    [Senate Hearing 109-302]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                     S. Hrg. 109-302, Pt. 2

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                                         Legislative Branch

                                                             Appropriations

                                                           Fiscal Year 2007

                                             109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

                                                                  H.R. 5521

    PART 2
            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
            CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD
            CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
            GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
            GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
            LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
            OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
            U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
            U.S. SENATE

                                                     S. Hrg. 109-302, Pt. 2

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                                   H.R. 5521

    AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR THE FISCAL
             YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                                     PART 2

                 Architect of the Capitol (except House items)
                              Capitol Guide Board
                          Congressional Budget Office
                        Government Accountability Office
                           Government Printing Office
                              Library of Congress
                              Office of Compliance
                           U.S. Capitol Police Board
                                  U.S. Senate

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

                                     _____

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    26-434 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2006
    _________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
    Printing  Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free
    (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
    Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                      THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                HARRY REID, Nevada
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    MIKE DeWINE, Ohio                    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
    SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
    WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
                        J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
                  Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch

                        WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado, Chairman
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    MIKE DeWINE, Ohio                    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
                                         ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
                                           (ex officio)
                               Professional Staff
                              Carolyn E. Apostolou
                         Terrence E. Sauvain (Minority)
                            Drew Willison (Minority)
                           Nancy Olkewicz (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                  Sarah Wilson

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                            Wednesday, March 1, 2006

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

                           Wednesday, March 15, 2006

    U.S. Senate: Office of the Secretary.............................    75
    Architect of the Capitol.........................................   141

                            Wednesday, April 5, 2006

    U.S. Senate: Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper.....................   167
    U.S. Capitol Police Board........................................   199
    Capitol Guide Board..............................................   217

                           Wednesday, April 26, 2006

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

                             Wednesday, May 3, 2006

    Office of Compliance.............................................   269
    Government Printing Office.......................................   295
    Congressional Budget Office......................................   309

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:27 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senator Allard.

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

    STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF
                CONGRESS; CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, OPEN WORLD
                LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
            DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
            JULIA HUFF, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, COPYRIGHT OFFICE
            KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, BOOKS FOR THE BLIND AND PHYSICALLY
                HANDICAPPED
            KARL SCHORNAGEL, INSPECTOR GENERAL

                       statement of senator wayne allard

        Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order. I am
    going to do the unprecedented thing and get us started ahead of
    time, ahead of schedule. I am told we have our witnesses here,
    everybody of interest that is going to be present for the
    hearing. So we will go ahead and get you seated for the
    proceeding, and we will start out with my making a few comments
    and then we will call on the first panelist to make their
    presentation.
        We meet today to take testimony from Dr. James Billington,
    Librarian of Congress, on the Library's budget request for
    fiscal year 2007. We welcome Dr. Billington, who is accompanied
    by Deputy Librarian Don Scott, and the Library's top team. The
    request for appropriation totals $588 million, along with
    offsetting collections of $40 million, for a total budget of
    $628 million, an increase of about 4 percent over this year's
    budget.
        This is a relatively modest request and we appreciate that
    you have not requested a large number of new projects and
    initiatives. However, within the Architect of the Capitol's
    (AOC) budget a total of $102 million is requested for Library
    buildings and grounds, including a new $54 million logistics
    warehouse for the Library. This appropriation request
    represents a 50 percent increase over the fiscal year 2006
    budget for Library buildings and grounds and will be very tough
    to accommodate.
        In particular, questions have been raised as to whether the
    design for the warehouse is gold-plated and whether more cost-
    effective alternatives have been explored thoroughly.
        Other issues we would like to be updated on today include
    the status of the new National Audio-Visual Conservation Center
    (NAVCC) in Culpeper, Virginia, which I had the opportunity to
    visit in December; plans for converting the books for the blind
    and physically handicapped to digital format; and the ongoing
    realignment of the Congressional Research Service.
        Dr. Billington will also submit testimony for the record as
    chairman of the Open World Leadership Center. This program is
    slated for a $14.4 million budget, a $540,000 increase of 4
    percent over the 2006 level.
        Those are my opening comments. Now we will go to the panel
    that we have before us. I will call on Dr. Billington for his
    testimony, and also welcome General Scott. It is good to have
    you with us this morning.

                       opening statement of the librarian

        Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
    appreciate the opportunity to present the Library of Congress
    fiscal 2007 budget request to the subcommittee. I have provided
    details of the Library's accomplishments and goals in my
    written statement. We have approached this budget submission
    keenly aware of the fiscal challenges that this subcommittee,
    as well as the Congress as a whole, faces, Mr. Chairman.
        The Congress and the Library faces unprecedented challenges
    itself if it is to sustain in the exploding digital age its
    historic mission of acquiring, preserving, and making
    accessible the world's largest and most globally inclusive
    collection of human knowledge. That mission has never been more
    important for our service to the Congress or for our overall
    national needs than it is now in the midst of the information
    age and the globalization process.

                            workforce transformation

        In order to sustain high-quality services at a time of
    radical change in the ways knowledge is communicated and
    developed, the Library must undertake an institutional
    workforce transformation. Sixty-five percent of our budget is
    for people; 40 percent of our workforce will be eligible to
    retire by the year 2010. We need knowledge navigators imbued
    with a new set of skills, in many cases capable of seamlessly
    integrating digital materials with books and other traditional
    artifactual items, books and so forth, in order to provide
    users with comprehensive and objective knowledge that is
    useable and the practical wisdom that has always been a part of
    our democratic function.
        The Library is already leading the national effort to
    archive the Internet, an enormous task, and we must help
    develop standards for the electronic sharing of bibliographic
    records, just as the Library has historically done for the
    print world with its cataloguing records.
        Incidentally, we catalogued more than 313,000 books and
    periodicals last year, more than ever before in the Library's
    history. So the traditional needs continue as the digital
    demands explode.
        The Library must begin its transformation of functions,
    facilities, and people with the reallocation of existing
    resources. Our current process of analysis and planning adheres
    to the spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act
    (GPRA) and we will produce in calendar year 2007 a
    comprehensive strategic plan from which the budget submission
    for fiscal year 2009 will be derived, and the extended nature
    of resource needs for 2013 will be outlined. This planning
    process is already informing our budget process, but that is
    the schedule on which it will be formally implemented.

              national audio-visual conservation center--culpeper

        The 4.1 percent increase we request for fiscal 2007 is
    almost entirely for mandatory pay and price level increases.
    Our fiscal year 2007 request for the National Audio-Visual
    Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia, represents a
    decrease of $1.2 million from the fiscal year 2006 request.
    This project is progressing well. We expect to complete
    construction and begin moving collections and staff in May of
    this year.
        The unique facility will allow us to preserve more quickly
    and effectively hundreds of thousands of items in our
    audiovisual collection that are a critically important part of
    America's cultural heritage, but very vulnerable to degradation
    and very much in need of calibrated conservation, which we will
    be able to provide with the largest and most up to date such
    facility in the world.
        This project would not have been possible without the
    financial support of the Congress and an unusually generous
    private funding from David Woodley Packard and the Packard
    Humanities Institute.

                          acquisitions budget request

        We are very grateful for the additional resources we were
    provided in the past two fiscal years for acquisitions, but we
    are still falling behind in our all-important current
    acquisitions, which is the absolute core requirement of this
    institution so that it can properly serve the Congress and the
    Nation.
        In fiscal year 2007 I respectfully but urgently ask that
    the Congress continue supporting our acquisitions with an
    additional $2 million. These funds will allow us to continue
    collecting materials that we uniquely bring from all areas of
    the world, particularly from lesser known and lesser understood
    regions that are becoming increasingly important for our
    Nation, both for economic and security needs. It is important
    that we sustain the schedule that we have established and have
    been falling behind on for acquisitions.

                            other budget priorities

        But beyond these two important ongoing priorities, we have
    limited our budget request to three new projects, all of which
    total less than $2 million: $1 million for the Copyright Office
    to begin a record preservation project, an initiative requested
    by Congress in fiscal 2005; $781,000 to begin our workforce
    transformation by enhancing the staff digital competencies,
    career development, and recruitment; and $150,000 to begin
    preparing a major exhibition in 2009 marking the bicentennial
    of Abraham Lincoln's birth. This total project will cost $1.4
    million, will include a traveling exhibit, and will be a major
    effort for this important milestone.

                                logistics center

        Let me mention finally, as you brought up, the request in
    the Architect of the Capitol's budget for $54.2 million to
    construct a Library logistics center at Fort Meade. I
    understand and sympathize with the subcommittee's concern
    regarding the cost of this facility and I will be working with
    the Architect of the Capitol to find ways to reduce its cost.
    This facility is critically needed for the Library's day to day
    distribution and logistics needs and will provide a long-term
    cost saving to the Government by consolidating costly and
    outmoded storage space from three locations into one modern,
    safer and more secure location.

                              prepared statements

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The statements follow:]
                   Prepared Statements of James H. Billington
                              library of congress
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
    the past accomplishments and future goals of the Library of Congress in
    the context of our fiscal year 2007 budget request. I would like to
    thank this Committee for the strong support it has always shown the
    Library's programs, and I ask for your support again to ensure that the
    Library maintains its prestigious place as the world's largest
    repository of human knowledge and the main research arm of the United
    States Congress.
        With all the unique distinction that this institution has achieved
    in the print world, it now faces the unprecedented challenge of
    sustaining its leadership amidst the revolutionary changes of the
    digital world. Information-seekers now have many (and often more
    convenient) ways of finding what they need. But they are often
    overwhelmed or misled by the profusion of unfiltered and often
    inaccurate information on the World Wide Web. The Library of Congress
    must redefine its role in this new environment. This institution-wide
    process is now underway--and will be embedded in the new strategic plan
    that we are developing for the entire Library for 2008-2013.
        The budget request we have submitted to you includes the following
    basic assumptions:
      --The Library of Congress must continue to build comprehensive,
            world-wide collections in all formats so that Members of
            Congress, scholars, school students, and the American people
            will have access to valid, high-quality information for their
            work, their research, and their civic participation.
      --A comprehensive institutional workforce transformation will be
            required for staff to continue providing the highest levels of
            service to the Congress and to the public.
      --There is no change in the Library's historic mission of acquiring,
            preserving, and making its materials accessible and useful to
            the Congress and the nation. The aim is to blend the new
            digital materials into the traditional artifactual collections
            so that knowledge and information can be objectively and
            comprehensively provided by an integrated library.
      --The transformation of functions, of facilities, and of people must
            begin with a reallocation of existing resources. The current
            process of analysis and planning will produce, in the course of
            calendar 2006, the strategic plan that will determine the
            extent and nature of resource needs for future budget
            submissions.
                        the library of congress of today
        Library of Congress collections are made up of more than 132
    million artifactual items in more than 470 languages including: 30
    million books (among them more than 5,000 printed before the year
    1500); 14 million photographs; 5.2 million maps; 3 million audio
    materials; 981,000 films, television, and video items; 5.3 million
    pieces of music; 59 million manuscripts; and hundreds of thousands of
    scientific and government documents.
        And these collections continue to grow. More than 13,000 items are
    added to the Library's collections every day. These materials are
    organized, cataloged, and served to readers in on-site reading rooms
    and through cultural programs and exhibitions. A steadily increasing
    number of materials are made available free of charge on the Internet.
        The Library's collections gather in not only regularly published
    materials, but arcane reports that have limited distribution,
    international ephemera that illuminate other cultures and socio-
    political movements, and special collections that have been carefully
    assessed by our curators and acquired by our donors. Among the many new
    materials acquired by the Library in fiscal year 2005 are:
      --The unique Jay I. Kislak Collection of nearly 4,000 items
            documenting the early history of the Americas.
      --38,555 individual oral histories collected from interviews with
            U.S. war veterans.
      --Original music manuscripts of Felix Mendelssohn, Jerome Kern,
            George Gershwin, and Woody Guthrie.
      --The Bernard Krisher Collection, containing 450 taped interviews
            with Asian dignitaries documenting major developments in Asia
            from 1962-1983.
      --The personal and professional papers of the late Chief Executive
            Officer and Publisher of the Washington Post, Katharine Graham.
      --The Cuban Exile Collection, 234 microfilm reels of materials
            documenting the Cuban-American experience.
      --Factiva, a full-text online database of publications and up-to-the
            minute reports and news focusing on global developments and
            business from 118 countries in 22 languages.
      --A collection of 454 charts of the coast of China from the Chinese
            Navy Headquarters, the Navigation Guarantee Department. A
            complete set of modern hydrographic charts of the Chinese
            coastline and areas of the South China Sea.
      --The American Colony of Jerusalem Collection, a Christian society
            formed in Jerusalem in 1881 by an American, Horatio Gates
            Spafford, and his wife Anna Lawson Spafford.
        Library of Congress services include:
      --Fulfilling our priority mission of service to the Congress through
            the objective research and analysis done exclusively for the
            Congress by the Congressional Research Service. Our Law Library
            also largely serves the Congress. Overall, the Library provides
            a wide range of services from analysis on current public policy
            issues to responses to constituent requests.
      --In fiscal year 2005, the Library performed the following major
            services to the Congress and its constituents:
        --Delivered more than 900,000 replies to members of Congress,
                covering nearly 200 current policy areas and providing
                access to 1,400 regularly updated research products.
        --Registered about 532,000 copyright claims.
        --Circulated nearly 24 million books and magazines free of charge
                to the blind and physically handicapped.
        --Assisted local libraries all over the nation by cataloging nearly
                313,000 books and serials--the highest number in the
                Library's history.
        Library of Congress digital leadership includes:
      --Providing free internet access to its entire catalog, to more than
            10 million primary documents of American history and culture,
            to a growing body of similarly unique and multi-medial
            materials from six other major national libraries, and to
            extensive information about the Congress. In fiscal year 2005,
            our web site, www.loc.gov, recorded more than 3.8 billion
            hits--a 14 percent increase in usage over fiscal year 2004.
      --Coordinating the development and implementation of a comprehensive
            national plan mandated by the Congress for preserving important
            but often ephemeral materials on the Internet. The Library has
            enlisted eight national consortia involving 36 institutions
            across the country to share in this massive project. The
            Library has already collected 128 terabytes; and our partners
            are expected to collect an estimated 100 terabytes. The
            materials include digital maps, photographs, TV programming,
            news, and datasets.
                      building the library for the future
    The Library's Vision and Strategic Plan
        The Library's vision is to sustain in the digital world of the 21st
    century its historic mission of acquiring, preserving, and making
    maximally accessible to the public and useful for the Congress a
    universal collection of human knowledge. The challenge now is to bring
    the best of the traditional library into the digital environment. This
    will require holding fast to the principles of equitable access and
    long-term preservation while seamlessly integrating new digital
    materials with traditional artifactual items and helping develop
    standards and protocols for the electronic sharing of bibliographic
    records just as the Library did for the print world with its cataloging
    records.
        The Library has developed a Library-wide framework for program
    assessment of every division and support office. Congressional support
    has already enabled us to reengineer copyright functions and to create
    a National Audio-Visual Conservation Center. And we are developing new
    roles for key staff to become objective ``knowledge navigators'' who
    can make knowledge useful from both the artifactual and the digital
    world.
        The institution is undertaking a comprehensive strategic planning
    process that adheres to the spirit of GPRA and will guide us in what
    will have to be a major transformation of our workforce. We must find
    ways to transfer the widely recognized skills of our best traditional
    librarians on to the more broadly and democratically accessible Web and
    into K-12 education which is making increasing use of the Library's
    online resources. We must continue to integrate and be open to new
    technology and best business practices library-wide--and to maximize
    fairness and diversity in building the workforce of the future.
        This work will continue in fiscal year 2006, culminating in a
    comprehensive new strategic plan for fiscal year 2008-2013, from which
    all future budget requests will be derived. Our fiscal year 2007
    request already reflects the Library's improved strategic planning
    process and has led us to ask for no new additional FTEs and a
    historically low 4 percent budgetary increase despite the many
    challenges that the Library will face in fiscal year 2007.
                 the library's fiscal year 2007 budget request
        In fiscal year 2007, the Library requests a total budget of
    $628.465 million ($588.131 million in net appropriations and $40.334
    million in authority to use receipts), an increase of $24.842 million
    or 4.1 percent above the fiscal year 2006 level. The total includes
    $23.969 million in mandatory pay and price level increases and $4.896
    million in program increases, offset by $4.023 million in non-recurring
    costs.
        Requested funding supports 4,258 full-time equivalents (FTEs), a
    net decrease of 44 FTEs below the fiscal year 2006 level of 4,302.
        The Library's programs and activities are funded by four salaries
    and expenses (S&E) appropriations which support management of the
    Library, the National and Law Library Services, Copyright
    administration, Congressional Research Service, and Library Services to
    the Blind and Physically Handicapped.
        Fiscal year 2007 funding is allocated as follows:
      --Library of Congress, S&E ($409.294 million/2,902 FTEs), which
            includes:
        --National Library ($312.590 million/2,264 FTEs)
                    --National Library--Basic
                    --Purchase of Library Materials (GENPAC)
                    --Office of Strategic Initiatives
                    --Cataloging Distribution Service
        --Law Library ($14.026 million/101 FTEs)
        --Management Support Services ($82.723 million/537 FTEs)
      --Copyright Office, S&E ($59.189 million/523 FTEs)
      --Congressional Research Service, S&E ($104.279 million/705 FTEs)
      --Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, S&E ($55.703
            million/128 FTEs)
                        the library's funding priorities
    Mandatory Pay and Price Level Increases
        The Library is requesting an additional $23.969 million to maintain
    current services. This is the amount needed to support the
    annualization of the fiscal year 2006 pay raise, the fiscal year 2007
    pay raise, within grade increases, and unavoidable inflation and vendor
    price increases. These funds are needed simply to sustain current
    business operations and to prevent a reduction in staff that would
    severely affect the Library's ability to manage its programs in support
    of its mission and strategic objectives.
    Unfunded Mandates
        The Library is requesting $2.171 million for one unfunded mandate:
    the Department of State (DOS) Capital Security Cost-Sharing Program.
        In fiscal year 2005, the DOS, mandated by the Executive branch,
    began its 14-year program to finance the construction of approximately
    150 embassy compounds, requiring increasing contributions from all
    agencies with an overseas presence, including the Library. The Library
    has argued that the DOS methodology for assessing agencies is unfair
    since it is based on the number of overseas personnel rather than on
    actual services or space provided by DOS in diplomatic facilities. The
    Library's yearly assessment was $1.2 million in fiscal year 2005 and
    $2.4 million in fiscal year 2006. The proposed bill for fiscal year
    2007 is $4.572 million, an increase of $2.171 million. If funding is
    not provided for the next phase of the program, the Library will have
    insufficient resources to operate its overseas offices. This would
    result in the curtailment--and in some cases termination--of
    international acquisitions programs in areas that are of increasing
    importance to the nation (Islamabad, Cairo, Jakarta, Nairobi, New Delhi
    and Rio de Janeiro). The Library continues to negotiate with the DOS
    and will alert the Committees if DOS agrees to any downward adjustments
    of their assessment.
    Major Ongoing Projects
        The Library is requesting $794,000 for two ongoing major projects
    that are either in their last year of development or on a time-
    sensitive schedule that must be maintained if the entire project is to
    succeed.
      --National Audio-Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC), Culpeper, VA.--A
            five-year plan for the completion of NAVCC was included in the
            Library's fiscal year 2004 budget. Fiscal year 2007 represents
            the fourth year in the Library's five-year cost model, which is
            adjusted annually to align with shifts in the construction
            schedule of the Packard Humanities Institute and the Library's
            occupancy schedule. In 2005, the Phase 1 Central Plant was
            turned over to the AOC and the Collections Building to the
            Library. In 2006, construction will be completed and the entire
            property transferred to the government. Staff relocations will
            take place, as will the procurement and integration of digital
            preservation equipment and systems within the NAVCC's audio-
            visual conservation facility. Funding is needed in fiscal year
            2007 to continue purchasing equipment for the facility as well
            as for operations support. Total requested fiscal year 2007
            funding of $13.9 million reflects a net decrease of $1.206
            million and -6 FTEs from fiscal year 2006.
      --Acquisitions (GENPAC/Electronic Materials).--Advances in technology
            have opened opportunities for the Library to acquire materials
            from parts of the world about which, until recently, there had
            been little knowledge. National interest, especially with
            respect to security and trade, dictates that we acquire
            emerging electronic publications and other difficult-to-find
            resources that document other cultures and nations. The GENPAC
            appropriation, which funds the purchase of all-important
            current collections materials, declined precipitously in its
            purchasing power during the 1990s. Consistent with our fiscal
            year 2005-2006 budget requests for a multi-year, $4.2 million
            base increase to the GENPAC budget, the Library is requesting
            the next incremental adjustment of $2 million, which will bring
            the total base adjustment up to $3.3 million. Funding is needed
            to help keep pace with the greatly increased cost of serial and
            electronic materials that risks seriously eroding the
            foundation of the many services provided by the Library to the
            Congress and the nation.
    New Projects
        The Library is requesting $1.931 million for three new critical
    initiatives as follows:
      --Copyright Records Preservation.--A six-year, $6 million initiative
            is needed to image digitally 70 million pages of pre-1978
            public records that are deteriorating, jeopardizing the
            mandatory preservation of, and access to, these unique records
            of American creativity. In fiscal year 2007, the Library is
            requesting the first $1 million, which will permit the scanning
            of 10 million page images.
      --Workforce Transformation Project.--Renewal and development of the
            Library workforce is essential to retrain staff with the
            necessary skills for the digital age, and to capture for the
            future the vast knowledge of large numbers of experienced staff
            who are near retirement. In fiscal year 2007, the Library will
            begin a program to enhance digital competencies, leadership
            skills, career development, recruitment, and other workforce
            counseling and services. These activities are particularly
            important for sustaining the Library's commitment to a diverse
            workforce. Funding of $781,000 is requested, and will support
            initiatives to:
        --Define and develop digital competencies
        --Build an aspiring leaders program for GS 5-9 employees
        --Enhance Library-wide training through the Center for Learning and
                Development
        --Create a summer intern recruitment program and a talent pool for
                permanent employment
        --Expand interpreting services.
      --Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Exhibition.--The Library is planning a
            major Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Exhibition in 2009. The
            exhibition will be a centerpiece of the nationwide celebration
            to mark the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth. The Library will
            draw on its unparalleled Lincoln materials to focus on
            Lincoln's rise to national prominence and the thinking and
            writing that underlie his career. A total of $1.442 million
            will be needed for this project, of which $150,000 is requested
            in fiscal year 2007. The balance of $1.292 million will be
            requested in fiscal year 2008. Multi-year (3 year) authority is
            requested for the fiscal year 2007 funding. Funding will
            support the design of the exhibition and travel needed to visit
            other venues and/or other institutions that will be lending
            materials to the Library exhibition.
    Other Program Changes
        Congress created and passed the Library of Congress Digital
    Collections and Educational Curricula Act of 2005. Beginning in fiscal
    year 2006, the Act moved the administrative and programmatic ownership
    of the Adventure of the American Mind (AAM) from the Educational and
    Research Consortium to the Library.
        While no additional funding is requested in fiscal year 2007 for
    the Library's new AAM National Program, the Library is requesting a
    change in the way the base funding of $5.801 million is used. Whereas
    this entire amount was earmarked for grants in fiscal year 2006, we
    would like the fiscal year 2007 funding to support both administrative
    ($1.791 million) needs and grant awards ($4.01 million). In addition,
    the Library will begin developing standards-based, field-tested
    curricula, using a train-the-trainer model to create a network of
    partners from all parts of the country.
      architect of the capitol--library of congress buildings and grounds
        The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the
    structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library's
    buildings and grounds. In coordination with the Library, the AOC is
    requesting an fiscal year 2007 budget of $102.2 million, of which
    $62.265 million supports projects specifically requested by the
    Library. Included is $54.2 million to construct a 166,000 square foot
    logistics warehouse at Fort Meade, replacing and consolidating current
    long-term and temporary facilities leased and maintained by the
    Library.
        The significant increase over the fiscal year 2006 budget request
    level is the result of deferring maintenance and upgrades to the
    Library's buildings on Capitol Hill and the delays in the Fort Meade
    construction plan. Costs are higher because more maintenance and
    upgrade projects need to be completed concurrently. Deferments and
    delays have created longer lists of projects. The cost increase is
    compounded by inflationary pressures and by the steadily growing risks
    in health, safety, and security to the Library's staff and collections.
    The cost of maintenance and upgrades will increase exponentially if the
    Library cannot stop, or at least slow down, the rate of deterioration
    of its buildings, and return to its construction plan and schedule.
                    proposed changes to legislative language
        The Library has proposed language to improve employment options
    elsewhere in the Federal Government for Library staff. The first
    provision confers competitive status to Library employees who have
    successfully completed their probationary period at the Library--the
    basic eligibility to be noncompetitively selected to fill vacancies in
    the competitive service of the Federal Government. This will enable
    Library staff to apply for positions in the executive branch on an
    equal footing with ``career'' executive branch employees. A related
    provision would enhance the employability of Library employees
    displaced because of a reduction in force (RIF) or failure to accept a
    transfer to an alternative work location. This provision would give
    staff who have been separated, priority for selection for competitive
    service positions comparable to that enjoyed by separated employees
    from other federal agencies.
        We also propose new appropriation language to address the
    requirement specified in the Cooperative Acquisitions Program Revolving
    Fund legislation (CAP), Public Law 105-55, that the revolving fund
    receive its own audit by March 31 following the end of each fiscal
    year. The Library requests that the March 31 audit requirement be
    rescinded and that the CAP be subject to the same audit requirement as
    the Library's other revolving funds.
        The fiscal year 2006 administrative provision limiting the
    Library's assessment for embassy construction to equal to or less than
    the unreimbursed value of the services provided to the Library on State
    Department diplomatic facilities must also be maintained in fiscal year
    2007.
                                   conclusion
        The Library of Congress' priorities expressed in the fiscal year
    2007 budget request have a common theme: that of enhancing and
    transforming the staff, the collections they manage, and the buildings
    that house them. These requests will make it possible for the Library
    to improve the quality of its service in keeping with the high ideal of
    a knowledge-based democracy and a creativity-enhancing society. This
    budget will help us prepare for the many changes needed to sustain and
    expand the opportunities for a free people to benefit from an open and
    universal stream of knowledge and information. The Library looks
    forward to working with and for the Congress as we seek to build these
    opportunities in fiscal year 2007, and in the years ahead.
                                     ______

                          open world leadership center
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to present testimony on the Open World Leadership Center's
    budget request for fiscal year 2007. The Center, whose board of
    trustees I chair, conducts the only foreign-visitor program in the U.S.
    legislative branch and sponsors the largest U.S.-Russia inbound
    exchange. All of us at Open World are very grateful for our home and
    support in the legislative branch and for congressional participation
    in our programs and on our governing board. The Consolidated
    Appropriations Act passed in December 2004 made the chair of this
    subcommittee ex officio a member of Open World's board, and my fellow
    trustees and I are pleased and honored to have you join us, Mr.
    Chairman. We look forward to working with you as we make important
    decisions on the future of Open World.
        During an important year of assessment and change, the Board and
    staff began to review all aspects of the program in order to produce in
    fiscal year 2006 a comprehensive strategic plan for the future. This
    review is being led by Board member James Collins, who played a key
    role in launching the program when he was Ambassador to Russia.
        Geraldine Otremba completed her outstanding leadership of the able
    and dedicated staff of the Center in September 2005. Aletta Waterhouse,
    who had also done great work with the program from its beginning,
    served very well as Interim Executive Director. The Board will name a
    new Executive Director in early spring of 2006.
        The Center's budget request of $14.4 million (Appendix A) for
    fiscal year 2007 reflects an increase of $0.54 million (4.0 percent)
    over fiscal year 2006 funding. This funding will enable the Center to
    continue its proven mission of hosting young leaders from Russia;
    expand its important program for Ukraine; and conduct smaller programs
    for such other countries as the Board of Trustees will approve in
    consultation with the Appropriations Committees. The budget increase
    over fiscal year 2006 is due to increases of salaries and benefits (11
    percent of increase), airfares and impact of changing exchange rates
    (60 percent of increase), and domestic transportation, per diem and
    other programmatic costs (29 percent).
        In 2005, Open World welcomed its 10,000th participant in its sixth
    year of operation. We began calendar year 2005 by organizing a major
    post-Orange Revolution exchange to six U.S. states for Ukrainian
    judges, election experts, NGO managers, and journalists. We ended the
    year with a local-government study tour in Maine for a delegation from
    the Solovetsky Islands, home to one of the Soviet Union's first prison
    camps and one of Russia's greatest monasteries.
        Open World brought 1,552 Russians and Ukrainians to the United
    States in calendar 2005 to work with their American counterparts while
    experiencing our democracy and civil society. The Chief Justice of the
    Russian Supreme Court had planning sessions at the U.S. Supreme Court
    on U.S.-Russian judicial cooperation; two teams of Russian child-trauma
    experts helping Beslan victims consulted with Pennsylvania social
    agencies on their mental and social support services, and a delegation
    of Ukrainian journalists shared their experiences during the Orange
    Revolution at a forum in Cincinnati.
        Open World's plans for calendar year 2006 include programs on
    accountable governance for officials from municipalities created under
    Russia's recent law on local self-governance; expanding our two-year-
    old exchange for Ukrainian leaders; and providing programs on elections
    to both Russian and Ukrainian leaders. We will also continue our rule
    of law program, which has benefited so much from the involvement of
    U.S. Supreme Court justices and many other prominent members of the
    American judiciary, including Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sidney B.
    Brooks of Denver, Colorado, and U.S. District Judge Michael M. Mihm of
    Peoria, Illinois. As I discuss below, this calendar year the Center's
    board--in consultation with the members of the Appropriations
    Committees--must also make important decisions about whether and where
    Open World should expand in Eurasia.
    Program Leadership
        Senator Ted Stevens (AK) serves as honorary chairman of the Open
    World Leadership Center's board. The congressionally appointed members
    are Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN), Senator Carl Levin (MI),
    and Representative Robert E. ``Bud'' Cramer (AL). The second
    congressionally appointed seat reserved for a member of the House of
    Representatives is currently vacant. Public Law 108-447, as amended by
    Public Law 109-13, added to the Board the chair of the Committee on
    Appropriations of the House of Representatives or designee and the
    chair of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch of the Committee on
    Appropriations of the Senate. Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia James F.
    Collins, Walter Scott, Jr., Chairman of Level 3 Communications, former
    Representative Amo Houghton, and former U.S. Ambassador to Spain George
    Argyros are the current citizen members. I sit on the Board in my
    capacity as Librarian of Congress, and I currently serve as chairman.
    The Board of Trustees met on December 5, 2005, and reviewed the budget
    request and program plans presented below.
                Program Objectives:
        Open World program enhances professional relationships and
    understanding between political and civic leaders of participating
    countries and the United States. It is designed to enable emerging
    young leaders from the selected countries to:
      --build mutual understanding with their U.S. counterparts and share
            approaches to common challenges;
      --observe U.S. government, business, volunteer, and community leaders
            carrying out their daily responsibilities;
      --experience how the separation of powers, checks and balances,
            freedom of the press, and other key elements of America's
            democratic system make the government more accountable and
            transparent;
      --develop an understanding of the U.S. free enterprise system;
      --learn how U.S. citizens organize and take initiative to address
            social and civic needs;
      --participate in American family and community activities; and
      --establish lasting professional and personal ties with their U.S.
            hosts and counterparts.
        Open World provides the highest-caliber program for the U.S. visit
    so that Open World participants return to their countries with a
    meaningful understanding of America's democracy and market economy.
        Open World has refined and focused on a few key themes central to
    democracy-building in order to improve the quality and focus of the
    U.S. program.
        The catalytic effect of the 10-day U.S. stay is extended by
    fostering continued post-visit communication between participants and
    their American hosts and contacts, their fellow Open World alumni, and
    alumni of other USG-sponsored exchange programs.
        In calendar 2005, Russian alumni participated in 168 interregional
    conferences, workshops, meetings, and professional seminars sponsored
    by Open World. A major conference for the program's Lithuanian alumni
    was held in the capital city of Vilnius, and three events were held for
    alumni in Ukraine.
        Open World's multilingual website with online forums (and assisted
    Russian/English translation for cross-cultural communication) helps
    maintain communication among delegates, American hosts, and other
    interested parties. Open World also operates two listservs for Russian
    alumni, one with news of grants, competitions, and other sources of
    financial support, the other with weekly updates on Open World news and
    announcements and opportunities for cooperation and partnership with
    fellow alumni. All alumni activities and the website are supported
    through private funding.
    Measures of Success
        In addition to conducting the qualitative assessments described
    above, the Center also tracks quantitative program performance measures
    to ensure that Open World is meeting its mission of focusing on a
    geographically and professionally broad cross-section of emerging
    leaders who might not otherwise have the opportunity to visit the
    United States:
      --Delegates have come from all the political regions of Russia and
            virtually all those of Ukraine, Lithuania, and Uzbekistan.
      --84 percent of Russian participants live outside Moscow and St.
            Petersburg.
      --More than 5,000 federal, regional, and local government officials
            have participated, including 156 members of parliament and 935
            judges.
      --The average age of Open World delegates is 38.
      --92 percent of delegates are first-time visitors to the United
            States.
      --Only 12.5 percent of delegates report having ``above average'' or
            better English-language skills. (Several U.S. exchange programs
            require some English-language skills. By not requiring
            knowledge of English, Open World is able to choose from a much
            larger candidate pool of young leaders. Interpretation is
            provided for all Open World delegations.)
      --49 percent of delegates are women. (Women did not have significant
            leadership opportunities in the Soviet Union.)
      --The distribution of delegates among Russia's seven ``super-
            regions'' roughly matches that of the country's general
            population.
    Open World in America
        Open World delegates are hosted by a large and dedicated group of
    American citizens who live in cities, towns, and rural communities
    throughout the United States:
      --Since Open World's inception in 1999, more than 5,300 U.S. families
            have hosted participants in more than 1,500 communities in all
            50 states.
      --In 2005, the 204 locally based Open World host organizations in 147
            congressional districts included universities and community
            colleges, library systems, Rotary clubs and other service
            organizations, sister-city associations, courts, and
            nonprofits.
        American hosts' generosity toward and enthusiasm for Open World are
    a mainstay of the program. In 2005, interested host communities' demand
    for Open World visitors exceeded supply by 34 percent. Americans'
    enthusiasm for the Open World Program is reflected in their generous
    giving. In 2005, Americans gave an estimated $1.9 million worth of in-
    kind contributions through volunteer home hosting of delegates, a ratio
    of one dollar in contributions for every seven dollars in appropriated
    funds.
        Visiting delegates, in turn, have impacted American communities by
    sharing ideas with their professional counterparts, university faculty
    and students, governors and state legislators, American war veterans,
    and other American citizens in a variety of forums such as group
    discussions, Rotary Club breakfasts, and town hall meetings.
        During a 2005 Open World visit to Appleton, Wisconsin, for example,
    a Russian delegate from Kurgan Region, which borders Kazakhstan,
    proposed an idea at a Rotary club event. Since there were so many World
    War II veterans in attendance, the delegate suggested an exchange of
    letters between Wisconsin World War II veterans and their Kurgan
    counterparts. One such letter from a member of the Appleton-Kurgan
    Sister City Program reads, in part:

        ``WWII efforts created a significant result in history and provided
    a great victory which was achieved with the help of the Russians for
    the benefit of the world. Many people, especially among our Russian
    friends, lost family members . . . Some of my schoolmates lost their
    lives as well. They made the ultimate sacrifice from which all of us in
    the years since the war have benefited.''

        Students from Appleton North High School became interested in the
    correspondence and decided to interview local veterans, record their
    stories digitally, and make them available online. The letters also
    inspired an op-ed article in the local paper on Memorial Day last year
    and will be displayed at the Appleton Public Library. We understand the
    U.S. Consulate in Yekaterinburg as well as Fox Cities Online are
    interested in displaying the letters on their websites. In short, the
    Open World delegation's visit to Wisconsin is having a wide ripple
    effect.
        Two other examples of interchanges that benefited the American host
    communities come from Urbana, Illinois, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
    In Urbana, a visiting Open World rule of law delegate made a detailed
    presentation on the differences between the Russian and American court
    systems to the Champaign County circuit court judges, state's attorney,
    and public defender; this was followed up by a lively question and
    answer session. And in Harrisburg, the two Open World teams of child-
    trauma experts working with Beslan victims shared their harrowing
    experiences and the latest information on Russian child-trauma theory
    and practice during presentations to social-service providers and
    community leaders.
        As a result of the Open World Program, American professional
    leaders are also expanding their own international networks, opening up
    multiple channels of dialogue to integrate new ideas and values. Today
    one of the best ways to connect with the Supreme Court of Ukraine might
    be through Charles R. Simpson III, a federal district court judge in
    Louisville, Kentucky. One of Judge Simpson's 2005 Open World delegates,
    Ukrainian appellate judge Tatyana Valentinovna Shevchenko, recently e-
    mailed him with the news that she had just been appointed to her
    country's high court.
    The Importance of Russia
        The Board believes that Open World should maintain a high level of
    hosting from Russia. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated in a
    February 12, 2006 interview, we must challenge ``Russia as a whole . .
    . the Russian people, to fully integrate [democratic institutional]
    values into their future.'' Michael McFaul of the Carnegie Endowment
    for International Peace recently asserted the need for ``exchanges,
    connections, anything that increases connectivity between Russian and
    American society.''
        The Open World Program is playing a growing role in helping
    Russia's emerging leaders experience first hand the workings of our
    democratic institutions to. The ranks of Russian Open World
    participants include:
      --719 senior regional administrators and 163 regional legislators;
      -- more than 1,000 mayors, city council members, municipal
            departmental heads, and executive-level city officials;
      --887 judges;
      --588 NGO directors; and
      --188 print editors and 68 heads of TV and radio stations.
        In addition, the Open World experience has contributed to the
    establishment or strengthening of 65 sister-organization and Rotary
    International partner relations, including 17 partnerships between U.S.
    and Russian legal communities.
    Calendar Year 2005 Activities
                Russia
        Among the 1,410 Russian participants in calendar year 2005,
    delegates came from a wide range of regional ethnic groups, and had
    hosting experiences in 47 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
    Open World's hosting themes were economic development, the environment,
    health and social services, rule of law, women as leaders, and, for the
    first time, local governance. Under the health/social services theme,
    several Open World teams concentrated on AIDS prevention and treatment,
    disability issues, or substance abuse prevention and treatment. Open
    World also hosted two delegations of Russian nonproliferation
    specialists who worked with their counterparts at two U.S. Department
    of Energy national laboratories.
        A highlight of our 2005 Russia program was a rule of law exchange
    hosted by Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sidney B. Brooks of Denver,
    Colorado, for a high-level delegation of Russian Supreme Commercial
    Court justices and regional commercial-court chief judges. The Russians
    held talks with federal and state judges and University of Denver law
    professors, observed court proceedings, took a workshop on alternative
    dispute resolution, and were briefed by the state attorney general on
    his office's role and structure. The delegates also attended the U.S.
    district court's weekly press briefing and analyzed it with court staff
    afterward. Thanks to the relationships established by this and earlier
    commercial-court exchanges, the head of Russia's Supreme Commercial
    Court will visit the United States later this month on a trip supported
    by the Department of State and Open World.
        As a result of legislation passed in 2003, the Open World Russia
    program now also includes up-and-coming arts administrators and artists
    in a range of media--important leaders to the development of a
    democratic society. Support from the National Endowment for the Arts
    enables the Russian Cultural Leaders Program to offer two- and three-
    week residencies to these participants. The 2005 cultural program were
    brought Russian writers to the University of Mississippi to participate
    in the Oxford Conference on the Book, and brought Russian documentary
    filmmakers to the Athens Center for Film and Video in Athens, Ohio, for
    an intensive residency.
                Ukraine
        Ukraine was selected in 2003 for an Open World program because of
    its strategic position in Eurasia, its large and educated population,
    and its important potential contribution to regional stability.
        The 142 young Ukrainian leaders that Open World welcomed in
    calendar year 2005 were hosted in 14 states and the District of
    Columbia. The theme for Ukraine in 2005 was ``civil society,'' with
    subthemes in independent media, electoral processes, NGO development,
    and rule of law. Open World initiated a judge-to-judge program similar
    to its highly successful judicial exchange with Russia. Forty-two
    Ukrainian judges, including a Supreme Court justice and two members of
    the Supreme Commercial Court, were hosted in eight different states. In
    a number of the American communities that hosted Ukrainian leaders, the
    impact of the Orange Revolution was discussed in presentations,
    roundtables, and panels.
        The September 13, 2005 mayoral primary in Cincinnati provided the
    backdrop for one of this year's most successful Ukrainian exchanges: a
    study trip on American media and elections for a delegation of print
    and broadcast journalists. Hosted locally by the Cincinnati-Ukraine
    Partnership, the delegates observed mayoral candidates being
    interviewed by the press, spent a half day with key editors of the
    Cincinnati Enquirer, had a workshop on public relations and the press,
    and observed balloting at the Board of Elections on election night.
    They also sat in on newspaper editorial meetings and a live television
    news broadcast, allowing them to feel, as one delegation member said,
    like ``part of the editorial team.''
    Open World 2006 and Plans for 2007
        For 2006, the Board of Trustees approved continuing the successful
    Open World programs for Russia (civic, cultural, and rule of law) and
    the rule of law and civic programs for Ukraine. I appointed a panel to
    assess and make recommendations for Board consideration on four major
    issues: (1) whether Open World should expand to other countries, and if
    so, which, (2) whether country programs should be linked by region, (3)
    what the scope and nature of alumni programs should be, and (4) what
    improvements could be made to the Russia and Ukraine programs. The
    panel will submit an overall strategic plan for board approval by June
    2006. The Board will notify the Appropriations Committee of any
    countries selected for new Open World programs. Any program expansion
    will be initiated in calendar 2006 and fully implemented in 2007. By
    September 30, 2006, Open World will finish implementing the financial
    management and administrative recommendations in the Government
    Accountability Office's March 2004 report on Open World.
        The budget request maintains hosting and other programmatic
    activities at a level of approximately 1,400 participants total. Actual
    allocations of hosting to individual countries will be adjusted to
    conform to Board of Trustees recommendations and consultation with the
    Appropriations Committees. The requested funding support is also needed
    for anticipated fiscal year 2007 pay increases and to cover the
    Department of State Capital Security Cost Sharing charge for the
    Center's two Foreign National Staff.
        Major categories of requested funding are:
      --Personnel Compensation and Benefits ($1.197 million)
      --Contracts ($8.48 million--awarded to U.S.-based entities) that
            include: Coordinating the delegate nomination and vetting
            process; obtaining visas and other travel documents; arranging
            and paying for air travel; coordinating with grantees and
            placing delegates; and providing health insurance for
            participants.
      --Grants ($4.72 million--awarded to U.S. host organizations) that
            include the cost of providing: Professional programming for
            delegates; meals outside of those provided by home hosts;
            cultural activities; local transportation; professional
            interpretation; and administrative support.
                                   conclusion
        The fiscal year 2007 budget request will enable the Open World
    Leadership Center to continue to make major contributions to an
    understanding of democracy, civil society, and free enterprise in a
    region of vital importance to the Congress and the nation. This
    Subcommittee's interest and support have been essential ingredients in
    Open World's success.
        I thank the Subcommittee for its continued support of the Open
    World Program.

       APPENDIX A.--OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 2007
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
                           Description                        2007 estimated
                                                                obligations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    11.1 Personnel Compensation.............................        $944,100
    12.1 Personnel Benefits.................................         252,400
    21.0 Travel.............................................          97,500
    22.0 Transportation.....................................           2,200
    23.0 Rent, Comm., Utilities.............................           8,100
    24.0 Printing...........................................           4,100
    25.1 Other Services/Contracts...........................       8,386,000
    26.0 Supplies...........................................           4,100
    31.0 Equipment..........................................          16,500
    41.0 Grants.............................................       4,685,000
                                                             ---------------
          Total, fiscal year 2007 budget request............      14,400,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Marybeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to present the Copyright Office's fiscal year 2007 budget
    request.
        The Copyright Office is requesting the Committee's approval of four
    program changes for the Copyright BASIC appropriation. There are three
    offsetting collections authority changes and one in net appropriations.
    In offsetting collections, we are requesting a $1,590,901 decrease in
    the Reengineering Program funding due to fewer funds in the no year
    account, an $850,000 decrease due to a decrease in renewal receipts,
    and a $600,000 increase due to an overall increase in receipts from
    other service fees. In new net appropriation authority, the Office
    requests $1 million to digitally image the pre-1978 public records to
    mitigate the risk of loss and to make them available online. I will
    discuss these requests in more detail, after I provide an overview of
    the Office's work and accomplishments.
              review of copyright office work and accomplishments
        The Copyright Office's mission is to promote creativity by
    sustaining an effective national copyright system. We do this by
    administering the copyright law; providing policy and legal assistance
    to the Congress, the administration, and the judiciary; and by
    informing and educating the public about our nation's copyright system.
    The demands in these areas are growing and becoming more complex with
    the evolution and increased use of digital technology.
        I will briefly highlight some of the Office's current and past work
    and our plans for fiscal year 2006.
    Policy and Legal Work
        We have continued to work closely with the Senate Committee on the
    Judiciary, its Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, and its House
    counterpart. In May, I testified before the Senate Subcommittee on
    International Piracy of Intellectual Property, highlighting the fact
    that piracy is one of the most enduring copyright problems throughout
    the world and the Office's efforts, together with other Federal
    agencies, to reduce piracy to the lowest levels possible.
        I also testified twice last year on ways to modernize music
    licensing in a digital world. In June, I testified before the House
    Subcommittee and in July, I testified before the Senate Subcommittee.
    During the first hearing, I focused on the possibility of permitting
    ``music rights organizations'' to license on a consolidated basis both
    the public performance right of a musical work as well as its
    reproduction and distribution rights. In the second hearing, I
    considered alternative solutions to the music licensing dilemma,
    including a blanket statutory license for digital phonorecord
    deliveries. These hearings and meetings with representatives of the
    affected industries produced a consensus that Section 115 of the
    copyright law should be modernized to reflect the needs and realities
    of the online world. However, there was no agreement as to how such
    modernization should be structured and implemented. Further work is
    needed in this area and I will continue to work with the interested
    parties and Congress on legislative solutions to the music licensing
    problem in this and the next fiscal year.
        I testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in
    September to examine legal and policy issues in the wake of the Supreme
    Court's June 27, 2005, decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v.
    Grokster, Ltd. which clarified the doctrine of secondary liability as
    it would apply to those who offer products and services in a way that
    induces others to engage in copyright infringement. I testified that
    the Court's ruling seemed to strike an appropriate balance between the
    rights of copyright holders and the flexibility necessary to enable and
    encourage technologists to continue to develop new products and, thus,
    there was no immediate need for new legislation. I used the word
    ``seemed'' because, at the time of the hearing, only three months had
    passed since the ruling and it was simply too early to tell whether
    Grokster would provide sufficient guidance for the years and
    circumstances to come.
        The Office implemented a new preregistration system, as required by
    the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, Public Law 109-9,
    within the statutory six-month time frame. Preregistration of an
    unpublished work being prepared for commercial distribution allows a
    copyright owner to bring an infringement action before the authorized
    publication of the work and full registration, making it possible, upon
    full registration, to recover statutory damages and attorney fees. The
    electronic preregistration filing system became operational on November
    15, 2005.
        The Office also conducted two studies in 2005. First, Senators
    Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy requested that we examine the issue of
    ``orphan works,'' copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or
    impossible to locate, to determine whether there are compelling
    concerns that merit a legislative, regulatory or other solution; and if
    so, what type of solution could effectively address these concerns
    without conflicting with the legitimate interests of authors and right
    holders. As part of our efforts to produce this study, the Office
    collected over 850 written comments from the public and held roundtable
    meetings with dozens of interested parties in the summer of 2005 in
    both Washington, D.C. and Berkeley, CA. The Report on Orphan Works was
    delivered to Congress in January 2006. Second, at the request of
    Congress, we have also conducted a study to examine the harm to
    copyright owners whose programming is retransmitted by satellite
    carriers under a statutory license in Section 119. This report was also
    delivered to Congress in January 2006.
        In addition, the Office has initiated its triennial rulemaking on
    exceptions from section 1201 prohibition on circumvention of
    technological measures that control access to copyrighted works and has
    received public comments. In addition, we will conduct hearings in
    Washington, D.C. and Palo Alto, CA. to elicit further information from
    the public. The study will be concluded in fiscal year 2007, at which
    time, I will make my recommendations to the Librarian of Congress on
    classes of works that should be exempted from the section 1201
    prohibition on circumvention.
        We have also been actively involved in the implementation of the
    Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004 (CRDRA), Public
    Law 108-419, which became effective on May 31, 2005. This Act phases
    out the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARPs), a program
    administered by the Copyright Office, and replaces them with a new
    Library program which is independent of the Copyright Office and
    employs three full-time Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJs) and three
    staff. This organization is known as the Copyright Royalty Board. At
    the outset of the program, I worked diligently with my colleagues to
    identify and recruit the three highly qualified individuals who the
    Librarian appointed to the Board in January 2006.
        The primary responsibilities of the CRJs, as with the CARPs which
    preceded them, are to set rates and terms for the various statutory
    licenses contained in the Copyright Act and to determine the
    distribution of royalty fees collected by the Copyright Office pursuant
    to certain of these licenses. The CRJs have the additional
    responsibility to promulgate notice and recordkeeping regulations to
    administer some of the statutory licenses. In accordance with the rate
    setting schedule set forth in the law, the Board has initiated three
    rate setting proceedings and it will conduct hearings in fiscal year
    2007 to set rates for the transmission of sound recordings over the
    internet.
        We have worked closely with the Board to insure a smooth transition
    from the old system to the new and we have taken steps to conclude open
    and pending distribution and rate setting proceedings that were
    commenced under the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) program.
    The conclusion of these proceedings, however, does not end my
    involvement in the determination of statutory rates and distributions
    of royalty fees. Under the Reform Act, the Board must seek a legal
    opinion from me on any novel question of copyright law and may seek a
    written determination on other material questions of substantive law.
    Such determinations shall be binding as precedent upon the Copyright
    Royalty Judges in subsequent proceedings.
        During fiscal year 2007, we will continue to take an active role in
    a number of important copyright cases, many of which challenge the
    constitutionality of various provisions of the Copyright Act, and
    continue to provide ongoing advice to executive branch agencies on
    international matters, particularly, the United States Trade
    Representative, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of
    State; and participate in numerous multinational, regional and
    bilateral negotiations.
    Registration and Recordation
        Registration of claims to copyright, including renewals, and
    recordation of documents, such as assignments, security interests, and
    mergers, are critical parts of the U.S. copyright system. Timely
    registration secures to owners certain benefits and provides a public
    record of copyright ownership. The Office has significantly improved
    its delivery times for these services since 2001.
        During fiscal year 2005, the Copyright Office received 600,535
    claims to copyright covering more than a million works and registered
    531,720 claims. The Office maintained an average of 80-90 days to issue
    a registration certificate, a significant improvement over processing
    times at the beginning of the decade. We also reduced the average
    processing time for the creation and posting of online copyright
    records by 50 percent.
        The Copyright Office records documents relating to copyrighted
    works, mask works, and vessel hull designs and creates records of those
    documents. These documents frequently concern popular and economically
    significant works. The Office recorded 11,874 documents covering more
    than 350,000 titles of works in fiscal year 2005. The average time to
    record a document was 50-60 days.
        These achievements took place during a period marked by a
    significant investment of staff resources to reengineer Copyright
    Office processes and to move online copyright records from legacy
    systems to a database in Endeavor System's Voyager.
        We expect a significant decrease in renewal registrations in 2007,
    due to the expiration of the renewal provision in the law. Renewal
    registrations only apply to works that were copyrighted before January
    1, 1978, the effective date of the current copyright law. Before 1978,
    if a work was published with the required notice of copyright or an
    unpublished work was registered in the Copyright Office, it received an
    initial term of copyright protection of 28 years, and a renewal term
    that initially was 28 years and today is 67 years. To receive the
    renewal term, a renewal registration had to be made in the last year of
    the initial term, i.e., the 28th year. The last date for 28th year
    renewals was December 31, 2005.
        The law was changed in 1992 to make renewal registration voluntary.
    This law applies to works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and
    December 31, 1977. There were certain benefits gained by renewing in
    the 28th year, but if no renewal claim was registered in the 28th year
    of the term, renewal was automatically secured on the last day of that
    year. However, even if renewal is automatically secured, i.e., no
    renewal application was submitted in the 28th year of the initial term
    of copyright, a renewal claim may be submitted after the 28th year and
    some benefits flow from such a registration. A number of such
    registrations are made each year and we expect to receive 2,000 to
    3,000 renewals in this category compared to the 16,000 to 18,000
    renewals we have been receiving per year.
        The President signed the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act
    (FECA), Public Law 109-9, on April 27, 2005. As mentioned earlier, this
    legislation amended the copyright law by the addition of a new
    provision, Sec. 408(f), establishing preregistration. Preregistration,
    as distinct from registration, is available only for unpublished
    copyrighted works in categories that the Register of Copyrights finds
    to have had a history of infringement prior to commercial distribution.
    Unlike registration, preregistration requires only an application which
    includes a description of the work and a fee. Preregistration is an
    online service only; it is part of the new information technology
    system called eCO (Electronic Copyright Office). From April 2005
    through the end of the fiscal year, the Office completed intensive work
    to prepare the electronic preregistration application form and help
    text, and to do the related IT development, process analysis, and
    training required to implement on November 15, 2005. Much of the
    development work that was done for the preregistration system will be
    applied directly to the electronic registration system that will be
    piloted in April 2006.
    Public Information and Education
        The Copyright Office responded to 362,263 requests for direct
    reference services and electronically published thirty-nine issues of
    its electronic newsletter NewsNet--a source that alerts over 5,000
    subscribers to Congressional hearings, new and proposed regulations,
    deadlines for comments, new publications, other copyright-related
    subjects, and news about the Copyright Office.
        The Office website continued to play a key role in disseminating
    information to the copyright community and the general public. The
    Office logged close to 30 million external hits to key web pages in
    fiscal year 2005, representing a 49 percent increase over the previous
    year. The website received several enhancements, including introduction
    of RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds by which members of the public
    can receive instant notification of updates and revisions on pages that
    change frequently. There is a new history page that includes
    biographies of former Registers of Copyright, annual reports dating
    back to 1870, and previous copyright acts. The website is also part of
    LCNet, a new gateway for members of Congress and their staff.
    Licensing Activities
        The Copyright Office administers certain provisions of the
    copyright law's statutory licenses. The Licensing Division collects
    royalty fees from cable operators for retransmitting television and
    radio broadcasts, from satellite carriers for retransmitting
    ``superstation'' and network signals, and from importers and
    manufacturers of digital audio recording products for later
    distribution to copyright owners. In calendar year 2005, the Office
    collected $212.6 million in royalty funds and distributed $150.7
    million to copyright owners.
    Reengineering Program
        The Copyright Office's seven-year Reengineering Program initiative
    is to redesign delivery of its public services. This program is
    customer driven to prepare our Office for the future growth in
    electronic submissions. The Office had planned for the reengineering
    implementation to be completed in the first half of fiscal year 2007,
    to include moving staff offsite so that its space in the Madison
    Building could be renovated in one phase. However, due to
    infrastructure and offsite lease requirements, the program cannot be
    completed until the third quarter of fiscal year 2007. The program has
    four major components--process, information technology, facilities, and
    organization that will be fully implemented in fiscal year 2007.
                Process
        Accomplishments in the process component closely tracked IT
    development. Pilot projects began in fiscal year 2005 to test both the
    new processes and the new IT system, eCO. In the Registration Pilot,
    several thousand actual copyright registrations for motion pictures
    were made using most of the new processes--incoming paper forms were
    scanned, hard copy deposits were bar-coded and tracked, and all
    internal processing and correspondence was done in the eCO system.
        Other pilots included the Deposit Selection Pilot, during which
    examiners successfully made selection decisions for certain routine
    monographs and musical works for the Library of Congress. In an
    Electronic Deposit Pilot, selected publishers submitted electronic
    versions of works via the internet, in preparation for electronic
    registration and possible future deposit of electronic formats for the
    Library's collections. As I mentioned earlier, the new preregistration
    service was implemented in eCO with an online-only application and
    completely paperless process. This service successfully uses Treasury's
    Pay.Gov for fee payments.
                Information Technology (IT)
        During fiscal year 2005, the Copyright Technology Office (CTO)
    continued to work closely with the system development contractor SRA
    International, on the analysis, design, and building of the new
    Copyright IT systems infrastructure that will support the reengineered
    business processes. The CTO also made further significant progress on
    the conversion of the historical files of copyright registrations and
    recordations to MARC format and the preparation for access to the
    records through the Voyager system.
        To ensure compliance with the Library's new system security
    regulation and newly issued security directives, the Office established
    a Security Review Board (SRB), made up of Copyright staff and
    consultants. During the 10 weeks preceding the implementation of the
    Registration Pilot, the SRB created a System Security Plan defining the
    security requirements, conducted a risk assessment, carried out a
    security compliance test and evaluation, and made recommendations to
    Copyright Office management about the security status of the software
    for this pilot. As a result, the Office received an interim
    authorization to operate and the system moved to production.
        In fiscal year 2006, the Office plans to expand its implementation
    of an on-line web portal--eCO Service--to allow the public to apply for
    copyright services online and pay with a credit card or bank account
    through Pay.Gov. Claims processing through the web portal will
    initially be a pilot to allow for full testing of the system before
    making it available to all the public in 2007. Additionally, we will
    use eCO to search a Voyager database of copyright records dating back
    to January 1, 1978.
        In fiscal year 2007 the Office plans to complete the IT component
    by transforming eCO Service from a pilot to full operational capability
    for processing copyright claims and issuing registration certificates,
    processing statements of account for statutory licenses, processing
    acquisition demands under section 407, and recording transfers,
    assignments, and other documents.
                Facilities
        In November 2004, the Library appointed a project manager funded by
    the Copyright Office to oversee the Madison Building renovation project
    and coordinate attendant swing space moves within Capitol Hill and
    offsite. The Copyright Office hired a move management company to
    oversee the moves offsite and back to the Madison Building. In late
    September 2005, after an extensive search for temporary offsite lease
    space, the Library signed occupancy agreements with Government Services
    Administration (GSA) for space within two buildings in Crystal City,
    VA. In December 2005, an RFP was issued for construction of the offsite
    rental space. A contract was awarded in February 2006 and construction
    began in late February. Most of the Office's staff will move offsite in
    early July 2006. The remaining operations and staff will be located in
    the Adams and Madison buildings. We expect all staff to return to the
    Madison renovated space in July 2007.
                Organization
        The Office completed new and revised position descriptions to
    support the new processes for most of the divisions in the new
    organizational structure. Preliminary work was done to prepare for the
    ``cross-walk'' of staff from current to new positions and from the
    current divisions and sub-units to the new ones. The Office began
    drafting documents required for the reorganization package as specified
    in Library of Congress regulations. In fiscal year 2007, the new
    organization and positions will be implemented, coinciding with the
    return of the staff to the Madison Building and the implementation of
    new processes.
                        fiscal year 2007 budget request
    Reengineering
        No new funding is needed for reengineering for fiscal year 2007.
    Rather, the Office is reducing its offsetting collections base by
    $1,590,911 as a result of fewer funds remaining in the no-year account.
    Renewal Receipts
        With respect to renewal registrations, the Office is reducing its
    offsetting collections authority by $850,000 and five staff due to the
    fact that the number of renewal registrations will decrease
    significantly in fiscal year 2007.
        When renewal registration was required, the Office registered
    approximately 52,000 claims. Since the enactment of the automatic
    renewal provision in 1992, the number of renewal claims have decreased
    each year. In fiscal year 2005, the Office received approximately
    15,893 renewal claims bringing in fees of approximately $1.2 million.
    In fiscal year 2006, we believe that amount will drop to about $500,000
    and in fiscal year 2007 to about $150,000. Our records show that
    approximately 5,500 renewal claims were received in October, November,
    and December 2004. This has decreased to 4,839 for the same period in
    2005 and is expected to decline throughout the rest of fiscal year
    2006.
    Overall Fees Increased
        Over the past two years, the overall fees collected for the Basic
    Fund have gradually increased and are projected in fiscal year 2007 to
    exceed the normal receipts level of approximately $23 million by
    $600,000. This is based on more dollars being received across all the
    fee products, not from a change in the fee schedule. Based on this
    trend, the Office requests a permanent $600,000 increase in offsetting
    collections authority.
    Copyright Records Preservation
        The Office requests funding to digitize the pre-1978 copyright
    records. The key objectives of this record digitization project are (1)
    disaster preparedness preservation of pre-1978 public records and (2)
    provision of online access to those public records. Copyright records
    are vital to the mission of the Library of Congress and the Copyright
    Office and they are important to the public and the copyright
    industries that are a significant part of the global economy. The pre-
    1978 records document the ownership and copyright status of millions of
    creative works. Loss of these sole-copy public records due to a site
    disaster would trigger a complex and expensive intellectual property
    ownership dilemma. Additionally, the unavailability of pre-1978 records
    online has been raised as a major issue in the study on the problem of
    ``orphan works.''
        During fiscal year 2005, the Copyright Office, with the Library's
    Office of Strategic Initiatives, completed the Copyright Records
    Project study of the feasibility of digitizing millions of these paper
    records and developing technical approaches for integrating the
    resulting digital records with post-1977 digital records. The project
    team completed testing of vendor capabilities to digitize and index
    sample records. A comprehensive report of the project provided
    implementation strategies, cost estimates, and a recommendation for how
    the conversion could be handled in two stages.
        The first stage would cost approximately $6,000,000 over a six year
    period and would achieve the preservation goal and very basic online
    access. The second stage would add item level indexing, enhanced
    searching and retrieval, costing between $5,000,000 and $65,000,000
    depending on the extent of fields indexed. The Copyright Office is
    requesting for fiscal year 2007 the initial $1 million to begin the
    first stage.
                              future fee increase
        On November 13, 1997, Congress enacted the Technical Amendments
    Act, some provisions of which are now codified in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 708.
    The law requires the Register of Copyrights, whenever appropriate, to
    conduct a study of costs incurred by the Office for the registration of
    claims, the recordation of documents and other special services. On the
    basis of the study and public policy considerations and subject to
    congressional review, the Register is authorized to increase statutory
    and related fees to recover reasonable costs adjusted for inflation.
    Furthermore, the new fees should be fair and equitable and give due
    consideration to the objectives of the copyright system.
        The last time the Copyright Office raised fees was July 2002. The
    basic filing fee was set in 1999 and has not increased since that time.
    Historically, a change in the charge for services usually causes a drop
    in customer demand in the fiscal year following the increase and then a
    gradual rise in demand over the next two years. The possibility for
    raising fees was considered in 2001-2002. Because the Office had just
    begun its reengineering project to implement electronic registrations,
    and that project was to have been completed in 2006, the fee increase
    was postponed to coincide with the implementation of the new electronic
    system. However, since the implementation date for the new system is
    now summer 2007, we believe that we should move forward with a change
    to fees now.
        I have received fee recommendations based on a cost study developed
    by a task group. We will complete the required economic analysis and
    propose a schedule of fees to Congress in March 2006 to be effective
    July 1, 2006. The Office will publish a notice in the Federal Register
    to announce a proposed fee schedule. Based on a year's experience under
    the revised fee schedule and the new business processes, the Office
    expects to adjust the mix of net appropriation and offsetting
    collections authority in its fiscal year 2008 BASIC budget submission
    to Congress.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, I ask you to support the fiscal year 2007 Copyright
    Basic budget request for a permanent net decrease in offsetting
    collections for the BASIC appropriation and a one time $1 million
    increase in net appropriations for the Digital Imaging project.
        Our fiscal year 2007 budget will allow us to implement the final
    steps of our Reengineering Program. Once implemented, the Office plans
    to further reduce both its net appropriations and offsetting
    collections authority in the fiscal year 2008 budget request as well as
    adjust the net appropriations and offsetting collections based on the
    implementation of new fees. We appreciate your continued support for
    the Reengineering Project that will transform the way we do business
    and meet the public's demand for electronic services.
        I thank the Committee for its past support of the Copyright Office
    requests and for your consideration of this request in this challenging
    time of transition and progress.

                             LOGISTICS CENTER COST

        Senator Allard. Thank you very much. I have a few
    questions. It should not take us too long this morning to get
    you on your way.
        On the logistics warehouse, I am glad to see that you
    recognize that this is a pretty big chunk that we are looking
    at. The total overhead is about 18 percent. You have 10 percent
    that is being assessed by the Architect and you have 8 percent
    by the Corps of Engineers. It sounds excessive. I wonder if,
    with two supervising agencies, we have a duplication of effort.
    I wonder if you could comment on that.
        Dr. Billington. Well, I think I would defer to General
    Scott on this issue, except to say that the basic construction
    cost, the $41 million, is about what was approved for the last
    two book modules approved last year, and there is this question
    of construction oversight fees, as you indicate.
        I would just say briefly that the importance of this can
    hardly be overestimated. It is essential to effect this kind of
    consolidation for the Library's entire distribution function.
    It is not just a warehouse; it is a logistics center that will
    more efficiently do what is being done less efficiently at four
    separate locations at higher costs, to be precise.

                            LOGISTICS CENTER REVIEW

        We plan to discuss on a line by line basis in a very
    careful way all estimated costs with the Architect of the
    Capitol. But I will defer to General Scott, who has been more
    deeply involved in the planning.
        General Scott. Thank you, Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Library is very concerned about the oversight costs and
    contingency reserves. These are costs as you correctly point
    out, by the AOC and the Corps of Engineers, which we have no
    control or influence over. However, we have and will continue
    to engage them to ask them to help us look for ways that we can
    reduce those costs and still receive the kind of expert
    construction oversight that is required to put up that
    facility.
        We also, as Dr. Billington mentioned, will go through a
    line by line study to ensure that any type of savings that we
    can propose will be realized and we can reduce the price.
        One of the other additional costs related to that facility
    came about as a result of concern from some of the citizens of
    that area who wanted there to be more of a look to blend with
    the neighborhood of the Fort Meade facilities. That has added
    more money than would otherwise be needed.
        So we will revisit all these estimated costs, but in the
    end we are very much concerned about them. We are engaged with
    the AOC and we will appreciate anything the subcommittee can do
    to help us work with the AOC to reduce these costs.

                 GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT (GPRA)

        Senator Allard. I am going to have my staff talk with the
    Corps of Engineers as well as the Architect of the Capitol on
    these administrative costs and express to them my concerns
    about how high they are.
        Now, we do not have the Architect of the Capitol under what
    is referred to as the performance assessment and review tool
    (PART) program. This is the method that the Office of
    Management and Budget uses to measure performance within the
    agencies of the Federal Government. The legislative agencies
    are not required to be under this. Executive branch agencies
    are required to justify actions and assess results that we can
    measure here in Congress.
        And if they do not measure very well, it impacts how
    favorably their budget is considered. If they are rated as, for
    example, ineffective or results not demonstrated, their budget
    would be cut.

