outstanding
customer service and support.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Why a Two-Year Rolling Plan.--A prime objective is to field and
operate a modern, state-of-the-art, information infrastructure. To keep
pace with technology change and innovation, the plan will be reviewed
and rewritten annually. Subordinate to this plan are the tactical plans
and activities that accomplish the goals and objectives set forth here.
Developing the Plan is a Team Effort.--No strategy for the United
States Senate can be developed in a vacuum. The entire Senate
technology team including the Rules Committee, Assistant Sergeants at
Arms, Appropriations Committee, Secretary of the Senate, and office
information technology staffs must be actively involved. The initial
draft of the United States Senate Information Technology Strategic Plan
will be prepared by the CIO organization in concert with the Rules
Committee. The completed working draft will then be coordinated and
validated with the other Assistant Sergeants at Arms and then with the
office information technology staffs (Chiefs of Staff, Administrative
Managers, System Administrators) and the Majority Leader's Information
Technology Working Group. In keeping with a spirit of innovation, this
activity will be accomplished on-line in a strategic planning
collaboration area. The final plan will be approved by the Sergeant at
Arms and will serve as the basis for budget construction and testimony
before the Appropriations Committee.
Relationship to Other Plans.--The United States Senate Information
Technology Strategic Plan reflects the priorities, guidance, and
directives of the Sergeant at Arms, the Rules Committee, and other
Senate leadership entities. The strategic goals and objectives herein
must directly reflect the priorities and business requirements of the
United States Senate. Similarly, subordinate plans must reflect these
strategic priorities. All tactical plans, budget requests, enterprise
architectures, and technology roadmaps must be directly attributable to
the strategies and objectives laid out here.
measuring performance
The only way to know if we are satisfying our customers is to ask
them. Accordingly, the CIO organization has a multi-level approach to
evaluation. We constantly measure performance, assess effectiveness,
and check to ensure our efforts are aligned with business needs and
requirements of our customers. We also validate the Senate's technology
base against industry and government best practices and standards. The
most frequent and important opportunities to gauge perceptions occur in
the countless daily service calls, requirements meetings, and casual
conversations. We view each of these as an opportunity for constructive
feedback and will aggressively solicit such feedback.
We Will Fight for Feedback.--Service calls are followed by a
customer satisfaction survey. These results are tracked and service
level agreement (SLA) trends evaluated. We discuss results in weekly
business process and technology review meetings attended by CIO staff,
CIO support contractors, and customers. Performance against SLAs is one
method to determine effectiveness of CIO contractors and staff. We also
solicit customer feedback through an ongoing regular series of
quarterly project review meetings and daily, weekly, and monthly system
status reporting. Strategic goals, set forth in this plan, include
leveraging technologies such as web-based performance reporting to make
our operations transparent to our customers and provide them
opportunities for feedback.
We Will Continuously Self-Evaluate.-- . . . against industry and
government benchmarks and best practices. We will continue to document
the Senate's technology position, relative to the state-of-the-art, in
the United States Senate Technology Level Matrix and validate it with
leading industry consultants.
The Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey.--The CIO organization was
created in June 2003. One of the first actions of the CIO was to
develop and administer a customer satisfaction survey to baseline the
organization's performance for future evaluation. The first CIO Annual
Customer Satisfaction Survey was administered by the CSA organization
during the fall of 2003 and culminated in the development of a customer
satisfaction action plan for 2004. The action plan featured the
following initiatives:
--Developing and projecting a culture of excellence;
--One team
--Everybody in the CIO organization puts customer service first
--Everybody in the CIO organization accountable for customer
service
--Cooperation and collaboration with the larger Senate information
technology community (Rules Committee, Appropriations
Committee, Member and Committee office staffs, Secretary of
the Senate)
--Outreach--establishing enduring relationships (``building
bridges'');
--Renewed focus on emerging technologies and innovation; and
--Developing an agile CIO organization.
The customer service action plan was executed and the 2004 survey
completed in October 2004 with the results indicated in the chart
below:
Evaluation and Accountability.--Everyone in the organization,
starting with the CIO, is first and foremost a customer service
provider. The organization exists solely to deliver excellent products
and services to the United States Senate to allow the Members to serve
their customers--American citizens. Accordingly, every member of the
CIO organization has a common customer service metric written into
their performance objectives. The fact that there is a common
organizational metric drives everyone toward the same goal and fosters
teamwork. The common metric is decided annually by the CIO management
team based on the results of the previous Annual Customer Satisfaction
Survey and the desired improvements for the upcoming year.
Working the Plan.--All of the evaluation tools described here will
provide input and direction during the annual re-write of this plan.
Through continuous program assessment and evaluation we will identify
gaps formed by developing issues and changing circumstances. We will
refine performance goals based on measures of effectiveness.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
communication
Communication is the single most important aspect of our success.
Effective communication forms the bedrock of all the central themes
presented here--security, customer service, and teamwork. This
strategic plan is the result of months of intense two-way communication
with Senate stakeholders, industry leaders, and technology and business
leaders in other federal government organizations.
Through credible and effective communication across the Senate
community, we will seek to understand and address important issues and
evolving requirements to satisfy their information technology needs.
With testimony, reports, briefings, newsletters, working groups,
notices, and information sessions we will inform the Senate community
of our progress in fulfilling their requirements.
Senator Allard. My thought is we will go ahead and I will
ask you some questions pertinent to your testimony, and we will
follow this after each panel. After the panel has made its
presentation, we will open it up for questions from the
subcommittee.
TELEPHONE SYSTEMS UPGRADE
You wrapped up your discussion on the telephone system, and
I want to start off with some questions on the telephone
system, because that is where your budget request is most
costly.
Mr. Pickle. Sure.
Senator Allard. I understand we have had it for 20 years.
There have been a lot of technological changes since then. But
in view of a tight budget year like we could be facing this
year, do you think that this is a project that could be
deferred for another 2 years and still provide the same level
of service that we are receiving right now?
Mr. Pickle. I think you would continue to get the same
service. It would not be state of the art. The longer we wait,
the greater will be the cost to implement this new system. It
is compounded by the fact that our contract with the carrier
that we use expires in 2006.
Now currently we have some leverage, because we have been
involved in a very lengthy contract. We would like to leverage
our position when we negotiate a new contract for services and
equipment.
I have talked to our CIO. We can perhaps do some of this
incrementally, and we could put some of the costs off over the
years. But we will suffer somewhat and we will fall behind
technology.
Senator Allard. Can this be phased in in a way that we
gradually upgrade the system over time, so that we do not have
the impact all in the 2006 budget?
Mr. Pickle. Yes. I think the project will last more than 1
year. And from that standpoint, the funding could be spread
out. It just depends upon how we obligate the money and what
the requirements are from the contractual arrangements we have
with the vendors.
VOICE-OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL
Senator Allard. I know that some businesses have looked at
voice-over Internet protocol----
Mr. Pickle. Yes.
Senator Allard [continuing]. And are very pleased about the
way it has operated in the business. Now these are small
businesses.
Mr. Pickle. That is true.
Senator Allard. The report I am getting back, they are
pleased with the system. But it is resisted by the telephone
companies, and as a result of that, they have had directory
problems with the telephone companies, and it put them in an
adversarial relationship with the telephone company.
Have you taken a look at this new technology? With what I
see happening in small businesses, is that something that we
should consider here, considering the huge cost savings, the
potential that is there?
Mr. Pickle. Yes.
Senator Allard [continuing]. Does it need some more proving
before we wade into that? Maybe if we wait 1 or 2 years it will
begin to prove itself a little more.
Mr. Pickle. Sure. We are looking at it. And we realize it
is new. And it is going to be part of the architecture for our
new telecommunications system. I do not know, the degree or the
extent that it plays in our ability to integrate into our
communication systems. I know there are some obvious
advantages.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Pickle. We think it is going to be less expensive for
us. It gives the Senate offices and the staff here a
flexibility that they currently do not have. And what I mean by
that is it takes away the need to contact the SAA folks in many
cases to transfer calls and to transfer services.
It has a lot of advantages. I think you are right. I do not
think anyone knows what the final outcome will be, but we want
to use this, or have this as an alternative. Certainly,
initially, we want to take some very measured steps, and baby
steps, if you will.
Senator Allard. Well, I am pleased that you are looking at
it, because that is the new technology out there.
Mr. Pickle. Oh, it is.
Senator Allard. And I think it has some potential for us.
So I am pleased to hear that you have looked at that.
STAFFING INCREASE FOR THE SERGEANT AT ARMS
I want to talk a little bit about your staffing increase.
You have requested 18 additional staff. Now your staffing has
been increasing, I understand, rather steadily for the last 5
years, 138 FTEs or 18 percent since around 9/11. Why do you
need those increases?
Mr. Pickle. The 18 positions, most of these positions are
tied to security or technology. A couple of them are tied to
replacing more costly contract employees that we have. Can we
re-prioritize and revisit these? Absolutely, we can. Perhaps we
can re-juggle some of what we are doing.
But in regard to security and technology, those are pretty
tough not to replace right now because our role, as you know,
is going to expand considerably, not only with the alternate
computing facility, which we have, but also the Capitol Visitor
Center (CVC), when it comes on line. So those positions are in
anticipation of supporting in great part, what is going to take
place over the next year or so.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER EQUIPMENT FURNISHING
Senator Allard. Okay. Now on the CVC equipment furnishing,
your budget includes $6.2 million for equipping the Capitol
Visitor Center, and then providing the furnishings. Now given
the continued schedule slippage with this project, and a
probable opening date of fiscal year 2007, I know that they
wanted to have the construction part by September of next year,
which hopefully we can make that. But from a practical
standpoint, it does not look to me like we are going to be in
the building and operating until 2007. Is this something that
can be deferred if that slippage continues?
Mr. Pickle. I think if the slippage continues into the
latter part of fiscal year 2007, we have some flexibility with
the $3.7 million or $3.6 million for the Senate Recording
Studio. There also may be some flexibility, if it goes that
far, in regard to the furnishings and the equipment for
facilities and environmental folks.
I believe the measurement tool they use here is we need 9
month's leeway. We have to have obligated the funds and start
down the road 9 months before we open. And that is probably
the----
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Pickle. I know the date keeps slipping. So if we open
in the summer of 2007, we would need the funds----
Senator Allard. This year.
Mr. Pickle. If we open in the summer or fall of 2007, we
would need the funds in the very early part of the year.
DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CURRENT TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATE
COMPUTING FACILITY
Now the increase in the use of technology in the Senate has
had a significant impact on your budget over the years. Do you
expect this will level off or continue to trend upward in the
future?
Mr. Pickle. I think that technology is changing so quickly.
And we can never----
Senator Allard. It is.
Mr. Pickle. It is difficult to stay current. We realize
that. But we make the best investment we can, given the most
proven technology out there.
Our technology costs will continue to grow somewhat because
of the alternate computing facility (ACF). As you know, that is
a first-rate facility.
There will be some increased expenditures in the future
years there for a number of reasons. Also, the CVC will add
some costs because you have the communications costs, with
wiring and other installations that are required, and you have
the support personnel who will be needed to support these two
functions or these two sites. With the CVC adding about 38
percent more square footage to the Senate space, the need to
support that 38 percent more square footage is going to cause
some additional increases on our part.
UPGRADING PRINTING PRESS
Senator Allard. Okay. I want to go to your printing press.
How old is your current press and what improvements will a new
press bring with that?
Mr. Pickle. The press that we are requesting to replace in
this budget is 17 years old. It is an outdated press. It is one
that only prints in two colors, and the Senate demands more
than red and black or black and blue. So we will have a
combination of four colors with the new one if we buy it.
But more importantly, the current press, I understand it is
a very labor-intensive process. And when you look at the number
of copies that this particular press and office print, it is
pretty phenomenal. In 2004, I believe the number was somewhere
around 19 million color copies that this office printed. This
was about a 166 percent increase from the prior year, and we
anticipate a very large increase this year. The demand for
color print is certainly going up. So it is a good investment.
Senator Allard. A lot of technology has changed in 17
years. I would think that you could find some printing systems
out there where it would be less labor-intensive.
Mr. Pickle. Absolutely. And I think this is one that we are
looking at that would accomplish that.
UPGRADING MAIL PROCESSING FACILITY AND PACKING
Senator Allard. On your mail processing facility, you are
looking for a new processing facility, I understand.
Mr. Pickle. Yes.
Senator Allard. And this would enable you to process your
packages as well as your regular mail. According to your
testimony, you anticipate that will save us about $250,000
annually, is that correct?
Mr. Pickle. I think it will. Yes.
Senator Allard. And how will those savings be achieved?
Mr. Pickle. Let me take a step back, if I can, for a
second.
Senator Allard. Sure.
Mr. Pickle. Mail processing at the Senate postal facility
where we open, screen, and examine mail, is done by Senate
employees. And we estimate that we can do it for $3 million
less than our counterparts in the House. This is because we use
Senate employees, and it is just a better way to do business.
We currently use a contractor to process the packages, as
does the House. We have found that the quality of their
service, while good, many times is not the best. There have
been some pretty serious failures. We believe that by using
current Senate employees, about two or three of whom we can
shift over to the package processing function, we will save
that huge contract price that we pay out to this vendor.
Now we do a lot of outsourcing, as you know. And we are all
for outsourcing. But this is one outsourcing, because of its
nature both in cost and in security, where we can do better.
Senator Allard. I am aware that in our ports of entries and
our major shipping points, lots of times you use gamma and X
radiation to determine what is in the package. And usually we
are talking about large shipments that come in. Do we have
anything like that that we are using here that would move
things along quicker and maybe reduce labor retention?
Mr. Pickle. Yes.
Senator Allard. We do not want to get too much into
technology where we would tip off people what we are doing.
Mr. Pickle. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Allard. My question is: Are we up to standard on
that?
Mr. Pickle. We are up to standard. And I would say in
regards to both packaging and mail that we are state of the art
in the Senate.
WAREHOUSE CONSTRUCTION
Senator Allard. Okay. Thank you. Just to follow-up here on
the warehouse, we had extra money in there in fiscal year 2004,
I understand, and then also in 2005, which is this year. How is
that coming along and what is the status on that now?
Mr. Pickle. It is coming along well. We should complete the
construction of the warehouse by the fall of this year. And we
hope to be in there shortly thereafter. It is a good investment
for the Senate.
As you know, it replaces about five different warehouses,
which are dispersed throughout this area. And this is a first-
rate, climate controlled warehouse, which is going to be a cost
savings to us in the out-years.
Senator Allard. Okay. All right. Let us go ahead and we
will call this panel's discussion to a close and we will go
into the next panel.
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. PICKLE, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY:
TERRANCE W. GAINER, CHIEF OF POLICE, UNITED STATES CAPITOL
POLICE
HON. W. WILSON LIVINGOOD, HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS
ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALLARD
Senator Allard. And on the next panel we are going to have
the Capitol Police Board. And so we will have Mr. Pickle, Mr.
Hantman, Mr. Livingood, and Mr. Gainer. Who is going to give us
the testimony on this particular panel? Mr. Pickle again?
Mr. Pickle. I have just a few remarks and then the Chief is
taking it, sir.
Senator Allard. Okay. Very good. Proceed, Mr. Pickle.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. PICKLE
Mr. Pickle. Mr. Chairman, as you indicated, I am joined by
the Capitol Police Board and Chief of Police, Terrance Gainer.
The other Board members are Mr. Bill Livingood, the House
Sergeant at Arms, to my left, and Mr. Alan Hantman, the
Architect of the Capitol, to my right. And I know you know
these gentlemen.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Pickle. We, the Board, are very pleased to be here with
the Chief today and support him on his budget request. I think
as you step back and look at what this department has
accomplished, we all find it to be a very remarkable
department. It is a department that, because of this
subcommittee in particular, and I mean this subcommittee, it
has grown and become one of the most professional and one of
the best departments in this country.
When you look where this department was 5 years ago, or
even 4 years ago, and you look where it is today in terms of
recruitment, retention, training, and the ability to do a very,
very difficult job in a very complex period of time, they have
done a great job.
What makes their job so difficult here on the Hill is this
department is unlike any other police department in the
country. We demand that they provide security and protect the
30,000 people who work here each day on the Hill. We demand
that they protect the hundreds of thousands of visitors and
tourists who come here daily; and at the same time, we demand
that they keep this campus open so that the people's House can
be enjoyed by all. Nowhere is there such a contradiction in
this country, and they do such a great job.
Now many people look at this department and say, ``My gosh,
it is one of the largest departments in the country.'' Well,
there is a reason for it. This is also the number one or number
two target in this country for terrorists. And it is also one
of the most visited spots in this country.
We demand so much of them and they do so much for us. As
you know, the anthrax and ricin attacks and more recently, when
we were orange alert for the Nation last August, through the
election, we worked this department 7 days a week, 24 hours a
day. Many officers had no days off. It cost an awful lot of
money. And we wish we could find a way to bridge the gap
between too much and too little security here.
PREPARED STATEMENT
But we have a great deal of confidence in this Chief. We
support his budget request, and we hope that we can answer some
of your questions today that will give you and the subcommittee
confidence that we are spending your dollars wisely. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Well, very good.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William H. Pickle
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are honored
to appear before you to discuss the fiscal year 2006 budget
request for the United States Capitol Police. With me today are
the other members of the U.S. Capitol Police Board, Mr. Bill
Livingood, House Sergeant at Arms, Mr. Alan Hantman, Architect
of the Capitol, and Terrance Gainer, Chief of Police.
We appreciate this opportunity to present and discuss the
issues and challenges behind the Capitol Police fiscal year
2006 budget request. I would like to share, by way of topical
introduction, some of my observations regarding police overtime
and staffing levels, and current campus security needs and
concerns.
But before I move on to this background information, I
would like to thank the men and women of the Capitol Police for
their leadership in coordinating the many organizations, people
and resources necessary to effect a very successful 2005
Presidential Inauguration. The Capitol Police, and I say this
with a depth of gratitude, has a deep bench of seasoned
Inaugural veterans, skillful crowd managers, and experienced
officers degreed in patience and diplomacy, who gave this
Nation a very successful and noteworthy Inauguration. Without
exaggeration, it is fair to say, the world was watching and
wondering, with some modicum of anxiety, if some attempted
disruption might befall the United States' first Presidential
Inauguration since the September 11 attack. The Capitol Police
executed well their responsibilities and, without drawing
attention from the event, allowed the Nation's most celebrated
tradition of peaceful, democratic government to go off without
a hitch. Congratulations to the Capitol Police for a job well
done!
I have a great respect and admiration for the men and women
of the Capitol Police. As opportunity permits, I engage the
officers in conversation and listen to their thoughts. I gladly
report to you that they have an unmistakable dedication and
love of country; they are devoted, proud, and dedicated to the
business of protecting Congress. Many acknowledge it an honor
to protect, serve, and welcome the Nation's citizenry, who come
to participate in legislative business, witness the workings of
democracy, and partake in the history that is this Nation's
Capitol. These officers are enthusiastic owners of their
responsibilities, even with the weight of a challenging work
environment requiring rotating schedules, long hours, and a
steeled endurance to brave the elements.
As Chief Gainer's testimony outlines, the Capitol Police
have assumed, and will continue to be asked to shoulder,
additional responsibilities. Overtime will continue to be
needed to meet general campus security and protection
responsibilities, including the 1st Street NE closure and
random vehicle inspections, and will be further impacted by the
CVC opening. And, while the dedicated members of the Capitol
Police have responded in the past by working overtime when
needed, we need to ensure we do not overextend these officers.
Additionally, long duty tours can reduce officer training
opportunities. Abbreviated training creates a position, where
officer skills atrophy, endangering the lives of the officers,
congressional community, and visitors. Hiring sufficient
numbers of officers, commensurate with the responsibilities
charged to the Capitol Police, will help us retain a robust,
healthful, vigorous, and well-trained police force, and avoid
the risks of atrophied skills.
The security levels of the Capitol campus are necessary;
they must be sustained; we must remain vigilant; and we cannot
let our guard down. Managing the unexpected by preparing and
guarding against vehicle improvised explosives and suicide
bombers is a valid mission. There is enough concern to warrant
our high level of vigilance, and we should not take luxury with
human life by waiting and reacting to an event. CIA Director,
Porter J. Goss in February told the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, ``It may be only a matter of time before al Qaeda
or another group attempts to use chemical, biological,
radiological and nuclear weapons.'' In the same session, FBI
Director, Robert S. Mueller III raised concerns about ``al
Qaeda sleeper cells'' and ``directed efforts this year to
infiltrate covert operatives into the United States'' as well
as a ``clear intention to obtain and ultimately use some form
of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear or high-
energy explosives material in its attacks against America.''
The choice we have today is whether Congress is better
served with officers stretched thin using overtime or by hiring
additional officers to meet security, protection, vigilance,
and deterrence levels needed to keep the campus from harm. I
must strongly recommend, and the Capitol Police Board supports,
the hiring of additional officers. We have a duty to protect
human life on this campus, and we have a moral and ethical
responsibility, in light of current threat levels, to maintain
a high posture of security.
The Capitol Police Board has reviewed the fiscal year 2006
budget and we ask your support for full funding, which will
provide for the maintenance and operation of all the
improvements and capabilities funded in recent years. The
Capitol Police force has been transformed in recent years. It
is stronger, more responsive, capable, accountable, and
reliable and better able to serve Congress. We ask your support
to sustain these improvements throughout the next year and help
ensure that we do not ask our officers to work unreasonable
overtime or be denied leave or training opportunities.
Chief Gainer will address more specific operations and
plans for the coming fiscal year. I thank you for your time and
your consideration and am happy to answer any questions.
Senator Allard. Go ahead, Mr. Gainer.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF TERRANCE W. GAINER
Chief Gainer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee. We appreciate the support that you have given the
United States Capitol Police. Really, on behalf of all the
members of this department I would like to acknowledge that
support.
We do understand our responsibilities and we do understand
the limited dollars available. I would like to submit my
written testimony for the record and just share a few thoughts
with you now before we answer any questions.
Senator Allard. We will put in the record the full
testimony from both you and Mr. Pickle.
Chief Gainer. Thank you, sir. Mr. Pickle mentioned a couple
of things we have done. I would just like to put into context
what has happened in the past 12 months since we sat before
this subcommittee.
We did have the ricin attack and we handled it quite
nicely, and opened the buildings very quickly after that. We
handled the Reagan state funeral and screened 100,000 visitors
in 24 hours. We instantly set up a system to inventory people's
property as they came in, because they were not permitted to
bring it in the Capitol. This was done on the spur of the
moment by a group of very dedicated civilian and sworn
officers.
We have supported the State of the Union address. We lent
our support to the two political conventions, where we had
significant personnel up there, as well as the 2005
Inauguration. And as Mr. Pickle said, we stood at code orange
alert through August, September, October, November, and
December. And over the past year we have screened some 9.5
million people, a 30 percent increase over what we did the year
before.
Since January, for instance, we have now gone to our Tiger
Teams, and unlike what we were doing earlier in the summer,
where we were out there every single day at every single
intersection--14 intersections. We now hit a couple of
different intersections or places.
We have screened some 233,000 vehicles; 7,000 of those,
interestingly enough, are vehicles that we thought needed
further investigation. We conducted further investigation of
those 7,000 vehicles resulting in 224 vehicles being denied
access and 224 vehicles that potentially could have brought
some harm to us.
Our officers have conducted 2,700 bomb searches. We have
called out our HAZMAT Material Response Team some 300 times. We
have conducted 3,000 special events and dignitary visits. We
presented to the U.S. attorney 600 cases for their prosecution,
with nearly a 98 percent approval rating by the U.S. attorney's
office.
And this is what we know: we know that terror attacks have
tripled across the globe, as it is reported this morning. We
know that terrorists are patient and Americans are not. We know
terrorists use surveillance techniques. We know that terrorists
plan ahead and come back to places they have not gotten before.
We are very, very well aware of what goes on in the area of
improvised explosive devices, vehicle-borne improvised
explosive devices and combinations of attacks, and we have
tried to position our forces to prevent these attacks. And as
Mr. Pickle indicated, at the same time, we have a very open
campus for these approximately 9.5 million people.
The thing that we do not know, and this has been testified
to numerous times up on the Hill by the head of all the Federal
agencies, and the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, is where or when
an attack might occur, or if, in fact, there are terrorist
cells in the United States.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We have a mission. We understand our mission. We have a
vision. We understand our vision. And we have a strategy to get
there. I would be very happy to try to answer any of your
questions, sir.
Senator Allard. Well, thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terrance W. Gainer
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Appropriations Committee today.
I would like to first put some context into our budget request,
which we recognize is a substantial increase over last year's budget.
The fight against terrorism led by the United States and its coalition
partners continues. We know through intelligence reports that
terrorists have stated their intent to strike another blow on America,
and we also know that the Capitol and all it stands for is clearly one
of their targets. We must not let that fact slip from our minds as we
continue further--albeit safely--away from September 11, 2001. As the
foremost symbol of democracy, the Congress, its Members, employees,
visitors, as well as public buildings and operations are a highly
visible target for individuals and organizations intent on causing harm
to the United States and disrupting the legislative operations of our
government. Law enforcement genuinely believes it really is not a
question of if--rather a question of when we could expect a strike. We
are the first line of defense and we take our jobs seriously as we put
our lives on the line each day that we come to work.
The United States Capitol Police request a fiscal year 2006
appropriation of $290.1 million, which is $59.7 million greater than
the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. The Salaries portion of the request
is $230.2 million to support 2,125 employees including 1,714 police
officers (122 new officers) and 411 civilian positions supporting
security, emergency response, technical, professional, and
administrative functions. The total salaries increase is $28.4 million
and is a result of three areas: mandatory increases of $15.9 million
for cost-of-living allowances, health benefits, within-grades,
promotions, and other benefits, an additional overtime requirement of
$8.5 million for operational responsibilities, and new salaries of $4
million to support 122 new police officers.
The General Expense portion of the request is $59.9 million, which
is a $31.3 million increase. This increase is explained in three
spending areas: replacement of the legislative branch escape hoods for
$8.2 million, hiring and outfitting costs for 122 new officers at $1.9
million, and finally $20.7 million to support and maintain previously
provided and implemented equipment, assets, systems, infrastructure,
more than half of the $20 million slated for physical security and our
information and communication systems, which cannot be absorbed at
current funding levels.
We expect this request with its increase will no doubt invite
serious discussion, and we are prepared to address any of your
questions and concerns. While I spoke earlier of the post-9/11 era, it
is important to step back and take into account the last nearly seven
years of change. This organization's considerable transformation began
with the fatal shooting of our two officers in 1998. In response to
that shooting we received funding to hire more officers, improve
infrastructure, and implement security technologies. The 9/11 Terrorist
and Anthrax attacks of 2001 again highlighted the need to further
``harden the target'' or in other words reduce the campus exposure to
threats through prevention, detection, vigilance, and deterrence.