                            FEDERAL AGENCY OVERHEAD

        So, you are the customer of the Army Corps of Engineers,
    and we will have our staff talk to them. When we have these
    overhead costs, we need to be sure they can justify them, that
    they are measurable from a customer satisfaction standpoint.
    Frankly, I want to see more of our legislative agencies under
    that program because as legislators and policymakers it gives
    us the ability to measure performance of the various agencies.
        And while we are on the subject, we would encourage the
    Library of Congress to also look at this kind of accountability
    when you report to the subcommittee, because it is valuable for
    policymakers and it does help us do a better job for the
    taxpayers of this country.
        This particular article, just for your information, we got
    this out of Congressional Quarterly, page 538 and 539, so you
    can look at the program if you are not familiar with it. This
    is an opportunity for us to have more accountability and
    oversight of these agencies. I think they are way too high,
    these administrative costs.

          GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT AND LIBRARY PLANNING

        General Scott. We certainly appreciate your assistance in
    this, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we too appreciate the value of GPRA
    standards because we have been implementing GPRA since 1997. To
    a certain degree, the cost savings that we have been able to
    show with this 2007 budget came as a result of follow-on to
    GPRA and coming up with an annual activity and performance
    plan. From that plan we create the operating plan that we give
    to the Congress. So we appreciate GPRA, and we certainly
    appreciate what you might do to help us.
        Senator Allard. The nice thing about it is you are not
    necessarily just counting beans. What you do hope to put in
    place are some goals and objectives that are measurable from a
    consumer standpoint: Who is using that agency? Who is using
    their services? And how are those customers' needs being met?
    So I think it helps us all do a better job in that. We have to
    measure results.

                          COPYRIGHT DEPOSITS FACILITY

        Also, one other question now. You have requested money for
    this logistics warehouse. In the 2005 budget, we had a
    copyright deposits facility project. Would you explain to me
    why we now have the logistics warehouse that seems to have a
    higher priority than the copyright facility when the copyright
    facility was requested back in the 2005 budget?
        Dr. Billington. Well, the copyright deposits facility is
    extremely important. It is very difficult to make choices of
    this kind, but the logistics center need is a more immediate
    one. We are moving ahead thanks to the Congress' approval in
    2003 and 2004. This is a year of important transition for the
    Copyright Office. Fiscal year 2007 is the last year of the
    reengineering project. The staff must relocate for 1 year while
    their facilities are reconfigured. The logistics issues affect
    distribution and storage, and the related safety and security
    problems seem to us essential this year. The copyright
    facility, which I think the Library will have to come back for
    next year, is equally important, but perhaps a little bit more
    deferrable because of the redesign that is taking place to
    facilitate a modular construction approach. It will be an
    essential request next year. It is not a lesser priority; it is
    just a different priority and one that fits next year with the
    overall schedule because of the redesigned modular approach.
        Senator Allard. Well, thank you.
        Dr. Billington. General Scott wanted to add to that.
        General Scott. I believe, Mr. Chairman, we were asked to
    take another look at the redesign of that copyright deposits
    facility, which we did. Then we only switched priorities
    temporarily while coming up with the redesign, making a
    determination that it would be more advantageous for the
    Library to go ahead with the logistics center at this time
    rather than with the copyright facility this year.

                       INTRODUCTION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

        Senator Allard. I am one legislator who utilizes the
    agencies that are sort of the eyes and ears of the Congress.
    GAO is one. Another one is the Inspector General. I know that
    the Inspector General has expressed some concerns about the
    cost on this and I understand that Mr. Schornagel is here with
    us today. I would like to have him come up if you would,
    please, and make any comments that you care to make about this
    proposal.
        Mr. Schornagel. My name is Karl Schornagel, Inspector
    General.

                            LOGISTICS CENTER REVIEW

        As you have already stated, I have concerns about the cost
    of this warehouse. I just learned of the total price a couple
    weeks ago and I expressed concerns immediately. I also raised
    in March 2005 some concern about the size of this warehouse. I
    am in the process of getting information from the Library as we
    speak, and there is an important report that is going to be
    issued by one of the Library's contractors that should shed
    some light on this issue.
        Senator Allard. When is that supposed to come out?
        Mr. Schornagel. Next week.
        Senator Allard. Next week, okay.
        Mr. Schornagel. I also share the Librarian's concern that
    the whole cadre of storage facilities at Fort Meade is behind
    schedule about 5 or 6 years. There certainly is a need to get
    some of these buildings put up.
        Senator Allard. So would you be more specific about some of
    your concerns about cost overruns?
        Mr. Schornagel. Yes. I am concerned that about $15 million
    of that $54 million in cost is oversight and contingency. I am
    especially concerned about multiple layers of oversight. About
    $7 million of that is for AOC oversight and administration,
    more than $3 million for the Corps of Engineers. There is $6
    million in reserves and contingency, plus another 25 percent in
    price escalation.
        I also have issues about some of the individual cost
    components of the warehouse itself that range anywhere from
    microwave ovens to the sod for the front lawn. I believe that
    the whole cost issue and approach needs to be reviewed more
    thoroughly.
        Senator Allard. I hope that while you review this project,
    his suggestions will be helpful in trying to figure out ways in
    which we could bring down the cost of this.
        In the past you have raised concerns about poor space
    management at Library facilities, including the warehouse at
    Landover----
        Mr. Schornagel. Yes, that is true.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. That the new facility would
    replace. Have these concerns been resolved?
        Mr. Schornagel. Well, not fully. That is what I mentioned
    earlier. In March 2005 I issued an audit report that found
    inefficient use of the space. As a result, about 20 percent of
    the inventory items were deleted. These are items that were
    either excess or obsolete. As part of that audit report, I
    recommended that the size of the new warehouse be reconsidered
    in light of this new efficiency gain and, to my satisfaction
    that has not fully been addressed yet.
        Senator Allard. So we have excess capacity that is being
    poorly managed in the Landover facility?
        Mr. Schornagel. Yes, that is true.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Schornagel. And I have other issues. For example, the
    reference to the new warehouse is in terms of square feet, but
    when you consider that the proposed warehouse is going to be
    taller, it actually increases the capacity per square foot
    because you have to look at cubic feet. Issues like that are
    relevant to the plans for this new warehouse.

                   CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REALIGNMENT

        Senator Allard. Thank you for that insight.
        On the CRS realignment, the CRS determined last year that
    some 59 production support, technology support, and audio-
    visual positions were no longer needed and the affected
    employees were offered a buyout in January. Those who did not
    take the buyout could be subject to a reduction in force later
    this year.
        Can you describe the process that CRS went through to make
    that determination that the positions were not needed, Dr.
    Billington?
        Dr. Billington. Well, I will defer to the Director of the
    Congressional Research Service to respond in detail. I will
    point out that this is part of the workforce transformation
    process. The needs of the Service to deliver, and particularly
    to integrate the electronic aspects of the Service have been
    increasing greatly. We need to reconfigure the workforce to
    deal simultaneously with both the digital component of
    information delivery, including the successful mining of the
    vast amount of public policy research, as we continue our
    traditional artifactual work.
        So the Library is undergoing very important
    transformational changes currently. I will let the Director of
    the Service speak more directly to the particulars.

                            TECHNOLOGY AND STAFFING

        Senator Allard. Dan Mulhollan, would you like to come up?
        While he is coming up, Dr. Billington, I have to tell you I
    am very sympathetic with your challenges in moving to a high
    tech operation. Those are huge challenges and they create some
    obstacles as far as managing your workforce. These are
    challenges we both have to face.
        Dr. Billington. Servicing the Congress is our first
    priority. We are the Library of Congress, and making sure that
    that conversion moves ahead so the Service can be as effective,
    timely, dependable and objective as it has always been is a
    very high priority.
        Senator Allard. Well, the high technology requires a higher
    level of expertise and it is more efficient in many ways. The
    user of the Library can more quickly search out the information
    through computer search.
        Dr. Billington. It used to be in the early days of the
    information revolution that the IT part of an institution was
    where the expertise would be concentrated. It now has to be
    developed thoroughly and integrated into the direct service
    components much more seamlessly and much more immediately. I
    will let the Director speak to the details.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE DIRECTOR

        Senator Allard. Mr. Mulhollan.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Good morning Senator. We welcome the
    opportunity to discuss this issue. I appreciate it.
        As a matter of good business practices, CRS reviews its
    activities and positions continually and has for years. What we
    identified is, particularly in the functions of production
    support and audio-visual functions, that the positions we had
    established in the early 1990s, which corresponded to the
    technical functions at that time, were no longer relevant to
    the technical skills needed with a more sophisticated,
    centralized IT operating system. For instance, production
    support activities are now seamlessly integrated into network
    software. Numerous technical support positions had been created
    to install new hardware as well as software packages and
    upgrades machine by machine. Now, with ``push'' technology and
    a fully integrated network system, those functions no longer
    are needed.
        We also found an underuse of the Service's audio-visual
    functions, as well as the changes in technology.
        Our responsibility is to maintain analytical and research
    capacity and these decisions were based on our ensuring we
    could do that. Given the fact that we had a certain amount of
    money available, workforce reengineering seemed necessary.
        We had announced to staff on September 22, 2005 that we
    were going to eliminate 59 support positions effective
    September 30, 2006. To my knowledge, there is not another
    agency that has given their staff 1 year in order to find other
    jobs. In addition, with your help from last year, we offered
    separation incentives as well as getting early out authority
    from the Office of Personnel Management in order to provide
    more options to staff.
        Twenty-three of the 59 took full or early retirement with
    the separation incentive. We have distributed to all staff in
    CRS the entire staffing plan for the remainder of the fiscal
    year. As of this point, three of the administrative positions
    were filled with affected staff, two staff accepted positions
    elsewhere in the Library. Five of the affected staff in those
    abolished positions have been placed. I anticipate there is
    some likelihood that some of the remaining affected staff are
    certainly competitive and may be selected for other jobs.
    Currently there are 31 affected staff remaining who will be
    without a job at the end of September.
        According to our collective bargaining agreement and
    Library regs, if in fact those folks are not in another
    position by June, the Library of Congress will institute a
    reduction in force. My fondest hope is that prior to that time,
    every one of those people could find a job that they find
    meaningful and good.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Now, that said, one of the things that the Library is
    seeking your help for is approval of an administrative
    provision that would provide a safety net basically for
    reduction in force staff of the Library of Congress. The new
    provisions would allow a staff member of the Library who is
    facing a reduction in force to be in the executive branch's
    priority placement pool, if they want to continue their civil
    service. We would much appreciate your serious consideration of
    that provision.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today to present the fiscal year 2007
    budget request for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). With
    regard to our fiscal year 2006 request, I would like to express my
    gratitude for the Committee's support. Despite the challenging fiscal
    environment, Congress found a way to provide some additional assistance
    in meeting the Service's mandatory pay and price-level adjustments,
    research materials, and staffing gap.
                        fiscal year 2007 budget request
        The CRS fiscal year 2007 budget request is $104,279,000, consisting
    of the fiscal year 2006 base plus an adjustment for mandatory pay
    increases for CRS staff, as well as the needed price level adjustment
    for the goods and services we acquire in the course of doing our work.
                                research agenda
        This past year Congress has functioned under enormous pressures. In
    addition to existing domestic and international issues, lawmakers faced
    many unanticipated policy concerns that drew on already strained
    resources, such as hurricane-related disasters, Supreme Court
    nominations, and control of mandatory spending through the budget-
    reconciliation process. Pressing issues such as these have required
    your full attention, and the Service has been at your side during these
    demanding times, providing expert research and analysis, grounded in
    institutional memory, tailored to specific needs, and made immediately
    available.
        The character of the support we offered to the Congress this past
    year reflects the continuing and unbroken history of CRS' singular
    mission. We remain steadfast in supplying every committee and Member
    with analysis and evaluation of legislative proposals by identifying
    all components of the policy issues, estimating the probable results,
    and evaluating alternative options.
        CRS has a research management framework that is structured to align
    with the policymaking needs of the Congress. Service-wide research
    planning makes possible a systematic and coordinated approach that
    affords important opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration
    among experts across the Service. At the beginning of each
    congressional session, the Service's leadership and experts work
    alongside committees and Members, anticipating and identifying the
    major domestic and international policy issues to produce a research
    agenda. We continually reassess that agenda to address unanticipated
    circumstances. CRS' ability to respond to unexpected need for its
    services, while maintaining support for continuing domestic and
    international issues, highlights the depth and breadth of its services.
        Before Hurricane Katrina even made landfall, we had compiled a list
    of CRS experts and identified the Service's relevant products, making
    them immediately available on our website. We contacted Members in the
    affected states and alerted them to available CRS support and services.
    We then assembled teams from relevant disciplines and policy areas to
    address Congress' concerns about hurricane victims' access to
    assistance; command and control in emergency management; federal
    financing of unprecedented, extended assistance in the form of food,
    shelter, health services, and general income support; challenges to
    rebuilding; and reestablishment of the social and economic stability of
    the region. CRS experts assessed pre- and post-hurricane conditions
    relevant to policy concerns, critiqued the focus and effectiveness of
    existing laws and programs, and evaluated policy proposals to bring
    relief to the area. Through briefings and consultations, in more than
    one hundred research products, and via specially designed sections of
    the CRS website, the Service provided the Congress with support during
    this major national disaster, which Congress addressed in more than one
    hundred hearings.
        Other unanticipated legislative issues required slightly different
    approaches. For example, the Senate was called on for the first time in
    eleven years to carry out its advice and consent responsibilities in
    the Supreme Court confirmation process. However, more than one-half of
    the Senators and many congressional staff holding key positions in the
    process had no direct experience with such appointments. To support
    them, CRS provided legal expertise, research and analysis, and the
    insight resulting from institutional memory, acquired though several
    decades of support for Supreme Court and other judicial nominations.
    Through in-person briefings, reports, seminars and confidential
    memoranda, CRS informed Congress about committee and floor rules and
    procedures, the constitutionality of filibusters in relation to
    judicial nominations, status and prospects for the evolution of areas
    of law, and a history of congressional experiences with previous
    Supreme Court nominations. Additionally, aided by the digital scanning
    operations and the unique collections of the Library of Congress, CRS
    provided searchable online access to congressional documentation,
    including hearings, floor debates, floor statements, and votes, for
    eighteen successful and unsuccessful Supreme Court nominations. Most of
    this documentation, nearly 100,000 pages, had not previously been
    available digitally.
        In April 2005, Congress adopted a budget resolution for fiscal year
    2006 that included instructions to sixteen House and Senate authorizing
    committees. The instructions called for reductions in mandatory outlays
    over several years and for tax reductions and increased limit on public
    debt. To assist these committees and the Congress as a whole, CRS
    prepared explanations of budget process, procedures, and practices,
    some of which Congress had not exercised for eight years. Thirty-eight
    percent of the House Members and one-third of the Senate were not in
    their current roles in 1997, which was the last time Congress employed
    reconciliation to control spending. CRS briefed many Members and
    committees on these procedures. CRS also assisted in assessing the
    overall financial and policy implications of budget reconciliation
    measures, ranging from the specific options and their implications for
    trimming mandatory spending to the possible impacts on various programs
    subject to proposed changes.
                             management initiatives
        CRS adapts in other areas to uphold our commitment to Congress.
    Consistent with my responsibility to lead an accountable and cost-
    effective organization and in response to congressional directives, CRS
    not only re-assesses its direct services to the Congress, it also
    continually examines the internal operations supporting that service.
    As Congress has indicated, new technologies can lead to greater
    efficiency, and CRS has completed a long-term study of the impact of
    information technology on our work processes. The resulting analysis
    indicated that CRS, through workforce re-engineering of some support
    functions, could reduce the number of support staff needed Service-wide
    and devote more of the resources to the our analytic capacity without
    any loss in productivity.
        In 2005 CRS completed an examination of our production support,
    technical support, and audio-visual functions, those support functions
    most dramatically impacted by technological advancements. After
    extensive consultation we reached the decision to eliminate the
    outdated functions. The decision affected 59 staff, which is about 8.4
    percent of the total CRS workforce. To assist these individuals, many
    of whom are long-term CRS employees, the Service announced the decision
    one year in advance, offered a voluntary early retirement option and a
    congressionally approved separation incentive, and provided continuing
    retirement and career counseling to the affected staff. This type of
    workforce self-examination is not new to CRS. As a result of similar
    assessments, CRS has eliminated or curtailed other functional
    activities over the years. Earlier situations also required CRS to
    eliminate positions, but in the past CRS was able to achieve the down-
    sizing through attrition. Given the fiscal year 2006 constraints, which
    require CRS to reduce its staff size by almost 30 full-time
    equivalents, it is not practical for CRS to retain indefinitely these
    employees, whose functions are not critical to the accomplishment of
    the Service's mission. It is our hope that the affected staff will
    either retire or find alternative employment before the functions are
    eliminated on September 30, 2006. If that does not occur, we will
    institute a reduction-in-force (RIF) in accordance with governing
    Library regulations and our collective bargaining agreement.
        The Library of Congress is requesting the Committee consider an
    administrative provision that would grant Library of Congress
    employees, including those in CRS, who receive a RIF notice eligibility
    into a pool for displaced employees from all federal agencies for
    consideration for positions in executive branch agencies. This
    provision would place Library of Congress employees behind any affected
    employees in an agency undergoing a RIF in selection priority but ahead
    of applicants who have no federal service. Adopting this provision
    would give the Library's small pool of dedicated legislative branch
    public servants a broader potential employment base and could give
    employees the opportunity to enhance their civil-service careers beyond
    the Library of Congress.
        Building on our current performance management system, and in
    response to Congress' request that legislative branch agencies consider
    the performance model set forth in the Government Performance and
    Results Act, CRS developed an enhanced system for assessing performance
    and reporting results to the Congress. The plan and reporting system,
    which are built around our singularly focused mission, use the key
    attributes of relevance, quality, accessibility, and management
    initiatives as concrete frames of reference for establishing
    performance goals. The plan groups performance goals into two distinct
    sets: one focused on research and the other on management. The
    management goals are essential to sustaining and improving agency
    efficiency in resource usage.
        Congress has stated that it expects the legislative branch agencies
    to find opportunities to realize savings through outsourcing certain
    activities and functions. The Service has permanently outsourced
    several business functions that are now being performed successfully by
    contractors. These business functions include a centralized copy
    center, the CRS technology Help Desk, technology user-support services,
    mail and courier services, and receptionist and library technician
    positions. We have just awarded a new contract for the mail and courier
    services, which includes a revamped performance structure that resulted
    in the reduction of one contractor staff position and two mail clerk
    positions. We are currently expanding our technology Help Desk contract
    operation to provide extended hours of coverage to CRS staff, higher
    quality services, and a more sophisticated range of services. The
    Service is also expanding its contract support for graphics and product
    preparation. We are continually reviewing all of these operations to
    ensure the Service's business needs are being met in a manner that
    provides the best value and efficacy possible.
        In the same spirit of achieving savings to focus our resources on
    supplying Congress with needed research and analysis, we are curtailing
    non-mission-critical activities, except as explicitly directed by the
    Congress. The Service has been working with its oversight committees to
    explore alternative approaches to translation services and to the
    indexing of congressional publications produced by CRS. In response to
    requests for translations, the Service is seeking to provide referral
    to outside service providers that have been certified by CRS as
    providing reliable and timely responses. Like translation services, the
    indexing function is largely outside the mission of the Service, and we
    are consulting with our oversight committees and the Joint Committee on
    Printing to work out a mutually acceptable arrangement with the
    Government Printing Office to assist the Congress with such services.
        However, CRS remains responsive to all congressional needs, even
    non-mission critical ones, when Congress specifically directs us. For
    example, Congress requested CRS provide assistance to the House
    Democracy Assistance Commission and the House International Relations
    Committee on parliamentary development programs in new democracies. CRS
    country experts are assisting the Commission in its selection of
    candidate countries. Our country and parliamentary assistance experts
    have been detailed to the House International Relations Committee to
    travel with Commission staff for needs assessment visits to candidate
    countries. The Service has also been asked to provide assistance to the
    Georgian, Indonesian, and other parliaments in developing their
    research services. Further requests for CRS assistance are likely to
    depend on the findings from future needs assessment visits. All travel
    is funded through the House Committee, but we continue to pay staff
    salaries. CRS leadership is carefully assessing this support to ensure
    that the capabilities of our staff remain available to meet other
    congressional demands.
                                   conclusion
        CRS is responding directly to congressional instruction to submit
    reasonable budget requests and consider the overall fiscal constraints
    placed on the entire federal budget, to streamline by outsourcing, to
    leverage existing technology to enhance operational efficiency, and to
    look within for ways to complete our mission. The Service is responding
    to a federal fiscal environment that dictates the size of this
    organization be about 705 full-time equivalents. Cognizant of current
    fiscal realities and heeding congressional direction, the CRS budget
    request for fiscal year 2007 does not seek additional funds to support
    program growth. The Service seeks your support for the mandatory pay
    increases for CRS staff and price-level adjustments for goods and
    services.
        CRS intends to complete the re-engineering of its administrative
    and support staff and will assess the actual impact of these actions,
    from both fiscal and functional perspectives, against the expected
    results. The Service will likely study other business functions to see
    if additional streamlining can be achieved and intends to continue its
    practice of reviewing all major contracts and business operations bi-
    annually to ensure that the Service's fiscal resources are being used
    in the most cost-effective and relevant manner possible. The results of
    these studies and re-engineering efforts are expected to provide
    meaningful business information that will guide the Service's decision-
    making and frame future management initiatives.
        While the Service has remained steadfast to its mission and devoted
    to providing quality services to the Congress, CRS cannot afford to be
    static. An organization serving the Congress that is unable to change
    quickly, alter itself to increase efficiency, or adapt to new
    requirements is an organization bound to fail. CRS is mindful of this
    reality and has continually sought out and acted on pragmatic
    approaches that lead to improvements to better fulfill its mission.
        Despite the many changes in Congress and within CRS, the Service of
    today is identical to the Service of 1914 in one way: our dedication to
    our mission to provide balanced, nonpartisan, authoritative expertise
    to the Congress, on time, on target and in forms useful to lawmakers.
    We will never change the course of our direction.

               CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REALIGNMENT SAVINGS

        Senator Allard. So there is approximately $4.4 million in
    savings, and how is that reflected in the Library's 2007 budget
    request?
        Mr. Mulhollan. You mean the 59 affected staff? Well, to
    give you an example----
        Senator Allard. The savings from that, yes.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Yes, but part of that savings, I think it
    cost roughly $600,000 to be able to provide a $25,000
    separation incentive to each person. We used the balance of
    those salaries for the remainder of that fiscal year to provide
    the separation incentives, as an example. Because we had an
    overall $3.6 million--excuse me--$3.1 million shortfall, if you
    recall, last fiscal year and the committee gave us $1 million
    of our $3.1 million request to keep us at 729 FTEs. So we have
    requested a permanent reduction to 705, because we do not have
    enough money in our base in order to sustain the service at the
    729.
        As a consequence of this, you recall I mentioned that we
    were focusing our resources to maintain our analytical
    capacity. We are going to end up with a smaller workforce
    configuration--maintaining the number of analysts needed to do
    the research and analytic work for the Congress, but fewer
    overall support staff.

             CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE STAFF

        Senator Allard. In your testimony you state that extensive
    consultation took place before you decided to eliminate
    production support, computer technical support, and audio-
    visual functions. With whom did you consult?
        Mr. Mulhollan. The individual who did the studies spoke to
    every one of the affected staff in the examination of their
    positions.
        Senator Allard. So the CRS staff was consulted?
        Mr. Mulhollan. They were interviewed with regard to what
    they were actually doing and what the functions described in
    their position descriptions were.
        Senator Allard. This was done before you made your
    decision, I assume?
        Mr. Mulhollan. That is correct. They all were able to say,
    ``this is what I do.''
        Senator Allard. Okay. Now, there are 31, as you mentioned,
    that still have not landed, so to speak, and could be subject
    to that reduction in force. What action specifically are you
    taking to work with the rest of the Library to find positions
    for those 31 staff?

                        OPTIONS FOR DISPLACED EMPLOYEES

        Mr. Mulhollan. Well, first we are continuing to provide
    career counseling and career transition support--how to write a
    resume, classes on how to apply for a job in the civil service.
    That is ongoing and available to each one of those 31 affected
    staff.
        In addition, we are working closely with the Library of
    Congress and the head of the Library's human resources
    services. The Library has a great track record, from prior
    reduction-in-force events, of being able to find positions for
    those individuals. There is a commitment across the senior
    management of the Library, for which I am quite grateful, to do
    whatever possible to try to ensure that in fact there may be
    positions. While there are no guarantees, we are going to do
    everything possible to place any remaining staff.
        That is why that approval of our proposed administrative
    provisions would be helpful for us in the future.

                             RETIREMENT INCENTIVES

        Senator Allard. This is for Dr. Billington. In January
    about 186 employees took advantage of an early retirement and
    buyout incentive offered Library-wide, including the CRS staff
    we were talking about. Can you explain why the buyout was
    offered, what job functions were eliminated, and how much
    funding was freed as a result of the buyout, and how you are
    redirecting those funds?
        Dr. Billington. I did not understand the last two points
    you made.
        Senator Allard. Well, let's see. Explain why the buyout was
    offered and then what job functions were eliminated, and then
    how much funding was freed up as a result of the buyout. Why do
    we not just take them one at a time. Why did you offer the
    buyout?
        Dr. Billington. Well, I think we will provide, with your
    agreement, the statistics for the record. I can answer the
    question in general and then we will give you the detailed
    statistics.

                            WORKFORCE TRANSFORMATION

        First of all, we have a very large number of people who are
    eligible to retire. It is an aging workforce. This is the
    beginning of a general workforce transformation process and we
    wanted to give a significant buyout opportunity, which quite a
    number of people took.
        On the day our employees were leaving, I met with many of
    them, and they said they appreciated the buyout.
        It is part of the workforce transformation we are
    undergoing into the digital era. The buyout was a way of
    offering an opportunity to leave, which a great many people
    took.
        I might point out that in the current budget submission the
    $781,000 is to assist the workforce transformation. We want to
    develop some newly defined digital competencies. We want to
    build leadership skills for people from the GS-5 to GS-9
    category. We want to do everything we can to retrain as many
    staff members as possible and expand the range of
    opportunities.
        This is a direction in which we are trying to move as
    rapidly as we can. We have to also recruit new people from the
    outside, but we really genuinely want to give as much
    opportunity for other jobs in the Library. The Library as a
    whole is facing a need to transform itself and there cannot be
    any guarantees, but I want to assure you that the Library as a
    whole will make every effort to make available alternate
    opportunities for people whose present functions are becoming
    obsolete. We have brought on as the head of training somebody
    who has had experience with one of the more successful programs
    in the Federal Government and we have been beefing up that
    staff.
        We are very concerned about this problem in human terms,
    but at the same time we simply have to move ahead with this
    kind of transformation if the Library is going to continue to
    serve the Congress and the Nation properly.
        We will provide you statistics and details for the record.
        [The information follows:]

        During fiscal year 2006, the Library requested approval
    from Congress to offer separation incentives and from the
    Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to offer early
    retirements. Consistent with the legislation governing these
    incentives and early retirements, the Library indicated that it
    needed to reshape and renew its workforce to match the highly-
    specialized skill sets that are replacing outmoded ways of
    filling its mission. Both Congress and OPM approved these
    requests. It should be noted that the Chief Human Capital
    Officers Act of 2002 (title 13 of the Homeland Security Act of
    2002, Public Law 107-296), contained an explicit sense of
    Congress that the legislation's intent was to reshape and not
    downsize the Federal workforce. Since, 2002, executive branch
    agencies have used these authorities to meet the changing needs
    of the 21st century. In fiscal year 2005, Congress granted the
    legislative branch authority comparable to that of the
    executive branch. Thus the Library's implementation plan is
    consistent with the purpose of the Act; to reshape--not
    downsize its workforce.
        The Library's fiscal year 2006 separation incentive
    programs addressed specific, critical workforce requirements in
    the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Library Services
    (LS), and Integrated Support Services (ISS). In the case of
    CRS, advances in technology, its deployment in the Service, and
    the technical skill level of incoming analytical staff rendered
    obsolete the services provided by its production support staff,
    technical support assistants, and audio-visual staff. In
    addition, CRS required information professionals who could meet
    the redefined work, competencies, and skills sets of the
    Knowledge Services Group, created to better use the skills of
    librarians and other information professionals to serve the
    needs of Congress. Library Services needed to re-engineer its
    functions, redesign jobs, retrain current staff, and recruit
    new staff to meet the Library's digital requirements. For
    example, in the acquisitions and cataloging areas, staff will
    be required to manage digital assets that have distinctive
    retrieval and preservation requirements--more complicated than
    the traditional handling of printed books and journals. With
    more than 3 billion ``hits'' on the Web site annually,
    questions once asked in person are now coming from individuals
    we will never see in person. As a result, reference assistance
    and more collection curation must be performed online, changing
    the profile of and skills needed from a reference staff.
    Technological changes have also required new skill sets on the
    part of ISS staff. For example, printing is now created with
    sophisticated computerized tools and electronically transmitted
    with customer-driven requirements that generate high-impact
    graphics and images unimagined only a few years ago. Similarly,
    facility operations staff must have technical expertise to
    monitor buildings adequately and effectively with the
    sophisticated and integrated systems required by today's high
    technology workforce.
        Approximately $16 million supported the salaries and
    benefits of the 186 employees participating in the early out
    and buyout programs. Redirection of this funding will enable
    the Library to hire new staff more quickly rather than waiting
    for current staff to retire at some unknown point in the
    future, increase contract support capacity--in areas where
    flexibility in staff support is needed as business plans evolve
    and are implemented, and invest in new equipment needed to
    support our innovative programs. This funding, combined with
    the $781,000 requested for workforce transformation, will
    ensure that the Library has the tools--that include not only
    separation incentives and early retirements, but also staff
    training, mentoring, career planning and counseling and digital
    competency skills development, needed to implement an
    integrated workforce renewal plan. The success of this plan is
    highly dependent on the resources available to carry out each
    part of the plan. If funding and FTEs are stripped away, the
    Library will be in a worse position than had we waited for
    employees to retire--a time line that was already impeding the
    Library's digital transition and transformation.

                             IMPACT OF RETIREMENTS

        Senator Allard. The detail of these questions that we are
    asking is to provide us a thorough and complete answer. So the
    rest of the question on what job functions were eliminated and
    how much funding was freed up as a result of the buyout and how
    you are redirecting those funds, we would like to have a
    detailed answer on that. If you do not have that information in
    front of you now, we will give you a chance to give us a
    written response.
        Dr. Billington. Yes, sir.
        Did you want to add anything?
        General Scott. No, I think that is the most appropriate way
    to handle it.
        Senator Allard. Is that fine, General Scott?
        General Scott. Yes, sir.

                        COPYRIGHT REENGINEERING PROGRAM

        Senator Allard. Let me move on to the copyright
    reengineering. Now, that office has been engaged in a 6-year
    effort to overhaul its work processes, a project which involves
    major space renovation. The subcommittee provided over $9
    million in the fiscal year 2006 budget for temporary office
    space and renovation of the existing space in the Madison
    Building. The effort now is 6 months behind, I am told.
        Why has it been delayed and what is the impact on cost and
    is the project now on track for completion in 2007?
        Dr. Billington. It is on track now. The delay was caused
    because of the difficulty the General Services Administration
    (GSA) had in finding a place that could house the Copyright
    Office for only 1 year instead of the conventional longer term
    lease, while the final stages of the reengineering were taking
    place. There were three different changes of locations
    resulting in changes to design specifications and so forth.
    There was a delay, but it is on track now and we are expecting
    that in July of this year, they will move out to another
    location in Crystal City and in July of the following year,
    they will be back in their full reengineered mode.
        Meanwhile, the pilots and electronic registration are on
    track, if you want details, we have Julia Huff--the Register is
    unfortunately not available to be here today, but Julia Huff
    from the Copyright Office can answer this.

                          REENGINEERING PROJECT DELAYS

        Senator Allard. In your efforts in working with the
    Architect of the Capitol and GSA, what could prevent the type
    of problems you have encountered in future projects of this
    kind?
        Dr. Billington. Well, General Scott, do you want to address
    that?
        General Scott. I have got some general ideas, but I think
    it would be best if we could hear from Julia, who has really
    been intimately involved in trying to re-schedule and keep
    things on track that mostly were way beyond the Library's
    control. Is Julia here?
        Ms. Huff. Yes.
        Senator Allard. Julia, do you want to give the lessons
    learned?
        Ms. Huff. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will. One thing that might
    have helped--we started working with GSA in early 2004, and we
    probably would have benefited from having our own project
    manager onboard at that time, and we did not add that project
    manager until 2005. He, along with the facilities team, has
    really kept on top of GSA and tried to move them along.
        The lesson we have learned from GSA is that they have a
    very structured, layered organization and it just takes more
    time than we anticipated to get paperwork approvals,
    negotiations, and the like moved through all required steps.
        Senator Allard. In short, they are bureaucratic?
        Ms. Huff. Yes, you might say that.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Ms. Huff. They did not really respond immediately to our
    request for leased space. When they did, the space was too
    small, and then they switched buildings on us twice in Crystal
    City. All of this caused delays in the design. We had to do
    redesigns of the architectural work, for electrical work, for
    voice and data. We incurred more costs and delays because of
    these changes.
        So yes, we are behind and it is because of the facilities
    piece. We might have started in 2003, but 2 years seemed like
    plenty of lead time when we first began.

           NATIONAL AUDIO-VISUAL CONSERVATION CENTER--CULPEPER STATUS

        Senator Allard. Very good.
        On the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center. The
    Library will be taking possession of this new National Audio-
    Visual Conservation Center in early 2007. I really appreciate
    the opportunity to go out and tour that center, and I think we
    are all very appreciative of the Packard Foundation and all
    they have done as far as providing citizens of this country a
    very good facility.
        I would just like to have an update on what the status is
    of this privately funded construction project, and then once it
    is operational do we have any idea what the annual operations
    and maintenance costs might be for that? I want to make sure we
    are making allowances for that in future budgets.
        Dr. Billington. We can try to give you a precise estimate.
        [The information follows:]

        The Library's five-year request to Congress to acquire the
    new equipment and staff resources necessary to operate the
    NAVCC concludes in fiscal year 2008. Full initial operations
    will begin in fiscal year 2009, and ongoing annual costs
    beginning that year will be approximately $23.4 million for the
    Library. This estimate does not include the AOC's operating and
    maintenance costs for this facility. This estimate includes
    $11.4 million for salaries and benefits of the 139 Motion
    Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound (MBRS) employees, 127
    of which will be located at the Culpeper facility, $7 million
    for preservation digitization, $3.5 million for storage, and
    $1.5 million for infrastructure support. The operating
    capacities reflected in these costs were established based on
    our urgent need to preserve at-risk national heritage
    collections dating back nearly 120 years, as well as the need
    to begin ingesting significant new born-digital works.
    Fortunately, the proven technologies to achieve this have
    recently become available, and the Packard Humanities
    Institute's gift of the state-of-the-art NAVCC facility will
    allow the Library to take advantage of these technologies for
    the first time.

        Dr. Billington. We were actually applying for less money
    for this because there was significant reduction in FTEs from
    last year, because a lot of that was for the transition period,
    where we had to install things in sequence and that required a
    little bit of a buildup in the last couple of years.
        We can give you an estimate of how it looks. The current
    situation is that in November they turned over the ownership of
    the central plant to the Architect of the Capitol. This is a
    complex operation because the work is basically being done by
    the Packard Humanities Institute, but we are putting in the
    infrastructure. In December they turned over the ownership of
    the collections building to the AOC for occupancy by the
    Library and we have already begun moving staff and
    collections--we have six collection maintenance employees now
    out there working, and the first collection items just this
    past month were moved from Capitol Hill. The remaining
    collections will be staged for relocation from many different
    storage locations to be centralized into one location
    throughout this calendar year.
        Construction continues on the conservation building and the
    nitrate vaults. The conservation building is where most of the
    staff will be moved. We will be saving $500,000 of annual lease
    costs, starting in 2008 as a result of the collections being
    moved to Culpeper.

        NATIONAL AUDIO-VISUAL CONSERVATION CENTER--PACKARD CONTRIBUTION

        Mr. Chairman, I cannot say exactly what the cost
    contribution from the Packard Humanities Institute will be, but
    it looks like it will be the largest single private capital
    contribution to a Government building in history. We have to
    confirm that. It would not be if you multiplied by inflationary
    factors. But it is a very, very major contribution.
        We think that the base will probably not be very different
    from what it is once we get over this bump. I will try to give
    you as precise estimates as we can of what is anticipated. It
    is going to be really quite an amazing facility. One thing that
    is particularly interesting and important about this for the
    long-range cost is that the capacity is so great out there that
    we should be able to accommodate for many, many years to come,
    even decades to come, the anticipated storage need. It is also
    the first facility that will have digital storage capability,
    so this is very, very important. It will reflect the standards
    that Congress asked the Library to establish some years back
    for audio-visual conservation. It will be the largest and the
    most up to date facility of its kind anywhere.
        By this time next year it ought to be functioning, when it
    is finally conveyed from the Packard Humanities Institute
    through the Architect of the Capitol to the Library for its
    usage.

                            PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

        Senator Allard. I want to press you a little bit on the
    Government Performance and Results Act. I would like to have
    you present this subcommittee with a few examples of how the
    Library measures its program performance and makes budget
    decisions based on program effectiveness.
        I want something specific. So if you can answer that
    question for us if you are prepared to. I suspect you may not
    be, and you could present us a written presentation about some
    specific programs where you are applying it and making
    administrative decisions based on what you are seeing on the
    performance objectives.
        [The information follows:]

        Since 1997, the Library has used the GPRA model as a guide in
    developing and implementing its strategic plans and annual operating
    plans and performance reports. Library programs have made significant
    progress in developing goals and objectives that focus on measurable
    outcomes rather than outputs. Consistent with GPRA requirements, the
    Library is once again reviewing and revising its strategic plan which
    will include major changes to its goals, performance measures and
    targets, and assessment systems.
        As part of the Library's annual budget process, each office reviews
    their base resources to determine if additional investments are needed
    to support the Library's goals and objectives. Over the past few years,
    this review has become increasingly important, as the transition to the
    digital age has required ongoing reengineering of our work processes.
    Based on congressional direction and cognizant of Federal budget
    realities, the Library took a hard look within and across organizations
    in determining its resource requirements for fiscal year 2007. As a
    result, our fiscal year 2007 budget request reflects only a 4 percent
    increase over fiscal year 2006, and a net decrease in FTEs--reflecting
    mostly mandatory pay and price level increases. Despite these limits on
    our budget request, the Library will continue to maintain relevance in
    the digital age with enhanced strategic planning and workforce
    transformation.
        Some examples of how Library program offices applied GPRA
    principles in administrative and budget decisions include the
    following:
    Copyright Office
        As a standard practice, the Copyright Office monitors productivity
    and staffing levels and adjusts hiring and overtime decisions based on
    trends in receipts, productivity, processing time and amounts of work
    in process. Based on these reviews, the Copyright Office has taken
    actions such as cross-training staff to perform work in areas needing
    assistance, focused overtime in areas where processing time was longer,
    prioritized hiring for areas that were lagging in production. These
    decisions were factors in a more than 50 percent reduction in average
    processing time for registrations since 2001.
        The Copyright Reengineering Project is a multi-year effort to
    improve Copyright's business processes based on an analysis of its
    current services to the public. With the reengineering study
    recommendations, the Copyright Office developed a multi-year planning
    and budgeting strategy to reconfigure its current facilities, build a
    new IT system, and reorganize its staff within the new business
    processes. After the implementation of the reengineered processes and
    based on processing times, productivity rates and customer satisfaction
    findings, the Copyright Office will determine whether to reduce
    staffing in areas identified as overstaffed, reallocate and reassign
    staff based on workload across all areas and/or modify functions. One
    or all of these actions may result in changes in future budget
    requests.
        The Copyright Office planned for a significant reduction in renewal
    fee receipts in fiscal year 2006 and beyond. The number of renewals has
    decreased over the past several years based on statutory changes that
    made renewal registration voluntary. As a result, the Copyright Office
    has requested a permanent decrease in its offsetting collections
    authority and a reduction of five FTEs in fiscal year 2007. The
    Copyright Office also determines its fees using activity-based costing
    methodologies to review costs of providing services while giving due
    consideration to the purposes of the copyright system and the statutory
    requirement that the fees be fair and equitable. As a result of this
    review, the Copyright Office submitted a new fee proposal to Congress
    on March 1, 2006.
    Congressional Research Service
        In early January-May 2005, CRS undertook three comprehensive
    studies of support areas: Production and Administrative Support,
    Technical Support Assistants, and Audio-Visual Support. The objectives
    of the studies were to identify the services and tasks currently
    performed by these support groups, determine the extent to which the
    services and tasks met the broader CRS staff support needs, identify
    any unmet support needs, and determine the most efficient and effective
    ways to satisfy all support needs in the aforementioned areas vis-a-vis
    the Service's investments in technology. For the past few years, these
    support functions were carried out by approximately 59 staff, at an
    fiscal year 2006 estimated cost of $4.4 million.
        To accomplish these objectives, CRS reviewed the position
    descriptions for staff working in the support areas and, to ensure
    consistency, developed structured questions to collect needed data from
    a range of staff and using several methodologies. CRS conducted
    numerous interviews with mid- and senior-level managers, support staff
    in all three areas, and other staff who utilized the support services.
    Based on the data collected via document reviews, meetings,
    consultations, and interviews, CRS compiled comprehensive lists of the
    support services and tasks performed in each support area. Afterwards,
    study participants (i.e. managers, support staff, and users of the
    support services) were given copies of the lists and asked to verify
    the extent and frequency which the support staff performed the
    identified services/tasks.
        The analysis supporting these studies led the Service's leadership
    to recognize that the services and tasks provided by the 59 positions
    had been overtaken by advances in technology (desktop tools and
    operating environment) and were no longer needed. The analysis
    demonstrated that new and different services and tasks were needed;
    therefore leading to a workforce re-engineering of the administrative
    staff. CRS has announced its intention to abolish the 59 outdated
    positions, effective September 30, 2006. The Service has also developed
    a cadre of fewer and new positions that will provide administrative
    support.
        The Service's current budget can afford approximately 705 FTEs;
    however with the 2006 one percent rescission and the prospect of a
    similar action in 2007, CRS may need to adjust its FTE estimated
    ceiling down again. Retaining the 59 staff indefinitely would have
    adversely impacted the Service's ability to sustain an analytic
    capacity of between 335 and 350 staff while at the same time adjusting
    its total workforce to the 705 ceiling. The long-term results of the
    CRS workforce re-engineering will be to free up FTEs and funding which
    can be redirected to maintain the needed level of analytic capacity for
    the Congress.
        For several years, CRS has maintained a business activity that
    provides courier delivery and pick-up services directly to and from all
    Congressional member offices, Congressional committee offices, the
    Capitol and CRS Research Centers as well as intra-Service mail pick-up
    and delivery. The operation has been staffed with a combination of
    contractor personnel and CRS staff--and at the time of the review
    (early- to mid-2005), the operation was staffed with 11.5 contractor
    personnel (including an on-site supervisor) at an annual cost of
    $432,000 and three CRS mail clerks at an annual cost of $131,500, for a
    total cost for this business activity of $563,500. The contract was at
    the end of its five-year life; and, as a result, CRS took advantage of
    an opportunity to analyze fully the current workload statistics data as
    a means of updating the contract to better reflect the new ways in
    which CRS communicates with and provides information to the Congress--
    increasingly via electronic means.
        CRS staff gathered, assimilated and analyzed historical financial
    cost information on each element of the work performed under this
    contract. They conducted extensive interviews with an on-site
    supervisor, particularly regarding tasks performed, methods employed,
    and operating procedures; staff toured the facilities, witnessed
    operations, conducted survey-level time and motion studies, spoke with
    the couriers, and discussed problems encountered and solutions
    developed; staff interviewed the CRS Contracting Officer's Technical
    Representative (COTR) regarding services performed under the contract,
    the history of the contractual services, and the performance of the
    contractor as well as performance standards prior to outsourcing; staff
    gathered, assimilated, and analyzed month-by-month statistical data,
    from 1999 through 2005 including: delivery of packages and books to
    Congressional offices (CRS provides this service the entire Library of
    Congress), pick-up of packages and books from Congressional offices,
    sorting and bundling of non-rush Congressional mail and delivery to
    House and Senate Post Offices, preparation of mail for Congressional
    district offices, and sorting of CRS mail.
        The study concluded that the activity continues to provide a vital
    service which supports the core mission of CRS--basic to meeting the
    needs and fulfilling the requests of Congress and Congressional staff
    for information. Customer surveys, from both Congressional and CRS
    staff, reflected a high satisfaction level with both the service and
    the performance of the contractor. However, the workload statistics
    data confirmed that the number of items exchanged via the courier
    service had been, and continues to decline each year. The analysis
    revealed that the services could likely be performed by one, and
    possibly two, less personnel.
        The study results provided CRS staff with substantive data that
    produced a re-negotiated contract with ten contractor personnel and one
    CRS staff--a total annual cost reduction of $84,000 which has been
    redirected back into the Service's overall budget.
        CRS has for many years maintained a contractor-operated technology
    help desk. The contract covered four highly skilled personnel to
    provide immediate desktop services to CRS staff. While there was no
    debate about the on-going need for desktop services given CRS's
    reliance on technology tools, this contract was at the end of its five-
    year life and warranted a thorough review in order to redefine the
    scope of work and level of expertise needed to match the technology
    environment of 2006 and beyond. This study was conducted at about the
    same time as the functional review of approximately 18 Technical
    Support Assistants.
        The review began with an examination of the contract documentation,
    contractor workload statistics, monthly billings over the life of the
    contract, interviews with CRS program personnel, principally the COTR,
    to gather data on such questions as the services provided under the
    contract, the need for the activity, the definition of successful
    service delivery, methods and factors used to evaluate the contractor's
    performance. The financial data and contractor workload statistics were
    analyzed. The review included an assessment of contractor levels,
    current workload and the real cost of the activity, including the CRS
    management overhead, contractor management fees, and the cost of CRS
    staff with greater technical expertise at the GS-14 level who handle
    escalated service calls which are outside the scope of the help desk
    contract. Based on the review of documentation, interview data, and
    financial information, alternative methods of performing the activity
    were developed and a cost and benefits alternatives analysis was
    prepared.
        On the surface, the viable alternatives costed out within $50,000
    per year of each other; however, best business practices support that
    contracts typically provide the better short-term solution when the
    environment is changing. The Service's recent need for expanded help
    desk hours of coverage to better match the work hours of CRS analysts
    and information professionals (from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.) is one
    example of needed flexibility. Another example is the need for expanded
    expertise to help integrate new software and operating systems into the
    Service's products, e.g., with sophisticated graphics and tables. The
    entire technology environment in CRS is undergoing a major
    transformation as the Service moves to a new authoring and publishing
    system. A contract will ensure that CRS has the flexibility to respond
    quickly to the specific work skills needed by the Service and to keep
    pace with continuing changes/advances in the field. This kind of
    flexibility could not be achieved with federal employees employed under
    specific job classifications, grade levels, or in a union environment,
    such as CRS, where ``changes in work conditions'' are generally
    bargainable. Even changes in work hours cannot be effected easily with
    CRS employees in the bargaining unit.
        The new help desk contract will be awarded within the next few
    months.
    Library Services
        After analyzing its in-house costs for processing the same
    materials and seeking to reduce its costs, the Library contracted with
    its Italian book vendor to supply shelf-ready books. These books
    arrived at the Library fully cataloged, labeled and ready to be added
    to the collections for immediate use. As a result, three acquisitions
    staff were freed up to be reassigned to other critical processing
    tasks. The Library expects to use this model to expand to other book
    vendors for future contracts to continue to reduce its processing
    costs.
        Taking advantage of the functionality of the Web, the Library
    implemented a Web based exchange program to enhance its acquisition of
    materials through exchange. Stemming from a business process
    improvement project, the program improves the Library exchanges with
    its partners; reduces Library staff time needed to manage and execute
    the program; reduces space needed to store the duplicate material to be
    offered on exchange; and reduces the number of times items are
    physically handled. The Library's new Web program--which now has over
    740 participants--facilitates its ability to receive reciprocal items
    from the exchange partners to help build its collections at much
    reduced costs. In fiscal year 2005, the Library's acquisitions
    divisions received 148,696 pieces from its exchange partners.
        The Cataloging in Publication (CIP) Program was established in 1971
    to provide advance cataloging copy for publications most likely to be
    acquired by the Nation's libraries. Since the Program's inception,
    Library staff have produced catalog records for 1.3 million titles,
    saving public and research libraries the cost of creating these
    records. As an efficiency measure, the Program--which has over 5,000
    publishers that submit their prepublication data--has made the
    transition to electronic processing using the Web. The Electronic CIP
    Program (ECIP)--which now has over 3,600 publishers participating--has
    saved staff time (equal to three full time staff), has dramatically
    reduced throughput time for processing titles, and has overall reduced
    the per title cost of processing CIP titles. The Library saves annually
    $10,000 in postage as a result of not having to mail cataloging data in
    print form to the publishers. ECIP has enabled the Library to achieve
    additional savings by having other research libraries take on the
    cataloging of preprint publications--Cornell University and
    Northwestern University currently contribute annually approximately 200
    cataloged titles.
        The Library's bibliographic access divisions have analyzed the
    costs of producing a catalog record. The costs are driven by both the
    complexity of the cataloging rules and procedures and by the level of
    staff who create the records. To address the latter, the Library
    instituted a pilot in one of its divisions to have technicians use
    catalog records produced by other libraries as the basis for the
    Library of Congress record. Using lower level staff has yielded
    measurable gains. The division's production of copy cataloging
    increased by thirty percent between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year
    2005 (from 9,725 titles to 12,670). Concomitant to the division's
    increase in copy cataloging output was a one-third decrease in the
    number of hours devoted to more expensive full, original cataloging
    between the two fiscal years (from 67,582 hours to 57,231). This model
    will serve in planning fuller scale use of technicians for processing
    functions commensurate with their level of expertise.
        The Library has worked with the library community to reduce the
    complexity and cost of producing catalog records. In collaboration with
    the library community, an analysis was done of the record content with
    a goal of removing elements that were not necessary to provide
    satisfactory service to users seeking information. The resulting
    record, ``a core level catalog record,'' reduces the cost for
    cataloging per item by as much as 43 percent. The Library has now
    adopted the core level record as its default catalog record. These
    records meet the needs of end user while meeting the needs of other
    libraries to provide access to their collections.
        In fiscal year 2005 Library Services contracted with an information
    services research firm to assist with a strategic assessment of the
    needs and expectations of the National Library's constituents. A
    nationwide survey is currently underway to gather data that will be
    used in the process of assessing the effectiveness of National Library
    programs. The results from this and other data-collection efforts will
    inform future Library Services administrative decisions.

                          RESULTS-BASED DECISIONMAKING

        General Scott. Yes, sir. We could answer the question now,
    but in the interest of time, I would----
        Senator Allard. We have time.
        General Scott. The way the Library implements its planning
    process is the Librarian each year issues guidance to each one
    of the program offices within the Library, and he gives his
    objectives and goals around which the other programs have to
    respond and then come up with theirs. The offices will come up
    with an annual plan, and that annual plan is based upon the
    measurable task, where possible. Now, all the tasks cannot be
    measured, but where they can be measured, offices list those
    tasks that will be accomplished.
        Then when the budget has been put together, those tasks and
    those goals become part of our operating plan that we submit to
    the Congress.
        In addition to coming up with the annual plan, we also have
    for the senior managers, a performance evaluation system that
    reflects what goals and objectives they have worked on and
    achieved during the past calendar year. Those objectives and
    goals are very specific and do tie back to the budget.
        Senator Allard. Can you give us some examples of where
    there was not adequate performance for one reason or another?
        General Scott. There was inadequate?
        Senator Allard. Where there was not adequate performance
    and because of inadequate performance maybe you reduced that
    function, perhaps shifted dollars to another area of the
    Library where there was better performance. Can you think of
    some examples like that in your budget?
        General Scott. I cannot off the top of my head give you an
    example of that.
        Senator Allard. That is what we are looking for. It is
    those kinds of administrative decisions that you may have been
    making in the Library of Congress, where they actually had an
    impact on how you managed the program. Maybe you took some
    money from it because you perceived the performance could have
    been better and should have been better and you had to
    reevaluate it. Perhaps you had another area over here where you
    saw a need, where they were meeting the goals and objectives,
    and maybe shifted a little.
        We are looking for some specific examples of applications.
    You are saying the right things, but we are just looking for
    areas you can point to where you actually used that to make
    administrative decisions.
        General Scott. Yes, sir, we understand and we will get you
    some examples.
        Senator Allard. If you feel like you need some help in
    outlining that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) does
    a good job on objectives and making some decisions on that.
    Maybe to consult with them might be helpful in tailoring what
    we are looking for as far as program guidance. Okay?
        General Scott. Yes, sir, we will do that.

                         DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS PROGRAM

        Senator Allard. On to the Books for the Blind and
    Physically Handicapped. You have been working on it for several
    years to develop what we call a digital talking book to replace
    the current cassette-type system, to make books available to
    the blind. Over the next several years, approximately $75
    million will be requested to produce the new machines.
        In fiscal year 2006 you plan to spend $12 million to
    purchase the old machines which will soon become obsolete. Why
    do we need to purchase any additional cassette machines in 2006
    when I am told there are over 700,000 cassette machines
    currently in circulation, inventory, or repair? Then maybe
    during this you might talk a little bit about the status of the
    new plan.
        Dr. Billington. I think we will ask Mr. Kurt Cylke, who is
    the Director of that program, up. But I just want to say that
    we have to maintain the service and we have to maintain the
    inventory during the transition. We are on the schedule that
    has been long established by Mr. Cylke and by the service, but
    we cannot have a drop in the current analog service until the
    digital program is operational. We are asking for a $19 million
    startup. That was what was always intended. That is not a
    change in the plan.
        We cannot have a drop-off in the service in the meantime.
    Mr. Cylke can elaborate.

                          CASSETTE MACHINE REPLACEMENT

        Senator Allard. Do we have cassette recorders over here
    that could be repaired, that we could put in without having to
    buy new ones during this transition period?
        Mr. Cylke. We have, Mr. Chairman. We have approximately
    740,000 cassette machines in the field. Many of them--most of
    them, of course, are in use by individuals. There are a certain
    number of inventory and then there are a certain number being
    repaired.
        Let me get to your original question of why we are buying
    machines in 2006. Working very closely with the Inspector
    General, we had a study performed that projected out the needs
    for the cassette machine until we can get into the digital
    program. We have 23 million copies of books in libraries and
    warehouses around the United States. We have the 700,000
    machines using them and we are going into the digital age.
        As you heard from Dr. Billington, we are proposing to
    request $19.1 million a year for the next 4 years into the
    budget to permit us to buy those digital machines, and then
    withdraw the additional funds from the budget and go on.
    However we need cassette machines to keep the people who are in
    the program now able to use the millions of books and magazines
    that are available.
        Senator Allard. Would you agree with these figures: We have
    about 133,517 available for loan from the Library?
        Mr. Cylke. That is correct.
        Senator Allard. So that we have a total of 720,000----
        Mr. Cylke. Something close to that. That is correct. Yes.
        Senator Allard. Okay. And then an additional 42,000
    machines you are planning on buying in 2006?
        Mr. Cylke. That is correct. As a matter of fact, I believe
    the contract will be signed today or tomorrow. Again, what we
    did was make an in-depth study of the number of machines that
    we would require to keep the cassette program going until we
    can get into the digital program. This is our final buy of
    machines.
        This report was done by an outside contractor, reviewed by
    Mr. Schornagel, the Inspector General, and his staff.
    Suggestions were made and the number of machines, the 40,000
    plus, was based on a review with the Inspector General.
        Senator Allard. Then you are just going to flat drop off a
    cliff so to speak?

                           ANALOG-DIGITAL TRANSITION

        Mr. Cylke. There will be no future purchase. That is it. We
    have been in the cassette program from the early 1970s, but
    this is our last purchase of cassette machines.
        Senator Allard. And you are going to phase these out?
        Mr. Cylke. They are going to be phased out, but the new
    machines that come in--again, we have millions of copies of
    books on the shelves for use in the cassette format. All these
    books for the last 2 years and into the future will be in
    digital masters. The digital machine will be available to us in
    the beginning of 2008 and it just depends on how much money or
    how the funds are made available by the Congress as to how many
    we can build.
        But we would expect to buy over a 4-year period the great
    bulk of those machines.
        Senator Allard. Are these machines that you have now in a
    format that can easily be transferred over to the digital
    format?
        Mr. Cylke. The machines are not--the machines are analog
    cassette machines. They are four-track, half-speed cassette
    machines. But the analog books that are available on the
    shelves we are converting at a rate of a couple of thousand a
    year of the more important titles. Now, obviously in a public
    library environment many of the books would not be replaced.
    But we are converting things like the classics where we have
    them and going through what we call an A to D process, analog
    to digital.
        We should have 20,000 digital books by 2008. That would be
    reconversion as well as new books that have been mastered that
    way.
        Senator Allard. The public will use the analog and the new
    ones that you are going to put on the digital?
        Mr. Cylke. Digital only.
        Senator Allard. Digital only?
        Mr. Cylke. Well, analog and digital for 1 or 2 years.
        Senator Allard. But then as those others get used up, then
    you will put them on digital; is that your plan?
        Mr. Cylke. If I understand what you are saying, would the
    23 million copies be converted. We will convert only the ones
    that will be of continuing use. In other words, every year we
    do a certain number of fiction items, best sellers.
        Senator Allard. I see.
        Mr. Cylke. They certainly would not--old best sellers would
    certainly not be converted. I do not want to offend anyone,
    but----
        Senator Allard. You do not want to offend anybody's
    favorite book here.
        Mr. Cylke. Right.
        Senator Allard. Now, I want to refer to the IG here. Do you
    have some comments on this program? Do you think that we are
    going in the right direction? Can you comment on that?

                          DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS AUDIT

        Mr. Schornagel. Yes, I do. My office issued an audit report
    on this program back in 2002 that deals a lot with the issues
    that you are raising and recommended that a formal analysis be
    done to bridge the transition from the analog to the digital
    technology and reduce the number of purchases of new machines,
    and that has been done; and also to increase the repairs of the
    used machines.
        My office has been very actively involved in the last few
    years in supporting cost analysis and negotiation strategies
    with this contractor, and has resulted in several million
    dollars in savings. I think that the old analog machine
    purchases are necessary. The fact that we are going to cut it
    off, we really could not justify paying higher unit costs to
    buy smaller quantities in 2007 and beyond.
        It is going to be 2014 to 2017 before these old analog
    machines are completely phased out. People have a tendency to
    want to hang onto them and not want to change technologies. So
    I think that the strategy and the fact that Mr. Cylke is
    getting the full life out of all the old machines that the
    taxpayers are supporting the purchase of is really a reasonable
    approach.

                             CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

        Senator Allard. Let us move on to the Capitol Visitor
    Center (CVC) tunnel. There was a report in Roll Call just this
    last Tuesday on page 3 that part of the tunnel project might be
    paid for out of private funds. Is this an accurate report and
    would you like to comment on that article, Dr. Billington?
        Dr. Billington. Yes. That is not an accurate report. The
    quote of the CVC spokesman was erroneous. The spokesman himself
    told my chief of staff yesterday that he had been misquoted and
    had already issued a correction. The Library of Congress was
    not contacted by the reporter about the article before it was
    written, so the issue might have been cleared up before
    publication.
        Let me make it very clear. We understand and have always
    understood that the cap of $10 million is firm and we have
    never requested any changes to the construction of the tunnel.
    We have always understood this appropriated amount to be a very
    firm limitation. The Architect of the Capitol has given us full
    assurances that the $10 million appropriated will fully cover
    the costs of the construction and Jefferson Building changes as
    presently proposed.
        I could go into more detail if you want.
        Senator Allard. I just want you to clear the record and
    make sure you are comfortable that we have the facts on record.
        Dr. Billington. Yes. The original appropriation allocation
    was $10 million. We understand that the AOC has spent $5.1
    million for tunnel construction, which includes a $200,000
    contingency, and that just recently they have put out a
    contract for $4 million for changes, that was issued just last
    week.
        That leaves a balance of $900,000 for contingency, which is
    well under the $10 million cap.
        Senator Allard. Any problem with that cap?
        Dr. Billington. We do not see any problems with it, and we
    are not requesting any changes or additions.
        Senator Allard. I would expect that with the opening of the
    Capitol Visitor Center you are going to get more visitors, more
    people wanting to visit the Library of Congress. You are not
    going to have to negotiate across the street and you will
    probably get more members as well as more visitors wanting to
    use that tunnel.
        Are you expecting a large increase in visitors and are you
    doing anything to try and accommodate that?

                       CELEBRATION OF AMERICAN CREATIVITY

        Dr. Billington. Yes. We have been looking into this in some
    detail. The estimate has been given that as many as 3.5 million
    people will be coming into the new visitors center. We want to
    use the public spaces of the Jefferson Building as the focal
    point for additional visitors to the Library. We have done some
    very careful analysis and planning, with a lot of consultation,
    all, I might add, on nonappropriated funds. This is all being
    done with private funding--what we will do to prepare for more
    visitors will depend on what we can raise from private funding.
        The idea will be to celebrate and illustrate and involve
    people in one of the most important contributions that the
    Congress of the United States has made to the American people.
    No other government in the world has as consistently and as
    fully preserved the private sector creativity of its people as
    has the United States, and in particular the legislative branch
    of Government.
        Once the Copyright Office was placed in the legislative
    branch of Government, we were able to retain in the Library's
    collection as closely as possible the mint record of American
    creativity. By housing innumerable collections, we have way
    over 5 million pieces of music, we have the world's largest
    collection of movies, nearly 1 million movies and moving image
    titles--these are amazing accomplishments that the Congress has
    achieved. We want to celebrate this, which we think will
    supplement and round out the story of the Congress and of its
    governance, its oversight and legislative functions, which will
    be illustrated in the Jefferson Building's expanded exhibits.
        We think this will be an important illustration, calling
    attention to a great achievement of Congress, which we have
    been fortunate enough to be the custodians and administrators
    of. This summer we are bringing in interns to find and
    illustrate more things in the copyright deposits that can be
    celebrated and realized. We will use our public spaces, without
    interfering with the traditional usages of the Library, to in a
    dignified way both introduce visitors to the importance of
    knowledge and to give them some experience of creativity. This
    experience will be richly illustrated, not only by the artists
    and the performers, but also by the inventors and the other
    scientists and inventors that made America the creative country
    it is. The creative use of freedom, and the Congress' crucial
    role in preserving this record of creativity will be the main
    thing we are going to be illustrating and celebrating.
        Senator Allard. I think you have a great facility there. As
    you know, my wife uses that Library personally--we go over
    there and walk the halls and do the searches through the
    computer and through your catalogue. I think a lot of Members
    send their staff over, but we will wander over there
    personally. I would agree that it is a great facility. We
    should be very proud of it. We are privileged in this country
    to have that kind of a facility available for us.
        So we want to do everything we can to help make it better
    and continue to make it meet the needs of the American people.

                             WORLD DIGITAL LIBRARY

        Let me move on. I want to talk a little bit about the World
    Digital Library. In November the Library entered into a
    cooperative agreement with Google to develop a World Digital
    Library. Apparently Google is contributing $3 million to this
    effort. Could you update us on this project?
        Dr. Billington. I think this is very exciting. As you know,
    we had close to 4 billion electronic transactions last year.
    Our American Memory website has brought more than 10 million
    items of American history and culture online. We are continuing
    to augment that with materials that highlight creativity and
    the culture. In fact, there will be a connection between the
    website and exhibit space within the Jefferson Building. The
    visitors experience will include an invitation to use our
    educational website as well.
        What we are adding here, again with this important startup
    private money which is purely philanthropic--it is a
    nonexclusive arrangement--is putting the memory of other
    cultures online.
        It is important to dramatize to the world, both to help
    America understand the cultures of foreign countries, with whom
    we are more and more involved, our already large educational
    website and training, facilitating its educational use, to
    provide windows into world cultures. We are going to begin with
    pilot projects with other countries. We are going to launch the
    World Digital Library very carefully, as we did with the
    American Memory project that began our educational and
    inspirational online presence.

                      PARTNERSHIPS WITH NATIONAL LIBRARIES

        We are going to do it jointly. We already have agreements
    with six other national libraries to do joint projects. Our
    original project with the Russians, which was funded and
    initiated by congressional action, is approaching 1 million
    items. We are getting great cooperation from them. They are
    giving us access to nearly everything we want.
        So we have had a successful startup with special funds, and
    now agreements with a wide variety of countries--our most
    recent agreement is with the National Library of Egypt. I was
    just in Egypt and we are going to expand that collaboration. We
    have in our collections the history of Islamic science, which
    is something that has been well preserved, not just in Egypt
    but also in America and in the Library of Congress.
        We are going to be developing and celebrating the memories
    of other cultures, which we think will appeal to the other
    cultures, with bilingual commentary, and a high audio-visual
    component in the middle. This initial grant, and it is a purely
    philanthropic one, is one of the first that they have made in
    this way. It is going to be a very positive first step.
        We are considering particularly expanding into a major
    enterprise the small beginnings we have made with Brazil and
    Egypt. We will be looking into a variety of prospects to take
    our joint projects out to some of the other ancient cultures of
    the world and dramatize to them that America has been a
    guardian and a preserver of much of the world's cultural
    heritage. We will, in cooperation with the repositories in
    those countries, present it together, an American and Egyptian
    collaboration, and an American and Brazilian collaboration, and
    American collaboration with these other countries.
        We already have cooperative agreements with six countries,
    as I mentioned. We believe that America can play a leading role
    in helping develop better communication about the different
    cultures of the world that will increase our understanding of
    them and their appreciation of what we have done in this
    country to preserve their heritage as well as our own.
        Senator Allard. Very good.

                         OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

        Now, one last subject I want to cover has to do with the
    Open World Leadership Program. With respect to the Open World
    Program, I understand that Ambassador James Collins is
    undertaking a thorough review of the program at your request.
    Can you tell me when this effort will be complete and what
    particular aspects of the program may be overhauled? Now I
    understand that this is not a part of the Library, but you are
    the chair of that program and so I wondered if you could give
    us just a brief report on what you expect out of that thorough
    review.
        Dr. Billington. Yes, sir. We are doing, as we have already
    done and are refining within the Library, a comprehensive
    strategic plan for the Open World Program. Open World has been
    very successful. It is a unique undertaking in the legislative
    branch. It has brought more than 10,000 emerging young leaders:
    Russians, a growing program with the Ukraine, and startup
    experimental programs with Lithuania and Uzbekistan. There have
    been many suggestions from Members of Congress and others about
    this unique program, which is modeled in a lot of respects on
    the 1.5 percent of the Marshall Plan that was spent bringing
    young Germans over to the United States after the war. Open
    World is bringing over people from the former Soviet Union
    after the cold war.
        Now, we have tasked Ambassador Collins, who was Ambassador
    to Russia when the program was initiated in 1999, to conduct a
    strategic plan--and he is a member of the board of Open World,
    which of course has an independent existence within the
    legislative branch of Government, although certain
    administrative functions are performed still by the Library and
    I do chair the program.

                           OPEN WORLD STRATEGIC PLAN

        This strategic plan will be completed in late June or early
    July. We will present it at the board meeting and if agreed to
    by the board, we will provide for the implementation of the
    strategic plan. We will be looking at such questions as
    possible changes in the nature of the exchanges, which have
    been very successful--the areas to be covered. We now cover
    rule of law both in Russia and Ukraine, which is so central to
    the prospects of democracy--democratic development in those
    countries--and that has been an extraordinarily successful
    program. That is sure to survive.
        But other programs, exactly what we should stress, whether
    this should be expanded to other countries and at what level
    are under review. We are discussing those issues of course in
    the strategic planning process--the staff has been working on
    it from the end of last year. The board meeting in December
    determined that we will reach conclusions and have the formal
    strategic plan from which future budgetary submissions will be
    derived.
        We will also be looking into, very closely into, possible
    economies, and we will be probably making changes. We will
    bring on fairly shortly a full-time executive director. We have
    had very good leadership up to this point. Geraldine Otremba,
    who does our congressional relations, was handling it at first.
    Aletta Waterhouse, who was also with it from the beginning, has
    been acting director since September. We will have a new
    executive director, a permanent appointment that we will be
    able to announce very shortly.
        That executive director will have a chance to work with and
    implement the strategic plan. There are a number of GAO
    suggestions, most of which we have already addressed, but they
    will be folded in in a full accounting into a full strategic
    plan from which we will derive our next budgetary submission.
        Our current budget request represents basically a
    continuation of what we are doing, more or less, with only a
    marginal adjustment this time for unavoidable cost increases,
    mostly in air fares.
        Senator Allard. I look forward to seeing what that final
    report is.
        Dr. Billington. We would hope to report to, discuss our
    strategic plan with the Appropriations Committees before the
    board takes final action on it as well.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Allard. Very good. Thank you.
        I do not have anything else. Any summary comments?
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Library for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
                                     genpac
        Question. The Library requested a base adjustment for GENPAC of $2
    million that is more or less evenly divided between serial and
    electronic purchases to ``help keep pace with the greatly increased
    cost of serial and electronic materials (without which) risks eroding
    the foundation of the many services provided by the Library to the
    Congress and the nation.'' The Library's justification notes the
    rapidly growing number of electronic journals (approximately 35,000),
    and that the cost of journals has been rising at the rate of over 14
    percent per year. How much of the Library's costs are for providing the
    same information in different formats? What percentage of the journal
    collection is available in multiple media? What criteria are used to
    decide whether to offer journals in electronic and print formats?
        Answer. The Library generally does not purchase content in multiple
    formats. In a few instances, when materials exist in both print and
    electronic versions, the Library will acquire both.
        Duplication of information may occur for several reasons:
      --The manner in which publishers package journals into sets or
            aggregated databases causes duplicative content to be included
            in the Library's acquisitions for the collections. An
            electronic database may have several hundred journal titles
            included, two-thirds of which are unique to the Library's
            collections and therefore wanted. The remaining one-third may
            be duplicative of print journals, but because of the value of
            the unique two-thirds, the database is acquired (either
            purchased or licensed).
      --Some publishers provide a free print copy of a journal when the
            electronic journal is purchased.
      --Electronic publications package their content uniquely, often
            offering significantly increased functionality, indexing, and
            ability to manipulate it. Because of the value that is added,
            the Library is providing a service to Congress and other users
            by purchasing an electronic copy, even when a print version is
            already in the Library's collections.
        Because of the accelerating number of electronic journals being
    published and the Library's vast collection of print journals, the
    percentage of the journal collection available in multiple formats
    cannot be determined. Because the long-term preservation of digital
    content still poses a challenge and because the Library has not
    completed its development of a digital repository to archive electronic
    journals for future generations, the Library has determined that it
    must continue to acquire print copies of journals that exist in both
    electronic and print form. The Library has taken steps, however, to
    mitigate its expenditures for electronic content. It is developing
    trusted partnerships with other organizations to ensure long term
    access to electronic journal content, which will allow the Library to
    cease purchasing duplicate copies of those titles. It also is testing
    the deposit of electronic journals for copyright and seeking change in
    the legislation for the mandatory deposit of various kinds of
    electronic content. The Library further initiated an effort several
    years ago to reduce its acquisition of multiple print copies when it
    was also acquiring an electronic version, thereby considerably reducing
    the duplication.
        When deciding on the format of journals, the Library follows these
    guidelines:
      --If a journal is issued in only one format (print or electronic),
            the Library acquires the title based on the importance of the
            content.
      --Electronic versions of print materials already in the collections
            are acquired to improve ease of access or to allow multiple
            users access to high-demand content.
      --Both print and electronic versions of journals are acquired if the
            second format is offered at no additional cost.
      --Print or microform journals are acquired when electronic versions
            exist, to ensure long term preservation.
        Print or microform journals are acquired when electronic versions
    exist, pending completion of the Library's development of its digital
    repository.
                         copyright records preservation
        Question. How will digitizing these records change your future
    maintenance and storage costs?
        Answer. The primary purpose of this project is to preserve the
    records--to provide an archival backup for the analog records,
    protecting against the possibility of loss of this irreplaceable, one-
    of-a-kind collection. During the first six years of the project, the
    records, including bound record books, microfilm reels, and catalog
    cards will be scanned and rudimentary index data will be captured. This
    will ensure the records can be archived and be accessed electronically
    at a basic level that will facilitate further indexing. However, the
    title, author, and copyright owners are not searchable terms in the
    rudimentary index. For the public who rely on our records, this index
    would not be a substitute for the original records until detailed
    indexing is accomplished in future years.
        The Copyright Office needs to retain all these analog records until
    that time, when the individual electronic records will be integrated
    with the post-1977 copyright records currently available for search and
    retrieval. The detailed indexing project is estimated to cost as much
    as $64 million.
        The Copyright Office will continue to house the card catalog on the
    fourth floor of the Madison Building to facilitate access for those who
    use these records. By the time the first phase of the project is
    completed, the Office plans to have its own storage facility at Fort
    Meade, maintained by the Architect of the Capitol. The record books,
    now in a leased storage facility offsite, would eventually be stored
    there. Total savings once Fort Meade storage is available would be
    $200,000 per year, increasing each year based on increased volume and
    rates charged for commercial storage.
        Therefore, digitizing these records for preservation during the
    next six years will not have an impact on maintenance and storage
    costs. If the detailed indexing is completed in the years following
    this first phase, a decision could be made to destroy the analog
    record. However, this discussion is years away.
                            workforce transformation
        Question. The request of $781,000 for the renewal and development
    of the Library's workforce is described as an initial investment
    beginning in fiscal year 2007. Are long range estimates available for
    the expected costs of replacing and retraining the workforce? Describe
    why these particular initiatives were selected and how they will
    directly support a larger workforce plan. Why fund these initiatives
    before there is a comprehensive strategic plan to guide the
    transformation of the workforce? How does the workforce transformation
    project, the strategic planning process, and the program assessment
    framework relate? What information do you hope to get out of these
    efforts that you currently do not have?
        Answer. The Library has and will continue to evaluate all aspects
    of its business functions, including work processes, equipment, IT and
    other infrastructure support, and staff performing the work. Periodic
    reviews are routine business practice but most certainly critical when
    the world demands new processes as witnessed by the digital
    transformation. The Library's evaluations are taking place under the
    broad umbrella of strategic planning and through program specific
    assessments. No matter which mechanism is used, people will always play
    an important part of any transformation. They are not only a
    cornerstone in change itself, but needed to implement change.
        Given the aging workforce, with skills once valued but no longer
    needed in the future, the Library has begun its workforce
    transformation to keep up with new business functions and to lay the
    foundation for new functions on the horizon.
        Most of the fiscal year 2007 funding requested under workforce
    transformation is to support basic services that would be needed even
    if a major transformation were not occurring. For example, $225,000
    supports 600 online courses, annual subscriptions to leadership
    development courses, mentoring programs, and career planning and
    counseling--services that are commonplace in most similarly-sized
    agencies, but are not currently available or adequately resourced in
    the Library. The online and annual subscriptions also provide a more
    cost-efficient option for training than the traditional classroom
    approach.
        A total of $98,000 supports one additional employee in the
    Library's learning development center, to ensure the center is fully
    staffed and can manage the size of a training program needed for a
    large workforce. A total of $127,000 provides interpreter services to
    meet the demands of our diverse workforce, including those who are
    physically challenged. Finally, $231,000 is for a summer intern
    recruitment program that will not only help address the Library's
    workload, but also provide a rich pool of candidates for future jobs at
    the Library.
        The remaining $100,000 goes beyond traditional training but asks
    the question of what type of employee and what skills will be needed in
    the future. Funding will help determine digital competencies, and it is
    this study that will lay the foundation for a more comprehensive
    strategic plan for transforming the Library's workforce through
    retraining or new hiring--with new and different position descriptions.
    Until this analysis is completed, the Library cannot project future
    costs but hopes to be in position to do so by the fiscal year 2008
    budget.
        Without the requested funding, the Library will fall further behind
    the rest of the Federal Government and the private sector, costing more
    in lost productivity and lost opportunities.
                              digital competencies
        Question. Since fiscal year 2001, the number of items circulated
    has declined by over 24 percent and reference services by 17 percent.
    Internet transactions have increased by 214 percent. What has the
    Library done to redeploy staff? How do these trends relate to your
    request for skills training?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2007, the Library is requesting $100,000 to
    begin the development of a digital competencies initiative. This
    initiative will identify what new skills/staff are needed to support
    the digital transformation of the Library's services, compare those
    skills to staff already on board, and highlight the gaps between the
    two. The results will be used to develop a comprehensive staffing and
    business plan that will outline action steps and related resources
    needed to retrain and/or reassign current staff, hire new staff, and
    enhance IT and other equipment to support staff. The Library already
    has focused on a few areas such as CRS and Library Services where the
    VERA/VSIP programs were used to help retire employees whose skills are
    no longer needed, allowing the Library to hire the expertise or
    equipment needed to meet the new services and new demands placed upon
    the Library as a result of the digital transformation. While offices
    will continue their program reviews, the digital competencies
    initiative will be a Library-wide review that will not only focus on
    each office but on how the Library works as a whole, for a more
    cohesive and integrated transition into the future.
                   congressional research service realignment
        Question. CRS determined last year that some 59 production support,
    technology support, and audio-visual positions were no longer needed.
    You have determined that eliminating the 59 positions will save CRS
    approximately $4.4 million. How is this savings reflected in your
    fiscal year 2007 budget request? If analysts will become responsible
    for tasks previously done by production and technical support staff,
    (e.g., formatting, computer problems) won't diversion to non-analytical
    tasks lower current efficiencies and effectiveness of CRS employees?
        Answer. This question is based upon two fundamentally incorrect
    assumptions. First, CRS never stated that the elimination of the 59
    positions would ``save'' $4.4 million. CRS is undergoing a workforce
    re-engineering effort that will enable the Service to hire different
    staff who can contribute directly and fully to meeting the Service's
    mission. The funds that would have been used to pay the salaries and
    benefits of the 59 support staff will be redirected to pay for
    primarily research analysts. The Service's fiscal year 2007 request
    reflects a budget that would support the on-going need for
    approximately 705 FTEs. There are no savings associated with this
    workforce realignment; and retaining the 59 support staff indefinitely
    would adversely impact the Service's ability to sustain adequate core
    research capacity.
        In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, CRS requested a one-time budget base
    increase to close the gap on rising staff costs and give the Service a
    permanent budget base that could sustain a workforce of 729 FTEs. With
    only $500,000 approved for this purpose in fiscal year 2006 (none in
    fiscal year 2005), the Service had to implement a strategy that would
    adjust its permanent workforce down to 705 full-time equivalents (FTEs)
    while retaining an analytic capacity of 48 percent to 50 percent of the
    total staffing composition--between 335 and 350 staff.
        In fiscal year 2005, the House Appropriations Committee explicitly
    stated that it expected Legislative Branch agencies to take into
    consideration the overall budget constraints placed on the entire
    Federal budget and to submit more reasonable requests. At the same
    time, the Committee directed agencies to identify opportunities that
    would streamline operations, expand outsourcing in a range of operating
    activities, utilize existing technology to enhance efficiency, and
    implement management changes to increase efficiency and effectiveness
    of operations. Further, the Committee directed the Library to conduct a
    study to determine whether any duplicative functions existed between
    the Library and CRS. The same year, this Committee's report language
    stated, ``owing to budget constraints, the Committee is unable to
    recommend additional increases.'' These policies were endorsed by the
    Conference language encouraging agencies to submit more reasonable
    budget requests. Similar policies and concepts were expressed in the
    fiscal year 2006 House report language. Agency heads were directed to
    embrace change and recognize staff and workforce as the most important
    agency asset. Agency heads were directed to look within for ways to
    achieve mission as opposed to seeking additional budgetary increases.
    In 2006, the Senate re-emphasized the applicability of GPRA. Again, the
    Conference language endorsed these policy statements. CRS has heeded
    the Congress' direction to find ways to streamline operations and
    improve efficiency.
        The CRS fiscal year 2007 request reflects the reality of the budget
    environment and respectfully recognizes the Congress' expectation that
    the Service find a way to accomplish its mission within an organization
    of 700 to 705 FTEs. Right now, CRS needs the support of the Congress in
    order to continue its efforts for achieving a workforce transformation
    using the federal employment tools and authorities available, such as
    separation incentives, voluntary early retirements, and possibly a
    reduction in force (RIF). The Library is seeking two new administrative
    provisions that would give any remaining affected CRS staff (as of
    September 30, 2006) opportunities for priority placement in other
    federal agencies should a RIF become necessary. Your support and
    approval of that request would also be extremely helpful. In 2007, CRS
    plans to redirect the funds that would have been used to pay the
    salaries and benefits of the 59 staff to acquiring the capacities, work
    skills, and competencies needed in 2007 and beyond. Your support of the
    Service's fiscal year 2007 full budget request and your endorsement for
    maintaining the management flexibility needed to align or realign the
    organization to match the changing and complex congressional agenda
    within the financial resources available will go a long way in helping
    to ensure that the Service can indeed provide the continued level and
    quality of services that Congress is seeking.
        Second, the question incorrectly assumes that CRS analytical staff
    will now be responsible for performing production and/or technical
    support tasks--which is not the case. The question incorrectly assumes
    that CRS management is not focused on ensuring a most cost effective
    and efficient operation--which is also not the case. CRS has always
    been committed to providing analysts with the most technologically
    robust workstations available. Advances in technology in the past ten
    years have provided automated tools on the analyst's desktop with most
    of the needed formatting and production capabilities built in; and,
    these new technology tools have eliminated much of the need for
    production support personnel (the basis of the elimination of these
    functions). CRS is currently investing in the development of a new
    authoring and publishing system that will even further advance the ease
    of incorporating sophisticated graphics, tables, and pictures directly
    into CRS reports during the writing/authoring phase. The new system
    will allow increased analytic capacity--not decreased capacity. The
    system will make creation and dissemination of CRS reports even more
    efficient and more readily available to the Congress.
        The CRS analysts' needs for publication production support will be
    provided centrally by the CRS Electronic Research Products Office
    (ERPO) which is staffed by a cadre of experienced editors, skilled in
    using advanced technology tools to produce products in multiple
    formats. CRS is building capacity in this office as a means to
    centralize, streamline, and provide uniform and high quality support
    across the Service. At the same time, the CRS Technology Office is
    revamping existing contracts to enhance its desktop user support
    operations, which will also include up-to-date technology professionals
    who can resolve quickly the staff's desktop computer problems. Managing
    modern technology in a centralized business model ensures that: (1)
    business-relevant technology skills are in place, maintained, and
    uniformly accessible to all agency staff; (2) all technology staff are
    directed from a singular agency-wide business strategy and perspective;
    and, (3) technology staff are provided consistent and uniform training
    opportunities based upon general technology refreshment, agency
    implementation of new hardware/software, or individual performance
    shortcomings. The central call center/help desk concept allows a
    computer specialist to gain remote access or ``proxy'' to a personal
    computer anywhere in the organization in order to evaluate and
    troubleshoot technical problems--giving every CRS employee immediate
    access to high quality technology support at their fingertips.
                             fee service activities
        Question. What, if anything, has the Library done to identify
    services where it might be appropriate to either charge a fee or raise
    current fees?
        Answer. Where it is appropriate to charge fees, the Library does so
    and in some cases has a formal process for evaluating and raising those
    fees.
        For example, in 1997 Congress established a new procedure for
    setting fees for basic services for the Copyright Office (111 Stat.
    1529 (1997), codified at 17 U.S.C. 708(b)). The Copyright Office is
    directed to periodically study the costs of providing its basic
    services. After determining the costs of those services, it is directed
    to consider whether the full cost recovery fee is fair, equitable, and
    meets the objectives of the copyright system. If not, the fees may be
    adjusted to recover less than full cost. Following this study and
    consideration, the Copyright Office sends Congress a report discussing
    its study, conclusions, and a proposed fee schedule. This fee schedule
    will be adopted unless, within 120 days of receiving the proposal,
    Congress passes a law disapproving the proposed fees. The latest
    Copyright Office report, with its proposed fee schedule, was sent to
    Congress on February 28, 2006.
        Additionally, for other than basic services, the Copyright Office
    has the authority to set fees by regulation. On March 28, 2006, the
    Copyright Office proposed a new fee schedule for these additional
    services and invited public comment on this schedule. Also, a new fee
    service has been proposed. The comment period for these fees closes on
    April 27, 2006. The Office does not expect that Congress will reject
    its proposed fees for basic services. Additionally, it expects to
    conclude its fee setting rulemaking early in May. The plan is to
    institute all the new fees on July 1, 2006.
        Under the provisions of the Economy Act of 1932, 31 U.S.C. Sections
    1535-1536, the Law Library has entered into Interagency Agreements with
    several Executive Branch agencies for services tailored to their
    specific needs requiring research and reference products outside the
    routine services provided by the Library. Fees are based on billable
    hours dedicated to the work performed. Other than contributions
    collected under the offsetting collections authority associated with
    GLIN and the interagency agreements noted above, there are no other Law
    Library activities that would be suitable for charging fees.
        Library Services has several revolving funds that charge a fee for
    services to inside and outside clients. The revolving funds operate
    under revolving fund law and other fund specific legislative
    guidelines. As part of the Business Enterprise Work, Library Services
    is reviewing all the revolving funds, including services provided and
    related fees, and may be proposing changes in the coming fiscal years.
        As other work is identified for fee-based services, the Library
    will propose legislative language to support those fees.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
        Question. Dr. Billington, I understand that the retail shop at the
    Library of Congress is relocating due to the construction of the
    Capitol Visitor Center tunnel. What is the new location? How do you
    think the relocation of the shop will affect sales?
        Answer. In the summer of 2005, the Library relocated the shop to a
    larger location on the west side, beside the Visitor Center and close
    to the Capitol Visitor Center tunnel. Floor space has been increased
    from 1,100 square feet to 2,000 square feet. In moving the shop, we
    also took the opportunity to consolidate stock rooms and storage space
    has increased to 2,500 square feet. The following page includes the
    floor plans and pictures of the new shop location.
        The shop remains in a prominent space within the visitor area of
    the Jefferson Building. Given the continued visibility and the
    increased floor space, we are expecting the move, in coordination with
    other activities, to improve sales. As we develop our plans for the new
    visitor experience at the Jefferson building in the fall of 2007, we
    will be coordinating the work of the Library's visitor services and
    exhibitions offices to enhance our retail presence.

        Question. When the CVC opens, there will undoubtedly be many more
    visitors coming to the Library. Are you considering expanding your
    retail product based on this increase?
        Answer. The sales shop will increasingly reflect the visitor
    experience of the Great Hall, the collections and art on display, the
    special and permanent exhibitions, and the interactive guides
    throughout the Jefferson Building.
        We are consolidating our product mix to focus on Library-related
    merchandise. Our sales figures show that Library-related products
    appeal to our visitors, both on site and online. Such Library-related
    products generate about 56 percent of total revenue, approximately
    $610,000 in fiscal year 2005. Nineteen of our twenty most popular items
    (by revenue) are library related. These top sellers generated $290,000
    in sales revenues, $100,000 in profits. We will continue to grow the
    percentage of inventory dedicated to proprietary Library products,
    increasing brand recognition, outreach, and revenue.
        Question. Dr. Billington, the Library's fiscal year 2007 request
    includes a decrease of 44 FTE's. Can you explain this decrease?
        Answer. The Library is reflecting a decrease of 44 FTEs in fiscal
    year 2007 as the result of authority expiring in fiscal year 2006,
    reduced workload, and/or adjustments needed to align staffing with
    available funding. Reductions include a total of 13 FTEs for positions
    whose authority expires in fiscal year 2006 (6 FTEs for Culpeper, 1 FTE
    for Business Enterprise Project, and 6 FTEs for vacant police
    positions), 7 FTEs for reduced workload projected in the Copyright
    Office, and 24 FTEs in CRS to align staffing with funds available.
        Question. How will the Library's transition into the digital
    environment affect its current workforce? What are your plans for
    retraining your current workforce?
        Answer. As part of our workforce transformation project, we will
    follow a systematic process to identify newly required skills and
    knowledge for our workforce as we transition into a digital
    environment. Until we complete job and skills gap analyses based on new
    skills and knowledge requirements, we will not know the full impact on
    our workforce. Where retraining is appropriate, we will create
    individual development plans and training programs to retrain members
    of the current workforce.
        Question. In fiscal year 2005, the Library's website experienced a
    14 percent increase in usage over fiscal year 2004. How are you
    preparing for this continuing trend in increased web usage?
        Answer. The Library of Congress website has continued to experience
    increases in use both as a result of a general increase in the number
    of users online and as the institution continues to add high-quality
    digitized material for our online audiences. The Library is projecting
    that the rate of increase will continue and build to higher levels over
    the next few years as the American public continues to discover and
    learn about the wealth of high-quality digitized materials and other
    content that we offer.
        The Library has begun the implementation of a web metrics program
    that includes new monitoring software and services that provide
    statistics and analytics to assist the Library in understanding the
    profiles of our online users, the web content that they access, the
    resulting impact on our supporting technical infrastructure, and our
    continued ability to provide high quality online services. This web
    metrics program and other tools that the Library uses to measure
    supporting infrastructure capacity will assist the Library in
    forecasting future usage and in planning capacity accordingly.
        To date, the Library has met growing user demand for online content
    and has supported the necessary expansion in technical infrastructure
    by adjusting our existing budgetary resources. We will continue to
    monitor these statistics and other metrics, assess performance, and
    weigh alternatives for maintaining high quality online service within
    existing resources if at all possible.
        Question. Dr. Billington, you have requested $102 million within
    the Architect of the Capitol's fiscal year 2007 request. Can you
    prioritize the items in this request for the members of the
    subcommittee?
        Answer. Of the $102 million requested for the Library of Congress
    Buildings and Grounds budget within the Architect of the Capitol's
    (AOC) fiscal year 2007 request, approximately $62 million supports 11
    projects specifically requested by the Library.
        Construction of the Logistics Center at Fort Meade is the Library's
    highest priority within the AOC budget. This facility is urgently
    needed to address many critical issues, including meeting fire and
    safety standards and providing environmentally sound storage for
    Library collections. The new facility at Fort Meade is the best overall
    investment for the government based on independent space and economic
    assessments. Choosing another site is not the solution nor will it
    reduce costs. The land at Fort Meade was purchased specifically to
    address storage requirements of the Legislative Branch. Leasing, buying
    or building storage facilities at other locations would undermine this
    master plan. The 100 acres only cost the government one dollar.
    Choosing a different construction site would require millions of
    additional dollars for land. Upgrading current leased facilities or
    retrofitting other lease buildings would only benefit the landlords and
    not the government. Staying in current leased facilities forces the
    Library to continue to pay for space that is expensive and provides no
    return on investment (similar to renting vs. buying a home). Finally,
    we would lose the synergy of Fort Meade, which offers advantages and
    the cost benefit of one security system, one transportation
    destination, easy access between storage facilities, and other
    administrative efficiencies, while providing increased capacity on
    Capitol Hill, and more efficient use of space on and off Capitol Hill.
        If this project is delayed, the Library will continue to incur very
    expensive lease and repair costs associated with current storage
    materials. Savings to the government of at least $3 million annually
    will be lost to lease, operating and repair costs at existing
    facilities. The master plan at Fort Meade is already six years behind
    schedule. Further delays will raise the price tag of this project again
    due to inflation and other factors and further delay, and also
    increase, the price tag of other buildings planned for in the master
    plan.
        The remaining 10 Library projects are needed to maintain the
    Library's buildings and grounds, to address immediate environmental,
    fire and life safety issues, and to support space modifications in
    response to the Library's ever changing program needs.
        The AOC has also included their own fire and life safety projects.
    Past deferments and delays have created a long list of urgently needed
    projects. The cost of maintenance and upgrades will continue to rise
    rapidly if the Library cannot stop, or at least slow down, the rate of
    deterioration of its buildings and return to its approved construction
    plan and schedule.
        The following table lists the Library's projects in priority order:

     ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET--LIBRARY BUILDINGS AND
                                     GROUNDS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal Year
               Library Priorities Fiscal Year 2007            2007 Requested
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fort Meade Book Module 3 & 4............................  ..............
    Copyright Deposit Re-Design.............................  ..............
    Fort Meade Logistics Warehouse..........................     $54,200,000
    Culpeper O&M (Facility Support).........................       2,500,000
    Fort Meade O&M (Facility Support).......................         640,000
    Air Handling Unit Replacement JMMB......................       2,890,000
    Preservation Environmental Monitoring...................          80,000
    Contract Asbestos Validation TJB........................         100,000
    LOC Space Modifications (Rooms and Partitions)..........         650,000
    Minor Construction......................................         990,000
    Painting................................................         100,000
    Kitchen Equipment.......................................          40,000
    Design--Court Yard Renovation, TJB......................          75,000
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................      62,265,000
                                                             ---------------
    Operational Support.....................................      39,972,000
                                                             ===============
          Client Total......................................     102,237,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please provide an update on the progress of the National
    Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, VA. When will this
    facility be complete?
        Answer. The Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) is in charge of the
    NAVCC construction. PHI is working closely with the Architect of the
    Capitol and has made and is financing enhancements and improvements in
    the original plan. PHI's originally scheduled completion dates for the
    NAVCC were spring 2005 for the Phase 1 Collections Building and Central
    Plant and spring 2006 for the Phase 2 Conservation Building and Nitrate
    Vaults. Since then, construction delays have forced PHI to revise
    slightly its master schedule. Phase 1 was turned over to the Library in
    December 2005, and the Library is now moving its collections into this
    part of the complex. For Phase 2, PHI's new master schedule indicates a
    completion and turnover date for the entire project of March 1, 2007.
        Staff will be relocated in stages that are synchronized with the
    PHI construction schedule. Six Library staff began working in the Phase
    1 Collections Building in January 2006. The majority of NAVCC staff
    will work in the Phase 2 Conservation Building and will be relocated in
    alignment with the new construction schedule as follows:
      --Summer 2006.--Relocation of two or three advance staff from the
            Motion Picture Conservation Center (MPCC) in Dayton, Ohio to
            help set up the NAVCC Film Laboratory.
      --December 1, 2006.--Relocation of two advance technical staff from
            MBRS in Washington to install cabling and initial AV system
            components.
      --March-May 2007.--Relocation of Capitol Hill staff and the remainder
            of the Dayton staff to Culpeper. Approximately 12 MBRS staff
            will remain in the Madison Building to provide public services
            in the NAVCC reading room.
        Question. Dr. Billington, the Library has requested funding in
    fiscal year 2007--$150,000--for the Lincoln traveling exhibition.
    Please describe how the Library is working with the federally
    designated Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission on development and
    implementation of the exhibition.
        Answer. The Library of Congress has had periodic meetings with the
    director and various members of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial
    Commission for more than a year. At these meetings, we discuss the
    progress of the exhibition, funding efforts, the other venues to which
    the exhibition will travel, and the coordination of programming
    developed by the Library as well as programming developed by the
    Commission and its partners.
        The Commission has been particularly helpful in identifying and
    making initial contacts with many of the exhibition's potential venues.
    Further, many of the Library of Congress Lincoln exhibition advisors
    have been drawn from the Commission's Advisory Committee. We will
    continue to share information and progress reports with the Commission
    in planning the Library exhibition and its ancillary programs.
        Question. Mr. Mulhollan, the Congressional Research Service (CRS)
    recently eliminated 59 permanent job positions in 3 categories. This is
    the first reduction-in-force (RIF) in CRS's history. Can you tell us
    what steps you are taking to ensure a fair transition for these
    employees?
        Answer. CRS has taken a number of steps to assist the staff who
    will be affected by CRS' decision to change the way work is performed.
    These include:
      --Staff received a full twelve months to seek and find alternative
            employment. The decision was announced on September 22, 2005
            and the positions will not be eliminated until September 30,
            2006.
      --CRS offered a voluntary early retirement option and requested of
            the Congress and received authority to offer a separation
            incentive payment of up to the legal maximum amount allowed of
            $25,000 to staff separating through retirement with a full
            annuity, early retirement, or resignation. Twenty-three of the
            affected staff took advantage of one or both of these programs
            and retired on or before January 3, 2006.
      --Since the end of September, CRS alone and in collaboration with the
            Library's Office of Human Resources Services, has been
            providing a range of retirement and career counseling services,
            including:
        --Retirement counseling: special briefings on the details of
                voluntary early retirement; the application and approval
                process for separation incentives; a two-day retirement
                seminar for staff and spouses; and individual retirement
                counseling.
        --Career services: workshops and individual career counseling
                sessions; a workshop with representatives from D.C.,
                Maryland, and Virginia career services centers; a
                comprehensive three-day career-transition workshop;
                notification of local recruiting events, and access to a
                web page with career-related information and links to
                numerous websites.
        --Employment opportunities: training on how to apply for positions
                using the Library's automated hiring system; notification
                of all vacancy announcements within CRS; and notification
                of potential vacancies of interest in the Library.
        --Reduction-in-force (RIF) briefing: a special briefing with a RIF
                expert on RIF general procedures.
      --Further, the Library is seeking approval of new and permanent
            authority that will grant any Library of Congress employee who
            is the subject of a formal RIF with job placement rights with
            agencies in the Executive Branch. Heretofore, Library of
            Congress staff displaced through agency downsizing or
            reengineering had no federal re-employment rights regardless of
            their grade, job series, or federal tenure. This authority
            would grant Library of Congress employees who receive a RIF
            notice priority status for selection into competitive-service
            positions in the executive branch. Such authority is currently
            granted to executive branch employees who are RIFed from
            executive branch positions. This authority would place Library
            of Congress employees behind any affected employees in an
            agency undergoing a RIF in selection priority but ahead of
            applicants who have no federal service. Adopting this provision
            would give the Library's employees a broader potential
            employment base and help employees who wish to continue their
            public-service careers beyond the Library of Congress.
        Question. Where in your fiscal year 2007 budget have you accounted
    for the possibility of paying severance pay to these employees?
        Answer. First, we need to add that one additional individual within
    the CRS affected staff has been offered a position outside of the
    Library--bringing the number of remaining employees down to 30. The
    Library is committed to funding any fiscal liability associated with
    the separation of the remaining 30 affected CRS staff; however, the
    question assumes that all severance pay will be borne by CRS which is
    unlikely. Further, the specific treatment of severance pay in the
    Library's budget is premature.
        Projecting the amount of severance pay which will actually be paid
    in fiscal year 2007 is a complicated process. It involves taking into
    account several variable outcomes: forecasting the number of staff that
    who accept Voluntary Early Retirement (VERA) and/or the Voluntary
    Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP); the number of staff who are
    successful in competing for vacant positions in CRS, the Library, other
    federal agencies, or in the private sector; and ultimate placement of
    affected staff into vacant positions in the Library or elsewhere in the
    Federal government under a reduction-in-force action.
        Of the 30 who remain on the CRS payroll at this time, one is
    currently eligible for full retirement and eight others are or will be
    eligible for early retirement on September 30. In accordance with the
    Federal Code of Regulations, an employee separated by a reduction-in
    force (RIF) action is ineligible for a severance entitlement if they
    are eligible to receive an immediate annuity from a federal retirement
    system. For these nine staff, CRS will be liable only for terminal
    leave payments, estimated at about $49,000.
        The Library's general policy is ``to retain and to assign to other
    positions, insofar as may be possible . . . staff members whose
    positions are abolished.'' This may occur by assigning staff to vacant
    positions in other organizations within the Library, or by an employee
    affected by a RIF exercising their ``bumping'' rights to claim a
    position held by someone with less retention preference. It is
    conceivable that ``bumping'' could eventually force an involuntary
    separation of an employee in another Library Service Unit, in which
    case, the severance payments would not be reflected in the CRS budget.
    Further, given that the individual who is ultimately separated has the
    least seniority, the Library's fiscal liability would be reduced
    because the severance entitlement computation is based upon years of
    service and age. Should an affected employee decline a reasonable offer
    to be reassigned into another Library position, that employee forfeits
    his/her claim to receive severance pay. The severance entitlement
    terminates if/when an individual becomes employed under a qualifying
    appointment with the federal government or the government of the
    District of Columbia.
        As stated by both the Librarian and the CRS Director, it is the
    hope of the institution that all of the affected staff will find
    alternative employment or be placed into vacant positions within the
    Library. If a formal RIF becomes necessary and the processes governing
    it are implemented, the Library of Congress has a good track record for
    placing employees and is hopeful that this will again be the case.
        As stated elsewhere in these responses, the Library is seeking two
    new administrative provisions that would grant competitive status to
    Library staff who have completed their probationary period and places
    displaced Library staff on equal footing with Executive branch
    employees by making these employees eligible for vacant Executive
    Branch positions. These new provisions would expand options for Library
    staff facing a RIF and offers all Library employees additional
    opportunities for jobs and career growth in public service. As staff
    are successfully placed within the Library or with other federal
    agencies, the federal financial liability for severance pay decreases
    accordingly and could be eliminated altogether.
        Question. Have you provided any Members of Congress, Congressional
    committees, or CRS staff copies of the studies or any other written
    analysis which led you to decide that 59 permanent positions should be
    eliminated by September 30, 2006? If not, members of this subcommittee
    would like to see copies of these studies.
        Answer. A CRS ``Director's Report'' issued on November 3, 2005
    provides a detailed analysis of the decision to eliminate the
    production support, technical support assistant, and audio-visual
    staff. That report was provided to selected members of the metropolitan
    area delegation, members of the Congressional Black Caucus,
    Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific
    Caucus. This report and extensive additional information also were
    provided to the House Administration Committee and key staff on the
    Library's oversight committees. The report was also made available to
    all CRS staff members on the CRS staff web page. The Director's Report
    of November 3, 2005 follows.
     Director's Report--Fiscal Year 2006 Staffing Changes, November 3, 2005
                                    summary
        The Director of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) is vested
    by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 with responsibility to
    assure the appropriate mix of employees and consultants to develop and
    maintain the information and research capability that he deems
    necessary to perform the statutory mission of the Service--to provide
    to the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and
    reliable legislative research, analysis, and information services that
    are timely, objective, non-partisan, and confidential. The Director is
    also authorized to ``establish and change, from time to time, as he
    considers advisable, within the Congressional Research Service, such
    research and reference divisions or other organizational units, or
    both, as he considers necessary . . .'' From the statute, it is clear
    that the Director is obligated to undertake such reorganizations and
    staffing adjustments as he considers necessary to provide efficiently
    and effectively the products and services upon which Members and
    committees rely and have come to expect. The staffing adjustments
    announced recently fall squarely within this obligation. The Congress
    is facing many global and domestic financial challenges and has
    explicitly stated that Legislative Branch agency heads are expected to
    look within to find ways to streamline operations and pare all
    unnecessary duplication and costs that are not critical to achieving
    core business goals and objectives.
        The following key points are discussed in the report.
    The Decision
        The Congressional Research Service will eliminate the production
    support, technical support assistant, and audio visual positions on
    September 30, 2006. This action affects 59 staff in a total workforce
    of nearly 700. The decision is based on a series of management reviews
    and evaluations of needed functions and activities which have been
    overtaken by technological advances. CRS will redirect the resources,
    currently committed to supporting these staff, to obtain new support
    capacities critical to service to the Congress.
        Of the 59 staff, 38 are production coordinators or assistants (of
    which two are receptionists), 18 are technical support assistants, and
    three are in audio-visual support. The average compensation, including
    salary and benefits, for these staff is $75,101 per annum; the average
    salary without benefits is $60,636. Over one-half of these staff, 33,
    are either eligible for full voluntary retirement or voluntary early
    retirement and the maximum $25,000 separation incentive. Sixteen are
    not eligible to retire but are eligible for the maximum $25,000
    separation incentive. The average separation incentive for these 16
    staff is $16,906.
        Currently 32.3 percent of CRS' total permanent workforce of 694
    staff is minority. If all of the affected staff were to separate from
    CRS and no other attrition or hires were to take place (total staff
    reduced to 635), the total minority population would be 28.8 percent.
    The proportion of Asian Americans would increase from 4.5 percent to
    4.7 percent; Native Americans would increase from .7 percent to .8
    percent; Hispanics would remain the same; and the proportion of African
    Americans would decrease from 24.6 percent to 20.9 percent. It must be
    noted that these projections of course do not reflect new hires or the
    consequences of other attrition.
        CRS is offering the 59 affected staff a variety of resources to
    assist in their planning, including an early retirement option,
    separation incentive of up to $25,000, retirement counseling, career
    and job counseling, and retention in their current positions through
    September, 2006.
        CRS, as a result of management reviews and evaluations, has and
    continues to create new positions to meet critical work needs of the
    Service. Affected staff may apply for these positions through an open
    and competitive process.
    Background
        In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the House and Senate Committees on
    Appropriations issued clear directives to all Legislative Branch
    agencies to maintain rigorous and disciplined business practices in
    agency operations, to contain costs, to establish strong agency-
    performance goals, and to report to the Congress on all of these
    activities. CRS based the fiscal year 2006 staffing decisions upon
    analytic and objective evaluations of how best to align resources to
    current, critical work needs.
        The final fiscal year 2005 and 2006 appropriations for CRS require
    the agency to downsize permanently by the equivalent of about 30 full
    time equivalents (FTEs), thereby reducing total FTEs from 729 to 700.
    Given the confluence of several factors, including a higher average
    grade level (higher level of expertise) and the continuing trend of
    increased costs for staff benefits (Federal Employee Retirement System
    benefits average 28 percent per employee versus an average of 13
    percent per employee under Civil Service Retirement System), CRS
    requested in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 additional funds, $2.7 million
    and $3.6 million respectively, to compensate for funding shortfalls in
    its budget base. Congress did not fund the request in fiscal year 2005
    and provided $500,000 toward this shortfall in 2006. CRS must be
    vigilant to maintain the necessary analytic strength to support the
    Congress, and it must maintain an infrastructure that meets and keeps
    pace with the Congress' evolving needs. The fiscal year 2006 staffing
    decisions are part of the Service's overall strategy to accommodate a
    downsized CRS within the framework of a fiscally constrained budget.
        CRS has taken action and implemented adjustments over the last five
    years to ensure that its resources are properly aligned with
    congressional needs. These adjustments resulted in the elimination and
    restructuring of organizational units; the elimination, downgrading,
    and creation of positions; and the use of contractors to undertake
    specific work needs. CRS based each adjustment upon formal assessments
    of the impact of new technologies on the work; the existing content,
    structure and processes of the work performed; the skills and abilities
    needed to undertake the work; and in some cases, consideration to
    outsource the work based upon a cost and feasibility analysis. Examples
    of recent assessments follow:
      --1. The role of information professionals/librarians within CRS. The
            result of this study led to the elimination of a CRS office and
            a division (Office of Information Resources Management and
            Information Research Division) and the creation of one smaller,
            integrated division, the Knowledge Services Group. The work of
            librarians, as well as all paralegal, technical information,
            and most library technician staff, throughout the Service was
            redefined and adjusted. Positions were created to undertake new
            functions, revisions were made to other positions to align the
            work directly to the new organization, some positions were
            eliminated, and some activities were contracted out. During the
            assessment, no new permanent hires were made into positions
            under review. Today, the new, more efficient, organization
            consists of 54 fewer staff performing the work--a staff
            reduction from 190 to 136.
      --2. Examination of support positions within three infrastructure
            offices. Three separate studies evaluated the functions
            supporting CRS formal programs and seminars in the Legislative
            Relations Office and of administrative functions within the
            Offices of Finance and Administration and Workforce
            Development. These studies resulted in CRS creating and
            competitively filling new positions at lower grade levels. For
            example, program aide positions were redesignated at a GS-11
            level rather than GS-13. Administrative support grade levels
            within the Offices were reduced, on average, from GS-11 to GS-
            7.
      --3. Integration of CRS' economists and scientists with other policy
            research disciplines. This study led to the elimination of two
            research divisions (Economics and Science Policy), the
            integration of the economists and scientists into the other
            policy divisions, the elimination of seven senior level
            research coordination positions, and the return of five senior
            level specialists to full time research.
      --4. Outsourcing of selected support functions. Other functional
            assessments resulted in expanded outsourcing of CRS support
            activities, including mail and courier service, technical
            troubleshooting (help desk and user support), receptionist
            duties, and copy center operations.
                                  introduction
        The Director of the Congressional Research Service is vested by the
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 with responsibility to assure
    the appropriate mix of employees and consultants to develop and
    maintain the information and research capability that he deems
    necessary to perform the statutory mission of the Service--to provide
    to the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and
    reliable legislative research, analysis, and information services that
    are timely, objective, non-partisan, and confidential. The Director is
    also authorized to ``establish and change, from time to time, as he
    considers advisable, within the Congressional Research Service, such
    research and reference divisions or other organizational units, or
    both, as he considers necessary . . .'' \1\ From the statute, it is
    clear that the Director is obligated to undertake such reorganizations
    and staffing adjustments as he considers necessary to provide
    efficiently and effectively the products and services upon which
    Members and committees rely and have come to expect. The staffing
    adjustments announced recently fall squarely within this obligation.
    The Congress is facing many global and domestic financial challenges
    and has explicitly stated that Legislative Branch agency heads are
    expected to look within to find ways to streamline operations and pare
    all unnecessary duplication and costs that are not critical to
    achieving core business goals and objectives.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 2 U.S.C. 166 (d, f).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                current conditions relevant to staffing decision
    Congressional Directives and the CRS Budget
        In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the House and Senate Committees on
    Appropriations issued clear directives to all Legislative Branch
    agencies to maintain rigorous and disciplined business practices in
    agency operations, cost containment, and achievement of agency-
    performance objectives. The use of sound business practices has been,
    and will continue to be, the way CRS is managed. The fiscal year 2006
    enacted budget places financial constraints on CRS operations and
    reinforces Congress' expectation that CRS contain costs while
    sustaining a highly productive, high performing agency. Appendix A
    provides excerpts from the committee reports.
        Eighty-eight percent of the CRS budget, now just over $100 million,
    is earmarked for the ``salary and benefits'' costs of its workforce.
    Over the past ten years, the Service's annual adjustments provided
    through the budget process have not kept pace with the rapidly
    increasing costs of sustaining CRS' workforce, due to several factors:
      --a gradual and necessary shift to more highly skilled expertise in
            the CRS workforce composition to support the Congress in
            increasingly complex policy areas (e.g., combating terrorism,
            assimilating information technologies in industry, commerce and
            governments, and the implications of an aging population). In
            the period from fiscal year 1995 to the present, the average
            grade level of a CRS hire has increased from GS-7, Step 9 to
            GS-13, Step 9;
      --a shift in the proportion of the workforce participating in the
            Federal Employee Retirement System, for which the average
            employer-paid benefits rate of 28 percent is twice that of a
            Civil Service Retirement System employee making the same salary
            (with an average employer-paid benefits rate of 13 percent);
            \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Federal Employees Retirement System Act of 1986 (Public Law
    99-335) requires all federal employees initially hired into permanent
    positions after 1983 to be covered by the Federal Employees Retirement
    System (FERS). Federal employees hired before 1984 are covered by the
    Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) unless they elected to switch to
    FERS during ``open seasons'' held in 1987 and 1998. For CSRS
    participants, the total employer-paid benefits per employee averages
    about 13 percent of the base pay. For staff participating in FERS, the
    employer-paid benefits cost averages about 28 percent of the base pay--
    due in large part to the Thrift Savings Plan matching component of
    FERS--making FERS significantly more expensive to the employing agency.
    As the older CSRS staff retire and the proportion of the workforce
    covered by FERS increases, the agency overhead costs related to staff
    benefits increases.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --the adverse impact of annual rescissions in which losses are not
            recovered in subsequent years; and
      --the fact that the President has implemented actual pay raises that
            are higher than those provided in the Legislative Branch bills
            in nine of the last ten years.
        While each of these factors would produce a marginal impact in the
    course of a single year, the cumulative and combined impact of all of
    them has generated a funding gap of nearly $4 million over the course
    of ten years.
        In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, CRS requested a one-time budget base
    adjustment ($2.7 to $3.6 million respectively) ``catch-up,'' that would
    have provided the funding needed to recover lost cost increases
    (purchasing power) and to rebuild the CRS workforce to the 729 full
    time equivalent (FTE) ceiling authorized by the Congress. In both years
    CRS informed the Congress that without the additional funding, the
    Service's workforce would necessarily be drawn down to a level of about
    700 FTEs, causing a serious impact on its ability to sustain the
    research capacity required to fulfill its mission and meet the needs of
    the Congress.\3\ The Congress did not support the request in fiscal
    year 2005, and in fiscal year 2006 authorized $500,000 towards this
    shortfall. CRS can no longer sustain a capacity of 729 full-time
    equivalent employees.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Testimony of Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director, Congressional
    Research Service, U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations,
    Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2005, hearing, 108th Cong., 2d
    sess., (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 274; and testimony of Daniel P.
    Mulhollan, Director, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Congress,
    House, Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
    for 2006, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 2005), p.
    593.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CRS Management Initiatives
        Well before the issuance of fiscal year 2005 and 2006 report
    language from the House and Senate (see Appendix A), and with the goal
    of maintaining a cost-effective organization, CRS had been undertaking
    systematic assessments to identify current and future resource needs
    and to identify functions that should be eliminated or re-engineered
    due to technological advancements, internal work processes and
    congressional needs. Listed below are some of the more significant
    management initiatives CRS has instituted and the results of these
    initiatives. CRS has:
      --Developed and implemented an annual staffing assessment to
            determine four key factors: (1) anticipated and known
            attrition, (2) anticipated legislative issues, (3) likely gaps
            in the Service's capacity to meet the needs of Congress, and
            (4) current and future staffing needs. This assessment forms
            the basis for the Service's annual hiring plan and is a
            critical activity since staff salaries and benefits comprise 88
            percent of the CRS budget.
      --Implemented an annual ``zero scrub'' of the 12 percent of the CRS
            budget devoted to nonpersonnel costs to validate each planned
            expenditure and to identify expenditures that should either be
            considered for reduction or elimination, or adjusted upwards to
            meet agency needs;
      --Created a new performance assessment system for senior-level
            managers; and
      --Instituted annual program and activity reviews to assess the
            efficiencies and effectiveness of current operations, as well
            as identify potential need to re-engineer or realign resources.
        Resulting actions--organizational and staff realignments:
      --The role of information professionals/librarians within CRS. The
            result of a two year study led to the elimination of a CRS
            office and a division (Office of Information Resources
            Management and Information Research Division) and the creation
            of one smaller, integrated division, the Knowledge Services
            Group. The work of librarians, as well as all paralegal,
            technical information, and most library technician staff,
            throughout the Service was redefined and adjusted. Positions
            were created to undertake new functions, revisions were made to
            other positions to align the work directly to the new
            organization; some positions were eliminated; and some
            activities were contracted out. During the assessment no new
            permanent hires were made into positions under review. Today,
            the new, more efficient, organization contains 54 fewer staff
            to perform the work, a reduction from 190 to 136 staff members.
      --Examination of support positions within three infrastructure
            offices. Three separate studies evaluated the functions
            supporting formal CRS programs and seminars in the Legislative
            Relations Office and of administrative functions within the
            Offices of Finance and Administration and Workforce
            Development. The result of these studies led CRS to create and
            competitively fill new positions at lower grade levels. For
            example, program aide positions were redesignated at a GS-11
            level rather than GS-13. Administrative support grade levels
            within the Offices were reduced on average from GS-11 to GS-7.
      --Integration of CRS' economists and scientists with other policy
            research disciplines. This study led to the elimination of two
            research divisions (Economics and Science Policy), the
            integration of the economists and scientists into the other
            policy divisions, the elimination of seven senior level
            research coordination positions, and the return of five senior
            level specialists to full time research.
        Resulting actions--activities and services eliminated:
      --Eliminated two product lines--Info Packs and Electronic Briefing
            Books;
      --Closed two research centers--located in the Longworth and Ford
            House office buildings;
      --Eliminated indexing of committee prints;
      --Shifted CRS product distribution from a primarily paper-based
            inventory to primarily web-based, on-demand printing;
      --Eliminated the public policy literature file and service;
      --Closed one copy center; and
      --Eliminated and consolidated division libraries.
        Resulting actions--activities and services outsourced:
      --Mail and messenger services;
      --Copy center operations;
      --Receptionist functions;
      --Selected technology support; and
      --Selected library technical support.
        The most recently completed 2005 program and activity reviews
    include an assessment of the functions currently performed by CRS
    production support staff, technical support assistants, and audio-
    visual staff. These assessments formed the basis for the actions
    underway in these support activities. Studies to assess other
    activities and functions are in progress.
       production support, technical support assistant, and audio-visual
                                   functions
    Studies and Findings
        Data for these 2005 studies came from a variety of sources,
    including multiple discussions with potentially affected staff; a
    thorough review of all relevant position functions; initial and
    subsequent meetings with each assistant director and deputy assistant
    director, some associate directors, and a sample of analysts,
    attorneys, editors, and section heads. Information was collected using
    structured questions and analyses of documents provided by CRS
    staff.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ In 2000, a preliminary review of the functions carried out by
    the CRS production staff suggested that technological advances in word
    processing were beginning to have implications for the ability to
    sustain staff resources devoted to supporting word processing
    activities. While determining the long-term consequences of these
    advances on CRS staffing levels, the Service did not fill any
    production coordinator or assistant positions thus, in effect,
    implementing a freeze on these positions until further study could be
    undertaken.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Aware of the changing functions needed to support its analytic
    work, CRS last filled a primary production support position in 1997; a
    technical support assistant position in 1999; and an audio-visual
    position in 1991. The studies undertaken in 2005 confirmed that the
    functions identified and performed by staff in these positions, while
    appropriate and warranted ten years ago when first created, have been
    overtaken by advances in technology and desktop computing.
        The in-depth reviews of the production-support and technical-
    support assistant functions confirmed that advances in technology have
    changed both the expectations staff have with regard to the capacity
    and power of their desktop computing capabilities and ease of using
    these technologies in their day-to-day work. Ten years ago, when CRS
    created the technical support assistant positions, the software and
    operating systems used by the Service required a hands-on presence by
    supporting staff, leading to the necessity of investing in a
    significant number of technical support positions. For example, in the
    past operating systems and software applications were manually
    installed machine by machine. Today's computing environment is
    supported centrally via ``push'' technology that enables sophisticated
    software packages and upgrades to be loaded on more than 700 computers
    from a single, central location within a few minutes. Such technology
    also allows for a computer specialist to gain remote access to or
    ``proxy into'' a computer in order to evaluate and troubleshoot
    technical problems directly with the user.
        In addition, more than one-third of CRS' current analytic staff has
    been hired in the last five to six years. They are more technologically
    adroit, routinely producing final products at their desktops. And as a
    result, the majority of CRS analysts no longer rely on the production
    staff to help with product creation. Further, CRS is moving away from
    providing the Congress with paper copies of reports to a primarily web-
    based delivery system, with products prepared in both PDF and HTML.
    Software and other technology advances have simplified product delivery
    and incorporated most of the formatting directly in the software on the
    author's desk. The CRS Electronic Research Products Office is
    responsible for preparing CRS written products for final congressional
    publication and dissemination, hence this function is not undertaken by
    the individual analyst or production support coordinator or assistant.
        Direct congressional demand for audio-visual products has been
    declining for more than ten years. And the need by CRS analysts for
    audio-visual support is uneven calling into question the need to retain
    a separate, in-house staff for this purpose.
        Since the functions needed to support effectively and efficiently
    the administrative, product-preparation, and technology assistance
    activities are significantly different from what is currently being
    performed, the Director decided to eliminate the current positions and
    redirect these resources to fulfilling newly identified support needs.
    In order to accommodate remaining audio-visual needs the Service is
    exploring outsourcing options. Appendix B provides additional
    information on the studies.
                                 affected staff
    Positions Affected
        Production support and receptionist duties \5\: The 38 individuals
    affected by this decision are in positions at grade levels GS-4 to GS-
    11. With the exception of two receptionists, the principal functions of
    the current production staff include:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Receptionist functions have been outsourced, and as a result
    the two remaining receptionists in the Service are included as part of
    these staffing changes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --supporting research analysts throughout the entire product
            preparation process to include the creation, formatting,
            styling, editing and appearance of written documents, and in
            the development of graphics and tables when needed;
      --creating macros, templates and other guides to use in supporting
            research analysts as they prepare their written products;
      --meeting the needs of division authors with respect to design,
            format and presentation of written products;
      --working with division management to ensure uniformity of style and
            format for division research products consistent with Service-
            wide standards; and
      --delivering final products to the CRS Review Office and the
            Electronic Research Products Office.
        Technical Support: The 18 individuals affected by this decision are
    in positions at the GS-12 grade level. The principal functions of the
    current positions include:
      --analyzing operations with requirements that can be met through
            limited customization of existing hardware components and/or
            software packages;
      --installing standard and specialized software on individual
            computers within a division or office;
      --keeping systems fully operational, integrated with other CRS
            systems, and current with new developments in technology; and
      --serving as trouble shooter for various computer problems
            encountered by division/office staff.
        Audio-visual support: The three individuals affected by this
    decision in the audio-visual specialist/officer position are at the GS-
    12 and GS-13 grade levels. Highlights of their current functions
    include taping and editing scheduled programs and creating videos of a
    small number of CRS experts who have prepared educational presentations
    such as Supreme Court nominations and congressional procedures.
    Salaries and Compensation
        The total projected fiscal year 2006 cost for the 59 staff who are
    affected by this decision is $4,430,962. Salaries and benefits for
    individual staff range from $35,141 to a high of $115,678--the average
    being $75,101. Further analysis of the data indicates that the salaries
    (excluding benefits) for the affected staff range from $26,989 to
    $99,223, with an average salary of $60,636. The median salary of these
    staff is $52,082; eight staff earn less than $50,000 per year. Appendix
    C includes a more detailed display of the salaries and benefits for the
    affected staff.
    Retirement Eligibility
        CRS is offering a voluntary early retirement option and separation
    incentive payment \6\ to the affected staff. CRS sought these options
    based on the following information about the 59 affected staff:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ CRS has the authority to grant the separation incentive payment
    to a maximum of 50 staff. Up to 10 of these payments may be granted to
    staff outside of these affected positions--the staff of the Knowledge
    Services Group. There is no limit, however, on the number of affected
    staff who can take advantage of the voluntary early retirement option.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --33 of the affected staff are either eligible for full voluntary
            retirement or voluntary early retirement and are eligible to
            receive the maximum $25,000 separation incentive (16 for full
            retirement and 17 for early retirement);
      --16 are not eligible to retire but are eligible for the maximum
            $25,000 separation incentive;
      --Nine who are not eligible to retire, are eligible for separation
            incentive payments ranging between $3,434 to $21,943, at an
            average of $16,906; and
      --One staff member, a receptionist, is not eligible for a separation
            incentive because he has not fulfilled the requirement of three
            years' employment with the government.
        Appendix C also includes data on the retirement eligibility of
    affected staff.
    Diversity
        A consequence of the 2006 staffing decisions is its potential
    impact on the Service's workforce diversity profile. Table 1 below
    demonstrates that if all of the affected staff were to separate from
    the CRS workforce (data as of September 15, 2005), with no other
    attrition or hires, the minority population of the CRS workforce would
    represent 28.8 percent rather than 32.3 percent of total staff. This
    computation, while accurate, may overstate the implication of the
    reduction on minority staff. There is no way to predict the impact
    other attrition might have on the Service's workforce composition or
    the impact of planned 2006 hires. Further, given that 16 of these staff
    are currently eligible for full voluntary retirement, it is possible
    that many of these staff would have retired during this period,
    regardless of the re-engineering efforts underway.
        If no other element of our current profile changed, the elimination
    of these positions would result in an increase in the proportion of
    Asian Americans in the total workforce from 4.5 percent to 4.7 percent;
    the proportion of Native Americans would increase from .7 percent to .8
    percent; Hispanics would remain the same, at 2.4 percent; while the
    proportion of African Americans would decrease from 24.6 percent to
    20.9 percent.

                                    TABLE 1.--DIVERSITY COMPOSITION OF THE CRS STAFF
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Total CRS Perm/Ind      Projected CRS Perm/Ind
                                                                  Workforce Composition as  Workforce Composition as
                                                                         of 9/15/05                of 10/1/06
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number      Percent       Number      Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Female......................................................          357         51.4          317         49.9
    Male........................................................          337         48.6          318         50.1
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................................          694        100.0          635        100.0
                                                                 ===================================================
    Minority composition........................................          224         32.3          183         28.8
        Nat Am/Alaskan..........................................            5          0.7            5          0.8
        Asian American..........................................           31          4.5           30          4.7
        African American........................................          171         24.6          133         20.9
        Hispanic................................................           17          2.4           15          2.4
    Non-Minority................................................          470         67.7          452         71.2
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................................          694        100.0          635        100.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Appendix D provides the diversity composition of the affected
    staff.
    Services to Affected Staff
        CRS is offering a variety of resources to staff to assist them in
    their decision making and transition. CRS requested of the Congress and
    received authority to offer a separation incentive payment of up to
    $25,000 to staff separating through retirement with a full annuity,
    early retirement, or resignation. CRS is granting staff one full year
    to find alternative employment and offering numerous specialized and
    individual services to help them achieve that objective, including job
    and retirement counseling. Appendix E provides a detailed list of the
    services and resources being offered to the 59 affected staff.
        It is CRS' hope that these measures will eliminate the need to
    undertake a reduction-in-force (RIF) in September of 2006. However,
    after September 2006, staff who remain in the positions targeted for
    elimination will be subject to RIF procedures.
                                 new positions
        CRS is redirecting its resources to acquire new and different
    support capacities generated by technological changes and new work
    processes. CRS will be competitively filling these new support
    positions in the near future. There will be fewer positions and some
    will be classified and filled at lower grade levels.
        The new positions are summarized below. A description of existing
    positions is included to provide a context for the new capacities. The
    language used to describe the duties of these positions is primarily
    derived from the relevant, official position descriptions.
    Administrative Support Positions
                GS-8 Senior Production Assistant (current)
        Performs duties related to the preparation of various written
    products that CRS produces for the Congress to include Reports, Issue
    Briefs and memoranda. Supports research analysts throughout the entire
    production process to include the creation, formatting, styling,
    editing and appearance of written documents and in the development of
    graphics and tables when needed. Is responsible for product delivery
    and for working with the Electronic Research Products Office (ERPO) to
    finalize products, making changes as needed following the review of the
    ERPO editors or the CRS Review Office. May use computer on-line systems
    to retrieve information in support of the researcher's written
    products.
                GS-7 Administrative Support Assistant (new)
        Performs support functions related to the administrative operations
    of the division. Implements and maintains division-wide administrative
    control systems to include confidential division files, correspondence
    tracking and the disposition of records. Ensures that division staff at
    all levels are fully informed on CRS and Library administrative
    practices, procedures and other administrative requirements. Initiates
    the development of new and revised administrative policies and
    procedures for the division as appropriate. Works with the supervisor
    to ensure that division managers and staff requests for training and
    travel are processed in an accurate and timely manner and tracks the
    progress of these requests through to approval. Uses appropriate
    software applications to generate administrative documents and forms.
    Serves as the central point of contact for all division staff regarding
    questions and issues related to the web- based time and attendance
    system.
                GS-11 Senior Production/Administrative Coordinator
                        (current)
        Oversees the function that supports the preparation of CRS written
    products including managing the production work-flow, clearing products
    for style, format, and editorial accuracy, maintaining records of the
    location of research products, transmitting written products to the CRS
    Review Office and the Electronic Research Products Office and other
    duties related to the support of the research production/preparation
    function in the division. Provides training and trouble-shooting
    service for the senior production assistants and other support staff in
    the division. Helps to create macros, templates and other guides for
    the support staff to use in supporting research analysts as they
    prepare their written products. Advises the support staff on how to
    meet the needs of division authors with respect to design, format and
    presentation of written products. Works with division management to
    ensure uniformity of style and format for division research products
    consistent with Service-wide standards.
                GS-11 Supervisory Administrative Coordinator (new)
        Advises the head of the division (the assistant director) on the
    administrative needs and requirements of the division, serves as the
    principal point of contact for the division, and supervises the work of
    administrative and clerical division staff. Coordinates with senior CRS
    and Library managers and with subordinate offices to communicate and
    interpret administrative/management assignments, recommend appropriate
    action or suggest alternative approaches, and follow up as appropriate
    to ensure proper and timely response to assignments. Manages the
    division's official correspondence and a wide variety of correspondence
    from within and outside the agency. Manages the assistant director's
    calendar and initiates contacts and oversees logistical planning and
    preparation for the assistant director's meetings. Undertakes special
    administrative projects or management studies either individually or as
    a participant on task forces or working groups. Monitors and evaluates
    the activities of contractors assigned to perform clerical activities
    for the division.
    Technical Support Positions
                GS-12 Senior Technical Support Assistant (current)
        Provides de-centralized technical support to divisions and offices.
    Independently analyzes operations with requirements that can be met
    through limited customization of existing hardware components and
    software packages. Installs standard and specialized software.
    Independently designs, develops, documents, and manages systems that
    require important but limited customization. Keeps such systems fully
    operational, integrated with other CRS systems, and current with new
    developments in technology. Creates documentation for end users of
    systems; typically the entire staff of a division or office. Serves as
    trouble shooter for various computer problems encountered by division/
    office staff. Prepares documentation and establishes procedures to
    assist other technical support assistants to diagnose and solve trouble
    calls in a number of technical areas supported by the CRS Technology
    Office. Develops and delivers training courses for groups of 10-12.
                GS-11 Technical Writer-Editor (new)
        Plans, writes, and edits a variety of technical documents,
    including guidelines, reference materials, fact sheets, website
    entries, and standard operating procedures; ensures accuracy,
    consistency, format, completeness, spelling, punctuation,
    capitalization, and syntax. Produces technical material for a variety
    of offices, and determines the adequacy of materials prepared by
    others. Utilizes substantial subject matter knowledge to interpret
    technical material for a variety of audiences.
                GS-14 Information Technology Specialist--INFOSEC (new)
        Serves as a technical authority and assists in planning, directing,
    and coordinating the implementation and execution of approved security
    policies, programs, and services related to Information Technology (IT)
    systems. Oversees or coordinates the preparation of security testing
    and implementation plans. Plans and investigates mission-critical
    cybersecurity violations that affect the integrity of an agency-wide IT
    infrastructure, and develops long-range plans for IT security systems.
    Leads the implementation of security programs for the Service designed
    to anticipate, assess, and minimize system vulnerabilities. Conducts
    difficult and sensitive computer forensic investigations, and ensures
    the integration of IT programs and services.
                GS-7 Office Equipment Administrator (new)
        Monitors the CRS copy centers, determining whether print jobs
    require assistance to be completed; tracks work produced for accuracy,
    quality, and production timeliness; and analyzes system down-time.
    Monitors CRS copiers and other office equipment, and identifies obvious
    trends, or deviations that could impact services provided. Provides
    support and assists in the planning, review, and reporting of data/
    statistical results of programs and project studies, and compiles
    statistical data to assist with the overall evaluation and selection of
    equipment.
    Status of New Positions
        CRS posted the vacancy announcements for the supervisory
    administrative coordinator positions on October 18, 2005 and the
    administrative support assistant positions on October 24, 2005. CRS
    anticipates that vacancy announcements for the other three technical
    positions will open by the end of November.
        CRS is also creating quality assurance editor and publication-
    support positions to assist with the dissemination of CRS products to
    the Congress. Work on these positions are underway. Vacancy
    announcements for these positions may be open by late-November.
        Affected staff may apply for these new positions under the Library
    of Congress merit selection process.
                             fiscal year 2006 hires
        In addition to filling positions in the new support areas described
    above, CRS will continue hiring staff to sustain analytic capacity and
    prepare for the succession of senior leadership. While the total CRS
    workforce is smaller today than in 1999, the proportion of analytic
    staff compared to the total workforce has increased. As of September
    15, 2005, CRS analytic capacity represents 333 permanent, full time
    staff members (47.9 percent) of a total staff of 694 compared to 287
    permanent, full-time staff members (40.8 percent) of a total staff of
    703 in fiscal year 1999. The 2006 staffing decisions were made in the
    context of honoring the congressionally supported succession plan of
    the late 1990s and maintaining a Service-wide infrastructure in a
    manner that adequately addresses analytic capacity and research needs.
        In fiscal year 2006, unless faced with an across-the-board
    rescission, the Service anticipates hiring four attorneys in American
    Law; eight analysts in Domestic Social Policy; six analysts in Foreign
    Affairs, Defense and Trade; four analysts in Government and Finance;
    and six analysts in Resources, Science and Industry. Consistent with
    succession planning, CRS will be filling positions for a deputy
    associate director for finance and a deputy associate director for
    congressional affairs. The Service will continue to review the current
    section head duties as part of CRS' ongoing succession planning.
                                   conclusion
        CRS is making every effort to manage its resources so as to perform
    efficiently and effectively its statutory mission of service to the
    Congress, while at the same time coping with the constrained
    Legislative Branch budget that has prevailed in recent years. The
    Service has been directed by the Congress to find ways to streamline
    its operations, eliminate unnecessary duplication, explore options for
    outsourcing appropriate functions, and to align resources in a cost-
    effective manner while achieving performance goals that meet
    congressional needs.
        The decisions outlined in this report were made with full
    recognition of and appreciation for the contributions made by affected
    CRS staff, and with much attention focused on finding ways to mitigate
    the impact on those employees. As described, CRS is providing time for
    the affected staff to make personal decisions by delaying
    implementation for a full year. CRS also has obtained from the Congress
    authority to offer separation incentive payments and approval from the
    Office of Personnel Management to offer a voluntary early retirement
    option. The Service also is applying resources through September 2006
    to assist staff during the phase out of their positions by offering
    them services which include: career counseling, job search assistance,
    and retirement counseling.
        In summary, obligations for good stewardship have led the Service
    to make some very difficult decisions. CRS has done so in keeping with
    recent congressional directives and budget decisions and only after a
    thorough examination of all available options and proper attention to
    the implications for staff.
    Appendix A: Excerpts From the Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006 Reports of the
                 House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
    Fiscal Year 2005
        From U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative
    Branch Appropriations, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4755, 108th
    Cong., 2d sess., H. Rept. 108-577 (Washington: GPO, 2005). Excerpts:
                Legislative Branch Wide Matters
        Budget requests.--The Committee wants to underscore the fact that
    with record deficits, a war on terrorism, and troops on the ground in
    Afghanistan and Iraq, the budget requests from the agencies of the
    Legislative Branch cannot continue to be presented with requested
    increases as high as 50 percent. The Committee expects that future
    budget submissions will take into consideration the overall budget
    constraints placed on the entire Federal budget and that more
    reasonable budget requests will be forthcoming in future years. (p. 4)
        Potential for savings.--. . . The Committee directs the General
    Accounting Office (GAO) to work closely with the head of each
    Legislative Branch entity to: (1) identify opportunities that will
    streamline the agency organization and eliminate organizational layers;
    (2) outsource operations that will result in providing higher quality
    and less costly services; (3) utilize existing technology to enhance
    operational efficiency; (4) implement management changes, which will
    increase efficiency and effectiveness of agency operations; and (5)
    where applicable apply the ``Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act'',
    and ``Chief Financial Officers Act'', and the ``Government Performance
    and Results Act''. The committee directs that the GAO report its
    findings, including recommendations for changes, to the Committee on
    Appropriations of the House and Senate by January 10, 2005. Each agency
    of the Legislative Branch should be prepared to discuss recommended
    changes during the fiscal year 2006 appropriation hearing cycle. (pp.
    4-5)
        Outsourcing.--. . . the Committee directs that each agency of the
    Legislative Branch examine potential outsourcing opportunities of the
    following areas: Information management operations and site management;
    building facilities and grounds management and operations; human
    resources management and operations; training functions; vehicle
    maintenance and management; physical security; financial operations;
    and printing operations. Each agency is expected to not only examine
    the areas outlined, but also examine other activities and functions
    that are unique to each agency to determine if further outsourcing
    opportunities exist. (p. 5)
                Congressional Research Service
        The Committee is concerned with the potential for duplication of
    support activities between the Congressional Research Service Unit and
    the Library of Congress, Salaries and Expenses account. The Committee
    funds centralized support organizations such as Information Technology
    Services, Human Resources Services, Office of the Chief Financial
    Officer, and Integrated Support Services to provide Library-wide
    support services, which helps to reduce duplicate systems and processes
    throughout the Library accounts. Of particular note, in this year's
    budget request, the Library is requesting in two separate accounts
    funding for the Alternate Computer Facility and XML capabilities which
    may reflect duplication of support services. The Committee directs that
    the Library of Congress conduct a study of such functions as
    information technology, human resources, financial services, space
    management, and other support functions to determine whether any
    duplicate or overlapping activities exist. The findings of the study
    are to be provided to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and
    Senate prior to the fiscal year 2006 budget submission and any
    budgetary reductions or realignments be so reflected in the fiscal year
    2006 request. (p. 24)

        From Statement of Managers accompanying the conference report to
    H.R. 4755, H. Rept. 108-792, see Congressional Record (daily edition),
    November 19, 2004, p. H10770.