Because of these events and the support of the Appropriations
Committees, we received funding to improve and add new capabilities to
the organization. These previously acquired capabilities are detailed
in our budget request, and it will cost $20.7 million in additional
funding over current baseline funding to sustain their use,
effectiveness, performance and reliability. The demands on our
equipment and technology capabilities will continue for the foreseeable
future.
The Ricin Incident, the War in Iraq, six Department of Homeland
Security code orange alerts, and the constant intelligence assessments
have given us additional concern and have prompted operational
adjustments. The top to bottom change of the Capitol Police, set in
motion in 1998 and accelerated by attacks, events, intelligence, and
world events, has resulted in a dramatic change in the Department and
its support. Many of these changes have just recently come to fruition.
In the same vein, the associated operations and maintenance costs are
now impacting our General Expense request. The maintenance of these
systems is the principal driver to the increase in our request--not new
programs. Our request is to maintain the structure that we have set
into place, and not to step backwards at the expense of congressional
community safety or interruption of government. The changes and the
design of the changes to the Capitol Police were created to sustain
Congress, within the purview of the mission of the Capitol Police, and
the result is an extraordinary law enforcement organization, unlike
other police organizations. In fact, I would like to take just a moment
to mention some of our accomplishments in the past fiscal year when the
Department was challenged and successfully conducted several National
Special Security Events such as the Inauguration; the Democratic and
Republican conventions, the Ricin incident, the State of the Union and
the Reagan State Funeral in which the Department screened more than
100,000 visitors within a 24-hour period.
In 2004, the USCP greeted and screened more than 9.5 million staff
and visitors throughout the Capitol Complex as compared to 7 million in
2003. Our officers screened more than 61,000 visitors to major
Congressional Concert events; conducted more than 2,700 bomb searches;
responded to more than 300 hazardous material calls; coordinated more
than 3,000 Special Events and Dignitary visits; processed nearly 1,000
illegal demonstrators and violators within our jurisdiction and
presented nearly 600 cases to the U.S. Attorney's Office. We hired 145
sworn officers and 154 civilians in our Department in fiscal year 2004.
Additionally, the Department has implemented a health program as we
work towards creating and nurturing a fit workforce. The Department
also has provided educational benefits that work toward providing an
educated team. One hundred and seven employees are participating in our
Student Loan Repayment Program.
The specific needs of Congress, current threat assessments, and
professional leadership has combined to create a hybrid police agency,
integrating capabilities for law enforcement, security technologies,
dignitary protection, intelligence analysis and threat assessment
specific to the Capitol, crowd management, hazardous materials and
device response, and physical security barriers, building access
screening, prevention of vehicles bearing improvised explosive devices
and the detection and prevention of covert surveillance. These Capitol
Police capabilities work together to protect 535 Members of Congress,
congressional leaders, congressional staff of more than 20,000, and the
historical and political symbols of the Capitol campus.
The direction that the changes have taken has been influenced by
best practice matching for law enforcement, professionalization and
modernization of our administrative and technical support functions.
This is where we have transitioned from sworn administrative roles to
professional officer roles by hiring civilian professionals for
information systems, human resources and financial management and other
administrative functions. We have also moved to a self-sufficient role
in the legislative branch no more solely reliable on the House and
Senate for infrastructure and support. The Department assumed
responsibilities for all human resource functions requiring systems and
people to assume these responsibilities. This included building a new
time and attendance system and hiring professional human resource and
support staff. The Capitol Police assumed responsibility for a major
component of information system functions, which were previously
supported by the Senate Sergeant at Arms. As the personnel growth of
the Department and the responsibilities of the Department increased it
became evident that we needed to control, adjust, and build the
enterprise architecture to meet the specific needs of the Department.
These changes are significant and are the result of strategic
leadership choices, events befallen the Capitol campus, congressional
demands for improvement, rigorous GAO reviews, self-analysis, strategic
planning, best practice matching, and current threat environments
through numerous surveys, reviews, audits, and investigations. Through
these external and internal analyses, we have rebuilt this organization
into a more qualified, capable, responsible, responsive, agile,
effective, and efficient organization to serve the legislative branch.
The entire Capitol campus has undergone an infusion of
technological improvements, enhancements and new implementations of
state-of-the-art security to deter, detect, and delay unlawful acts
using a risk-analysis to determine appropriate application. These
technologies, workforce multipliers, allow us to monitor the campus,
and control access to facilities with greater efficiency and
effectiveness. Other technologies provide greater safety and assurance
for the Capitol campus through the use of improved x-ray machines,
magnetometers, itemizer sampling, technologies to scan all incoming
material shipments in an off-site location, as well as cameras and
recording systems, monitors, sensors, panic button alarms in Member
offices, intrusion alarm systems, emergency notification systems,
emergency call boxes, and measures to detect covert listening devices.
Responsibilities for security systems and law enforcement have also
grown with additional building spaces created by the Capitol Visitor
Center construction, the Alternate Computer Facility, the Botanic
Garden, and the Fairchild building.
In the area of command, control and intelligence capabilities we
have expanded our command center and instituted an Incident Command
System which is a universally adopted command structure used by first
responders. The Office of Plans, Operations and Homeland Security is
now operational. Intelligence gathering, analysis and dissemination has
been expanded and we have worked diligently to build relationships with
other federal, state and local entities to improve response
coordination and capabilities.
Operational and response capabilities have increased by developing
a dedicated full time specialized hazardous substance response team to
develop and manage response capabilities dealing with chemical or
biological events. Canine capabilities primarily used for bomb
detection have been increased.
The Capitol Police is shouldering additional workforce
responsibilities for the new CVC facility, street closures, various
technical security implementations, and the truck interdiction program.
These responsibilities fall upon our officers as additional duty hours;
and so, we propose an additional 122 new officers, which is a part of
the total 254 officers required to normalize work schedules. Hiring
these new officers will allow officers to work 48-hour weeks as opposed
to much higher levels.
Despite advances in technology and installation of systems, this
Department is successful because of its people. Our greatest asset and
investment is our current professional staff of 1,592 police officers
and 411 civilian employees responsible for Capitol complex security,
law enforcement, emergency response, safety, and professional support
services, which are a 24/7/365 day a year responsibility. To maintain
the Capitol Police high state of readiness, response, agility, alert
and vigor, we request these new officers. A request of $1.9 million is
necessary to recruit, test, hire, and outfit 122 new police officers.
Given the existing and future staffing requirements, the leadership of
the Department must continually balance mission needs with training
needs, leave requests and overtime.
While the well being of our officers is crucial to good operations,
we are also recommending for the protection of the congressional
community and visitors that we replace the aging escape hoods, due to
expire in 2006. The Capitol Police manage this legislative branch
program and the life-cycle replacement costs are estimated at $8.2
million. However, as I indicated earlier the largest portion of our
requested increase will go toward the operation and maintenance of
equipment and systems that were installed in recent years.
As 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. And 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.
Senator Allard. We have now been joined by Senator Durbin
and I will ask him if he has any comments that he would like to
make.
We are into the second panel, Senator Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. No, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I was in the
Rules Committee with the markup and could not come earlier. But
I ask that my opening statement be made part of the record, and
I will ask a few questions as the hearing progresses.
Senator Allard. Without objection, we will make your full
statement a part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling today's fiscal year
2006 budget oversight hearing on the Senate Sergeant at Arms
and the U.S. Capitol Police Board.
First of all, I want to thank our witnesses, Mr. Pickle,
Mr. Livingood, and Chief Gainer for joining us today to review
your fiscal year 2006 budget requests.
Mr. Pickle, welcome. I commend you on the job your office
is doing in providing security resources and technology to the
Senate Community. Your staff does an excellent job in a
difficult and challenging environment and we appreciate it. I
had the opportunity of working pretty closely with your staff
earlier this year when I moved into the Assistant Democratic
Leader's office in the Capitol. Skip Rouse of your staff
coordinated the move and everyone involved did an absolutely
superb job. My staff and I are extremely grateful.
You are here today to testify on behalf of the Office of
the Sergeant of Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, the Capitol
Police Board, and the Capitol Guide Board. It sounds like you
have been pretty busy.
The Senate Sergeant at Arms' budget request for fiscal year
2006 is $219.9 million or an increase of 23.7 percent over the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level. As you know, this year promises
to be a tough year budget-wise, so I hope you will help us out
by prioritizing your request.
I noticed you have requested $21 million for a new
telephone system. I hope you will provide us with some details
about this new system.
You have also requested funding for several items, such as
furniture and equipment for the Capitol Visitor Center. The
Architect of the Capitol, who testified before this
subcommittee two weeks ago, predicted a September, 2006,
opening for the CVC. I'd like to know if your fiscal year 2006
request is based on this timeframe.
I hope you will address the current status of the perimeter
security upgrades. I'm interested to know if this project is on
schedule and on budget.
I hope you will update us on the status of the state office
security upgrades.
I'd also like to know the current status of the Mail
Processing Facility. I understand you will soon be moving into
a new, larger facility.
You have requested 18 new FTE's in your fiscal year 2006
request. I hope you will tell us what these new employees will
be doing.
Finally, I have noticed an increasing number of staff-led
tours in the Capitol. I understand that during peak season,
around 6,000 visitors are taken on staff-led tours each day. I
am curious if the staff-led tours will be reduced or eliminated
after the Capitol Visitor Center opens.
Chief Gainer, it is good to see you again. I want to thank
the men and women of the Capitol Police who put their lives on
the line every day for us here in the Capitol. This has been a
busy year for the Capitol Police and I congratulate you and
your staff on a job well done.
I see that your fiscal year 2006 budget request is $290
million, an increase of 26 percent over fiscal year 2005. I
hope you can prioritize some of the items in your request for
the subcommittee.
I note that you are requesting $23 million in the
Architect's budget this year to construct an off-site delivery
facility. I hope you will update us on the need for this
facility and where you plan on locating it.
You are requesting funding to replace the emergency escape
hoods in the fiscal year 2006 budget, as you did in fiscal year
2005. I hope you will update us on the need for these
replacement hoods.
In your testimony, you stated that the Department needs a
total of 254 new officers to normalize work schedules. I hope
you can tell us why you need so many additional officers at
this time. I'd also like to hear about how much overtime your
officers are currently working.
I notice that you are requesting 62 FTE's for the Capitol
Visitor Center. As I said to Mr. Pickle, I'd like to know if
this request is assumes a September, 2006, opening of the CVC.
Finally, I'd like to know how the merger between the
Capitol Police and the Library of Congress Police is going
since the Memorandum of Understanding was signed.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL STAFFING REQUEST
Senator Allard. And there is no doubt that the Capitol
Police have been under some unusual situations since 9/11, and
last year was an unusual year in that time period. And I know
you had a lot of challenges with the many things that you
mentioned in your testimony. It was truly unique.
Now, what is so unique about this next year that has you
requesting a total of 254 additional officers?
Chief Gainer. Well, our 2006 budget is actually requesting
122 officers, and there are some other officers that are part
of the supplemental----
Senator Allard. Oh, okay. So it is an additional 254, with
the supplemental.
Chief Gainer. The request in the regular budget plus
supplemental comes up to that, that is correct, Senator.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Chief Gainer. Yes.
And in general, 122 are needed because of the expanded
mission of the police. So, for instance, with the Capitol
Visitor Center scheduled to open in 2006, we need to get the
officers into the pipeline that will augment the security that
goes there.
Now that Capitol Visitor Center I think needs some 142
officers. Some of those will be offset by taking officers who
are now involved in the construction projects or screening
elsewhere and put them in there, but ultimately we will need 62
more people to man the various portals in the CVC.
We have expanded our dignitary protection and the level of
protection that we give to the leadership of both the House and
Senate. And we would need 26 extra personnel there.
The Senate leadership has directed and the Board approved
the closure of First Street between Constitution Avenue and D
Street, and that requires an additional 24 people. Now we have
been doing that since early August, but we have been doing that
out of hide and overtime.
Also, we are still in the midst of the support of the
Library of Congress. So 10 of those individuals in our 122
would be dedicated to the attrition we anticipate there. But I
am also aware that the Library of Congress in their own budget
has come in and asked for some of their own people. So I think
we are kind of caught, and the decision has not been made about
whether our departments are going to merge and who is going to
get the personnel to fulfill those needs. But that is where the
122 come from.
Senator Allard. Okay. Your request then will cover all the
posts around the Capitol, plus what would be planned for the
new Capitol Visitor Center, is that correct?
Chief Gainer. If we receive the full supplemental number of
132, and these 122, we would be able to cover our posts with 80
percent of the sworn officers department working on average 8
hours overtime per week.
So this request lets us do a couple of things. If we had
these 254--I will mix both of them.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Chief Gainer. If we have the 254, plus 80 percent of the
department working nearly 16 hours overtime a pay period, that
would permit the officers an opportunity to take their
vacations that they have earned; it would let the officers have
80 hours of training per year, which is really the gold
standard and what we have been trying to shoot for, and just
not wear the officers out. That is under the current threat
environment.
SWORN OFFICERS TRAINING NEEDS
Senator Allard. Okay. How much time do officers now have
for meeting their individual training needs?
Chief Gainer. Well, we have provided your staff with some
of that information. Right now it is getting closer to the 80
hours. It is somewhere in between the 70 and 80 hours. With the
lieutenants and above, they are running up an awful lot of
compensatory time. We are now getting the officers into a
position where they can take their vacation time and time off.
But I can say we have done that right now because we have cut
back in a lot of areas. There are a lot of posts now that we
would prefer under best practices to cover that we are not
covering.
STAFFING THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Senator Allard. Now I bring up the same point that we did
at a previous panel on the completion date of the visitor
center. It looks like it will be finally into 2007 before we
actually have occupancy of that. Are you assuming that we are
going to be moved in in September 2006?
Chief Gainer. We did not think we would all be in there in
September, but we knew that some of the process would begin in
getting the officers selected, trained, and mentored, and ready
to take their position; this process takes some time. So
whether that can slide a month, or two, or three in fiscal year
2006, it would probably be an ideal situation to have the money
for the hiring, so that we would not delay the hiring as long
in order to have the proper amount of officers at their
portals.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
Senator Allard. Now if we are not able to provide your full
increase or funds in the supplemental, what requirements would
not be met at all, and what requirements would you only be able
to partially meet?
Chief Gainer. Well, there is a whole series of those,
Senator, and we will be happy to submit our prioritization
listing.
Senator Allard. If you could, get that to us.
[Clerk's Note.--A detailed prioritization listing has been
provided to the subcommittee.]
Chief Gainer. But again, we have tightened our belts like
good military and uniform people do, but we always increase the
risk if we do not give this full coverage.
Senator Allard. We understand.
Chief Gainer. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Senator Durbin, do you have a question?
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Chief Gainer, thanks for the work that you and your men and
women do for the Capitol Police, and thank you for the fine
service. We at least take this opportunity once every year to
remind all of us who work here and visit here how important
your job is and how our safety depends on you. And I thank you
for the fine men and women that you are commanding.
At this moment, as I understand it, the 1,714 officers, or
police officers, would include the 122 new officers, is that
correct?
Chief Gainer. It would, sir.
DISCUSSION OF OVERTIME
Senator Durbin. It would. And let me ask you this: You
mentioned earlier that you anticipate that each of the Capitol
policemen will incur in any given pay period 16 hours'
overtime?
Chief Gainer. Eighty percent of the department.
Senator Durbin. Eighty percent. Explain that to me, if you
will. If I knew as a manager that I had to have that much
overtime built into the regular payroll, it would suggest I
need more employees.
Chief Gainer. That is correct. In fact, as we did calculate
this as to how many more employees we would need in order to
bring the overtime down, and it is a business decision. And at
first blush, sometimes it seems easier to hire someone in low
overtime or pay more overtime and have fewer FTEs.
As I recall, I think the number to bring the overtime down
closer to zero--441 officers would be that number. The down
side of even asking for that number, I mean the obvious cost of
that is your inability to handle peaks and valleys. I mean it
is still our dream that one day we will not be in as bad a
situation as we are, and perhaps we will be able to scale back
some of the security issues in 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 years from now.
So I think if we grow by this combined total of 254, given
the current threat environment, the department will be in a
position to handle its needs. And I also want to suggest that
we use that target number of 16 hours overtime per pay period
because it is very consistent in the Federal law enforcement
environment. Whether it is the Secret Service, or the FBI, or
ATF, they as a rule are given a fixed amount of money that
really equates to them working about 14 or 15 hours extra a pay
period.
Senator Durbin. What is the difference in pay between
regular time and overtime?
Chief Gainer. I would have to get back to you on that, sir.
Senator Durbin. Is it time-and-a-half? Is it a 50 percent--
--
Chief Gainer. It is time-and-a-half.
Senator Durbin. So if I understand this correctly, 80
percent of your officers will be, in effect, be paid for 20
percent of their time in overtime, 20 percent, if I did that
calculation----
Chief Gainer. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. In my head correctly.
Chief Gainer. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. And we are paying, through your
appropriation, a premium, this 50 percent add-on, for these
extra hours, is that correct?
Chief Gainer. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. Okay. So let me ask you first: What is the
reaction of your officers to this overtime? Is this something
they look forward to, that gives them a little extra money, and
they bank it and are willing to make the sacrifice?
I know at one point here when they were working 12-hour
shifts day after day after day, I really felt for them, because
I thought that the money just was not worth it to some of them,
but they knew they had to do it. So what impact does that
overtime have on morale?
Chief Gainer. Excellent point. And given the amount of
hours that they work, way beyond 16 a pay period, is indicative
of the regard with which they hold their job. But we were
burning them up.
In my conversations with the union and the officers, we
think this is within a ballpark of what they can handle. And
yes, the officers do look forward to having the option of
working overtime When we actually started scaling back after
December, there was an interesting little bit of, ``Hey, Chief,
Christmastime is coming, and we were going to do ``x'' and
``y'', and I was putting carpeting down, and now you are
cutting back overtime on us.'' So I think 16 hours is a
reasonable amount.
From a cost comparison, and I do not have those numbers in
front of me, the cost of hiring an officer, training them,
versus that time-and-a-half overtime pay is really pretty
close.
HIRING AND RETENTION OF SWORN OFFICERS
Senator Durbin. I remember asking either you or a
predecessor how many applicants you had to take to actually
hire one Capitol policeman, and I think the number was 10, or
something. Or at least interview 10 to find 1 officer. Is that
still the norm? Is that still the case?
Chief Gainer. That is close, but I can say that because of
what Congress has done for this department in the way of
salary, equipment, overtime, uniforms, training, and I think
the patriotism of job seekers, we actually have people beating
down our door. We are in a very good position to keep hiring,
and the men and women we are hiring now are just very, very
good.
Senator Durbin. There was also a time when you were losing
officers to TSA and other agencies that offered a different
benefit package, different opportunities, different promotions,
and such. Is that still the case?
Chief Gainer. It is not. There is a slight attrition, and
some of the officers leave to go to other agencies, and we, in
fact, encourage them to do that if that is good for them and
their family. But I think by and large we stemmed that tide of
people walking out of here about 2 years ago. And I think many
of the officers ascribe to the theory that you neither take nor
leave a job just for the money.
Senator Durbin. And what about diversity goals? Do you set
those for your department?
Chief Gainer. We do, and we have worked very hard on that.
Just as an aside, I think we are just under--37 percent of our
department right now is a minority. And at the last Federal
analysis I believe we were ranked number two in Federal
agencies as to the strength of our diversity.
But probably as important as the diversity ratio are the
career opportunities we offer. We have built on what previous
chiefs have done. But what we have been able to do in these
past 3 years is increase the number of minority officers who
get into specialty positions, and especially who have been
promoted to sergeant and lieutenant, and to captain, and now to
inspector and to deputy chief. And so now we are seeing the
fruits of the benefits, and that will continue to increase.
Senator Durbin. I know about one of those personally
because one of the officers that we have come to know quite
well from his singing ability, Officer David Nelson, who I
believe is now a sergeant.
Chief Gainer. Yes.
Senator Durbin. I congratulate him on that.
If I could ask one last question, Mr. Chairman----
Senator Allard. Yes. Go ahead.
MERGER OF POLICE FORCES
Senator Durbin. I became concerned several years ago about
the number of different police forces on Capitol Hill. The
Supreme Court has their own. The Library of Congress had their
own. Capitol Police had their own. And there are probably some
of them missing; maybe the Government Printing Office. I am not
sure.
So we tried to integrate the Library of Congress into the
Capitol Police, and it really was not welcomed by the Library
of Congress. They were not looking for this change, but we were
trying to move in that direction.
Are we achieving that goal? I mean are we creating two
forces where there used to be one? What can you tell me about
the progress of moving toward an integrated force at the
Library of Congress to meet their special needs for security,
which are different than some other places, but also to kind of
bring them into the Capitol Police family?
Chief Gainer. Well, there is yin and yang in that, Senator.
I do think that we have shared a lot of training with each
other. Some of their sergeants and lieutenants have been in our
class. We understand communication a bit more. But it has been
a struggle.
We now have an inspector who is supervising the Library of
Congress police officers as well as 23 of our officers serving
the LOC, and finally, after months of wrangling, the LOC
permitted us to send a sergeant or lieutenant to help them.
I still do not think it is widely well regarded by the
Librarian and his Deputy. I will not try to speak for them. The
very fact that in their budget that they ask for some 45
officers and there was no consultation with this department or
our inspector about the why or the how, again indicates to me
that it is not their number one priority.
As I have said before, if we were building law enforcement
agencies up here, we would not do it as it was done. And I even
suggested recently to the Librarian, there is an memorandum of
understanding (MOU) that the committees literally forced
everybody to sign to try to move this thing along and that MOU
will expire.
I would respectfully request that Congress take action on
the very, very detailed merger plan that we submitted 2 years
ago, or kill this thing, because it creates more work and
energy for us than it is turning out to be worth.
Senator Durbin. I agree with you. It has to be fish or
fowl. We have to decide where we are going on this. And I just
have to tell you that the idea and object here was not to
dramatically increase the number of people guarding the Library
of Congress, but rather to try to reach some sort of regularity
here and consistency so that the Capitol Police could be
involved in this.
I know there were some different standards on retirement
and hiring that had to be resolved. Maybe some grandfathers
that had to be accommodated in the process. But I will, I
promise you I will look at that, and I will talk to the
chairman about it. I do not know if this is a new issue for
him. It might be. But it is something that we need to show some
leadership on. Thank you.
Chief Gainer. But, Senator, if I may say, it is not all
bad. Even if we walked away from the merger they kept our own
department and we brought our people back, we are both better
agencies for it, because, again, we are sharing training and
information. They come each week, by our invitation into our
intel meetings and our staff meetings, so there is some good
that has come out of it.
Senator Durbin. Well, I hope we can have even more good.
Thank you very much.
Senator Allard. Senator Durbin, I look to continue to visit
with you on this particular issue. I just got a look at a
letter to the editor here in Roll Call, and the issue that was
brought out is that the Library is viewed by security as a weak
link. And my question is: How much of a weak link are they? How
vulnerable do they make the rest of the security system here on
the Capitol?
Chief Gainer. Well, there is that corner of the campus, I
think, that is not doing as well as it could do. And again, I
think the concept of the merger was to strengthen that. As the
CVC opens and the tunnel is connected, it could exacerbate
things. So it is not ideal, Senator.
Senator Allard. And the testimony we got from this in the
last hearing is that the head of the Library of Congress had
not communicated with you on this request.
Chief Gainer. That is correct.
Senator Allard. Was there any communication at all, and do
you feel that he should have had some discussion with you?
Chief Gainer. Well, I do know this: When we put together
our budget for both 2006 or the supplemental request, there
were strong conversations with each Sergeant at Arms in their
capacity as Sergeants at Arms even aside from the Board. So I
think there needs to be a very good dialogue with the
stakeholders so that we understand what the clients want and
expect in order to determine what is the best way. And I have
not seen that yet.
Senator Allard. I think that that is our responsibility, to
help make sure you get some clear guidance as to where to go in
that order. So we will be working on that for you.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 SALARY BUDGET DISCUSSION
The other issue I wanted to bring up is, again, the
changing figures that we have seen here lately. Originally, you
showed a deficit of $10 million or so. Then it was considerably
less than that. Now I see that you are looking to anticipate
somewhere around a $25,000 surplus. Do you want to explain why
those figures have changed?
Chief Gainer. I sure do, Senator. In the late fall, early
winter, November, December, the conference committee report was
very clear to the Capitol Police to live within our budget and
do not anticipate any supplementals and, obviously, not be in
violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act. And there was not much
support for the fact that how much work we were doing and how
much overtime we had, and the fact that we knew we were going
to run short of funding.
So we were doing competing things, trying to work with the
committees as to what we might need in order to keep up the
security level at best practice standards, while at the same
time ensuring no anti-deficiency sometime during this fiscal
year.
So I sat down with Jim Rohan, who is the Assistant Chief of
Police, and Tony Stamilio, who is our Chief Administrative
Officer, to look at where we could tighten our belt and try to
provide security and ensure that we have the money to get
through the year? And by doing that, we forced the operational
commanders to be much more miserly in the use of overtime and
to stop doing some things. Since then the amount of overtime
has declined.
We also had money in the budget that we are saving to use
if we had to go to a full-time vehicle interdiction again like
we did in August, September, October, November, where the
officers would be out there 24/7 at these intersections, and
the belt tightening eliminated a significant amount of that
money.
But it has been through belt tightening, eliminating
projects, and stopping some security needs that we have driven
down the money that we needed. And also during this time there
were the ongoing conversations about whether we could use what
had been designated emergency response funds or not, and
finally the determinations and the directions came to use some
of that, so that also took away some of the budget projection
red balances.
COMPETENCY PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Senator Allard. If you have been following some of the
previous hearings, I am a strong believer in measuring
performance, the intent of the Government Performance and
Results Act. And from what I understand has happened, you have
implemented two new competency performance-based management
systems, one for senior executives and then another for
civilian and sworn employees. And then the implementation of
these systems was put on hold due to your operational demands
placed on staff, such as preparing for the Presidential
inauguration.
Have you reinitiated the implementation of these
competency-based performance management systems, and if so,
what progress have you made in that regard?
Chief Gainer. We have restarted them. The one for the
executive team at the inspector and civilian director level
have been implemented, and those personnel do now know their
goals and objectives, and what is expected of them.
The system implementation was delayed because of all the
other operational requirements; we issued the order just in the
past couple of weeks to start the program. The training is
going on through the middle of May. So by June and July, people
will have the renewed job performance appraisal system in
place.
Many of the leaders here were as disappointed as any to
find that some people had not been rated or given any
evaluations in 6, and 8, and 9 years. We now know that we have
to concentrate not only on the operational business in
emergencies, but we also have to keep the administrative and
infrastructure business running.