        The conferees emphasize to the Legislative Branch agencies that the
    large budgetary increases requested in the fiscal year 2005 budget
    submissions cannot be sustained. The conferees encourage the agencies
    to submit more reasonable budget requests for fiscal year 2006, and
    thereafter.
    Fiscal Year 2006
        From U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative
    Branch Appropriations, 2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th
    Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 109-139 (Washington: GPO, 2006).
                Legislative Branch Wide Matters
        Mandatory and Price Level Increases.--After reviewing budget
    presentation materials submitted by Legislative Branch entities, it is
    apparent to the Committee that there is a wide variance in how the
    agencies formulate and present budget estimates, especially estimates
    for mandatory, or uncontrollable budget increases. To facilitate the
    Committee's review and analysis of budget requests, the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) is directed to review and evaluate the
    basis of each Legislative Branch agency's budget estimates with the
    exception of those of the House and the Senate. This review should
    place particular emphasis on evaluating the basis of each agency's
    estimates of uncontrollable costs, including what the agency presents
    as ``mandatory'' and ``price level expenses''. GAO shall recommend to
    the Committee budget formulation policy changes that address the
    composition of estimates as well as presentation format. Also, GAO is
    directed to examine each agency's treatment of Full-Time Equivalents
    (FTE's) in its budget submission and recommend consistent guidelines
    each agency can follow in formulating, presenting, and justifying its
    FTE requirements. GAO should also evaluate each agency's treatment of
    non-recurring requirements. This evaluation should be of requirements
    below the program level not simply a list of non-recurring programs.
    GAO shall recommend to the Committee a consistent analytical approach,
    which can be used by each agency to identify non-recurring requirements
    of individual programs and reflect those changes in budget presentation
    materials. GAO shall report to the Committee on Appropriations of the
    House and Senate the results of its efforts by October 1, 2005 to
    provide sufficient time for the Committee to review and analyze so that
    Legislative Branch agencies incorporate the appropriate changes in the
    formulation of their fiscal year 2007 budget requests. (pp. 4-5)
        Legislative Branch Agency Reforms.--The Congress and the nation are
    faced with increased demands for Federal funds for every increasing
    domestic and international program. The Committee is impressed with the
    management and operational reforms implemented in several Legislative
    Branch agencies over the past few years, including the Government
    Printing Office, the Government Accountability Office and the Chief
    Administrative Office of the House of Representatives. The Committee
    believes that other legislative agencies can benefit by the examples
    set by these agencies. Further opportunities exist for increases in
    efficiency resulting from new technology, performance based management,
    and other management improvements. The Committee understands that
    organizational reform is difficult, however, the task can be achieved
    if strong and dynamic leadership is attained. The Committee extends the
    following advice gleaned from these successful agencies. It is critical
    that agency heads look to the future in planning these endeavors and
    that mid-managers and employees are participants as well as
    stakeholders in the process. The leaders and employees are guided in
    developing and embracing their own logical and clear strategic vision
    for the organization's future. Agency management needs to identify
    leaders at all levels that will embrace change, and never lose sight of
    the most important asset of any organization, the staff and workforce.
    The Committee expects that all agencies will continue to look within
    for ways to complete their missions by using the guidance and
    experiences of their successful sister agencies as models to reduce the
    demand for additional staff and larger budget increases in the coming
    fiscal years. (p. 5)
        Review statutes of legislative branch agency heads.--There
    currently exist various laws, processes, and practices governing the
    selection, appointment, removal, compensation, and term of service of
    the Heads and the Deputies of various agencies in the Legislative
    Branch, including the Office of Compliance, the Congressional Budget
    Office, and the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress, the
    Government Printing Office, and the General Accounting Office. The
    Committee suggests that the Joint Leadership of Congress, in order to
    establish uniformity, should review, evaluate and consider the
    appropriate changes to current legislation and regulations governing
    these positions. (p. 6)

        From U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative
    Branch Appropriations, 2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th
    Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 109-89 (Washington: GPO, 2005).
                Government Performance and Results Act
        The Committee supports the applicability of many Government
    Performance and Results Act (GPRA) principles to the Legislative
    Branch. GPRA encourages greater efficiency, effectiveness, and
    accountability in Federal spending, and requires agencies to set goals
    and use performance measures for management and budgeting. While most
    Legislative Branch agencies have developed strategic plans, several
    agencies have not effectively dealt with major management problems and
    lack reliable data to verify and validate performance. While
    Legislative Branch agencies are not required to comply with GPRA, the
    Committee believes the spirit and intent of the Results Act should be
    applied to these agencies. The Committee intends to monitor agencies'
    progress in developing and implementing meaningful performance
    measures, describing how such measures will be verified and validated,
    linking performance measures to day-to-day activities, and coordinating
    across ``sister'' agencies. The Committee directs all legislative
    branch agencies to submit their plans for achieving this goal within 90
    days of enactment of this Act. (pp. 3-4)
                Library of Congress
        The Committee recognizes the high priority of the Library's
    research mission in support of the Congress, which is reflected in the
    amount recommended for the Congressional Research Service. (p. 35)
        The Committee is concerned about the lack of transparency in the
    Library of Congress budget presentation. It is not always clear and
    understandable. The budget presentation materials do not present
    meaningful programmatic information from a zero-based perspective that
    allow the Committee to determine how priorities are established and
    where tradeoffs could be made. Therefore, the Committee directs the
    Library of Congress to develop a budget presentation and justification
    package for the fiscal year 2007 budget cycle that clearly addresses
    rates and assumptions used in the base as well as a clear description
    for each program of what drives demand for the program, what the nature
    of the program's workload is, and what service or outcome each base
    program is intended to produce. A clear description of new program
    starts and a detailed break out of rates and assumptions associated
    with cost estimates for those programs including demand, workload, and
    outcome should also be provided along with a clear explanation of how
    each program relates to goals and objectives set forth in the Library's
    strategic plan. The Committee expects the Library will consult with the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the development of this new
    presentation package. (p. 35)
      Appendix B: Findings From the Production Support, Technical Support
                     Assistant, and Audio-Visual Functions
    Summary of the Program Activity reviews
                Methodology
        In 2005 CRS undertook assessments of its production, technical
    support, and audio-visual needs, as well as the functions currently
    provided within the Service in those areas. Data for these studies came
    from a variety of sources, including multiple discussions with
    potentially affected staff; a thorough review of all relevant position
    functions; initial and subsequent meetings with each assistant director
    and deputy assistant director, some associate directors, and a sample
    of analysts, attorneys, editors, and section heads; and the use of
    structured questions.
                Production and Administrative Support Functional Review:
                        Findings Summary from the January 2005 Study
        The study of production and administrative support functions found
    that the technical needs of research and analytic staff have changed.
    The study found that the technical skills of newly hired analysts and
    attorneys often exceed those that the production staff regularly
    demonstrate. Concurrently, there is a need for increasingly advanced
    and specialized technical skills to do the more sophisticated product-
    preparation work now required.
        Production staff indicated that they primarily perform
    administrative functions (e.g., logging ISIS requests, recording and
    reporting time and attendance, managing and ordering supplies, and
    performing general receptionist activities). Some study participants
    stated that some production staff do not consider currently needed
    tasks as part of their duties and responsibilities. An example is
    importing data from a variety of sources and transforming that data
    into tables, graphs, and charts for inclusion into CRS products.
    Several production staff reported oftentimes not having enough work to
    keep them occupied full time.
        As a result, the current system has created unmet production needs
    and shifted product-preparation demands, particularly for assistance in
    creating graphics and obtaining editorial assistance. Some analysts
    have come to rely upon the Electronic Research Products Office and the
    CRS Technology Office (TO) for assistance with these tasks.
                Technical Support Assistant Functional Review: Findings
                        Summary from May 2005 Study
        Because CRS research and analytic staff have become more
    technically sophisticated, the need for basic technical services has
    decreased. The study found that newly hired and other technically
    sophisticated staff are more likely to try to diagnose and solve
    problems themselves before contacting a technical support assistant
    (TSA). Also, the study found TSA skill levels inconsistently meet the
    needs of CRS staff.
        TSAs provide a wide array of technical support assistance: most
    work involves resolving hardware, software, CPU, password, and network
    issues. Some also assist with special projects, provide graphics/
    mapping support, develop guidance documents, and assist TO with
    Service-wide projects. Study participants noted that work required of
    TSAs is not standardized across CRS but instead varies by division and
    office.
        The current decentralized organizational structure does not ensure
    consistent technical expertise. Across the research divisions TSAs
    report to different levels of staff (assistant director, deputy
    assistant director, project management coordinator, etc.), who prepare
    their performance reviews. Further, potential for duplication of
    efforts among CRS help desk and user support units and TSAs is not
    cost-effective.
                Audio-Visual Support Functional Review: Findings Summary
                        from August 2005 Study
        Direct congressional demand for audio-visual products has been
    declining for more than ten years. And the need by CRS analysts for
    audio-visual support is uneven calling into question the need to retain
    a separate, in-house staff for this purpose.

                                       APPENDIX C: SALARY, COMPENSATION, AND RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY FOR THE AFFECTED STAFF
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                       Employer-
            Job Class. Series            Grade &     Ret. Plan                          Job Title                           Annual       Paid     Total Cost
                                           Step                                                                             Salary     Benefits
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             PRODUCTION STAFF

    Staff Eligible for Full
     Retirement and Separation
     Incentive:
        301..........................  11-10......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator..............     $69,614     $13,414     $83,028
        301..........................  11-10......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator..............     $69,614      $9,189     $78,802
        301..........................  11-10......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator..............     $69,614      $5,882     $75,496
        344..........................  8-10.......  FERS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082     $15,917     $67,999
        344..........................  8-10.......  FERS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082     $12,529     $64,612
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082     $12,296     $64,379
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082     $12,112     $64,195
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082     $12,040     $64,123
        303..........................  8-10.......  FERS.......  Sr. Sp. Adm. Support Assistant.........................     $52,082     $10,194     $62,276
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082      $7,980     $60,062
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082      $7,872     $59,954
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082      $7,673     $59,756
        303..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Sp. Adm. Support Assistant.........................     $52,082      $7,603     $59,685
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082      $4,509     $56,591
        1411.........................  6-10.......  CSRS.......  Library Technician.....................................     $42,326      $7,135     $49,461
    Staff Eligible for Early
     Retirement and Separation
     Incentive:
        301..........................  11-10......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator..............     $69,614     $13,556     $83,169
        344..........................  8-10.......  FERS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082     $15,917     $67,999
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082     $12,343     $64,426
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082     $12,040     $64,123
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082     $11,929     $64,011
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082      $7,874     $59,956
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082      $7,738     $59,820
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082      $7,673     $59,756
        344..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082      $7,565     $59,648
        344..........................  8-9........  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $50,762      $7,864     $58,626
        303..........................  8-10.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Special Adm. Support Assistant.....................     $52,082      $4,509     $56,591
    Staff Eligible for Separation
     Incentive Only:
        301..........................  11-10......  FERS.......  Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator..............     $69,614     $24,119     $93,733
        301..........................  11-10......  FERS.......  Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator..............     $69,614     $16,744     $86,358
        344..........................  7-6........  FERS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $58,361     $16,141     $74,501
        301..........................  11-8.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator..............     $57,387     $12,668     $70,054
        344..........................  8-9........  FERS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $50,762     $19,174     $69,936
        344..........................  8-8........  FERS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $49,420     $18,618     $68,038
        344..........................  8-10.......  FERS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $52,082     $13,848     $65,930
        344..........................  8-8........  CSRS.......  Sr. Production Assistant...............................     $49,420     $15,014     $64,434
        1411.........................  5-9........  FERS.......  Reference Assistant....................................     $37,001     $11,782     $48,783
        1411.........................  5-9........  FERS.......  Reference Clerk........................................     $37,001     $11,484     $48,485
        304..........................  4-5........  FERS.......  Receptionist...........................................     $29,588      $5,553     $35,141
    Staff Not Eligible for Retirement
     or Separation Incentive:
        304..........................  4-1........  FERS.......  Receptionist...........................................     $26,989      $8,750     $35,740
                                                                                                                         -----------------------------------
          Total Cost.................  ...........  ...........  .......................................................  ..........  ..........  $2,429,674
                                                                                                                         ===================================
            TECHNICAL SUPPORT

    Staff Eligible for Full
     Retirement and Separation
     Incentive:
        2210.........................  12-7.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Technical Support Assistant........................     $77,027     $14,344     $91,370
    Staff Eligible for Early
     Retirement and Separation
     Incentive:
        2210.........................  12-8.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Technical Support Assistant........................     $81,769     $19,282    $101,051
        2210.........................  12-7.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Technical Support Assistant........................     $77,027     $14,404     $91,431
        2210.........................  12-7.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Technical Support Assistant........................     $77,027      $9,866     $86,893
    Staff Eligible for Separation
     Incentive Only:
        2210.........................  12-10......  FERS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $83,438     $23,220    $106,658
        2210.........................  12-7.......  FERS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $79,157     $26,739    $105,896
        2210.........................  12-7.......  FERS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $77,027     $21,662     $98,688
        2210.........................  12-5.......  FERS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $72,745     $24,425     $97,170
        2210.........................  12-5.......  FERS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $74,875     $20,292     $95,167
        2210.........................  12-4.......  FERS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $70,594     $24,506     $95,099
        2210.........................  12-4.......  FERS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $70,594     $24,211     $94,805
        2210.........................  12-6.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $74,875     $18,496     $93,371
        2210.........................  12-3.......  FERS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $68,463     $24,090     $92,554
        2210.........................  12-4.......  FERS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $70,594     $20,079     $90,673
        2210.........................  12-8.......  CSRS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $79,157     $10,050     $89,207
        2210.........................  12-2.......  FERS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $66,333     $22,736     $89,069
        2210.........................  12-2.......  FERS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $66,333     $22,666     $88,999
        2210.........................  12-4.......  FERS.......  Sr. Technical Support Asst.............................     $46,107     $16,289     $62,395
                                                                                                                         -----------------------------------
          Total Cost.................  ...........  ...........  .......................................................  ..........  ..........  $1,670,496
                                                                                                                         -----------------------------------
            AUDIO/VISUAL STAFF

    All Audio/Visual Staff Are
     Eligible for Early Retirement:
     These staff are in the 1071 job
     classification series. To honor
     the privacy of the three
     individual staff members in this
     job series, CRS has not provided
     individual salary and cost data
                                      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Cost.................  ...........  ...........  .......................................................  ..........  ..........    $330,793
                                      ======================================================================================================================
          Total CRS Costs for 59       ...........  ...........  .......................................................  ..........  ..........  $4,430,962
           Affected Staff.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                     APPENDIX D: DIVERSITY COMPOSITION OF THE AFFECTED STAFF
                                         [Breakdown of CRS Staff by Gender and Race Categories As of September 15, 2005]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Total CRS Perm/                        Affected Staff by Category
                                                                     Indef Workforce -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   ------------------    Production         Technical       Audio-Visual     Total Affected
                               Category                                                    Support           Support     ------------------       Staff
                                                                                     ------------------    Assistants                      -----------------
                                                                     Number  Percent                   ------------------  Number  Percent
                                                                                       Number  Percent   Number  Percent                     Number  Percent
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Female........................................................      357     51.4       33     86.8        7     38.9  .......  .......       40     67.8
    Male..........................................................      337     48.6        5     13.2       11     61.1        3    100.0       19     32.2
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...................................................      694    100.0       38    100.0       18    100.0        3    100.0       59    100.0
                                                                   =========================================================================================
    Minority Composition..........................................      224     32.3       30     78.9       11     61.1  .......  .......       41     69.5
        Nat.Am/Alaskan............................................        5      0.7  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Asian American............................................       31      4.5        1      2.6  .......  .......  .......  .......        1      1.7
        African-American..........................................      171     24.6       28     73.7       10     55.6  .......  .......       38     64.4
        Hispanic..................................................       17      2.4        1      2.6        1      5.6  .......  .......        2      3.4
    Non-Minority..................................................      470     67.7        8     21.1        7     38.9        3    100.0       18     30.5
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...................................................      694    100.0       38    100.0       18    100.0        3    100.0       59    100.0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Appendix E: Transition Resources Provided to Affected Staff
        CRS is providing the following transition resources to affected
    staff:
      --an opportunity to participate in the Voluntary Early Retirement
            Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment
            (VSIP) programs. Deadline for applying is December 2, 2005.
            Staff have from December 19, 2005 through January 3, 2006 to
            separate from the Library under these programs. As of Tuesday,
            November 1, 2005, 20 affected staff have applied for these
            programs;
      --a special briefing on the VERA/VSIP process restricted to eligible
            CRS staff, in coordination with the Library's Office of Human
            Resources Services;
      --a two-day retirement seminar exclusively for these staff and their
            spouses. The seminar was held on October 26 and 27. Twenty-
            three affected staff members registered to attend, eighteen
            attended;
      --special individual retirement counseling, in coordination with the
            Library's Office of Human Resources Services;
      --special training sessions on how to apply for positions using the
            Library's automated hiring system. The Library's Office of
            Human Resources conducted sessions on October 12 and 13.
            Individual sessions were arranged for those who were unable to
            attend either of the earlier sessions;
      --a career services web page where staff can access career-related
            information and links to numerous websites including job search
            engines, resume writing and interview guides, job fair
            announcements, training opportunities, and more;
      --services of a career counselor who will be available one day a week
            through September of 2006 to meet individually with staff and
            to present a career workshop once a month. The career counselor
            is expected to be available early November 2005;
      --a briefing on October 13, 2005 by a Reduction in Force (RIF) expert
            who has been used frequently by the Library of Congress for
            other RIFs to provide an overview of RIF procedures and to
            answer questions, to include any follow-up questions by phone
            and email;
      --briefings on September 28, 2005 for all affected staff to review
            these transition resources, and to give staff an opportunity to
            ask questions; and
      --continuous communications from the Associate Director for Workforce
            Development by e-mail to inform when positions they may be
            interested in opened, and other upcoming activities to include
            career fairs, reminders of registration deadlines, and to
            remind them that they may continue to submit any questions that
            they have during the transition.

        Question. In your testimony you state that extensive consultation
    took place before you decided to eliminate production support, computer
    technical support, and audio-visual functions. With whom did you
    consult? Was CRS staff in any way involved before you made your
    decision?
        Answer. Before the final decision was made, in addition to multiple
    meetings with the Service's senior managers, CRS solicited input
    through a variety of venues including forums, one-on-one conversations,
    e-mail exchanges. CRS also held follow-up discussions with potentially
    affected staff as well as staff who use their services, including a
    sample of analysts, attorneys, and section heads (first-line
    supervisors).
        Question. Were the affected staffs given an opportunity to receive
    training that may have given them an opportunity to keep their job or
    to apply for other positions within CRS?
        Answer. The skills required for the Service's new technical
    positions are quite different from those required for the older
    production support and technical positions that will be abolished. The
    specialized expertise required for these new positions cannot be
    acquired or developed through some selected training courses.
        In addition to traditional production support, the incumbents of
    the two older production support positions performed some
    administrative tasks as well. One of the current production support
    positions is supervisory/managerial at the GS-11 grade level; and, the
    other is non-supervisory at the GS-8 grade level.
        When CRS defined the new work tasks and developed the associated
    position descriptions, all of the administrative tasks were
    consolidated into two new positions, one is supervisory at the GS-11
    grade level and the other was classified by the Library of Congress
    Human Resources Services as a GS-7, one grade level lower than the GS-8
    production position. Both of the new administrative positions will have
    fewer incumbents (ten total) than the number of incumbents of the
    current production positions (33 total). So far, three of the affected
    staff were competitively selected for these ten new administrative
    positions. A fourth individual from the affected staff was also
    selected but declined the offer and chose instead to retire.
        CRS affected staff continue to receive training for the work that
    they perform in their current positions. However, selecting particular
    individuals for specific training to improve their credentials for a
    new job could be seen as running counter to merit-selection principles
    inherent in OPM regulations implementing the Government Employee
    Training Act. Information provided in the following questions addresses
    the issues of training staff for future positions.
        Question. What actions have you taken to work with the rest of the
    Library to find positions for the remaining 31 staff?
        Answer. CRS and the Library will begin the process of seeking
    placements for the remaining staff in June. The data and conditions for
    placing the remaining staff are dictated by law, regulation, and the
    CRS collective bargaining agreement, which govern when a reduction-in-
    force is established.
        When the staffing changes were announced last September, it was the
    Director's hope that by providing a 12-month notice, separation
    incentives, voluntary early retirement opportunities, and transition
    services that all 59 individuals would vacate the positions before
    September 30, 2006. At this time, 29 of the 59 affected staff have
    retired, resigned, or secured other positions. In the meantime, CRS
    continues to provide a variety of career counseling services to
    affected staff and to provide weekly notices of CRS and Library posted
    positions that may be of interest to them.
        Question. How closely have you worked with the new Center for
    Learning and Development in the Library to assist affected staff in
    training for current and future positions in the Library?
        Answer. Staff from the CRS Office of Workforce Development worked
    closely with the Library's Center for Learning and Development in
    identifying 600 online courses that would provide a broad array of
    training for Library staff as it pertains to their current positions.
    The availability of courses has been communicated to all CRS staff and
    a number of CRS staff members, including the affected staff, have taken
    online courses.
        The On-line Learning Center has been a topic of discussion at the
    weekly CRS Research Policy Council meetings of senior managers who are
    advised to encourage staff to enroll in the online training. As a
    result, a number of affected staff have taken advantage of these
    training opportunities. In addition, the Career Services Web Page that
    was established specifically for affected staff includes a link to the
    Online Learning Center.
        Providing training for future positions becomes more complex. The
    Government Employee Training Act (GETA) permits training ``which will
    improve individual and organizational performance and assist in
    achieving the agency's mission and performance goals.'' [5 USC4101(4)]
    OPM implementing regulations provide that ``mission-related training''
    includes training that improves an employee's current job performance
    and training that ``[a]llows for expansion or enhancement of an
    employee's current job [or e]nables an employee to perform needed or
    potentially needed duties outside the current job at the same level of
    responsibility.'' [5 CFR 410.101 (d)]
        Retraining ``to address an individual's skills obsolescence in the
    current position and/or training and development to prepare an
    individual for a different occupation, in the same agency, in another
    government agency, or in the private sector'' is also permitted under
    OPM regulations. [5 CFR 410.101(e)] The selection of employees for
    training opportunities, however, must follow merit system principles.
    [5 CFR 410.302 (a)(1)] Each agency must establish criteria for the
    ``fair and equitable selection and assignment of employees to training
    consistent with merit system principles.'' [5 CFR 410.306(a)]
        Merit system principles are particularly applicable to training
    designed to prepare employees for advancement. Thus, OPM's Training
    Policy Handbook provides that ``[a]gencies' training programs must
    consider all employees fairly'' and that ``[a]gency merit promotion
    procedures must be followed in selecting employees for training that is
    primarily to prepare trainees for advancement and that is not directly
    related to improving performance in their current positions.''
        Selecting particular employees to be accorded specific training
    designed to improve their advancement possibilities or to qualify them
    for other positions could be seen to run counter to merit selection
    principles. The Library and CRS have developed a merit selection
    process for filling positions, and CRS also applies competitive
    procedures to its longer term details within the agency and to
    designating section heads. The GETA and implementing regulations would
    also seem to dictate that similar principles be applied in the
    provision of training.
        The focus of all training opportunities provided to staff complies
    with the Service's obligation to enhance staff skills for the positions
    currently held, rather than to provide training for possible future
    positions that could be seen as running counter to merit-selection
    principles inherent in OPM regulations implementing the GETA.
        Question. It is my understanding that of the 59 staff being
    eliminated, nearly 70 percent are minorities. What are your plans to
    address the major loss of minority employees in CRS?
        Answer. CRS is dedicated to maintaining a diverse workforce. When
    CRS announced its plan to eliminate three functions, the diversity
    profile of the Service was 32.3 percent minority. If all of the
    affected staff would have left and no new hires added, the CRS
    workforce would have been reduced to 635 and the racial and ethnic
    profile of that reduced staff would have reflected a minority
    population of 28.8 percent. The proportion of Asian Americans would
    have increased from 4.5 percent to 4.7 percent; Native Americans would
    have increased from .7 percent to .8 percent; Hispanics would have
    remained the same at 2.4 percent; and the proportion of African
    Americans would have decreased from 24.6 percent to 20.9 percent.
        Instead, as of February 28, 2006, after the retirement of 23
    affected staff, attrition unrelated to the workforce re-engineering,
    and the hiring of new staff in accordance with the CRS hiring plan,
    31.1 percent of CRS' total permanent/indefinite workforce of 685 is
    minority; .7 percent Native American, 4.7 percent Asian American, 23.1
    percent African American, and 2.6 percent Hispanic.
        CRS has filled four (4) of the new positions (with 12 incumbents).
    Of the twelve incumbents hired, nine (75 percent) are minorities, and
    all of whom are African American females.
        CRS will continue to use national recruitment and hiring programs
    and sources to attract minority applicants to CRS. These programs
    include targeting universities and public policy schools with high
    minority enrollments to serve as recruitment sources for entry-level
    professional positions, and forging special connections with minority-
    serving organizations such as Historically Black Colleges and
    Universities, the United Negro College Fund, the Congressional Black
    Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and others. In addition, CRS
    continues to use programs such as the CRS Law Recruit Program, the
    Student Diversity Internship Program, the Hispanic Association of
    Colleges and Universities National Internship Program, and the Federal
    Presidential Management Fellowship Program to recruit minorities for
    CRS positions.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Allard. The subcommittee stands in recess and we
    will meet next on March 15 at 10:30 a.m., when we will take
    testimony from the Secretary of the Senate and Architect of the
    Capitol on their fiscal year 2007 budget requests. In addition,
    we will hear from witnesses regarding progress of the Capitol
    Visitor Center as part of the monthly oversight of that
    particular project.
        I thank the participants today for sharing their views with
    us.
        [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, March 1, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, March 15.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Allard and Durbin.

                                  U.S. SENATE

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF EMILY REYNOLDS, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            MARY SUIT JONES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
            CHRIS DOBY, FINANCIAL CLERK

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
    morning everybody. We meet today to take testimony on the
    fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Secretary of the Senate
    and the Architect of the Capitol, and review progress of the
    Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) construction. The legislative
    branch budget request totals roughly $4.2 billion, an increase
    of $460 million or 12 percent over the current year.
        While most agencies in the President's budget would be
    frozen at current levels, a number of the agencies before this
    subcommittee have proposed very substantial increases and we
    will need to scrutinize these requests very carefully. We will
    have three separate panels today. Secretary Emily Reynolds will
    testify first, she's accompanied by Assistant Secretary of the
    Senate Mary Suit Jones, and the new Financial Clerk of the
    Senate Chris Doby.
        Our second panel will be the Architect of the Capitol, Alan
    Hantman, and our third panel to discuss progress of the Capitol
    Visitor Center construction will include Mr. Hantman, CVC
    Project Executive Bob Hixon, and GAO representatives Bernie
    Ungar and Terrell Dorn.
        I extend a welcome to our witnesses this morning. Ms.
    Reynolds, your office is requesting a budget of about $24
    million, an increase of roughly $1 million, or just above 5
    percent over fiscal year 2006. This budget would support the 26
    departments that are part of the Office of the Secretary and
    would accommodate cost of living and merit increases. And we'll
    now proceed to the first panel. Welcome Ms. Reynolds. You may
    proceed with your testimony. It's good to see you.
        Ms. Reynolds. Thank you Mr. Chairman, it's an honor to be
    with you. We're, of course, very grateful for your leadership
    as our subcommittee chairman, and we appreciate this
    opportunity to talk about the work of the Secretary's office.
    I'd like to ask that my full statement, which, of course,
    includes our complete department reports, be submitted for the
    record.
        Today I would just like to give you a brief overview of the
    Secretary's operation and most importantly that budget request
    for fiscal year 2007 that you mentioned. As you said, we've
    requested about $24 million; $22 million of that is in salary
    cost and $1.9 million for operating expenses. That slight
    increase as you've referenced is in cost of living allowance
    (COLA) and merit increases so that we can continue to attract
    and retain the talent that the Senate requires and deserves for
    the critical day to day operations that we provide.
        And I'd like to take a couple of minutes today and just
    highlight some of the work of the past year, since we were all
    last together at this hearing. There are three key words that
    come to mind in reflecting on the Secretary's operation. And
    those are continuity, creativity and collaboration. That's how
    our office functions and I want to mention in particular in
    terms of continuity, because in so many respects we are the
    institutional memory of the Senate. We take very seriously the
    responsibility of passing that knowledge along from generation
    to generation, incoming class to incoming class, office to
    office. Our legislative department, the great folks that you
    see on the floor of the Senate each and every day, continue to
    cross train among their various specialties, and about half of
    that staff is cross trained.
        We're also blessed in that a large number of people come to
    serve the Senate for an extended period of time, but it makes
    it all the more important when you begin to lose that
    institutional memory in retirements that we try to anticipate
    those changes and work toward an appropriate line of
    succession. And at all times, we strive to attract and retain
    the best talent possible. Individuals for whom coming to the
    Senate to serve this body as their career is a high priority.
        And, of course, on a much broader scale, it's our
    responsibility to prepare daily so that you and your colleagues
    can carry out your constitutional responsibilities under any
    circumstance. So for us that continuity has both a daily impact
    and a much broader view as well.
        I mention creativity as well and I hope that we bring a
    certain level of creativity in each of our 26 departments. And
    I'd like to just highlight five things today that we're doing.
        A perfect example of that creativity is the Senate's
    website. And our new home page in particular which we're very
    proud to have the chance to show off and talk about a little
    bit. All of our lives have been changed dramatically by the
    worldwide web, and the Senate is no exception. Senate.gov now
    celebrates a decade of service to the Senate community and the
    general public and received an astonishing 50 million visits
    last year. That's five times as many as just 5 years ago, so
    remarkable growth in terms of the public's access to
    senate.gov. And with that, thanks to the support of this
    subcommittee we unveiled a handsome new home page in January.
    There's more content on the front page, the site also provides
    site wide searches from every page, and, of course, most
    importantly those direct links to the Members' home pages.
        I'm really delighted that U.S. News took note of the new
    homepage, and described it as a rich new website and one that's
    much easier to research. I also mentioned to you when we were
    here last year, that our historical office had underway a
    project of a pictorial directory, with the images of all
    Senators who have served since 1789, by State and by class.
    That book ``Faces of the Senate'' was completed in November and
    it really is a treasure. It was a monumental effort on the part
    of our Senate photo historian. And it was interesting in that
    as she reached out to historical societies, museums and other
    organizations in trying to locate as many images as possible,
    the project attracted the attention of a National Guardsman
    from Vermont who was stationed in Iraq. He was working on a
    historical project for his unit, and he e-mailed our photo
    historian saying I don't have a lot of time to assist, but with
    my own project I'm finding resources out there I never knew
    existed. And amazingly enough, he helped us locate six images
    of former Members for whom we had no previous record.
        The gift shop I want to mention, a tremendous presence here
    in the Senate. And we've enhanced the gift shop operation by
    adding an online presence to our intranet Webster so that our
    Senate community can more easily see the vast array of products
    that we have available.
        I'm also proud that in this bicentennial year of
    Constantino Brumidi's birth, the artist of the Capitol, we've
    added a product line with Brumidi featured merchandise so that
    our merchandise reflects the rich history of the Capitol and
    hopefully for people it has some educational value as well.
        You may also recall, that 2 years ago we completed the
    publication of the Senate's fine arts catalogue. A beautiful
    volume, the companion volume, a catalogue of our graphics art
    collection will be available later this year. And just like the
    fine arts publication, it will be a magnificent presentation of
    the 900 historic engravings and lithographs in the Senate
    collection.
        I had the opportunity to speak last week with a member of
    our curatorial advisory board, and she said that she believed
    that this publication will be very well received in the arts
    community, the academic community, as a first ever glance if
    you will at this tremendous collection of the Senate's and it's
    an excellent research tool. So we'll have that to you later
    this year. I'm excited about it.
        In the Senate reception room, thanks to the leadership of
    Senator Dodd, we will add an important representation from the
    18th century. And that's the addition of a mural that will
    commemorate the two authors of the Great or Connecticut
    Compromise. That mural will depict the authors of that
    compromise, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth and will be
    unveiled later this year.
        And finally in terms of collaboration, so much of what we
    do each and every day is dependent on a team approach, among
    our departments working with the Architect of the Capitol,
    working with members of the Senate community and especially
    with our Sergeant at Arms. And once again I'd love to give
    three quick examples. I want to publicly thank and commend the
    Sergeant at Arms, and this subcommittee without whose support
    the project would not have been possible for the completion of
    the new Senate support facility. From our gift shop,
    stationery, the curator, library, our disbursing operation,
    having that state-of-the-art storage space will make a
    difference each and every day in terms of the level of support
    we provide our Senate community. The facility is a welcome
    addition and should serve our needs for years to come.
        One of the most important services that you and your
    colleagues offer the folks at home is providing flags that are
    flown over the Capitol, and we have an exciting pilot project
    underway with 26 offices and I believe your office is one, to
    streamline that process of the purchase of pre-flown flags.
    It's become cumbersome at times, and again thanks to this
    pilot, we should have real success and report back to you on
    that along the way.
        And finally our legislative information system, another
    project generously funded by this subcommittee, we've made
    tremendous progress again this year. Again a team effort
    between our LIS Office and most especially the Senate
    Legislative Counsel. Already this year, over 95 percent of the
    bills introduced in this session of the 109th Congress have
    been written and formatted through the XML authoring
    application known as LEXA. So we're very proud of that
    milestone.
        I often marvel that the first Secretary of the Senate
    carried out his responsibilities alone, in the first years of
    the Senate's existence. By the time he died in office in 1814,
    he had convinced his appropriators to allow him to hire two
    clerks. As much as things have changed and as our
    responsibilities have grown through the years, the three
    fundamental responsibilities of our office, to provide the
    legislative, financial, and administrative support to this
    institution remain at the heart of what we do, each and every
    day. It's our duty and our honor to carry out these functions
    for the Senate.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        On behalf of our entire team, we thank this subcommittee
    Mr. Chairman, for your support and I look forward to questions.
    Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Emily J. Reynolds
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, and Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for your invitation to present testimony in support of the
    budget request of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate for fiscal
    year 2007.
        Detailed information about the work of the 26 departments of the
    Office of the Secretary is provided in the annual reports which follow.
    I am pleased to provide this statement to highlight the achievements of
    the Office and the outstanding work of our dedicated employees.
        My statement includes: Presenting the fiscal year 2007 budget
    request; implementing mandated systems: financial management
    information system (FMIS) and legislative information system (LIS);
    Capitol Visitor Center; continuity of operations planning; and
    maintaining and improving current and historic legislative, financial
    and administrative services.
                 presenting the fiscal year 2007 budget request
        I am requesting a total fiscal year 2007 budget of $24,066,000. The
    fiscal year 2007 budget request is comprised of $22,166,000 in salary
    costs and $1,900,000 for the operating budget of the Office of the
    Secretary. The salary budget represents an increase over the fiscal
    year 2006 budget as a result of (1) the costs associated with the
    annual Cost of Living Adjustment in the amount of $654,000 and (2) an
    additional $646,000 for merit increases and other staffing. The
    operating budget represents a decrease of $80,000 from fiscal year
    2006. The funding for the study on employment compensation, hiring and
    benefits practices, included in last year's funding, is a non-
    reoccurring expense.
        The net effect of my total budget request for fiscal year 2007 is
    an increase of $1,220,000.
        Our request in the operating budget is a sound one, enabling us to
    meet our operating needs and provide the necessary services to the
    United State Senate through our legislative, financial and
    administrative offices.
        In reference to the salary budget, first and foremost, this request
    will enable us to continue to attract and retain talented and dedicated
    individuals to serve the needs of the United States Senate.

                                     OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Amount
                                                                         available        Budget
                                  Item                                  fiscal year      estimate       Difference
                                                                       2006, Public     fiscal year
                                                                        Law 109-55         2007
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Departmental operating budget:
        Executive office............................................        $630,000        $550,000         -80,000
        Administrative services.....................................       1,290,000       1,290,000  ..............
        Legislative services........................................          60,000          60,000  ..............
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total operating budget....................................       1,980,000       1,900,000         -80,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         implementing mandated systems
        Two systems critical to our operation are mandated by law, and I
    would like to spend a few moments on each to highlight recent progress,
    and to thank the committee for your ongoing support of both.
    Financial Management Information System (FMIS)
        The Financial Management Information System, or FMIS, is used by
    approximately 140 offices. Consistent with the five year strategic
    plan, the Disbursing Office continues to modernize processes and
    applications to meet the continued demand by Senate offices for
    efficiency, accountability and ease of use. The goal is to move to a
    paperless voucher system, improve the Web FMIS system, and make payroll
    and accounting system improvements.
        Over the last two years work has been underway to update and
    simplify the underlying technology of Web FMIS, basically replacing all
    Visual Basic Client/Server and Cold Fusion Web technology with
    WebSphere web pages thereby creating a ``thin client'' application that
    can be accessed via an intranet browser. In August 2004 Web FMIS r9.0
    for pilot offices, which was a complete rewriting of the Web FMIS
    functionality using all intranet based pages, was implemented. By the
    end of April, all Web FMIS users were using the intranet version of Web
    FMIS.
        During fiscal year 2005 and the first half of fiscal year 2006,
    improvements to Web FMIS were as follows:
      --In the November 2004 release, additional functionality identified
            by the pilot offices was addressed. This new release was
            provided to new offices of the 109th Congress. In the February
            2005 release, a security certificate was added to the Web FMIS
            web site (i.e., adding the ``S'' to https://webfmis.senate.gov)
            and changed the extracts for the nightly Web FMIS reporting
            cycle to use table-driven parameters rather than hard-coded
            ones. In April 2005, report and document printing was provided
            via Adobe, standard Senate software, rather than Web FMIS-
            specific files. This completed moving Web FMIS to the ``zero-
            client'' platform, an important milestone in providing critical
            systems in a disaster situation. With this change, the Rules
            Committee Audit staff moved from client-server based screens to
            intranet-based pages for their functions, Disbursing staff
            began to use ``standard notepad text'' in documenting
            corrections made to vouchers. In July 2005, the focus was on
            additional functionality for Disbursing, including new pages
            for the Inbox and Document Review functions, enhancements to
            the Advice of Change process and streamlining the document
            approval process. Technology was updated and provided more
            functionality on the Inbox pages and the travel reimbursement
            mileage rate maintenance page. Additional functionality was
            added to the Documents/Create page and the Budget page, and
            bugs were fixed.
      --In May 2005, the SAVI system was upgraded, which enables Senate
            staff to check the status of reimbursements, whether via check
            or direct deposit, to enable its use by Macintosh computer
            users.
      --The Disbursing Office makes payments via direct deposit and via
            check using the Checkwriter software. In 2006, Checkwriter
            release 6, which rewrites the security component, will be
            tested with implementation tentatively scheduled for summer
            2006.
      --On Saturday, December 3, 2005, the Sergeant at Arms technical staff
            conducted a disaster recovery test of the Senate's computing
            facilities, including the financial management information
            system (FMIS) functions. The test involved switching the
            Senate's network from accessing systems at the Primary
            Computing Facility (PCF) to the backup facility, and powering
            down the PCF.
          The SAA's primary purpose was to test the technical process of
            switching to our backup facility, and only a limited amount of
            time was available for functional testing. The SAA staff wanted
            to complete the exercise within a 12-hour window, including the
            time needed to switch us to the backup facility and back to the
            PCF. A two-hour functional testing window was expected. In the
            scenario, FMIS systems and data would be ``failed-over'' to the
            backup facility, and made available for testing during the
            functional testing window. The systems would then be ``failed
            back'' to the PCF, but the data would not be ``failed back''.
            Consequently, any changes made while testing at the backup
            facility would not be made to production data.
          Within the limited scope of what we were able to test, most of
            the critical components of FMIS were successfully tested. A
            request has been made to the SAA that disaster recovery tests
            be conducted twice a year and that additional system components
            be tested at each successive event.
      --The computing infrastructure for FMIS is provided by the Sergeant
            at Arms. Each year upgrades are made to the infrastructure
            software. The major upgrade this year was the implementation of
            a new version of the mainframe operating system software, ``Z/
            OS.'' This upgrade required FMIS testing, both before
            implementation to identify and resolve any incompatibilities,
            and after implementation to verify that all functions are
            working properly.
        During 2005 work continued with Bearing Point to define the
    requirements for additional functionality required for the two Web FMIS
    releases planned for 2006:
      --Web FMIS r11 B.--Planned for Summer 2006, this release will add the
            ability to ``import'' invoice data from an outside vendor in
            order to create a voucher with minimal re-typing. (This process
            is similar to the ``import'' process by which data from an
            online ESR, created via SAVI, is used to create a travel
            voucher).
      --Web FMIS r12 B.--Planned for late Fall 2006, this release will be a
            pilot of paperless voucher processing, which requires adding
            electronic signature and documentation imaging functionality.
        In addition, during fiscal year 2006 the following FMIS activities
    are anticipated:
      --Developing requirements for integrating the Funds Advance Tracking
            System (FATS) into FMIS. FATS, a stand-alone PC-based system,
            tracks election cycle information used in the voucher review
            process, and tracks travel advances and petty cash advances
            against dollar maximum and total allocation rules.
      --Implementing DB2 vs. 8 in compatibility mode.
      --Researching the implementation of online distribution of system
            reports.
      --Completing fiscal year 2004 Financial Statements in Hyperion and
            start working on fiscal year 2005.
      --Performing some minor enhancements to the FAMIS vendor file.
        A more detailed report on FMIS is included in the department report
    of the Disbursing Office which follows.
    Legislative Information System (LIS)
        The LISAP project team continues to enhance the Senate's
    legislative editing XML application (LEXA). The Office of the Senate
    Legislative Counsel (SLC) used LEXA throughout 2005 and 80 percent of
    introduced and reported measures for the first session of the 109th
    Congress were created as XML documents. As modifications and features
    were developed for LEXA, the SLC's use continues to increase. Thus far
    in the second session of the 109th Congress, approximately 96 percent
    of the introduced and reported bills have been created as XML
    documents. Additional document types, such as conference reports and
    engrossed and enrolled bills, were added to LEXA.
        The LISAP project team continues to work with the Senate offices,
    the Clerk of the House, the Government Printing Office and the Library
    of Congress to develop standards and tools to create, print and
    exchange legislative documents in XML. The Government Printing Office
    (GPO) uses LEXA to update and print Senate XML documents as requested.
    GPO also provides support for LEXA, as directed in the 2004 Legislative
    Branch Appropriations Act, by maintaining the printing software in LEXA
    that converts an XML document to locators for printing through
    Microcomp. GPO is also in the process of reworking the software that
    creates and prints tables. These tools will be incorporated into both
    the Senate and House XML authoring applications.
        A joint project to convert the compilations of current law to an
    XML format was completed last year. Joint projects for this year
    include completion of the new table tool and development of standards
    for drafting appropriations amendments in XML. The Document Management
    System (DMS) for the SLC will be implemented once the SLC has completed
    the transition from XyWrite to LEXA. The SLC's DMS will be integrated
    with LEXA and will provide a powerful tracking, management and delivery
    tool.
                             capitol visitor center
        While the Architect of the Capitol directly oversees this massive
    and impressive project, I would like to briefly mention the ongoing
    involvement of the Secretary's office in this endeavor. My colleague,
    the Clerk of the House, and I continue to facilitate weekly meetings
    with senior staff of the joint leadership of Congress to address and
    hopefully quickly resolve issues that might impact the status of the
    project or the operation of Congress in general.
        In addition, I also facilitate weekly meetings with the Architect's
    office for the senior staff of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Capitol
    Police, Rules Committee and Appropriations Committee in order to
    address the expansion space plans for the Senate and any issues with
    regard to the Capitol Visitor Center's (CVC's) construction that may
    directly impact Senate operations.
        Although the construction creates numerous temporary inconveniences
    to Senators, staff and visitors, completion of the CVC will bring
    substantial improvements in enhanced security and visitor amenities,
    and its educational benefits for our visitors will be tremendous.
          continuity of operations and emergency preparedness planning
        The Office of the Secretary maintains a Continuity of Operations
    (COOP) program to ensure that the Senate can fulfill its constitutional
    obligations under any circumstances. Plans are in place to support
    Senate floor operations both on and off Capitol Hill, and to permit
    each department within the Office of the Secretary to perform its
    essential functions during and after an emergency.
        COOP planning in the Office of the Secretary began in late 2000.
    Since that time, COOP plans were successfully implemented during the
    anthrax and ricin incidents, and more than twenty drills and exercises
    to test and refine our plans have been conducted. In conjunction with
    the Sergeant at Arms, Capitol Police, the Office of the Attending
    Physician and the Architect of the Capitol, Emergency Operations
    Centers, Briefing Centers and Alternate Senate Chambers, have been
    exercised both on and off campus.
        In addition, equipment, supplies and other items critical to the
    conduct of essential functions have been identified and assembled as
    ``fly-away kits'' for the Senate Chamber and for each department of the
    Office of the Secretary. Multiple copies of each fly-away kit have been
    produced; some are stored in our offices, and back-up kits are stored
    nearby but off the main campus, as well as at other sites outside the
    District of Columbia. This approach will enable the Office of the
    Secretary to resume essential operations within 12 to 24 hours, even if
    there is no opportunity to retrieve anything from our offices.
        Today, the Office of the Secretary is prepared to do the following
    in the event of emergency:
      --support Senate Floor operations in an Alternate Senate Chamber
            within 12 hours on campus, and within 24 to 72 hours off
            campus, depending upon location;
      --support an emergency legislative session at a Briefing Center, if
            required;
      --support Briefing Center Operations at any of three designated
            locations within 1 hour;
      --activate an Emergency Operations Center at Postal Square or another
            near-campus site within 1 hour; and
      --activate an Emergency Operations Center at another site within the
            National Capital region within 3 hours.
    Activities in the Past Year
        During the past year, the Office of the Secretary continued to
    update, refine and exercise emergency preparedness plans and
    operations. Specific activities included the following:
      --Updated plans for use of an Alternate Senate Chamber, Briefing
            Center and Emergency Operations Center;
      --Working with the Capitol Police and the Office of the Sergeant at
            Arms, refined response plans for air threat incidents;
      --Updated fly-away kits for use at an Alternate Chamber; and
      --Conducted and participated in ten emergency preparedness drills and
            exercises.
        The central mission of the Office of the Secretary is to provide
    the legislative, financial and administrative support required for the
    conduct of Senate business. Our emergency preparedness programs are
    designed to ensure that the Senate can carry out its Constitutional
    functions under any circumstances. These programs are critical to our
    mission, and they are a permanent, integral part of the Secretary's
    ongoing operation.
     maintaining and improving current and historic legislative, financial
                          and administrative services
                              legislative offices
        The Legislative Department of the Office of the Secretary of the
    Senate provides the support essential to Senators to carry out their
    daily chamber activities as well as the constitutional responsibilities
    of the Senate. The department consists of eight offices--the Bill
    Clerk, Captioning Services, Daily Digest, Enrolling Clerk, Executive
    Clerk, Journal Clerk, Legislative Clerk, and the Official Reporters of
    Debates, which are supervised by the Secretary through the Legislative
    Clerk. The Parliamentarian's office is also part of the Legislative
    Department of the Secretary of the Senate.
        Each of the nine offices within the Legislative Department is
    supervised by experienced veterans of the Secretary's office. The
    average length of service of legislative supervisors in the Office of
    the Secretary of the Senate is 20 years. The experience of this senior
    professional staff is a great asset for the Senate. In order to ensure
    well-rounded expertise, the legislative team cross-trains extensively
    among their specialties.
                                 1. bill clerk
        The Office of the Bill Clerk collects and records data on the
    legislative activity of the Senate, which becomes the historical record
    of official Senate business. The Bill Clerk's Office keeps this
    information in its handwritten files and ledgers and also enters it
    into the Senate's automated retrieval system so that it is available to
    all House and Senate offices via the Legislative Information System
    (LIS). The Bill Clerk records actions of the Senate with regard to
    bills, resolutions, reports, amendments, co-sponsors, public law
    numbers, and recorded votes. The Bill Clerk is responsible for
    preparing for print all measures introduced, received, submitted, and
    reported in the Senate. The Bill Clerk also assigns numbers to all
    Senate bills and resolutions. All the information received in this
    office comes directly from the Senate floor in written form. The Bill
    Clerk's office is generally regarded as the most timely and most
    accurate source of legislative information.
    Legislative Activity
        The Bill Clerk's office processed into the database more than 2,000
    additional legislative items and 150 additional roll call votes than
    the previous session. For comparative purposes, below is a summary of
    the 108th Congress, broken down into 1st and 2nd sessions, as compared
    to the first session of the 109th Congress:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  108th         109th         108th         109th
                                                                Congress,     Congress,     Congress,     Congress,
                                                               1st Session   1st Session   2nd Session   1st Session
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Bills............................................         2,003         2,169         1,032         2,169
    Senate Joint Resolutions................................            26            27            16            27
    Senate Concurrent Resolutions...........................            86            75            66            75
    Senate Resolutions......................................           283           347           204           347
    Amendments Submitted....................................         2,231         2,695         1,857         2,695
    House Bills.............................................           282           286           322           286
    House Joint Resolutions.................................            20            11            12            11
    House Concurrent Resolutions............................            78            88            87            88
    Measures Reported.......................................           352           286           317           286
    Written Reports.........................................           220           212           208           212
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------
          Total Legislation.................................         5,571         6,196         4,121         6,196
                                                             =======================================================
    Roll Call Votes.........................................           459           366           216           366
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assistance from the Government Printing Office (GPO)
        The Bill Clerk's office maintains a good working relationship with
    the Government Printing Office with the common goal of providing the
    best service possible to meet the needs of the Senate. Toward this end,
    GPO continues to respond in a timely manner to the Secretary's request
    through the Bill Clerk's office for the printing of bills and reports,
    including the expedited printing of priority matters for the Senate
    chamber. For example, the Secretary requested, through the Bill Clerk,
    that GPO expedite the printing of roughly 60 measures for consideration
    by the Senate.
    Projects
        Amendment Tracking System (ATS).--In the fall of 2001, the Rules
    Committee staff approached the Secretary's office with the task of
    scanning submitted amendments onto the Amendment Tracking System on
    LIS. The Rules Committee identified a need for Senate staff to have all
    amendments submitted in the Senate made available to them online
    shortly after being submitted, especially during cloture. Rules
    Committee also requested that the Secretary assess the feasibility of
    lifting the page limitation for scanning amendments onto the ATS
    Indexer.
        In September 2005, the Secretary of the Senate, through the Bill
    Clerk's office, began scanning submitted amendments to the ATS Indexer.
    The Technology Development division of the Sergeant at Arms office has
    been quick and responsive, making the ATS Indexer a dynamic, usable
    tool available to the Senate community. The Bill Clerks were able to
    implement this new requirement seamlessly. With the added function of
    the ATS Indexer, the Secretary has made available to the Senate
    community all amendments, submitted and proposed, and in doing so,
    lifted the page limit from 25 to 50. Initial response from users is
    both positive and constructive.
        Electronic Ledger System.--Shortly after the September 2001 attacks
    and the subsequent anthrax attacks in the Capitol complex, the Bill
    Clerk identified the need to have available an electronic version of
    the official Senate ledgers in order to ensure the integrity of the
    information recorded in the books. It is anticipated that the
    electronic version will be available for use during possible emergency
    scenarios, either via remote access or portable device. The Technology
    Development division of the Sergeant-at-Arms is working to develop two
    separate functions of this ledger system. One is an electronic data
    entry system, which will mimic the layout of the current Senate ledgers
    printed by the Government Printing Office. The other, a search
    function, has already been developed and is currently in use in select
    clerical offices of the legislative staff and is routinely enhanced and
    modified by the excellent ELS project team at Postal Square. Both of
    these programs will be housed on a separate server to maintain the
    integrity of the ledger data. This search system offers an invaluable
    tool capable of utilizing more complex search requirements.
                        2. office of captioning services
        The Office of Captioning Services provides realtime captioning of
    Senate floor proceedings for the deaf and hard-of-hearing and
    unofficial electronic transcripts of Senate floor proceedings to Senate
    offices via the Senate intranet.
    General Overview
        Accuracy continues to be the top priority of this Office. Overall
    caption quality is monitored through daily Translation Data Reports,
    monitoring of captions in realtime, and review of caption files on the
    Senate intranet. Dedication to this process has produced an overall
    captioning accuracy average above 99 percent this past year.
        A major event of 2005 for the Office of Captioning Services was
    realtime captioning the 55th Annual Presidential Inauguration. The
    Office's captions of the historic event appeared on six jumbotrons
    located on the West Front of the Capitol and the National Mall.
        Continuity of operations planning and preparation during 2005
    continued to be a priority to ensure staff is prepared and confident
    about the Office's ability to relocate and successfully caption from a
    remote location in the event of an emergency. Participation in a
    Continuity of Operations template review project with the Sergeant at
    Arms Continuity of Operations Program Manager provided an excellent
    opportunity for an in-depth review of the Office of Captioning
    Service's Plan.
    Technology Update
        The Office received a major upgrade of software and hardware in
    2004 and thus continues to work with vendors to provide enhancements
    and correct deficiencies in the new realtime captioning software.
    2006 Objectives
        The Office of Captioning Services constantly strives to maintain
    and improve the high level of caption accuracy that has been
    established. The Office is committed to this goal and will strive to
    find new and innovative ways to accomplish this objective.
        Another priority of the Office of Captioning Services will be to
    prepare and plan for the procurement and installation of equipment and
    relocation of the Office of Captioning Services to the Senate expansion
    space in the Capitol Visitor Center.
                             3. senate daily digest
        The Senate Daily Digest serves seven principal functions:
      --To render a brief, concise and easy-to-read accounting of all
            official actions taken by the Senate in the Congressional
            Record section known as the Daily Digest.
      --To compile an accounting of all meetings of Senate committees,
            subcommittees, joint committees and committees of conference.
      --To enter all Senate and Joint committee scheduling data into the
            Senate's web-based scheduling application system. Committee
            scheduling information is also prepared for publication in the
            Daily Digest in three formats: Day-Ahead Schedule;
            Congressional Program for the Week Ahead; and the extended
            schedule which actually appears in the Extensions of Remarks
            section of the Congressional Record.
      --To enter into the Senate's Legislative Information System all
            official actions taken by Senate committees on legislation,
            nominations, and treaties.
      --To publish in the Daily Digest a listing of all legislation which
            have become public law.
      --To publish on the first legislative day of each month in the Daily
            Digest a ``Resume of Congressional Activity'' which includes
            all Congressional statistical information, including days and
            time in session; measures introduced, reported and passed; and
            roll call votes. (See Resume of Congressional Activity which
            follows).
      --To assist the House Daily Digest Editor in the preparation at the
            end of each session of Congress a history of public bills
            enacted into law and a final resume of congressional
            statistical activity.
    Committee Activity
        Senate committees held a total of 874 meetings during the first
    session of the 109th Congress, as contrasted with 838 meetings during
    the first session of the 108th Congress.
        All hearings and business meetings (including joint meetings and
    conferences) are scheduled through the Office of the Senate Daily
    Digest and are published in the Congressional Record and entered in the
    Legislative Information System. Meeting outcomes are also published by
    the Daily Digest in the Congressional Record each day.
    Chamber Activity
        The Senate was in session a total of 159 days, for a total of 1,222
    hours and 26 minutes. There were 3 live quorum calls and 366 record
    votes. (See Chart depicting a 20-Year Comparison of Senate Legislative
    Activity which follows).

                                                                            20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1986          1987          1988          1989          1990          1991          1992          1993          1994          1995
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Convened.....................................          1/21           1/6          1/25           1/3          1/23           1/3           1/3           1/5          1/25           1/4
    Senate Adjourned....................................         10/18         12/22         10/21         11/21         10/28        1/3/92          10/9         11/26         12/01        1/3/96
    Days in Session.....................................           143           170           137           136           138           158           129           153           138           211
    Hours in Session....................................      1,27815"      1,21452"      1,12648"      1,00319"      1,25014"      1,20044"      1,09109"      1,26941"      1,24333"      1,83910"
    Average Hours per Day...............................           8.9           7.1           8.2           7.4           9.1           7.6           8.5           8.3           9.0           8.7
    Total Measures Passed...............................           747           616           814           605           716           626           651           473           465           346
    Roll Call Votes.....................................           359           420           379           312           326           280           270           395           329           613
    Quorum Calls........................................            16            36            26            11             3             3             5             2             6             3
    Public Laws.........................................           424           240           473           240           244           243           347           210           255            88
    Treaties Ratified...................................            12             3            15             9            15            15            32            20             8            10
    Nominations Confirmed...............................        39,893        46,404        42,317        45,585        42,493        45,369        30,619        38,676        37,446        40,535
    Average Voting Attendance...........................         95.72         94.03         91.58          98.0         97.47         97.16          95.4          97.6         97.02         98.07
    Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon....................           117           131           120            95           116           126           112           128           120           184
    Sessions Convened at 12 Noon........................            25            12            12            14             4             9  ............             6             9             2
    Sessions Convened after 12 Noon.....................             1            25             5            27            17            23            10            15            17            12
    Sessions Continued after 6 p.m......................            92            97            37            88           100           102            91           100           100           158
    Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight................            15             6             7             9            13             6             4             9             7             3
    Saturday Sessions...................................             2             3  ............             1             3             2             2             2             3             5
    Sunday Sessions.....................................  ............             1  ............  ............             2  ............  ............  ............  ............             3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY--Continued
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1996          1997          1998          1999          2000          2001          2002          2003          2004          2005
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Convened.....................................           1/3           1/3          1/27           1/6          1/24           1/3          1/23           1/7          1/20           1/4
    Senate Adjourned....................................          10/4         11/13         10/21         11/19         12/15         12/20         11/20          12/9          12/8         12/22
    Days in Session.....................................           132           153           143           162           141           173           149           167           133           159
    Hours in Session....................................      1,03645"      1,09307"      1,09505"      1,18357"      1,01751"      1,23615"      1,04223"      1,45405"      1,03131"      1,22226"
    Average Hours per Day...............................           7.8           7.1           7.7           7.3           7.2           7.1           7.0           8.7           7.7           7.7
    Total Measures Passed...............................           476           386           506           549           696           425           523           590           663           624
    Roll Call Votes.....................................           306           298           314           374           298           380           253           459           216           366
    Quorum Calls........................................             2             6             4             7             6             3             2             3             1             3
    Public Laws.........................................           245           153           241           170           410           136           241           198           300           170
    Treaties Ratified...................................            28            15            53            13            39             3            17            11            15             6
    Nominations Confirmed...............................        33,176        25,576        20,302        22,468        22,512        25,091        23,633        21,580        24,420        25,942
    Average Voting Attendance...........................         98.22         98.68         97.47         98.02         96.99         98.29         96.36         96.07         95.54         97.41
    Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon....................           113           115           109           118           107           140           119           133           104           121
    Sessions Convened at 12 Noon........................            15            12            31            17            25            10            12             4             9             1
    Sessions Convened after 12 Noon.....................             7             7             2            19            24            21            23            23            21            36
    Sessions Continued after 6 p.m......................            88            96            93           113            94           108           103           134           129           120
    Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight................             1  ............  ............  ............  ............             2             3             8             2             3
    Saturday Sessions...................................             1             1             1             3             1             3  ............             1             2             2
    Sunday Sessions.....................................  ............             1  ............  ............             1  ............  ............             1             1             2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prepared by the Senate Daily Digest--Office of the Secretary.

    Computer Activities
        The Daily Digest continues to send the complete publication at the
    end of each day to the Government Printing Office electronically. The
    Editor, Assistant Editor, and Committee Scheduling Coordinator function
    solely within the framework of adaptability to prepare Digest copy on
    computers, storing and sharing information, permitting prompt editing,
    and the final transfer to floppy disc. The Digest continues the
    practice of sending a disc along with a duplicate hard copy to GPO,
    even though GPO receives the Digest copy by electronic transfer long
    before hand delivery is completed adding to the timeliness of
    publishing the Congressional Record. The Digest office continues to
    feel comfortable with this procedure, both to allow the Digest Editor
    to physically view what is being transmitted to GPO, and to allow GPO
    staff to have a comparable final product to cross reference.
        The Digest office continues to work closely with Senate computer
    staff to refine the LIS/DMS system, including further refinements to
    the Senate committee scheduling application which will improve the data
    entry process. The committee scheduling application was developed in
    1999 as a server-based web-enabled application that is browser
    accessible to all Senate offices. It was designed to replace the
    committee scheduling functions and reports that were supported by the
    mainframe-based Senate Legis System.
    Government Printing Office (GPO)
        The Daily Digest continues to discuss with the Government Printing
    Office problems encountered with the printing of the Digest, and are
    pleased to report that with the onset of electronic transfer of the
    Digest copy, occurrences of editing corrections, especially the
    insertion of page reference numbers, or transcript errors are
    infrequent. Discussions with GPO continue regarding the inclusion of
    on-line corrections.
    Office Summation
        The Daily Digest continues to consult on a daily basis with the
    Senate Parliamentarians, Legislative, Executive, Journal, and Bill
    Clerks, the Official Reporters of Debates, as well as the staffs of the
    Policy Committees and other committee staffs, and is grateful for the
    continued support from these offices.
                               4. enrolling clerk
        The Enrolling Clerk prepares, proofreads, corrects, and prints all
    Senate passed legislation prior to its transmittal to the House of
    Representatives, the National Archives, the Secretary of State, the
    United States Claims Court, and the White House.
        During 2005, 50 enrolled bills (transmitted to the President) and
    11 concurrent resolutions (transmitted to Archives) were prepared,
    printed, proofread, corrected, and printed on parchment.
        A total of 624 additional pieces of legislation in one form or
    another, were passed or agreed to by the Senate, requiring processing
    from this office.
                               5. executive clerk
        The Executive Clerk prepares an accurate record of actions taken by
    the Senate during executive sessions (proceedings on nominations and
    treaties) which is published as the Journal of the Executive
    Proceedings of the Senate at the end of each session of Congress. The
    Executive Clerk also prepares daily the Executive Calendar as well as
    all nomination and treaty resolutions for transmittal to the President.
    Additionally, the Executive Clerk's office processes all executive
    communications, presidential messages and petitions and memorials.
    Nominations
        During the first session of the 109th Congress, there were 1,201
    nomination messages sent to the Senate by the President, transmitting
    27,686 nominations to positions requiring Senate confirmation and 18
    messages withdrawing nominations sent to the Senate during the first
    session of the 109th Congress. Of the total nominations transmitted,
    511 were for civilian positions other than lists in the Foreign
    Service, Coast Guard, NOAA, and Public Health Service. In addition,
    there were 2,740 nominees in the ``civilian list'' categories named
    above. Military nominations received this session totaled 24,435
    (9,860--Air Force; 8,586--Army; 4,607--Navy and 1,382--Marine Corps).
    The Senate confirmed 25,942 nominations this session. Pursuant to the
    provisions of paragraph six of Senate Rule XXXI, 67 nominations were
    returned to the President during the first session of the 109th
    Congress.
    Treaties
        There were 8 treaties transmitted to the Senate by the President
    during the first session of the 109th Congress for its advice and
    consent to ratification, which were ordered printed as treaty documents
    for the use of the Senate (Treaty Doc. 109-1 through 109-8). The Senate
    gave its advice and consent to 6 treaties with various conditions,
    declarations, understandings and provisos to the resolutions of advice
    and consent to ratification.
    Executive Reports and Roll Call Votes
        There were 8 executive reports relating to treaties and a
    nomination ordered printed for the use of the Senate during the first
    session of the 109th Congress (Executive Report 109-1 through 109-8).
    The Senate conducted 27 roll call votes in executive session, all on or
    in relation to nominations and treaties.
        During the year, the Sergeant at Arms' Systems Development Services
    Branch worked with the Executive Clerk to make the Executive Calendar
    more ``user friendly'' and also to further ongoing improvements to the
    Legislative Information System pertaining to the processing of
    nominations, treaties, executive communications, presidential messages
    and petitions and memorials. Additionally, the SAA worked closely with
    the Executive Clerk in the development of the new program for writing
    and publishing the Journal of Executive Proceedings of the Senate each
    session. The new program, now in use for the second session of the
    109th Congress, will greatly improve the pace at which the Journal can
    be developed and published each year.
    Executive Communications
        For the first session of the 109th Congress, 5,119 executive
    communications, 253 petitions and memorials and 34 Presidential
    messages were received and processed.
                                6. journal clerk
        The Journal Clerk takes notes of the daily legislative proceedings
    of the Senate in the ``Minute Book'' and prepares a history of bills
    and resolutions for the printed Journal of the Proceedings of the
    Senate, or Senate Journal, as required by Article I, Section V of the
    Constitution. The Senate Journal is published each calendar year. In
    2005, the Journal Clerk completed the production of the 867 page 2004
    Senate Journal.
        The Journal staff each take 90 minute turns at the rostrum in the
    Senate Chamber, noting by hand for inclusion in the Minute Book (i) all
    orders (entered into by the Senate through unanimous consent
    agreements), (ii) legislative messages received from the President of
    the United States, (iii) messages from the House of Representatives,
    (iv) legislative actions as taken by the Senate (including motions made
    by Senators, points of order raised, and roll call votes taken), (v)
    amendments submitted and proposed for consideration, (vi) bills and
    joint resolutions introduced, and (vii) concurrent and Senate
    resolutions as submitted. These notes of the proceedings are then
    compiled in electronic form for eventual publication at the end of each
    calendar year in the Senate Journal.
        The LIS Senate Journal Authoring System, first utilized by the
    Journal Clerk to successfully compile the 2004 Journal (from start to
    finish), continues to be updated as needed to further assist in the
    efficiency of production; the 2005 Journal is expected to be sent to
    the Government Printing Office for printing at the end of March.
                              7. legislative clerk
        The Legislative Clerk sits at the Secretary's desk in the Senate
    Chamber and reads aloud bills, amendments, the Senate Journal,
    Presidential messages, and other such materials when so directed by the
    Presiding Officer of the Senate. The Legislative Clerk calls the roll
    of members to establish the presence of a quorum and to record and
    tally all yea and nay votes. The office prepares the Senate Calendar of
    Business, published each day that the Senate is in session, and
    prepares additional publications relating to Senate class membership
    and committee and subcommittee assignments. The Legislative Clerk
    maintains the official copy of all measures pending before the Senate
    and must incorporate into those measures any amendments that are agreed
    to. This office retains custody of official messages received from the
    House of Representatives and conference reports awaiting action by the
    Senate.
        The office is responsible for verifying the accuracy of information
    entered into the Legislative Information System (LIS) by the various
    offices of the Secretary. In an effort to monitor and improve the LIS,
    the Legislative Clerk acts as the liaison between legislative clerks
    and technical operations staff of the Sergeant at Arms. The Legislative
    Clerk reviews, prioritizes, and forwards change requests from the
    clerks to the technical operations staff. Over the past year, 30 change
    requests submitted by the clerks to improve the system have been
    implemented. Feedback from the Senate community regarding LIS continues
    to be excellent.
        Additionally, the Legislative Clerk is the Director of Legislative
    Services, providing a single line of communication to the Assistant
    Secretary and Secretary with responsibility for overall coordination,
    supervision, scheduling, and cross-training.
    Summary of Activity
        The first session of the 109th Congress completed its legislative
    business and adjourned sine die on December 22, 2005. During 2005, the
    Senate was in session 159 days and conducted 366 roll call votes. There
    were 286 measures reported from committees and 624 total measures
    passed. In addition, there were 2,695 amendments processed.
    Cross-Training
        Recognizing the importance of planning for the continuity of Senate
    business, under both normal and possibly extenuating circumstances,
    cross-training is strongly emphasized among the Secretary's legislative
    staff. To ensure additional staff is trained to perform the basic floor
    responsibilities of the Legislative Clerk, as well as the various other
    floor-related responsibilities of the Secretary, approximately 50
    percent of the legislative staff is cross-trained.
    Amendment Tracking System Expansion
        The Senate's web-based application that allows users to access
    images of Senate amendments proposed to legislation is called the
    Amendment Tracking System (ATS). Developed in 1997 to provide the
    Senate with online access to amendments, ATS provides legislative staff
    with scanned images of the amendments, and descriptive information
    about them, including their purpose, sponsor, cosponsors, submitted
    date, proposed date, and status.
        During this past year, the Secretary, through the Legislative
    Clerk, Bill Clerk and Information Systems, spent many hours working
    with the technical development staff of the Sergeant at Arms to give
    the ATS a major overhaul. Some of the less visible changes, implemented
    in March, included upgrades to the hardware and underlying software
    programs.
        In September, the scope of information available on ATS expanded to
    include submitted amendments, those that have been submitted but have
    not been proposed on the Senate floor. ATS also expanded the size of
    amendment images from 25 to 50 pages, so users are now able to see up
    to 50 pages of a submitted or proposed amendment. The Senate community
    welcomed the ATS enhancement enthusiastically and feedback has been
    very positive.
                        8. official reporters of debates
        The official Reporters of Debates prepare and edit for publication
    in the Congressional Record a substantially verbatim report of the
    proceedings of the Senate, and serve as liaison for all Senate
    personnel on matters relating to the content of the Record. The
    transcript of proceedings, submitted statements and legislation is
    transmitted in hard copy and electronically throughout the day to the
    Government Printing Office (GPO).
        The office works diligently to assure that the electronic
    submissions to GPO are timely and efficient. The Official Reporters
    encourage offices to make submissions to the Record by electronic
    means, which results in both a tremendous cost saving to the Senate and
    minimizes keyboard errors.
        To enhance efficiency, the office provides guidelines on format for
    the Congressional Record. These provide a helpful tool to assure an
    accurate and timely printing of each day's Congressional Record.
                               9. parliamentarian
        The Parliamentarian's Office continues to perform its essential
    institutional responsibilities to act as a neutral arbiter among all
    parties with an interest in the legislative process. These
    responsibilities include advising the Chair, Senators and their staff,
    as well as committee staff, House members and their staffs,
    administration officials, the media and members of the general public,
    on all matters requiring an interpretation of the Standing Rules of the
    Senate, the precedents of the Senate, unanimous consent agreements, as
    well as provisions of public law affecting the proceedings of the
    Senate.
        The Parliamentarians work in close cooperation with the Senate
    leadership and their floor staffs in coordinating all of the business
    on the Senate floor. The Parliamentarian or one of his assistants is
    always present on the Senate floor when the Senate is in session,
    standing ready to assist the Presiding Officer in his or her official
    duties, as well as to assist any other Senator on procedural matters.
    The Parliamentarians work closely with the staff of the Vice President
    of the United States and the Vice President himself whenever he
    performs his duties as President of the Senate.
        The Parliamentarians monitor all proceedings on the floor of the
    Senate, advise the Presiding Officer on the competing rights of the
    Senators on the floor, and advise all Senators as to what is
    appropriate in debate. The Parliamentarians keep track of the
    amendments offered to the legislation pending on the Senate floor, and
    monitor them for points of order. The Parliamentarians reviewed more
    than 1,000 amendments during 2005 to determine if they met various
    procedural requirements, such as germaneness. The Parliamentarians also
    reviewed thousands of pages of conference reports to determine what
    provisions could appropriately be included therein.
        The Office of the Parliamentarian is responsible for the referral
    to the appropriate committees of all legislation introduced in the
    Senate, all legislation received from the House, as well as all
    communications received from the executive branch, state and local
    governments, and private citizens. In order to perform this
    responsibility, the Parliamentarians do extensive legal and legislative
    research. During 2005, the Parliamentarian and his assistants referred
    2,610 measures and 5,406 communications to the appropriate Senate
    committees. The office worked extensively with Senators and their
    staffs to advise them of the jurisdictional consequences of particular
    drafts of legislation, and evaluated the jurisdictional effect of
    proposed modifications in drafting. The office continues to address the
    jurisdictional questions posed by the creation of the Department of
    Homeland Security, by the adoption of S. Res. 445, which reorganizes
    intelligence and homeland security jurisdiction of the Senate's
    committees, and by the enactment of the Intelligence Reform and
    Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The Parliamentarians have made dozens
    of decisions about the committee referrals of nominations for new
    positions created in this department, nominations for positions which
    existed before this department was created but whose responsibilities
    have changed, and hundreds of legislative proposals concerning the
    department's responsibilities.
        During 2005, as has been the case in the past, the staff of the
    Parliamentarian's Office was frequently called on to analyze and advise
    Senators on a great number of issues arising under the Congressional
    Budget Act of 1974. An additional layer of procedural and budgetary
    complexity was added this year, as this office was called upon to
    advise on unique issues arising from the need to consider two different
    reconciliation bills and several general appropriations bills in the
    wake of the emergency brought about by Hurricane Katrina. The Senate
    considered two separate budget reconciliation bills in 2005, including
    the first spending reduction reconciliation bill in almost a decade.
    Such bills present the Parliamentarian's Office with hundreds of
    judgment calls in the analysis of complex and disparate legislation.
        Additionally, in the last five years, rules relating to legislation
    on appropriations bills, and the scope of conference reports on all
    bills were reinstated. This has opened up hundreds of Senate amendments
    to renewed scrutiny by the Parliamentarians, and has meant that the
    Parliamentarians now have the responsibility of potentially reviewing
    every provision of every conference report considered by both the House
    and the Senate.
                    financial operations: disbursing office
                         disbursing office organization
        The mission of the Senate Disbursing Office is to provide efficient
    and effective central financial and human resource data management,
    information and advice to the distributed, individually managed
    offices, and to Members and employees of the United States Senate. To
    accomplish this mission, the Senate Disbursing Office manages the
    collection of information from the distributed accounting locations in
    the Senate to formulate and consolidate the agency level budget,
    disburse the payroll, pay the Senate's bills, prepare auditable
    financial statements, and provide appropriate counseling and advice.
    The Senate Disbursing Office collects information from Members and
    employees that is necessary to maintain and administer the retirement,
    health insurance, life insurance, and other central human resource
    programs to provide responsive, personal attention to Members and
    employees on a non-biased and confidential basis. The Senate Disbursing
    Office also manages the distribution of central financial and human
    resource information to the individual Member Offices, Committees, and
    Administrative and Leadership offices in the Senate while maintaining
    the appropriate control of information for the protection of individual
    Members and Senate employees.
        To support the mission of the Senate Disbursing Office, the
    organization is structured in a manner that is intended to enhance its
    ability to provide quality work, maintain a high level of customer
    service, promote good internal controls, efficiency and teamwork, and
    provide for the appropriate levels of supervision and management. The
    long-term financial needs of the Senate are best served by an
    organization staffed with highly trained professionals who possess a
    high degree of institutional knowledge, sound judgment, and
    interpersonal skills that reflect the unique nature of the United
    States Senate.
                   deputy for benefits and financial services
        The principal responsibility of this position is to provide
    expertise on Federal retirement and benefits, payroll, and front office
    processes. Coordination of the interaction between the Financial
    Services, Employee Benefits, and Payroll sections is also a major
    responsibility of the position, in addition to the planning and project
    management of new computer systems and programs. The Deputy for
    Benefits and Financial Services ensures that job processes are
    efficient and up to date, modifies computer support systems, implements
    regulatory and legislated changes, and designs and produces forms for
    use in all three sections.
        After year end processing of payroll for the calendar year 2004, a
    few minor alterations to the new version of the payroll system were
    made, and enhancements to the COLA process were smoothly completed. W-
    2s were issued promptly and were immediately available on the Imaging
    system.
        Starting in February, enhancements to the Document Imaging System
    began and updates to the system, including the ability to e-mail images
    to other agencies and to rearrange documents within folders, were
    added. Back up and storage processes for document images continue to be
    refined. Existing Disaster Recovery efforts continue to be improved to
    provide easy access to this important data. All microfilm records from
    the Benefits/Payroll side of the Office were imaged and by the end of
    the year, there was no longer a need to use microfilm.
        During April, the qualified lender certification process, part of
    the Student Loan Repayment Program, was modified. The main drawback
    encountered was to authorize a Disbursing representative to talk with
    the staff member's loan servicer, and the verification of the loan
    particulars by a follow up call to the lender. The new process requires
    the staff member to get a standard form completed by their lender and
    submit it with their paperwork. This removed a tremendous number of
    phone calls to and from lenders, the Office, and staff members and has
    greatly expedited the process. It also allowed the process to be
    handled on a rotating basis by a payroll specialist.
        During the year many reports used by the Employee Benefits Section
    were examined and updated to reflect new reporting requirements and to
    enhance system support. One new form was produced for the Termination
    Log, which tracks all employees who left the Senate during the previous
    payroll period. Now, all required forms for terminating employees are
    produced by our payroll system.
        The Senate warehouse project is nearing completion as the process
    of transitioning materials is in its final phase. For many years,
    Disbursing files were stored in two Senate off-site locations, due to
    space limitations. All Disbursing files in both off-site warehouses
    were examined, organized, placed on pallets, and numbered in
    preparation for the move to the new warehouse. The numbers of pallets
    requiring storage room were confirmed, and over 70 file cabinets
    holding historical personnel and office records were prepared for the
    move in early December 2005. An enclosed, secure and environmentally
    controlled area was provided for personnel files and 6 new revolving
    vertical storage file cabinets were prepared for the site. The cabinets
    will hold all current files and provide ample space for growth.
    Additional space for 100 pallets was also provided in the new warehouse
    which should fulfill Disbursing's storage needs for many years.
              front counter--administrative and financial services
        The Front Counter is the main service area of all general Senate
    business and financial activity. The Front Counter maintains the
    Senate's internal accountability of funds used in daily operations.
    Reconciliation of such funds is executed on a daily basis. The Front
    Counter provides training to newly authorized payroll contacts along
    with continuing guidance to all contacts in the execution of business
    operations. It is the receiving point for most incoming expense
    vouchers, payroll actions, and employee benefits related forms, and is
    the initial verification point to ensure that paperwork received in the
    Disbursing Office conforms to all applicable Senate rules, regulations,
    and statutes. The Front Counter is the first line of service provided
    to Senate Members, Officers, and employees. All new Senate employees
    (permanent and temporary) who will work in the Capitol Hill Senate
    offices are administered the required oath of office and personnel
    affidavit and provided verbal and written detailed information
    regarding their pay and benefits. Authorization is certified to new and
    state employees for issuance of their Senate I.D. card. Advances are
    issued to Senate staff authorized for an advance for official Senate
    travel. Cash and check advances are entered and reconciled in the Funds
    Advance Tracking System (FATS). Repayment of travel advances is
    executed after processing of certified expenses is complete. Travelers
    Checks are available on a non-profit basis to assist the traveler.
    Numerous inquiries are handled daily, ranging from pay, benefits,
    taxes, voucher processing, reporting, laws, and Senate regulations, and
    must always be answered accurately and fully to provide the highest
    degree of customer service. Cash and checks received from Senate
    entities as part of their daily business are handled through the Front
    Counter and become part of the Senate's accountability of federally
    appropriated funds and are then processed through the Senate's general
    ledger system.
    General Activities
        The Front Counter processed approximately 2,200 cash advances,
    totaling approximately $1.1 million and initialized 710 check/direct
    deposit advances, totaling approximately $709,000.
        Received and processed more than 28,000 checks, totaling over
    $3,000,000.
        Administered Oath and Personnel Affidavits to more than 3,000 new
    Senate staff and advised them of their benefits.
        Maintained brochures for 10 Federal health carriers and distributed
    approximately 3,500 brochures to new and existing staff during the
    annual FEHB Open Season.
        Provided 25 training sessions to new Administrative Managers.
        The Front Office operations continued the daily reconciliation of
    operations and strengthened internal office controls. Training and
    guidance to new Administrative Managers and business contacts
    continued, as well as the incorporation of updates of the scanning and
    imaging project into daily operations. A major emphasis was placed on
    assisting employees in maximizing their Thrift Savings Plan
    contributions and making them aware of the Thrift Savings Plan catch up
    program when applicable. Front Office operations continued to provide
    the Senate community with prompt, courteous, and informative advice
    regarding Disbursing operations.
                                payroll section
        The Payroll Section maintains the Human Resources Management System
    (HRMS) and is responsible for the processing, verifying, and
    warehousing all payroll information submitted to the Disbursing Office
    by Senators for their personal staff, by Chairmen for their committee
    staff, and by other elected officials for their staff; issuing salary
    payments to the above employees; rectifying returns of student loan
    allowance payments, jointly maintaining the Automated Clearing House
    (ACH) FEDLINE facilities with the Accounts Payable Section for the
    normal transmittal of payroll deposits to the Federal Reserve;
    distributing the appropriate payroll expenditure and allowance reports
    to the individual offices; issuing the proper withholding and agency
    contributions reports to the Accounting Department; and transmitting
    the proper Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) information to the National
    Finance Center (NFC), while maintaining earnings records for
    distribution to the Social Security Administration, and maintaining
    employees' taxable earnings records for W-2 statements. The Payroll
    Section is also responsible for the payroll expenditure data portion of
    the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
    General Activities
        The Payroll Section processed a January 1, 2006 cost of living
    increase of 3.44 percent. The Payroll Section maintained the normal
    schedule of processing TSP open season forms. Employees took full
    advantage of the increase of TSP deductions making the most of the new
    $15,000 maximum. For those employees over 50 years of age, the TSP
    catch-up programs provided them with an opportunity to make additional
    contributions in excess of the standard program.
        The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina gave members of the Payroll
    Section the opportunity to work directly with TSP employees as their
    COOP facility was located in the Virginia suburbs. Several visits were
    made to the site to ensure the deductions for employees of the Senate
    were properly applied, and to receive training on their Web based
    processing system.
        The Student Loan Program, Flexible Spending Accounts, and Long Term
    Care account processing continues. The office continues to refine and
    improve processes in working with third party contractors. In addition,
    the elections of 2004 presented the section with the task of opening
    and closing nine offices plus the monitoring of S. Res. 9 payrolls
    during the first 6 months of 2005.
        The Payroll Section again participated in the December disaster
    recovery testing. This year's test entailed using the ACF processing
    equipment to operate the payroll/personnel system from the Hart
    Building while SAA programmers ran trial payrolls from dial up sources.
    Part of the test was for members of SAA Production Services to produce
    the payroll output from printers located at the ACF. During the
    holidays, members of the Payroll Section conducted another test of the
    payroll personnel system by processing over 400 salary changes through
    dial up from a laptop computer. The payroll personnel system test
    proved that it could be run from many locations at the same time.
                           employee benefits section
        The primary responsibilities of the Employee Benefits Section (EBS)
    are administration of health insurance, life insurance and all
    retirement programs for Members and employees of the Senate. This
    includes counseling, processing of paperwork, research, dissemination
    of information and interpretation of retirement and benefits laws and
    regulations. In addition, the sectional work includes research and
    verification of all prior federal service and prior Senate service for
    new and returning appointees. EBS provides this information for payroll
    input, and once Official Personnel Folders and Transcripts of Service
    are received, verifies the accuracy of the information provided and
    reconciles as necessary. Transcripts of Service, including all official
    retirement and benefits documentation, are provided to other federal
    agencies when Senate Members and staff are hired elsewhere in the
    government. EBS processes employment verifications for loans, the Bar
    Exam, the FBI, OPM, and DOD, among others. Unemployment claim forms are
    completed, and employees are counseled on their eligibility. Department
    of Labor billings for unemployment compensation paid to Senate
    employees are reviewed in EBS and submitted by voucher to the
    Accounting Section for payment, as are the employee fees associated
    with the Flexible Spending Accounts. Designations of Beneficiary for
    FEGLI, CSRS, FERS, and unpaid compensation are filed and checked by
    EBS.
    General Activities
        The year began with EBS finalizing retirement estimates and
    processing the many retirement cases associated with the outgoing
    Senators and their staffs, as well as committee staff affected by the
    changes. Approximately 150 retirement cases were processed throughout
    2005.
        There was a great deal of employee turnover in early 2005. New
    Members appointed numerous employees from the House and Executive
    Branch, and many other employees left with their outgoing Members, many
    of whom were appointed to positions in the Executive Branch. This
    caused a dramatic increase in appointments to be researched and
    processed, retirement records to be closed out, termination packages of
    benefits information to be compiled and mailed out, and health
    insurance enrollments to be processed. Transcripts of service for
    employees going to other federal agencies, and other tasks associated
    with employees changing jobs were at a high level this year. These
    required prior employment research and verification, new FEHB, FEGLI,
    FSA, CSRS, FERS and TSP enrollments, and the associated requests for
    backup verification.
        The 2004 OPM FEGLI Open Season (OS) elections took effect September
    1, 2005. EBS verified and processed all OS elections and provided
    reminder notifications and guidance to those affected. Approximately
    350 Senate employee FEGLI changes were processed.
        Interagency meetings attended involved time spent on the
    development and understanding of the new Vision and Dental (V&D)
    programs that will surface in late 2006 and the new Voluntary Benefits
    Portal that is in development under the direction of Office of
    Personnel Management (OPM) to combine third-party administration of
    FSA, LTCI and the new V&D programs. Information was also shared on the
    implementation of the FEGLI Open Season enrollments. Interaction and
    cooperation were essential in the continuing operations of the New
    Orleans-based Thrift Savings Plan and the National Finance Center in
    the wake of Hurricane Katrina. EBS did as much as possible to provide
    assistance and information to Senate staff that would normally be
    provided by TSP.
        The annual FEHB Open Season was held and approximately 500
    employees changed plans. These changes were processed and reported to
    carriers in record time. Once again, the on-line Checkbook Guide to
    Health Plans was made available to Senate employees to research and
    compare FEHB plans. This tool will remain available to staff throughout
    the year. Additional effort was made to increase employee awareness and
    understanding of this valuable tool, and feedback is positive. The FEHB
    Open Season Health Fair was also attended by about 600 employees and as
    an additional service, it was open to all other federal employees on
    the Hill, including House, Capitol Police, Architect of the Capitol and
    Senate Restaurant employees. In addition to having health plan
    representatives available to provide information and answer questions,
    representatives from FSA Feds and Long Term Care Insurance were also in
    attendance.
        Much effort was made in coordination with the Senate Computer
    Center to effect computer enhancements and provide additional automated
    forms to our database. This has provided greater efficiency and
    increased accuracy of information.
        EBS continues to work with our File Room personnel to modify our
    procedures and the flow of forms to maintain imaged documentation with
    COOP preparedness in mind. For COOP readiness with respect to employee
    personnel folder access, the goal for 2006 is to explore alternatives
    to complete the scanning of all ``prior'' employee personnel folder
    documents that are housed in the Disbursing file room.
        Educational seminars were held for the Civil Service Retirement
    System and the Federal Employees Retirement System. These seminars for
    staff were well attended and well received.
        Due to the continued boom in the housing market, employment
    verifications came in at a rapid pace, averaging over 100 per month.
    Unemployment verifications were especially high early in the year and
    remained constant throughout the year. Telephone inquiries, though not
    specifically tracked, continued at high levels.
                     disbursing office financial management
        Headed by the Deputy for Financial Management, the mission of
    Disbursing Office Financial Management (DOFM) is to coordinate all
    central financial policies, procedures, and activities, to process and
    pay expense vouchers within reasonable time frames, to work toward
    producing an auditable consolidated financial statement for the Senate
    and to provide professional customer service, training and confidential
    financial guidance to all Senate accounting locations. In addition, the
    Financial Management group is responsible for the compilation of the
    annual operating budget of the United States Senate for presentation to
    the Committee on Appropriations as well as for the formulation,
    presentation and execution of the budget for the Senate. On a
    semiannual basis, this group is also responsible for the compilation,
    validation and completion of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
    DOFM is segmented into three functional departments: Accounting,
    Accounts Payable, and Budget. The Accounts Payable Department is
    subdivided into three sections: the Audit group, the Disbursement group
    and the Vendor/SAVI group. The Deputy coordinates the activities of the
    three functional departments, establishes central financial policies
    and procedures, acts as the primary liaison to Human Resources, and
    carries out the directives of the Financial Clerk and the Secretary of
    the Senate.
                             accounting department
        During fiscal year 2005, the Accounting Department approved nearly
    47,800 expense reimbursement vouchers, processed 1,300 deposits for
    items ranging from receipts received by the Senate operations, such as
    the Senate's Revolving Funds, to canceled subscription refunds from
    Member offices. General ledger maintenance also prompted the entry of
    thousands of adjustment entries that include the entry of all
    appropriation and allowance funding limitation transactions, all
    accounting cycle closing entries, and all non-voucher reimbursement
    transactions such as payroll adjustments, COLA (cost of living) budget
    uploads, stop payment requests, travel advances and repayments, and
    limited payability reimbursements.
        This year the Accounting Department assisted in the validation of
    various system upgrades and modifications, including the testing
    required to implement Web Release 10.0, an upgrade to the mainframe
    operating system to Z/OS, and the testing of last non-zero balance date
    to fix process control. During January 2005, the Accounting Department
    with assistance from a contractor, Bearing Point, completed the 2004
    year-end process to close and reset revenue, expense and budgetary
    general ledger accounts to zero. During June 2005, we successfully
    tested and implemented in Federal FAMIS another document purge
    including the archiving of Web report data for lapsed years. Further,
    toward the end of the fiscal year, the financial file rollover was
    performed to update FAMIS' tables and create the new index codes needed
    to accommodate data for fiscal year 2006.
        The Department of the Treasury's monthly financial reporting
    requirements includes a Statement of Accountability that details all
    increases and decreases to the accountability of the Secretary of the
    Senate, such as checks issued during the month and deposits received,
    as well as a detailed listing of cash on hand. Also, on a monthly
    basis, reported to the Department of the Treasury is the Statement of
    Transactions According to Appropriations, Fund and Receipt Accounts
    that summarizes all activity at the appropriation level of all monies
    disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate through the Financial Clerk of
    the Senate. All activity by appropriation account is reconciled with
    the Department of the Treasury on a monthly and annual basis. The
    annual reconciliation of the Treasury Combined Statement is also used
    in the reporting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as part
    of the submission of the annual operating budget of the Senate.
        This year, the Accounting Department transmitted all Federal tax
    payments for Federal, Social Security, and Medicare taxes withheld from
    payroll expenditures, as well as the Senate's matching contribution for
    Social Security and Medicare, to the Federal Reserve Bank. The
    Department also performed quarterly reporting to the Internal Revenue
    Service (IRS) and annual reporting and reconciliation to the IRS and
    the Social Security Administration. Payments for employee withholdings
    for state income taxes were reported and paid on a quarterly basis to
    each state with applicable state income taxes withheld. Monthly
    reconciliations were performed with the National Finance Center
    regarding the employee withholdings and agency matching contributions
    for the Thrift Savings Plan.
        In addition to Treasury's external reporting deadlines, there are
    internal reporting requirements such as the monthly ledger statements
    for all Member offices and all other offices with payroll and non-
    payroll expenditures. These ledger statements detail all of the
    financial activity for the appropriate accounting period with regard to
    official expenditures in detail and summary form. Each month, the
    Accounting Department reviews and verifies the accuracy of the
    statements before distribution is made.
        The Accounting Department, in conjunction with the Deputy for
    Financial Management, continues to work closely with the Sergeant at
    Arms Finance Department in completing the corrective actions that were
    identified during our pro-forma financial statements' audit ability
    assessment. Based on the results of this exercise, 23 corrective
    actions were suggested including an action plan and proposed schedule
    to have them corrected. Some of the actions were rather simple to
    implement while others will take significantly longer. Of the 23
    corrective actions noted, 18 have been completed and 5 are still in
    process. As part of this project, the Accounting Group is working with
    the SAA in reconciling FAMIS entries to Asset Center. The Accounting
    Group also finalized clearing all CASHLINK outstanding items.
        As part of the financial statement initiative, the accounting group
    has worked on the validation of the Senate's pro-forma financial
    statements for fiscal year 2004. The validation of the statements of
    financial position, net costs and changes in net position for fiscal
    year 2004 is complete. Work is still underway on the last two
    statements--budgetary resources and finance--and is expected to be
    completed by the end of March. At that time, work on the fiscal year
    2005 statements will begin.
        Toward the end of the calendar year, in coordination with SAA
    staff, the Chief Accountant and the Deputy for Financial Management
    participated in successful testing of our disaster recovery facility.
                                accounts payable
                              vendor/savi section
        Created in 2003, the Vendor/SAVI section is responsible for
    maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the Senate's central vendor
    (payee) file, for the prompt completion of new vendor file requests,
    and service requests related to the Office's web-based payment tracking
    system known as SAVI. This section also assists the IT Department
    performing periodic testing and monitoring of the performance of the
    SAVI system.
        Currently, there are more than 13,400 vendor records stored in the
    vendor file. Daily requests for new vendor addresses or updates to
    existing vendor information are processed within 24 hours of being
    received. In 2004, the A/P Department began to pay vendors
    electronically via the Automated Clearing House (ACH). Besides updating
    mailing addresses, the Vendor/SAVI section facilitates the use of ACH
    by switching the method of payment requested by the vendor from check
    to ACH. Whenever a new remittance address is added to the vendor file,
    a standard letter is mailed to our vendors requesting tax and banking
    information. Currently, more than 1,250 vendors and over half of the
    state offices' landlords are being paid by ACH.
        As stated earlier, SAVI is Disbursing's web-based payment tracking
    system. Senate staff may electronically create, save, and file expense
    reimbursement forms, track their progress, and receive detailed
    information on payments made. The most common service requests are
    those for system user ids, system passwords and to activate deactivated
    accounts; less common but more complicated are employee requests for an
    alternative expense payment method. An employee can choose to have
    their payroll set up for direct deposit but may have their expenses
    reimbursed by paper check.
        The Vendor/SAVI section works closely with the A/P disbursements
    group resolving returned EFT issues. EFT payments are returned
    periodically for a variety of reasons. The reasons given have included
    incorrect account numbers, incorrect ABA routing numbers, and, in rare
    instances, a nonparticipating financial institution. Most EFT return
    issues are easy to resolve; however, there are some instances that
    result with a vendor being converted back to paper check payments.
    Currently, there are no unresolved returned EFT issues.
        The Vendor/SAVI section continues to electronically scan and store
    supporting documentation of vendor file requests. Currently, with
    assistance from the Disbursement Group, over 5,000 vendors have been
    electronically scanned and the paper files certified for destruction.
    In the near future, this section will assist the IT Department in
    testing an automatic e-mail notification system which will alert
    vendors when an EFT payment has been made and will provide pertinent
    payment information.
        This year, the Vendor/SAVI section processed over 2,700 vendor file
    requests, completed nearly 2,200 SAVI service requests and mailed over
    1,400 vendor information letters.
                                accounts payable
                            disbursements department
        Well over 120,000 expense claims were received and processed by the
    department in 2005. More than 32,500 expense checks were written and
    approximately 56,500 direct deposit reimbursements were transmitted.
    The department has experienced a small decline of roughly 7 percent in
    the number of checks written and a slightly larger increase of 13
    percent in the number of ACH payments, and it is expected that this
    trend will continue. The department suffered no performance loss,
    ensuring that all vendors and employees continued to receive timely and
    accurate payments.
        After vouchers are paid, they are sorted and filed by document
    number. Vouchers are grouped in 6-month ``clusters'' to accommodate
    their retrieval for the semi-annual Report of the Secretary of the
    Senate. Files are maintained for the current period and two prior
    periods in-house as space is limited. Older documents are stored at the
    warehouse facility.
        A major function of the department is to prepare adjustment
    documents. Adjustments are varied and include the following:
    preparation of foreign travel advances and vouchers, reimbursements for
    expenses incurred by Senate Leadership, re-issuance of items held as
    accounts receivable collections, re-issuance of payments for which non-
    receipt is claimed, and various supplemental adjustments received from
    the Payroll Department. Such adjustments are usually disbursed by
    check, but an increasing number are now handled electronically via ACH
    as more vendors and employees opt for this payment method.
        The Disbursements Department is also responsible for researching
    returned checks as vendors request additional information relating to
    payment allocation. Fortunately, few checks are returned. This is a
    result of the use of a centralized vendor file and accurate
    certification of payments. There are currently no unresolved returned
    check issues.
        During 2005, an increasing number of ACH items were returned for
    reasons ranging from erroneous account information to non-participation
    by depositing banks. Some of the returns were simply notices of change
    while others were rejected outright. Procedures were established which
    created a liaison with the Vendor/SAVI group, Payroll, and Accounting.
    Corrections are forwarded to the Vendor/SAVI group so the corrections
    may be made in the vendor file. Corrections involving payroll are
    forwarded to that department. Such corrections are downloaded into the
    vendor file for nightly processing.
        All rejected items are logged into an ACH Reports folder in Excel.
    They are classified as either Payroll or Accounts Payable, and the
    actual daily reports are also scanned into the folder. Once logged in,
    the payroll items are forwarded to the Payroll Department, and the non-
    payroll items are forwarded to Vendor/SAVI for appropriate corrective
    action. Corrective actions include correction of erroneous data and
    retransmission, or sometimes re-issuance by paper check. Once the
    corrective action is determined, an accounting memo is drafted and
    given to Disbursements and the appropriate action is taken. The Excel
    spreadsheet contains details of the return as well as information
    relating to the corrective action taken. Accounting then uses the
    information contained in the spreadsheet to assist them in reconciling
    CASHLINK with the Treasury.
        The Accounts Payable Disbursements Department prepares mailing
    labels for the distribution of the monthly ledgers to the 140
    accounting locations throughout the Senate. Although the ledgers are
    sorted and sent out by Accounting, the Disbursements Group maintains
    the file of how and where the statements are to be delivered. This
    information is transferred to mailing labels, placed on manila
    envelopes, and given to Accounting. Offices expressing no preference
    have their statements sent to their respective offices marked
    ``Personal and Confidential.'' The main objective of this process is to
    have each office receive their ledger statements for the month just
    ended by the 10th of the following month.
        The Department also prepares the forms required by the Department
    of Treasury for stop payments. Stop payments are requested by employees
    who have not received salary or expense reimbursements, and vendors
    claiming non-receipt of expense checks. During this year, the A/P
    Disbursement Supervisor and the Accounts Payable Manager continued
    using the Department of Treasury's Financial Management Service (FMS)
    online stop pay and check retrieval process known as PACER. The PACER
    system allows us to electronically submit stop-payment requests and
    provides on-line access to digital images of negotiated checks for
    viewing and printing. Once a check is viewed, it is printed and may be
    scanned. Scanned images are then forwarded to the appropriate
    accounting locations via e-mail. This process has been well received by
    Senate offices and vendors. This saves time and significantly reduces
    reliance on the postal system. Accounts Payable Disbursements staff
    have Treasury secure ID cards and are trained in the use of PACER.
    Given the time and money savings, as well as the overwhelmingly
    positive reception, large growth in the use of PACER for check
    retrieval purposes is anticipated.
        The Disbursements Department continues the use of laser checks. The
    tractor-fed check writer system has been dismantled and a new, improved
    system was developed and implemented. The previously ordered folder/
    inserter was purchased and has been installed. In addition to the new
    folder/inserter, the replacement was comprehensive in scope. New
    hardware was introduced and further check writer upgrades are scheduled
    for 2006. The result is a user friendly system which has the additional
    benefits of greater security and higher degree of accuracy. Only
    certain key personnel have access to the signature fonts which are
    specific to each individual, and print quality has been significantly
    improved.
        Work continues on the reconciliation of the replacement check
    account. A team was formed consisting of the Deputy for Financial
    Management, Accounts Payable Manager, Chief Accountant, Accounts
    Payable Disbursements Supervisor and Staff Accountants. Persistent and
    determined revenue collection procedures have resulted in the
    elimination of all but one unresolved item.
                                accounts payable
                                audit department
        The Accounts Payable Audit Section is responsible for auditing
    vouchers and answering questions regarding voucher preparation and the
    permissibility of expenses and advances. This section provides advice
    and recommendations on the discretionary use of funds to the various
    accounting locations, identifies duplicate payments submitted by
    offices, monitors payments related to contracts, trains Administrative
    Managers and Chief Clerks about Senate financial practices, trains
    Administrative Managers in the use of the Senate's Financial Management
    Information System, and assists in the production of the Report of the
    Secretary of the Senate.
        A major function of the Section is to monitor the Fund Advance
    Tracking System (FATS) to ensure that advances are charged correctly,
    vouchers repaying such advances are entered, and balances are adjusted
    for reuse of the advance funds. An ``aging'' process is also performed
    to ensure that travel advances are repaid in the time specified by the
    advance travel regulations. Travel advances may be repaid via regular
    voucher processing, or may be canceled if the corresponding travel is
    not taken.
        The Accounts Payable Audit Section, currently a group of 13, has
    the responsibility for the daily processing of expense claims submitted
    by the 140 accounting locations of the Senate. The section processed in
    excess of 145,000 expense vouchers in fiscal year 2005, as well as
    23,000 uploaded items. The voucher processing ranged in scope from
    providing interpretation of Senate rules, regulations and statute,
    applying the same to expense claims, monitoring of contracts and direct
    involvement with the Senate's central vendor file. On average, vouchers
    greater than $100 that do not have any issues or questions are
    received, audited, sanctioned by Rules and paid by Disbursing within 10
    business days of receipt.
        Uploaded items are of two varieties, certified expenses and vendor
    payments. Certified expenses include items such as stationery,
    telecommunications, postage, and equipment. Charges incurred by the
    various Senate offices are certified to Disbursing on a monthly basis.
    As an example, the Keeper of Stationery tracks all expenditures for
    each office, and sends a voucher certifying the expenses incurred over
    the previous month. The expenses are detailed on a spreadsheet which is
    also electronically uploaded. The physical voucher is audited and
    appropriate revisions are made. The revisions are transferred into the
    uploaded spreadsheet which is then used to effect payment to the
    Keeper. Concentrated effort is put forth to ensure certified items
    appear as paid in the same month they are incurred.
        Vendor uploads are fairly new, and are used to pay vendors for the
    Stationery Room, Senate Gift Shop, State office rentals, and refunds of
    security deposits for the Page School. The methodology is roughly the
    same as for certifications, but the payments rendered are for the
    individual vendors. Although these items are generally processed and
    paid quickly, the State Office rents are generally paid a few days
    prior to the month of the rental in keeping with a general policy of
    paying rent in advance.
        During fiscal year 2004, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and
    Administration increased the delegated sanctioning authority for
    vouchers from $35 or less to $100 or less. These vouchers comprise
    approximately 60 percent of all vouchers processed. The responsibility
    for sanctioning rests with the Certifying Accounts Payable Specialists
    and are received, audited, and paid within 5 business days of receipt.
    Disbursing passed two post-payment audits performed by the Rules
    Committee.
        The Accounts Payable Audit Group provided training sessions in the
    use of new systems, the process for generation of expense claims, the
    permissibility of an expense, and participated with seminars sponsored
    by the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Library
    of Congress. The Section trained 14 new Administrative Managers and
    Chief Clerks and conducted 5 informational sessions for Senate staff
    through seminars sponsored by the Congressional Research Service. The
    Accounts Payable group also routinely assists the IT department and
    other groups as necessary in the testing and implementation of the new
    hardware, software, and system applications. Web FMIS version 9 was in
    use for most of the year with the electronic, importable expense
    summary report (ESR). The electronic ESR has gained widespread
    acceptance and Web FMIS version 10 was installed in September.
    Extensive testing is anticipated for the release of Web FMIS version
    10.3 in fiscal year 2006.
        A cancellation process was established for advances in 2004. This
    was necessary to ensure repayment of advances systematically for
    canceled or postponed travel in accordance with Senate travel
    regulations. Advance procedures including cancellation were formally
    incorporated into the Policies and Procedures Manual. Although
    procedures are in place, enhancement is necessary and is expected in a
    later release of Web FMIS. Cancellation of other Web vouchers is also
    scheduled for testing during a later system release. The A/P sections
    within the Polices and Procedures Manual continue to be updated and
    revised as new policies, regulations, and system functionality
    enhancements dictate.
                               budget department
        The third component of the Disbursing Office Financial Management
    Group is the Budget Department. The primary responsibility of the
    Budget Department is to compile the annual operating budget of the
    United States Senate for presentation to the Committee on
    Appropriations. The Budget Department is responsible for the
    preparation, issuance and distribution of the budget justification
    worksheets (BJW). In fiscal year 2005, the budget justification
    worksheets were processed in December. The budget baseline estimates
    for fiscal year 2006 were reported to the Office of Management and
    Budget in January.
        This department is also responsible for the formulation,
    presentation and execution of the budget for the Senate and provides a
    wide range of analytical, technical and advisory functions related to
    the budget process. The Budget Department acts as the Budget Officer
    for the Office of the Secretary, assisting in the preparation of
    testimony for the hearings before the Committee on Appropriations and
    the Committee on Rules and Administration.
        During January, the Senate Budget Analyst is responsible for the
    preparation of 1099's and the prompt submission of forms to the IRS
    before the end of the month.
                    disbursing office information technology
                    financial management information system
        The Disbursing Office Information Technology (IT) Department
    provides both functional and technical assistance for all Senate
    financial management activities. Activities revolve around support of
    the Senate's Financial Management Information System (FMIS) which is
    used by approximately 140 Senate accounting locations (i.e., 100
    Senator's offices, 20 Committees, 20 Leadership and Support offices,
    the Rules Committee Audit section, and the Disbursing Office).
    Responsibilities include:
      --Supporting current systems;
      --Testing infrastructure changes;
      --Managing and testing new system development;
      --Planning;
      --Managing the FMIS project, including contract management;
      --Administering the Disbursing Office's Local Area Network (LAN); and
      --Coordinating the Disbursing Office's disaster recovery activities.
        Work during 2005 was supported by the Sergeant at Arms Technology
    Services staff, the Secretary's Information Technology staff, and
    contracts with Bearing Point.
        The SAA Technology Services staff provides the technical
    infrastructure, including hardware (mainframe and servers), operating
    system software (mainframe and servers), database software, and
    telecommunications; technical assistance for these components,
    including migration management, and database administration; and
    regular batch processing. Bearing Point is responsible, under the
    contract with the SAA, for operational support, and under contract with
    the Secretary, for application development. The Disbursing Office is
    the ``business owner'' of FMIS and is responsible for making the
    functional decisions about FMIS. The three organizations work
    cooperatively.
        Highlights of the year include:
      --Implementation of six releases of Web FMIS. Combined, these
            releases took FMIS to the ``zero-client'' platform, an
            important milestone in providing this critical system in a
            disaster situation. By the end of April 2005 all Web FMIS users
            were using the intranet version of Web FMIS;
      --Implementation of a release of SAVI that enables Macintosh computer
            users to use this system;
      --Support of the Rules Committee's post payment audit for the Rules
            Committee Audit to conduct a statistically valid sample of
            vouchers of $100 and under for which sanctioning was delegated
            to the Financial Clerk;
      --Upgrading our e-mail to ``Active Directory'';
      --Coordinating and participating in the FMIS portion of a disaster
            recovery exercise for the Alternate Computing Facility; and
      --Conducting monthly classes and seminars on Web FMIS.
        FMIS is not a single computer system. It is composed of many
    subsystems that provide Senate-specific functionality. These subsystems
    are outlined in the table that begins on the following page.