That has improved, because, again, Congress granted,
especially the administrative side of the House, some
significant civilian personnel. And our fiscal management, our
human resources, our IT shops were terribly understaffed. And
while we grew the sworn numbers by some 333, we just did not
keep up with the administrative side.
I am happy to say, with the guidance of the GAO, and they
have been very helpful in the direction they have given us, and
with the addition of the civilian staff that I believe we will
be positioned to do well on our performance system. We have a
very comprehensive strategic plan, and we are operating from a
business perspective in the direction we should.
OFFSITE DELIVERY CENTER
Senator Allard. Okay. Now talk a little bit about your
offsite delivery center. In the pending supplemental you have
$23 million for that offsite delivery center to replace the
current facility on P Street.
Chief Gainer. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. I guess I direct this to Mr. Hantman. What
is the status of moving this project forward, and do you
believe this amount will be sufficient?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, there have been a series of
meetings over the last several weeks. What we have tried to do
is take a look at alternative sites and work with the House and
the Senate, to find out what sites they find took good
candidates for it, and then try to lay out the different type
of operating procedures that might be used at such an offsite.
One of them would be a transfer type concept, where trucks
would be brought in and offloaded, and then other in-house vans
would be loaded, as the White House model does, to bring
deliveries actually to the Senate side or other locations.
The other concept is screening trucks as they exist and
allowing them to make their designated runs throughout the
campus.
So those types of studies are being done right now, and the
amount of money that would be necessary to accommodate either
one of those profiles would really be determined by the
individual site that the House and the Senate find best and
most appropriate, in terms of travel distance to the Capitol.
And those kinds of evaluations are still being done right now.
The $23 million that is in the supplemental at this point
in time and also in the budget of the Architect of the Capitol
is based on a study that was done several years ago for a
potential site on New York Avenue, using the cost of land over
there and the potential construction. So that study needs to be
updated relative to the particular site that essentially is
determined as the most appropriate by the House and the Senate,
and what type of facility goes on it.
Senator Allard. Mr. Pickle, in regard to the operational
model for the offsite facility, are we on the right track?
Mr. Pickle. Mr. Chairman, the Board has unanimously
approved a particular process that should be utilized for good
offsite delivery security. We, the Senate, are much better
prepared because of staffing and other support that we have. We
are much better prepared to immediately begin that process once
the offsite is completed.
The House, for some other reasons, they have many more
deliveries, they are not equipped either in staffing or other
equipment resources to begin immediately.
Senator Allard. They have almost twice as many deliveries
than we do.
Mr. Pickle. Yes, they do. We are prepared to move ahead
immediately. The dilemma is the funding, as I understand it,
may not be sufficient to build a site that would accommodate
the correct procedures that the Capitol Police Board have
approved. The dilemma is pretty much this way.
We need the flexibility to do what we need to do for the
Senate, and the House will eventually catch up with us and they
will also adopt those protocols; this is my understanding. But
there is no disagreement among Mr. Livingood, or myself, or the
Chief on that. We know the process that needs to be
implemented, but we need the funding to make sure that the
flexibility is there for both the House and Senate to adopt the
same process.
Again, the Senate is ready to proceed. The House has some
more resource issues that they have to focus on with the
Architect.
Senator Allard. And your funding request includes that?
Mr. Pickle. The $23 million funding in the supplemental was
put in there because that is what, based on the study Mr.
Hantman just referred to, that would be sufficient to
accommodate what we both need.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Pickle. We find now that that $23 million may or may
not do it, simply because the price of real estate has gone up,
especially since the Washington Nationals baseball team has
moved into Washington, DC causing real estate prices in the
area the House would use as an offsite delivery location to go
up quite a bit.
I would also like to say that the Senate does not really
care where this site is, and we have been very clear about
that. We are prepared to immediately start the process once the
site is picked. We are just waiting for the funding to match up
with the results of his study, so we can get moving.
MOUNTED HORSE UNIT
Senator Allard. Okay. I want to bring up the mounted horse
unit with you, Chief Gainer. Now it has been in place just a
short period of time.
Chief Gainer. Just about 1 year.
Senator Allard. Can you tell me whether you feel it has
been effective or not, and what specific improvements has it
brought, and how high a priority do you place in continuing
this unit?
Chief Gainer. Through my police career I have seen what
mounted units have done, and that goes back to the late
sixties, where I spent the first 20 years of my career on the
Chicago Police Department. Mounted units are unbelievably
effective in crowd management, whether that is from a positive
point of view in just managing a crowd, or disruptive crowds in
calming them. That was one of the reasons that I first
approached the Board and then the committees to do that, to
have a mounted unit.
The training is rigorous, and we have some great personnel
riding the horses. And we have used them in crowd control
exercises up here as recently as yesterday. The officers on
those horses have also issued tickets. They have found a lost
child. They have responded to any number of hazardous device
incidents, where they have helped manage the crowd.
They are a wonderful PR asset, too. I daresay they are
probably the most often photographed thing in addition to the
Capitol Dome, or if you can juxtaposition them against the
Dome, that would be the most taken picture by visitors.
And there is something very positive about that----
Senator Allard. Yes.
Chief Gainer [continuing]. For people to feel they can
approach a police officer. Because, again, over my 27 years,
what we did, we got in squad cars, we rolled the windows up,
turned the air-conditioners on, and put personal radios on, and
you did not communicate with the outside.
The officers are out there. They are visible. They are
interacting. They can see above the crowd. They can move in
areas around this campus, where neither cars, nor bikes, nor
motorcycles can go. So I think they are value added, and I hope
that we have another year or two out of this to convince the
Congress that they are value added.
Senator Allard. And you do not see any increased
vulnerability to the officer on the horse. In fact, you see
just the opposite, is that right?
Chief Gainer. They very much have a calming effect. And
clearly, what the studies and experience indicate is that a
mounted rider is equivalent to 10 foot officers. So it is a
force multiplier, if you will, and when you see them wade into
a crowd, especially a hostile crowd, you can very easily bring
peace and tranquility.
Senator Allard. Now if you are recruiting in the State of
Colorado, it probably would not be as difficult to find
somebody who knows how to ride a horse. Are you able to find
officers who have riding skills that can qualify for the job?
Chief Gainer. Well, we are finding them. And interestingly
enough, even again, I will go back to my Chicago days. The
Chicago Police Department sent their personnel out to the
United States Park Police, who is considered one of the model
agencies in training, which is where, when we restarted the
Metropolitan Police Department's unit I sent the officers and I
sent our Capitol Police officers there. And you will get most
trainers to say they would prefer to have someone who does not
have a lot of riding experience, so you do not have to break
them of bad habits.
I can say this: One of our sergeants that went through this
training, I think he is the oldest individual who has ever
completed the Park Police training. And we have good men and
women out there riding horses. That is not a problem.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER SPACE FOR POLICE
Senator Allard. Good. Thank you. Now how about your space
in the visitor center? Are there sufficient funds in the budget
to complete the fit out of the space for the Capitol Police in
the visitor center?
Chief Gainer. The Senate, I believe, is allocated funds
that would take care of what is designated the Senate portion,
and their share of the police portion. And I think that is in
the Architect's budget. I think the House is still working on
their share, if I am not mistaken, to fully fund that. But,
again, that is part of the interesting issue with the Capitol
Police department up here, and how, we have an artificial line
that goes down some offices, and where half belongs to one body
and half the other, and to figure out how we buy the desk, and
the paper, and the furniture. It is being worked on, sir.
Senator Allard. So you are having to kind of divide out
half furniture, House, half furniture, Senate. Is that where
you are at right now?
Chief Gainer. Yes. But we are working with everybody to do
that.
Senator Allard. Okay.
So you will have more to report on that later.
Chief Gainer. Yes, sir.
FAIRCHILD BUILDING
Senator Allard [continuing]. Okay. Now on the Fairchild
building, the Architect of the Capitol is leasing and fitting
out several floors of the Fairchild building for the Capitol
Police. Can you brief the subcommittee on the status of that
effort? And when do you feel it will be ready to be occupied,
and what needs we may have in that facility?
Chief Gainer. Sure. We think our first--we hope our first--
well, we have some people in there now in swing space, because
we are moving them out of our headquarters, and there are some
people in old space in the Fairchild. We think the new
remodeled space will probably be ready. The target is sometime
June. I am going to suspect late June, maybe early July, where
we finally have a finished space where we can move people in
there.
The Architect and his staff have been very, very helpful in
support of--given all the things everybody asks the Architect
to do. It has been a costly operation. We are seeking funding
for some of the security mechanisms that would be needed there,
because we are taking over a large portion of the building, and
it does not--with some very important units and documents for
which we have asked for just under $1 million-ish to fund some
of those security needs. So there are still some needs and
there some time.
But again, the whole issue about being in that building
really revolves, again--Congress was very good in growing the
department by some 333 sworn since 9/11. But the space that we
occupy continues to shrink up until these recent moves.
The Fairchild building was always meant to satisfy a
temporary issue. And again, we would implore both the House and
the Senate to consider our requests for a new Capitol Police
headquarters, ultimately, that we might move into in 5, or 6,
or 7 years.
Senator Allard. Okay. Gentlemen, that takes care of my
questions. And so we will go ahead and call this part of the
hearing--we will dismiss this panel and then we will call on
the next panel, which would be the Capitol Guide Board.
I want to thank you all for your hard work and dedication,
and all the fine people that you have underneath you, and all
their fine work. I know they put in long, hard hours, and we
appreciate that.
Chief Gainer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. PICKLE, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY:
BILL LIVINGOOD, HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS
ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Mr. Pickle. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, you get to look at
us a little longer.
Senator Allard. We now have the Capitol Guide Board, which
is Mr. Hantman, Mr. Pickle, and Mr. Livingood.
Mr. Pickle. I think this is kind of unusual. This is the
first time in a number of years that the Capitol Guide Board
has testified.
Senator Allard. New leadership on the subcommittee.
OPENING TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM PICKLE
Mr. Pickle. But the Capitol Guide Service does a wonderful
job, and by any measure, they are one of the best tour services
in the world. So far this year they have accommodated more than
200,000 visitors, and we believe that by October we may
approach up to 1.5 million.
The role of the Guide Service has changed quite
dramatically since 9/11, like so much here. Prior to 9/11, it
was more for tours and informational services. Since 9/11 they
have become a very integral part of security. They help the
police department in such things as emergency evacuation of
tourists. Most of these visitors have never been in this
building, and it is absolutely critical, as you have seen
during some of the evacuations, that we have people who are
trained to get people out of the building without hurting them
and without causing more harm.
We, today, have about 70 guides. And they handle roughly
1,900 to 2,000 public visitors a day. The numbers are
compounded by the fact that staff-led tours now total almost
6,000 people a day. So we keep our tour guides busy not only
with their own tours, but helping the staff as well.
Tours are going to become a little more complicated as we
get into the CVC, because, obviously, the jurisdiction or the
role of the tour guide service will expand dramatically. To
what degree, we do not know. That is still up to the governance
board, and the House and Senate leadership who, as you know,
are trying to decide just how this is going to be structured.
But for 2006, we are pretty stable. We are asking for
$254,000 more in the budget. It is a small 6.6 percent
increase, and essentially covers COLAs and other minor
expenses. We are not asking for any more positions this year.
We believe additional positions for the CVC will be requested
in next year's budget request.
To show you the magnitude of what the Capitol Visitor
Center is going to mean to the Guide Board, a consulting
company that has been helping for the last several years and
working with the Architect and that specializes in museums and
large institutions, has indicated to us that their analysis
shows we will need 161 guides to manage the CVC and the
Capitol. This is because there are so many more
responsibilities that the Guide Service will be required to
take on in the visitor center. It is going to be a challenging
year for us as we prepare for the CVC to open.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I have nothing more, but we are here to answer any
questions you may have, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William H. Pickle
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 the
Congressional Special Services Office (CGS/CSSO). With me today
are Mr. Wilson Livingood, the House Sergeant at Arms and Mr.
Alan Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol, who join me as
Members of the Capitol Guide Board. Mr. Tom Stevens, Director
of the Capitol Guide Service, is also with me today.
The primary function of the Capitol Guide Service is to
provide an enjoyable and accessible visit to the United States
Capitol for over 1.5 million visitors annually. So far this
fiscal year, the Guide Service has accommodated more than
200,000 visitors on public tours alone. Also this year, the
Guide Service has led approximately 55,000 visitors on Member
Reserved Group tours, 7,500 on Congressional member tours
(early-morning tours), 2,500 on Dome tours and more than 1,000
visitors on adaptive tours for visitors with disabilities.
Additionally, the Guide Service through its Congressional
Special Services Office, has provided over 500 hours of sign
language interpreting services for Congressional business.
These numbers represent the non-peak season. If current levels
are an indicator, we may reach 1.5 million visitors to the
Capitol before October. The Guide Service has also trained over
1,500 Congressional staff to give tours so far this year.
During the peak season staff bring approximately 6,000 visitors
to the Capitol each day.
The Capitol Guide Service has been in existence since 1876,
employing five 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 ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The role of the Guide Service in those days--pre 9/11--was
to provide guided tours and informational guidance to visitors
to the Capitol. Since then, the role of the Guide Service has
expanded to include a quasi-security function. 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 have seventy guides 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 2006, the Guide Service is requesting a
total budget of $4,098,000, which is an increase of $254,000 or
6.6 percent over the fiscal year 2005 budget. Of that amount,
$228,000 (90 percent) of this increase over fiscal year 2005
includes the estimated fiscal year 2006 COLA and increases in
personnel benefits. The requested increase will 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. While the
Board anticipates hiring additional staff to operate in the
CVC, funding for those additional FTE's is included in the CVC
startup budget, therefore, these positions are not requested in
this fiscal year 2006 submission.
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.
Senator Allard. I wanted to have an opportunity to see what
the makeup of the Board is and have a chance to visit with you
a little bit about it. And I realize that it has not been on
anybody's radar screen, but I also think that this is a unique
time, with us moving into the new Capitol Visitor Center, and
would like to have some assurance from you that some thought
was being given about what I foresaw as some changing dynamics
in the way those tours may be handled----
Mr. Pickle. Absolutely.
STAFF LED TOURS
Senator Allard [continuing]. As we move into the new
Capitol Visitor Center, and perhaps some jurisdictional
concerns, which you alluded to, as far as the House and the
Senate are concerned.
We have 6,000 people led in daily, what we call staff-led
tours, and then you have 2,000 visitors that come through your
regular Guide Service. And the staff-led tours, these are staff
from the individual congressional offices. That is a pretty
sizeable number that we have our staff doing.
Do you see a problem with the staff-led tours?
Mr. Pickle. There is a real problem with staff-led tours,
and it is that we want the tours to be worthwhile for visitors.
They should be enjoyable and a learning experience. And quite
honestly, we do not think we are getting the bang for the buck
on these tours.
The Guide Service works hard to train staff members in each
office and on each committee to give a good tour. But the
situation is more difficult when you have thousands of people
in the Capitol.
As you know, it is tough to walk from one end of the
Capitol to the other during the middle of the day. Both the
House and the Senate are working with the Guide Service Board
now to come up with an alternative plan, or something that will
make the tours a more enjoyable experience.
We are sending a letter out on the Senate side today to all
of the committees and all the offices reminding them of the
rules for staff-led tours. We are also reminding them that the
building will only hold so many people, then it becomes unsafe,
and when we reach that limit, we will be canceling or stopping
tours for a period of time. Mr. Livingood has been doing that
for the last several weeks on the House side.
Senator Allard. I would guess that you have a lot more
staff-led tours on that side.
Mr. Pickle. It is considerably more.
Senator Allard. Do we have an idea of how many of these are
Senate-led staff tours and how many are House-led staff tours?
Any idea on that?
Mr. Pickle. Two-thirds are House--4,000 House, 2,000
Senate.
Senator Allard. Okay.
I think that is all. I just wanted to let you know we are
looking at and thinking about the tours, and we need to have a
little public discussion about it. But I think that as a new
member of this subcommittee and also as its chairman that I
need to do everything I possibly can to inform myself on the
workings of the Capitol and the surrounding facilities that we
have.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
So, again, I want to thank you for all your hard work. And
the subcommittee stands in recess until May 11, when we will
take testimony from the Government Printing Office and the
Congressional Budget Office.
And thank you, gentlemen, for your hard work.
Mr. Pickle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., Wednesday, April 27, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, May 11.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriation,
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 PRINTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF BRUCE R. JAMES, PUBLIC PRINTER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order.
This morning, we meet to take testimony from three
legislative branch agencies, the Government Printing Office
(GPO), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Office of
Compliance. I want to welcome all of our witnesses.
We will first hear from Mr. Bruce James, Public Printer,
who will be presenting GPO's budget request for $131 million.
GPO's budget request is an increase of $11 million over the
current year, or a 9 percent increase.
Mr. James, you've made great strides in the past few years
in improving GPO's operations, including closing the retail
stores which had been in the red for some time, downsizing the
workforce to better meet GPO's needs, developing a strategic
plan, reorganizing the agency to better meet customer needs,
and seeking opportunities for relocating GPO's facility.
I would also note that GPO's financial situation has
improved considerably, generating net income in 2004 for the
first time since 1999. We look forward to reviewing the status
of your efforts to make further improvements to modernize the
Government Printing Office.
Following GPO, we will hear from Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
who is accompanied by his Deputy, Dr. Elizabeth Robinson. The
CBO's budget request of $36 million is a modest 3.5 percent
increase over the current year to maintain current operations.
And then, finally, we will take testimony from the
Executive Director of the Office of Compliance, Bill Thompson,
and the Chair of the Board of the Office of Compliance, Susan
Robfogel. The office is requesting a budget of $2.6 million for
fiscal year 2006. While this is a 9 percent increase, we
understand you believe additional funds over the requested
level may be needed to fully meet your mandate.
I will turn to my ranking member when he arrives, and in
the meantime, we will go ahead and take testimony from our
witnesses. We're going to start with Mr. James, Government
Printing Office. I appreciate everybody's timeliness this
morning, because I do like to get started on time, so Mr.
James, you're up.
OPENING STATEMENT OF BRUCE JAMES
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
address you this morning, I have a prepared statement for the
record, if you'll accept that.
Senator Allard. We will make that a part of the record.
Mr. James. Thank you. I'd like to make a few comments.
First of all, you may observe the room is filled with people, I
think GPO has more people here this morning than you do, and
you might assume that I have all these wonderful people here in
case you ask any tough questions and I need answers, but that's
not really the reason. This is an opportunity that I think is
important for our people to see first hand what is on your
mind, and what it is that we need to be addressing.
Second, I have with me this morning a couple of our younger
staff. We put a great deal of effort on recruiting from college
campuses the best and brightest graduates to come in and join
our organization, and with me this morning I have one of them,
Ron Selby, who is a graduate of Cal Poly, and who's working in
our digital media group, establishing new standards for
Government information.
And I also have with me one of our interns, an intern from
Howard, here in town, Lonnie Stibey, and it's our hope that we
can attract her when she graduates from school into the
organization, too.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that you're new in this position,
and we've not had a chance to talk about some of the background
of the GPO, and if I may, I'd like to use my time here to talk
about the big picture here for a minute, because I think you'll
find this useful.
We're in an interesting situation. We've had a disruptive
technology thrust upon us, and that disruptive technology is
the Internet, which is changing forever the way people will do
business in this country. It's changing the way information's
going to be handled, and it's changing the ability of Americans
to access the work of their Government. As you know, the
Government Printing Office goes back many years. When I was
sworn into office, I was fortunate to have Justice Kennedy
swear me in, and he gave me a little 15 minute talk. And during
that period of time, he didn't talk once about making printing
presses run faster. What he talked about was my responsibility
in helping to preserve our democracy, by making certain that
all Americans have access to information about the work of
their Government.
And so, in the past 2 years--and I've been there a little
over 2 years--what we've been looking at is what are the true
core requirements of the GPO, not just today, but what are
those requirements going to be into the future. And we've done
this by talking with all of the groups involved with the GPO,
from Congress to librarians to printers, to our customers in
the executive branch, to get a feeling from them about how
their requirements are changing and what they're going to need
in the future.
And we also talked with universities to see what they were
working on in their research laboratories, we talked with our
sister agencies that are involved with information, like the
Library of Congress, and the Archives of the United States. We
visited with the major technology companies to see what they're
working on in the future, and from all of this a pattern
emerged. And we took last year to come together, and I took
about 200 people at GPO working in small groups on the
development of a strategic vision for the agency, published
that vision in December of last year, and as I say to our
folks, this is not the final blueprint, this is the music, and
it's up to them to now fill in the words, but now we've got
everybody on the same page and I'm pleased to say that we've
gotten wide acceptance of the strategic plan, or our strategic
vision, from the various groups, again, that we do business
with.
The next thing that we've looked at doing here is to try to
decide where the funds are going to come from that are going to
be required to transform the GPO from an analog, print-centric
organization to a digital information organization, which is
what's needed in the future. And there will be, literally,
hundreds of millions of dollars involved in the cost of doing
this, and so we've looked at this and thought about this as if
it was business--how would we look at it? Well, we would have
two choices--perhaps more than two--but we'd have two distinct
choices.
One is to turn to the capital markets to raise the money,
and the other would be doing this from internally generated
funds. And, in the case of a Government agency, of course,
Congress is the capital market, we'd have to come to Congress
for the funds that are necessary to make the investment, and
continue to refresh the investment, and it's been very clear to
me in the year, year and a half that I've looked at this, that
Congress has priorities that are probably higher than the GPO,
and let me just put it that way, and so I just don't think it's
realistic to come to you and ask you for hundreds of millions
of dollars.
Instead we've looked at this and tried to determine how we
could do this using our own assets, and I think we've come up
with a very ingenious plan. It revolves around the facilities
that we have on North Capitol Street, which are historic, they
go back to the 1860's. We've acquired in that period of time
about 80 parcels of land that we've accumulated and built four
buildings altogether on that land. However, those buildings are
now obsolete for the purpose that we have today, they're
totally obsolete. They're very expensive to maintain; we
estimate that we're spending as much as $35 million a year to
maintain these obsolete buildings that we wouldn't have to
spend if we were in proper facilities, properly located, and
properly equipped.
So, what we've done is, because we're five blocks from the
U.S. Capitol, we realize that this land, these facilities could
be very valuable to the Government in the future. So, we've
looked at the possibility of doing a deal with the private
development community wherein we would lease the land in
exchange for payment coming from them. The payment, in turn,
would be used to build and equip a new facility, and it also
would be a continuing cash stream to us to be able to refresh
our technology without having to make a burden on taxpayers.
We've been at this for some time. We've engaged one of the
preeminent real estate advisory firms in the country to help us
with this, and we've been consulting with Members and staffs in
both the Senate and the House, and I think we are coming right
down the road. I hope to be able to institute that this year.
It is the single-most important thing in front of us.
The second thing that we're doing that is absolutely
critical to the future of Government information is the
development of what we're calling the ``Future Digital
System,'' sometimes it's referred to as the ``Digital Content
Management System''. It is a single system that is based on
what's going to be required to ingest Government documents that
are created in digital form, and to manage that information
through a life cycle, and the life cycle in the case of the
United States of America is in perpetuity. And in trying to get
our minds around what that is, we realize that's a long time.
And I guess you, philosophically, can argue whether it's
forever or not, but in perpetuity's a long time.
We've had that charge since 1813, of making certain that
the documents created by the United States Government are not
only available to the public, but that we keep them for future
generations. So, we're developing a large system. Again, we're
looking how to do this with internally generated funds. I
realize I can't just come to you and ask you to again put tens
of millions of dollars into this, and we think we have a way of
doing this and will be coming back to you in the next week or
two to talk about it. And that is, that we have a revolving
fund, and as the appropriations come each year--the two major
appropriations we get, one is for congressional printing and
binding, the other is for dissemination through the Federal
depository library program and through the Internet--we have
accumulated some surpluses from past years. I say they became
surpluses only because we've become more efficient. That money
was set aside to do work in the future, going back and taking
care of documents that were created by Congress and agencies
that would only be printed in future years, and we've just
gotten more efficient. And so, we see an opportunity to use
those funds to support the building of a future digital system.
And, again, I think it's an ingenious way of using that money,
it's a terrific investment. And so we'll be coming back to you,
Mr. Chairman, to talk about that in the next week or 2.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, those are the major issues that we have here, I think
that we have proven that we can get our arms around this large
agency and sort of tame it, and bring it under control. We
introduced, as you pointed out, a number of practices in the
agency that now allow us to be able to predict what will
happen, and measure what we do, and make adjustments as
necessary to be prudent managers of the enterprise.
Mr. Chairman, those are my opening remarks, and I will be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce R. James
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee 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 2006.
2004 results
I'm pleased to report that the GPO made significant progress during
fiscal year 2004--the first full year of our efforts to transform this
venerable agency from a 19th century printing factory into a 21st
century digital information factory.
We restored the GPO's finances to a positive basis for the first
time in 5 years, broadened the application of best practices throughout
our operations, prepared for the release of new product and service
options, and set in motion our plan to relocate to a modern facility.
With the release of our Strategic Vision for the 21st Century in
December, we set the GPO on a new course for the future.
Underscoring our progress are the results of the GAO's widely
anticipated study of Federal printing and information dissemination
activities, Government Printing Office: Actions to Strengthen and
Sustain GPO's Transformation, which was requested originally by this
committee in 2002 and released in June, 2004. The study validates our
efforts to redirect the GPO's focus toward information dissemination in
the digital era.
We generated consolidated net income in 2004 for the first time
since fiscal year 1999, reversing a trend that had depleted our
financial reserves and jeopardized our ability to finance needed
technological modernization. We also recorded a significant positive
adjustment to our long-term worker's compensation liability under FECA,
which further strengthened our finances.
We implemented plans to achieve savings and improve service
provision by outsourcing financial and IT support operations. We closed
our final ailing regional printing plant. A second retirement incentive
program, authorized by the Joint Committee on Printing, resulted in an
additional workforce reduction of 250 positions, yielding a cumulative
workforce reduction of approximately 550 positions, or nearly 20
percent, since January 2003.
We established an office to devise new product and service options
for Congress and Federal agencies. Security documents are gaining
increased attention throughout the Government--from biometric passports
to requirements for new security document standards contained in the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004--and we view
this as a major new opportunity for the application of the GPO's expert
capabilities. We began reviewing options for developing GPO facilities
outside of Washington, DC, to enhance security and continuity of
operations.
During 2004 we began planning for the development of a Digital
Content Management System that will allow us to obtain, preserve, and
provide access to information produced by all three branches of
Government, and to material currently in the custody of the GPO and
Federal depository libraries nationwide. The Digital Content Management
System will enable the GPO's customers to electronically access the
content they want and allow us to deliver it in the formats they
desire.