                                                         SENATE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subsystem                          Functionality                             Source                      Primary Users         Implementation
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FAMIS (Mainframe)............  General ledger..........................  Off the shelf federal system       Disbursing Office.........  October 1998
                                   Vendor file                                purchased from Bearing Point.
                                   Administrative functions
                                   Security functions
    ADPICS (Mainframe)...........  Preparation of requisition, purchase      Off the shelf federal system       Sergeant at Arms..........  October 1998
                                    order, voucher from purchase order, and   purchased from Bearing Point.     Disbursing Office
                                    direct voucher documents.                                                   Secretary of the Senate
                                   Electronic document review functions
                                   Administrative functions
    Checkwriter (Client-server)..  Prints checks and check registers as      Off the shelf state government     Disbursing Office.........  October 1998
                                    well as ACH (Automated Clearing House)    system purchased from and
                                    direct deposit transmission payments.     adapted to Senate's requirements
                                                                              by Bearing Point.
    Web FMIS (Intranet)..........  Preparation of vouchers, travel           Custom software developed under    All Senators' offices.....  October 1999
                                    advances, vouchers from advance           Senate contract by Bearing Point. All Committee offices       Client Server
                                    documents, credit documents and simple                                      All Leadership and Support  August 2004
                                    commitment and obligation documents.                                         offices                    Intranet
                                   Entry of detailed budget                                                     Secretary of the Senate
                                   Reporting functions (described below)                                        Sergeant at Arms
                                   Electronic document submission and                                           Disbursing Office
                                    review functions
                                   Administrative functions
    FATS (PC-based)..............  Tracks travel advances and petty cash     Developed by SAA Technology Serv-  Disbursing Office.........  Spring 1983
                                    advances (available to Committees only).   ices.
                                   Tracks election cycle information
    Post Payment Voucher Audit     Selects a random sample of vouchers for   Excel spreadsheet developed by     Rules Committee...........  Spring 2003
     (PC-based).                    which sanctioning was delegated to the    Bearing Point.                    Disbursing Office
                                    Financial Clerk for the Rules Committee
                                    to use in conducting a post payment
                                    audit.
    SAVI (Intranet)..............  As currently implemented, provides self-  Off the shelf system purchased     Senate employees..........  Pilot--Spring
                                    service access (via the Senate's          from Bearing Point.                                            2002
                                    intranet) to payment information for                                                                    Senate-wide July
                                    employees receiving reimbursements.                                                                      2002
                                   Administrative functions
    Online ESR (Intranet)........  A component of SAVI through which Senate  Custom software developed under    Senate employees..........  April 2003
                                    employees can create on-line Travel/Non-  contract by Bearing Point.
                                    Travel Expense Summary Reports and
                                    submit them electronically to the
                                    Administrative Manager/Chief Clerk for
                                    processing.
    Secretary's Report (Mainframe  Produces the Report of the Secretary of   Custom software developed under    Disbursing Office.........  Spring 1999
     extracts, crystal reports,     the Senate.                               contract by Bearing Point.
     and client-server ``tool
     box'').
    Ledger Statements (Mainframe   Produces monthly reports from FAMIS that  Developed by SAA Technology Serv-  Disbursing Office.........  Winter 1999
     database extracts, and         are sent to all Senate ``accounting        ices.                            Senate Accounting
     crystal reports).              locations''.                                                                 Locations
    Web FMIS Reports (mainframe    Produces a large number of reports from   Custom software developed under    Senate Accounting           October 1999--
     database extracts, crystal     Web FMIS, FAMIS and ADPICS data at        contract by Bearing Point.         Locations.                  Client Server
     reports, and Intranet).        summary and detailed levels. Data is                                                                    April 2005--
                                    updated as an overnight process and can                                                                  Intranet
                                    be updated through an on-line process
                                    by accounting locations.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Supporting Current Systems
        The IT section supports FMIS users in all 140 accounting locations,
    the Disbursing Office Accounts Payable, Accounting, Disbursements and
    Front Office Sections, and the Rules Committee Audit staff. The
    activities associated with this responsibility include:
      --User support--provide functional and technical support to all
            Senate FMIS users; staff the FMIS ``help desk''; and meet with
            Chiefs of Staff, Administrative Managers, Chief Clerks, and
            various Senate offices as requested;
      --Technical problem resolution--ensure that technical problems are
            resolved;
      --Monitor system performance--check system availability and
            statistics to identify system problems and coordinate
            performance tuning activities for parallel load and database
            access optimization;
      --Security--maintains user rights for all ADPICS, FAMIS, SAVI, and
            Web FMIS users;
      --System administration--design, test and make entries to tables that
            are intrinsic to the system;
      --Support of Accounting Activities--provide assistance in the cyclic
            accounting system activities such as rollover, the process by
            which tables for the new fiscal year are created, and archiving
            and purging for the current year tables data for lapsed fiscal
            years;
      --Support the Rules Committee post payment voucher audit process; and
      --Training--provide functional training to all Senate FMIS users.
        Of these, the post payment voucher audit deserves recognition. In
    December of 2002, the Rules Committee delegated to the Financial Clerk
    the authority for sanctioning vouchers of $35 and less; effective
    January 1, 2004 this threshold increased to $100. The authorization
    directed Rules and Disbursing to establish a set of procedures for a
    semi-annual audit of these vouchers. The two offices agreed that Rules
    would conduct a random sampling inspection of these vouchers based on
    industry statistical standards. Under the supervision of the IT Group,
    Bearing Point created tools to determine the sample size, to enable
    selecting the sample from the universe of vouchers of $100 and less,
    and to determine the acceptable number of discrepancies given the
    sample size and the desired confidence interval. Both audits conducted
    in 2005 resulted in a favorable finding of zero discrepancies. The
    audit conducted in April 2005 for the six-month period ending March 31,
    2005, covered 24,643 vouchers and the audit conducted in October 2005
    for the six-month period ending September 30, 2005, covered 29,013
    vouchers, an overall increase of 21 percent in the number of vouchers
    of $100 and less that were processed during fiscal year 2005.
    Testing Infrastructure Changes
        The SAA provides the infrastructure on which FMIS operates,
    including the mainframe, the database, security hardware and software,
    the telecommunications network, and a hardware and software
    installation crew. During 2005 the mainframe operating system was
    upgraded to the Z/OS operating system. This required that the
    Disbursing Office test all FMIS subsystems in a testing environment and
    verify all FMIS subsystems in the production environment after Z/OS was
    implemented.
    Managing and Testing New System Development
        During 2005, we supervised development, performed extensive
    integration system testing and implemented changes to the following
    FMIS subsystems: Web FMIS; Senate Vendor Information (SAVI) and Online
    ESR; and Checkwriter.
                Web FMIS
        Over the last two years, updates and simplification of the
    underlying technology of Web FMIS has occurred, basically replacing all
    Visual Basic Client/Server and Cold Fusion Web technology with
    WebSphere web pages thereby creating a ``thin client'' application that
    can be accessed via an intranet browser. In August 2004, Web FMIS r9.0
    for pilot offices was implemented, which is a complete rewriting of the
    Web FMIS functionality using all intranet based pages. By the end of
    April, all Web FMIS users were using the intranet version of Web FMIS.
    During 2005, Web FMIS was improved and augmented in the following
    releases:
      --Web FMIS r9.1.--Implemented in November 2004, addressed additional
            functionality identified by the pilot offices. This was
            provided to new offices of the 109th Congress.
      --Web FMIS 10.0.--Implemented in February 2005, added a security
            certificate to the Web FMIS web site (i.e., adding the ``S'' to
            https://webfmis.senate.gov) and changed the extracts for the
            nightly Web FMIS reporting cycle to use table-driven parameters
            rather than hard-coded ones.
      --Web FMIS 10.1.--Implemented in April 2005, provided report and
            document printing via Adobe, standard Senate software, rather
            than Web FMIS-specific files. This completed moving Web FMIS to
            the ``zero-client'' platform, an important milestone in
            providing critical systems in a disaster situation. With this
            release the Rules Committee Audit staff moved from client-
            server based screen to intranet-based pages for their
            functions, and Disbursing staff began using ``standard notepad
            text'' to document corrections made to vouchers. Additionally,
            this release addressed performance issues resulting from r10.0.
      --Web FMIS r10.2.--Implemented in July 2005 focused on additional
            functionality for the Office, including new pages for the
            Disbursing Inbox and Document Review functions, and
            enhancements to the Advice of Change process and streamlined
            the document approval process.
      --Web FMIS r10.2.1.--Implemented in October 2005, fixed bugs in the
            Disbursing functions.
      --Web FMIS r10.3--Implemented in January 2006 (but included here
            because most of the work on the release was done in 2005),
            updated the technology for and provided more functionality on
            the inbox pages and the travel reimbursement mileage rate
            maintenance page. Additional functionality was added to the
            Documents/Create page and the Budget page, and bugs were fixed.
        During 2005, work continued with Bearing Point to define the
    requirements for additional functionality required for the two Web FMIS
    releases planned for 2006:
      --Web FMIS r11.--Planned for Spring 2006, will add the ability to
            ``import'' invoice data from an outside vendor in order to
            create a voucher with minimal re-typing. (This process is
            similar to the ``import'' process by which data from an online
            ESR, created via SAVI, is used to create a travel voucher.
      --Web FMIS r12.--Planned for late Fall 2006, will be a pilot of
            paperless voucher processing, which requires adding electronic
            signature and documentation imaging functionality.
                Senate Automated Vendor Inquiry (SAVI) and Online ESR
        SAVI enables Senate staff to check the status of reimbursements,
    whether via check or direct deposit referencing an on-line ESR. The
    Online ESR function enables Senate staff to create expense summary
    reports, both travel and non-travel. These documents can be imported
    into Web FMIS, reducing the data entry tasks for voucher preparation.
    The SAVI system was upgraded once in 2005. Release 3.2, implemented in
    May 2005, enabled use of SAVI by Macintosh computer users.
                Checkwriter
        The Disbursing Office makes payments via direct deposit and via
    check using the Checkwriter software. No changes were implemented to
    the Checkwriter software in 2005, but Checkwriter release 6, which
    rewrites the security component, will be tested in early 2006, with
    implementation tentatively scheduled for summer 2006.
    Planning
        The Disbursing Office IT group performs two main planning
    activities:
      --Schedule coordination--planning and coordinating a rolling 12-month
            schedule; and
      --Strategic planning--setting the priorities for further system
            enhancements.
                Schedule Coordination
        In 2005, two types of meetings were held among Disbursing, SAA and
    Bearing Point staff to coordinate schedules and activities. These are:
      --Project specific meetings--a useful set of project specific working
            meetings, each of which has a weekly set meeting time and meets
            for the duration of the project (e.g., Document Purge meetings
            and Web FMIS requirements meetings); and
      --Technical meeting--a weekly meeting among the DO staff (IT and
            functional), SAA Technical Services staff, and Bearing Point to
            discuss active projects, including scheduling activities and
            resolving issues.
                Strategic Planning
        The FMIS strategic plan has a longer time horizon than the rolling
    12-month time frame of the technical meeting schedule. It is designed
    to set the direction and priorities for further enhancements. In 2002 a
    five-year strategic plan was written by the IT and Accounting staff for
    Disbursing Office Strategic Initiatives. This detailed description of
    five strategic initiatives formed the base for the Secretary of the
    Senate's request for $5 million in multi-year funds for further work on
    the FMIS project. The five strategic initiatives are:
      --Paperless Vouchers--Imaging of Supporting Documentation and
            Electronic Signatures.--Beginning with a feasibility study and
            a pilot, implement new technology, including imaging and
            electronic signatures, that will reduce the Senate's dependence
            on paper vouchers. This will enable continuation of voucher
            processing operations from any location, should an emergency
            occur;
      --Web FMIS--Requests from Accounting Locations.--Respond to requests
            from the Senate's Accounting Locations for additional
            functionality in Web FMIS;
      --Payroll System--Requests from Accounting Locations.--Respond to
            requests from the Senate's Accounting Locations for on-line
            real time access to payroll data;
      --Accounting Subsystem Integration.--Integrate Senate-specific
            accounting systems, improve internal controls, and eliminate
            errors caused by re-keying of data; and
      --CFO Financial Statement Development.--Provide the Senate with the
            capacity to produce auditable financial statements that will
            obtain an unqualified opinion.
    Managing the FMIS Project
        The responsibility for managing the FMIS project was transferred to
    the IT group during the summer of 2003 and includes developing the task
    orders with contractors, overseeing their work, and reviewing invoices.
    In 2005 one new task order, the fiscal year 2006 Extended Operational
    Support was executed. In addition, work continued under two task orders
    executed in prior years: Web FMIS r10; SAA Finance System and Reporting
    Enhancements; and Web FMIS Imaging and Digital Signature Design and
    Electronic Invoicing and Remittance Enhancements.
    Administering the Disbursing Office's Local Area Network (LAN)
        The Disbursing Office administers its own Local Area Network (LAN),
    which is separate from the LAN for the rest of the Secretary's office.
    Our LAN Administrator's activities included: Office-wide LAN
    Maintenance and Upgrade; and Projects for the Payroll and Benefits
    Section.
                Office-wide LAN Maintenance and Upgrade
        Existing workstations were maintained with appropriate upgrades,
    including: an e-mail upgrade to ``Active Directory''; the addition of
    ``SNAP'' servers to backup, nightly, our office data in Disbursing and
    directly to the Office's space at the ACF; work with the SAA staff to
    upgrade our network speed to 100 mps; and the maintenance of the Office
    Information Authorization form log which provides easy access from
    Disbursing staff desktops to up-to-date information about the
    authorized contacts for each Senate office.
                Projects for Payroll and Employee Benefits Sections
        The Payroll/Benefits imaging system, developed by SAA staff, and
    which captures and indexes payroll documents electronically, continues
    to be supported. This is a critical system for Payroll and Employee
    Benefits sections.
    Coordinating the Disbursing Office's Disaster Recovery Activities
        On Saturday, December 3, 2005, the Sergeant at Arms technical staff
    conducted a disaster recovery test of the Senate's computing
    facilities, including the Financial Management Information System
    (FMIS) functions. The test involved switching the Senate's network from
    accessing systems at the Primary Computing Facility (PCF) to our backup
    facility, and powering down the PCF.
        The SAA's primary purpose was to test the technical process of
    switching to our backup facility, and only a limited amount of time was
    available for functional testing. The SAA staff wanted to complete the
    exercise within a 12-hour window, including the time needed to switch
    us to the backup facility and back to the PCF. A two-hour functional
    testing window was expected. In the scenario, FMIS systems and data
    would be ``failed-over'' to the backup facility, and made available for
    testing during the functional testing window. The systems would then be
    ``failed back'' to the PCF, but the data would not be ``failed back''.
    Consequently, any changes made while testing at the backup facility
    would not be made to production data.
        Disbursing staff set minimal goals of accessing all critical FMIS
    subsystems. In a two hour functional testing window, the SAA would not
    have time to run critical batch processes such as those which would
    enable a single document to be taken from data entry in Web FMIS
    through payment in FAMIS. Consequently, plans were made to test each
    on-line step in the process separately. Additionally, the time
    constraint did not allow any overnight batch processes to be run.
        Within the limited scope of the test, most of the critical
    components of FMIS were tested. A request has been made to the SAA that
    disaster recovery tests be conducted twice a year and that additional
    system components be tested at each successive event.
                             administrative offices
                        1. conservation and preservation
        The Office of Conservation and Preservation develops and
    coordinates programs directly related to the conservation and
    preservation of Senate records and materials for which the Secretary of
    the Senate has statutory authority. This includes: deacidification of
    paper and prints, phased conservation for books and documents,
    collection surveys, exhibits, and matting and framing for the Senate
    Leadership.
        Over the past year, the Office of Conservation and Preservation has
    embossed 621 books and matted and framed 532 items for the Senate
    Leadership. In addition, this office matted and framed 349 items for
    the 55th Inaugural ceremonies. For more than twenty-four years, the
    office has bound a copy of Washington's Farewell Address for the annual
    Washington's Farewell Address ceremony. In 2005, a volume was bound and
    read by Senator Richard Burr.
        As mandated in the 1990 Senate Library Collection Condition Survey,
    the Office of Conservation and Preservation continues to conduct an
    annual treatment of books identified by the survey as needing
    conservation or repair. In 2005, conservation treatments were completed
    for 139 volumes of a 7,000 volume collection of House hearings.
    Specifically, treatment involved recasing each volume as required,
    using alkaline end sheets, replacing acidic tab sheets with alkaline
    paper, cleaning the cloth cases, and replacing black spine title labels
    of each volume as necessary. The Office of Conservation and
    Preservation will continue preservation of the remaining 3,900 volumes.
        This office assisted the Senate Library with 531 books that were
    sent to the Library Binding section of the Government Printing Office
    (GPO) for binding. Additionally, the office worked with the Library to
    facilitate the creation of five exhibits located in the Senate Russell
    building basement corridor. The Office of Conservation and Preservation
    also assisted the Senate Curator's staff with special matting and
    framing required for the World War II exhibit located on the first
    floor of the Capitol.
        This office continues to assist Senate offices with conservation
    and preservation of documents, books, and various other items. For
    example, the office is currently monitoring the temperature and
    humidity in the Senate Library storage areas, the vault and warehouse
    for preservation and conservation purposes.
                                   2. curator
        The Office of Senate Curator, on behalf of the Senate Commission on
    Art, develops and implements the museum and preservation programs for
    the United States Senate. The Office collects, preserves, and
    interprets the Senate's fine and decorative arts, historic objects, and
    specific architectural features; and exercises supervisory
    responsibility for the historic chambers in the Capitol under the
    jurisdiction of the Commission. Through exhibitions, publications, and
    other programs, the Office educates the public about the Senate and its
    collections.
    Collections: Commissions, Acquisitions, and Management
        A painting of Senator George Mitchell was officially unveiled on
    May 24, 2005 as part of the Senate Leadership Portrait Collection, and
    a painting of Senator Margaret Chase Smith was unveiled on October 18.
    Both ceremonies were held in the historic Old Senate Chamber. Other
    important commissioned works in progress include a portrait of Senator
    Bob Dole and the Great Compromise mural. Both are projected to be
    completed in 2006.
        Thirty-eight objects were accessioned into the Senate Collection,
    including the painting Portrait of a Child with Moth by Constantino
    Brumidi; several rare stereoviews of the Senate Chamber from the late
    19th century; tickets, passes, and luncheon items related to the 2005
    Presidential Inauguration; ephemera from the 200th anniversary
    celebration of the birth of Constantino Brumidi; and nine albums with
    images of Senators and Senate staff from the late 18th to the early
    20th centuries. One of the nine albums contains rare cabinet cards
    depicting the 41st Congress made by the Matthew Brady studio, along
    with autographs of 73 Senators.
        In an ongoing effort to locate and recover historic Senate pieces
    associated with the institution, the Office acquired for the Senate
    Collection an important painting and a 19th century chair. The
    painting, Signing of the First Treaty of Peace with Great Britain by
    Constantino Brumidi, is the original sketch for the mural that appears
    in the Brumidi Corridors above the entrance to S-118. The chair dates
    to about 1819 and was made by Thomas Constantine for the Senate
    Chamber. It is a noteworthy addition to the collection, as only 4 of
    the original 48 chairs made by Constantine for the Senate are known to
    exist.
        Fifty new foreign gifts were reported to the Select Committee on
    Ethics and transferred to the Curator's Office. They were catalogued,
    and are maintained by the Office in accordance with the Foreign Gifts
    and Decorations Act. Appropriate disposition of 28 objects in the
    collection was completed following established procedures.
        As construction continues on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), the
    Office has worked with a conservator specializing in museum facility
    planning to develop a collection storage plan for all objects scheduled
    to move to the designated curatorial storage rooms in the CVC. The plan
    includes detailed equipment layout and design in order to provide
    optimal preservation for storing the objects.
        The Curator's Office continued with its project to photograph the
    102 historic Senate Chamber desks (which includes the 100 on the Senate
    floor and two desks currently in storage). One set of transparencies
    will be stored off-site for emergency purposes, while a second working
    set will be used for the web, image requests, and future publications.
    Fifty-five desks were photographed in 2005; the project is ahead of
    schedule and is projected to be completed by August 2006.
        In keeping with established procedures, all Senate Collection
    objects on display were inventoried, noting any changes in location. In
    addition, as directed by S. Res. 178, the Office submitted inventories
    of the art and historic furnishings in the Senate to the Rules
    Committee. The inventories, to be submitted every six months, are
    compiled by the Curator's Office with assistance from the Senate
    Sergeant at Arms (SAA) and Architect of the Capitol (AOC) Senate
    Superintendent.
    Conservation and Restoration
        A total of 20 objects received conservation treatment in 2005.
    These included nine Senate Chamber desks, eight oil on canvas
    paintings, two cabinet card albums, and one manuscript collection.
        The initiative to conserve all 100 historic Senate Chamber desks,
    which began in 1999, was completed. Twice a year, during Senate recess
    periods, desks were removed from the Senate Chamber and sent out for
    restoration. Treatment was extensive, and followed a detailed protocol
    developed to address the wear and degradation of these historic desks
    due to continued heavy use. In December, the last of the desks was
    restored. During this project, a condition survey was conducted and
    completed. The survey emphasized the necessity of installing rubber
    bumpers to the arms of the Senate Chamber chairs to minimize the damage
    to the front of the desks caused by the chair arms. That work was also
    completed this year, and all future chairs will be constructed with
    bumpers.
        After extensive evaluation and research, a scope of work was
    developed for the conservation of the portrait of George Washington by
    Gilbert Stuart in the Senate Collection. This project coincided with a
    major exhibition on Stuart's work at the National Gallery of Art, which
    afforded the opportunity to consult with experts in the field. The
    portrait was restored by conservators with extensive knowledge of
    Gilbert Stuart's paintings; and the frame was also conserved.
    Restoration has revealed the Senate's portrait to be among the finest
    of Stuart's paintings of the first president.
        Two recently commissioned paintings, Blanche Kelso Bruce and James
    O. Eastland, were varnished by conservators to enhance and protect the
    surfaces now that the paint has properly cured.
        Another conservation project was related to the microfilming and
    digitization of the Isaac Bassett Papers, the manuscript collection of
    a 19th century Senate employee. Prior to microfilming, a conservator
    carried out the treatment and re-housing of the papers necessary for
    preservation. The entire effort to microfilm and digitize the
    collection was completed by the fall of 2005, and will help preserve
    the original papers in case of disaster, as well as provide
    reproductions for the use of scholars and other researchers. In
    addition, the digitized images provided extensive material for the
    Isaac Bassett website exhibit.
        The Office completed the detailed condition and identification
    survey of the nearly 100 historic mirrors in the Senate wing. The
    project has significant benefits. The condition assessments will
    determine priorities for conservation and maintenance treatments;
    provide information on the age, origin, and importance of the frames;
    and furnish documentation for disaster planning.
        The Curator's staff participated in training sessions for the
    Capitol Police regarding the care and protection of art in the Capitol,
    and continued to educate housekeeping personnel on maintenance issues
    related to the fine and decorative art collections.
    Historic Preservation
        The Curator's Office worked with the AOC and SAA to review,
    comment, plan, and document Senate side construction projects that
    involve or impact historic resources. In addition to receiving planning
    information from those organizations, the office initiated a procedure
    for sharing Curator project schedules. This has greatly improved
    coordination and project execution. Construction and conservation
    efforts that required considerable review and assistance included:
    Brumidi Corridor ceiling restoration near S-112; window shutter
    refinishing; grand stairwell plaster replacement; marble step repair;
    Brumidi west corridor egress installation; Minton tile replacement;
    wireless antenna installation; audio alert system; S-324 ceiling
    recreation; and S-229 renovation.
        As part of the S-229 renovation project, there was a request to
    provide an overmantel mirror for the room. The Office has developed a
    mirror replication project, to duplicate an historic mirror in the
    Capitol. The mirror selected for replication was a good example of a
    particular style, complements the majority of mantels and spaces in the
    Capitol, and will easily accommodate modifications of size and ornament
    in any future replications. The new mirror was created and installed.
        Requests from Senate offices for information pertaining to room
    histories, architectural features, and historic images continue to
    increase. Recent initiatives have greatly improved office response time
    and depth of knowledge. In addition, the Office is working in
    partnership with the AOC Curator's Office and the Senate Historical
    Office to develop a room history program that will produce a definitive
    and up-to-date history for significant Senate rooms and suites.
        Research projects undertaken this year included: the Assistant
    Democratic Leader's suite; the Democratic Leader's suite; and the Strom
    Thurmond Room, S-238. Additionally, the Office worked closely with the
    AOC in the creation of an historic structures report for the Senate
    vestibule, adjacent stairwell, and small Senate rotunda. This report
    provides critical documentation regarding the architectural chronology
    of these important historic spaces.
    Historic Chambers
        The Curator's staff continued to maintain the Old Senate and Old
    Supreme Court Chambers, and coordinated periodic use of both rooms for
    special occasions. By order of the U.S. Capitol Police, the Old Senate
    Chamber was closed to visitors after September 11, 2001. However,
    during Senate recesses the historic room is open to tours. Thirty-six
    requests were received from current Members of Congress for after-hours
    access to the Chamber. Of special significance was the reenactment
    swearing-in ceremony for the newly elected Senators of the 109th
    Congress. Twenty-nine requests were received by current Members of
    Congress for admittance to the Old Supreme Court Chamber after-hours.
    Images of the room were provided to the Supreme Court Historical
    Society for use on a bicentennial coin honoring Chief Justice John
    Marshall. In addition, C-SPAN used high definition equipment in both
    chambers to take footage for an historical documentary on the U.S.
    Capitol, and both rooms were photographed for the CVC interactive
    exhibitions.
        In order to enhance existing documentation and to provide an
    important resource for future planning, the Office is working closely
    with the AOC to create condition drawings of the Old Senate Chamber
    that meet the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standard.
    Currently such detailed drawings do not exist for this chamber, or any
    space within the Capitol, yet this is important historical and archival
    documentation. When complete, the drawings will be accepted into the
    HABS national collection at the Library of Congress.
        The Office continued to research the origins of one of the Senate's
    most important art works, the Eagle and Shield, in the Old Senate
    Chamber. This gilded carving, which dates from the early 19th century,
    has long been an important symbol of the institution. Initial research
    focused on the style and construction of carved eagles contemporary
    with the Senate. In addition, contacts were made with museums that
    house such eagles for further research.
    Loans To and From the Collection
        A total of 68 historic objects and paintings are currently on loan
    to the Curator's Office on behalf of Senate leadership and officials in
    the Capitol. The staff added loans of six paintings for leadership
    suites, returned five paintings at the expiration of their loan periods
    to their respective owners, and renewed loan agreements for 29 other
    objects.
        The Office continued to document, photograph, and prepare various
    Senate Collection objects planned for exhibition in the CVC. Several of
    the objects (from an oil painting to a silver snuff box) will require
    conservation prior to installation in the exhibit hall, and the
    Curator's office is assisting in this conservation.
        Since 1982 the Senate has loaned a major historical painting, The
    Battle of Chapultepec by James Walker, to the Marine Corps Historical
    Museum in Washington, D.C. Originally the painting was displayed in the
    West Grand Stairway of the Senate wing from 1858 until 1961. The Marine
    Corps relocated to a new museum facility in 2005, terminating the
    Senate loan. Given the painting's size, the Curator's Office was tasked
    to identify another location for the painting. This historic work will
    be relocated to the Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and
    Art in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in early 2006. The Gilcrease Museum will
    provide an excellent venue for continued public display of the painting
    within the context of the history of the southwest region of the
    country. Development of a plan to safely remove the painting from
    display and transport it to its new location was greatly enhanced by
    consultation with the conservator on the Senate Curatorial Advisory
    Board.
        The Secretary's china was distributed and returned four times in
    2005. It was used for the Inaugural luncheon, as well as the First
    Lady's luncheon. The inventory was increased with the acquisition of 85
    cups and saucers. The official Senate china was inventoried and used at
    41 receptions for distinguished guests.
    Publications and Exhibitions
        The Curator's Office finalized the content and design for the
    United States Senate Catalogue of Graphic Art. The publication is
    scheduled for 2006. The volume features the Senate's collection of more
    than 900 historic engravings and lithographs, and includes two full-
    length essays and almost 40 short essays discussing selected prints.
    The Senate Curator and Associate Senate Historian co-authored the
    publication. It is a companion volume to the United States Senate
    Catalogue of Fine Art, published in 2003.
        As part of an ongoing program to provide information about the
    Capitol's art and historic spaces, three new information panels were
    installed for the following paintings: The Florida Case before the
    Electoral Commission; The Battle of Lake Erie; and First Reading of the
    Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln.
        In July 2005, to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of
    artist Constantino Brumidi, the office de-installed the popular
    photographic exhibition, World War II: The Senate and the Nation's
    Capital and installed To Make Beautiful the Capitol: Birds of the
    Brumidi Corridors. This exhibition places in context the myriad of
    ornithological species that were painted by Brumidi and his team of
    artists. An online version of the exhibit was also developed for the
    Senate.gov website.
        Several other internet exhibits were posted including, Presidential
    Inaugurations: Invitations and Tickets in the U.S. Senate Collection
    and Inaugural Luncheons. The Office received delivery of the program
    files for two major websites, Isaac Bassett: A Senate Memoir, and The
    Senate Chamber Desks. Both were developed in conjunction with the
    Secretary's webmaster and a contractor. Isaac Bassett features
    selections from the Isaac Bassett manuscript collection, with
    illustrations from the Senate's collection of art and historical
    objects. It highlights life in the 19th century Senate based on
    Bassett's personal observations and recollections. His unique position
    as a trusted, long-time employee of the Senate and close confidant of
    many Senators make the stories he included in his memoir both engaging
    and enlightening. The website features actual images of Bassett's
    handwritten notes and an interactive time line.
        The Senate Chamber Desks website chronicles the history of these
    historic furnishings, many of which date back to 1819. Viewers will see
    where each Senator sits and learn specific information about each desk:
    biographical information on the Senators who have occupied it;
    conservation and restoration information; and traditions and historical
    facts. This site will be launched in 2006, and updated at the beginning
    of each Congress to provide current information.
        Another educational project was the development of an oral history
    program related to the Senate's art and historical collections. Artists
    were interviewed to gain valuable knowledge regarding recently
    commissioned portraits and this information will be posted on the
    Senate website in the near future.
        Adding to its presence on Senate.gov, the Office published the
    essays of the 160 pieces of art in the United States Senate Catalogue
    of Fine Art. Several popular brochures were reprinted in 2005, and the
    office continued to be a significant contributor to Unum, the Secretary
    of the Senate's newsletter.
    Policies and Procedures
        Meetings were held with the new Senate Curatorial Advisory Board.
    Composed of respected scholars and curators, this 12-member board was
    established to provide expert advice to the Commission regarding the
    Senate's art and historic collections and preservation program, and to
    assist in the acquisition and review of new objects for the
    collections.
        In 2005 the Senate passed legislation codifying the Senate
    Leadership Portrait Collection, which honors past majority and minority
    leaders and presidents pro tempore of the Senate. These portraits are
    to be commissioned after the leaders have completed their service. The
    resolution also provides that the portraits may hang in the Senate
    Chamber Lobby at the direction of the Senate.
        An electronic tracking system was developed to record progress
    through the steps of the accessioning process for new additions to the
    Senate Collection. The system allows reports to be generated that
    identify what types of documentation have been prepared and what
    remains to be completed for each new accession.
    Collaborations, Educational Programs, and Events
        As part of the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of
    artist Constantino Brumidi on July 26, 2005, the Curator's Office
    promoted various Senate activities honoring Brumidi. As well as
    developing the exhibit on the birds of the Brumidi Corridors, the
    Office worked in partnership with Senate and AOC offices to generate
    articles and information panels about Brumidi's importance and
    contributions to the Capitol, and to sponsor special tours highlighting
    the artist's work.
        The Senate Curator and staff gave lectures on the Senate's art and
    historical collections to various historical societies and art museums,
    including George Washington University, the Federal Preservation
    Institute, and the U.S. Capitol Historical Society.
    Office Administration
        The project to microfiche and digitize the collection object files
    was completed. These files are the primary legal title, research, and
    management records for all art and historical objects owned by the
    Senate and maintained by the Commission on Art. This project also
    serves important disaster recovery and archival preservation functions.
    Copies of the microfiche and digital records will be kept off-site for
    disaster recovery and archival purposes. Additional copies will be used
    on-site for research and public information in order to lessen the wear
    and tear on the original paper records.
        The Senate Support Facility was completed. The Curator's Office
    worked for several years with the Sergeant at Arms to develop a space
    within the warehouse that meets the stringent requirements for storing
    fine and decorative art. Environmental testing for the museum-quality
    storage area is now underway, and relocation of collection objects to
    this space is scheduled for the summer of 2006. The office moved its
    non-collection items to the new warehouse, including exhibit and art
    shipping materials, and publications. These items were re-inventoried
    and new tracking numbers assigned.
    Automation
        The Office continued to improve its electronic collection
    management database to provide more efficient and accurate data
    recording and searches. The addition of several fields to record
    inventory location, date, and reviewer is one such change that improves
    the information regarding the current and previous locations for
    objects. The registration department also implemented an electronic
    tracking system to improve the accuracy and efficiency of loan
    renewals.
        In addition, the Office researched electronic systems that monitor
    temperature and relative humidity, to assure the stability of all
    objects on display and in storage. The ideal system will continuously
    download data for analysis and provide instant notification via phone,
    e-mail and/or blackberry when environmental conditions undergo a sudden
    and potentially damaging change. Staff worked with Senate Security on
    the initiative. Procurement and installation of the system may occur in
    2006.
        In an effort to integrate new technologies, improve research
    capabilities, and address preservation concerns, the Office is
    developing an organization plan and procedures that will affect all
    types of files and media collected and maintained. The results will
    greatly improve response time to information requests, search
    capabilities for researchers, and the condition of significant
    reference materials. Related to this effort was the installation of an
    image management server. This service allows staff to store the many
    large-sized image files that are so vital to the Office's mission,
    enables the images to be archived regularly, and prevents the immense
    number of items from clogging bandwidth time and storage space on the
    Secretary's LAN servers.
    Objectives for 2006
        A major initiative will be to relocate Senate Collection items to
    the new SAA off-site warehouse facility. Work will include: developing
    an object tracking system; reviewing the SAA warehouse inventory
    system, access procedures, and protocol; ensuring all equipment, HVAC,
    and security needs are functioning; coordinating the move with the
    assistance of fine art handlers; and developing a procedural document
    regarding the storage of collection objects at the SAA warehouse.
        The Office also will prepare for moving collection objects in 2007
    to the two new CVC storage spaces. Based on the recently completed
    Collection Storage Plan, museum-quality storage equipment will be
    ordered to house collection objects in these new spaces. Objects in
    need of archival re-housing will be identified, prioritized, and re-
    housed in preparation for the move.
        The Curator's environmental monitoring systems will be assessed in
    all locations where collections are displayed or stored. Temporary
    systems will be installed for evaluation, and following testing, a
    comprehensive program will be recommended and implemented as
    appropriate.
        An integrated pest management plan will be prepared for all storage
    spaces where collection items are located. The plan will include
    procedures for preparation of objects for storage, monitoring of
    conditions, and developing contacts and resources for disaster
    recovery.
        Conservation and preservation concerns continue to be a priority.
    Projects in 2006 will include the treatment of several historic
    paintings and frames, as well as objects for new CVC exhibits. The
    Battle of Chapultepec will be relocated to the Gilcrease Museum in
    Oklahoma. The Office will build on the information generated by the
    recently completed mirror survey and develop a plan for the
    conservation and maintenance of the Senate's historic mirror
    collection. The restoration of the painting, First Reading of the
    Emancipation Proclamation, by F.B. Carpenter, is now projected to be
    completed in 2006. Additionally, the Office will focus on the Senate's
    recently acquired Cornelius & Baker armorial chandelier. Following a
    condition assessment, the office will work with the Senate Curatorial
    Advisory Board to review treatment options and recommend a plan for the
    chandelier to the Commission on Art.
        The Office will advance efforts to commission portraits of Senators
    Byrd, Lott, and Daschle. Unveilings are projected for the portrait of
    former Senator Bob Dole and the Great Compromise mural.
        The Isaac Bassett Papers manuscript collection will be deposited at
    the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Initial
    meetings have been held with NARA to discuss organization and storage
    of the collection along with logistical considerations. As a result of
    the recently completed microfilming project, the office will submit the
    original collection, microfilm and digital copies of the papers, and
    extensive indexes for use by future researchers.
        The Curator's staff will undertake a comprehensive and detailed
    survey of the Senate Chamber chairs. While the Senate Chamber desks
    have been studied extensively, the accompanying chairs, which date from
    various eras, have never been fully examined. It is hoped that this
    study will enable the identification and preservation of important
    chairs that still remain in the Senate.
        Collection activities will also include efforts to locate and
    recover significant historic Senate pieces. Investigations were
    conducted in 2005 to locate partner desks and other furniture made by
    George Cobb for the Russell Senate Office building in 1909. A total of
    twelve desks were identified outside the Senate, and are either in
    private collections or on display in museums.
        In the area of education, the United States Senate Catalogue of
    Graphic Art will be published. The Office will produce a brochure for
    S-238, the Strom Thurmond Room. Also related to room histories, staff
    will continue to work with the AOC Curator's Office and Senate
    Historical Office to finalize the room history program.
        The Office will embark on a reorganization of the Senate art
    website to provide easier, more intuitive access to the Senate's art,
    historical collections, and online exhibits and publications. This task
    will be undertaken in coordination with Senate webmaster and Senate
    Library staff, and will be an important early step in creating and
    organizing the Senate's web content according to standardized metadata.
        The Senate Preservation Board of Trustees will hold its first
    meeting, and the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board will continue to meet
    biannually. The Office will work with the Senate Curatorial Advisory
    Board to review and report on several preservation projects including:
    the historic structures report for the Senate vestibule, adjacent
    stairwell, and small Senate rotunda; the preservation of the Minton
    tile floors; and the current HABS-standard drawing documentation
    project.
        Work is underway to develop a five-year strategic plan for the
    Office of Senate Curator. This will be an important document for the
    Office as it moves forward with its many conservation, preservation,
    and education initiatives. Additionally, the Senate Curator's
    Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) will be reevaluated, tabletop
    exercises conducted, and the COOP document updated.
                   3. joint office of education and training
        The Joint Office of Education and Training provides employee
    training and development opportunities for all Senate staff. There are
    three branches within the department. The technical training branch is
    responsible for providing technical training support for approved
    software packages used in either Washington or the state offices. This
    branch's computer training staff provides instructor-led classes; one-
    on-one coaching sessions; specialized vendor-provided training;
    computer-based training; and informal training and support services.
    The professional training branch provides courses for all Senate staff
    in areas including management and leadership development, human
    resources issues and staff benefits, legislative and staff information,
    new staff and intern information. The Health Promotion branch provides
    seminars, classes and screenings on health related and wellness issues.
    This branch also coordinates an annual Health Fair for all Senate
    employees and four blood drives each year.
    Training Classes
        The Joint Office of Education and Training offered 405 classes in
    2005; 5,982 Senate employees participated in these classes. This
    office's registration desk handled 31,960 requests for training and
    documentation.
        Of the above total, in the Technical Training area 187 classes were
    held with a total attendance of 1,521 students. An additional 770 staff
    received coaching on various software packages and other computer
    related issues.
        In the Professional Development area 218 classes were held with a
    total attendance of 4,461 students. Individual managers and supervisors
    are also encouraged to request customized training for their offices on
    areas of need.
        The Office of Education and Training is available to work with
    teams on issues related to team performance, communication or conflict
    resolution. During 2005, over 50 requests for special training or team
    building were met. Professional development staff also traveled to
    state offices to conduct specialized training and team building. During
    the last quarter of the year, we offered training via video
    teleconferencing to two state offices and plan to continue this
    practice.
        In the Health Promotion area, 1,240 Senate staff participated in
    Health Promotion activities throughout the year. These activities
    included: cancer screening, bone density screening and seminars on
    health related topics. Additionally 1,492 staff participated in the
    Annual Health Fair held in September.
        The Joint Office of Education and Training has been actively
    working with the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness to
    provide security training for Senate staff. In 2005, the Office of
    Education and Training coordinated 63 sessions of escape hood and other
    security-related training for 1,010 Senate staff.
    State Training
        Since most of the classes that are offered are only practical for
    D.C. based staff, the Office of Education and Training continues to
    offer the ``State Training Fair'' which began in March 2000. In 2005,
    three sessions of this program were offered to 119 state staff. This
    office also conducted our annual State Directors Forum for the second
    year and 37 attended. In addition, this office has implemented the
    ``Virtual Classroom'' which is an internet based training library of
    300+ courses. To date, 379 state office and Washington, D.C. staff are
    accessing a total of 500 different lessons using this training option.
                        4. chief counsel for employment
    Background
        The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (SCCE) is a
    non-partisan office established at the direction of the Joint
    Leadership in 1993 after enactment of the Government Employee Rights
    Act (``GERA''), which allowed Senate employees to file claims of
    employment discrimination against Senate offices. With the enactment of
    the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (``CAA''), Senate offices
    became subject to the requirements, responsibilities and obligations of
    11 employment laws. The SCCE is charged with legal defense of Senate
    offices in employment law cases at both the administrative and court
    levels. Also, on a day-to-day basis, the SCCE provides legal advice to
    Senate offices about their obligations under employment laws.
    Accordingly, each employing office of the Senate is an individual
    client of the SCCE, and each office maintains an attorney-client
    relationship with the SCCE.
        The areas of responsibilities of the SCCE can be divided into the
    following categories: Litigation (Defending Senate Offices in Federal
    Courts); Mediations to Resolve Lawsuits; Court-Ordered Alternative
    Dispute Resolutions; Union Drives, Negotiations, and Unfair Labor
    Practice Charges; OSHA/Americans With Disability Act (``ADA'')
    Compliance; Layoffs and Office Closings In Compliance With the Law;
    Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities; and Preventive
    Legal Advice.
    Litigation; Mediations; Alternative Dispute Resolutions
        The SCCE represents each of the employing offices of the Senate in
    all court actions (including both trial and appellate courts),
    hearings, proceedings, investigations, and negotiations relating to
    labor and employment laws. The SCCE handles cases filed in the District
    of Columbia and cases filed in any of the 50 states.
    OSHA/ADA Compliance
        The SCCE provides advice and assistance to Senate offices by
    assisting them with complying with the applicable OSHA and ADA
    regulations; representing them during Office of Compliance inspections;
    advising State offices on the preparation of the Office of Compliance's
    Home State OSHA/ADA Inspection Questionnaires; assisting offices in the
    preparation of Emergency Action Plans; and advising and representing
    Senate offices when a complaint of an OSHA violation has been filed
    with the Office of Compliance or when a citation has been issued.
        In 2005, the SCCE conducted 131 OSHA/ADA inspections of Senate
    offices to ensure compliance with the CAA.
    Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities
        The SCCE conducts legal seminars for the managers of Senate offices
    to assist them in complying with employment laws.
        In 2005, the SCCE gave 56 legal seminars to Senate offices. Among
    the topics covered were:
      --An Overview of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995:
            Management's Rights and Obligations;
      --Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace;
      --How to Interview and Hire the Best Employee Without Violating the
            Law;
      --How to Conduct Background Checks, Reference Checks and Drug Testing
            Without Violating the Law;
      --Complying with Immigration Laws: I-9 and the Basic Pilot Program
            for Employment Eligibility Confirmation;
      --Labor-Management Overview: Union Post-Election Procedures;
      --Complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
      --Management's Legal Obligations to Give Military Leave to Employees;
      --Legal Pitfalls in Evaluating, Disciplining and Firing Employees;
      --How to Comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act.
        In addition, in 2005, the SCCE prepared new videos to accompany its
    harassment seminar. This involved writing the scripts, recruiting
    Senate employees to participate, training the ``actors,'' and working
    with the Recording Studio to direct, record, edit and finalize the
    vignettes. The purpose of the vignettes is to illustrate points raised
    during the harassment seminar with examples that are Senate-specific.
    The SCCE has received extremely positive feedback from Members' offices
    at which the harassment seminars have been given using these new
    videos.
    Preventative Legal Advice
        The SCCE meets with Members, Chiefs of Staff, Administrative
    Directors, Office Managers, Staff Directors, Chief Clerks and General
    Counsels at their request. The purposes are to ensure compliance with
    the law, prevent litigation and minimize liability in the event of
    litigation. For example, on a daily basis, the SCCE advises Senate
    offices on matters such as disciplining and/or terminating employees in
    compliance with the law, handling and investigating sexual harassment
    complaints, accommodating the disabled, determining wage law
    requirements, meeting the requirements of the Family and Medical Leave
    Act, and management's rights and obligations under union laws and OSHA.
    Administrative/Miscellaneous Matters
        The SCCE provides legal assistance to employing offices to ensure
    that their employee handbooks/office policies, supervisors' manuals,
    job descriptions, interviewing guidelines, and performance evaluation
    forms comply with the law
    Union Drives, Negotiations, and Unfair Labor Practice Charges
        In 2005, the SCCE handled one union drive and assisted in
    negotiations with another union. With respect to the union drive, the
    SCCE trained managers and supervisors regarding their legal obligations
    during a union campaign, advised the client in selecting its
    representatives for the election and conducted training sessions for
    the employer representatives regarding proper conduct at elections.
    Layoffs and Office Closings in Compliance with the Law
        The SCCE provides advice and strategy to individual Senate offices
    regarding how to minimize legal liability in compliance with the law
    when offices reduce their forces. In addition, pursuant to the Worker
    Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), offices that are
    closing must follow certain procedures for notifying their employees of
    the closing and for transitioning them out of the office. The SCCE
    tracks office closings and notifies those offices of their legal
    obligations under the WARN Act.
                              5. senate gift shop
        The Senate Gift Shop was established under administrative direction
    and supervision of the Secretary of the Senate (SOS) in October 1992,
    (United States Code, Title 2, Chapter 4). With each successive year
    since its establishment the Senate Gift Shop has continued to provide
    outstanding products and services that maintain the integrity of the
    Senate as well as increase the public's awareness of the mission and
    history of the U.S. Senate. The Gift Shop provides products and
    services to Senators, their spouses, staffs, constituents, and
    visitors. Products include a wide variety of souvenirs, collectibles
    and fine gift items created exclusively for the U.S. Senate. Services
    include special ordering of personalized products, custom framing, gold
    embossing, engraving and shipping. Additional services include the
    distribution of educational materials to both tourists and constituents
    visiting the Capitol and Senate Office Buildings. New this year is the
    Senate Gift Shop's presence on Webster.
    Facilities
        For several years the Senate Gift Shop offered over-the-counter
    sales to walk-in customers at a single location. Today, after more than
    a decade of operation, the Gift Shop provides products and services
    from three locations.
        In addition to the three physical locations, the Gift Shop has
    developed an online presence on Webster. The intranet site currently
    offers only a limited selection of products that may be ordered either
    by phone or by printing and faxing the on-site order form. Long-term
    plans are to grow this site to include a greater sample of merchandise
    offered in the Gift Shop's physical locations and to eventually migrate
    to an e-commerce website with online transactions. Along with offering
    over-the-counter, walk-in sales, and limited intranet services, the
    Gift Shop Administrative Office provides mail order service, special
    order and catalogue sales.
        The Gift Shop also maintains two warehouse facilities. While the
    bulk of its overstock is currently held in an off-site storage
    facility, a portion of the Gift Shop's overstock is maintained in the
    Hart Building warehouse facility. This space also accommodates the Gift
    Shop's receiving, shipping, and engraving departments.
        Operational plans for the off-site facility include having most, if
    not all, Gift Shop product delivered, received and stored at this
    location until the need for transfer to Gift Shop locations. Although
    the overall management of the warehouse is through the Sergeant at Arms
    (SAA), the Director of the Gift Shop has responsibility for the
    operation and oversight of the interior spaces assigned for Gift Shop
    use. Storing inventory in a centralized, climate-controlled facility
    that is managed by the SAA will provide better protection for the Gift
    Shop's valuable inventory in terms of increased and steadfast security
    as well as prolonged shelf life for product.
    Sales Activity
        Sales recorded for fiscal year 2005 were $1,591,244.36. Cost of
    goods sold during this same period was $1,006,655.30, accounting for a
    gross profit on sales of $584,589.06.
        In addition to tracking gross profit from sales, the Senate Gift
    Shop maintains a revolving fund and a record of inventory purchased for
    resale. As of October 1, 2005, the balance in the revolving fund was
    $1,833,614.70 and the inventory purchased for resale was valued at
    $2,295,554.07.
    Additional Activity
        The contractor selected to provide the hardware and system
    installation of the new retail and financial management system has
    completed its contractual obligations to the Senate Gift Shop with the
    final deliverables completed in 2005. The contractor will continue to
    provide hardware and software support for the retail system.
    Accomplishments and New Products in Fiscal Year 2005
                Official Congressional Holiday Ornaments
        The year 2005 marked the conclusion of the Gift Shop's third
    consecutive ``four-year ornament series.'' Each ornament in the 2002-
    2005 series of unique collectibles features an architectural milestone
    of the United States Capitol and is packaged with corresponding
    historical text taken from the book, History of the United States
    Capitol: A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics by William
    C. Allen, Architectural Historian for the Architect of the Capitol.
        The 2005 ornament pictures the Capitol's West Front with particular
    emphasis on the newly landscaped lawn and terraces. Congress authorized
    the landscape improvements in 1873, and on June 23, 1874, passed an act
    to hire the first landscape architect of the United States Capitol,
    Frederick Law Olmsted. Olmsted's idea for redesigning the landscape of
    the Capitol grounds is illustrated in a drawing titled ``General Plan
    for the Improvement of the Capitol Grounds.'' In keeping with a Gift
    Shop tradition, the authentic colors of the original drawing were
    reproduced onto a white porcelain stone and set with a brass frame
    finished in 24kt gold.
        Sales of the 2005 holiday ornament exceeded 32,000 ornaments of
    which more than 7,400 were personalized with engravings designed,
    proofed and etched by Senate Gift Shop staff. This highly successful
    effort was made possible by the combined effort of our administrative,
    engraving, and store staffs. Additional sales of this ornament and
    ornaments from previous years are expected to continue throughout 2006.
    Sales revenue from this year's ornament, as in previous years, helps to
    provide scholarship funds for the Senate Child Care Center.
        The theme for the Gift Shop's fourth series of ornaments, which
    will run from 2006-2009, is currently in development with production of
    the 2006 ornament targeted for this summer and sale of the ornament
    expected to begin in September 2006.
                China Porcelain Boxes
        The final porcelain ``Brumidi'' box in a set of four was completed
    and released for sale in 2005. Each box displays a different image from
    the Constantino Brumidi frescoes taken from the ceiling of the
    President's Room in the Senate Wing of the United States Capitol. The
    individual boxes of the series include the allegorical figures:
    Liberty, Legislation, Executive Authority and Religion. These porcelain
    boxes, exclusive to the Senate Gift Shop, will be popular collector
    items for many years to come.
    Projects and New Initiatives for 2006
                History of the Capitol
        The Gift Shop will purchase for resale the book, History of the
    Capitol, (H. Doc. 108-240) by Glenn Brown. When the GPO publication is
    released for sale to distributors and retailers in 2006, the Gift Shop
    plans to purchase a substantial quantity to ensure availability to its
    customers for an extended period of time.
                Congressional Plates
        The series of Official Congressional Plates continued in 2005 with
    new design features beginning with the 108th Congress plate, which
    became available for sale this past year. The balance of the series
    includes plates commemorating the 109th, 110th and 111th Congresses.
    The design stage for the remaining plates has concluded and prototypes
    for the final three are being produced by Tiffany & Co.
                Constantino Brumidi Birthday Celebration
        The year 2005 marked the 200th Birthday of Constantino Brumidi,
    ``The Artist of the Capitol.'' In celebration of this special occasion,
    the staff of the Gift Shop worked closely with the staff of the
    Curator's Office on an initiative to add to our collection of Brumidi-
    inspired merchandise. The new products include a designer collection of
    note cards depicting images of birds taken from the frescoes gracing
    the walls of the Capitol's Brumidi corridors. Other products featuring
    Brumidi's artwork that are currently offered for sale in the Senate
    Gift Shop include neckties, scarves, round porcelain boxes and the book
    Brumidi ``Artist of the Capitol.'' Additional Brumidi pieces are in
    production.
                Intranet/Webster
        The Webster intranet website for the Gift Shop continues to be
    enhanced. Primary considerations include website policy, design and
    layout, content and products to be included. Meetings concerning the
    creation and expansion of the Gift Shop's website are ongoing with
    other Secretary departments. The Gift Shop's intends to incorporate
    links to the offices of the Historian, Curator and Senate Library so
    that visitors to the website will have ready access to additional
    educational information.
                Capitol Complex Lumber
        In the fall of 2001 the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center
    (CVC) required the removal of many trees from the Capitol complex.
    During this time, Allegany Wood Products (Allegany) of Petersburg, West
    Virginia, assisted in determining the best method for the recover and
    transport of the felled trees. Arrangements were made for a local West
    Virginia trucking company to travel to Washington, D.C., to pick up and
    haul the cut trees to one of Allegany's lumber mills, where the trees
    could be rough cut and kiln dried, a process which makes possible the
    preservation and long-term storage of the lumber. The stored lumber
    approximating 12,000 board feet is now being inventoried and segregated
    by species. Plans to determine the most appropriate use for the lumber
    will be developed this year. Preliminary ideas involve using a quantity
    of wood to create ``official products'' such as presentation, gift and
    commemorative items.
                              6. historical office
        Serving as the Senate's institutional memory, the Historical Office
    collects and provides information on important events, precedents,
    dates, statistics, and historical comparisons of current and past
    Senate activities for use by members and staff, the media, scholars,
    and the general public. The Office advises Senators, officers, and
    committees on cost-effective disposition of their non-current office
    files and assists researchers in identifying Senate-related source
    materials. The Office keeps extensive biographical, bibliographical,
    photographic, and archival information on the 1,885 former Senators. It
    edits for publication historically significant transcripts and minutes
    of selected Senate committees and party organizations, and conducts
    oral history interviews with key Senate staff. The photo historian
    maintains a collection of approximately 40,000 still pictures that
    includes photographs and illustrations of Senate committees and most
    former Senators. The Office develops and maintains all historical
    material on the Senate website.
    Editorial Projects
        Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress, 1774-2005.--A new
    edition of the Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress has just
    been published. In May 2003, both houses of Congress adopted H. Con.
    Res. 138, authorizing printing of an updated and expanded edition of
    the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-2005.
    The first edition of this indispensable reference source was published
    in 1859; the most recent edition appeared in 1989. This latest
    publication is the 16th edition. Since 1989, the assistant historian
    has added many new biographical sketches, expanded bibliography
    entries, and revised and updated most of the database's nearly 2,000
    Senate and vice-presidential entries. In preparation for the 2005
    edition, the assistant historian and historical editor updated the
    Congress-by-Congress listing of members through the 108th Congress and
    updated the listing of executive branch officers. The assistant
    historian completed the editing and proofing of all Senate-related
    information, coordinating with the House Office of History and
    Preservation and the Government Printing Office. The assistant
    historian also continues to edit and update all existing information
    for the online version of the Biographical Directory (http://
    bioguide.congress.gov) to allow for expanded search capabilities,
    maintain accuracy, and incorporate new information and scholarship.
        Administrative History of the Senate.--Throughout 2005, the
    assistant historian continued to research and write chapters of this
    historical account of the Senate's administrative evolution. This study
    traces the development of the offices of the Secretary of the Senate
    and Sergeant at Arms, considers 19th and 20th century reform efforts
    that resulted in reorganization and professionalization of Senate
    staff, and looks at how the Senate's administrative structure has grown
    and diversified over the past two centuries. In particular, during the
    past year the assistant historian completed the work's pivotal third
    chapter, which explores the Senate's administrative history from 1836
    to 1861, when Asbury Dickins was Secretary of the Senate. During this
    period, the first major administrative reform effort was launched,
    resulting in an expanded and more professional work force.
        ``The Idea of the Senate''.--For more than two centuries, Senators,
    journalists, scholars, and other first-hand observers have attempted to
    describe the uniqueness of the Senate, emphasizing the body's
    fundamental strengths, as well as areas for possible reform. From James
    Madison in 1787 to Robert Caro in 2002, sharp-eyed analysts have left
    memorable accounts that may help modern Senators better understand the
    Senate in its historical context. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
    Allen Drury's 1943 comment about the Senate of his day--``There is a
    vast area of casual ignorance concerning this lively and appealing
    body''--retains a ring of truth for modern times. The ``Idea of the
    Senate'' project will identify up to 40 major statements by
    knowledgeable observers. Each of the 40 brief chapters in the resulting
    publication will include a 500-word quotation and an essay that
    identifies the background of the observer and places the quotation in
    the context of the times in which it was written.
        ``Rules of the United States Senate, Since 1789''.--In 1980,
    Parliamentarian Emeritus Floyd M. Riddick, at the direction of the
    Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, prepared a publication
    containing the eight separate codes of rules that the Senate adopted
    between 1789 and 1979. In the early 1990s, the Senate Historical
    Office, in consultation with Dr. Riddick, developed a project to
    incorporate an important feature not contained in the 1980 publication.
    Beyond simply listing the eight codes of rules, our goal is to show how
    the Senate's current rules have evolved from earlier versions,
    including rules both added and dropped between codifications. Some
    modern Senate rules have their origins in the first code of rules that
    the Senate adopted in 1789. Many of those first rules can be traced to
    even earlier times--to rules Thomas Jefferson prepared in 1776 for the
    Continental Congress. This work, to be completed within the coming
    year, will contain the original text of all standing rules, beginning
    with those the Senate adopted on April 16, 1789. It will reprint each
    of the seven subsequent codifications (1806, 1820, 1828, 1868, 1877,
    1884, and 1979) along with changes adopted between each codification.
    Appendices will contain related rules of the Continental Congresses,
    the Maryland General Assembly (1777), the Senate of the Confederate
    States of America, Senate Impeachment Rules from 1798, and the
    abandoned joint rules of Congress. Footnotes and sidebars will provide
    brief explanations of the reasons for significant changes.
        ``Senate Stories: 200 Notable Days, 1787-2002''.--This publication
    will present 200 brief stories featuring the Senate's best-loved and
    most notorious former members, its triumphs and tragedies, and some
    lesser-known moments that reflect the Senate's character as the
    ``World's Greatest Deliberative Body.'' Readers will learn how the
    Senate was created, who became the first cabinet member to be confirmed
    (and the first rejected), how decorum was not always strictly
    maintained on the Senate floor, and how a certain Senator's toupee
    signaled a change in the seasons. These 200 historical essays are drawn
    from a larger number prepared during an eight-year period for weekly
    delivery to an audience of several dozen senators. Those Senators
    appeared to appreciate these essays for adding historical context to
    their daily responsibilities. Historical Office staff researched and
    compiled sources and photographs for each essay to be included in the
    publication.
        Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC).--In
    2005, Historical Office staff assisted with preparations and editing of
    printed materials, followed up on questions and reference requests
    forwarded to them by the JCCIC, made minor changes to the Web site as
    needed, and assisted the Recording Studio with preparing and editing
    text for the 2005 Inaugural video. Staff participated in an on-camera
    interview, responding to historical questions about presidential
    inaugurations, for use in the Inaugural video. Staff continues to
    maintain the Inaugural website as stewards until the next JCCIC forms
    in 2008.
    Oral History Program
        The Historical Office conducts a series of oral history interviews
    that provide personal recollections of various Senate careers. This
    year, interviews were completed with Leonard Weiss, former staff
    director of the Governmental Affairs Committee; Timothy Wineman, Senate
    Financial Clerk; and Dennis W. Brezina, former staff member of the
    Subcommittee on Government Research. Several interviews are in
    progress, and the interviews of Chuck Ludlam, former staff member of
    the Separation of Powers Subcommittee, have been processed and opened
    for research. The complete transcripts of 20 interviews have also been
    posted on the Senate's Web site.
    Member Services
        Members' Records Management and Disposition Assistance.--The Senate
    archivist continued the program of assisting members' offices with
    planning for the preservation of their permanently valuable records,
    emphasizing the importance of managing electronic records, and
    transferring valuable records to a home-state repository. The archivist
    began revising the Records Management Handbook for United States
    Senators and Their Archival Repositories. The archivist continued to
    work with staff from all repositories receiving senatorial collections
    to ensure adequacy of documentation and the transfer of appropriate
    records with adequate finding aids. The archivist provided briefing
    materials to transition offices and met with staff. The archivist
    conducted a seminar on records management for Senate offices and
    participated in the Senate Services Fair. The archivist participated in
    a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the Association of Centers
    for the Study of Congress on ``Developing a Collaborative Approach to
    Web-Based Content (for congressional papers collections),'' and also in
    the second symposium sponsored by the John H. Brademas Center for the
    Study of Congress at New York University, which focused on the
    development of a policy for the papers of public officials. The
    archivist organized and led a session on procedures for handling
    classified documents that are discovered in members' collections after
    they have been donated to an archival repository. This was presented at
    the Society of American Archivists annual meeting.
        Committee Records Management and Disposition Assistance.--The
    Senate archivist provided each committee with staff briefings, record
    surveys, guidance on preservation of information in electronic systems,
    and instructions for the transfer of permanently valuable records to
    the National Archives' Center for Legislative Archives. 2,966 cubic
    feet of Senate records were transferred to the Archives. The archivist
    revised and published the Records Management Handbook for United States
    Senate Committees. Part of the revision entailed developing, with
    assistance from National Archives (NARA) staff, a protocol for transfer
    of electronic records to NARA's Center for Legislative Archives. The
    Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and its
    archivist developed and successfully implemented a project using this
    protocol to appraise and transfer electronic records to the archives.
    The archivist worked with the Budget Committee to find professional
    assistance to perform a records survey and to begin comprehensive
    archival processing of older transfers for the purpose of assuming
    better intellectual control over their historical collection. The
    archival assistant continued to provide processing assistance to
    committees and administrative offices in need of basic help with
    noncurrent files. The archival assistant produced committee archiving
    reports in Access database format covering records' transfers for the
    past year. The archivist will use these reports in 2006 to provide
    committees with suggestions for improvements. The archivist hosted a
    tour and briefing for chief clerks at the Center for Legislative
    Archives.
        ``Senate Historical Minutes''.--The Senate historian continued a
    nine-year series of ``Senate Historical Minutes,'' begun in 1997 at the
    request of the Senate Democratic Leader. In 2005, the historian
    prepared and delivered a ``Senate Historical Minute'' at 21 Senate
    Democratic Conference weekly meetings. These 400-word Minutes were
    designed to enlighten members about significant events and
    personalities associated with the Senate's institutional development.
    More than 200 Minutes are available as a feature on the Senate website.
    Photographic Collections
        The photo historian created the first ever published pictorial
    directory of Senators, Faces of the Senate: A Pictorial Directory of
    United States Senators, 1789-2005. Since the First Congress convened in
    1789, 1,885 men and women have served in the United States Senate. This
    invaluable reference source contains images of all but 46 of them. The
    images in the volume are arranged alphabetically by state, and further
    divided within each state by Senate class. This one-of-a-kind
    publication offers a unique visual representation of the collective
    Senate from its inception to the present. Prompted by the desire to
    make the Faces pictorial directory as complete as possible, the photo
    historian sought and acquired images of nearly 100 former Senators not
    previously represented in the Office's collection. Many of these newly
    acquired images were obtained from various universities, historical
    societies, and state libraries throughout the nation. More than half of
    the images came from a collection of late 19th- and early 20th-century
    photo scrapbooks that were donated to the Office at the end of 2004.
    These scrapbooks were inventoried and copy negatives were made of many
    of the images contained therein.
        The photo historian continued to provide timely photographic
    reference service, while cataloging, digitizing, re-housing, and
    expanding the Office's 40,000-item image collection. The office's
    Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) and vital electronic records were
    updated. As a contribution to the office's educational outreach
    efforts, two online photographic exhibits were created for the Senate
    website--Capitol Scenes: 1900-1950 and World War II: The Senate and the
    Nation's Capital. A third online exhibit, The Senate Through the Ages,
    has been created and will be available on the website shortly. A number
    of Senators' offices were inspired by the Faces pictorial directory to
    display the images of all the Senators who had served from their state.
    The photo historian worked with the offices on these projects,
    providing the images and assisting in the design of the displays.
    Educational Outreach
        Much of the Senate Historical Office's correspondence with the
    general public takes place through the Senate's website, which has
    become an indispensable source for information about the institution.
    The assistant historian and the Historical Office staff maintain and
    frequently update the Web site with timely reference and historical
    information. In 2005, the Historical Office received an estimated 1,500
    inquiries from the general public, the press, students, family
    genealogists, congressional staffers, and academics, through the public
    e-mail address provided on the Senate website. The diverse nature of
    their questions reflects the varied levels of interest in how the
    Senate functions, its institutional history, and the individuals who
    have served in the body.
        In coordination with the Office of Education and Training,
    Historical Office staff provided seminars on the general history of the
    Senate, Senate committees, women senators, Senate floor leadership, and
    the Constitution. Office staff also participated in seminars and
    briefings for specially scheduled groups. The Senate historian
    addressed a conference in the United Kingdom entitled, ``What Are
    Senates For?'' Sponsored by the University of London's Institute for
    Historical Research, this symposium was designed to explore further
    reform opportunities for the House of Lords by examining the experience
    of legislative upper houses in other western nations. The associate
    historian delivered the keynote address to the Northern Great Plains
    History Conference in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, participated in a workshop
    on ``Congress and History'' at Washington University in St. Louis, and
    was part of a panel discussion on ``The American Congress'' at the
    National Archives and Records Administration.
        Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress.--This eleven-member
    permanent committee, established in 1990 by Public Law 101-509, meets
    twice a year to advise Congress and the Archivist of the United States
    on the management and preservation of the records of Congress. Its
    Senate-related membership includes appointees of the majority and
    minority leaders; the Secretary of the Senate, who serves as committee
    vice chair during the 109th Congress; and the Senate historian. The
    Historical Office provided support services for the Committee's June
    and December meetings.
        Capitol Visitor Center Exhibition Content Committee.--Staff
    historians completed their assignments in drafting text for displays in
    the exhibition gallery of the Capitol Visitor Center. During 2005, the
    Office assisted Donna Lawrence Productions and Cortina Productions with
    background material for several visitor orientation films and
    interactive visual displays.
        Association of Centers for the Study of Congress.--In May, the
    Historical Office assisted with the third annual meeting of the
    Association of Centers for the Study of Congress. Among the centers
    involved in this promising new organization are those associated with
    the public careers of former Senators Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Everett
    Dirksen, Thomas Dodd, Wendell Ford, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell,
    John Stennis, and John Glenn.
                               7. human resources
        The Office of Human Resources was established in June 1995 as a
    result of the Congressional Accountability Act. The Office focuses on
    developing and implementing human resources policies, procedures, and
    programs for the Office of the Secretary of the Senate that fulfill the
    legal requirements of the workplace and complement the organization's
    strategic goals and values.
        This includes recruiting and staffing; providing guidance and
    advice to managers and staff; training; performance management; job
    analysis; compensation planning, design, and administration; leave
    administration; records management; employee handbooks and manuals;
    internal grievance procedures; employee relations and services; and
    organizational planning and development.
        The Human Resources Office also administers the Secretary's Public
    Transportation Subsidy program and the Summer Intern Program that
    offers college students the opportunity to gain valuable skills and
    experience in a variety of Senate support offices.
    Classification and Compensation Review Completed
        HR conducted a complete classification and compensation study. This
    work product is the single largest program to come from this office
    since its inception. The classification study includes a comprehensive
    collection of current job classifications and specifications for every
    position in the Office. Other federal agencies are looking to move from
    the GS schedule to this concept of broad banding, which allows greater
    flexibility in ``pay for performance'' models rather than simple
    graduated steps.
    Policies and Procedures
        The Secretary, through HR, is updating and revising the Employee
    Handbook of the Office of the Secretary. With nuances in employment law
    and other advances, the policies are being reviewed, coordinated with
    counsel, revised and updated. An entirely new updated Employee Handbook
    will be available in 2006.
    Employee Self-Service (ESS)
        HR has implemented use of the Employee Self-Service system (ESS)
    which is a secure system enabling Secretary staff to review and update
    personnel information pertaining to addresses, phone numbers and
    emergency contact information. Employees are now able to review and
    correct information to their electronic personnel records maintained by
    HR. Staff and managers can also access leave records and reports
    through this system. The ability to review and update this information
    is instrumental to maintaining accurate contact lists for emergencies
    or other contingencies.
        ESS is a useful communication method among a large staff. It is
    incumbent upon the department to find ways to solicit the feedback,
    suggestions and insight of staff in an effort to continually improve
    processes and procedures. One way we have incorporated this effort is
    in the ESS system. There is a ``suggestion box'' component to this
    service that allows staff to anonymously send a message to HR with a
    concern or suggestion, to be considered by HR and/or the Executive
    Office.
    Recruitment and Retention of Staff
        HR has the ongoing task of advertising new vacancies or positions,
    screening applicants, interviewing candidates and assisting with all
    phases of the hiring process. HR will coordinate with the Sergeant at
    Arms HR to post all SAA and Secretary vacancies on the Senate intranet
    so that the larger Senate community may access the posting from their
    own offices.
        HR assists in advising on performance-related issues and meets with
    staff and supervisors to develop performance improvement plans. Such
    plans help in both the development of a productive staff member and in
    making disciplinary recommendations when necessary.
    Outreach
        HR conducted the first Elder Care Fair that was made available to
    all Senate staff on October 24, 2005. The event provided an opportunity
    for staff to learn about and access local and nationwide services
    available to assist the elderly and those responsible for their care.
        Comprehensive resource manuals were created and distributed
    throughout the Senate and have been requested by specific offices,
    committees, and departments. The goal is to conduct an Elder Care Fair
    every other year.
    Training
        In conjunction with the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment, HR
    works to prepare training for department heads and staff. Some of the
    training topics include Sexual Harassment, Interviewing Skills,
    Conducting Background Checks, Providing Feedback to Employees and Goal
    Setting.
    Interns and Fellows
        HR coordinates both the Secretary's internship program and the
    Heinz Fellowship program. From advertising, conducting needs analyses,
    communicating, screening, placing and following up with all interns, HR
    keeps a close connection with the interns to make the internship most
    beneficial to them and the organization.
                             8. information systems
        The staff of the Department of Information Systems provides
    technical hardware and software support for the Office of the Secretary
    of the Senate. Information Systems staff also interface closely with
    the application and network development groups within the Sergeant at
    Arms (SAA), the Government Printing Office (GPO), and outside vendors
    on technical issues and joint projects. The Department provides
    computer related support for all LAN-based servers within the Office of
    the Secretary of the Senate. Information Systems staff provide direct
    application support for all software installed workstations, initiate
    and guide new technologies, and implement next generation hardware and
    software solutions.
    Mission Evaluation
        The primary mission of the Information Systems Department is to
    continue to provide the highest level of customer satisfaction and
    computer support for all departments within the Office of the Secretary
    of the Senate. Emphasis is placed on the creation and transfer of
    legislation to outside departments and agencies, meeting Disbursing
    office financial responsibilities to the member offices, and office
    mandated and statutory obligations.
    Staffing and Functionality
        No incremental staffing changes occurred in fiscal year 2005. The
    staffing level has remained unchanged since 1998, although functional
    responsibilities for support in other departments have expanded.
    Information System staff functionality was expanded by moving the IT
    structure from a local LAN support structure to an enterprise IT
    support process. Improved diagnostic practices were adopted to expand
    support across all Secretary Departments. Several departments, namely
    Disbursing, Chief Counsel for Employment, Office of Public Records,
    Page School, Senate Security, Stationery and Gift Shop previously
    employed dedicated information technology staff resident within the
    offices. Public Records, Stationery, and Gift Shop remote support was
    added in 2005. Information Systems personnel continue to provide a
    multi-tiered escalated hardware and software support for these offices.
        For information security reasons, departments have implemented
    isolated computer systems, unique applications, and isolated local area
    networks. The Secretary of the Senate network is a closed local area
    network to all offices within the Senate. Information Systems staff
    continue to provide a common level of hardware and software integration
    for these networks, and for the shared resources of interdepartmental
    networking. Information System staff continue to actively participate
    in all new project design and implementation within the Secretary of
    the Senate operations.
    Improvements to the Secretary's LANs
        The Senate chose Windows NT as the standard network operating
    system in 1997. The continuing support strategy is to enhance existing
    hardware and software supports provided by the Information Systems
    Department, and augment that support with assistance from the SAA
    whenever required. The network supports approximately 300 users'
    accounts and patron accounts in the Capitol, the Senate Hart, Russell,
    and Dirksen Buildings, and the Page School. The total number of
    hardware servers retired in 2005 was 16.
    Fiscal Year 2005 Summary Results
        The Active Directory and Messaging Architecture (ADMA) marks the
    first time that all Secretary IT equipment is operating in a pure
    client/server relationship. The IT infrastructure foundation is now
    positioned for scaleable and expanded growth in all Secretary offices.
        The ADMA project implementation provided a central point of IT
    system administration, and the opportunity to implement enterprise wide
    solutions, namely Outlook Web Access and remote messaging, offsite
    access to Webster, LIS, and newswire services.
        Improvements incorporated in the Amendment Tracking Project now
    provide submitted as well as proposed amendments scanned for all Member
    offices.
        Microsoft released 37 critical security updates for each
    workstation in 2005. Information System staff incorporated new
    techniques to test and deploy these updates to all systems. Coupled
    with a secure ``wake-up-on-LAN'' technology, workstations that are
    turned off can now securely powered up on the weekend, security updates
    installed, turned off, and ready for ``business as usual'' on Monday
    morning.
    Active Directory and Message Infrastructure Project (ADMA)
        The Microsoft Outlook E-Mail client solution is referred to as the
    Messaging Architecture and the replacement of the existing Windows NT
    server installed base is referred to as the Active Directory project.
    The ADMA plan involved all staff employees and was integrated into one
    central Active Directory Secretary Enterprise in 2005. Each department
    (except the Disbursing Office and Chief Counsel for Employment) is now
    structured as an organizational unit within the new enterprise.
        In September 2005, phase one was completed, and phase two
    (Disbursing) was completed in December 2005.
        There are several benefits to the implementation of the ADMA:
      --All secure-id and Passface users have remote access to web-mail,
            Congress.gov, CRS, and news wire services;
      --Access to web based services is available from all public and
            private internet locations;
      --Centralized system administrative processes;
      --Higher level of active file sharing and improved collaboration
            between different business functions; and
      --Higher levels of messaging functionality during COOP events.
        Clearly, the implementation of ADMA for the Secretary involved
    numerous resources on the part of both the Sergeant at Arms and the
    Secretary's offices. The importance of this single project provides the
    ``base'' for all future IT related projects in the coming years.
    Legislative Operation Upgrades
        The technical staff collaborated with the SAA application
    development software personnel to complete the transition of the
    Amendment Tracking System workflow process to a web-based solution.
    This redesign facilitates the scanning of submitted and proposed
    amendments for all Senate offices.
    Stationery Room Renovation Procurement
        The Stationery Room awarded a contract to replace the existing
    hardware servers in August 2005. This process had not been updated in
    over ten years.
        An enhancement to the Stationery Room's services incorporated a
    Metro Subsidy system which allows Senate offices to request allotted
    subsidies in advance using a web-browser based connection. SAA provided
    the web-entry portal at PSQ, and the Secretary's office installed the
    necessary SQL database server at PSQ. Hardware servers maintained
    jointly by SAA and the Secretary were initiated in 2005 to provide this
    advance purchase request.
    Curator Project Management Software
        In May 2004 a project requirement surfaced to provide the Curator's
    office with a method to create, edit, publish, and distribute
    information relative to numerous contracts and outside vendor projects.
    After evaluating these business requirements, the IT solution
    implemented now provides multi-user collaboration software to track and
    monitor these numerous projects.
        In parallel, working with SAA Research and Development, this
    solution was also deemed valuable to other Senate offices.
    Implementation of this package allows staff to communicate and share
    files regardless of location. A Senate wide rollout is expected in
    2005.
                         9. interparliamentary services
        The Office of Interparliamentary Services (IPS) has completed its
    24th year of operation as a department of the Secretary of the Senate.
    IPS is responsible for administrative, financial, and protocol
    functions for all interparliamentary conferences in which the Senate
    participates by statute, for interparliamentary conferences in which
    the Senate participates on an ad hoc basis, and for special delegations
    authorized by the Majority and/or Minority Leaders. The office also
    provides appropriate assistance as requested by other Senate
    delegations.
        The statutory interparliamentary conferences are: NATO
    Parliamentary Assembly; Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group;
    Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group; British-American
    Interparliamentary Group; United States-Russia Interparliamentary
    Group; and United States-China Interparliamentary Group.
        In June, the 44th Annual Meeting of the Mexico-U.S.
    Interparliamentary Group was held in Rhode Island. Arrangements for
    this successful event were handled by the IPS staff.
        As in previous years, all foreign travel authorized by the
    Leadership is arranged by the IPS staff. In addition to delegation
    trips, IPS provided assistance to individual Senators and staff
    traveling overseas. Senators and staff authorized by committees for
    foreign travel continue to call upon this office for assistance with
    passports, visas, travel arrangements, and reporting requirements.
        IPS receives and prepares for printing the quarterly financial
    reports for foreign travel from all committees in the Senate. In
    addition to preparing the quarterly reports for the Majority Leader,
    the Minority Leader, and the President Pro Tempore, IPS staff also
    assists staff members of Senators and committees in completing the
    required reports.
        Interparliamentary Services maintains regular contact with the
    Office of the Chief of Protocol, Department of State, and with foreign
    embassy officials. Official foreign visitors are frequently received in
    this office and assistance is given to individuals as well as to groups
    by the IPS staff. The staff continues to work closely with other
    offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms in
    arranging programs for foreign visitors. In addition, IPS is frequently
    consulted by individual Senators' offices on a broad range of protocol
    questions. Occasional questions come from state officials or the
    general public regarding Congressional protocol.
        On behalf of the Leadership, the staff arranges receptions in the
    Senate for Heads of State, Heads of Government, Heads of Parliaments,
    and parliamentary delegations. Required records of expenditures on
    behalf of foreign visitors under authority of Public Law 100-71 are
    maintained in the Office of Interparliamentary Services.
        Planning is underway for the 46th Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S.
    Interparliamentary Group, which will be held in the United States in
    2006. Advance work, including site inspection, will be undertaken for
    the Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group and British American
    Parliamentary Group meetings to be held in the United States in 2007.
    Preparations are also underway for the spring and fall sessions of the
    NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
                                  10. library
        The Senate Library provides legislative, legal, business, and
    general information services to the United States Senate. The library's
    collection encompasses legislative documents that date from the
    Continental Congress in 1774; current and historic executive and
    judicial branch materials; and an extensive book collection on American
    politics, history, and biography. Other resources include a wide array
    of online systems used to provide nonpartisan, confidential, timely,
    and accurate information services to the Senate. The library also
    authors content for three websites: Legislative Information Service,
    Senate.gov, and Webster.
    Notable Achievements
        Information inquiries increased 26 percent.
        LIS nomination records enhanced with links to 1,074 full-text
    hearings.
        Senate Support Facility opened, providing archival storage for
    library collections.
        Project undertaken to provide electronic access to the Senate
    Historical Office's 3,000-volume book collection.
        180 Senate staff were provided LIS instruction.
    Information Services
        Legal, legislative, business, and general research are the primary
    components of the Senate Library's mission. The two categories of
    patron requests are traditional requests resulting from walk-ins,
    telephone calls, faxes, or e-mails, and requests directed to library-
    produced web resources. As content providers to three websites--
    Senate.gov, the Legislative Information System (LIS), and Webster--the
    library's work flow and procedures, staff skills, and information
    products have changed significantly and permanently. XML technology has
    significantly and positively impacted web work flow and work product.
    As a result, the library can meet the Senate community's ever-
    increasing reliance on technology with accurate, pertinent, and current
    information in an even more timely and cost-effective manner. The
    response to the library's commitment to web initiatives was a 26
    percent increase in inquiries from the previous year. This marked the
    second consecutive year of double-digit increases.

                                           INFORMATION SERVICES TO THE SENATE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Traditional     Web
                          Year                        Inquiries   Inquiries    Total     Increase from Previous Year
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2005...........................................      33,080     823,076    856,156  26 percent
    2004...........................................      33,750     602,236    635,986  38 percent
    2003...........................................      46,234     348,198    394,432  Baseline
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Most of the activities supporting research also reflected
    significant increases, including 4,015 information packages delivered
    (+23 percent) and 133,335 photocopies (+13.75 percent). The number of
    loaned books and documents increased 27 percent to 2,752 and 330 new
    borrowing accounts were established, bringing the total to 2,667. Other
    important contributors to the across-the-board increases were the
    October 2004 Senate-wide release of the library's online catalog, which
    recorded nearly 4,000 user visits, the interactive New Books List, and
    the new e-mail book ordering service. In addition, more than 4,400
    pages were produced from the library's extensive microform collection
    of newspapers, journals, and congressional documents.
    Significant Projects
                Supreme Court Nominations
        A web-available history documenting the 158 Supreme Court
    nominations submitted to the Senate since 1789 was compiled and
    published. This unique web document features confirmation chronologies
    and embedded links to voting records, nominee biographies, and essays
    regarding special circumstances. The document has been published on
    Senate.gov, the Legislative Information System, and the Senate
    Library's Home Page on Webster.
        A related Supreme Court project provides web access to the text of
    confirmation hearings conducted since 1971 and Senate executive reports
    issued since 1993. These two categories of important documents were
    provided through collaboration with the Senate Judiciary Committee,
    Congressional Research Service (CRS), Government Printing Office (GPO),
    and Library of Congress Law Library.
                Senate Hearings on LIS
        The Legislative Information System nomination reports were enhanced
    with the addition of 886 Senate hearing numbers, the key to identifying
    a specific transcript in a library or at GPO.
        A related LIS project linked the hearing numbers to the full text
    of hearing transcripts at GPO Access. The June release of this new
    feature on LIS was followed by a November release on THOMAS. To date,
    this cooperative project between the Library of Congress and the Senate
    Library has established 1,074 full-text links to Senate committee
    hearings.
                Appropriations Legislation
        The library's popular Appropriations Legislation series documents
    the history of appropriations measures since fiscal year 1993. The
    histories were significantly improved with the addition of links to
    full-text transcripts of nearly 200 Senate Appropriations' hearings. An
    additional feature that links House hearing information to the web-
    based library catalog is available to Senate staff through the
    library's Webster site. Simultaneous dynamic publishing to the
    histories on Webster, LIS, and Senate.gov was designed by the Web
    Technology Office and significantly improved editing procedures.
                Educational Services
        LIS Savvy classes, a new library outreach program, were introduced
    in March. The one-hour classroom sessions provided 180 Senate staff
    with expert LIS training from an experienced research librarian. In
    addition to the scheduled monthly sessions, six more classes, including
    a teleconference training session, were held to meet the demand. LIS
    Savvy classes complement the library's responsibility as the Senate's
    official Help Desk for commercial and legislative databases.
        In addition, 204 Senate staff attended library-sponsored seminars
    and events including Services of the Senate Library Seminars, the
    Senate Services Fair, Senate Page School tours, state staff
    orientations, and the annual National Library Week reception and book
    talk.
        During 2005, the library hosted 179 visitors from graduate schools,
    professional organizations, and federal libraries. The tours included
    Catholic University and University of North Carolina graduate students;
    library staff from the Supreme Court, Central Intelligence Agency, and
    Library of Congress; D.C. Special Library Association members; and
    participants in the annual GPO Depository Library Conference.
    Technical Services
                Acquisitions
        The library received 11,988 (+2.5 percent) new acquisitions in
    2005. Of this number, 7,520 were congressional documents, 3,588
    executive branch publications, and the remaining 880 items were books
    related to politics, American history, or biography.
        As a participant in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP),
    the library receives selected categories of legislative, executive, and
    judicial branch publications from GPO. In 2005, the library acquired
    11,108 items through FDLP. The trend to electronically distribute
    government publications has significantly reduced the overall number of
    paper documents issued; GPO reports that 95 percent of government
    documents are now issued electronically. The library responded to this
    trend by hosting 16,938 electronic catalog links, the majority of which
    are to government documents.
        A major project is the ongoing title-by-title evaluation of
    executive branch publications. During the fifth year of the project,
    1,462 superseded or surplus items were withdrawn from the collection
    and 628 of these items were donated to requesting federal libraries.
    The project's final phase will improve organization and access by
    integrating the retained documents into the book collection. Toward
    this end, 379 documents were reclassified and merged into the larger
    primary collection.
                Cataloging
        The library's productive cataloging staff draws on years of
    experience to produce and maintain a catalog of more than 166,912
    bibliographic items. During the year, 10,385 items were added to the
    catalog including 5,179 new titles (+10 percent), and 5,689 items were
    withdrawn. A total of 28,928 maintenance transactions contributed to
    the catalog's content, currency, and record integrity. The library also
    contributed 664 personal names and congressional terms to the Name
    Authorities Cooperative program (NACO) at the Library of Congress. That
    number is exceptional and underscores cataloging skills and the very
    special nature of the Senate's collections. As an international
    authority, NACO's institutional participants create shared cataloging
    resources for the larger library community.
        Staff addressed the longstanding issue of tracking committee
    hearings. There is often a three to six-month period between the date a
    hearing is held and publication of the official transcript. To date,
    383 records have been created for yet-to-be published hearings. Senate
    staff and researchers are now able to identify both published and
    unpublished Senate hearings by searching the library catalog.
        Other cataloging projects included assisting the Senate Historical
    Office in providing electronic access to their 3,000 volume book
    collection. Once completed, the entire collection will be searchable
    through the library's online catalog. Since May, records for the first
    638 titles have been completed.
                Web-Based Catalog
        The library's online catalog, containing 166,912 bibliographic
    records, was released Senate-wide on October 25, 2004. During the first
    operational year, Senate staff searched the catalog on nearly 4,000
    occasions. The public catalog is updated nightly to guarantee that
    Senate staff will retrieve accurate and timely information on library
    holdings. The holdings for electronic journals and government-issued
    serials, including annual reports and recurring documents, were added
    to the catalog in 2005.
        A four-month beta test of the latest catalog upgrade was followed
    by a June installation of the new 3.3 version. The beta testing
    provided an opportunity to recommend search and display improvements.
    Catalog users will see enhanced full-text search capability with
    system-generated equivalent and substitute terms. For more precision,
    exact-match searching, which provides more focused results, is also
    available. The catalog improvements have significantly integrated the
    majority of library resources onto the Secretary's network.
        The library utilizes a statistical and analytical tool, to process
    raw data from the public catalog web server. This valuable management
    tool provides information on aggregate catalog usage and will result in
    improved design and service.
                Offsite Storage, Collection Maintenance, and Binding
        The Senate Support Facility was completed in December 2005 and will
    provide long-term, preservation-quality storage for library
    collections. The library's designated area in the warehouse provides
    storage for 56,000 volumes, and has on-site security, fire suppression,
    museum-standard humidity and temperature controls, air filtration, and
    telecommunications. A collection of 25,000 historic and rare
    congressional documents will be transferred to the SSF in 2006.
        Preservation of the library's 18th and 19th century collections
    resulted in several initiatives, including a volume-by-volume
    collection survey that will identify those titles requiring
    conservation, repair, or replacement. To prevent the growth of mold and
    mildew, routine monitoring ensures that strict temperature and humidity
    levels are maintained. To guarantee future availability and
    preservation, GPO bound 550 library volumes for the permanent
    collection.
    Administrative
                Budget
        Budget reductions in 2005 totaled $2,544.32. Nine years of budget
    monitoring has resulted in reductions totaling $73,484.18. Continual
    review of purchases has eliminated materials not meeting the Senate's
    current information needs. This oversight is also critical in
    offsetting cost increases for core materials and for acquiring new
    materials. The goal is to provide the highest service level using the
    latest technologies and best resources in the most cost-effective
    manner.
                Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
        The addition of a laptop computer significantly improved the
    library's ability to meet COOP-related and special event
    responsibilities. With added remote access to the Senate.gov content
    management system (CMS), staff can efficiently update the floor
    schedule. To meet COOP requirements for an alternate work site, the
    library's warehouse location will provide staff areas, a core reference
    collection, and access to the Senate network and telecommunications
    systems.
                Unum, Newsletter of the Office of the Secretary of the
                        Senate
        Unum, the Secretary's quarterly newsletter produced by Senate
    Library staff since October 1997, is an historical record of
    accomplishments, events, and personnel in the Office of the Secretary
    of the Senate. Three issues were published during 2005, including a 16-
    page commemorative issue honoring the 200th anniversary of Constantino
    Brumidi's birth. In addition, Senate-wide access to each of the thirty-
    seven issues was made available through Webster and the library's
    catalog.
    Major Library Goals for 2006
        Relocate 25,000 volumes to the Senate Support Facility.
        Redesign the library's Webster site.
        Identify a COOP-designated reference collection for the Senate
    Support Facility.
        Continue the review and reclassification of executive branch
    materials.
        Add Senate hearing numbers to LIS status reports for the 1987-2000
    time period.
        Plan for server upgrades in preparation for future catalog
    requirements.