As we reported to this Committee last year, a key to the GPO's
future will be relocating from our aging, oversized quarters to modern,
efficient facilities scaled and equipped to meet our needs in the 21st
century. Rather than burden the taxpayers with this project, we're
investigating opportunities to finance it through the redevelopment of
our current structures. In September 2004, following approval from the
Joint Committee on Printing, we selected an expert real estate advisory
firm to help guide us in this process, which we expect to culminate by
late 2007. We will seek legislative authority for this project and are
working on this with our oversight committees.
Because of the relentless scope and pace of changes in information
technology, the way the Government keeps America informed has been
forever altered. The GPO's historic mission places us at the very
epicenter of this change. We can no longer afford simply to react to
change in information dissemination. Instead, we have to lead it. Late
in the year we released our Strategic Vision of the 21st Century, which
positions us to transform the GPO into a 21st century digital
information service provider.
The time has come for the GPO to fully assume its responsibilities
as the Government's primary resource for gathering, cataloging,
producing, providing, and preserving its published information in all
forms. This is the GPO's historic mission, tracing its beginning to
1813, when the antecedents of Federal Depository Library Program was
first enacted. But to fully assume it, we must embrace our historic
mission using the technology of the 21st century. Relying on the
creative energy of our dedicated workforce, and based on the
achievements we've logged over the past two years, we're well-
positioned to begin making our strategic vision of the GPO a reality.
fiscal year 2006 request
Our fiscal year 2006 request is designed to provide for the:
continuation of our congressional printing and binding operations at
required levels; continuation of our information dissemination services
at required levels; and investment in retraining our workforce to meet
the demands of technology.
Our fiscal year 2006 request is consistent with the financial goal
included in our Strategic Vision, which is to provide the resources
required to accomplish our vision using the GPO's own operations and
assets as well as normal appropriations, with the exception of a
onetime infusion of workforce development and training funds.
continuation of services
For the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation, which
covers printing and information product services for Congress, we are
requesting $92.3 million. This is a modest rise over the level approved
by Congress for fiscal year 2005, based on anticipated direct cost
increases resulting primarily from contractual wage agreements and
projected changes in congressional workload consistent with second
session requirements.
For the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent
of Documents, we are requesting $33.8 million, also a modest rise over
the fiscal year 2005 approved level. This appropriation provides for
the distribution of Government publications in both tangible and online
formats to Federal depository and international exchange libraries and
other recipients authorized by law, as well as the cataloging and
indexing of Government publications. Today, our online information
service, GPO Access (www.gpoaccess.gov), makes available free of charge
more than a quarter of a million titles from all three branches of the
Federal Government, and is used by the public to retrieve more than 37
million documents every month.
Since 1996, consistent with directions from Congress, the GPO has
been transitioning the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) to a
predominately electronic basis in full cooperation and consultation
with the library community. This initiative has resulted in an
exponential expansion of effective public access to Government
information without substantial increases in funding. At the same time,
we have continued to provide public access to information in tangible
formats in accordance with policy established by the Superintendent of
Documents.
We value our partnership with Federal depository libraries and
share their commitment to providing no-fee permanent public access to a
comprehensive body of official Federal Government information, in print
and electronic form. We will continue to expand electronic information
offerings through the FDLP and will continue to provide for
dissemination of tangible products to depository libraries in
accordance with existing policy, in full consultation with the library
community and our oversight committees in Congress.
investment in the gpo's future
For our revolving fund, we are requesting $5 million for
transitioning the GPO's workforce from traditional manufacturing and
distribution skills to the capabilities required for managing the life-
cycle of Government information products. These funds will be used to
define the workforce needed in the immediate future, assess the skills
of current employees, identify the gaps, and then design and deliver
targeted, just-in-time training to close those gaps.
Our Strategic Vision identifies unexpended balances of prior year
appropriations that have not yet expired as a potential source of funds
for investment in our signature initiative, the Digital Content
Management System. This system will serve both the FDLP as well as
ingest information products produced by Congress for public
dissemination. Under the language of our appropriations accounts,
unobligated or unexpended balances in these accounts or accounts for
similar purposes for preceding fiscal years may be transferred to the
GPO revolving fund for carrying out the purposes of these
appropriations subject to the approval of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees. The GPO used this legislative provision once
before, in 2001, with the Committees' approval. For this appropriations
cycle, and with the approval of the Joint Committee on Printing, we
will seek the Committees' approval to transfer currently available
funds to the revolving fund where they would remain available until
expended in the development of the Digital Content Management System.
This funding would also be available to liquidate any shortfalls in
these appropriated accounts that may occur through fiscal year 2006.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Appropriations Committee, thank you
for all the support you have shown for our efforts to bring
transformation to the GPO. This past year has been one of unparalleled
accomplishment at the GPO. With your support we can continue that
record of achievement. I look forward to working with you in your
review and consideration of our request.
REDEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE HEADQUARTERS
Senator Allard. Mr. James, you have made tremendous strides
in your efforts to modernize GPO. One of the biggest obstacles
you face is your current facility on North Capitol Street--4
buildings and 8.5 acres--far more than GPO needs and costing
$35 million in operations and maintenance each year. What are
the options you are exploring to finance a new GPO facility?
Mr. James. The land that we have at North Capitol and H
Streets is one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in
the United States for potential development, and it's because
of its location, one block from Union Station, and five blocks
from the Capitol. It's clear that the District government would
be opposed to tearing down the historic buildings that we have,
and so we're going to have to preserve those historic
buildings, however we end up doing this, but we have vacant
land to go with these historic buildings, and my guess is that
we'll end up with a mix of offices, retail, residential and
perhaps, even, a hotel. And from our conversations with the
District government, they're quite excited about this, because
this fits into their general development scheme for the area
quite well. This can be the lynchpin for them in really helping
to develop that part of the city.
So, what we've been doing with The Staubach Company, our
real estate advisory firm, is looking at what would be the
highest and best use of that land, not just for us, but for the
city too, what are we going to end up with? Because what we
want to do is go out to developers and we want to do this on a
competitive process. We'll probably go through two stages--a
request for information and a request for proposal. But I don't
want to go out blind. I want to go out knowing what to expect
back, so I have an ability to evaluate what we're hearing.
Now, we've also been working with two other organizations
that have more real estate experience than we do, and that's
the General Services Administration, and the Architect of the
Capitol, both of whom have been very generous in sharing their
people with us as we set this process up. So, at the end of the
day, we would expect, through a competitive process, to get the
highest and best use of the property, and do it on a basis
where we, the Government, retain the ownership, at least of the
contiguous parcels on the west side of North Capitol, and at
some period in the future it reverts back to the Government, so
that we have a second bite at the apple.
Senator Allard. According to your strategic plan, GPO
``expects the terms of any redevelopment to be settled by mid-
2005.'' Are you on schedule?
Mr. James. Yes, sir. We are. We have been working
diligently in the last year on this, the final presentation
from Staubach is due to be made to me next Monday, we have
identified the issues that we need to work with Congress on,
we've had preliminary discussions with Congress on this, and
we'll be back in the next week or 2 asking permission to move
forward.
Senator Allard. Is legislation required to implement your
plan?
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, we've looked very carefully at
this, and under the law, I can probably do quite a bit on my
own, obviously we wouldn't move without the concurrence of
Congress, but it looks like we are going to need legislation in
terms of the ability to keep the proceeds in redevelopment, but
if we don't have that it looks to us like the proceeds would go
back to the General Treasury.
Senator Allard. Have you shared the plan with the
appropriate committees of Congress?
Mr. James. We have shared the development of that plan,
we're getting ready to present the entire plan.
Senator Allard. When will the Congress be presented with a
plan?
Mr. James. Within a week or 2.
Senator Allard. Is your assumption that a new GPO building
will be operational in fiscal year 2007 realistic?
Mr. James. Well, my target is to be in a new facility--
which is separate and distinct from the redevelopment of the
existing facilities, they can't begin to redevelop the existing
facilities until we get out--so our goal is to be out and into
a new facility by December 2007. Now, I caution, that's a very
aggressive schedule, but I'm used to setting aggressive
schedules, and trying to get there. It is an aggressive
schedule.
Senator Allard. Will any appropriations be required for
this venture?
Mr. James. Well, we've had some discussions with your staff
about the future of appropriations, because we realize this
isn't just a 1-year deal here, and the economics look to us
like, quite frankly, we will be able to reduce our
appropriations requests in the future, not ask for more money,
and the reason I say that is, so much of what you appropriate
to use, particularly for congressional printing and binding,
encompasses the overhead that we have for maintaining this
ancient facility. And when that overhead is reduced, we should
be able to produce each page of a document for less money,
therefore reducing, overall, the costs to the Government.
FUTURE COST SAVINGS
Senator Allard. GPO's budget justification indicates that
once you have a new plant and equipment, you expect to be able
to reduce the congressional printing and binding appropriation
by 30 percent. What is the basis of this projection?
Mr. James. We estimate that we will be able, on the
congressional printing and binding portion of the
appropriation, we think by 2009, our request will be about 30
percent less than it would be if we maintained ourselves in the
same building.
Senator Allard. Where will the savings come from?
Mr. James. You know, I could probably best answer that
question by taking you for a 10 minute walk through our
facility. It was designed and built in the late 19th century
and early 20th century, and we're maintaining nearly 100
elevators that are in some cases 100 years old. We're
maintaining an ancient facility that, at one time, housed 8,500
people, and today we have less than 2,500 people in the
facility. As we embrace technology, and do things more
efficiently, we need fewer people. So, just by reducing those
costs, we will save about $35 million a year, just from that
alone.
SCHEDULE FOR NEW BUILDING
Senator Allard. Is your assumption that a new GPO building
will be operational in 2007 realistic?
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, I'm a novice at this, I've only
been in Washington for 2 years, and of course, everybody tells
me how slowly things move, and I realize that I don't have the
same control on the project that I would if this were in the
private sector, but I see no obstacles at this point that would
keep us from meeting that aggressive schedule. There may be
something that comes up, certainly Congress could slow us down
and there would be other things that could slow us down, too,
but I think this is a doable schedule, and I think it's
realistic. It's very important that we have dates like that in
mind for my planners, the folks that are planning what the new
operation will look like, because as you might imagine, when we
move to a new facility, this will be the start of a new
culture. We will move from being print-centric with large--what
I call, heavy metal--printing presses, and instead we'll move
into digital production lines that are very efficient.
I had a conversation the other day with the Clerk of the
House about this, about the Congressional Record. I was talking
to Mr. Trandahl about it, and I said, ``For instance, we no
longer would have to think about giving each Member a complete
Record each day. We could, instead, do a customized Record
based on what their interests are, what their committees are,
and just custom-make exactly what they need, because the entire
Record's on the Internet, you can look it up on GPO Access or
Thomas, so instead, we could save paper, we could save time, we
could save energy, and make it much more efficient.'' So, we're
looking at building a platform that will be far more flexible
for our customers in the future.
DIGITAL CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Senator Allard. According to your statement, GPO will be
seeking congressional approval this year to reprogram $20
million from previously appropriated funds to develop a new
integrated digital content management system. Could you explain
what this is and why it is necessary?
Mr. James. Well, it's necessary because technology has
changed. Twelve years ago, the Government didn't have any
documents on the Internet. Last month, we estimate that 50
percent of all Government documents were born digital, to never
be printed by the Government. This doesn't relieve the
Government of the responsibility of having that information
available to citizens, and our web portal, GPO Access, is the
Government's principle point for citizens to enter and look at
the documents of Government. We have about 256,000 documents
available for citizens on GPO Access, we have about 1 million
downloads a day of Government documents. This didn't exist 10
years ago. So, we need to have a system that's robust enough to
handle that--and if I may add, if I may just extend that remark
slightly--there are profound changes coming down the road.
The Internet that we have today is nothing like what the
Internet 5 years from now is going to look like. The Internet 5
years from now will be running at 20,000 times the speed of
today's Internet. The way the Government gathers information
and the way we present information is going to change. We're
going to make far heavier use of video and audio, and what we
need to do is prepare the way, so that when you're ready to
introduce new ways of doing things, we have the support
mechanism in place.
LEASE OF CURRENT FACILITY
Senator Allard. If you're planning to lease the current
facility, are you counting on whoever leases it to maintain the
buildings, or will GPO need to do that, and is GPO going to
have a surplus out of this lease arrangement in order to pay
for the other building?
Mr. James. We won't be doing the maintenance, Mr. Chairman.
The developer that we pick together will be doing this.
Senator Allard. And the Government will continue to own
those buildings?
Mr. James. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. And the land, too?
Mr. James. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. And, have you got some figures on what it's
going to cost to maintain and operate the lease site?
Mr. James. We're not going to know that until we go out for
proposals from developers. And again, this is not our money,
this is not taxpayer's money that we're putting into this
development project. This will be capital the developer raises
and brings to the project. The developer's the one who will be
responsible for building anything, changing anything, with his
own funds, and for paying the cost of maintaining it, paying
the costs of leasing it, collecting the rents, doing all the
things that would normally be done. We simply sit there with a
lease that is guaranteed, of course, by the fact that we own
the land, and the buildings, we own those, so that's our
guarantee, and we will get then, each year, or each month or
however the arrangement is made, we will get a sum of money
paid to us.
Senator Allard. You had a number of developers who were
interested in this project, is that right?
Mr. James. I believe we have gone through the steps of
making certain that the world's premier developers are aware of
this. We believe that we will have great interest in this
project, from the best developers in the world.
Senator Allard. At this point in time, how would you
characterize the interest in this venture? High, medium or low?
Mr. James. Very high.
DIGITIZATION EFFORT
Senator Allard. Okay. One of the efforts you had was to
digitize and authenticate all known Federal documents. How far
along are you in that goal?
Mr. James. Today any document that is possible to digitize,
we're digitizing, every new document coming along, and we've
been doing that for some time. But, of course, we have a lot of
documents that have been issued over the years, going back to
1789 and even before that that are considered Federal
documents, that are available only in paper, and therefore
they're in just a few locations around the country. Scholars
have access to those documents but the general public doesn't
have access to that information. And so we think to have a
truly usable database of Federal information, that it's going
to be important to go back and digitize those documents, to
find them and digitize them. The good news is that we already
own those documents, we the Government own those documents, and
they're maintained at Federal depository libraries in
partnership with the Government. Fifty-three of those
libraries, called regional depositories, have very extensive
collections, and we've talked with several of them that would
be interested in participating with us in this project in
furnishing those documents back to us.
We are looking right now at building a new business unit at
the GPO that we'll call the digital media group, and we're
setting the standards, we're getting our arms around that
project right now. And this is going to become a very important
part of retraining our workforce. We have a lot of people with
skills in platemaking, printing, and binding that won't be
needed in the future. Instead, it will be people with digital
skills, and so what we'll be doing is transforming those jobs
from the old world into the new world as we establish the
digital media group.
We've talked with our customers, and we have roughly 500
agencies in the Government who are our customers, many of whom
have requirements to digitize documents. We've discussed with
them the possibility of building this enterprise of digitizing
Federal documents in the depository library system, and also
offering services to other Government agencies, and we've
received a lot of interest in that.
Senator Allard. Are you far enough along to have an idea as
to how long it will take to do this and what the cost might be?
Mr. James. If we do this smartly, there isn't going to be
any additional burden of cost, and I say that because we're
taking people that are already on our payroll that we're
already paying, and we're going to move them from the job
they're doing today into this new area. So, it's not going to
be additional cost. My goal is to have 70 percent of all the
retrospective documents into a digital system by the end of
2007. We think that's a realistic and practical goal.
TRANSITIONING THE WORKFORCE
Senator Allard. Okay, now along with this transition that
you're talking about, going into the digital age, you've
requested in your budget $5 million that has been defined as
``transitioning the GPO workforce.'' What will be the impact if
we're unable to provide this appropriation?
Mr. James. Well, it would probably cost the jobs of 400 or
500 Government workers, and we'd probably get back to you,
talking about the fact that we're going to have to terminate
those workers, because they wouldn't have the skills that we
need for the new world. We think this $5 million is a really
modest investment in taking people who have proven their
ability to be good employees, and who have been dedicated and
loyal to the Government, many of them for more than 30 years,
and give them the benefit of acquiring new skills, and this is
the right thing to do.
SMART PASSPORT
Senator Allard. Let me move over to your working with the
State Department on what's been referred to as a ``Smart
Passport.'' What's the status of that effort, and what impact
will this activity have on GPO's future?
Mr. James. As we've looked at the future, it's very clear,
Mr. Chairman, that security and intelligent documents are going
to become more and more important to the GPO. It's going to
comprise a significant portion of our business 5 years down the
road. The start of it is the putting of an electronic chip and
antenna into the new U.S. passport.
We've been at work on this project with our customer, the
State Department, for nearly 1\1/2\ years. We've been looking
at the various possibilities, how we're going to do this, how
this chip is going to be included in the passport. We
manufactured the very first electronic passport about 3 months
ago as a test, and my understanding is that the State
Department is going to be rolling out the electronic passport,
which we produce, later this summer in an official version--the
version that you would carry or diplomats would carry--to test
it. We know what happens with a traditional passport when it
goes through a washing machine, we know what happens to the old
passports. What we don't know is what happens with the new
electronic passport if you leave it in the trunk of your car.
So, we'd like to get some information, the State Department
would, before they begin to issue those to general citizens,
but they expect that early next calendar year they'll be
rolling out those passports.
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES
Senator Allard. On the Federal depository library system,
is the depository library community satisfied with your
approach, going to the electronic dissemination of information?
Mr. James. Well, there are thousands of people involved in
the Federal depository library community. As my opening remarks
indicated, we have experienced a very disruptive technology.
It's not only disrupted our lives and your lives, but it
certainly is having a profound effect on libraries. I think we
have general concurrence throughout the community of the
importance of building the digital database of all U.S.
Government documents from the beginning of time until now, and
keeping that current. We're 100 percent on the same page.
Our instructions from the Appropriations Committees over
the years have been to transform the depository library system
from a paper system to an electronic delivery system. And we've
been doing that and today, most of the documents we deliver are
in electronic form, we no longer print them.
But there's certainly documents left that we are printing,
and there are certain communities within the Federal depository
library system that still have a need for paper documents, and
we're going to have to find a way to continue to provide those
paper documents as long as they need them. And every day we
work on this issue with the depository libraries.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE FIELD OFFICES
Senator Allard. GPO has 20 field offices for print
procurement. What is the status of any effort to realign any of
those offices?
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, they are more than just offices
that purchase printing. As I'm sure you know, the GPO doesn't
print only in our own plant. Most of the Government's
requirements are placed into private sector. Last year we sent
work to 2,568 printers around the country. We buy printing very
efficiently. Now our regional offices help us in buying
printing efficiently, and in making certain that printing is
widely distributed throughout the United States.
However, they also work with our customers, our customers
being the agencies of Government, and there are very few people
who run programs in other Government agencies that have skills
and knowledge about information, how it's created, how it's
processed, and how it's used. Today, of course, it's always
digital as well as printing, so our people have those skills,
and we work with our agency customers in helping them to
accomplish their mission.
Now, whether or not we need 20 offices is the question, and
we are continuing to examine that and look at whether there is
a more efficient way of providing a high level of service to
our customers.
INTERNAL CONTROLS
Senator Allard. One final question, the Inspector General
has suggested that perhaps there needed to be improvement in
the contracting processes, particularly on your internal
controls. His concern was it would help prevent the potential
for waste, fraud and abuse. What steps are you taking to meet
those concerns?
Mr. James. I could not agree more with them. We did not
have, when I arrived, the proper methods, the proper
techniques, the proper technology to efficiently and
effectively manage this contracting. And we've taken very
aggressive steps to make the investments necessary to get this
under control, and I can report to you that I completely agree
with the Inspector General, and we are moving on this as
promptly as we possibly can.
Senator Allard. That's all the questions I have, Mr. James,
and we need to move forward because I think we've got a vote
scheduled for 11:30.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
There will perhaps be some other questions from the
subcommittee and I think perhaps Senator Durbin might have some
questions from that side of the aisle, and I ask that you could
respond promptly when you get those questions. Is 10 days a
reasonable time period?
Mr. James. Absolutely.
Senator Allard. We thank you for your testimony, and then
we'll move on to the next panel. Thank you, Mr. James.
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[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 Richard J. Durbin
Question.. Mr. James, what changes does GPO plan on making with
regard to the production of U. S. passports?
Answer. In cooperation with the State Department and other Federal
agencies, a major effort is underway at the GPO that will lead to the
introduction of an electronic passport in 2005.
The new electronic passport will enhance the security of millions
of Americans traveling around the world and facilitate the movement of
travelers at ports of entry. The electronic passport will contain an
embedded computer chip that complies with the recommendations of the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and will be consistent
with the provisions of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry
Reform Act of 2002. The electronic passport is a significant step
forward in the utilization of advanced information technology to meet
the requirements of one of our most important customers, the State
Department.
The development and production of the electronic passport will be a
three-phase project:
--The GPO will produce test passports using chip solutions provided
by commercial vendors that manufacture this technology. The
National Institute of Standards and Technology will then test
the electronic passports for their ability to meet durability,
security, and electronic requirements.
--Once testing results are completed and the final vendor(s)
selected, the State Department will conduct an operational
field test, and then begin issuing electronic passports to
Federal employees. The current timeline for these activities is
in the summer and fall of 2005.
--The first electronic passports are currently expected to be issued
to the general public later this year, with full deployment at
all Department of State passport agencies in 2006.
Question. Where are you considering locating your GPO continuity of
operations facilities outside of the Washington, DC, area?
Answer. As provided for in the GPO's Strategic Vision for the 21st
Century, submitted to Congress in December 2004, we are reviewing
options to establish an ancillary facility outside of Washington, DC,
for the production of U.S. passports and other security and intelligent
documents. In view of the events of September 11, 2001, and the
subsequent anthrax and ricin attacks on U.S. Capitol buildings, we
believe it is essential that a geographically separate facility be
established to produce these essential products in the event that
current capabilities at the GPO become unavailable.
We are currently discussing location options and capabilities with
officials of the State Department. Optimally, this facility would be
located at the Nevada Test Site, which can provide a maximum level of
security for these important documents. However, we are prepared to
work with the State Department and our oversight committees to fully
review the cost and benefits of alternative location options.
Question. You have conducted two buyouts since 2003, both of which
substantially reduced your workforce. Do you have the staffing to
ensure that GPO is able to carry out its mission successfully?
Answer. The buyouts we conducted in 2003 and 2004, with the
approval of the Joint Committee on Printing as required by our
retirement incentive legislation, reduced our workforce by
approximately 550 positions, or 20 percent, yielding annual savings of
about $38 million. The buyouts were conducted at a time when nearly
half of GPO's workforce was retirement-eligible. Also, many of the
positions that were reduced came from our publication sales program
area, which was unable to continue supporting a personnel
infrastructure of its previous size. With reorganization of our
functions, over the past year we were able to meet our mission
requirements while continuing to carry out transformation activities to
prepare GPO to meet the requirements of the 21st century. We are
closely monitoring our mission performance and taking all necessary
actions to manage customer expectations from Congress, Federal
agencies, and the public.
Question. Your Strategic Vision document outlines a new
organization for the GPO. Can you please explain it for us?
Answer. To better address the many challenges and opportunities
posed by the 21st century publishing environment, GPO will reconfigure
its organizational structure around six business lines. These new
Business Units will be phased in over the next two years in the
following order:
--Security and Intelligent Documents.--This line of business will
work with Federal agencies to assist in the safe and secure
design, production, and distribution of security and
intelligent documents, many of which will incorporate
electronic and other fraud and counterfeit protection features.
--Digital Media Services.--This unit will develop and maintain the
resources necessary to provide services to Federal agencies and
the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), to allow them to
both add content to GPO's Digital Content Management System,
and to withdraw or receive content to produce specific products
and services. It will also house GPO's creative capabilities
for customers.
--Customer Services.--This is an existing GPO business unit that will
be organized around its customers, with a team of GPO employees
assigned to each principal agency customer. Each team will have
a manager whose responsibility it is to become an authority on
the mission of their customer agency and will be supported by a
national account manager whose responsibility it is to develop
new business from the agency and to visit the agency's
principal locations on a regular basis to consult with program
managers.
--Library Services and Content Management.--This unit will continue
to manage the FDLP under the direction of Congress to ensure
equitable, secure, convenient, and permanent public access to
Government information in tangible and digital forms. It will
oversee the development of processes and standards to ensure
the timely inclusion of all past, present and future Government
publications, whether born digital or created through
digitization of print material, into the GPO Digital Content
Management System to create a complete FDLP digital information
collection that can be authenticated and preserved for future
generations.
--Publication and Information Sales Program.--This unit will develop
a capability to fulfill customer orders through other
booksellers. GPO will continue to provide subscription services
for Government periodical publications that can be fulfilled
directly from the printer or its mail house, and that are
economically viable. Back copies will be provided by a contract
vendor employing on-demand printing technology to back a modest
inventory. It will also focus on developing unique collections
of digital information, which will be ``pushed'' over the
Internet to primarily business customers on a subscription
basis.
--Official Journals of Government.--This business line will continue
to meet congressional and agency needs for these types of
traditional products while at the same time ensuring the proper
coordination of their digital versions with other GPO business
operations and meeting GPO's electronic information
dissemination mandate.
Question. Tell us what you see as the future of the Federal
Depository Library Program.
Answer. As stated in our Strategic Vision, it is clear that all
future Government information, including text and graphics, still and
moving images, and sound, will either be born digital or transformed
into digital structure for manipulation, storage and delivery to end
users. It is the convergence of text, still and moving images, and
sound, into a single electronic content database that will
revolutionize future communications.
The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) will determine the
content of GPO's new Digital Content System, set standards for Federal
documents, authenticate documents, catalog and manage the content, and
determine the standards for preservation of the content for future
generations. This will be done in context with the development of our
proposed the Digital Content Management System.
The FDLP will also set the standards for digitizing retrospective
tangible documents, acquire both the tangible documents and digitizing
services and provide quality assurance for the content. The goal is to
digitize all retrospective documents that can be authenticated back to
the Federalist Papers. We expect to complete 70 percent of this task by
December 2007.
Our proposed Digital Content Management System is under development
by GPO's Office of Innovation and New Technology, in collaboration with
other business units, and is scheduled for full implementation by
December 2007. The hardware and software associated with the system
will be managed by GPO's Office of Information Technology and Systems.
Question. What actions have you taken in fiscal year 2005 to
provide incentives for depository libraries to remain in the Federal
Depository Library Program?
Answer. GPO has been in continuous communication with the
depository library community about the incentives to remain in the
FDLP. Many of the incentives suggested by the community have been
documented in a report available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/
fdlp/pubs/proceedings/incentives_progress_
oct2004.pdf. A number of these suggestions have been or are being
implemented:
--GPO is launching the first phase of its new integrated library
system (ILS) later this month. This system allows GPO to share
cataloging information about Government publications with all
members of the depository library program and reduces the need
for individual libraries to invest local resources to create
cataloging information or pay fees to obtain this information
from others. The ILS will also allow the GPO to deliver
customized information to each of the member libraries based on
their individual library profile and generate electronic
shipping lists and other useful reports that the libraries have
requested.
--GPO plans to expand its ability to connect citizens who are
searching the Internet for Government documents to depository
libraries who hold the documents by using the OCLC world
catalog of electronic library records, called WorldCat.
Currently, this access is available through the GPO Access web
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/libraries.html and access is
based on the current depository library item selections.
--The GPO staff responsible for FDLP planning recently completed
research and prepared a white paper on the special needs and
concerns of public libraries as members of the FDLP. This
paper, which will be issued later this summer, was prepared in
response to concerns voiced in a breakout session for public
libraries during the recent Federal Depository Library Council
Meeting in Albuquerque, NM. The study helps GPO to understand
the issues public libraries currently face, so it can better
meet the needs of these FDLP partners. GPO will work through
regional depository libraries to develop strategies to support
public libraries that participate in the FDLP.
--Federal agencies are producing over 90 percent of their new
publications in electronic format. Many of these publications
are posted on agency web sites and never sent to GPO, or
elsewhere, for printing. The depository community has asked GPO
to takes steps to ensure that this born digital content is
captured as part of the FDLP. Harvesting such electronic
documents is part of our proposed Digital Content Management
System. Additional information about the Digital Content
Management System can be found at http://www.gpo.gov/projects/
fdsys.htm.
--In accordance with our Strategic Vision, and with the approval of
the Joint Committee on Printing, our new Library Services and
Content Management business unit will support the Federal
depository library community in its efforts to create a
reasonable number of comprehensive collections of tangible
Government publications in view of changing library resources
and technology. GPO will also develop two complete collections,
as last resorts, that will store both tangible and digital
versions of all publications.
--GPO is developing an electronic depository library manual in a
collaborative effort with volunteers from the depository
library community http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/
im_volunteer_reg.html. This manual consolidates and updates
existing policies and allows for best practices and lessons
learned to be shared across the FDLP. It is intended to
simplify and clarify the instructions, policies and procedures
to make it easier to administer the FDLP.
--At the 2005 Spring Federal Depository Library Council meeting, GPO
offered training to support new and experienced depository
librarians in learning more about the FDLP. Specifically
designed to respond to community requests, GPO offered
educational sessions aimed to introduce novice depository
librarians to the FDLP. In response to requests from the
attendees at these sessions, the educational programs will be
repeated at the 2005 Fall Federal Depository Library Conference
to ensure this basic training is made widely available to the
community.
--Beginning with the 2003 Spring Federal Depository Library Council
meeting, GPO has hosted a series of breakout sessions for the
segments of the FDLP community. The breakout sessions are
organized by the type of library to make sure that the unique
concerns of each type and size of library are identified. These
listening sessions are informal gatherings that allow community
members to raise concerns and issues confronting their
community and library. FDLP members can communicate directly
with GPO staff about their particular concerns. A number of GPO
staff attend each session and compile lists of community
concerns so GPO can develop policies and strategies which
present viable solutions to these problems.
--Beginning in February 1, 2005, GPO added information to the records
in OCLC's world catalog of library documents, known as
WorldCat. The goal of the project is to allow Government
documents in 30 regional depository libraries to be more easily
found by citizens. GPO created an automated loading process for
OCLC to improve the visibility of documents that may be found
in depository libraries. This service will enable citizens to
more easily locate Government documents and increase the
circulation and interlibrary loans of Government publications.
It was discussed in the February 15, 2005 issue of GPO's
Federal Depository Library Program newsletter, ``Administrative
Notes'', at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/
adnotes/ad02_031505.html#8.
--In 2004, GPO established a special web site called ``Resources for
Federal Depository Library Directors''. Because many directors
have unique challenges balancing local needs and national
responsibilities as depositories, a web site that offers
consolidated depository resources was viewed as beneficial to
that specific part of the community. The web site home page is
linked from the FDLP Desktop, specifically at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/directors/index.html.
--GPO recognizes the contributions individual libraries make to the
FDLP by the annual awarding of the Federal Depository Library
of the Year. The award, made by the Public Printer, provides
special recognition for a depository library that furthers the
goals of the FDLP by ensuring that the American public has free
access to its Government's information. Criteria for the award
includes outstanding public services, such as significant
promotion of the Government documents and services in the
library and in the community, substantial cooperative efforts
with other depository and non-depository libraries to share
knowledge and Government information resources with a larger
community, access to a well-defined collection of depository
tangible and electronic resources to meet the needs of the
library's service area; and exceptional care and preservation
of the depository collection. Nominations for the 2005 Federal
Depository Library of the Year Award can be submitted at http:/
/www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/fdlofyear/application05.html.
Nominations for the award are solicited every summer and the
award is presented at the Fall Conference by the Public
Printer. The Representatives and Senators who represent the
state and district from which the winning library is located
are invited to attend the awards ceremony to also recognize the
depository.
--GPO promotes the FDLP and individual libraries in other ways. GPO
creates mass marketing literature, CD-ROM's, bookmarks, logos,
graphics, posters, and print/radio public service announcements
about libraries in the FDLP are received by public radio and
newspapers in their local communities. On a daily basis, the
support staff at GPO create educational and promotional
materials for the FDLP to enhance the visibility of the
depository library community and the services they provide.
Question. Can you update the subcommittee on your efforts to
relocate the GPO?
Answer. Since arriving at the GPO a little more than two years ago,
I have made the future of the GPO's buildings and productive assets my
highest priority. In view of my longstanding experience in the printing
and publishing industries, as well as my discussions about the matter
with officials from the Office of Management and Budget, the General
Services Administration, and the Office of the Architect of the
Capitol, it is clear to me that the GPO's current structures are too
large, too antiquated, and too inefficient to serve our needs or those
of our customers in Congress, Federal agencies, and the public.
Other Public Printers over the past half-century reached similar
conclusions and tried without success to obtain right-sized, modern
facilities. Over the past generation, as the GPO's workforce has
declined from a high of nearly 8,500 to about 2,400 today and new
technology has become available, the problems posed by our current
structures have only grown more acute. Our buildings now present an
economic and functional impediment to our future, especially as we move
to transform this venerable agency into a digital processing facility
for the 21st century.
Our central office complex comprises approximately 1.5 million
square feet of office and industrial space distributed among four
multistory buildings constructed between 65 and 100 years ago. Other
than infrequent direct appropriations for large scale building
projects, the operating, maintenance, and repair (OMR) costs of our
facilities must be recovered through the prices we charge Congress,
Federal agencies, and the public for the printing and information
dissemination work we are required to perform.
Because of the age and inefficiency of our buildings, the OMR
component of our prices has become enormously burdensome, today
totaling approximately $35 million annually, or about 12 percent of our
costs, without taking into account any capital expenditures for new
equipment or for the upgrading or replacement of our buildings or their
systems. These costs will only increase if we stay here. Over the next
5 to 10 years, we estimate that the GPO will need to spend between $275
million and $350 million to maintain, repair, and secure our current
facilities. These are costs that can and should be avoided. Spending at
this rate will drain our reserves of funds needed for essential
investment in information technologies and drive the GPO into
functional obsolescence in the not-too-distant future. I truly believe
that our historic mission to provide for the information needs of
Congress, Federal agencies, and the American people is much too
important to have our future sacrificed to the upkeep of facilities
that are no longer suited to our needs.
As a solution, we propose the adoption of an innovative public-
private partnership approach under which we would relocate to a modern,
in-line facility in the Washington, DC, area that would be equipped
with technologies appropriate to our current and future mission.
Instead of taxpayer-supported appropriations, we propose to use the
value of the GPO's current real estate assets to underwrite this
project. Under our proposal, we would leverage the aggregate net
present values of the reduced OMR costs available in a new facility,
currently estimated at approximately $148 million, and the
redevelopment value of the GPO's current real estate holdings,
currently estimated at approximately $236 million, through lease or
other arrangements with one or more private developers. As a result,
this approach will have direct impacts that will satisfy the
requirements of our Strategic Vision for the 21st Century:
--The proceeds from the transactions will be sufficient to pay all
costs associated with the new structure and equipment and
moving expenses;
--The new operating environment will permit us to avoid having to
incur OMR costs at the currently wasteful rate, resulting in a
savings stream over each year of our occupancy of our new
building that will directly lower our future requests from
Congress for the Congressional Printing and Binding
Appropriation and the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of
the Superintendent of Documents; and
--A sufficient cash flow will be generated by the lease (or similar)
arrangement on our existing site to meet capital requirements
for investment in and replenishment of evolving information
technologies to support the needs of congressional and agency
customers as well as the information dissemination programs
covered by the Superintendent of Documents' Salaries and
Expenses Appropriation.
On May 24, 2005, I transmitted a plan to the GPO's oversight
committees on how these goals can be attained. It was developed by The
Staubach Company, one of the foremost real estate advisory firms in the
Nation, selected competitively for this purpose by the GPO with the
participation and assistance of the General Services Administration and
the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, and working under a
contract approved by the Joint Committee on Printing in September 2004.
At its core, the plan relies on making a strategic, innovative use of
the ``lazy asset'' that the GPO's current structures have become to
underwrite our relocation and reduce the future costs of our products
and services.
The plan supplements draft legislative language that would
authorize us to carry out our relocation/redevelopment partnerships,
which has been supplied to the Senate Rules and Administration
Committee and the House Administration Committee for review. We are
preparing to provide our oversight committees with briefings on the
Staubach plan as well as any additional information they need in their
consideration of our draft legislative language.
Question. Are you consulting closely with the all members of the
depository library community about the new directions for the GPO?
Answer. GPO has been in continuous communication and consultation
with the depository library community about our Strategic Vision,
important planning documents, and various policy statements in numerous
ways:
--Regular meetings with the Depository Library Council and a
significant population of the FDLP librarians at the Federal
Depository Conference/Fall Council Meeting and Spring Council
Meeting.
--Hosting biweekly conference and telephone calls and maintaining
routine e-mail communication with the Depository Library
Council members throughout the year.
--Routinely posting important announcements and issue updates to
FDLP-L, GPO's broadcast email announcement service http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/tools/fdlplist.html.
--Routinely posting proposed policy changes and planning documents to
the GPO web sites in order to gather public comments. Postings
are typically made to the FDLP Desktop in such places as News
and Updates http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/. Comments
are always solicited through FDLP-L and other discussion lists.
--Monitoring and responding to postings on the Government documents
discussion list and other related Government information
discussion lists.
--Regularly briefing and soliciting input at major professional
library conferences (American Library Association, Special
Libraries Association, American Association of Law Libraries,
Association of College and Research Libraries, various state
library association meetings).
--Regularly briefing and collaborating at special events and on
special projects (Federal CIO Council working groups, Library
of Congress, Federal Library and Information Center, and the
Center for Networked Information).
Question. Does your Salaries and Expenses request for fiscal year
2006 ensure that important Government materials will continue to be
distributed in print, as determined by the depository library
community?
Answer. At the level we have requested, and in combination with
adjustments we are currently making to spending under this account, our
fiscal year 2006 Salaries and Expenses Appropriation submission will
cover the distribution of tangible products required by the depository
library community.
Question. It is my understanding that GPO is facing a shortfall in
fiscal year 2005 in the Salaries and Expenses account. What is the
magnitude of the shortfall and when did GPO first become aware of the
shortfall? What has GPO done to date to mitigate this shortfall?
Answer. Earlier this year, following consultation with our
oversight committees, the Superintendent of Documents issued a
statement pledging to continue the distribution of tangible products to
Federal depository libraries consistent with the needs of the
depository library community. Accordingly, we are making necessary
adjustments to spending under the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation
to cover the anticipated volume of tangible product distribution work,
which at this point in time is projected to require an estimated $2.6
million more than was originally budgeted for this purpose. As a result
of these adjustments, staffing changes, and adjustments to overhead
cost allocations, we project that spending for fiscal year 2005
Salaries and Expenses requirements will be completely within the amount
appropriated.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, DIRECTOR
Senator Allard. The next panel is the Congressional Budget
office. Dr. Holtz-Eakin, it's good to see you again.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. It's good to see you, sir.
Senator Allard. I get to hear from you from time to time
since I serve on the Budget Committee. Proceed with your
testimony when you're ready.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Mr. Chairman, the CBO's pleased to be here
today and we do have a written statement which we've submitted
for the record, I will be brief.
I want to begin by thanking this subcommittee for its
support in the past, most recently in our fiscal year 2005
appropriation and some reprogramming we did with the 2004
funds, and going forward, we have what we believe is a fairly
plain, vanilla request. As you noted at the outset, it's a
request for a bit under $36 million, a rise of $1.2 million
over last year, or 3.5 percent. The strategy in putting that
together was to fully fund the personnel costs in the CBO
budget, that's about 90 percent of our budget. They will rise,
between paying benefits, a bit over 5 percent per year, and
we'll hit the top line 3.5 percent rise by cutting back, most
notably, in IT expenditures where things will fall by another
19 percent, and a bit in other areas as well.
We are able to do this by taking advantage of past efforts
in cost-saving technologies, our budget analysis data system,
moving that from a mainframe to a server platform, online
application techniques, extensive use of our website for
distributing documents to the public instead of printing and
mailing them out. We also benefit from partnering with other
congressional agencies. Our new financial management system, in
partnership with the Library of Congress is in the National
Finance Center for payroll, so we don't have to use the capital
for facilities, so we have the ability to do this, and the
bottom line, of course, is performance. And as we put in our
written testimony and traditionally included in our budget
submission operating plans, the CBO is providing the Congress
good service for this money, and it represents a good buy,
that's been true in the past, we hope to continue that in the
future.
I thank you for the chance to be here today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas Holtz-Eakin
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present the fiscal year 2006 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.
Appreciating the need for fiscal restraint, CBO has attempted to
maintain its existing level of personnel by saving money in, and
through, information technology and through other measures. CBO's
proposed budget for fiscal year 2006 represents slightly less than a
``current services'' request, in which the increases from 2005 are
solely to cover estimated increases in pay, benefits, and general
inflation. The request totals $35,853,000--a $1.2 million, or 3.5
percent, increase over the appropriation for fiscal year 2005 (after
the 0.8 percent rescission).
The requested increase is dominated by $1.6 million for increases
in staff salaries and benefits, which are estimated to grow by 5.2
percent in 2006. CBO's information technology accounts will decrease by
$354,000, or 19 percent, which has been made possible by an adjustment
to the replacement cycle for equipment and savings from converting the
Budget Analysis Data System from a mainframe platform to 21st century
technology. The remainder of CBO's nonpersonnel budget will decrease by
1.1 percent. CBO will generate savings in printing, storage, and
postage costs by increasingly relying on online distribution of its
publications.
With the requested funds for 2006, 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;
--Analyzes the likely effects of the President's budgetary proposals
on federal spending and revenues;
--Estimates the costs of legislative proposals, including formal cost
estimates for all bills reported by committees of the House and
Senate and statements about federal mandates on states,
localities, and the private sector;
--Prepares Monthly Budget Reviews, annual reviews of unauthorized
appropriations and expiring authorizations, and the biannual
volume Budget Options;
--Conducts policy studies of governmental activities having major
economic and budgetary impacts; and
--Constructs analytic models to project short- and long-term costs
and receipts of government programs.
In fiscal year 2006, CBO's request will allow the agency to build
on current efforts--specifically, to do the following:
--Increase the number and reduce the preparation time of reports and
in-depth analyses for the Congress. The request will support a
workload of approximately 2,000 formal legislative and mandate
cost estimates as well as more than 100 analytical reports,
about 70 other publications and products, and a robust schedule
of Congressional testimony.
--Support 235 FTEs (full-time-equivalent positions), the same number
as in 2005, including an across-the-board pay adjustment of 3.1
percent for staff earning a salary of $100,000 or less. That
adjustment is consistent with the ones requested by other
legislative branch agencies. The budget also reflects a
projected increase of 7 percent for benefits, and funds a
combination of promotions and merit increases for all staff,
including those whose salary exceeds $100,000 and who therefore
do not receive an automatic annual increase;
--Provide for CBO's share of the Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board's budget ($430,000);
--Continue support for telecommunications services to the Alternate
Computing Facility ($75,000);
--Maintain and expand CBO's disaster recovery capabilities ($60,000);
--Maintain and enhance the Budget Analysis Data System, the agency's
mission critical system for developing and maintaining
scorekeeping data and budget projections for use by the
appropriations and budget committees ($20,000); and
--Sustain and develop CBO's financial management system, Momentum
($100,000).
Before I close, I would like to point out a few ways in which CBO
has streamlined some operations, as well as mention cross-servicing
arrangements and management improvements that CBO has undertaken or
expanded upon over the past several years.
First, in terms of streamlining, CBO: Reduced the footprint and
staff of its library by 50 percent by increasingly relying on the print
and online services provided by the Library of Congress; and eliminated
storage services and reduced printing and mailing costs, as the
agency's Web site has become the primary vehicle for disseminating CBO
publications.
Second, pursuing cross servicing, CBO does the following:
--Coordinates with the Library of Congress for financial management,
reporting, travel, and other related financial and accounting
services--including using the same contractor that the Library
does for audit services. (CBO received a clean opinion on its
first audit of its financial statements this year.)
--Partners with the Library for implementation and maintenance of an
integrated financial management and procurement system
(Momentum) that provides accurate, relevant, and timely
information to management for decisionmaking.
--Utilizes the National Finance Center for payroll processing.
--Receives support from the House Information Resources office for
CBO's computer data center.
--Receives maintenance services from the Architect of the Capitol for
CBO's work space.
--Contracts with the Government Printing Office for printing
services.
Last, CBO's management improvements include these:
--Expanding the use of information technology to develop an improved
report production system, an electronic distribution system for
publications and cost estimates (relying on the Web), an online
job announcement system, an online job application system, a
resume tracking system, and a property management inventory
system.
--Discontinuing contracting for mainframe computing services by
reprogramming the Budget Analysis Data System to run on CBO-
maintained servers. That conversion alone will save CBO
approximately $200,000 a year in its future budget submissions.
As reflected in CBO's fiscal year 2006 budget request, those
ongoing efforts have allowed CBO to keep cost increases to a minimum.
Finally, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for its support of
CBO's 2005 budget request. The funding provided this year will allow
CBO to continue providing the Congress with vital analyses as well as
enable the agency to make smart investments in core areas, which will
enhance productivity and reduce costs.
Senator Allard. Well, thank you. You're accompanied by Dr.
Robinson at the table. I appreciate the modesty of your budget.
It's important that CBO set an example. I try to set an example
in my office, returning unspent dollars, and I'm glad to see
that you have put together a modest budget here to meet your
needs.
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
Some of the questions that might come up--is it enough? You
do have some big issues that you're working on--Social
Security, Medicare, health insurance, prescription drugs--these
are not easy programs to work with, and do you have the
resources you need to meet your core mission?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. For this submission, we believe we do.
Further cuts would jeopardize the core mission, because it
would have to come from pay and personnel--we don't have the
flexibility to put it somewhere else, and in the end, those are
the resources that are most central for addressing those
issues.
Going forward, I echo your views that we must be cognizant
of the need for spending discipline. Our ability to replicate
3.5 percent per year on an ongoing basis is really limited,
benefits are going up faster than that, and we are 90 percent
personnel, and we cannot continually go back to the other small
pieces of our budget and find the savings necessary to keep it
that low, but for the moment, this submission will do the job.
BUDGET FORECASTING
Senator Allard. Two years ago, CBO requested and received
two additional staff.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. We did, and we thank you, for the support
there, it helped us to undertake the dynamic scoring of the
President's budget which was a new initiative when I arrived.
We, at the moment, believe we have the right FTEs to do the job
we're being asked.
Senator Allard. I'm one of the members pushing for dynamic
scoring.
What has been your accuracy, your track record for coming
up with the right figures that over time, proved out? Can you
show a record of improvement in forecasting?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. We believe it's important for the Congress
to know exactly what they're getting, and we have, on the
website, and we can provide to you in great detail, the track
record of our accuracy both in economic forecasting, and most
importantly, budget forecasting, from the perspective both of
spending, and revenues. I believe that most people would like
us to do better, that includes us as well, but we have a track
record that's comparable to any agency in the Government and
any company in the private sector that attempts to do this.
Senator Allard. Well, it's not easy.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. I'm glad you said that.
Senator Allard. It's so unpredictable, and there's no way
you have of knowing what those incidents might be that might
have an impact on budget projections.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. The most important part of the budget
projection has traditionally been forecasting receipts, and
there the central issue is having accurate, up to date
information about the structure of income tax returns, what--in
particular--the high income individuals who pay the vast
majority of individual income taxes are doing, and the fact
that we receive--as does everyone else--income tax information
about 2 years after it's actually filed, is one of the real big
problems. We first have to actually forecast where we are, and
then make a forecast for the future, and that is the one area
where we have mentioned to all the departments in the fiscal
agencies, that getting that data out more quickly would be
helpful.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Allard. That's all the questions I have. Again, I
would ask you the same as I did the previous panel, we'd like
to have a prompt response to any questions we may submit to you
from this subcommittee. Would 10 days be a reasonable time to
expect you to be able to get back to us?
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. That would be fine, we look forward to any
questions you might have.
Senator Allard. That's all we have, and thank you very much
for your testimony, and I think you're doing a good job.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Well, thank you, and I appreciate the
chance to be here.
[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 J. Durbin
coordinating efforts with other legislative branch agencies
Question. How do you coordinate with other Legislative Branch
agencies including GAO and CRS to ensure that there is not duplication
in the work that each agency does?
Answer. There are a number of actions undertaken by CBO and other
legislative branch agencies to ensure there is not duplication in the
work that we each do. On a continuing basis, the heads of each agency
meet to discuss mutual challenges, share experiences, share information
on key areas of work, and identify opportunities for collaboration as
well as ensure there is no duplication of work between the agencies.
Additionally, senior executives from each of our agencies meet through
various forums to discuss work and collaborative efforts. The Chief
Administrative Officers (CAO) Council currently is meeting monthly to
better integrate and collaborate efforts on emergency preparedness and
continuity of operations planning; the Chief Financial Officers (CFO)
Council meets at least quarterly to share information on internal
budget and financial management matters; a Chief Information Officers
(CIO) Council has just been formed for the legislative branch agency IT
employees to share information; and, for several years now,
representatives from GAO, CRS and CBO have been meeting quarterly to
discuss work efforts and ensure there is appropriate communication
between the agencies on pending assignments.
It should also be emphasized that several actions have already
taken place to coordinate major activities between CBO and other
legislative branch agencies. For example, we have had a long-standing
agreement with the Library of Congress for the Library to provide
support to CBO on a finance and accounting system. Together with the
Library, we recently completed a transition to a new finance and
accounting system (Momentum) and the Library and CBO have worked very
closely together to ensure a successful transition to the new system.
CBO also shares an IT data center with the House of Representatives,
and we receive building support from the Architect of the Capitol in
the Ford House Office Building.
elimination of certain staff positions
Question. CBO reported that it has eliminated the need for certain
staff positions (e.g., library services, publications) by adopting best
practices in document distribution and information services. What are
these best practices and how can other agencies use them to achieve
savings? What additional opportunities exist across the agency to
streamline positions?
Answer. CBO eliminated a position in its library by increasingly
relying on the print and online services provided by the Library of
Congress. CBO also eliminated the position of printing assistant and
transferred the person occupying that position to the agency's IT
(information technology) group to help meet responsibilities there. The
change was made possible by decreasing CBO's printing and distribution
of hard copies of publications and relying even more than in the past
on e-mail dissemination and the agency's Web site to provide access to
publications and cost estimates. To bolster that approach, CBO improved
its new-document notification system by adding an option for
subscribers to receive instantaneous notification as each document in a
selected area of interest is released. (Previously, the only option was
to receive a next-day summary.) Those changes met the need of
interested parties on the Hill and in the press for quick and reliable
access (at no marginal cost to CBO). The Agency will continue to review
library and publication distribution services to identify other areas
of possible streamlining.
document distribution system
Question. CBO is currently reviewing its document distribution
system, with an aim toward streamlining. Has CBO undertaken any efforts
to coordinate the streamlining of document distribution with other
legislative branch agencies? What actions are being considered and how
significant are the expected results, including cost savings?
Answer. CBO contracts with the Government Printing Office (GPO) for
printing and periodically coordinates with that agency to ensure that
GPO's distribution of CBO's publications to the depository libraries is
appropriate. Otherwise, CBO has not coordinated its document
distribution with other legislative branch agencies, primarily because
its distribution of hard copies is modest and time-sensitive.
CBO is printing and mailing fewer publications. First, it has cut
the numbers generally. It has also eliminated any automatic
distribution to members of the public. Whereas CBO used to send copies
of a few of its publications automatically to members of the public who
expressed a general interest, it now awaits their specific requests.
Moreover, the agency's reliance on electronic distribution is allowing
it to dispense with its outside storage facility and, instead, maintain
a small inventory in its basement storage room in the Ford House Office
Building. The savings from reduced printing and mailing have not yet
been realized, so precise figures are not available, but CBO is aiming
for savings of up to 30 percent, or in the tens of thousands of
dollars. The recurring annual savings from eliminating the outside
storage facility is about $20,000.
library staff reductions
Question. CBO reported that in recent years, it has successfully
reduced the footprint and staff of its library by one-half by
increasingly relying on the print and on-line services provided by the
Library of Congress (LOC). What additional opportunities exist to rely
on the services provided by LOC or other agencies?
Answer. We believe that opportunities exist to better coordinate
our needs for journals and books with the Library of Congress and/or
other agencies' libraries. At CBO, we are increasingly relying on the
availability of on-line journals, periodicals, subscriptions, etc.
Either through our own contacts with vendors or through collaborative
efforts with the Library, we have been able to meet most of our needs
for journals and periodicals through on-line services. However, we've
discovered that a number of scholarly and academic books needed by CBO
employees are not yet available on-line. In these instances, we rely on
the availability of these publications in the Library, or we purchase
them directly for CBO. We are currently reviewing how we obtain
journals and books for CBO employees, and are looking at options for
agreements with the Library of Congress or other agencies' libraries to
better meet our needs. Although we have not yet identified specific
ways to rely on these services of other organizations, we expect that
our review will help us in this effort.
property management inventory system
Question. CBO reported that it had recently implemented a new
property management inventory system. How is the new property
management system being used to strengthen internal control and improve
the safeguarding of assets? Can you describe the benefits, in both
qualitative and quantitative terms, what CBO expects from the new
property management system?