                                                 SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2005--ACQUISITIONS
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Books         Government Documents          Congressional Publications
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                         Reports/    Total
                                                            Ordered    Received    Paper      Fiche     Hearings    Prints     Bylaw       Docs
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January..............................................         21         65        234         86        206         19         48        342      1,000
    February.............................................         22         51        208         44        276         13         81        242        915
    March................................................         20         81        397        142        243         28         74        273      1,238
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          1st Quarter....................................         63        197        839        272        725         60        203        857      3,153
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    April................................................         18         78        161         35        214         35         53        204        780
    May..................................................         34         98        122         42        183         27         80        367        919
    June.................................................         27        102        159        396        217         16         72        336      1,298
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          2nd Quarter....................................         79        278        442        473        614         78        205        907      2,997
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    July.................................................         50         61        170         51        249         21         65        292        909
    August...............................................         21         75        120         78        276         25         58        324        956
    September............................................         33         58        190        201        235         18        148        268      1,118
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          3rd Quarter....................................        104        194        480        330        760         64        271        884      2,983
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    October..............................................         32         82        187         76        283         17         68        293      1,006
    November.............................................         48         74        215         49        256         13         56        350      1,013
    December.............................................         20         55        174         51        288         20         81        167        836
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          4th Quarter....................................        100        211        576        176        827         50        205        810      2,855
                                                          ==================================================================================================
          2005 Total.....................................        346        880      2,337      1,251      2,926        252        884      3,458     11,988
          2004 Total.....................................        225        716      2,329        985      3,180        217      1,171      2,955     11,698
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    Percent Change.......................................      53.78      22.91        .34      27.01      -7.99      16.13     -24.51      17.02       2.48
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2005--CATALOGING
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Bibliographic Records Cataloged
                                                              S.    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Hearing                    Government Documents           Congressional Publications      Total
                                                           Numbers             -------------------------------------------------------------------  Records
                                                           Added to    Books                                                              Docs./   Cataloged
                                                             LIS                  Paper      Fiche    Electronic   Hearings    Prints     Pubs./
                                                                                                                                         Reports
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January.............................................         42         22          6         17          13        353          4         51        466
    February............................................         20         21          2          7           5        258          5         75        373
    March...............................................        121         25         16          7           2        315          5        114        484
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          1st Quarter...................................        183         68         24         31          20        926         14        240      1,323
                                                         ===================================================================================================
    April...............................................  .........         38         11          1           8        133          8        108        307
    May.................................................         14         69          5  .........           7        239          6         88        414
    June................................................         44        121          8          2           5        403          6         67        612
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          2nd Quarter...................................         58        228         24          3          20        775         20        263      1,333
                                                         ===================================================================================================
    July................................................        647         47          2          2          17        197          2         42        309
    August..............................................         81         30          6          7          21        158  .........        103        325
    September...........................................         28         49          8          1           7        246          1         98        410
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          3rd Quarter...................................        756        126         16         10          45        601          3        243      1,044
                                                         ===================================================================================================
    October.............................................         19         30          2          8           4        478  .........         49        571
    November............................................         46         21          5          2          33        337  .........         64        462
    December............................................         26         27         14          3           9        262          2        129        446
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          4th Quarter...................................         91         78         21         13          46      1,077          2        242      1,479
                                                         ===================================================================================================
          2005 Total....................................      1,088        500         85         57         131      3,379         39        988      5,179
          2004 Total....................................        240        425         51         41          37      3,329        164        662      4,709
                                                         ===================================================================================================
    Percent Change......................................     353.33      17.65      66.67      39.02      254.05       1.50     -76.22      49.24       9.98
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2005--DOCUMENT DELIVERY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Micrographics  Photocopiers
                                                         Volumes  Materials  Facsimiles   Center Pages      Pages
                                                         Loaned   Delivered                 Printed        Printed
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January...........................................       213        333        119           534         5,874
    February..........................................       220        271         79           234        10,258
    March.............................................       254        384        143           479         8,567
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
          1st Quarter.................................       687        988        341         1,247        24,699
                                                       =============================================================
    April.............................................       202        357         75           151        12,082
    May...............................................       254        280         36           401         9,886
    June..............................................       225        366         73           413        11,183
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
          2nd Quarter.................................       681      1,003        184           965        33,151
                                                       =============================================================
    July..............................................       210        252        112           158         8,617
    August............................................       359        633        111           550        10,268
    September.........................................       216        317         70           320        13,095
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
          3rd Quarter.................................       785      1,202        293         1,028        31,980
                                                       =============================================================
    October...........................................       207        317         76           374         8,986
    November..........................................       225        273         38           414         8,894
    December..........................................       167        232         69           378         5,625
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
          4th Quarter.................................       599        822        183         1,166        23,505
                                                       =============================================================
          2005 Total..................................     2,752      4,015      1,001         4,406       113,335
          2004 Total..................................     2,165      3,265      1,904         4,522        99,636
                                                       =============================================================
    Percent Change....................................     27.11      22.97     -47.43         -2.57         13.75
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             11. senate page school
        The United States Senate Page School exists to provide a smooth
    transition from and to the students' home schools, providing those
    students with as sound a program, both academically and experientially,
    as possible during their stay in the nation's capital, within the
    limits of the constraints imposed by the work situation.
    Summary of Accomplishments
        Accreditation by the Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools
    continues until December 31, 2008.
        Two page classes successfully completed their semester curriculum.
    Closing ceremonies were conducted on June 10, 2005, and January 20,
    2006, the last day of school for each semester.
        Orientation and course scheduling for the Spring 2005 and Fall 2005
    pages were successfully completed. Needs of incoming students
    determined the semester schedules.
        Extended educational experiences were provided to pages. Twenty-one
    field trips, five guest speakers, opportunities to compete in writing
    and speaking contests, to play musical instruments and vocalize, and to
    continue foreign language study with the aid of tutors of four
    languages were all afforded pages. Six field trips to educational sites
    and three speakers were provided for summer pages as an extension of
    the page experience. National tests were administered for qualification
    in scholarship programs as well.
        Effective and efficient communication and coordination among the
    Sergeant at Arms, Secretary, Party Secretaries, Page Program, and Page
    School continues.
        The evacuation plan and COOP have been reviewed and updated. Pages
    and staff continue to practice evacuating to primary and secondary
    sites.
        The community service project embraced by pages and staff in 2002
    continues. Items for gift packages were collected, assembled, and
    shipped to military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. The pages
    included letters of support to the troops participating in Operation
    Enduring Freedom. Several recipients of gift packages wrote letters to
    the pages expressing their appreciation.
        Staff and pages participated in escape hood training.
        Tutors were trained in evacuation procedures.
        Updated materials and equipment were purchased. These included five
    Titanium calculators, supplemental English textbooks, pre-calculus
    textbooks, and political science and American government texts.
        Faculty have pursued learning opportunities. One participated in
    the Veterans History Project workshop at the Library of Congress;
    another attended an AP Physics workshop, a Hazard Communications
    seminar, the T3 International conference, and a PASCO workshop; and a
    third attended the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
    convention as well as the T3 International Conference and completed two
    courses in his doctoral program.
        All sinks in the science lab have been retrofitted with aspirators.
    Summary of Plans
        Our goals include:
      --Individualized small group instruction and tutoring by teachers on
            an as-needed basis will continue to be offered.
      --Foreign language tutors will provide instruction in French,
            Spanish, German, Latin, and Japanese.
      --The focus of field trips will be sites of historic, political, and
            scientific importance which complement the curriculum.
      --Staff development options will include attendance at a technology
            conference, seminars conducted by Education and Training, and
            subject matter conferences conducted by national organizations.
      --The community service project will continue.
                       12. printing and document services
        The Office of Printing and Document Services (OPDS) serves as the
    liaison to the Government Printing Office (GPO) for the Senate's
    official printing, ensuring that all Senate printing is in compliance
    with Title 44, U.S. Code as it relates to Senate documents, hearings,
    committee prints and other official publications. The office assists
    the Senate by coordinating, scheduling, delivering and preparing Senate
    legislation, hearings, documents, committee prints and miscellaneous
    publications for printing, and provides printed copies of all
    legislation and public laws to the Senate and the public. In addition,
    the office assigns publication numbers to all hearings, committee
    prints, documents and other publications; orders all blank paper,
    envelopes and letterhead for the Senate; and prepares page counts of
    all Senate hearings in order to compensate commercial reporting
    companies for the preparation of hearings.
    Printing Services
        During fiscal year 2005, the OPDS prepared 4,439 printing and
    binding requisitions authorizing the GPO to print and bind the Senate's
    work, exclusive of legislation and the Congressional Record. Since the
    requisitioning done by the OPDS is central to the Senate's printing,
    the office is uniquely suited to perform invoice and bid reviewing
    responsibilities for Senate printing. As a result of this office's cost
    accounting duties, OPDS is able to review and assure accurate GPO
    invoicing as well as play an active role in helping to provide the best
    possible bidding scenario for Senate publications.
        In addition to processing requisitions, the Printing Services
    Section coordinates proof handling, job scheduling and tracking for
    stationery products, Senate hearings, Senate publications and other
    miscellaneous printed products, as well as monitoring blank paper and
    stationery quotas for each Senate office and committee. The office's
    online blank paper ordering system, implemented in 2003, continues to
    be a popular option for Senate staff. The OPDS also coordinates a
    number of publications for other Senate offices, such as the Curator,
    Historical Office, Disbursing, Legislative Clerk, and Senate Library in
    addition to the U.S. Botanic Garden, U.S. Capitol Police and Architect
    of the Capitol. These tasks include providing guidance for design,
    paper selection, specifications for quotations, monitoring print
    quality and distribution. Last year's major printing projects included
    the Report of the Secretary of the Senate and the Semiannual Report of
    the Architect of the Capitol. Current major projects for the office
    include a full color version of the ``History of the U.S. Botanic
    Garden 1861-1991'', ``Headlines in Senate History'' a compilation
    prepared by the Senate Historical Office, and the ``U.S. Senate
    Catalogue of Graphic Art'' a companion volume to the fine art
    catalogue.
    Hearing Billing Verification
        Senate committees often use outside reporting companies to
    transcribe their hearings. The OPDS processes billing verifications for
    these transcription services ensuring that costs billed to the Senate
    are accurate. During 2005, OPDS provided commercial reporting companies
    and corresponding Senate committees a total of 949 billing
    verifications of Senate hearings and business meetings, a 20 percent
    increase over the previous year. Over 66,000 transcribed pages were
    processed at a total billing cost of over $426,000.
        The OPDS utilizes a program developed in conjunction with the
    Sergeant at Arms Computer Division that provides more billing accuracy
    and greater information gathering capacity, and adheres to the
    guidelines established by the Senate Committee on Rules and
    Administration for commercial reporting companies to bill the Senate
    for transcription services. During 2005 the office continued processing
    all file transfers between committees and reporting companies
    electronically, ensuring efficiency and accuracy. Department staff
    continues training to apply today's expanding digital technology to
    improve performance and services.

                                      HEARING TRANSCRIPT AND BILLING VERIFICATIONS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percent change
                                                           2003            2004            2005          2005/2004
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Billing Verifications...........................             975             787             949          + 20.6
    Average per Committee...........................            51.3            41.4            49.9          + 20.6
    Total Transcribed Pages.........................          70,532          56,262          66,597          + 18.4
    Average Pages/Committee.........................           3,712           2,961           3,505          + 18.4
    Transcribed Pages Cost..........................        $461,807        $366,904        $426,815          + 16.3
    Average Cost/Committee..........................         $24,288         $19,311         $22,463          + 16.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Additionally, the Service Center within the OPDS is staffed by
    experienced GPO detailees that provide Senate committees and the
    Secretary of the Senate's office with complete publishing services for
    hearings, committee prints, and the preparation of the Congressional
    Record. These services include keyboarding, proofreading, scanning, and
    composition. The Service Center provides the best management of funds
    available through the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation
    as committees have been able to decrease or eliminate additional
    overtime costs associated with the preparation of hearings.
    Document Services
        The Document Services Section coordinates requests for printed
    legislation and miscellaneous publications with other departments
    within the Secretary's Office, Senate committees, and the GPO. This
    section ensures that the most current version of all material is
    available, and that sufficient quantities are available to meet
    projected demands. The Congressional Record, a printed record of Senate
    and House floor proceedings, Extension of Remarks, Daily Digest and
    miscellaneous pages, is one of the many printed documents provided by
    the office on a daily basis. In addition to the Congressional Record,
    the office processed and distributed 9,984 distinct legislative items
    in 2005, including Senate and House bills, resolutions, committee and
    conference reports and executive documents.

                                             CONGRESSIONAL RECORD STATISTICS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           2003            2004            2005
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pages Printed:
        For the Senate..............................................          16,835          12,642          16,393
        For the House...............................................          16,259          14,243          18,394
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total Pages Printed.......................................          33,094          26,885          34,787
                                                                     ===============================================
    Copies Printed and Distributed:
        To the Senate...............................................         307,917         227,192         295,366
        To the House................................................         441,735         331,165         397,327
        To the Executive Branch and the Public......................         449,750         323,957         356,770
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total Copies Printed and Distributed......................       1,199,402         882,314       1,049,463
                                                                     ===============================================
    Production Costs:
        Senate Costs................................................      $9,886,805      $7,961,741      $6,640,823
        House Costs.................................................      $9,563,592      $9,026,893      $8,933,244
        Other Costs.................................................        $693,141        $555,010        $440,639
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total Production Costs....................................     $20,143,538     $17,543,644     $16,014,706
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Although accessing legislative documents through the World Wide Web
    is popular, there is still a strong need for printed documents. The
    OPDS continually tracks demand for all classifications of Congressional
    legislation and twice yearly adjusts the number of documents ordered in
    each category to closely match demand. As a result, document waste has
    decreased significantly over the past several years.
    Customer Service
        The primary responsibility of the OPDS is to provide services to
    the Senate. However, the office also has a responsibility to the
    general public, the press, and other government agencies. Requests for
    legislative material are received at the walk-in counter, through the
    mail, by fax, and electronically. In 2005, ordering of legislative
    documents on-line increased by 260 percent. The Legislative Hot List
    Link, where Members and staff can confirm arrival of printed copies of
    the most sought after legislative documents, is popular. The site is
    updated several times daily each time new documents arrive from GPO to
    the Document Room. In addition, the office handled thousands of phone
    calls pertaining to the Senate's official printing, document requests
    and legislative questions. Recorded messages, fax, and e-mail operate
    around the clock and are processed as they are received in addition to
    mail requests. The office stresses prompt, courteous and accurate
    answers to Senate and public requests.

                                      SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CUSTOMER SERVICE STATISTICS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Congress/    Public      FAX      On-line    Counter
                               Year                             session      mail     request    request    request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2003.....................................................    108/1st      1,469      2,596        735     53,040
    2004.....................................................    108/2nd      1,137      2,229        564     36,780
    2005.....................................................    109/1st      1,369      2,326      1,464     40,105
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On-Demand Publication
        The office produces additional copies of legislation as needed in
    the DocuTech Service Center which is staffed by experienced GPO
    detailees. On-demand printing and binding of bills and reports is
    provided to Member offices and Senate committees. In March 2004, the
    office coordinated the installation of a new, improved DocuTech high-
    speed digital copier and production publisher. This machine decreases
    the quantities of documents printed directly from GPO and increases the
    ability to reprint documents on-demand on a larger scale. The DocuTech
    is networked with GPO allowing print files to be sent back and forth
    electronically. It also provides the advantage of quickly printing
    necessary legislation for the Senate floor and other offices in the
    event of a GPO COOP situation. During 2005, the DocuTech Center
    produced 530 tasks for a total of 891,871 printed pages, a 35 percent
    increase over the previous year.
    Accomplishments and Future Goals
        The OPDS experienced an increased volume of business during 2005.
    Staff members attended both technical and management continuing
    education courses, always working toward the goal of providing
    customers, the Senate community and the public, with prompt and
    accurate service. Future goals include working with the GPO on
    improving job flow procedures. This includes sending customers
    electronic proofs for print jobs, as well as developing new database
    reports on serial set publications for the Senate Library and inventory
    tracking of materials housed in the new Senate Materials Facility. The
    Office of Printing and Document Services continues to seek new ways to
    use technology to assist Members and staff with added services and
    improved access to information.
                          13. office of public records
        The Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains
    records, reports, and other documents filed with the Secretary of the
    Senate involving the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended; the
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995; the Senate Code of Official Conduct:
    Rule 34, Public Financial Disclosure; Rule 35, Senate Gift Rule
    Filings; Rule 40, Registration of Mass Mailing; Rule 41, Political Fund
    Designees; and Rule 41(6), Supervisor's Reports on Individuals
    Performing Senate Services; and Foreign Travel Reports.
        The office provides for the inspection, review, and reproduction of
    these documents. From October 2004, through September 2005, the Public
    Records office staff assisted more than 2,200 individuals seeking
    information from reports filed with the office. This figure does not
    include assistance provided by telephone, nor assistance given to
    lobbyists attempting to comply with the provisions of the Lobbying
    Disclosure Act of 1995. A total of 102,977 photocopies were sold in the
    period. In addition, the office works closely with the Federal Election
    Commission, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the Clerk of the
    U.S. House of Representatives concerning the filing requirements of the
    aforementioned Acts and Senate rules.
    Fiscal Year 2005 Accomplishments
        The office developed on-site scanning redundancy with other offices
    under the Office of the Secretary. The office also modernized the on-
    site public access software.
    Automation Activities
        During fiscal year 2005, the Senate Office of Public Records
    developed the capacity to be able to scan time-sensitive documents in
    the event of a breakdown of the principal scanner.
    Federal Election Campaign Act, as Amended
        The Act requires Senate candidates to file quarterly reports in a
    non-election year. Filings totaled 4,447 documents containing 278,264
    pages.
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
        The Act requires semi-annual financial and lobbying activity
    reports. As of September 30, 2005, 6,485 registrants represented 20,099
    clients and employed 32,890 individuals who met the statutory
    definition of ``lobbyist.'' The total number of lobbying registrations
    and reports processed was 49,401.
    Public Financial Disclosure
         The filing date for Public Financial Disclosure Reports was May
    16, 2005. The reports were available to the public and press by
    Tuesday, June 14th. Copies were provided to the Select Committee on
    Ethics and the appropriate State officials. A total of 2,900 reports
    and amendments was filed containing 15,878 pages. There were 301
    requests to review or receive copies of the documents.
    Senate Rule 35 (Gift Rule)
        The Senate Office of Public Records has received over 1,691 reports
    during fiscal year 2005.
    Registration of Mass Mailing
        Senators are required to file mass mailings on a quarterly basis.
    The number of pages was 558.
                              14. senate security
        The Office of Senate Security (OSS) was established under the
    Secretary of the Senate by Senate Resolution 243 (100th Congress, 1st
    Session). The Office is responsible for the administration of
    classified information programs in Senate offices and committees. In
    addition, OSS serves as the Senate's liaison to the Executive Branch in
    matters relating to the security of classified information in the
    Senate. This report covers the period from January 1, 2005 through
    December 31, 2005.
    Personnel Security
        Four hundred eighty-five Senate employees held one or more security
    clearances at the end of 2005. This number does not include clearances
    for employees of the Architect of the Capitol or for Congressional
    Fellows assigned to Senate offices. OSS also processes these
    clearances.
        OSS processed 2,361 personnel security actions in 2005, a 24
    percent increase from 2004. One hundred-seven investigations for new
    security clearances were initiated last year, and 58 security
    clearances were transferred from other agencies. Senate regulations, as
    well as some Executive Branch regulations, require that individuals
    granted Top Secret security clearances be reinvestigated at least every
    five years. Staff holding Secret security clearances are reinvestigated
    every ten years. During the past 12 months, reinvestigations were
    initiated on 70 Senate employees. OSS processed 218 routine
    terminations of security clearances during the reporting period and
    transmitted 339 outgoing visit requests. The remainder of the personnel
    security actions consisted of updating access authorizations and
    compartments.
        Overall, the average time required by the Department of Defense
    (DOD) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for processing security
    clearances (by means of investigation and adjudication) has increased
    from 260 days to 332 days. The average time for investigations has
    increased by 27.7 percent relative to 2004. Since the previous
    increases for 2002 to 2003 was 66.7 percent and 2003 to 2004 was 25.6
    percent, this represents a very significant increase in the last two
    years. The average time for an initial investigation conducted and
    adjudicated by the DOD is 305 days from the date that OSS requests the
    investigation until the letter from DOD granting the clearance is
    received in Senate Security. The average time for DOD initial
    investigations increased 19.1 percent.
        The periodic reinvestigation process averages 385 days, an increase
    of 42.6 percent relative to 2004. The average time for an initial
    investigation conducted by the FBI and adjudicated by DOD is 256 days,
    while the periodic reinvestigation process averages 447 days. The FBI
    investigation with DOD adjudication times represents an increase of 1.6
    percent and 69.3 percent respectively.
        Two hundred thirty-nine records checks were conducted at the
    request of the FBI, ATF and OPM. One record check each was performed on
    behalf of OPM and ATF. The remaining checks were performed for FBI.
    This represents a 15.5 percent increase in records checks completed by
    OSS.
    Security Awareness
        OSS conducted or hosted 75 security briefings for Senate staff.
    Topics included: information security, counterintelligence, foreign
    travel, security managers' responsibilities, office security
    management, and introductory security briefings. This represents a 2
    percent increase from 2004.
    Document Control
        OSS received or generated 2,792 classified documents consisting of
    90,217 pages during calendar year 2005. This is a 0.4 percent decrease
    in the number of documents received or generated in 2004. Additionally,
    67,899 pages from 4,082 classified documents no longer required for the
    conduct of official Senate business were destroyed. This represents a
    52.9 percent increase in destruction. OSS transferred 700 documents
    consisting of 26,625 pages to Senate offices or external agencies, down
    40.9 percent from 2004. These figures do not include classified
    documents received directly by the Appropriations Committee, Armed
    Services Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, and Select Committee
    on Intelligence, in accordance with agreements between OSS and those
    committees. Overall, Senate Security completed 7,575 document
    transactions and handled over 184,742 pages of classified material in
    2005, an increase of 40.9 percent.
        Secure storage of classified material in the OSS vault was provided
    for 107 Senators, committees, and support offices. This arrangement
    minimizes the number of storage areas throughout the Capitol and Senate
    office buildings, thereby affording greater security for classified
    material.
    Secure Meeting Facilities
        OSS secure conference facilities were utilized on 919 occasions
    during 2005. Use of OSS conference facilities decreased 19.7 percent
    from 2004 levels. Five hundred forty-six meetings, briefings, or
    hearings were conducted in OSS' three conference rooms. Of those,
    twelve were ``All Senators'' briefings and six were hearings. OSS also
    provided to Senators and staff secure telephones, secure computers,
    secure facsimile machine, and secure areas for reading and production
    of classified material on 373 occasions in 2005.
                              15. stationery room
        The mission of the Keeper of the Stationery is:
      --To sell stationery items for use by Senate offices and other
            authorized legislative organizations.
      --To select a variety of stationery items to meet the needs of the
            Senate environment on a day-to-day basis and maintain a
            sufficient inventory of these items.
      --To purchase supplies utilizing open market procurement, competitive
            bid and/or GSA Federal Supply Schedules.
      --To maintain individual official stationery expense accounts for
            Senators, Committees, and Officers of the Senate.
      --To render monthly expense statements.
      --To insure receipt of reimbursements for all purchases by the client
            base via direct payments or through the certification process.
      --To make payments to all vendors of record for supplies and services
            in a timely manner and certify receipt of all supplies and
            services.
      --To provide delivery of all purchased supplies to the requesting
            offices.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                                   2005            2004
                                                Statistics      Statistics
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gross Sales.............................      $5,247,163      $4,740,221
    Sales Transactions......................          60,247          58,682
    Purchase Orders Issued..................           8,611           6,741
    Vouchers Processed......................           9,206           7,485
    Mass Transit Media Sold.................          75,607          67,836
        $20.00..............................          64,527          60,564
        $10.00..............................           3,923           3,923
        $5.00...............................           7,157           3,148
                                             ===============================
    Time Employees (FTE)....................              13              13
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fiscal Year 2005 Highlights and Projects
        Flag Purchase Modernization Project.--During fiscal year 2005, with
    the assistance of the Architect of the Capitol and the Senate Sergeant
    at Arms, the Stationery Room embarked on a program to develop a method
    in which Member offices could purchase flags which had been flown over
    the Capitol, but were not date or occasion specific. Research revealed
    that approximately 37 percent of all flag requests by constituents were
    only to obtain a flag flown over the Capitol. It was reasoned that if
    flags could be flown in advance, significant wait times could be
    reduced. Thus, the Senate Sergeant at Arms PG&DM Division created
    artwork for a generic customizable flag certificate, along with a CD
    template that could be used in the customization process. All flags
    which have been pre-flown come with a Certificate of Authenticity
    signed by the Architect, certifying each flag has been flown over the
    United States Capitol. Currently this program is in use by a pilot
    group of Member offices.
        Senate Service Award Project.--At the end of fiscal year 2004,
    authorization was granted to proceed in the development of a program to
    recognize Senate staff who have completed twenty and thirty years of
    Senate service. Working closely with the Committee on Rules and
    Administration, the Senate Disbursing Office and Stationery Room
    vendors, a new Service Award Certificate was developed. This project
    resulted in the presentation of approximately 540 certificates to staff
    members who were employed in the Senate as of September 2004.
        Mass Transit Subsidy Electronic Submissions.--This project came to
    fruition with a fully functional application developed in-house by the
    Senate Sergeant at Arms Information and Technology's Research and
    Development team. This application allows users to submit their
    requests for Mass Transit media via a web-based solution. Once
    submitted, the request is filled by Stationery Room staff and
    notification is made to the requesting office that their media is
    ready. The Senate currently has 120 offices participating in the Mass
    Transit Subsidy Program of which 97 offices are submitting requests
    electronically.
        Senate Support Facility.--A new off-site facility affords the
    Stationery Room a 1,800 square foot secure work area along with an
    additional pallet storage area which will accommodate 190 pallets of
    merchandise. Stationery Room staff is also working on logistical and
    additional usage functions in this modern facility as a tenant user,
    including the ability to use the assigned space as a distribution
    center for product.
        Computer Modernization.--For over two years, the Stationery Room
    has worked to achieve modernization of its aged computer system. These
    efforts culminated in the ``rollout'' on August 4, 2005 of a new, state
    of the art sequel-based retail point of sale and accounting system. The
    base product installation will allow the Stationery Room to manage its
    inventory by location; provide account holders with detailed monthly
    transaction information; eliminate paper transaction storage with
    information stored for retrieval from the system on demand, and a host
    of other features that new technology now provides.
                               16. web technology
        The Office of Web Technology is responsible for web sites that fall
    under the purview of the Secretary of the Senate, including: the Senate
    website, www.senate.gov (except individual Senator and Committee
    pages); the Secretary website on Webster; an intranet site currently
    used for file-sharing by Secretary staff only; and a LegBranch web
    server housing web sites and project materials which can be accessed by
    staff at other Legislative Branch agencies.
    The Senate Web site (www.senate.gov)
        The United States Senate Web site celebrated its 10 year
    anniversary in 2005. The first U.S. Senate home page on the World Wide
    Web was announced October 20, 1995 on the Senate floor. From the Senate
    homepage members of the public could easily find the homepages for
    their own Senators. As the World Wide Web grew, so did the content and
    mission of Senate.gov. The pages of information became catalogs and
    databases, but the mission to provide the public with accurate and
    timely information remained constant.
        The second Senate home page, introduced in January 1997, provided a
    graphical interface, a virtual tour of the Capitol, access to Senate
    committee pages, and improved access to legislative data. Information
    about institutional procedures, history, and statistical records were
    also new to the site.
        Senate floor and committee schedule information was provided when
    the 106th Congress convened and the third home page was launched on
    January 6, 1999. The site received a Federal Design Award, issued by
    the National Endowment for the Arts and the General Services
    Administration. The award recognized the site for ``humaniz[ing] the
    venerable institution of the Senate by making its everyday activities
    and rich history readily accessible to the public.''
        The Senate's fourth home page was launched in October 2002 and
    included the functionality of a powerful, behind-the-scenes content
    management system. The previous web sites were maintained by a small
    team of 5 staff who knew HTML and could code content for display in web
    browsers. This new system allowed non-technical subject experts to post
    information to the Web site, greatly increasing the amount of relevant
    information available to the public. Over 30 contributors from eleven
    departments in the offices of the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms
    now publish text and images on the Web site.
        In 2005 the newest graphical interface was designed for
    www.senate.gov, bringing more content to the front page, and providing
    access to Senators' websites from every page on the site. To help
    visitors find information, links to popular features were added to the
    homepage and a new site-wide search, available from every page, was
    introduced.
        The SAA conducted a feasibility study to evaluate the search
    appliance to see if it is compatible with the Senate environment.
    Secretary staff did extensive testing during the evaluation period and
    determined that the new search would work for senate.gov. This
    department also participated in developing the custom tag for use by
    Senate offices who want to put a search feature on their own web pages
    to search only their own web site content.
        There were more than 50 million visitors to the Senate website in
    2005--five times more than the estimated 8 million visitors in 2001.
    The latest changes and additions to the Senate Web site will greatly
    assist these visitors in connecting with their Senators and in finding
    the information they seek.
    Senate.gov Web Development Projects
        Web Technology staff worked with content providers to create
    several special features for the Senate website:
                The Political Cartoons of Puck Exhibit
        Puck, a satirical weekly magazine that parodied the American
    political scene was one of the most popular periodicals of the late
    19th century. The new Puck Exhibit on senate.gov includes slideshows of
    Puck cartoons and ``Take the Puck Challenge,'' an innovative,
    interactive series of riddles designed to give readers insight to the
    political satire.
                Birds of the Brumidi Corridors Exhibit
        Constantino Brumidi included designs for more than 350 individual
    birds of at least 100 species in his paintings in the Senate corridors.
    A new exhibit on senate.gov features these paintings of birds in
    several slideshow presentations.
                World War II: The Senate and the Nation's Capitol
        This slideshow photo exhibit focuses on the Senate and the role it
    played in supporting the war effort and its aftermath and honors the
    brave men and women of World War II who sacrificed so much to preserve
    the ideals of liberty and representative democracy.
                  legislative information system (lis) project
        The Legislative Information System (LIS) is a mandated system
    (Section 8 of the 1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2 U.S.C.
    123e) that provides desktop access to the content and status of
    legislative information and supporting documents. The 1997 Legislative
    Branch Appropriations Act (2 U.S.C. 181) also established a program for
    providing the widest possible exchange of information among legislative
    branch agencies. The long-range goal of the LIS Project is to provide a
    ``comprehensive Senate Legislative Information System'' to capture,
    store, manage, and distribute Senate documents. Several components of
    the LIS have been implemented, and the project is currently focused on
    a Senate-wide implementation and transition to a standard system for
    the authoring and exchange of legislative documents that will greatly
    enhance the availability and re-use of legislative documents within the
    Senate and with other legislative branch agencies. The LIS Project
    Office manages the project.
    Background: LISAP
        An April 1997 joint Senate and House report recommended
    establishment of a data standards program, and in December 2000, the
    Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House
    Administration jointly accepted the Extensible Markup Language (XML) as
    the primary data standard to be used for the exchange of legislative
    documents and information.
        Following the implementation of the Legislative Information System
    (LIS) in January 2000, the LIS Project Office shifted its focus to the
    data standards program and established the LIS Augmentation Project
    (LISAP). The over-arching goal of the LISAP is to provide a Senate-wide
    implementation and transition to XML for the authoring and exchange of
    legislative documents.
        The current focus for the LISAP is the development and
    implementation of an XML authoring system for legislative documents
    produced by the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel (SLC) and the
    Office of the Enrolling Clerk. The XML authoring application is called
    LEXA, an acronym for the Legislative Editing in XML Application. LEXA
    features many automated functions that provide a more efficient and
    consistent document authoring process. The LIS Project Office has
    worked very closely with the SLC to create an application that meets
    the needs for legislative drafting.
    LISAP: 2005
        The SLC began using LEXA to draft legislation in early 2004. The
    SLC offered valuable feedback throughout that year on LEXA's continued
    development as new features were added and additional document types,
    such as amendments and reported bills, were added. Just prior to the
    beginning of the 109th Congress, the LIS Project Office provided a one-
    day training course on several new and enhanced features of LEXA, and
    the SLC began 2005 creating 60 percent of their drafts of introduced
    bills and resolutions in XML. By the end of the session, 80 percent of
    all introduced and reported bills and resolutions (and countless
    amendments) had been created in XML. Several very large drafts were
    created in XML, including the energy bill and the highway bill.
    Feedback and development continued throughout 2005. Additional features
    and document types--conference reports, constitutional amendments, and
    engrossed and enrolled bills--were added to LEXA. LEXA's authoring
    environment offers many automated document creation functions,
    providing a faster, more consistent drafting process.
        As LEXA becomes more widely used in the SLC and other offices,
    support of the application becomes increasingly important. The 2004
    Legislative Branch Appropriations Act directed the Government Printing
    Office (GPO) to provide support for LEXA. GPO took over maintenance and
    support of the software module that converts a Senate XML document to
    locator for printing through Microcomp, and is now updating the
    software to print House XML documents. GPO is also working to solve
    problems with the software that creates and prints tables, and that
    table tool will be replaced with a more robust one sometime in 2006.
        The LIS Project Office worked closely with several key House, GPO,
    and Library of Congress groups involved in the XML project to ensure
    that the House and Senate XML authoring applications produce compatible
    electronic and printed documents that may be exchanged among the
    organizations processing the documents. The groups held several
    meetings in August and agreed to use the same tools to create tables
    and print XML documents through Microcomp. The House and Senate
    software development groups also reached agreement on several technical
    authoring issues and standards, thereby eliminating the need for
    additional processing when a document is exchanged between the House
    and the Senate.
        The project to convert the compilations of current law to an XML
    format was completed in early September. Staff in the House and Senate
    Legislative Counsel Offices update the compilations, and both groups
    participated in the project. The compilations are used as the basis for
    many legislative drafts and having the XML data will make it easier for
    both offices to use the text of compilations for drafting legislation
    in XML.
        The LIS Project Office provides support for LEXA via the LEXA
    HelpLine and LEXA website. The HelpLine is provided through a single
    phone number that rings on all the phones in the office, and the
    website is located on a server accessible by the legislative branch.
    The website, legbranch.senate.gov/lis/lexa, is used to distribute
    updates of the application to GPO and provides access to release notes,
    the reference manual, and other user aids. The Office continued to
    update the LEXA Reference Manual as new features were added to LEXA.
    The manual provides screen shots and step-by-step instructions for all
    LEXA features. The Office also trained new SLC staff and the Enrolling
    Clerks on LEXA and provided several demonstrations on new LEXA features
    throughout the year.
        The document management system (DMS) for the SLC will be
    implemented once the SLC has completed the transition from XyWrite to
    LEXA. The Systems Development Services group of the Office of the
    Sergeant at Arms continues to update the DMS to the most recent
    releases of Documentum and verifies that all SLC requirements will be
    met. The Systems Development Services group provides support and
    maintenance for the LIS/DMS, and that group will also support the DMS
    for the SLC once it is deployed. The LIS Project Office has been
    monitoring the upgrade effort and will contract for transition training
    to be developed and delivered prior to implementation. The DMS will be
    integrated with LEXA and will provide a powerful tracking, management,
    and delivery tool.
    LISAP: 2006
        The Office of the Enrolling Clerk will begin to use LEXA to produce
    engrossed and enrolled bills in XML from the XML versions of introduced
    and reported bills. The Legislative Branch XML Technical Committee will
    work together to develop the document type definitions for creating
    appropriations bills. Once the definitions are completed and validated,
    the LIS Project Office will enhance LEXA to add the ability to create
    appropriations language, starting first with appropriations amendments
    created by the SLC. Following that, we hope to begin discussions with
    the Appropriations committee staff that prepare the bills for printing.
        The LIS Project Office will continue to work with the SLC and the
    Office of the Enrolling Clerk to refine and enhance LEXA so that more
    and more of the documents produced by those offices will be done in
    XML. Once all of the documents can be produced in XML using LEXA, those
    offices will be able to stop using XyWrite. Since XyWrite is not
    compatible with other Windows software, moving away from it will allow
    the offices to use more modern technologies for all functions. For
    example, eliminating XyWrite will finally give the SLC the opportunity
    to implement a document management system and automate other office
    functions. Other Senate offices that do drafting with XyWrite may begin
    using LEXA, including the Committee on Appropriations. Thus far in the
    second session of the 109th Congress, approximately 96 percent of
    introduced bills and resolutions have been created as XML documents.
        The legislative process yields other types of documents such as the
    Senate and Executive Journals and the Legislative and Executive
    Calendars. Much of the data and information included in these documents
    is already captured in and distributed through the LIS/DMS database
    used by the clerks in the Office of the Secretary. The LIS/DMS captures
    data that relates to legislation including bill and resolution numbers,
    amendment numbers, sponsors, co-sponsors, and committees of referral.
    This information is currently entered into the database and verified by
    the clerks and then keyed into the respective documents and reverified
    at GPO before printing. An interface between this database and the
    electronic documents could mutually exchange data. For example, the
    LIS/DMS database could insert the bill number, additional co-sponsors,
    and committee of referral into an introduced bill while the bill draft
    document could supply the official and short titles of the bill to the
    database.
        The Congressional Record, like the Journals and Calendars, includes
    data that is contained in and reported by the LIS/DMS database.
    Preliminary DTDs have been designed for these documents, and
    applications could be built to construct XML document components by
    extracting and tagging the LIS/DMS data. These applications would
    provide a faster, more consistent assembly of these documents and would
    enhance the ability to index and search their contents. The LIS Project
    Office will coordinate with the Systems Development Services Branch of
    the Office of the Sergeant at Arms to begin design and development of
    XML applications and interfaces for the LIS/DMS and legislative
    documents. As more and more legislative data and documents are provided
    in XML formats that use common elements across all document types, the
    Library of Congress will be able to expand the LIS Retrieval System to
    provide more content-specific searches.

                          NEW TECHNOLOGY IN THE SENATE

        Senator Allard. Thank you for your leadership. Businesses
    and agencies have to make constant decisions about the
    technology that they use in their offices. You have shared with
    us some of the high tech services that you're providing to the
    public and to Members of the Senate. How does your office
    continue to take advantage of technological developments and
    incorporate them into your services provided to the Senate,
    when do you determine that the technology has ripened to the
    point where you can bring it in and not create a lot of
    problems? How do you make those kind of decisions?
        Ms. Reynolds. You know that's a great question, and the
    Sergeant at Arms is very much a partner with us in any
    technological development, as they, as you know better than I,
    certainly have the lead in this for the Senate. I think the
    pilot projects, I mentioned the flag project in particular, we
    have a number of pilots going with disbursing through our
    financial management information system. The best way for us to
    determine when something is ripe if you will, or ready for a
    roll out is because we've been through that pilot phase and
    we've worked directly with Senate offices to understand what
    works and what doesn't work, so they're invaluable to us in
    that feedback.
        But you're right, staying ahead of that curve, whether it's
    something small, like being able to book the LBJ room online,
    or order your paper online for your office through printing and
    documents to something as large as our Senate amendment
    tracking system, or our FMIS project with disbursing, we're
    constantly striving to serve this community better.
        And I also want to make one quick mention as well, on the
    website of a new addition that hopefully will be rolled out
    this year, because as I've said, keeping that website fresh,
    especially for the public, is important to us. And there should
    be one addition coming there on the Senate desks, which I think
    will be of enormous interest to you and your colleagues and
    also to the public. Actually going in and looking at each desk,
    explaining its history, talking about the conservation of the
    desk. So again, from simple things to large, and again
    remaining current for the public we're constantly striving to
    stay ahead of the curve if you will.

                          LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REPORTS

        Senator Allard. Very good. I'm going to move on to the
    Office of Public Records, which is under your jurisdiction as
    Office of the Secretary of the Senate. We're looking at
    lobbying reform, and it has the potential to increase filings
    by a considerable amount as I understand it. Could you give me
    an overview of that operation and tell me whether you have
    sufficient resources to implement a significant increase in
    filings?
        Ms. Reynolds. I really appreciate that question and
    obviously there's been a great deal of discussion here in these
    last few weeks alone. Our public records office has been in the
    business of receiving those lobbying disclosure reports now,
    for just over a decade, since the passage of the LDA. And as
    you well know we currently receive those filings twice a year,
    mid-February and again mid-August. I have a couple of
    statistics for you that are also in our written report. There
    are roughly 6,500 registrants who represent just over 20,000
    clients. They employ almost 33,000 individuals, so it's a big
    number. All told that means that our Office of Public Records,
    reviews about 45,000 documents a year.
        I'm also very proud that the lobbying community has been
    able to e-file with the Senate since the year 2000. And in fact
    since 2001, lobbying reports and registrations as far back as
    1998 have been posted on senate.gov for public access. Our role
    in public records with regard to the LDA is an administrative
    role. We do not have the enforcement authority. That belongs to
    the U.S. attorney of the District of Columbia. But since 2003
    we have referred approximately 2,100 registrants to the U.S.
    Attorney's Office. Virtually all potential nonfiling and a
    handful for noncompliance. I'm particularly grateful for the
    second part of your question, because obviously no one is
    precisely sure at the moment where this journey ultimately
    takes us. And while we're staying on top of the situation I may
    well be back to this subcommittee at the appropriate time to
    make a plea, first of all for time, because if there is
    substantial change that we undergo in the receipt of these
    documents we will need time to implement, and second of all the
    potential for additional resources exists.
        But I think with your permission if we could continue to
    stay in touch on this as this issue evolves we would be very
    grateful.
        Senator Allard. Yes. As we get a clearer view of what the
    legislation might look like, we do want to stay in touch with
    your office in that regard.
        Ms. Reynolds. Thank you, that would be very helpful.

                           STUDY OF SENATE STAFF PAY

        Senator Allard. I just have a couple of other brief
    questions just for the record. Last year your office received
    funds to conduct a pay study of Senate employees, and can you
    tell me what the status of this study is?
        Ms. Reynolds. The study is in draft form. In fact we were
    talking about working groups, we have a working group coming
    together this afternoon with office administrators and chiefs
    of staff to review our first draft. So it is in process, and
    hopefully we'll have the study out to the community here within
    the next month.
        Senator Allard. Good.
        Ms. Reynolds. I appreciate you asking the question too, if
    I might make one plea to those watching today. For the study to
    be effective and for it to produce the kind of results that the
    community is hoping for in terms of looking at hiring
    practices, benefits, salaries and so forth, we need as much
    participation as possible. So thanks for mentioning it today,
    so I can make my plea to our Senate offices to help us with
    this survey.

                   FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ONLINE FILING

        Senator Allard. And finally, if the Senate moves to online
    Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing, for campaign
    committees, what resources will your office need to make this
    conversion? Would you comment on that?
        Ms. Reynolds. Yes sir. Like most everything else around
    here, we're poised to act when the Senate acts, but I think on
    this one, just like with lobbying disclosure if there is
    substantial change coming our way, and if the Senate decides to
    move to e-filing, we will need time. A minimum of 6 months and
    possibly up to 1 year to be able to implement the program and
    there will be a need for additional resources. We're still
    looking at those numbers and some are dependent on what
    hardware, what software needs we'll have at that time. So again
    so I may be back hat in hand depending on those decisions made.
        Senator Allard. Your main demand would be for basically
    hardware to process the electronic filing?
        Ms. Reynolds. Right. Hardware----
        Senator Allard. But it seems to me you would need fewer
    people, because you wouldn't have to have that data entry that
    you have.
        Ms. Reynolds. Possibly, but we're a pretty lean and mean
    operation in public records right now. I think our total staff
    there right now, is nine. And for example on lobbying
    disclosures there are three people on a daily basis dedicated
    to lobbying disclosure but when those reports start to hit in
    mid-February, mid-August, everybody helps out. So we'd be happy
    to take a look at that, as I said, we run a pretty lean and
    mean shop with folks who are capable of multitasking when the
    need arises.
        Senator Allard. Just asking you to look at it carefully.
        Ms. Reynolds. We shall.
        Senator Allard. I'm sure you will.
        Ms. Reynolds. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony. We don't have
    any other questions from the subcommittee, and so we won't tie
    up your time, I know you're busy and I'll call up the second
    panel.
        Ms. Reynolds. Thank you sir.
                            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

    STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE
                CAPITOL
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            STEPHEN AYERS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
            MARK WEISS, DIRECTOR, CAPITOL POWER PLANT

                               WELCOMING REMARKS

        Senator Allard. Okay. Now we turn to the second panel. And
    before I make my formal remarks. I just want to recognize Mark
    Weiss who's now our new Director of the Capitol Power Plant,
    and Mark, welcome. And now, we'll turn to the Architect of the
    Capitol, to review the fiscal year 2007 budget request. Again
    welcome Mr. Hantman and Chief Operating Officer Stephen Ayers.
    Mr. Ayers was named Chief Operating Officer on Monday.
        Mr. Ayers. Yes sir.
        Senator Allard. You've been in the position on an acting
    basis for several months and I think you did a good job then.
        Mr. Ayers. Thank you.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET CONCERNS

        Senator Allard. We congratulate you on this new position
    and wish you the best of luck. The AOC budget request totals
    $588 million, an increase of $164 million or 38 percent, over
    the current budget. This is the largest increase proposed by
    any Federal agency for the fiscal year 2007. While I commend
    the process your agency has developed, you prioritized major
    construction projects, clearly we need to do some paring back.
    There are a number of large projects in the budget, including
    $54 million for a new Library of Congress warehouse at Fort
    Meade, $20.6 million to complete the Capitol Visitor Center,
    $19 million for renovations to the infrastructure and the
    Dirksen Senate Office Building, and $15.9 million to replace
    the fire alarm system in the Hart Senate Office Building. Other
    large increases in the budget include $20 million for 91 new
    employees for the CVC operation, and a $10 million increase for
    information technology projects.

                     SAFETY HAZARDS IN THE UTILITY TUNNELS

        While these projects may be meritorious, and urgently
    needed, we will need to scrub each of them carefully and only
    fund the very highest priorities. In addition to budget issues,
    we'd like to discuss the complaint recently filed by the Office
    of Compliance for AOC's failure to comply with the citation
    issued almost 6 years ago directing the AOC to correct serious
    safety hazards in the utility tunnels by 2002. This is the
    first time the Office of Compliance has issued a complaint,
    demonstrating the magnitude of this very serious problem. The
    hazards include structural deficiencies that could lead to
    cave-ins, inadequate communication systems for workers in the
    tunnels, and inadequate means of egress.
        Finally we look forward to an update on projects that are
    currently underway as well as your efforts to address
    management challenges identified by the Government
    Accountability Office. Before I turn to you for your testimony
    Mr. Hantman, I want to ask the ranking member who just arrived
    if he has any comments.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman I apologize, we have an
    immigration bill markup in Judiciary, one floor above and I've
    spent time back and forth, and I'm sorry that I came in late
    for this. I want to get into the whole question about the
    safety aspects of the workplace at CVC and particularly this
    troubling report about the presence of asbestos in the tunnels
    and the danger that it creates for the employees that could be
    inhaling these lethal time bombs. I was not aware of how
    serious this was, or how long it had been pending for a
    resolution. I think it should have been taken care of years
    ago. I don't know how many workers have been exposed, if any--I
    pray to God none. But if they have we've done them a great
    disservice. I thank you for your continuing oversight on this
    project and I will stay to ask some specific questions as time
    allows.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling today's second budget
    oversight hearing of fiscal year 2007 where we will hear testimony on
    the budget requests of the Secretary of the Senate and the Architect of
    the Capitol.
        I want to join the Chairman in welcoming today's witnesses, Emily
    Reynolds, Secretary of the Senate, and Alan Hantman, Architect of the
    Capitol.
        Thanks to both of you for attending this morning.
        Ms. Reynolds, welcome back to the subcommittee for your fourth year
    as Secretary of the Senate. I think that you and your staff are doing a
    superb job and your budget request looks very straightforward.
        My staff and I greatly appreciate your guidance and leadership in
    the CVC decision-making progress. I realize that this has been a long,
    difficult, and at times frustrating process. Your dedication and
    determination are very admirable.
        I would appreciate any comments you might wish to include with
    regard to the CVC.
        Mr. Hantman, first of all I would like to acknowledge the
    outstanding day to day work of all of your employees. I think it's easy
    to overlook the hard work that goes into the seamless running of this
    complex on a daily basis. This is a very well qualified and hard-
    working group of men and women and I appreciate their contribution to
    this complex. I think we should all extend our gratitude to them for
    their service. I would like to especially thank Carlos Elias, Don
    White, Barbara Wolanin, and Adrienne Powers, of your staff for their
    extra efforts on behalf of my staff in the Assistant Democratic
    Leader's office.
        I would like to welcome Mr. Stephen Ayers, who has just been named
    as Chief Operating Officer at AOC. Mr. Ayers has been serving as Acting
    COO for quite some time and I'm glad to see that he will be serving in
    this capacity permanently.
        Mr. Hantman, I am encouraged by the overall progress your office is
    making in the area of worker safety. However I am deeply concerned
    about the situation involving the workers in the utility tunnels. The
    OSHA complaint recently filed by the Office of Compliance citing
    ``potentially life threatening working conditions'' in the utility
    tunnels that provide steam and chilled water throughout the Capitol
    complex presents a situation that must be addressed immediately.
        This situation was first brought to your attention in 2000.
    However, since then, it appears that very little has been done to
    address the very serious problems that exist in these tunnels.
        I am particularly troubled by the presence of asbestos in the
    tunnels. I have met with so many families who have been affected by
    asbestos-related illnesses in my work outside of this subcommittee.
    When these workers are inhaling these fibers they are inhaling time
    bombs. I doubt the workers in these tunnels realize how serious this
    situation is.
        I hope you will update the Subcommittee on the steps you are taking
    to expedite the repair of these tunnels. Chairman Allard and I recently
    granted you the authority to reprogram $1.8 million for a portion of
    this work and I think that's a step in the right direction. But this
    situation must be completely resolved as soon as possible so that these
    workers' lives are not put in jeopardy by merely doing their jobs.
    Frankly, it should have been taken care of years ago.
        Last month in their report entitled, ``Architect of the Capitol--
    Management Challenges Remain,''--GAO noted that you have still not
    filled several leadership positions on your staff such as Chief
    Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, Director of
    Congressional and External Relations, and Director of Planning and
    Project Management. I am glad that you recently filled the long-vacant
    position of Director of the Capitol Power Plant. However, I hope you
    will explain to the subcommittee when you plan to fill these other
    crucial positions.
        Finally, Mr. Hantman, Chairman Allard has already summarized your
    fiscal year 2007 budget request so I won't repeat the details. I do
    want to emphasize, however, the importance of prioritizing your
    requests. It troubles me to see a $54 million request for a Library of
    Congress construction project while very serious repair and maintenance
    problems exist around the complex. In a time of tight budget
    constraints such as this, new construction projects should have to take
    a back seat to important maintenance and repair needs that continue to
    lag on around this complex.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.

        Senator Allard. Okay, let me now turn to the Architect of
    the Capitol, Mr. Hantman, we're looking forward to your
    testimony.

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN

        Mr. Hantman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify today, regarding our
    fiscal 2007 budget request. My full statement has been
    submitted for the record, however I would like to give a brief
    overview of this request. Mr. Chairman in our role as stewards,
    the AOC is responsible for 15 million square feet of buildings,
    and more than 300 acres of land. The Capitol complex is in
    reality a small city; however it's a small city with an aging
    physical infrastructure, ever stricter codes and safety
    criteria to meet, as well as complex security requirements.
        Our buildings range from 25 to 200 years old. This means
    that there are many projects that require our attention to
    assure that these buildings continue to serve as functioning
    working environments and that we preserve these national
    treasures entrusted to our care for generations to come.
        Mr. Chairman we did not prepare this budget in a vacuum,
    unaware of the economic issues our country and this Congress
    are facing. I can appreciate the tough choices that this
    subcommittee must make as you hear from each legislative branch
    agency with its budget request. I can appreciate this because
    it's difficult for me to rank the relative needs and benefits
    of necessary security and fire and life safety projects needed
    across the Capitol campus.
        How do I weigh the needs of the Library of Congress against
    those of the Capitol Police, or the Senate Sergeant at Arms
    against those of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House?
    The AOC is in the position of being a repository, if you will
    Mr. Chairman, for the needs of other agencies. They all have
    real needs that the AOC then becomes responsible for, and our
    budget request reflects these cumulative needs.
        Our projects were prioritized through a progressive
    sequence of steps to determine which are most crucial. While
    it's my responsibility as steward of these buildings to bring
    these needs and issues to Congress' attention, I'm also aware
    that cuts will need to be made, as you mentioned Mr. Chairman,
    from that prioritized list. And I'm prepared to work with this
    subcommittee and other legislative branch agencies to determine
    which cuts to make so that we fit within the overall budget
    structure that this subcommittee ultimately allows.
        Mr. Chairman, we prioritize our projects based on a set of
    criteria that allows us to evaluate the merits of those
    projects. Facility condition assessments conducted across most
    of our jurisdictions measure the current condition of all
    facilities to assess how much work is necessary to maintain, or
    upgrade their conditions to acceptable levels, and to determine
    the timeframe for this work. We hope to initiate this process
    at the Library of Congress, contingent on the approval of our
    budget request, so that we fully understand their facility
    needs as well. We'd then be able to appropriately prioritize
    their project needs based on the same criteria used for other
    jurisdictions.
        In fact Mr. Chairman, the direction to perform condition
    assessments was given, and appropriately so, by this
    subcommittee back in 2002. And if I may quote from that
    language.

        ``Condition Assessments Master Plan. The Committee has
    provided an amount of $500,000 in the Capitol buildings
    appropriation and an amount of $1,100,000 in the Senate Office
    Building appropriation to initiate a comprehensive condition
    assessment of the Capitol complex. The assessment will be
    conducted in tandem with the development of a master plan for
    the Capitol complex and will include the collection of relevant
    information regarding buildings, inspection and equipment
    testing of properties and assets. Analysis and identification
    of deficiencies, identification of solutions, and costs, a
    forecast of future renewal requirements, and the development of
    long range comprehensive financial plans.''