Answer. The new property management system has strengthened
internal control and improved the safeguarding of assets by providing a
documented, standardized process for asset control and the tools
necessary to track our inventory from cradle to grave. The software
uses a common database for both Inventory Control and Asset Management
to eliminate the possibility of equipment appearing in one database but
not the other. However, for control purposes, employees responsible for
inventory control do not have access to the asset management interface
or vice-versa.
All assets are bar coded and entered into the system upon receipt.
They are tracked through their life. At disposal, all equipment is
documented on a property disposal form, cross-checked by individuals in
different units, and approved for excessing by the Assistant Director
for Management, Business, and Information Systems. All capital assets
are inventoried on an annual basis. As an additional safeguard, an
independent auditor physically sees each piece of capital equipment and
also verifies its financial data.
Since CBO is a small agency with less than 5,000 physical assets we
were able to select a low-cost, off-the-shelf, commercial property
management system. The total cost for this new system was $17,000.
Annual maintenance and support is approximately $4,000. If CBO
developed a custom product in-house or contracted out development, the
cost would have been ten to twenty times more. The new system is
significantly easier to use than the prior one, both for inventory
control and for asset management. This has reduced training costs as
well as staff time in entering and maintaining asset data. It has
proven extremely helpful in planning computer and monitor buys and in
better managing equipment replacement cycles. In the old system, CBO
largely used spreadsheets and an extremely manual process for asset
management, particularly depreciation calculations. Since the new
system combines inventory and asset management in one application, we
are very near our goal of eliminating separate record keeping and
reporting for asset management. This will reduce the likelihood of
errors and result in a substantial time savings.
audit of cbo financial statements
Question. CBO reported that it is working towards an independent
audit of all CBO financial statements. Only a balance sheet audit was
performed in fiscal year 2003. What is the expected timeline for having
an audit of all CBO financial statements? In requesting proposals for
audit work, what efforts have been made to minimize costs by
coordinating with other Legislative Branch agencies regarding lessons
learned from their first audits?
Answer. CBO is under contract with Kearney and Company (auditing
firm) to have all fiscal year 2004 financial statements audited by
August 31, 2005. In order to streamline costs, CBO made a conscious
decision to contract with the same auditing firm as the Library of
Congress (LOC), since LOC provides CBO with financial management
support. Given this fact, CBO was able to incorporate lessons learned
from LOC's previous audits as well as reduce costs of the contract
because audit work performed on LOC's financial management processes
and systems are the same or very similar in nature to that of CBO.
automated financial management system
Question. CBO reported the recent implementation of a new automated
financial management system ``in cooperation with the Library of
Congress.'' How is CBO using the new financial management system to
improve performance and streamline operations? Can you describe the
benefits, in both qualitative and quantitative terms, which CBO expects
from the new financial management system?
Answer. CBO is using its new automated financial management system
to provide end-to-end acquisition and financial management. This system
has eliminated redundancies in fiscal and acquisition operations. For
example, CBO has been able to eliminate manually maintained
spreadsheets as well as eliminate manual hard copy certification
functions. These actions have streamlined the coordination processing
time and reduced the error rate because information is not duplicated
in various systems. This timesaving will provide acquisition and
financial managers with more time to analyze and interpret resource
data in order to further reduce costs though enhanced acquisition
planning and resource management. Also, this new system will strengthen
internal management control procedures, since the system is designed to
provide electronic authentication of system users throughout the
approval and certification process. The checks and balances maintained
in this system will ensure clean auditable financial statements. In
addition, CBO plans to provide management with real-time and near real-
time reporting capability to aid CBO decision makers in making sound
short and long- term investment decisions.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, II, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
ACCOMPANIED BY SUSAN S. ROBFOGEL, ESQUIRE, CHAIR, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Senator Allard. I'm going to call on the next panel now,
which is the Office of Compliance. Here is Mr. Bill Thompson,
and you have with you, Chair of the Board, Susan Robfogel.
Proceed to your testimony when you're ready, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we're pleased to be
here this morning, and we both prepared statements that we
would like submitted for the record.
I'm going to cut to the chase here because of the time. The
office has, essentially, three functions, the first of which is
operating a dispute resolution program that handles everything
from sexual harassment to disputes about paying overtime. That
program proceeds very quietly and efficiently; we are not here
today about any issue with the funding there.
Secondarily, we're doing education. We're doing a lot with
a little; we've revamped our website recently, and I think it's
been considered by people we've talked to as one of the better
websites they've seen from a regulatory agency.
The third area that we're responsible for is occupational
safety, public accommodation and access, and there we are not
faring so well. As you may recall, about 1 year ago there was a
report that recommended that we needed additional funds in
order to be able to satisfy our mandatory requirement of
complete inspections of the entire campus every 2 years. The
GAO report also recommended that we change our methodology to
be more complete in both our inspections and our interactions
with the agencies which we are inspecting. We have done that,
and the result of the experience that we've had is that the
process is much more time consuming than we thought previously.
At the time we made our initial request for the fiscal year
2006 budget--which has a 9 percent increase--most of that,
other than the COLA, was for one full-time position for an
inspector of Occupational Safety and Health. In the months that
have passed since then, as we got further into this new
inspection process, it's become clear to us that we need
additional funding. As a consequence, we are in the process of
submitting an amended budget request. With that, I'll turn it
over to Susan Robfogel.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William W. Thompson, II
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for the
opportunity to appear before you today in support of the fiscal year
2006 budget request of the Office of Compliance.
With me today are Susan S. Robfogel, Esq., Chair of the Board of
Directors of the Office, General Counsel Peter Ames Eveleth, Deputy
Executive Director Alma Candelaria, and Administrative and Budget
Officer Beth Hughes Brown.
We present you for the second time a completely zero based budget.
The accuracy of this year's largest budget cost allocation--staff
time--has significantly improved because we have conducted periodic
sampling to account for staff time needed to carry out each of our
major function categories.
This calendar year also marks the 10th anniversary of the passage
of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. As we end the agency's
first 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 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.
As recommended in the 2004 GAO Report, we are continuing to shift
our focus in providing these services to a more interactive approach,
enabling regulated employers to achieve greater voluntary compliance
with the requirements of the Congressional Accountability Act. In light
of the employment, security and safety challenges Legislative Branch
agencies and employees face, one of our primary goals is to enable the
regulated community to achieve substantial compliance with all
requirements of the Act. And, we are doing all of this with a current
budget of less than $2.5 million.
dispute resolution
The Office's day-to-day employment dispute resolution function
involving controversies under ten different laws, everything from
alleged discrimination to the failure to pay required overtime,
proceeds efficiently--although largely unnoticed--because of the
confidential nature of the vast bulk of these cases. Hundreds of
disputes in nearly all Legislative Branch agencies, as well as in
offices of Members and committees of both chambers have quietly moved
through the administrative dispute resolution system. 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 the quality of Congress's internal operations.
safety and health enforcement
However, the current situation regarding the Office's ability to
carry out the Accountability Act's mandate in the areas of Occupational
Safety and Health and public accommodation for the disabled is
substantially more challenging. The Office has successfully encouraged
major strides by the Office of the Architect and the other responsible
agencies in improving conditions across the campus. However, GAO's 2004
Report ``Office of Compliance: Status of Management Control Efforts to
Improve Effectiveness'' GAO-04-400 confirmed the necessity of the
Office's repeated budget requests for additional OSH staff and
resources. GAO 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 have pointed out this structural shortfall in several past
several budget requests, but we do not have resources at the level
necessary to enable us to biennially assess the health, safety, and
emergency response situation across the entire campus in a complete or
timely manner. Under the Office's current General Counsel, the care and
quality of our inspections has improved dramatically. However, doing a
more interactive and thorough job of inspecting requires substantially
more resources and more time.
In response to the requirements of the CAA and GAO's
recommendation, the Office is now in the midst of a 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.
Our General Counsel, who was appointed late in fiscal year 2003, has
determined that the completion of the much more thorough, comprehensive
and consultative biennial base line inspection mandated by the CAA and
underscored in GAO's report will be substantially more time consuming
and resource intensive than we had anticipated even as late as our
fiscal year 2006 budget request. Even with the additional inspector FTE
we have requested for fiscal year 2006, the General Counsel will not be
able to complete a timely, comprehensive picture of the current safety,
health and emergency response dangers across the entire campus.
Hazards, some of which may be serious, remain unidentified.
educating our constituency
The Office is also 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 been testing the limits of
our capacity to become more pro-active in this area. Various additional
outreach initiatives, such as further upgrading of educational products
and a planned mediation workshop are occurring this year, but our long
term ability to build on the momentum expected from these and previous
enhancements will ultimately be dependent upon additional resources and
information infrastructure access.
conclusion
On behalf of the Board of Directors the appointees and the entire
staff of the Office of Compliance, I respectfully request that the
Committee respond favorably to the Office's fiscal year 2006 budget
request. We will be happy to respond to any further 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 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
granting authority to appoint the current chair and members of the
Board to a second 5 year term in office. The Board 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 Office of Compliance currently has 16 full-time employees and
pays the part-time Board members on a ``when-actually-employed'' basis.
Our employee complement 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 25 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.
incomplete biennial osh-ada inspection
During fiscal year 2004, our Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
was able to inspect only about 4 million square feet within 25
Legislative Branch facilities (some with multiple buildings). The
General Counsel was unable despite best efforts to examine all
Legislative Branch facilities during the 108th Congress biennial cycle
of inspections, including large areas within the House and Senate
Office Buildings and the U.S. Capitol Building space used for Member
offices, Committee staff offices, and other non-AOC spaces as required
by the Congressional Accountability Act. Therefore, it is certain that
many hazards remain unidentified at this time.
The total amount of covered premises in the metropolitan Washington
region is in excess of 17 million square feet. Because of the
comprehensive thoroughness with which the fiscal year 2004 inspections
were carried out, as was encouraged by GAO's February 2004 Report, over
2,300 serious hazards were identified in the 25 facilities inspected,
as compared to 360 violations discovered in the same facilities and
areas during the 107th Congress biennial inspection.
As part of the revamped inspection regimen, the Office is now
utilizing a widely recognized risk assessment code (RAC) to classify
all hazards found to exist in the ongoing inspections. The time and
costs required to conduct more interactive and comprehensive
inspections, and the nearly seven-fold increase in the number of
violations identified just during 2004 has made manifest that the
Office's current level of resources are completely inadequate to
complete the ongoing inspection of all covered facilities in the D.C.
metro area in the foreseeable future or to timely respond to requests
for inspections by employing offices and employees.
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 is
developing new approaches to OSH regulatory activities which involve
greater consultation, coordination, and transparency in both the
investigatory and enforcement phases. This effort 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.
As we have mentioned, the fiscal year 2004 OSH inspection regimen
was undertaken with much greater consultation with stakeholders. More
interactive methods are more resource and labor intensive, and have
further contributed to the Office's inability timely to complete the
biennial inspection of the entire campus.
strains on agency resources
During the past two fiscal years, the Office has reallocated
significant resources toward OSH investigations at the expense of other
mandates. For example, 0.5 FTE has been temporarily reallocated within
the Office of General Counsel from legal support to contract
investigation just to maintain the current level of inspections. In
addition, one FTE has also been moved from the administrative dispute
resolution support staff to provide administrative assistance to the
Office of General Counsel. Contractor funds have been reprogrammed to
provide additional resources for increasing the use of contracted OSH
inspectors. Further withdrawal of resources from the other dispute
resolution and educational mandates of the Act will substantially
impact the Office's ability to maintain a dispute resolution program
which ensures that employees and employing offices in the House of
Representatives, Senate and other Legislative Branch Instrumentalities
receive the quality of mediation and hearing services which the
Congress expects.
Since I was appointed in fiscal year 2002, the Office has
consistently asked for an additional FTE and other funding for safety
and health inspections and enforcement, as well as major increases for
other underfunded mandates. The Office's responsibility in this area
has assumed even more critical importance in the wake of 9/11. While
appropriations have increased, the underlying structural shortcomings
in our funding base make our ability to fully and timely implement the
Congressional inspection and enforcement mandate impossible. The Office
has been criticized by appropriators for the size of its requested
budget increases over the past several years. However, as the Office
still operates with a smaller budget than it had in fiscal year 1997,
we respectfully submit that the requested increases have been made in
large part in order to regain lost resources necessary for this agency
adequately to respond to the Congressional mandate in the Act.
Senator Allard. Ms. Robfogel.
Ms. Robfogel. Mr. Chairman, my purpose in being here today
is to speak on behalf of the Board, and to let you know that
the Board fully endorses the request as it's been articulated
by our Executive Director. Although we are a part-time Board--
we all have other occupations--we take our responsibility for
health and safety very, very seriously. It's an awesome
responsibility that we have, and we've spent a great deal of
time discussing this issue with our executive staff and we are
fully convinced that every possible dollar has been reallocated
to the safety and health inspection area that can possible be
reallocated. That means if we cut expenditures for any other
part of the Office any more than we already have, the Office
would not be able to function. And I thought it was important
that you hear that from us, as well. We think this is the only
way that we will be able to accomplish the mandate for safety
that falls to us.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan S. Robfogel, Esq.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for the
opportunity to appear with Executive Director Thompson before you today
in support of the fiscal year 2006 budget request of the Office of
Compliance.
The Board is acutely aware of its awesome responsibility for the
health and safety of those who work on or visit the Capitol Hill
campus.
To protect the men and women who come to the Capitol, we must have
enough inspectors to inspect the buildings, help to remediate noted
deficiencies and reinspect to ensure compliance.
Currently we are functioning with only one staff inspector who is
on assignment from the Department of Labor. In addition, we employ
contract inspectors, as funds permit. Simply put, it is not enough
manpower to inspect the entire Capitol Hill campus in a two year
period.
As a Board, we have questioned our executive staff and we are fully
satisfied that they are doing everything they can do to support the
inspection mandate, including reassigning staff and resources from
other functions to meet the need for inspectors.
We need more people either through direct hiring or by assigning
additional inspectors to us from DOL.
We need your help to keep us all safe.
We will be happy to respond to any questions which you may have.
Senator Allard. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
was one of those that promoted the idea that Congress live
under the same laws as everybody else, and pushed the idea that
we needed to get those provisions that traditionally Congress
has been exempted from, and bring them into the operation of
our own legislative branch. Then members will gain a greater
appreciation of the total impact. If you live under the laws
that you pass, it makes a better person out of you, and I think
it makes a better legislator out of you. I think that's what
James Madison had in mind when he got up and talked about a
citizen legislator, somebody who lived under the laws that they
passed.
HEALTH AND SAFETY INSPECTIONS
One of the areas that is a little bit troublesome is in the
health and safety inspection area, you alluded to that in your
statement. We've got an article here from by The Hill newspaper
on April 19 of this year, which discussed the hazards of the
Capitol. It says we had 2,666 citations, and this is much
higher than what we had in the 2002 inspection. Was that the
last inspection before you had this inspection?
Mr. Thompson. That was the last comprehensive inspection.
The 107th Congress was done in 2002, and this is the same
square footage that we had in 2004.
Most of the violations that we had in 2002, a lot of
progress is being made on. The new violations spread across the
spectrum of very serious to the not so serious, but the
inspection experience was that there are still more serious
violations that we are trying to get after.
Senator Allard. Now, on these violations, what kind of
follow up is there? Is the follow up fairly immediate after you
discovered the violations? How are they abated, and how are we
doing on correcting health and safety violations?
Mr. Thompson. Under our new regimen, Mr. Chairman, we make
every effort to have the agency actually accompany our
inspectors, so they see what our inspectors see at the same
time. To the extent that there are clear and simple fixes, we
actually have had experiences where the changes were made as we
went.
For those things that are not being fixed immediately, they
need to be thought about before we can decide exactly what
we've got. We follow up as quickly as possible with the agency,
both orally and in writing, listing the violations and a
description of what we found.
With regard to follow up inspections, that's a very
significant part of what we've been doing since the 2004
inspection. Our inspectors go out and the agencies' inspectors
fix the things that they can fix, and we also are having a lot
of interaction with the agencies.
Senator Allard. In the 108th Congress, you were not able to
complete your inspection, is that correct?
Mr. Thompson. We were not able to complete the inspection,
I'm sad to say, Senator. For the inspections going forward,
that is something we are absolutely bound and determined not to
happen this time around, which is the reason for our increased
request.
Senator Allard. Okay, and the additional resources that you
need to finish and complete your final inspection for this
Congress is how much?
Mr. Thompson. We have given your staff two options, the FTE
option with cost over a 2 year period--fiscal year 2006 and
fiscal year 2007--approximately $570,000. In the contractor
version of the same, we use contractors to do the inspection.
The cost is approximately $475,000, so there's a savings by
using the contractors.
Senator Allard. Do you have to bring on new people?
Mr. Thompson. We have a stable of contractors that we've
been using, I don't know that we'd be able to use them for that
many hours, but the community out there has a very good
selection.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT ON THE STATUS OF MANAGEMENT IN
THE OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
Senator Allard. The GAO issued a report and recommendations
regarding the status of management in your agency. How are you
doing in responding to their recommendations, and developing
quantifiable measures to record progress toward goals? I would
think that it would be easy for you to set goals and objectives
that are measurable.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, thank you for asking that question,
because that's a core effort we're making right now.
We see the GAO engagement as more than simply oversight. We
have embraced the GAO as a consultant. They made 15
recommendations in their report last year. Of those 15
recommendations, we've been able to accomplish about half thus
far, and are working on all of them. There are a few that we
are sort of stymied on with regard to the lack of funds, but I
can report to you that as late as last month, we met with the
GAO for two purposes: one, to report to them on how we're doing
with regard to all of their recommendations, and two, to
develop with them some preliminary measures, some quantifiable
measures that we are working on as the first step toward our
next strategic plan.
RISING CASELOAD
Senator Allard. You had a rising caseload in alternative
dispute resolutions, is that right and if so, why?
Mr. Thompson. The caseload at the office is increasing. If
you correct the figures as the GAO suggested that we do for two
large files that go back to 2000, there are about 300 people
involved in the two cases. If you back those numbers out,
essentially I'm just going to run five numbers here, for each
step of our process, counseling, mediation, complaints, appeals
to the Board of Directors, Appeals to the Federal circuit. If
you take the average over the 10 years we've been in the system
versus the average over the last few years, what you get is
numbers like this: 82 for the old average, 88 for the new
average, 65 versus 73, 9 versus 11, 4 versus 6 and for appeals
to the Federal circuit, the old average is 2, now we're running
at 7, so we have a significant increase in the caseload.
I think the reasons for that--but there's no way to
scientifically confirm this--our best educated guess is that it
is a combination of things. One is people knowing more about
the office, since as time goes by we're doing a much better job
of educating the community. Number two, I think the workforce
is becoming more sophisticated in general. And number three,
frankly, I think there was a period of time when I first got
here where you would hear stories that, ``Well, that Office of
Compliance is just for show,'' and I think over time the
quality of what we've been doing, the quality of the Board's
decisionmaking have demonstrated our worth.
Senator Allard. Now, the 200 and 300 complaints that you
had come in, can you explain in more detail what that was all
about?
Mr. Thompson. Yes, there were two large cases, one was a
group of female cleaning people who were sponsored, I believe,
if my recollection is correct, by their collective bargaining
representative, and they were claiming sex discrimination.
The second group was the Black Capitol Police Officer's
Association which came into the office about 4 days after I got
there as the new Executive Director. Their claim was racial
discrimination through the hiring and promotion of Capitol
Police, that case is now a case in the Federal court, it's
still at the trial level, and the Architect's cases were also
in court.
CHANGES IN THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Senator Allard. Based on your experience, your staff's
experience, how would you assess the effectiveness of the
Congressional Accountability Act, and are there any changes to
the law that you'd recommend to improve its effectiveness?
Mr. Thompson. I would say the law is quite effective in
that there is a place for all employees to go with regard to 12
different statutes. I think we educate people on their rights
and responsibilities under the laws, and with regard to the
improvements, the Board of Directors has submitted, as required
by the statute last year, 2004, a formal report and
recommendation which includes a number of changes to the Act
itself and some additional laws. There was inconclusive
evidence to determine whether other agencies needed that, and
we will make available that formal report to you and your
staff.
Senator Allard. We'd appreciate that. Thank you very much.
I don't have anything else. Go ahead.
Ms. Robfogel. Mr. Chairman, there's one other change to our
statute that our Board has recommended and that was recommended
in the GAO analysis that I think it's important you be aware
of. When our statute was passed, it was passed with term
limits, the Board would be appointed for a single, 5-year term,
and our executive staff would be appointed for a single 5-year
term. The GAO has recognized that it is very difficult to
accomplish continuity, and to accomplish the purposes for which
the statute is established if the whole office turns over that
frequently. Congress last year amended the statute to permit
the Board members to be reappointed for an additional term. We
are hoping very much that the legislation will be amended to
also permit the reappointment of the executive staff so that
all of the work that is currently in process will be able to
continue.
Senator Allard. So, we have term limits on the executive
staff?
Ms. Robfogel. Currently that is the situation.
The term limits with respect to the Board have essentially
been eliminated, at least to the extent of permitting three
members of the Board whose terms expired to be reappointed, and
we have been told that the other two members of the Board,
whose terms will be over in the next month, that they will also
have their term limits lifted.
Senator Allard. So, we have staggered terms now for the
Board members?
Ms. Robfogel. By just several months, yes.
Senator Allard. I think we may need to look at that closer,
we should stagger Board member terms out over several years.
Ms. Robfogel. That would be a massive improvement, and we
also think there needs to be some relief on the executive staff
side.
Senator Allard. But they serve at your pleasure, you have
oversight on the executive board, you hire----
Ms. Robfogel. They serve at my pleasure, actually.
Senator Allard. As Chairman of the Board.
Ms. Robfogel. Yes.
Senator Allard. So, even though they've performed well over
a certain period of time, you cannot reappoint them?
Ms. Robfogel. I can not reappoint them, and I can not move
people from one position in the office to another position in
the office. Once someone has served on the executive staff,
he's got to leave at the end of the 5 years.
Senator Allard. We're going to take a close look at why
that provision is there, see if we can figure out congressional
intent, apparently Government Affairs has oversight on that.
Ms. Robfogel. They do.
Senator Allard. So, maybe we'll communicate with them a
little bit and see what their views are on this issue.
Ms. Robfogel. I would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Allard. I will now put this subcommittee in recess
until May 17 when we take testimony regarding the Capitol
Visitor Center. Thank you for your testimony, this has been a
good, helpful morning with testimony from all panels, and we
thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 11, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
at 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 17.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY AGENCIES NOT APPEARING FOR FORMAL HEARINGS
[Clerk's Note.--The following agencies of the Subcommittee
on the Legislative Branch did not appear before the
subcommittee this year. Chairman Allard requested these
agencies to submit testimony in support of their fiscal year
2006 budget request. Those statements submitted by the chairman
follow:]
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
Prepared Statement of William M. Thomas, Chairman
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is my honor to
submit the written testimony of the Joint Committee on Taxation
(``Joint Committee'') with respect to the fiscal year 2006
appropriation request for the Joint Committee.
Mr. Chairman, the request of the Joint Committee represents the
minimum amount necessary to fund the operations of the Joint Committee
during fiscal year 2006. The following summarizes the main components
of the Joint Committee's request.
--The Joint Committee is requesting an increase of $330,000 for
fiscal year 2006 to cover cost-of-living adjustments and a 1-
percent meritorious increase in personnel compensation
expenses.
--The Joint Committee is requesting an increase of $3,000 for fiscal
year 2006 to cover increased utilization of the MetroChek
program of transit benefits.
--The Joint Committee is requesting an increase of $67,464 for fiscal
year 2006 for equipment purchases. This amount represents the
amount rescinded from the Joint Committee fiscal year 2005
appropriation request.
--The Joint Committee is requesting an increase in nonpersonnel
expenses of $15,000 for fiscal year 2006 to cover cost-of-
living adjustments.
The following discussion provides (1) detailed information on the
Joint Committee appropriation request for fiscal year 2006, (2) a
review of Joint Committee operations during calendar year 2004, and (3)
a description of the anticipated workload of the Joint Committee during
calendar year 2005.
summary of fiscal year 2006 appropriation request
The following table summarizes the Joint Committee's appropriation
request for fiscal year 2006 relative to the fiscal year 2005
appropriation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Costs:
Personnel compensation.............. $7,653,000 $7,983,000
Transit benefits.................... 20,000 23,000
Nonpersonnel Funding:
Travel.............................. 12,000 12,000
Rent, communications, and utilities. 35,000 36,000
Printing............................ 6,000 6,000
Other services...................... 125,000 127,000
Supplies and materials.............. 185,000 189,000
Equipment........................... 329,536 405,000
-------------------------------
Total fiscal year 2005 \1\ 8,365,536 ..............
appropriation....................
Total fiscal year 2006 request.... 8,781,000 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ After reduction for rescission amount of $67,464.
details of fiscal year 2006 appropriation request
Personnel expenses
Details of appropriation request
The Joint Committee's appropriation for fiscal year 2006 relative
to fiscal year 2005 requests $333,000 for increased personnel costs
which includes personnel compensation and transit benefits. This
increase is attributable to the following amounts, which have been
calculated pursuant to information supplied by the House Office of
Finance:
Fiscal year 2005 cost-of-living adjustment annualized.--The Joint
Committee requests $72,000 to fund 3 months of the 3.7 percent cost-of-
living adjustment for calendar year 2005.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The $72,000 amount reflects an increase of $5,000 over the
amount included in the original JCT budget request of November 15, 2004
and supporting schedules. The increase reflects an updated COLA for
calendar year 2005 which affects the first quarter of the fiscal year
2006 request (i.e., Oct. 1, 2005-Dec. 31, 2005). This COLA postdated
the original JCT budget submission and was unilaterally added to the
original JCT budget request by the House Finance Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2006 cost-of-living adjustment annualized.--The Joint
Committee requests $179,000 to fund 9 months of the projected 3.1
percent cost-of-living adjustment for calendar year 2006.
Meritorious increases.--The Joint Committee requests $79,000 for 1-
percent meritorious increases for fiscal year 2006.
Transit benefits.--The Joint Committee requests $3,000 for
additional Metro benefits.
Need for adequate funding for personnel expenses
The funding of adequate amounts for personnel costs is critical to
the continued ability of the Joint Committee to attract and retain
qualified professional staff.
Joint Committee professional staff include tax lawyers, certified
public accountants, Ph.D. economists, and highly trained computer
specialists. In order to provide the highly technical services required
by Joint Committee lawyers and certified public accountants, the Joint
Committee generally requires such professionals to have a minimum of 3-
4 years of private practice or comparable experience. It is becoming
increasingly difficult to attract such individuals to public service
and retain them for significant periods given the disparity between
private sector salaries and the salaries the Joint Committee can pay.
A similar problem arises with Joint Committee staff economists. The
Joint Committee typically hires economists who are just completing
their Ph.D. programs. It generally takes an entry-level economist 2-3
years of training to become proficient in the unique skills required to
prepare revenue estimates for proposed tax legislation. Once this
training period is complete, these economists have highly marketable
skills and the private sector firms that attempt to duplicate the work
of the Joint Committee offer significant salary increases to attract
Joint Committee economists.
At this time, the Joint Committee is actively recruiting to fill
open staff positions that have resulted from staff attrition during the
last Congress. However, unless adequate amounts are funded for
personnel expenses for fiscal year 2006, the Joint Committee will not
be able to fill all of its open positions. Failure to fill open
positions may result in a reduced level of service to the Congress.
Nonpersonnel expenses
In general
The Joint Committee is requesting $15,000 to cover cost-of-living
adjustments in nonpersonnel expenses for fiscal year 2006. In addition,
the Joint Committee is requesting an additional $67,464 for equipment
for fiscal year 2006. The additional money for equipment, which
represents the amount rescinded from the fiscal year 2005 request, is
requested for the combination of ongoing computer upgrades and the
additional cost of equipment to provide for necessary alternative
computing capabilities.
Travel
The Joint Committee requests $12,000 for travel during fiscal year
2006. This amount will be used to pay travel expenses of Joint
Committee consultants and Joint Committee staff attending educational
conferences.
Rent, communications, and utilities
The Joint Committee requests $36,000 for fiscal year 2006 to cover
anticipated expenses for communications and utilities.
Printing
The Joint Committee requests $6,000 to cover anticipated printing
expenses for fiscal year 2006.
Other services
The Joint Committee requests $127,000 for other services for fiscal
year 2006. The Joint Committee utilizes consultants and other service
providers to perform functions that the Joint Committee staff does not
have the time or expertise to perform. Most of these services relate to
the revenue estimating work of the Joint Committee, including the
preparation of macroeconomic analysis. As the graph in Attachment C to
this statement demonstrates, the number of revenue estimating requests
received by the Joint Committee continues to increase. The needs of the
Members for immediate responses to requests for revenue estimates and
the substantial volume of requests that the Joint Committee staff
receives each year places limitations on the ability of the Joint
Committee staff to perform certain work, such as the manipulation of
new data sets, that improves the quality of Joint Committee revenue
estimates. The Joint Committee staff has found that it is more cost
efficient to contract some of this work to outside consultants.
Supplies and materials
The Joint Committee requests $189,000 for supplies and materials
for fiscal year 2006. The largest expense in this category is a
projected $150,000 for subscriptions and publications to keep up with
current developments in tax law.
Equipment
The Joint Committee requests $405,000 for equipment for fiscal year
2006. The Joint Committee staff anticipates expending approximately
$230,000 for replacement of servers and for storage upgrades for the
Joint Committee's computing needs, which include large-scale economic
modeling, macroeconomic modeling and simulation, case tracking,
statistical analysis, and general functions such as word processing,
spreadsheets and graphing. In addition, Xerox maintenance and usage
costs are projected to be approximately $50,000, and hardware and
software maintenance are estimated to be $125,000.
review of joint committee on taxation operations during calendar year
2004
In general
Attachments A through E provide a summary of the activity of the
Joint Committee staff for calendar year 2004. The attachments include
the following information:
Attachment A--information relating to the legislative tax reports
(Committee and Conference Reports) drafted by Joint Committee staff for
the revenue-related legislation considered by the House Committee on
Ways and Means and/or the Senate Committee on Finance and public laws
involving the Joint Committee staff during 2004.
Attachment B--a listing of all documents published by the Joint
Committee staff during 2004.
Attachment C--a graph showing the number of requests received by
the Joint Committee from revenue estimates and other assistance during
the period 1986 through 2004.
Attachment D--a table providing information on revenue estimate
requests and Joint Committee staff responses to various categories of
requesting Members for 2004.
(5) Attachment E--information relating to the Joint Committee
staff's statutorily mandated duty to review large income tax refunds.
Tax legislative reports
The Joint Committee staff assisted in the preparation of 10
Committee and Conference reports relating to tax legislation considered
by the Congress in 2004 and provided assistance on two income tax
treaty Committee reports. A complete listing of these reports is
included at Attachment A. In addition the Joint Committee staff worked
on 17 bills signed into law during 2004.
Joint Committee staff publications
In addition to its work on committee and conference reports, the
Joint Committee staff published 74 documents during 2004, including
pamphlets and other documents prepared for committee hearings and
markups and conference action (see Attachment B). All Joint Committee
staff publications are accessible from the Joint Committee's web page
(http://www.house.gov/jct).
Revenue estimates and related analysis
Attachments C and D show data relating to the Joint Committee
staff's revenue estimating activity. Attachment C shows the number of
revenue estimate requests received by the Joint Committee staff each
year from 1986 through 2004.
Attachment D also shows information on revenue estimate requests
and Joint Committee staff responses to various categories of Members
requesting revenue estimates for 2004. The Joint Committee staff is
cognizant of its responsibility to provide service to all Members who
request it and attempts to be as responsive to non-tax-writing
Committee Members as it is to the tax-writing Committee Members.
The Joint Committee staff has been developing a capacity to analyze
the effects of major tax legislation on the economy. Several
macroeconomic simulation models are used in this analysis, including
the staff's Macroeconomic Equilibrium Growth model, and commercially
available econometric and overlapping generation models requiring
outside contracts. In addition, the staff is working on an in-house
neoclassical growth model that can incorporate people's expectations
about future policy to provide additional perspective on proposals
involving phase-ins, phase-outs, and sunsets of tax policy.
Developmental work is being done in connection with anticipated
analyses of tax reform and social security reform.
JCT staff studies, investigations, and refund review
Refund review
An ongoing, statutorily mandated function of the Joint Committee is
the review of IRS refunds or credits of income tax, estate and gift
tax, or any tax on public charities, foundations, pension plans, or
real estate investment trusts in excess of $2 million. The Joint
Committee staff reviews and reports on such refund cases and makes
comments or recommendations with respect to the proposed refund case to
the IRS. Attachment E contains information concerning the Joint
Committee staff refund review work. During fiscal year 2004, the Joint
Committee refund staff reviewed 1,163 cases involving $22.97 billion in
proposed refunds and 64 large deficiency cases. The Joint Committee
staff raised concerns in 56 refund cases. Errors identified by the
Joint Committee staff produced a net reduction in refunds of $61
million in fiscal year 2004. The average annual reduction in refunds
for the last 10 years is $38.8 million.
anticipated workload of the joint committee on taxation for calendar
year 2005
During 2005, the Joint Committee expects an increase in workload
over 2004. The Joint Committee staff will provide support to the
Congress and the tax-writing committees as broad-based and other tax
relief proposals, including President Bush's fiscal year 2006 budget
proposals, are considered by the Congress. The Joint Committee staff is
preparing for legislative action as a result of the President's
Commission on broad based tax reform as well as the President's
initiative to reform the Social Security system. In addition, the Joint
Committee is preparing for Congressional consideration of legislation
to extend various expiring tax provisions and to reform the laws
relating to employer-provided retirement plans. As part of the
legislative process, the Joint Committee staff will (1) develop
legislative proposals, (2) assist in the drafting of such proposals,
(3) provide revenue estimates for numerous legislative options and
amendments, (4) prepare markup documents and committee reports, and (5)
provide additional economic analysis to the Members.
In addition to this anticipated legislative activity, the Joint
Committee staff will continue to satisfy its responsibilities under the
IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. Thus, the Joint Committee
staff will prepare a complexity analysis for inclusion in Committee and
Conference reports for all revenue legislation. In addition, the Joint
Committee staff has also organized the joint review in 2005 relating to
the operations of the Internal Revenue Service and prepared materials
for the use of the Congress in connection with that review.
The Joint Committee will continue to satisfy its statutory
responsibility to review large refund cases submitted to it by the IRS.
The Joint Committee staff expects to assist the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations with respect to its work to review proposed tax
treaties.
The Joint Committee staff anticipates that requests from Members
for revenue estimates for proposed legislation will increase in 2005,
relative to 2004. In addition, the Joint Committee staff will continue
to work to develop a macroeconomic model that will provide information
on the possible effects on the economy of major tax legislation.
summary
Mr. Chairman, the Joint Committee has a reputation for providing
timely, high quality service to the Congress with respect to proposed
revenue legislation. However, the highly technical nature of the Joint
Committee's work makes it imperative that the Joint Committee be able
to hire and retain qualified tax professionals. If the Joint
Committee's appropriation request is not approved, the Joint Committee
will not have adequate resources to fill all of its open staff
positions.
I respectfully request that the Subcommittee approve the
appropriation request of the Joint Committee on Taxation for fiscal
year 2006. This request is the minimum amount necessary to fund the
operations of the Joint Committee during fiscal year 2006. If the
requested funding is not provided, difficult decisions will be required
concerning what staff activities can and should be funded.
Attachment A.--Committee and Conference Reports on Which the Joint
Committee on Taxation Staff Provided Assistance, and Public Laws
Involving the Joint Committee Staff During 2004
House Committee on Ways and Means
108-444--Highway Reauthorization Tax Act of 2004, March 23, 2004
108-548--American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, June 16, 2004
108-472--The Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act of
2003, July 6, 2004
108-473--John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act, July 6, 2004
108-474--Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act,
July 6, 2004
Senate Committee on Finance
108-257--Tax Administration Good Government Act, May 4, 2004
108-266--National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Guarantee Act,
May 14, 2004
Conference Committee Reports
108-457--Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, April 1, 2004
108-696--Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, September 23,
2004
108-755--American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, October 7, 2004
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
108-9--Tax Convention with the Government of Japan
108-11--Tax Convention and Protocol with the Government of Sri
Lanka
Public Laws Involving Joint Committee on Taxation
108-202--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, February 29,
2004
108-203--Social Security Protection Act of 2004, March 2, 2004
108-218--Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, April 10, 2004
108-224--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part II,
April 30, 2004
108-263--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part III,
June 30, 2004
108-280--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part IV,
July 30, 2004
108-289--Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act of
2004, August 6, 2004
108-290--John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act, August 6, 2004
108-291--Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act,
August 6, 2004
108-310--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V,
September 30, 2004
108-311--Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, October 4, 2004
108-357--American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, October 22, 2004
108-375--Ronald W. Reagan Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005, October 28, 2004
108-429--Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act,
December 3, 2004
108-447--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, December 8, 2004
108-476--YMCA Retirement Fund, December 21, 2004
108-493--Modification to the Taxation of Arrow Components, December
23, 2004
Attachment B.--Joint Committee on Taxation
jcs-04 documents
JCS-1-04--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The
United States And Japan Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Committee on
Foreign Relations United States Senate on February 25, 2004. February
19, 2004
JCS-2-04--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The
United States And The Democratic Socialist Republic Of Sri Lanka
Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate on February 25, 2004. February 19, 2004
JCS-3-04--Description Of Revenue Provisions Contained In The
President's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Proposal. February 2004
jcx-04 documents
JCX-1-04--List Of Expired And Expiring Federal Tax Provisions.
January 21, 2004
JCX-2-04--Description Of The Chairman's Mark Of The ``Tax
Administration Good Government Act Of 2004'' Scheduled for Markup by
the Senate Committee on Finance on February 2, 2004. January 29, 2004
JCX-3-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Mark Of The
``Tax Administration Good Government Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For
Markup By The Committee On Finance On February 2, 2004. January 29,
2004
JCX-4-04--Description Of Chairman's Modification To The ``National
Employee Savings And Trust Equity Guarantee Act Of 2003'' As Marked Up
September 17, 2003, As Scheduled For Markup By The Senate Committee On
Finance On February 2, 2004. January 29, 2004
JCX-5-04--Description Of The ``Highway Reauthorization And Excise
Tax Simplification Act Of 2004'' Scheduled for Markup by the Senate
Committee on Finance on February 2, 2004. January 29, 2004
JCX-6-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The ``Highway
Reauthorization And Excise Tax Simplification Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled
For Markup By The Committee On Finance On February 2, 2004. January 30,
2004
JCX-7-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Tax And Pension Provisions
Of H.R. 3108, The ``Pension Stability Act,'' As Passed By The Senate On
January 28, 2004. January 30, 2004
JCX-8-04--Description Of Additional Chairman's Modifications To The
``National Employee Savings And Trust Equity Guarantee Act Of 2003'' As
Marked Up September 17, 2003, Scheduled For Markup By The Senate
Committee On Finance On February 2, 2004. February 2, 2004
JCX-9-04--Estimated Budget Effects Of The ``National Employee
Savings And Trust Equity Guarantee Act,'' As Ordered Reported By The
Committee On Finance On September 17, 2003, And As Proposed To Be
Modified On February 2, 2004. February 2, 2004
JCX-10-04--Modification Of The Chairman's Mark On The ``Highway
Reauthorization And Excise Tax Simplification Act Of 2004'' Scheduled
for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on February 2, 2004.
February 2, 2004
JCX-11-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's
Modifications To The ``Highway Reauthorization And Excise Tax
Simplification Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On
Finance On February 2, 2004. February 2, 2004
JCX-12-04--Technical Explanation Of The Tax And Pension Provisions
Of H.R. 3108, The ``Pension Stability Act,'' As Passed By The Senate On
January 28, 2004. February 9, 2004
JCX-13-04--Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
Taxation Before The Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Hearing On
The Proposed Tax Treaties With Japan And Sri Lanka. February 23, 2004
JCX-14-04--Estimated Budget Effects Of Revenue Provisions Contained
In The President's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Proposal. February 27, 2004
JCX-15-04--Updated Estimated Budget Effects Of S. 1637, The
``Jumpstart Our Business Strength (`JOBS') Act,'' As Reported By The
Committee On Finance. March 3, 2004
JCX-16-04--Present Law And Background Relating To Individual
Taxpayer Identification Numbers (``ITNS'') Scheduled for a Joint
Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and the Subcommittee on
Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means on March 10,
2004. March 5, 2004
JCX-17-04--Comparison Of The Tax And Pension Provisions Of H.R.
3108, As Passed By The House And The Senate. March 5, 2004
JCX-18-04--Comparison Of The Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Tax
And Pension Provisions Of H.R. 3108, The ``Pension Funding Equity Act
Of 2003,'' As Passed By The House Of Representatives And H.R. 3108, The
``Pension Stability Act,'' As Passed By The Senate. March 5, 2004
JCX-19-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Certain Tax Provisions
Contained In S. 1072, The ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, And Efficient
Transportation Equity Act Of 2004,'' As Passed By The Senate. March 12,
2004
JCX-20-04--Description Of ``The Highway Reauthorization Tax Act Of
2004'' Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means on
March 17, 2004. March 15, 2004
JCX-21-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 3971, The ``Highway
Reauthorization Tax Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The
Committee On Ways And Means On March 17, 2004. March 17, 2004
JCX-22-04--Estimated Trust Fund And General Fund Effects Of Certain
Tax Provisions Contained In H.R. 3971, The ``Highway Reauthorization
Tax Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways And
Means On March 17, 2004. March 17, 2004
JCX-23-04--Description Of Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of A
Substitute To H.R. 3971 The ``Highway Reauthorization Tax Act Of
2004''. March 17, 2004
JCX-24-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Amendment In
The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 3971, The ``Highway Reauthorization
Tax Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways And
Means On March 17, 2004. March 17, 2004
JCX-25-04--Estimated Trust Fund And General Fund Effects Of Certain
Tax Provisions Contained In The Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of A
Substitute To H.R. 3971, The ``Highway Reauthorization Tax Act Of
2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways And Means On
March 17, 2004. March 17, 2004
JCX-26-04--Estimated Trust Fund And General Fund Effects Of Certain
Provisions In The ``Highway Reauthorization And Excise Tax
Simplification Act Of 2004,'' As Passed By The Senate. March 26, 2004
JCX-27-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Title IX Of H.R. 3550, The
``Highway Reauthorization Tax Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For
Consideration On The House Floor. April 1, 2004
JCX-28-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Tax And Pension
Provisions Contained In The Conference Agreement For H.R. 3108, The
``Pension Funding Equity Act Of 2004''. April 2, 2004
JCX-29-04--Revised Disclosure Report For Public Inspection Pursuant
To Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(3)(C) For Calendar Year 2002.
April 6, 2004
JCX-30-04--Disclosure Report For Public Inspection Pursuant To
Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(3)(C) For Calendar Year 2003.
April 6, 2004
JCX-31-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4181, Scheduled For
Consideration On The House Floor. April 28, 2004
JCX-32-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4227, For
Consideration By The House Committee On Rules. May 5, 2004
JCX-33-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Revenue Provisions
Contained In H.R. 4279, As Passed By The House Of Representatives. May
14, 2004
JCX-34-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4275, As Passed By The
House Of Representatives. May 14, 2004
JCX-35-04--Estimated Budget Effects Of H.R. 1528, The ``Tax
Administration Good Government Act,'' As Passed By The Senate On May
19, 2004. May 20, 2004
JCX-36-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of S. 1637, The ``Jumpstart
Our Business Strength (`JOBS') Act,'' As Passed By The Senate. May 20,
2004
JCX-37-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4359, The ``Child
Credit Preservation And Expansion Act Of 2004,'' As Passed By The House
Of Representatives. May 21, 2004
JCX-38-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4520, The ``American
Jobs Creation Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On
Ways And Means On June 10, 2004. June 8, 2004
JCX-39-04--Comparison Of The Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Tax
Provisions Contained In H.R. 3550, The ``Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy For Users,'' As Passed By The House Of Representatives, And H.R.
3550, The ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, And Efficient Transportation
Equity Act Of 2004,'' As Amended By The Senate. June 9, 2004
JCX-40-04--Comparison Of The Estimated Trust Fund And General Fund
Effects Of Certain Tax Provisions Contained In H.R. 3550, The
``Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users,'' As Passed By The
House Of Representatives, And H.R. 3550, The ``Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, And Efficient Transportation Equity Act Of 2004,'' As Amended
By The Senate. June 9, 2004
JCX-41-04--Description Of H.R. 4520, The ``American Jobs Creation
Act Of 2004'' Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and
Means on June 14, 2004. June 10, 2004
JCX-42-04--Description Of The Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of
A Substitute To The Provisions Of H.R. 4520, The ``American Jobs
Creation Act Of 2004''. June 10, 2004
JCX-43-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Amendment In
The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 4520, The ``American Jobs Creation
Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways & Means On
June 14, 2004. June 10, 2004
JCX-44-04--Description Of Present Law Relating To Charitable And
Other Exempt Organizations And Statistical Information Regarding Growth
And Oversight Of The Tax-Exempt Sector Scheduled for a Public Hearing
Before the Senate Committee on Finance on June 22, 2004. June 22, 2004
JCX-45-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4520, The ``American
Jobs Creation Act Of 2004,'' As Passed By The House Of Representatives.
June 22, 2004
JCX-46-04--Description Of The Chairman's Amendment To H.R. 1914,
The ``Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Of 2003,''
H.R. 2768, The ``John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act,'' And H.R. 3277,
The ``Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act''. June 22,
2004
JCX-47-04--Comparison Of The Tax Provisions Contained In H.R. 3550,
The ``Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users,'' As Passed By The
House Of Representatives, And H.R. 3550, The ``Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, And Efficient Transportation Equity Act Of 2004,'' As Amended
By The Senate. June 25, 2004
JCX-48-04--Present Law And Background Relating To The Tax Treatment
Of Tip Income. July 13, 2004
JCX-49-04--Description Of H.R. 982, A Bill ``To Clarify The Tax
Treatment Of Bonds And Other Obligations Issued By The Government Of
American Samoa''. July 16, 2004
JCX-50-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4841, The ``Tax
Simplification For Americans Act Of 2004,'' As Amended, And Scheduled
For Consideration By The House Of Representatives. July 21, 2004
JCX-51-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4840, The ``Tax
Simplification For America's Job Creators Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For
Consideration By The House Of Representatives. July 21, 2004
JCX-52-04--Present Law And Analysis Relating To Tax Benefits For
Higher Education Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Senate
Committee on Finance on July 22, 2004. July 21, 2004
JCX-53-04--Comparison Of The Estimated Budget Effects Of H.R. 4520,
The ``American Jobs Creation Act Of 2004,'' As Passed By The House Of
Representatives, And H.R. 4520, The ``Jumpstart Our Business Strength
(`JOBS') Act, As Amended By The Senate. July 23, 2004
JCX-54-04--Explanation Of Proposed Protocol To The Income Tax
Treaty Between The United States And The Netherlands Scheduled for a
Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate
on September 24, 2004. September 16, 2004
JCX-55-04--Explanation Of Proposed Protocol To The Income Tax
Treaty Between The United States And Barbados Scheduled for a Hearing
Before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate on
September 24, 2004. September 16, 2004
JCX-56-04--Present Law And Background Relating To Tax-Exempt
Financing Of Indian Tribal Prisons Scheduled for a Public Hearing
Before the Senate Committee on Finance on September 21, 2004. September
20, 2004
JCX-57-04--Comparison Of Provisions Contained In H.R. 1308, The
``All-American Tax Relief Act Of 2003,'' As Passed By The House Of
Representatives On June 12, 2003, And H.R. 1308, The ``Relief For
Working Families Tax Act Of 2003,'' As Passed By The Senate On June 5,
2003. September 21, 2004
JCX-58-04--Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
Taxation Before The Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Hearing On
The Proposed Tax Protocols With Barbados And The Netherlands. September
22, 2004
JCX-59-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 1057, The ``Adoption
Tax Relief Guarantee Act,'' Scheduled For Consideration By The House Of
Representatives. September 22, 2004
JCX-60-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Conference Agreement
For H.R. 1308, The ``Working Families Tax Relief Act Of 2004''.
September 23, 2004
JCX-61-04--Comparison Of Certain Provisions Of H.R. 4520 As Passed
By The House Of Representatives And As Amended By The Senate:
Provisions Relating To The Repeal Of The Exclusion For Extraterritorial
Income, Domestic Production, And The Corporate Income Tax Rates
Applicable To Small Corporations. September 29, 2004
JCX-62-04--Comparison Of Certain Provisions Of H.R. 4520 As Passed
By The House Of Representatives And As Amended By The Senate: Job
Creation Tax Incentives For Manufacturing, Small Business, And Farming.
September 29, 2004
JCX-63-04--Comparison Of Certain Provisions Of H.R. 4520 As Passed
By The House Of Representatives And As Amended By The Senate:
Provisions Relating To International Tax Reform And Simplification For
United States Businesses. September 29, 2004
JCX-64-04--Comparison Of Certain Provisions Of H.R. 4520 As Passed
By The House Of Representatives And As Amended By The Senate: Revenue
Provisions. September 29, 2004
JCX-65-04--Comparison Of Certain Provisions Of H.R. 4520 As Passed
By The House Of Representatives And As Amended By The Senate: Alcohol
Fuels And Fuel Fraud Provisions. September 29, 2004
JCX-66-04--Comparison Of Certain Provisions Of H.R. 4520 As Passed
By The House Of Representatives And As Amended By The Senate: Expiring
Provisions. September 29, 2004
JCX-67-04--Budget Impact Of The Proposed Protocols To The Income
Tax Treaties Between The United States And The Netherlands And Between
The United States And Barbados. September 30, 2004
JCX-68-04R--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Chairman's Mark
Relating To H.R. 4520, The ``American Jobs Creation Act Of 2004,''
Scheduled For Consideration By The House And Senate Conferees
Continuing On October 5, 2004. October 5, 2004
JCX-69-04--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement For
H.R. 4520, The ``American Jobs Creation Act Of 2004''. October 7, 2004
JCX-70-04--Description Of The Tax Technical Corrections Act Of
2004. November 19, 2004
JCX-71-04--List Of Expiring Federal Tax Provisions 2004-2014.
December 23, 2004
ATTACHMENT C.--JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION REVENUE ESTIMATE REQUESTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of
Calendar year requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986......................................................... 474
1987......................................................... 420
1988......................................................... 900
1989......................................................... 1,290
1990......................................................... 1,286
1991......................................................... 1,461
1992......................................................... 2,350
1993......................................................... 2,380
1994......................................................... 1,259
1995......................................................... 2,278
1996......................................................... 1,792
1997......................................................... 2,079
1998......................................................... 2,729
1999......................................................... 4,150
2000......................................................... 2,807
2001......................................................... 4,491
2002......................................................... 3,583
2003......................................................... 4,839
2004......................................................... 3,580
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT D.--REQUEST DATA RELATING TO THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 108TH
CONGRESS \1\
[Calendar Year 2004]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests Requests Requests Percent
Requestors Received Pending Closed Closed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ways and Means Committee:
Republicans............. 842 66 776 92.2
Democrats............... 188 19 169 89.9
Senate Finance Committee:
Republicans............. 933 91 842 90.2
Democrats............... 1,162 97 1,065 91.7
Non-Ways and Means
Committee:
Republicans............. 71 7 64 90.1
Democrats/Independent... 78 10 68 87.2
Non-Senate Finance
Committee:
Republicans............. 81 10 71 87.7
Democrats............... 131 10 121 92.4
Others...................... 94 9 85 90.4
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 3,580 319 3,261 91.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals include both revenue and non-revenue requests.
Attachment E.--Memorandum
December 8, 2004.
TO: Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation
FROM: Senior Refund Counsel
SUBJECT: Refund Section--Operations Report October 1, 2003 through
September 30, 2004
This is a report on the more significant developments in this
Office during this period.
summary
Volume--Refund Cases.--1,163 reports were received during this
period. The total dollar amount of refunds was $22,977,809,443.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports Received 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examination Division............................................... 550 406 487 555 1,058
Appeals Division................................................... 99 76 95 82 92
Department of Justice.............................................. 10 14 4 7 9
Chief Counsel...................................................... 5 6 2 5 4
--------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 664 502 588 649 1,163
============================================
Concerns \1\....................................................... 49 51 41 39 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 0 post review deficiency cases for 2000, 4 for 2001, 0 for 2002, 1 for 2003 and 2 for 2004.
Post Review.--The Service reports 64 large deficiency cases to us
on an annual basis.
Other Action.--We made recommendations that the Service publish
guidance in certain areas we also made five legislative
recommendations.
Exhibits and Appendices provide detailed information on most of the
foregoing.
Errors identified by us in fiscal year 2004 and prior years, and
settled in fiscal year 2004 produced a net reduction in refunds or an
increase in deficiencies of $61 million. The average annual reduction
for the last ten years is $38.8 million. Such corrections also reduced
NOLs by $9.8 million; reduced credits by $133,000 reduced AMT NOLs by
$103.2 million and decreased basis and amortization by $31 million.
We hope that we are satisfactorily accomplishing our assigned
portion of the Committee's mission and meeting your expectations. We
look forward to a productive, challenging year.
Appendix A.--Proposals for Statutory, Ruling, Manual and Regulatory
Changes
Raised the possibility of legislation to amend section 305(c) to
reference section 1272(d). (NB)
Suggested the IRS review procedures for reporting section 835(d)
credits to Joint Committee in view of recent failure to timely report
credit. (RG)
Raised for future reference the issue of longer carryback periods
from certain years, and the problem that arises when taxpayers file for
a change in period to obtain more than one tax year ending in the
relevant year. (NB)
Raised the issue of the characterization issue of licenses in the
section 367/351 contexts. (NB)
Raised the fact that section 172(h) has never been amended to
conform to the 5-year periods contained in 172(b)(1)(H). (RG)
Amend section 1033 to clarify that merger termination fees do not
qualify. (NB & RG)
Suggested the IRS review two compensation rulings. (CS & NF)
EXHIBIT I.--REPORTS TO JC AS REQUIRED BY IRS CODE SECTION 6405--FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Cumulative
Month Cases Cumulative Monthly Dollar Receipts Cumulative
Received Total Average Dollar Receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October.............................. 73 73 73 $2,004,276,357 $2,004,276,357
November............................. 43 116 58 488,511,179 2,492,787,536
December............................. 52 168 56 1,290,914,965 3,783,702,501
January.............................. 65 233 58 1,010,727,485 4,794,429,986
February............................. 119 352 70 4,214,438,769 9,008,868,755
March................................ 109 461 77 1,114,379,529 10,123,248,284
April................................ 109 570 81 1,395,622,914 11,518,871,198
May.................................. 168 738 92 5,487,895,592 17,006,766,790
June................................. 105 843 94 1,278,596,373 18,285,363,163
July................................. 109 952 95 2,007,877,685 20,293,240,848
August............................... 121 1,073 98 1,696,776,685 21,990,017,533
September............................ 90 1,163 97 987,791,779 22,977,809,312
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT II.--JOINT COMMITTEE CASES RECEIVED BY TYPES OF TAXPAYER AND SOURCE--FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Percent Amount Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPES OF TAXPAYERS SOURCE OF REPORTS
Individuals.............................. 40 3.4 Compliance.................. 1,058 91.0
Estates.................................. 5 .4 Appeals..................... 92 7.9
Trusts................................... 4 .3 Justice..................... 9 .8
Corporations............................. 1,114 95.9 Tax Court................... 4 .3
--------------------- -------------------
Total.............................. 1,163 100.0 Total................. 1,163 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT III.--JOINT COMMITTEE MONTHLY RECEIPTS--REFUND REPORTS FROM COMPLIANCE AND APPEALS--FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Compliance Cumulative Appeals Cumulative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October......................................... 69 69 3 3
November........................................ 39 108 4 7
December........................................ 48 156 3 10
January......................................... 57 213 8 18
February........................................ 105 318 11 29
March........................................... 102 420 5 34
April........................................... 105 525 4 38
May............................................. 153 678 13 51
June............................................ 91 769 13 64
July............................................ 98 867 10 74
August.......................................... 109 976 10 84
September....................................... 82 1,058 8 92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT IV.--JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION CONCERNS ON REFUND REPORTS--
FISCAL YEAR 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percentage of
Concerns Total Concerns
Issued Issued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance.............................. 48 85
Appeals................................. 7 13
Tax Court............................... 1 2
-------------------------------
Total............................. 56 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMP..................................................... 1,058
AP...................................................... 92
TC...................................................... 4
J....................................................... 9
---------------
Total............................................. 1,163
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
Prepared Statement of Jim Saxton, Chairman
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to
express my strong support for the fiscal year 2006 budget request of
the Joint Economic Committee (JEC).
This budget request will support the JEC's focus on quality
research and economic analysis needed by Congress and the public. The
Committee's research and activities are substantive and credible, and
have been cited in the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes,
Time, Washington Post, New York Times, Institutional Investor, and many
other publications.
As you know, the Committee's research covers a broad array of issue
areas including both domestic and international economic policies. In
addition, the Committee closely monitors and analyzes current economic,
financial, and employment conditions. The Committee has several ongoing
research programs including fiscal and monetary policy, tax policy,
insurance reform, and reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and the World Bank.
One of our research programs, for example, focuses on recent
Federal Reserve monetary policy. A series of JEC research papers and
hearings continues to explore the specific features of the most
successful monetary policy in U.S. history. Our research in this area
indicates that the Federal Reserve has essentially been conducting
informal inflation targeting for a number of years.
Since this monetary policy has proved so effective and beneficial
to the economy, it is important to provide Congress with an explanation
of inflation targeting and how it works. Inflation targets are usually
ranges setting permissible changes in some broad price index. For
example, one might choose to set a formal inflation target of 1 to 3
percent in such an index. Monetary policy is then geared to achieve
this inflation target over a designated timeframe.
A number of JEC research papers also have documented that many
other nations have successfully implemented inflation targeting, with
very positive effects. I continue to believe that it would be
beneficial for the United States to set more formal inflation targets
and to institutionalize this approach to monetary policy.
In the area of taxation, a number of JEC studies have analyzed
various tax provisions in light of their impact on capital formation.
These studies examine how various features of the income tax can
undermine incentives for saving and investment. Other JEC related
research reviews U.S. tax policy and compares it to the tax policies of
other nations. Another research project demonstrates the deficiencies
in commonly used tax distribution tables.
An additional research program involves reform of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Some of this JEC research has
resulted in legislation changing IMF lending policies, producing
taxpayer savings of many millions of dollars. More recent JEC research
has exposed hundreds of millions in hidden taxpayer subsidies that
could result from new IMF proposals currently under consideration.
In recent weeks, the JEC has expanded its international research
program to include a review of allegations concerning accounting
irregularities at the World Bank. The Committee has verified that
accounting errors of tens of millions of dollars did in fact occur and
were not effectively addressed by World Bank management in a timely
manner. While many of these accounting problems occurred several years
ago, some of the problems are much more recent. We will continue to
explore these World Bank accounting issues in coming months.
Insurance reform is another ongoing research program of the
Committee. A number of Committee studies examine policy issues related
to terrorism insurance, medical liability reform, and tort reform.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that the quality and
productivity of Committee research products will continue in the 109th
Congress as we execute an aggressive research agenda. I would also like
to thank the Members of this Committee as well as other Members of
Congress for their support of the work of the Joint Economic Committee.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements of those
submitting written testimony are as follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Association of Research Libraries and the
Council on Library and Information Resources
This statement is submitted on behalf of the Association of
Research Libraries (ARL) and the Council on Library and
Information Resources (CLIR) in support of the fiscal year 2006
budget request of $627,802,000 for the Library of Congress
(LC).
The funding request for fiscal year 2006 will allow the
Library to fund ongoing operational activities while at the
same time, support a number of key activities of interest to
the library community and the Nation. Importantly, several of
these initiatives focus on enhancing preservation of and access
to the Library's collections. These projects include the
National Audio-Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC), the National
Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program
(NDIIPP), digitization and deacidification initiatives.
The National Audio-Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC) in
Culpeper, Virginia will serve as the central storage and
conservation facility for the Library's audiovisual collections
and will also be home to specialized preservation laboratories
for audiovisual media. This project was put on a five-year plan
three years ago and progress is moving according to schedule.
The fiscal year 2006 funding request for this project is $16.17
million. This facility will provide sufficient capacities and
capabilities for the Library to store, preserve and provide
access to its collections of moving images and recorded sound
for well over the next 25 years. ARL and CLIR support the
Library's fiscal year 2006 request of $16.17 million for
collections relocation, digital preservation activities, and
more relating to the NAVCC.
To preserve our past, libraries have established
collaborative programs to protect millions of books and other
materials, much of which is becoming unreadable due to the
acidic paper on which they are printed. This is a national
crisis and our response must be sustained over many years. ARL
and CLIR thank the Congress for your continuing support of the
Library's deacidification and related preservation efforts. We
support the request for $3.375 million to preserve an
additional 4.5 million items.
The library community supports many preservation
initiatives. ARL recently released a paper, ``Recognizing
Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method,'' (http://
www.arl.org/preserv/digit_final.html) that supports
digitization as a viable preservation reformatting strategy.
CLIR and the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) endorsed
this paper and approach. This paper is but a first step in
building community support and facilitating the development of
policies, standards, guidelines, and best practices. It is
recognized that there are many methods available to preserve
paper-based materials with digitization becoming more widely
accepted by many communities.
ARL and CLIR support the mission of the National Digital
Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP) to
develop a national strategy to collect, archive, catalog, and
preserve the rapidly increasing amount of digital content for
current and future generations, especially materials that are
created only in digital formats. Libraries throughout the
United States are investing in comparable initiatives, thus
cooperation among institutions will be fundamental to the
success of these endeavors. ARL and CLIR support the request to
extend by five years, the securing of commitments by other
organizations and entities to partner in the NDIIPP. In 2004,
the Library awarded more than $13.9 million to eight U.S.
institutions to collect and preserve digital materials under
the NDIIPP.
The Library created the National Film Preservation
Foundation (NFPF) in 1996 to preserve American films, such as
documentaries, silent-era films, avant-garde works, ethnic
films, newsreels, home movies and independent works. In
addition to protecting films from disintegration, NFPF
organizes, obtains funding, and manages collaborative projects
that enable film archives to work together on national
preservation initiatives. These are important activities and
merit Congress' full support. Indeed, ARL supported legislation
before Congress to reauthorize these important activities.
Funding to assist the Library in its long-term preservation
and access initiatives is critical to ensuring that the
American public benefits from our Nation's cultural resources
as well as from the Library's global resources. We look forward
to working with members of the Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch and very much appreciate the Subcommittee's continued
support for the Library of Congress and its programs.
------
Prepared Statement of the Association of Research Libraries and the
Council on Library and Information Resources
On behalf of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
and the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), we
write in support of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations request
for the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). We request your
support for GPO's fiscal year 2006 budget request of
$131,120,000 and in particular the request of $33,837,000 for
the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) Appropriation of the
Superintendent of Documents. This appropriation supports the
Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), the cataloging and
indexing of government publications, the distribution of
government publications to the International Exchange Program
and more. We commend GPO for investing in technologies and
systems to support enhanced access to electronic government
information and in programs to ensure the authenticity and
preservation of this information.
The FDLP is a long-standing partnership between the Federal
Government, the library community and the public. The FDLP
provides the American public with access to a wide array of
Federal information. GPO Access provides the public with access
to information in an increasingly electronic environment. In
addition to Congress, the White House, approximately 130
Federal departments and agencies, and the courts rely on GPO's
services to create and disseminate government information
through the World Wide Web.
The GPO and the participating Federal Depository Libraries
(FDLs) are undergoing an exciting transformation. This
transformation is a result of the new capabilities and
opportunities that are possible with the adoption of digital
technologies and the explosive growth of the Internet.
Researchers, students and members of the public can engage in
sophisticated searching and manipulation of information and
data including ready access to data, image files and more.
Increasingly, the data and information available is both
current and historical as many libraries and others digitize
special collections that are rich in the cultural and political
history of our Nation.
As noted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project,
``the Internet has reached into, and in some cases, reshaped
just about every realm of modern life.'' This shift to the
adoption and use of electronic information resources reflects
the interests and activities of the public. According to a
recent Nielsen/NR survey (March 2005), there are 200,933,147
Internet users in the United States or 67.8 percent of the
population. This represents an increase in usage of the
Internet of 104.9 percent between 2000-2005. These statistics
demonstrate how the American public is now engaging in online
activities--education, e-commerce, politics and a wide range of
other activities. The findings of the Electronic Publishing
Initiative (EPIC) at Columbia University are illustrative of
this change. EPIC found that electronic resources have become
the most used tool for information gathering by students. In
particular, undergraduate students rely upon the World Wide Web
and graduate students are more dependent upon library
electronic services. The GPO Strategic Vision for the 21st
Century clearly recognizes how the American public depends upon
E-services and how they use information.
Research libraries, indeed all libraries, are experiencing
an explosive growth in the acquisition and use of electronic
resources. As a result, there is a dramatic rise in digital
services in libraries and in teaching, learning and research
applications. The acceleration to electronic services is due in
large part to the new opportunities to provide access to
information more effectively. Data collected by ARL members
over the past decade indicate that the portion of the library
materials budget that is spent on electronic resources is
growing rapidly. The percentage of the average library budget
that is spent on electronic materials has increased more than
eightfold, from an estimated 3.6 percent in 1992-93 to 25
percent in 2002-03.
Since the early 1990's, the library community has actively
advocated for the inclusion of electronic government
information in the FDLP. Congress, with guidance from this
Committee, has supported this move to an increasingly
electronic FDLP. This direction recognized the enhanced
capabilities that electronic services provide to users of
government information.
Most recently, the move to electronic delivery of
information in the FDLP has increased at a fast pace. By
October-November 2004, 95 percent of the titles in the FDLP
were available electronically (even if tangible forms were also
available) and only 5 percent had no electronic counterpart.
The shift to a predominantly electronic FDLP signals a
change in nature of the Program. The FDLP is moving from a
collection-based program to a service-based program and from
print-based to electronic. The focus of the program is on
expertise and access to the information resources, not on the
physical collection. In addition, the future of the FDLP will
be in building shared collections where resources are managed
and interoperated. These may also include print collections
that are digitized. It is expected that different models of
shared repositories are likely to emerge and diversity is
desirable and encouraged.
Participating libraries make significant local
contributions to ensure effective public access to government
information. For example, as a participating regional federal
depository library (since 1879), the University of Colorado-
Boulder Library spends approximately $675,000 for staff,
material purchases, equipment and a variety of projects that
enhance public access to government information. In addition,
the Colorado State University selects approximately 60 percent
of materials available via the FDLP and spends $200,000 on
staff. The average yearly cost for 6 academic FDL's in Illinois
is $348,107 and all select over 78 percent of the government
information available via the program.
One hundred and eight ARL members are federal depository
libraries located in congressional districts throughout the
United States. Of the 108 participating ARL libraries, 22 are
regional depositories that collect and maintain all information
available via the FDLP. As of the fall of 2003, the average
annual investment in the program by ARL selective FDLs was
$352,680 and was $386,251 for ARL regional FDLs. Moreover, a
recent survey of ARL FDLs and non-ARL regional libraries
reports a jump in the reliance upon no-fee government E-
resources as well as an increase in the licensing of commercial
E-resources. Finally, 99 percent of ARL selective FDLs report
links to electronic government information in their online
catalogs and 100 percent of all regional FDLs link to
government E-resources. Clearly, many participating FDLs have
embraced the use of electronic products and services.
The GPO fiscal year 2006 funding request, including that
for Salaries and Expenses, includes key initiatives that focus
on ensuring that GPO is well positioned to provide needed
information services in the evolving networked environment. GPO
is investing in new strategic initiatives that define its and
the FDLP's future. For example, GPO is supporting the
development of authentication services, preservation planning
and implementation, improvements to GPO Access, web harvesting,
and reallocation of resources to manage the electronic
collection. The Salaries and Expenses request of $33,837,000
supports several critically important programs such as the
FDLP, the Cataloging and Indexing Program, and the
International Exchange Program. This amount includes necessary
increases to support the continued operation of the FDLP, and
the increased demands upon GPO Access. In particular, we
strongly support the request of $1 million in support of
digitization of government information. We urge you to approve
the full Salaries and Expenses appropriations request for
fiscal year 2006.
ARL recently released a paper, ``Recognizing Digitization
as a Preservation Reformatting Method,'' (http://www.arl.org/
preserv/digit_final.html) that supports digitization as a
viable preservation reformatting strategy. CLIR and the
Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) endorsed this paper
and approach. This paper is but a first step in building
community support and facilitating the development of policies,
standards, guidelines, and best practices. It is recognized
that there are many methods available to preserve paper-based
materials with digitization becoming more widely accepted by
many communities.
In closing Mr. Chairman, we very much appreciate your and
the Subcommittee's support of GPO and the FDLP over the course
of many years. The continuing investment in systems and
services to provide the public with effective access to
government information will ensure that valuable electronic
government information will be available and preserved for
future generations. We respectfully ask for your continued
support by approving the Government Printing Office's fiscal
year 2006 appropriations request in its entirety. We also ask
that this statement be included as part of the hearing record.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this request.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado:
Opening Statements of.........................1, 121, 209, 241, 265
Questions Submitted by...........................101, 103, 164, 191
Association of Research Libraries and the Council on Library and
Information Resources, Prepared Statements of................317, 318
Billington, James H., Ph.D., The Librarian of Congress, Library
of Congress.................................................... 121
Prepared Statements of.....................................124, 129
Concordia, Al, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Police Operations,
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate..... 209
Czerwinski, Stan, Controller, Government Accountability Office... 169
Dodaro, Gene, Chief Operating Officer, Government Accountability
Office......................................................... 169
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois:
Opening Statement of......................................... 247
Prepared Statements of......................................78, 247
Questions Submitted by................................114, 278, 289
Statement of................................................ 78
Edwards, Rick, Administrative Assistant and Assistant Sergeant at
Arms, Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S.
Senate......................................................... 209
Erickson, Nancy, Executive Assistant, Office of the Sergeant at
Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............................... 209
Forrest, Bruce, Interim Chief Copyright Royalty Judge, Library of
Congress, Prepared Statement of................................ 145
Gainer, Terrance W., Chief of Police, United States Capitol
Police, Capitol Police Board................................... 241
Prepared Statement of........................................ 244
Statement of................................................. 243
Gordon, Esther, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Operations, Office
of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............ 209
Halbrooks, Lynne, Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Office of the Sergeant
at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............................ 209
Hanson, J. Greg, Assistant Sergeant at Arms and Chief Information
Officer, Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S.
Senate......................................................... 209
Hantman, Alan, FAIA, Architect of the Capitol..............71, 241, 261
Prepared Statement of........................................ 73
Questions Submitted to....................................... 103
Harper, Sallyanne, Chief Administrative Officer, Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 169
Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, Director, Congressional Budget Office...... 285
Prepared Statement of........................................ 285
James, Bruce R., Public Printer, Government Printing Office...... 265
Opening Statement of......................................... 266
Prepared Statement of........................................ 269
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 147
Statement of................................................. 147
Jones, Mary Suit, Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Office of
the Secretary, U.S. Senate..................................... 1
Kaylor, Chuck, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and
Emergency Preparedness, Office of the Sergeant at Arms and
Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate........................................ 209
Livingood, Hon. W. Wilson, House Sergeant at Arms..............241, 261
Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress............................................ 121
Prepared Statement of........................................ 158
Statement of................................................. 157
Peters, Mary Beth, Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress... 121
Prepared Statement of........................................ 141
Pickle, Hon. William H., Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, Office
of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate.....209, 241, 261
Opening Statement of......................................... 211
Opening Testimony of......................................... 261
Prepared Statements of................................213, 242, 262
Statement of................................................. 241
Reynolds, Emily, Secretary of the Senate, Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Sen-
ate............................................................ 1
Opening Statement of......................................... 3
Prepared Statement of........................................ 6
Questions Submitted to....................................... 101
Robfogel, Susan S., Esquire, Chair, Board of Directors, Office of
Compliance..................................................... 293
Prepared Statement of........................................ 297
Saxton, Jim, Chairman, Joint Economic Committee, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 314
Scott, General Donald L., Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library
of Con-
gress.......................................................... 121
Thomas, William M., Chairman, Joint Committee on Taxation,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 303
Thompson, William W., II, Executive Director, Office of
Compliance..................................................... 293
Prepared Statement of........................................ 293
Walker, David M., Comptroller General of the United States,
Government Accountability Office............................... 169
Prepared Statement of....................................... 171
Wineman, Tim, Financial Clerk of the Senate, Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Senate......................................... 1
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
Page
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Additional Committee Questions................................... 101
Annual Projects Budget........................................... 73
Architect of the Capitol:
Management................................................... 97
Strategic Plan............................................... 71
Budget........................................................... 103
And Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) Process.................. 86
Capital Projects Budget.......................................... 74
Capitol:
Building..................................................... 75
Police Off-site Delivery Facility............................ 109
Power Plant.................................................75, 108
Visitor Center.........................................85, 111, 114
Budget................................................... 74
Completion and Operations................................ 92
Construction............................................. 112
Management........................................... 94
Cost Changes............................................. 90
Exhibition Space......................................... 96
FTEs..................................................... 91
Government Accountability Office Report.................. 98
Schedule................................................. 95
Utility Tunnel........................................... 112
Chief Operating Officer Position................................. 104
Employee:
Feedback Program............................................. 72
Safety....................................................... 76
Financial Management Reforms..................................... 119
Fire and Life Safety Projects.................................... 108
Fiscal Year 2006 Major Projects.................................. 71
Fort Meade Storage Modules....................................... 109
GAO Management Review............................................ 110
Human Capital/Organizational Excellence.......................... 76
Master Plan and Facility Condition Assessment.................... 107
Operating Budget................................................. 73
Organizational:
Issues....................................................... 114
Structure.................................................... 112
Overview of Budget Request....................................... 73
Perimeter Security..............................................76, 107
Personnel Controls............................................... 119
Privatization.................................................... 109
Procurement Irregularities....................................... 117
Project:
Delivery..................................................... 76
Management.................................................105, 113
Senate Office Building Improvements.............................. 75
Strategic Plan................................................... 103
Needed....................................................... 92
Strategic Planning............................................... 73
CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD
Staff Led Tours.................................................. 263
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
Additional Staffing Request...................................... 248
Capitol Visitor Center Space for Police.......................... 258
Competency Performance-Based Management System................... 255
Discussion of Overtime........................................... 250
Fairchild Building............................................... 259
Fiscal Year 2005 Salary Budget Discussion........................ 254
Funding Requirements............................................. 250
Hiring and Retention of Sworn Officers........................... 251
Merger of Police Forces.......................................... 252
Mounted Horse Unit............................................... 257
Offsite Delivery Center.......................................... 255
Staffing the Capitol Visitor Center.............................. 249
Sworn Officers Training Needs.................................... 249
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
Additional Committee Questions................................... 288
Audit of CBO Financial Statements................................ 290
Automated Financial Management System............................ 291
Budget Forecasting............................................... 287
Coordinating Efforts With Other Legislative Branch Agencies...... 289
Document Distribution System..................................... 289
Elimination of Certain Staff Positions........................... 289
Library Staff Reductions......................................... 290
Property Management Inventory System............................. 290
Resource Requirements............................................ 287
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Additional Committee Questions................................... 191
Backlog of Requests.............................................. 188
Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Results......................... 172
GAO's Fiscal Year 2006 Request to Support the Congress........... 184
Health Care Backlog............................................188, 198
Making a Difference in Government................................ 190
Measuring Success................................................ 170
Performance:
Awards....................................................... 190
Recognition.................................................. 189
Sources of GAO Work.............................................. 187
Streamlining and Management Improvement Efforts.................. 182
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Additional Committee Questions................................... 277
Continuation of Services......................................... 270
Digital Content Management System................................ 273
Digitization Effort.............................................. 274
Federal Depository Libraries..................................... 276
Fiscal Year 2006 Request......................................... 270
Future Cost Savings.............................................. 272
Government Printing Office Field Offices......................... 277
Internal Controls................................................ 277
Investment in the GPO's Future................................... 270
Lease of Current Facility........................................ 274
Redevelopment of Government Printing Office Headquarters......... 271
Schedule for New Building........................................ 273
Smart Passport................................................... 276
Transitioning the Workforce...................................... 275
2004 Results..................................................... 269
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Accomplishments.................................................. 124
Additional Committee Questions................................... 163
Assessment of Proposed Open World Expansion Into Afghanistan and
Pakistan....................................................... 140
Board of Trustees................................................ 130
Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped................... 165
Building a 21st Century Library.................................. 125
CVC Tunnel....................................................... 164
Congressional Research Service................................... 157
Performance Measurement...................................... 162
Research Materials........................................... 160
Response Time................................................ 161
Copyright:
Reengineering..............................................123, 154
Registration Process......................................... 155
Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request............126, 130, 135, 144, 146, 159
Fort Meade:
Project...................................................... 123
Storage...................................................... 149
Funding Priorities and Challenges................................ 147
Impact of Technology............................................. 164
Library of Congress Performance Measurement...................... 163
Library's Fiscal Year 2006 Plan.................................. 125
Major:
Library-wide Projects........................................ 127
Projects..................................................... 126
Management Initiatives........................................... 161
NAVCC--Culpeper................................................123, 148
National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation
Program........................................................ 165
Open World Leadership Center...................................129, 156
Delegate Quotations.......................................... 136
Opening Statement of the Librarian............................... 122
Other Program Contributions...................................... 136
Other Projects................................................... 128
Outsourcing...................................................... 166
Performance Management........................................... 162
Police Merger.................................................... 152
Program Objectives............................................... 130
Proposed Changes to Legislative Language......................... 129
Review of Copyright Office Work and Accomplishments............141, 146
Staff Capacity................................................... 159
Strategic:
Decisions.................................................... 131
Goals........................................................ 131
Sustaining Staff Capacity........................................ 128
The Library Today................................................ 124
Unfunded Mandates................................................ 126
What the Investment Has Yielded.................................. 132
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
Changes in the Congressional Accountability Act.................. 300
Dispute Resolution............................................... 294
Educating our Constituency....................................... 295
Government Accountability Office Report on the Status of
Management in the Office of Compliance......................... 299
Health and Safety Inspections.................................... 298
Rising Caseload.................................................. 299
Safety and Health Enforcement.................................... 294
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Secretary
Administrative Offices........................................... 34
Capitol Visitor Center........................................... 9
Changing Technologies............................................ 80
Continuity of Operations and Emergency Preparedness Planning..... 9
Curatorial Advisory Board and Preservation Board of Trustees..... 80
Disbursing Office Information Technology......................... 27
Financial Operations: Disbursing Office.......................... 18
Implementing Mandated Systems.................................... 7
Inaugural Address Efforts........................................ 79
Legislative Information System (LIS) Project..................... 67
Legislative Offices.............................................. 10
Maintaining and Improving Current and Historic Legislative,
Financial and Administrative Services.......................... 10
Presenting the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request................... 6
Retention and Recruitment........................................ 82
Senate Clerks.................................................... 81
Student Loan Repayment Program................................... 82
The Senate Disbursing Office, ``The Front Counter''.............. 83
Capitol Visitor Center Exhibition Space.......................... 96
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
Capitol Visitor Center Equipment Furnishing...................... 237
Continuing Emphasis on Security and Preparedness................. 214
Discussion on Additional Funding for Current Technology Alternate
Computing Facility............................................. 238
Information Technology........................................... 216
Major Events of the Past Year.................................... 213
Operational Support.............................................. 220
Staffing Increase for the Sergeant at Arms....................... 237
Telephone Systems Upgrade........................................ 235
Upgrading:
Mail Processing Facility and Packing......................... 238
Printing Press............................................... 238
Voice-over Internet Protocol..................................... 236
Warehouse Construction........................................... 239
-