        Mr. Chairman, we've been working diligently to fulfill the
    directives and develop meaningful information which, in fact,
    GAO has reviewed. It's important to note that according to the
    Government Accountability Office ``While the FCAs--the facility
    condition assessments, have enabled AOC to develop a
    comprehensive plan for facilities, maintenance, and building
    renewal, the assessments have also documented the magnitude of
    AOC's deferred maintenance and other projects. $2.6 billion
    over 9 years, and the challenge of funding these projects.''
        Mr. Chairman, GAO's statement about ``the challenge of
    funding these projects'' is right on target. In a no-growth
    budget environment it's, of course, particularly challenging.
    With all due respect, if these facility infrastructure needs
    are not addressed within an appropriate timeframe, our
    buildings will continue to age and deteriorate and the cost to
    correct these deficiencies will continue to escalate in future
    years.
        With regard to safety, it's a priority at the AOC,
    therefore I'm pleased to report that for the fifth year in a
    row, the AOC's injury and illness rate decreased. Last year we
    dropped to 5.65 from a high of 17.9 in fiscal year 2000. This
    is amazing because we're coming down to the level of many white
    collar organizations in the Federal agencies as well as across
    the Government.
        While I'm proud of these accomplishments, I will not be
    satisfied until we achieve our ultimate goal of a workplace
    free of injury and illness. This includes the steam tunnels
    that were the subject of the Office of Compliance's complaint
    you discussed. Over the past several years, in the tunnels, we
    have rebuilt approximately 600 feet of tunnel roof under
    Constitution Avenue, at a cost of approximately $5 million. I
    think you might remember, Mr. Chairman, that for over 1 year
    the street on Constitution Avenue was ripped up. We had to
    replace the roof of that tunnel, that's one of the first items
    identified by our surveys that really needed to be taken care
    of up front.
        We also contracted for the inspection of 19 tunnel egress
    points, developed an egress improvements work plan, replaced
    the South Capitol Street steam line, for another $5.5 million
    and that included making structural repairs to manholes.
        We also implemented the in-house tunnel condition
    monitoring program last October which includes monitoring,
    recording and reviewing tunnel conditions daily. While this
    work was being planned and implemented, we have been working
    each year to remove spalls in areas where the concrete ceiling
    is damaged. We installed a leaky cable communication system in
    the major pathways in the tunnels. We currently have funding to
    install cable in the small stub pathways that come off the main
    tunnels. We are proceeding with that work and will get it done
    within the next months. We also provided our employees with
    confined space and asbestos awareness training.
        Mr. Chairman, we've requested $1.75 million in the 2007
    budget to fund priority projects in the tunnels. We've received
    approvals on a $1.8 million reprogramming to continue
    additional structural repairs, asbestos abatement, and
    emergency egress repairs. Significant additional funding will
    be required and we're working to determine the magnitude of
    that funding now.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as GAO noted in its February
    2006 report, we have made significant progress in our
    transformation into a more strategic organization. They state
    that the AOC has made progress in developing safety policies
    and establishing a safety training curriculum; has implemented
    a variety of communication methods to convey information to
    employees; has taken important initial steps to address the
    management and structure needed to establish a sound IT
    investment management process; has created a clearly defined,
    well documented and transparent process for evaluating and
    prioritizing projects. We're committed to fulfilling our
    responsibilities over the long term, although that means we
    have to make tough choices, as you indicated Mr. Chairman, with
    regard to how we select and prioritize our projects.
        Our request for funds in 2007 is directly related to our
    responsibility as good stewards to maintain and preserve the
    facilities and national treasures in our care. I'm very proud
    of our 2,000 dedicated AOC professionals and I'm privileged to
    lead this remarkable organization.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I greatly appreciate the subcommittee's support in helping
    us achieve our goals, and once again thank you for this
    opportunity to testify, and I'd be happy to answer any
    questions that you might have.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, members of the Committee, thank you
    for the opportunity to testify today regarding our fiscal year 2007
    budget request. This request is structured to enable us to continue
    supporting the Legislative Branch by ensuring that the Capitol complex
    is safe and well maintained, our national treasures are preserved and
    protected, and we continue to provide high quality, efficient, and
    effective services to our customers.
                     stewardship and prioritizing projects
        In our role as stewards, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol
    (AOC) is responsible for some 15 million square feet of buildings and
    more than 300 acres of land. The Capitol complex is, in reality, like a
    small city. However, it is a small city with an aging physical
    infrastructure. Our buildings range from 25 years old for the Library's
    Madison Building, to more than 100 years old for the Russell, Cannon,
    and Jefferson buildings, to 200 years old for various parts of the
    Capitol Building. This means that there are many potential projects
    that call for our attention to ensure that these buildings continue to
    serve as functioning working environments for generations to come.
        While it is my responsibility to bring these issues to Congress's
    attention, it is obvious that for practical considerations of
    construction and fiscal restraint, we must spread out the funding and
    physical workload over the course of multiple years. Therefore, we have
    prioritized these projects to determine which are more critical than
    others. In previous budget requests, my focus has been on ensuring that
    fire and life-safety deficiencies were corrected. With your support we
    have devoted significant resources toward protecting the people who
    work and visit Capitol Hill by continually working to improve the
    safety and security of our facilities. Protecting people is, and will
    continue to be, my top priority as evidenced by the number of fire and
    life-safety projects in our current budget request.
        While developing this budget, we reviewed many annual operating and
    capital project requests. We made difficult choices regarding funding
    AOC operations, new programs, and high priority capital projects, while
    at the same time balancing the day-to-day needs of those we serve.
        As a result, before we submitted our current request, we removed
    $44.3 million worth of important projects. The $588.3 million we have
    requested for fiscal year 2007 ($509.4 million without items specific
    to the House) was submitted in our role as responsible stewards of our
    national treasures and in support of the needs of Congress, while
    balancing requests for new initiatives.
        It is important to note that we prioritize our projects based on a
    set of objective criteria that allow us to evaluate the relative merits
    of each of these projects. At Congress's direction, starting in 2004,
    we conducted a series of Facility Condition Assessments (FCAs) in most
    of our jurisdictions. We hope to continue the process with the Library
    of Congress, contingent on the approval of our fiscal year 2007 budget
    request. Our plan would be to survey the Library Buildings, in phases,
    beginning with the Madison Building. By completing FCAs for the Library
    of Congress buildings, we would fully understand their existing
    facility needs and would then be able to appropriately prioritize LOC
    projects with the same criteria used for other jurisdictions. These
    FCAs provide us with a method for measuring the current condition of
    all facilities in a uniform way to assess how much work is necessary to
    maintain or upgrade their conditions to acceptable levels to support
    organizational missions and when this work should occur.
        According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its
    February 2006 report to Congress, ``While the FCAs have enabled AOC to
    develop a comprehensive plan for facility maintenance and building
    renewal, the assessments have also documented the magnitude of AOC's
    deferred maintenance and other projects--$2.6 billion over nine years--
    and the challenge of funding these projects.'' What this $2.6 billion
    breaks down into is a total of $886 million for deferred maintenance
    and capital renewal projects as identified in the FCAs (excluding the
    Library of Congress and the Supreme Court), with the remaining balance
    identified for capital improvements ($1.1 billion) and capital
    construction projects ($69 million). Mr. Chairman, GAO's statement
    about ``the challenge of funding these projects'' is right on target.
    In a no-growth budget environment, it is particularly challenging. If
    these facility infrastructure needs are not met in appropriate
    timeframes, the conditions of our buildings will continue to
    deteriorate and the cost to correct these facility maintenance
    deficiencies will continue to rise.
        A very recent example of capital renewal is demonstrated by the
    issuance of a complaint by the Office of Compliance (OOC) regarding the
    utility tunnels which provide steam and chilled water to the Capitol
    complex. We are taking a comprehensive approach to addressing the
    existing issues in the tunnels and are identifying a logical sequence
    to the necessary actions that will be taken. We have presented this
    plan to the OOC. Over the past several years we have completed these
    and other tasks in the utility tunnels: replaced the top of
    approximately 600 feet of the tunnel under Constitution Avenue at a
    cost of approximately $5 million; contracted for inspection of 19
    tunnel egress points and developed an Egress Improvements Work Plan;
    replaced the South Capitol Street steam line and vault for
    approximately $5.5 million which includes making structural repairs to
    manholes. We have also implemented an in-house Tunnel Condition
    Monitoring Program in October 2005 which includes monitoring,
    recording, and reviewing tunnel conditions daily; and we have been
    continually working to remove incipient spalls in areas where the
    concrete ceiling is damaged.
        We have requested $1.75 million in the fiscal year 2007 budget to
    fund priority projects involving the tunnels. We recently received
    approvals from the Senate and House on a $1.8 million reprogramming
    request to continue additional structural repairs, asbestos abatement,
    and emergency egress repairs in the tunnels. Additional significant
    funding will certainly be required and we are working to determine the
    magnitude of that funding now.
                            overall planning process
        In terms of our overall planning process, when all of the Facility
    Condition Assessments are completed, they are rolled into a five-year
    Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP, which became fully integrated
    in the fiscal year 2006 budget process, is used to evaluate projects
    based on an objective set of criteria, including:
      --Fire and life safety, code compliance, regulatory compliance, and
            statutory compliance.
      --Preservation of historic or legacy elements or features of
            buildings or entire historic structures as a reflection of the
            importance of stewardship responsibilities.
      --Impact on our mission, including client urgency.
      --Economics, including value, economic payback, life cycle cost
            considerations, and cost savings.
      --Physical security, including protection of facilities, Members,
            staff, and the general public.
        The projects are further evaluated based on necessary timeframes
    and on an evaluation of the conditions of the components and sub-
    materials. These condition ratings are characterized as one of the
    following: Adequate, sub-standard, and deficient.
        They are then further rated as to the urgency in accomplishing them
    as follows:
      --Priority 1--Immediate: Safety or code violations, as well as
            critical equipment that is either not functioning or close to
            failure.
      --Priority 2--High: Items need attention in the near term, as failure
            would impact the mission. Implemented within two to four years.
      --Priority 3--Medium: Implemented within five to seven years.
      --Priority 4--Low: Low priority projects related to aesthetics or
            minor performance issues. Implemented within 8 to 10 years.
        All projects with an ``immediate'' urgency are given priority over
    projects for which the urgency is ``high'' and so on. Additionally,
    ``deferred maintenance'' projects are generally considered a higher
    priority than ``capital renewal.'' Using the CIP process, once all of
    the FCAs are complete, we will be able to comparatively vet the
    projects to ensure that the most urgent get addressed most quickly. It
    is this multi-step methodology that has been used to produce the fiscal
    year 2007 Capital Improvement Project Priority List that we submitted
    for your consideration. Those projects that can be accommodated within
    the budget level that is ultimately approved will move forward in
    fiscal year 2007.
        There will continue to be refinements to our project development
    process. However with implementation of the prioritization process,
    future program submissions will clearly be based first on the urgency
    of accomplishing the project, followed by consideration as to the type
    of project and its importance; with emphasis placed on deferred
    maintenance projects. These changes will result in an efficient and
    effective process and one that seeks to assure accuracy, responsible
    management of resources, and efficient development of programs.
        Ultimately, the Capitol Complex Master Plan will ensure that we
    continue to be good stewards by establishing a framework that helps us
    prioritize the maintenance, renovation, and construction of Capitol
    Hill facilities over the next 5, 10, and 20 years, while also spreading
    out the costs of that upkeep and construction.
        In addition to these new processes we have made changes to our
    organizational structure to improve how these projects are carried out.
    With Congress's approval, we established the Project Management
    Division which is charged with consolidating project and construction
    management functions to provide ``cradle-to-grave'' oversight of our
    projects. We have developed and implemented new processes that are
    designed to improve project tracking and reporting as well as to hold
    our consultants and contractors accountable for contract compliance. We
    recently reinstated our quarterly report to communicate the budget and
    schedule status of ongoing projects, the latest of which was delivered
    to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees in January and was
    well received by staff.
                            capital projects budget
        Our fiscal year 2007 budget is comprised of two major components:
    $232 million for capital projects and $356.3 million for our annual
    operating budget.
        The capital projects budget request consists of $193.4 million for
    capital projects, $22.7 million for studies, designs, and condition
    assessments, and $15.9 million for minor construction. This budget was
    developed by prioritizing our project requirements; including those
    requested by our customers. Using this set of criteria, we were able to
    cut our initial list of 36 projects totaling more than $188 million to
    19 projects worth $143.7 million. However, the projects that did not
    make this current list have not gone away, nor has the need to fund
    them within reasonable timeframes. They will have to be reprioritized
    for another fiscal year where they will again compete with other
    significant, additional projects for available funding.
        The capital projects budget is grouped into the categories listed
    below (also shown in Attachment A). Note that these include a number of
    U.S Senate projects that have been designed to be completed in phases
    that we hope to continue next year. They include public restroom
    upgrades, modular furniture replacement, emergency generator
    installation, and fire alarm system upgrades.
    Deferred Maintenance--$30.4 million
        Maintenance or repair work on existing facilities and
    infrastructure that is past due and should not be deferred. This work
    will return a component or system to an acceptable condition. It will
    prevent physical depreciation or loss in the value of a building (this
    does not include preventative or routine maintenance).
        Projects include:
      --$19.43 million--Dirksen Senate Office Building; attic
            infrastructure improvements;
      --$4 million--Rayburn House Office Building; 480v Switchgear and
            Transformer Replacement;
      --$2.89 million--Thomas Jefferson Building; air handling unit
            replacement; and
      --$2.56 million--Thomas Jefferson and James Madison Buildings;
            elevator modernization projects.
    Capital Renewal--$24.3 million
        Correct unacceptable conditions caused by aged building components
    that will exceed their useful life within the next 10 years. If
    deferred for an inordinate amount of time, physical conditions may
    deteriorate and become a deferred maintenance issue. Capital renewal
    may be performed by overhaul, reconstruction, or replacement of
    constituent parts damaged or deteriorated to the point where they
    cannot be maintained.
        Projects include:
      --$15.95 million--Hart Senate Office Building; fire alarm system
            replacement; and
      --$8.34 million--Longworth House Office Building; kitchen exhaust
            system upgrade.
    Capital Improvement--$41.1 million
        Work done to a building that improves, enhances, or updates a
    building such as an addition, expansion, alteration, or replacement
    including work done to bring a building into compliance with current
    codes.
        Projects include:
      --$6.1 million--Russell Senate Office Building; emergency lighting
            and power upgrade;
      --$4.96 million--Rayburn House Office Building; emergency lighting
            upgrade;
      --$3 million--Rayburn House Office Building; Phase I public restrooms
            upgrade;
      --$3.5 million--U.S. Capitol; security improvements in the House
            Chamber; and
      --$4.37 million--Thomas Jefferson Building; sprinkler system
            replacement.
    Capital Construction--$63.7 million
        Construction of a new building, facility, or other infrastructure
    where none previously existed.
        Projects include:
      --$54.2 million--Library of Congress Logistics Warehouse, Fort Meade;
      --$5.35 million--Alternate Computer Facility; vehicle storage
            facility; and
      --$4.1 million--U.S. Capitol Police; kiosks.
    Other Projects--$12.3 million
        Projects necessary to sustain and provide for Congressional and
    Legislative Branch Agency mission requirements that do not meet CIP
    criteria (construction projects greater than $250,000).
        Projects include:
      --$5 million--Alternate Computer Facility; land purchase; and
      --$2.1 million--Energy Survey of Congressional Buildings.
    Study, Design, and Condition Assessments--$22.7 million
        Activities necessary to plan for future projects.
        Projects include:
      --$1 million--James Madison Building; Facility Condition Assessment;
      --$3 million--FDA; fit out design study;
      --$750,000--Longworth House Office Building; fire alarm system
            upgrade;
      --$700,000--U.S. Capitol; electrical distribution system replacement
            design; and
      --$300,000--Cannon House Office Building; egress improvements study.
    Minor Construction--$15.9 million
        Minor construction funding for each jurisdiction that provides the
    flexibility for meeting unplanned project requirements generated by
    Committees, Members, staffs, and other AOC clients.
    Capitol Visitor Center--$21.6 million
        The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $20.6 million for CVC
    cost-to-complete. Also included is $1 million for start-up and
    operational costs associated with opening the CVC, including one-time
    costs such as furniture, equipment, computers and other necessary
    items. GAO's ongoing analysis recommends adding $5 million to this
    amount to accommodate risk for further time extension and contingency
    for a total of $25.6 million for project cost-to-complete.
        While recognizing that the cumulative effect of the projects listed
    above represent a significant increase over fiscal year 2006 levels,
    these projects were considered our highest priorities. Although hard
    decisions were made to reduce the amount of our overall request,
    further cuts will likely be necessary to accommodate Federal budget
    limitations. Once again, this means that the projects that are
    eliminated will be deferred to successive years where they will again
    compete with other additional, significant projects for available
    funding.
                            annual operating budget
        Our fiscal year 2007 annual operating budget request of $356.3
    million reflects the addition of significant mandatory price level
    increases as well as new programs.
        The key drivers of this increase include:
      --Forty percent growth in utility costs over fiscal year 2006 enacted
            levels due to the recent deregulation of electric power and the
            increased cost of natural fuels following the devastation in
            the Gulf Coast caused by Hurricane Katrina last summer.
      --Mandatory payroll increases and the addition of 91 FTEs to support
            daily operations and maintenance of the Capitol Visitor Center
            (CVC).
      --One-time CVC operations costs to purchase furniture, equipment,
            computers, and other necessary items.
      --Re-establishing Information Technology base resources and upgrading
            systems.
      --Leases and/or maintenance and operations of additional facilities.
    Utilities
        With regard to utilities, in an effort to offset cost increases, we
    have initiated a number of energy conservation measures. The first was
    to develop two Energy Savings Performance Contracts to upgrade
    equipment and save energy, at no additional cost to the government.
    Contractors are paid from proven energy savings. Other efforts involve
    developing a five-year plan to conduct energy audit surveys of all
    buildings on the Capitol campus, and publishing a brochure about saving
    energy throughout the Capitol complex to be distributed to Hill staff.
        In addition, the Capitol Power Plant staff has successfully
    completed a number of new maintenance projects to improve the
    performance, safety, and reliability of the boiler house and chilled
    water plants. As part of the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion
    Project, three new chillers became operable in November 2005. With the
    addition of this new equipment, we will experience greater efficiencies
    at the Plant and remove old mechanically and environmentally outdated
    machines.
    CVC Day-to-Day Operations
        In anticipation of the start-up and operational costs associated
    with the Capitol Visitor Center, our annual operating budget request
    includes funds to cover day-to-day operational and maintenance
    requirements as well as anticipated one-time costs such as furniture
    and equipment, computers, and other necessary items. Until such time as
    the Congress decides the issue of reporting relationships and
    governance of the CVC, we have included these costs in the AOC's
    budget, including $10.6 million for payroll costs associated with the
    hiring of an additional 91 FTEs.
    Information Technology
        Another factor driving our operating budget request for fiscal year
    2007 is an increase in investment in information technology. In our
    fiscal year 2006 budget request, we had cut the base resources in an
    attempt to constrain growth. Our intention was to fund information
    technology program shortfalls with lapses in payroll or other general
    and administrative areas, but that strategy has not worked well in the
    current fiscal environment due to rising costs of utilities and other
    expenses. Therefore, we are requesting $25.7 million to re-establish
    these base resources and to protect our IT systems by installing the
    latest technology security programs as required, preparing for future
    technological needs, and improving internal operations by replacing our
    project information system and upgrading the interface of our inventory
    control system to our financial system.
        The February 2006 GAO Report notes that ``the agency has yet to
    establish and implement key information security practices, such as
    completing risk assessments on all of its major applications,
    documenting the identified risks in system security plans, and
    developing and implementing appropriate security controls to mitigate
    the risks--including developing contingency plans for all systems and
    applications. Until AOC completes and implements plans for improvement
    that are consistent with all our recommendations, it will be challenged
    in its ability to effectively use IT to optimize mission performance.''
    Updating our IT systems is a crucial part of achieving these tasks as
    outlined by GAO.
                      senate office building improvements
        A number of projects that we have requested funding for in next
    year's budget for the Senate Office Buildings focuses on upgrading and
    replacing equipment that has exceeded its useful life expectancy or
    updating the historic buildings to meet modern requirements. For
    example, we are requesting $19.4 million to replace the air handling
    units in the Dirksen Building to improve building ventilation and to
    ensure the system's reliability since the existing equipment is more
    than 40 years old and inefficient. We have also requested $6 million to
    upgrade emergency lighting in the Russell Building; $15 million to
    upgrade the fire alarm system in the Hart Building; and $5.8 million to
    install an emergency generator in the Russell Building to provide
    electrical power in an emergency.
                         capitol visitor center budget
        While most of our projects are worked on behind the scenes,
    underneath the East Front of the U.S. Capitol work is proceeding on the
    largest and most complex project in the history of the Capitol--the
    Capitol Visitor Center. Our fiscal year 2007 budget request would fund
    CVC operations, administration, facility maintenance, and construction
    cost-to-complete. The requested funding also would support the required
    activities and programs for transitional and start-up costs, exhibits,
    gift shops, telecommunications, and information technology
    infrastructure support. The Capitol Preservation Commission (CPC)
    supports the AOC's request for operational funding as an interim
    measure until it is determined how, and by whom, the CVC will be
    operated.
        At our February hearing before this Subcommittee, we testified that
    we are now anticipating the CVC to be completed, including
    commissioning of life-safety systems, in March 2007, and available for
    a formal opening in April 2007. We reported the two key issues
    prompting that time extension are the delays in the delivery and
    installation of interior stone due to a court injunction and a longer-
    than-expected duration for the fire and life-safety acceptance testing
    process.
        The project schedule extension has impacted the overall project
    cost-to-complete. Last fall, we concurred with GAO's assessment that
    potential risks do exist and that additional funds would be necessary
    should these risks turn into reality; most notably if completion of the
    CVC occurred after December 2006, or if significant additional change
    orders were required. After meetings held the past several months with
    GAO and our construction manager, Gilbane, we anticipated that the
    delay, along with additional change orders and the potential for future
    project risks, could increase the project's cost-to-complete by
    approximately $20.6 million. This is the amount we requested in the
    fiscal year 2007 budget. GAO's ongoing review however, has resulted in
    a revised estimate of the cost-to-complete which adds approximately $5
    million to this amount for risk, further time extension, and
    contingency. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, if you concur, we will work
    with you to effect this adjustment in order to ensure that there are
    adequate contingencies as we work to complete the CVC.
        Further information on the status of the project and a construction
    update is provided in my testimony specifically addressing the Capitol
    Visitor Center which will be discussed following this portion of the
    hearing (attached).
                                accomplishments
        Over the past 10 years, the AOC has been undergoing a
    transformation into a more strategic organization by implementing new
    policies and procedures, while at the same time continuing to meet our
    responsibilities as good stewards. I appreciate the efforts of AOC
    employees in balancing their heavy workloads with implementing these
    important changes to our organization.
        At this time, I would like to highlight some of the major AOC
    accomplishments of the past year. As GAO has noted in its February 2006
    report, we have made significant progress in our transformation
    efforts, we continue to make progress, but the ``transformation is a
    long-term effort.''
    Strategic Plan
        A key component in this effort has been the implementation of our
    Strategic Plan in 2003. The Plan has provided us with a blueprint for
    change by defining our mission, vision, and core values and created a
    structure of goals, and objectives through which we focus our efforts.
    As we begin the third year of this five-year plan, it continues to
    evolve. As part of our Strategic Performance Initiative, we are
    developing and implementing meaningful performance measures that will
    be linked to our daily activities and resource requirements. In the
    spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act, we have developed
    an ``AOC dashboard'' document which includes several high-level
    indicators to track performance for each of our strategic goals as well
    as a target goal for each indicator. Our senior leadership team meets
    monthly to monitor these indicators and goals to ensure that we meet
    the milestones we have set in our Performance Plan.
    Work Orders
        In fiscal year 2005, we completed nearly 34,200 work orders in the
    Senate Office Buildings. To date, we have completed more than 19,000
    work orders in fiscal year 2006. These are tasks that are requested of
    the AOC rather than programmed by our Agency and the work ranges from
    changing light bulbs, to fixing plumbing, to reconfiguring office space
    and painting. A number of other projects were completed during the past
    fiscal year. For example, we replaced the Rotunda balcony doors and
    installed high voltage switch gear in the Russell Office Building; we
    installed new modular walls and furniture in 10 Hart Building offices,
    and installed new wall sconces in the Dirksen Building. In addition, we
    completed the restoration of three Committee rooms in the Dirksen
    Building and one Committee room in the Russell Building as well as
    upgraded the audio and visual systems in these four rooms.
    Special Events
        The U.S. Capitol also was the site of a number of high-profile
    events including the Presidential Inaugural ceremony, which the AOC
    supported by building the platform, contracting for the audio system,
    installing the security fencing and crowd control features, as well as
    removing the snow that fell the night before the event. In October, we
    prepared the Capitol Building for another historic occasion, the lying
    in honor of Ms. Rosa Parks.
    National Garden
        This fall, we look forward to the grand opening of the National
    Garden. This project is solely funded by private donations raised by
    the National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden. This not-for-profit
    corporation raised the private funds pursuant to Public Law 102-229. It
    the first public-private partnership project for the AOC. Last summer,
    we authorized the third option to be awarded under this contract; the
    construction of the First Ladies Water Garden. Construction on the
    National Garden began in spring 2004 on the base bid which consisted of
    the Rose Garden, Butterfly Garden, Lawn Terrace, and the Hornbeam
    Court. Option one, the landscaped garden path that meanders through the
    site, and option two, the Regional (Mid-Atlantic) Garden were
    subsequently awarded. Construction is scheduled to be completed next
    month and then landscaping and planting will occur on the site through
    the spring and summer. A public opening is scheduled for October.
    Decreased Injury and Illness Rate
        For the fifth year in a row, the AOC's Injury and Illness rate
    decreased. We dropped to 5.65 cases per 100 employees in fiscal year
    2005, from a high of 17.9 cases per 100 employees in fiscal year 2000.
    We posted a four percent reduction in our rate while, at the same time,
    we faced the challenges of post-election office moves and an
    Inauguration, in addition to meeting our daily work demands. While I am
    proud of these accomplishments, I will not be satisfied until we
    achieve our ultimate goal of a workplace free of injury and illness. To
    make that goal a reality, we continue to educate and train our
    workforce and assure that our employees have the requisite equipment
    they need to do their jobs safely. We also took action and reduced
    injury and illness rates on the CVC construction site. The rate
    declined from 9.1 in 2003 and 12.2 in 2004, to 5.9 for the first 10
    months of 2005--below the 2003 industry average of 6.1.
    Financial Statements
        We have also made great strides in generating more reliable annual
    financial statements. In 2005, we published our first accountability
    report and earned an unqualified opinion for the second consecutive
    year on the AOC balance sheet. Our Office of the Chief Financial
    Officer developed processes and procedures in anticipation of the first
    full audit of the full set of financial statements for fiscal year
    2005.
    Employee Feedback Program and Action Plans
        Last year, as part of our strategic planning efforts, we developed
    a comprehensive employee feedback program. As part of that initiative,
    I invited AOC employees to participate in focus groups where they
    identified problems and suggested ways to help us solve them in order
    to improve the organization. Over the past year, we created a series of
    action plans that addressed the issues raised. Specifically, we:
      --Improved internal communication by sharing best practices in
            customer service AOC-wide.
      --Are establishing basic standards for written communication to make
            it easier for all employees to read and understand Agency
            documents. Published a Correspondence Manual and Style Guide
            for all written documents.
      --Are requiring regular staff meetings and providing training on how
            to conduct effective staff meetings.
      --Have established AOC-wide Town Hall Meetings.
      --Are including specific training to enhance communications skills in
            our Leadership Development Program (mandatory for all
            supervisors).
      --Explained and communicated the Agency mission in an easy to retain
            slogan: Serving Congress with a Commitment to Excellence.
      --Improved transparency by publishing and explaining approved
            organization charts and promoting consistency and fairness in
            workforce classification.
      --Issued AOC policies on Employee Feedback, Performance Evaluation,
            and Awards and improved general policy knowledge by instituting
            easy to read one-page summaries explaining these policies.
      --Improved Internal Service Providers' customer orientation, making
            them more accessible.
    Performance Metrics
        Finally, we continue to regularly collect, track, and manage
    operational performance metrics that are linked to our Strategic Plan
    goals through a variety of tools and processes. These tools not only
    help improve communication among AOC managers and staff, but have also
    led to process improvements in several areas. In addition, it has
    helped to improve our communication and outreach to Congressional
    leadership and our oversight committees regarding our performance. We
    continue to work with Congress and GAO to further identify areas for
    improvement while balancing our long-term goals and our day-to-day
    responsibilities.
        I want to thank the Committee for its support without which we
    could not have undertaken these efforts and completed many critical
    projects, continued to provide exemplary services, and assured
    continuity of operations at the Capitol, in the Senate Office
    Buildings, and throughout the Capitol complex.
                                   conclusion
        The AOC is dedicated to serving Congress with a commitment to
    excellence.
        In its February 2006 report to Congress, the GAO stated that the
    ``AOC has been working for several years to transform itself into a
    more strategic and accountable organization and to improve worker
    safety. This transformation is a long-term effort that involves a
    fundamental change in AOC's culture.'' It also noted that ``AOC
    operates in a challenging environment: the agency must preserve and
    modernize these high-profile, historic buildings while meeting the
    needs of Congress--including its leadership, committees, individual
    members, and staffs--and the visiting public.''
        Since the implementation of our Strategic Plan, GAO writes that:
      --``To strengthen human capital management, AOC had, among other
            things, linked its employee evaluation system to mission-
            critical goals, established monthly management meetings to
            share and assess data from employee relations offices, and
            identified a number of ways to collect, report, and analyze
            workforce data.''
      --``To improve worker safety, AOC has made progress in developing
            safety policies, implementing a system to track investigations
            of incidents and follow up, completing a job hazard analysis
            process to report hazards, and establishing a safety-training
            curriculum that fully supports the goals of the safety
            policies.''
      --``To further improve financial management, AOC is developing an
            agencywide internal control framework and a cost accounting
            system, which are essential to improving accountability across
            all AOC operations.''
      --``To further improve communication with employees, AOC has
            implemented a variety of communication methods to convey
            information to employees, including a weekly newsletter on
            project updates, policy announcements, management and
            communication tips, and other agencywide messages.''
      --``The AOC recycling program has undergone significant expansion
            over the past five years, while at the same time becoming more
            efficient. The program has also been expanded by increasing the
            number of locations at which recycling is taking place.''
      --``AOC has also taken important initial steps to address the
            management and structure needed to establish a sound IT
            investment management process, such as assigning roles,
            responsibilities, and the authority needed to manage its IT
            investment portfolio.''
      --``To improve project management, AOC created a clearly defined,
            well-documented, and transparent process for evaluating and
            prioritizing projects.''
        Mr. Chairman, my team and I are committed to fulfilling our
    responsibilities over the long-term, although that it means, at times,
    we have to make tough choices with regard to how we prioritize our
    projects or how we manage our clients' expectations. Our request for
    funds for fiscal year 2007 is in direct response to our responsibility
    as good stewards to maintain and preserve the facilities and national
    treasures under our care. In addition, we continue to strive to achieve
    a high level of safety, security, preservation, and cleanliness
    expected across the Capitol complex.
        I am very proud of the dedicated professionals who make up the AOC
    team and I am privileged to lead this remarkable organization. I
    greatly appreciate the Committee's support in helping us achieve our
    goals.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET INCREASE

        Senator Allard. If it's all right, Senator Durbin, I'm
    going to run the time clock on this, I'll take 5 minutes and
    then you can have 5 minutes and I'll do my best to abide by
    that.
        Mr. Hantman, I guess I've had a couple of shocks this
    morning. The first one was somewhat expected, that's the huge
    increase in your budget request. How do you justify an increase
    of this magnitude?
        Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my statement,
    I really didn't prepare this budget in a vacuum. I recognized
    the difficult financial conditions that the entire Government
    has. When I quoted the direction that I received from this
    subcommittee several years ago, to take a look at the condition
    assessments, I really had to evaluate what my role was as
    steward of these buildings and these treasures here on Capitol
    Hill. What we did is we went through a prioritization process
    which originally included something like 36 projects or so. We
    prioritized them in accordance with the methodology that I
    included in my testimony here. The methodology is an overall
    planning process that takes into account fire and life safety
    codes, preservation of historic and legacy elements, impact on
    our mission, including client urgency, economics, and physical
    security. All of these issues were evaluated. We then looked
    into the issue of rating these projects, whether the condition
    of these projects and the areas that they were meant to serve
    ``adequate'', ``substandard'' or ``deficient''. We then further
    rated them as to urgency and accomplishing them in terms of
    immediate, high, medium, et cetera. In coming up with the list
    of 19 projects that survived that list of 36, Mr. Chairman, we
    eliminated some $43 million worth of projects. What we wanted
    to do was actually discuss the criteria, the methodology we
    went through to select these projects.
        I recognize that we have to cut back on the numbers that we
    have over here. But in the spirit of the report that this
    subcommittee directed us to do years ago, to do the
    assessments; I thought it was important to bring forward to the
    subcommittee, the nature, the magnitude of the issues that we
    have building up here on Capitol Hill.
        The more projects we put off, the more projects we have to
    plan for in future budgets. And there are more projects that
    keep coming up in terms of the age of the infrastructure and
    the buildings we have here.
        So I don't presume, Mr. Chairman, to ask more than other
    Federal agencies. I don't presume to go over whatever budget
    cap is realistic in this. I just wanted to make the point that
    basically, if we're going to be good stewards, and fulfill, in
    fact, the mission that this subcommittee gave us years ago,
    that we bring to the attention of the Congress what needs to be
    done and work together to find out how best to do this, how to
    spread it out over the years, and make sure that these
    facilities are good for future generations and that the fire
    and life safety standards are in fact met.

                           UTILITY TUNNEL CONDITIONS

        Senator Allard. I appreciate you laying this all out for
    us. We're just going to have to do some tough priority setting
    as we move forward in this subcommittee.
        The other shock I had was the condition of the utility
    tunnels. I have some pictures here that were taken, apparently
    the inside of the tunnel in some areas, and I'm shocked at the
    amount of crumbling of the structure and the rusting that's
    going on in some of the old pipes. It seems to me we really
    have to get after this. Why isn't this your highest priority?
    And can you give us a better idea of what we may be looking at,
    are we tearing up streets? I'm concerned about safety
    considerations, when we have cement walls that are crumbling,
    asbestos is okay, as long as it's not in a state where it's
    moving, and it's moving. Walls are crumbling. I'm worried about
    the potential of risk to the workers and everyone that happen
    to use that tunnel. I wish you'd comment on that please.
        Mr. Hantman. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Clearly that is an
    issue and there's no doubt that more work is necessary within
    the tunnels. When we first started looking at this, and this
    was well before the citation back in the year 2000. We
    recognized that there were two issues that we needed to deal
    with. One of them was the immediate issue of the condition of
    the tunnel and the workmen who go down there on a daily basis
    to maintain the condition. We recognized that it was a long-
    term solution, that we could not rip up all the streets around
    the Capitol complex, we have some 12,000 lineal feet of tunnel
    here. And, in fact, as I indicated before 600 feet of that was
    ripped up on Constitution Avenue as the first priority that was
    identified in this project because of not only the needs in the
    tunnel itself, but also because of the traffic that goes on top
    of that tunnel. Every time we look at the major issues, we
    recognize that there's an awful lot of inconvenience that will
    occur to the Congress, to the Capitol, to our community as we
    rip up streets. Part of the $1.8 million we have in the
    reprogramming will be going toward a design for the next
    section which was almost in as bad shape as the section under
    Constitution Avenue, in front of the Senate Office buildings.
    This is on Second Street, to the south of the Madison Library
    of Congress office building. We're doing a study on it. We
    fully expect that we're going to have disruptions, major
    concerns from the community, from ourselves. We don't control
    the streets under which our steam lines run over there. And
    that would be our next focus as identified in the original
    report. But while we recognize that the major ripping up of
    streets where we've got so many going on right now, as you
    know, East Capitol Street, we have this new steam tunnel going
    in for the Capitol Visitor Center, on South Capitol Street, we
    ripped it up for other steam and infrastructure utility lines.
    We're nearing the completion of that, we're still doing it on E
    Street in front of the Power Plant. How much construction
    fatigue can the Congress take? How much disruption can the
    community take at one time? That's what we have to work out
    with respect to the major projects. And we fully expect as we
    get through our studies on this next section of the ``R''
    tunnel, as it's called, past the Madison Building, will cost us
    millions of dollars and we'll have to be talking to the
    subcommittee about how that gets funded.
        But the immediate priority was the Constitution Avenue
    tunnel, while these things were being phased over multiple
    years. The plan was never to finish all of this work by the
    year 2002. Past budget requests will indicate that we showed
    tens of millions of dollars in out-years to solve all of these
    problems. Our immediate problem was to make it as safe as we
    could for the people who work there on a day-to-day basis.
        So as we went through the years, each--we installed a leaky
    cable communication system in the tunnels, through the main
    tunnel system as I indicated before. By this summer, we should
    have the small stub tunnels, leading from those main
    communication cables to each building, taken care of as well.
    We implemented emergency shoring and repairs to the tunnels and
    we've done so every year since the year 2000 when this came
    about.
        So people have been going into those tunnels, looking out
    for spalls, taking care of those spalls, so that it is less
    dangerous for the people who go in there. We've also initiated
    three person work teams where one person would stay outside of
    the manhole and two people using their radio communications,
    would go inside the manhole and they would be able to talk
    about things. I met with the tunnel crew last week Mr.
    Chairman, listened to all of the issues that they had, to the
    concerns that they had, and the highest priorities they saw
    which basically amounted to the ``Y'' tunnel, which is where a
    lot of our focus and studies are going into at this point as
    well.
        So we have been trying to move forward on the day-to-day
    life safety while we're planning the long term projects which
    require greater funding and have a greater impact on the
    community.
        Senator Allard. Let me call on my colleague, Senator
    Durbin. I know he is shocked as I am at the condition of those
    tunnels and I think he's got some questions he wants to ask in
    that regard.

                         OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE COMPLAINT

        Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Mr. Hantman, this is
    unprecedented is it not, that the Office of Compliance would
    file a complaint against the Architect's Office?
        Mr. Hantman. That's my understanding, sir.
        Senator Durbin. And it's been noted now for 6 years or more
    that there were problems, hazards and dangers to employees in
    these tunnels, is that not true?
        Mr. Hantman. That is true, sir.
        Senator Durbin. I understand budgets because I've served on
    the Appropriations Committee on the House and Senate, and been
    on this subcommittee for some time. But I cannot believe that
    if you felt that this was a life threatening situation and came
    to Congress that we wouldn't have responded. Did you feel this
    was a life threatening situation?
        Mr. Hantman. We felt that there was certainly conditions
    down there that needed to be ameliorated so that it would not
    be a life safety situation.
        Senator Durbin. I think you said yes, that you felt it was
    a life threatening situation.
        Mr. Hantman. Certainly with spalling concrete coming off,
    that could be certainly a life safety situation, yes.
        Senator Durbin. And I have to ask you why you didn't make
    this plea to Congress, saying the lives of workman are at stake
    here. When I look at this, it's a lengthy survey done by the
    Office of Compliance, the conclusions at one part say,
    ``neither the conditions, nor the protective measures for
    either asbestos or heat stress have improved for tunnel shop
    employees between the OOC report of August 24, 1999 and the
    inspection made for this report.'' And they have cited in here
    as I'm sure you've read ample evidence that the workers whether
    they knew it or not, were exposed to asbestos hazard during 5
    or 6 years while they were working in these conditions. Were
    you aware of that exposure?
        Mr. Hantman. We have worked in--we have five tunnels sir.
    One of them is the ``V'' tunnel for instance. We completed
    abating the asbestos in that tunnel last year. We have money in
    the project loop right now, in procurement for the ``B'' tunnel
    to abate the--we are--one of the comments that the chairman
    made before in terms of encapsulating asbestos, we recognize
    that we have asbestos in all of our buildings and all of our
    tunnels around the campus. As long as it's encapsulated and
    safe we will be replacing that as we can, as we go down the
    road with various projects.
        Most of these tunnels have had encapsulated work
    accomplished. The ``B'' tunnel, for instance, had new jacketing
    put on it. That jacketing is now wearing out. We have a
    $200,000 project to abate the work in that tunnel.

                         EMPLOYEE SAFETY IN THE TUNNELS

        Senator Durbin. Mr. Hantman, did you warn the workers that
    they were going to expose themselves to inhalation of asbestos
    if they worked in the tunnels that were not protected?
        Mr. Hantman. The workers were aware of these asbestos
    issues. We worked to repair problems when they saw an asbestos
    issue, or we had the construction management division go in to
    inspect, we would go in and repair those particular sections
    and make sure that they were encapsulated.
        Senator Durbin. Did the workers wear any protective
    breathing device working around this asbestos?
        Mr. Hantman. They are now, sir.
        Senator Durbin. When did that start?
        Mr. Hantman. This is just starting.
        Senator Durbin. Why did we wait so long to protect these
    workers?
        Mr. Hantman. We were working in those tunnels, we had
    constant inspections going on in those tunnels. We recognized
    that we needed to do full tunnel work as we did on Constitution
    Avenue to make sure that--and as we did on the ``V'' tunnel
    that we can take care of it as a total project while we were
    encapsulating segments as we went along.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Hantman, I would have to tell you that
    perhaps I have a heightened interest in this with the debate we
    just went through on the asbestos issue. And having met scores
    of widows and widowers of people suffering--who suffered from
    mesothelioma and asbestosis. There's not a single one of us in
    this room who knows for sure that we haven't been exposed to
    asbestos that will kill us. In this circumstance, we knew that
    there was asbestos, we knew that it was a hazard to workers,
    and literally waited years before we provided safety devices
    for these workers to protect them. How could we possibly
    explain that to the workers or their families?
        Mr. Hantman. We had ongoing inspections but clearly they
    were not adequate. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Well that's cold comfort. I appreciate your
    admission, but I think it tells that we have done a great
    disservice to these workers and their families. And I hope of
    all the priorities which we face on Capitol Hill, that the
    first priority will be the safety of the men and women who work
    here and visit here. And if that is the case, I want to say to
    you point blank. If you do not come forward with requests for
    life safety measures and protective devices to protect these
    workers then you're not doing your duty.
        You need to call on us, and if we fail then it's on our
    shoulders but knowing this for 5 or 6 years, and not responding
    to it, and exposing workers to these potential life threatening
    situations that's entirely unacceptable. And to think that it
    would happen on Capitol Hill, the seat of our Government, the
    symbol of who we are as a people, makes it even worse. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Allard. Well I'd like to agree with Senator Durbin
    on his comments. I do think that we have to get moving quickly
    on this, we need to get it taken care of. I understand your
    concerns about disrupting traffic, part of it's on Constitution
    Avenue. But I think that we need to get a plan in place quickly
    as to how we can deal with this, and somehow or other find the
    resources to begin to get this situation rectified as much as
    possible, and get the city to understand that this is a serious
    problem and it needs to be dealt with. I know it's going to
    create some travel inconveniences, but I just think it has to
    be done.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman if I might add to that. Mr.
    Hantman said how much construction fatigue can Congress take,
    he went onto talk about how much disruption of traffic can the
    community take. Well I'm prepared to face both of those
    challenges but I'm not prepared to face the families of these
    workers and tell them we didn't do everything humanly possible
    to protect them in the workplace.

                              TUNNEL REPAIR PLANS

        Mr. Hantman. We have requested $1.75 million in this budget
    to do further studies and work on that, in addition to the $1.8
    million that we've recently reprogrammed. We will certainly get
    back to you in terms of what those studies are showing and the
    priorities in terms of those dollars.
        Senator Allard. I don't know what kind of time line you
    were thinking about, but we need to expedite this. I hope that
    you can come back with an expedited plan. Give us a better idea
    of what this total thing is going to cost, so we can deal with
    it, and begin to plan for it. We've got a lot of things that
    are on that list, but in my view this needs to be toward the
    top of the list. We need to somehow begin to address it right
    away. You now have the feeling of this subcommittee that we
    think this is important, and we need to expedite it. I hope
    that you would look at the budget request that you've made and
    see what we can do now to begin to address these problems. I
    agree with Senator Durbin, the traffic and inconvenience to
    Members of Congress and our staff, that's a minor issue
    relative to the seriousness of what we have here. We need to
    deal with it.

                    TRACKING OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE CITATIONS

        Are you keeping a list of possible problems that are
    erupting so that we don't get to this problem in some future
    time? Where the Office of Compliance has pointed out a problem
    or potential problem, is it being catalogued so that we can see
    what might be coming down the pike so that we can begin to meet
    these challenges as they face the committee?
        Mr. Ayers. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do meet regularly with the
    Office of Compliance and they have over the years, since 1999,
    issued a variety of citations. We work to abate those and
    request funding as necessary to abate those. We meet with them
    on a regular basis to update them on the status of the
    abatement of those citations.

      CAPITAL PROJECTS AND THE LIBRARY LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE PRIORITIZATION

        Senator Allard. Let me move onto capital projects. Your
    budget includes 19 major capital projects, totaling about
    $143.7 million. Could you describe the process, referred to as
    the line item construction program, you went through to come
    with this list of projects?
        The projects are ranked based on their urgency and the type
    of project, now how is a library storage facility ranked number
    nine on this list?
        Mr. Hantman. As I indicated Mr. Chairman, when we
    originally started looking at projects, and the importance and
    the ranking on the list, we had some 36 projects there. The
    library logistics warehouse was number 35 on that list, because
    we ranked it as a high need, but not an immediate need. What
    happens when you get to all of the fire and life safety, the
    preservation, the economics, the physical security issues and
    you rank that, and you look at the current condition of various
    projects, you'll note that's one of the few projects on our
    request which is a new project as opposed to something that
    needs to be repaired and maintained. Originally that was not
    ranked high on the list, it was number 35 as opposed to where
    it is right now, in number 9. The Librarian expressed very
    strong need and concern that it was an ``immediate'' priority.
    We have not done facility condition assessments for the Library
    as of yet. We hope to get that funding in here so we can
    actually do the type of analysis we talked about before. So in
    terms of the final overview, once you go through all the fire
    and life safety, the physical security, the deficiencies, and
    things like that, the urgency of the project is the element
    that is the last overlay on that. So our priority was
    originally ``high'', the Librarian indicated that was an
    ``immediate'' project, very important. And so it was on that
    basis that it was raised to--it's the lowest of the
    ``immediate'' projects on our list which is number nine. We
    have eight ``immediate'' above it, all the rest below it are
    ``high''.
        If it had not been ranked as ``immediate'' at the
    Librarian's request it would have been number 35 in the project
    list and would not have been requested.

                   DIRKSEN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

        Senator Allard. The Dirksen infrastructure improvements
    total somewhere about $19.4 million, can you describe these
    improvements and tell us where the project can be broken down
    into phases so as to lessen the price tag in fiscal year 2007.
        Mr. Hantman. This again Mr. Chairman, is an important
    project. Basically what we're looking at over here, is we think
    that this project could be phased in multiple years. As far as
    the Dirksen project is concerned, the current situation is that
    it's calling for the replacement of air handling units in the
    Dirksen Office Building. They're an integrated piece of
    equipment, they consist of fans, heating units, coils, et
    cetera, and we currently have 21 air handling units serving the
    building right now. There are 12 of them on the seventh floor
    of the Dirksen Senate Office Building that have to be replaced.
    These are air handlers that are over 40 years old. They've
    exceeded their useful life, and they're very inefficient.
        So this project would replace those 12 air handler units
    with new units that have replaceable filters, steam preheat
    coils, clean steam humidifiers, variable frequency drive
    motors, direct digital control systems. The work would include
    reconnecting the main units, et cetera. If not funded, the
    building ventilation will gradually worsen and the units will
    fail in the near future. Just when in the near future, we
    wouldn't know exactly but in terms of good process and
    procedure, this could happen.
        We've taken a look at this project Mr. Chairman, and we
    think it could be phased by stack especially. Specifically on
    the north stack, there's a center stack, and a south stack in
    the Dirksen Building. Phasing would require increased project
    coordination, some increased administrative costs, and
    contractor overhead, things like this. But we think it could be
    phased into three pieces.
        Senator Allard. Do you have an idea about how that would
    affect the cost of the project?
        Mr. Hantman. Yes, in the--we think that for this first
    year, we could do the south wing for three air handling units
    for $6.5 million, next year we could do the center wing for
    $8.4 million, and the north wing in the following year for some
    $6 million. This would add about a $1.5 million in additional
    costs to the project, but it could be spread out over 3 years.

                          CONSTRUCTION OVERHEAD COSTS

        Senator Allard. Thank you. The Architect of the Capitol's
    construction overhead costs include more than 10 percent for
    contract administration and construction management. Other
    agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and the naval
    facilities engineering command include costs in the range of 6
    to 8 percent. What do AOC's overhead costs support and why are
    your overhead costs higher than these other ones mentioned?
        Mr. Hantman. We can certainly respond to the record for
    that if we could Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Allard. Okay. If you would please.
        [The information follows:]

        The AOC's overhead costs consists of the following:
        Construction Contingency Cost.--This is added to the total
    Estimated Construction Contract Cost (ECCC) to allow for change
    orders. The percentage typically ranges between 5 percent to 10
    percent for new construction and 10 percent to 15 percent for
    renovation work. The higher contingency percentage for
    renovation work is due to the greater likelihood that during
    renovation unknown or unforeseen conditions may be encountered.
        Implementation Cost.--These are administrative costs added
    to the Estimated Construction Project Cost (the accumulated
    ECCC plus Contingency) to support the AOC's costs during
    project execution. These include: (1) Construction
    Administration, (2.5 percent)--this is usually a contract with
    the A/E firm performing the design, or the A/E firm who
    performed the design, to account for shop drawing submittal
    reviews, answering Requests for Information (RFIs), and any
    additional technical services related to interpretation of the
    drawings and specifications during construction, and the
    percentage applied is an industry-accepted standard; (2) AOC
    Construction Management, (8 percent)--this amount is set aside
    to pay for Term AOC employees hired as Construction Managers,
    who are the COTRs during construction, and Construction
    Inspectors, who provide daily quality assurance during
    construction execution; (3) Government Testing, Inspection and
    Quality Control, (2.5 percent)--this amount is provided to
    allow for independent testing, inspections services, or quality
    control services that may be required. Such instances include
    specialized testing or field verification that specified design
    parameters have been met, and independent validation of
    information necessary to resolve contractor disputes.
        Project Management Cost.--This amount provides for
    professional associate (contract) or temporary in-house project
    management staff when execution of a specific project or group
    of projects cannot be met with internal resources. At the
    present time, temporary project management staff are funded by
    the LOC Fort Meade projects to provide for overall program
    execution at that location. Previously, this allocation was
    used to execute portions of the Emergency Response Fund
    projects because at that time there was an inadequate dedicated
    project management staff to support that program. This
    percentage--currently set at 5 percent--was inadvertently
    applied to some of the fiscal year 2007 project requests.
    Specific estimating guidance has since been issued to clarify
    that it is to be applied only under the circumstances noted
    above.
        The AOC has not analyzed other agency overhead cost
    structures. The AOC is undertaking a series of processes to
    determine how its overhead costs are spent, and over time will
    be in a much better position to support its actual cost
    requirements based on financial history matched to project
    performance. In addition, the Government Accountability Office
    has offered to provide the AOC with technical advice in this
    specific area.

                        WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT PROJECT

        Senator Allard. On the west refrigeration plant, this $100
    million project is behind schedule by 5 or 6 months, and over
    budget. What is the current schedule for completion?
        Mr. Hantman. The current schedule is by July of this year,
    we should have the units up and running, with a combination of
    controls, as well as manual controls so that we could be
    producing the chilled water that we need throughout the campus.
    By the end of the year all those controls should be in place,
    so that the manual operation would no longer be needed.
        Senator Allard. Can you assure us that no additional funds
    are going to be needed?
        Mr. Hantman. We are reprogramming dollars in this year's
    budget as you know Mr. Chairman, to the tune of about $4.7
    million. The main reason that these funds were needed is that
    there were two unforeseen conditions at the Power Plant. One of
    them was the extent of the contaminated soil under the existing
    coal pile. We needed to remediate that. Another was a gas main
    that was on Virginia Avenue in the way of the relocated sewer
    line that we had to take care of. With those two projects, that
    basically took the full reprogramming value and we would have
    been pretty much on budget, without having to reprogram,
    without those two elements.
        So, yes, we're expecting that this reprogramming should be
    able to get us to home base.

                  WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT PROJECT CHALLENGES

        Senator Allard. What are the biggest challenges you've
    confronted with a project, and what are some lessons learned?
        Mr. Hantman. Well, the two project elements that I
    mentioned were the biggest challenges, and that is true Mr.
    Chairman, of any project we do here on Capitol Hill. The
    documentation is just not very good in terms of existing
    drawings and all. That was certainly the case with the gas line
    on Virginia Avenue. It wasn't shown in the right place, in
    terms of where it really was. Another challenge that we faced
    on the Power Plant, was the reason that project was initiated
    in the first place. This goes back to the type of issues that
    we have with facility conditions throughout the campus. How do
    you know something's going to fail? Do you replace a roof
    before it fails, or do you do it because its life expectancy
    has really been achieved. So when we looked at the east
    refrigeration plant, it actually has EPA, noncompliant elements
    in it. We wanted to replace it. It was over 40 years old. It
    wasn't performing efficiently. We had planned on essentially
    using it long enough to be able to take down the existing west
    refrigeration plant units, put them online, hook them up and
    have the east plant run through the winter so that we could do
    that, and the full load would be on that. Unfortunately, we had
    two of those units fail. Their life expectancy certainly was
    there, we knew that was happening, and the same issue is, when
    will something fail?
        So we had to essentially, while the west refrigeration
    plant was up and running, make those changes. So that was
    something that cost us time and it cost us money, Mr. Chairman.

        GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORTS ON POWER PLANT STAFFING

        Senator Allard. Now, GAO recently reported that the
    Architect of the Capitol hasn't made sufficient progress in
    planning to staff the modernized Power Plant efficiently and
    ensure plant personnel are trained to operate it safely.
    According to the GAO, the plant has about twice as many
    employees as are needed for efficient operation and has since
    at least 1996. What are your plans for right-sizing the Power
    Plant while ensuring equity to all employees?
        Mr. Hantman. We have a consultant--Ross is doing a detailed
    functional analysis, regarding staffing reductions. We think
    they are possible. We are at the process, Mr. Chairman, we
    don't have the new equipment up and all the controls in place
    at this point in time. So we need to take a look at training
    the people in--on our staff, for automation of the plant, and
    cross train those people to make sure that they can do multiple
    jobs efficiently. We believe this can happen, once we have the
    new plant online. We are concurrently working on doing training
    right now, so that we can essentially right size and cross
    train people to bring it more in line with the ultimate
    staffing that's necessary. And our new director certainly will
    have his eyes and ears on that and make sure that we do it the
    right way.

                            PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGET

        Senator Allard. You've been listening to some of my
    concerns in the past hearings on performance-based budgets and
    I understand you're taking some action to develop a
    performance-based budget to measure outcomes. I'd like to know
    how you're coming along on that initiative?
        Mr. Ayers. Sure, thank you Mr. Chairman. We do have several
    strategic performance initiatives underway, and performance-
    based budgeting is one of them. If I could just step back for a
    moment though. All of these refer back to our strategic plan
    that we developed in 2003. That strategic plan is centered
    around four goal areas: facilities management, project
    management, human capital, and organizational excellence. And
    to implement that plan, it's accompanied by a performance plan
    that includes 16 objectives, 175 specific milestones, as well
    as over 300 individual activities necessary to achieve those
    goals. In addition to simply measuring our progress against
    achieving those milestones, we've developed a series of
    performance indicators that enable us to track the health of
    the organization on an ongoing basis. We call this our
    dashboard. We've developed some 25 different performance
    metrics, that we review on a monthly basis, myself and Mr.
    Hantman, with a team of senior managers.
        To take that strategic plan to the next level, we believe
    requires the implementation of a cost accounting system as well
    as a performance-based budgeting system, those--both of those
    processes are underway now. We believe that's a year long
    effort, we've recently added staff to our cost accounting
    division to begin the full implementation of that program and
    we look forward to presenting to you in 2008 our first
    performance-based budget.

                        INTERNAL CONTROLS IMPLEMENTATION

        Senator Allard. I'm looking forward to that, and thank you
    for your efforts. According to GAO, it's critical the Architect
    of the Capitol develop strong internal controls, including a
    reliable cost accounting system and sound procurement
    practices, can you tell us what you've done in this area, and
    identify the resources you've requested in your budget to
    address these needs.
        Mr. Ayers. Certainly Mr. Chairman, thank you. We have begun
    the roll out of a comprehensive internal controls program. This
    has been, in fact, in our strategic plan since 2003. The first
    phase of that, as we've selected three of the--what we feel
    most important functions of our organization. Our procure to
    pay, or how we purchase materials, as well as our payroll and
    project management systems. As part of this internal controls
    program, we'll take each of those systems and break them down
    to each of their individual components, review them to
    determine what specific financial and managerial controls need
    to be in place to be able to achieve the end result. We're well
    in process on the first three of those. Once those are
    complete, we'll bring in another handful of our business
    processes and run them through the same process. Ultimately
    we'll have gone through all of our strategic business
    processes; run them all through this program to develop a sound
    internal controls program. We do have two FTEs requested in our
    2007 budget to enable us to continue that, and expand that
    internal controls as well as the cost accounting program.

                        CONTRACT MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS

        Senator Allard. Your contract management has been subject
    to some criticism. What are you doing to try and improve it?
        Mr. Ayers. I think one of the most important initiatives
    we've undertaken, is the development of a comprehensive core
    competency program, both for our project managers as well as
    for our procurement employees. That's a terrific program, and
    our employees are run through an appropriations law class, a
    contract management class, I think that's been our most
    important initiative in that area.

           ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER SELECTION

        Senator Allard. Okay. Let me ask you Mr. Hantman, about the
    position of Chief Financial Officer. This seems to me like a
    critical position to get filled. How are we doing on filling
    this position?
        Mr. Hantman. I think we're going well Mr. Chairman, we
    empaneled--a panel essentially last week, which includes
    Stephen Ayers, it includes the CFOs of the Government
    Accountability Office and the Government Printing Office. Some
    53 resumes are being reviewed right now. Clearly that's a
    critically important position and the process is moving along.
        Senator Allard. That's all the questions that the
    subcommittee has. I would like to thank you for your
    participation.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        The subcommittee on legislative branch will stand in
    recess, until Wednesday, April 5, 2006 when it will hear
    testimony from the Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police Board.
    Thank you.
        [Whereupon at 11:15 a.m., Wednesday, March 15, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    April 5.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senator Allard.

                                  U.S. SENATE

                        Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. PICKLE, SERGEANT AT ARMS AND
                DOORKEEPER

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order. This
    morning, we meet to take testimony on the fiscal year 2007
    budget requests for the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the
    Senate, U.S. Capitol Police, and the Capitol Guide Service and
    Special Services Office.
        We welcome our witnesses this morning. First, we will hear
    from the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, Mr.
    William Pickle. Good morning, Mr. Pickle.
        Mr. Pickle. Good Morning, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Allard. The Sergeant at Arms' budget request total
    is $224 million, an increase of about $25 million or 12 percent
    over the current year. The budget would fund an additional 34
    employees as well as implement additional security initiatives.
    Funding is also included to continue the telephone replacement
    project.
        Following the Sergeant at Arms, we will hear from the
    Capitol Police Board, currently chaired by House Sergeant at
    Arms Bill Livingood. Good morning, Bill.
        The Board is requesting $295 million for the Capitol
    Police, an increase of $48 million or almost 20 percent over
    the current year. The request includes 101 additional sworn
    officers and seven additional administrative employees, which
    would bring the department staffing to a total of 2,180
    employees.
        The budget includes $28 million for overtime, about $8
    million more than the police department anticipates will be
    needed this year, and we have some concerns about that level.
        Finally, we will again hear from Mr. Livingood, this time
    as chairman of the Capitol Guide Board. Also present is Tom
    Stevens, the head of the Capitol Guide Service and
    Congressional Special Services Office.
        The Board is requesting $8.5 million for the Guide Service.
    This is an increase of $4.6 million over the current budget,
    with the expectation that 71 additional guides and visitor
    services employees will be needed to operate the Capitol
    Visitor Center (CVC) in fiscal year 2007.
        Before we begin this hearing, I would like to say thank you
    to outgoing Chief Terry Gainer. Today is his last day on the
    job, and I appreciate all the good work he has done to improve
    the Capitol Police force and serve the Congress. The department
    is stronger, better trained and equipped, and more capable than
    when Chief Gainer took the helm 2 years ago. I wish him luck in
    his next adventure.
        Before I finish my statements, we have Senator Burns, Mr.
    Pickle, who has some questions that he has asked us to put
    forward. After the hearing, we will submit those questions to
    you with the hope that you can get back with a response within
    10 days. So, if you could respond to those questions at a later
    date after we have finished the hearing, we would appreciate
    that, Mr. Pickle. And so, having made that initial request, Mr.
    Pickle, please go ahead. We look forward to hearing your
    comments.

                         STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. PICKLE

        Mr. Pickle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks again for
    inviting me to testify this morning. As I have said in the last
    2 or 3 years that I have been here and appeared before this
    subcommittee, I am so pleased to represent the hundreds of men
    and women who comprise the Office of the Sergeant at Arms. I
    don't think you are going to find a more dedicated or committed
    group of Federal employees anywhere, and I am sure that you and
    this subcommittee share that belief as well, after witnessing
    the great job they do. Mr. Chairman, I have a much more formal
    statement. You stole a little of my thunder in your opening
    remarks. So, I am going to ask that my formal statement be
    submitted for the record, and I will just talk for a couple of
    minutes, if I may.
        As you indicated, we have asked for about $224 million or
    about a 12.8-percent increase over our 2006 appropriation.
    These funds will continue to allow us to provide the service
    that is so important to the Senate. In particular, the increase
    that is reflected in this budget covers our telecommunications
    modernization project. It also covers 34 positions, as you
    indicated, 17 of which are designated for the CVC. The other
    positions are spread out over our areas of technology and
    security. In addition, we are funding some initiatives in our
    Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness. These
    initiatives haven't been fully covered previously in any
    recurring budget request, and I think probably what we are
    going to see in out-years, too, is continued growth in that
    area. But this year, there is a sizable increase, as you noted,
    in our security and emergency preparedness allocation.
        Mr. Chairman, in my formal statement, I talk about a number
    of challenges that we have met successfully and a number of
    accomplishments that this office, and particularly the staff,
    has achieved. I want to take a minute to introduce the senior
    management team here, because they are outstanding. I am going
    to start with my Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Lynne Halbrooks. The
    Executive Assistant who is the Democratic Leader's
    Representative is Nancy Erickson. Greg Hanson is our Chief
    Information Officer and Assistant Sergeant at Arms. Chuck
    Kaylor is the Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and
    Emergency Preparedness. Al Concordia is the Assistant Sergeant
    at Arms for Police Operations and Liaison. Esther Gordon is the
    Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Operations, and Dan Strodel is
    our General Counsel. I also want to acknowledge, and I know he
    is going to be a little embarrassed by this, my Chief Financial
    Officer, Chris Dey. Chris works very closely with Carrie
    Apostolou and Nancy Olkewicz, and Chris is the ultimate
    professional, as Carrie and Nancy can attest to. He keeps us
    straight. He keeps me out of financial problems with this
    subcommittee, and we are just very delighted to have him.
        Senator Allard. I appreciate you introducing your staff and
    having them here this morning.
        I couldn't agree with you more, I think you have got a good
    staff.

                               GUIDING PRINCIPALS

        Mr. Pickle. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Last
    year, when I testified, I talked about the three guiding
    principals that we follow in doing a better job here at the
    Senate. The first one is to continue to maintain security of
    this complex. Since 9/11, the whole world has changed here.
    Maintaining security is very expensive and very complex, and we
    work closely with the Capitol Police to do the best job we can.
    The second focus is to follow the leadership's mandate to
    provide state-of-the-art technology. I don't think anyone can
    ever have state-of-the-art technology. You know, Moore's Law
    says everything changes every 1\1/2\ years or so. Well, we are
    close to state-of-the-art, and it's only because of this
    subcommittee's support that we have reached the level that we
    have. And finally, it's rather cliche, but customer service
    continues to be a guiding force in the Sergeant at Arms office.
    It is used over and over again, and sometimes it loses its
    meaning. But when you have over 100 business units as we do and
    roughly 950 people working here within the Office of the
    Sergeant at Arms, you have a lot of exposure to a very
    demanding community. I think our people do a great job. I often
    hear about it when we don't. I seldom hear about it when we do.
    But we try, they try, and customer service is still our
    priority.

                                 STRATEGIC PLAN

        Mr. Chairman, there is one final thing I want to do. I want
    to talk briefly about our strategic plan. I know how important
    GPRA is to you, and I know how you like to hold each of the
    agencies under you accountable. We have been working on a
    strategic plan for the last 6 to 9 months. It's a very
    comprehensive plan. I think that you will see the seriousness
    with which we view this plan, and I expect to share it with the
    subcommittee very soon. We would welcome any comments from you
    or your staff.
        Senator Allard. Very good. We look forward to that.
        Mr. Pickle. Thank you. Finally, I want to digress for just
    a moment. You mentioned Chief Terry Gainer, and I just want to
    acknowledge, on our part from the Senate side, how much we will
    miss him. Chief Gainer is the ultimate professional. I think he
    is arguably one of the best Chiefs of Police in the country.
    When you talk to people in the law enforcement community, they
    echo those sentiments. We often use the word leadership.
    Leadership is important. And we always say you know leadership
    when you see it. Well, when you see Terry Gainer, you see
    leadership. We may not always agree with him, but he is one of
    the main reasons we have such an outstanding department, such a
    professional department. And I think he will be sorely missed,
    but we wish him bon voyage and Godspeed. Mr. Chairman, that
    concludes my oral remarks, and I'd be happy to take questions.
        [The statement follows:]
             Prepared Statement of the Honorable William H. Pickle
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
    inviting me to testify before you today. I am pleased to report on the
    progress the Office of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA) has made over the
    past year and our plans to enhance our contributions to the Senate in
    the coming year.
        For fiscal year 2007, the Sergeant at Arms respectfully requests a
    total budget of $224,043,000, an increase of $25,343,000 (or 12.8
    percent) over the fiscal year 2006 budget. This request will allow us
    to maintain the improvements and level of service we provide to the
    Senate community. It will also fund 34 new staff members who will
    maintain the Senate's expansion space in the Capitol Visitor Center and
    develop and maintain business and network security applications, among
    other support services. Appendix A, accompanying this testimony,
    elaborates on the specific components of our fiscal year 2007 budget
    request.
        Last year I testified before this Committee and reported on our
    progress in accomplishing three priorities: (1) ensuring the United
    States Senate is as secure and prepared for an emergency as possible;
    (2) providing the Senate outstanding service and support, including the
    enhanced use of technology; and (3) delivering exceptional customer
    service to the Senate. These priorities continue to guide the Office of
    the Sergeant at Arms.
        This year I am pleased to highlight some of this office's
    activities including a new strategic plan we are developing and the
    challenges we have overcome since last year. Our accomplishments in the
    areas of security and preparedness, information technology, and
    operations are also impressive. We are preparing for next year by
    planning for the major events we know will come and by ensuring that
    the Office of the Sergeant at Arms is an agile organization that can
    adjust to the unexpected.
        An outstanding senior management team leads the efforts of the
    dedicated Sergeant at Arms staff. Lynne M. Halbrooks serves as my
    Deputy, and she and I are joined by Administrative Assistant Rick
    Edwards, Executive Assistant Nancy Erickson, General Counsel Dan
    Strodel, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and Emergency
    Preparedness Chuck Kaylor, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Police
    Operations Albert V. Concordia, Assistant Sergeant at Arms and Chief
    Information Officer J. Greg Hanson, and Assistant Sergeant at Arms for
    Operations Esther L. Gordon. The many accomplishments set forth in this
    testimony would not have been possible without this team's leadership
    and commitment.
        The Office of the Sergeant at Arms also works with other
    organizations that support the Senate. I would like to take this
    opportunity to mention how important their contributions have been in
    helping us achieve our objectives. In particular, we work regularly
    with the Secretary of the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol, the
    Office of the Attending Physician, and the U.S. Capitol Police. When
    appropriate, we coordinate our efforts with the U.S. House of
    Representatives and the agencies of the Executive Branch. I am
    impressed by the people with whom we work, and pleased with the quality
    of the relationships we have built together.
        This is my third year testifying before this Committee and I would
    be remiss if I did not mention how proud I continue to be of the men
    and women with whom I work. The employees of the Office of the Sergeant
    at Arms are some of the most committed and creative in government. We
    have made huge strides as an organization these past three years.
        None of our efforts would be accomplished, though, without the
    guidance of this Committee and the Committee on Rules and
    Administration. Thank you for the support you consistently demonstrate
    as we work to serve the Senate.
    Strategic Plan
        The Office of the Sergeant at Arms is developing a comprehensive
    strategic plan and performance goals for services we provide. The plan
    will establish the level of performance that the Senate expects from
    us, and will help us build on our strengths and address weaknesses.
        During my tenure with the Senate, I have seen how Sergeant at Arms
    staff works to continuously improve the level of service it delivers to
    this institution. Our strategic plan acknowledges this dedication and
    skill, and provides guidance on how to focus these efforts. The plan
    documents the mission, vision, values, and principles of this office,
    so our employees, our customers, and Senate Leadership will know what
    our objectives are and how we plan to achieve them.
        We already deliver outstanding service to the Senate, and this
    strategic plan will help us continue to do so. I look forward to
    presenting this Committee with the strategic plan later this year. It
    was developed with the input of all levels of management, and, I
    believe, accurately lays a clear roadmap for the future of this
    organization.
    Customer Service and Support
        One priority of the strategic plan is to promote within the Office
    of the Sergeant at Arms a culture that is focused on excellence in
    customer service. Every aspect of our work at the Senate focuses on
    serving the Senators, staff members, and the public. Our efforts in the
    areas of security, information technology, and operations all focus on
    providing services that the Senate needs to function properly. Our
    customers usually are Senate staff, but they also include anyone who
    contacts the Senate and members of the media who report about the
    institution. As a measure of our overall focus on customer service,
    almost one-quarter of the staff of this office provides direct customer
    support: Capitol Operators; Appointments Desk staff; Media Gallery
    staff; customer support analysts; telecommunications representatives;
    dedicated customer support personnel in our print shop, Recording
    Studio, and Photography Studio; and Help Desk contractors.
    Major Challenges of the Past Year
        As is true every year, this past year has offered several
    challenges to the Office of the Sergeant at Arms. Besides frequent
    suspicious item alerts, the Senate had air space incursion alerts and
    the recent Russell Senate Office Building evacuation. The Judiciary
    Committee held confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts in mid-
    September 2005 and for Samuel A. Alito in early January 2006. In August
    2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama,
    and affected the ability of several Senate state offices to serve their
    constituents. These events highlight how effectively this office, in
    conjunction with the Senate support organizations and Legislative
    Branch agencies with which we work, has adopted procedures that enable
    us to rise to these challenges.
        Building Evacuations.--On May 11, 2005, the Capitol Police
    evacuated the Capitol and Senate and House Office Buildings due to an
    incoming aircraft. The actions of the police were exemplary, and the
    Members, staff, and visitors cooperated fully during the evacuation.
    When the next air space intrusion happened about one month later, we
    were even more prepared and an assembly area for Senators was
    activated.
        On February 8, 2006, a hazardous material alarm sounded in the
    Russell Building. The alarm indicated the presence of a substance that
    was potentially hazardous, and people in the Russell Building were
    directed by the Capitol Police to move to the Legislative Garage.
    Senators and staff moved to the garage, where they sheltered in place
    for about three hours.
        Immediately staff from the Sergeant at Arms and other Senate
    offices prepared to open a Senate Emergency Operations Center and
    started implementing their emergency plans. As an example, our contract
    IT Help Desk staff that was evacuated to the garage ensured the
    continuity of Help Desk operations by shifting the function to
    technicians located off-site. All of these activities follow the
    established protocols for this kind of emergency.
        The atmosphere in the Russell Building and the Legislative Garage
    was marked by a distinct sense of calm and control that lasted from the
    start of the incident through its completion. Fortunately, the
    investigation found no hazardous material, and Senators and staff left
    safely.
        This event demonstrated how the Capitol Police, as well as the
    Sergeant at Arms Offices of Police Operations and Security and
    Emergency Preparedness have made progress over the past few years in
    establishing a controlled, efficient response to incidents at the
    Senate. The coordinated and measured response met the Senate's needs
    for information and for security.
        Hurricane Katrina.--Even before Hurricane Katrina hit on August 29,
    2005, Sergeant at Arms staff was working to ensure affected state
    offices would be able to recover quickly. After the hurricane, some
    members of our staff assisted from Washington, D.C., while others went
    to the area to help with the recovery and with the family assistance
    center.
        A wide range of SAA staff participated in the state offices'
    recovery. Our State Office Liaison was the first point of contact for
    the offices, ensuring that they knew how to contact us and others who
    could help. CIO staff members also played pivotal roles. Before the
    hurricane, they inventoried equipment in the threatened offices and
    readied replacement equipment. They also made sure that telephone calls
    to the state offices would be forwarded to another location if the
    staff evacuated.
        The first priority of the staff in the Louisiana, Mississippi, and
    Alabama offices was their safety and the safety of their families.
    Within days, though, they got back to work, connecting constituents
    with the services they needed. To do this, they needed access to space,
    computers, telephones, and power.
        SAA staff supplied the equipment and facilities that offices
    needed. Our State Office Liaison worked with the General Services
    Administration to find facilities that staff could use while their
    offices were unavailable. The CIO's team improvised ways to transport
    equipment to the area; they sent equipment to the closest place with
    delivery service and determined the next steps from there. In one case,
    they even sent satellite telephones to the area with another elected
    official. Additionally, the CIO's staff monitored the status of the
    circuits and networks, configured and shipped equipment to each
    affected site, installed LAN drops, and provided dial-up modems and
    frame relay circuits. One staff member spent a month in Mississippi
    supporting the Capitol Police mobile radio system.
        Across the SAA, staff members were diligent in their efforts to
    help the state offices become operational. The security and emergency
    preparedness team obtained satellite telephones for the affected
    Senators, and sent staff to the area to work with the family assistance
    center. The Telecommunications Operations team revised calling
    arrangements for forwarded numbers and coordinated the delivery of
    service and equipment to temporary locations. Customer Support Analysts
    made sure that offices received the services they needed, and the
    Employee Assistance Program provided counseling support to staff in the
    area.
        The work of the SAA helped Senate state offices recover quickly. We
    had the ability and the resources to provide even more support, and we
    were prepared to do so in advance of Hurricane Rita. These hurricanes
    and their impact on state offices demonstrated how important it is that
    our continuity of operations and emergency preparedness efforts reach
    beyond Washington, D.C.
        Support for Senate Events.--During Senate events, the staff of the
    Office of the Sergeant at Arms fills crucial roles supporting the
    Senate's tradition of dignity and public access while implementing
    comprehensive security. Since my last testimony before this Committee,
    this office has supported the Lying-in-Honor of Rosa Parks, the annual
    State of the Union address, joint sessions of Congress, visits by
    dignitaries, and high-profile hearings. This past year, two of the most
    visible events were the hearings for John G. Roberts and Samuel A.
    Alito.
        In advance of the Roberts hearings, Sergeant at Arms security staff
    and the Capitol Police worked with the Judiciary and Rules Committees
    to implement the appropriate level of security. Technology and Media
    Galleries staff enhanced the ability of the press to gather information
    and file stories during these historic events. Temporary telephone
    lines, systems, and office equipment were provided. We implemented both
    wired and wireless infrastructure so media representatives could file
    stories and pictures in almost real time. The press and the public were
    accommodated, security was ensured, and the logistics surrounding the
    hearings never became the focus of the story.
        We have a systematic approach for determining security measures for
    the many activities at the Senate and across the Capitol. The Capitol
    Police, with our guidance and support, established a standard matrix
    that they apply to Congressional events. This matrix helps the police
    evaluate threat intelligence, logistics needs, and various criteria
    related to the events; determine what level of security each event
    requires; and assign the appropriate resources. Our Media Galleries
    employ post-event reviews to improve the service they provide. For
    major events, our technology staff reviews past events and looks ahead
    to evaluate what technology is needed and whether a specific event
    requires infrastructure support beyond the level customarily available.
        We have made substantial progress in supporting Senate and Capitol
    events over the past several years. In the face of dramatically
    increased security needs, staff from the Sergeant at Arms and other
    offices supporting the Senate, as well as from across the government,
    coordinate their activities to provide efficient behind-the-scenes
    services to facilitate these historic Congressional events.
     security and preparedness: protecting the senate and planning for the
                                    unknown
        In our security and preparedness programs, we work collaboratively
    with organizations across Capitol Hill to secure the Senate. We also
    rely upon Senate Leadership, this Committee, and the Committee on Rules
    and Administration for guidance and support.
        Almost five years ago, our security programs started in earnest in
    response to an immediate need to protect the Senate and enable it to
    function in the midst of the catastrophic events that were occurring.
    Our programs are now proven and they ensure the continuity of the
    Senate's operations and the safety of its Members, staff, and visitors
    both here in Washington, D.C., and in the state offices. Events of this
    past year have offered opportunities to consolidate our efforts and
    ensure that they are comprehensive and systematic. These efforts
    integrate information technology with our security initiatives to
    deliver a comprehensive approach to security that takes advantage of
    all of the tools that are available to the Senate.
        Our efforts to ensure that we can respond to emergencies and keep
    the Senate functioning under any circumstance have grown over the past
    years. To continue improvements in this area and better manage our
    security and preparedness programs, we have established seven strategic
    priorities to focus our efforts: Emergency Notification and
    Communications; State Office Security and Preparedness; Emergency
    Plans, Organizations, and Facilities; Training; Exercises; Office
    Services; and Accountability.
        Each of the above elements reflects a distinct set of activities
    that support the Senate and that build on the Senate's layered security
    strategy, which is the framework we use to address security challenges.
    Emergency Notification and Communications
        Our emergency notification and communications initiatives ensure
    that we have effective communications systems, devices, and
    capabilities in place to support the Senate during an emergency. We
    have improved our notification and communications processes over the
    past year. We expanded the coverage and speed of delivering text alerts
    to the Senate when we integrated BlackBerry and e-mail alerts and
    notifications into one process within the Capitol Police. We expanded
    the telephonic alert system so it now includes more Senate staff
    members and its notification process is significantly faster. With an
    automated process for maintaining emergency contact information, each
    office can now use a Web interface to maintain staff emergency contact
    information and can designate the recipients of alert and notification
    messages. Over 1,100 wireless annunciators are in place across the
    Senate and the Capitol Police have completed the installation of a
    public address system that can broadcast into public areas throughout
    the Capitol and Senate Office Buildings. Further, if the Senate is
    forced to relocate, we have the capability to video teleconference and
    broadcast between an emergency relocation site and other Legislative
    Branch and Executive Branch sites.
        Looking forward, we are prototyping a system to use Senate Cable
    Television to broadcast staff alerts and notifications. We are also
    testing an expansion of our emergency BlackBerry messaging to include
    additional carriers.
    State Office Security and Preparedness
        Extending security and emergency preparedness programs to Senate
    state offices remains an important objective of the Sergeant at Arms,
    and this past year's natural disasters point out the importance of this
    program. Over the past several years we have expanded physical security
    and continuity planning support to offices across the country. Physical
    security has been enhanced in 120 state offices, with 51 of the 120
    offices completed in the past year. We are working with another 161
    state offices on their individual security enhancements. Our emergency
    planning support emphasizes including state offices in each Member's
    continuity planning.
        This year we are embarking on a major project to develop and
    implement a comprehensive program for state office security and
    preparedness. The program will establish guidelines, training,
    references, online tools, and other materials to help state offices
    develop and sustain comprehensive security, emergency preparedness, and
    continuity planning.
    Emergency Plans, Organizations and Facilities
        Our emergency plans ensure that we attend to the safety of Senate
    Members and staff, and the continuity of the Senate in an emergency. I
    can report that every Member office has completed an Emergency Action
    Plan that is on record with our Office of Security and Emergency
    Preparedness.
        We provide a range of publications and support for establishing,
    maintaining, and testing emergency and continuity plans. The
    publications include the Senate's Planning Guide, which covers both
    emergency preparedness and continuity planning. We established working
    groups to identify and address communications, facilities,
    transportation, and continuity. One gap we have already identified is
    the need for post-event care and family assistance. We are establishing
    plans to provide critical services to affected families following a
    wide-spread event. In cooperation with the Senate's Employee Assistance
    Program, we have conducted training with a core group of employees to
    establish peer support teams. That training will expand this year.
    Training
        Training helps Senate staff know what to expect in an emergency and
    how to use the equipment we provide. We train office staff to create
    continuity plans and emergency plans, to use the accountability
    systems, and to work with other staff members if a traumatic event does
    occur. Our training program is coordinated through the Joint Office of
    Education and Training.
        Training activities over the past year included 56 escape hood
    training sessions that were delivered to 1,639 staff members; 19
    chemical, biological, radiological, and explosives briefings for 358
    staff; 10 intern orientations reaching 805 staff; 66 emergency action
    plan training sessions reaching 78 staff; eight training sessions on
    emergency supply kits reaching 55 staff; nine victim rescue unit
    training sessions for 35 staff; 15 office emergency coordinator basic
    and advanced training sessions reaching 131 staff; 16 emergency
    preparedness updates attended by 220 staff; nine mobility impaired
    classes; two shelter-in-place seminars attended by 50 staff; one family
    assistance center workshop attended by 35 staff; and special topic
    seminars for 140 staff. We also developed three new continuity planning
    classes and delivered 13 of them to 150 staff.
    Exercises
        We have a comprehensive exercise program to validate, evaluate, and
    practice existing Senate emergency plans, identify gaps in those plans,
    and establish and verify new requirements. This year we conducted nine
    major exercises in partnership with the Capitol Police and other
    Legislative Branch agencies, as well as a number of drills such as
    office building evacuations and other smaller-scale activities. We test
    our alert systems every month by sending test messages to all
    designated staff members. As part of our effort to continuously improve
    these processes, we implemented a system that catalogs and addresses
    observations and findings related to the Senate's emergency response
    programs.
    Office Services
        Over the past year we created and distributed informational and
    training brochures to Senate offices. We distributed 3,000 Emergency
    Annunciator System brochures; 6,500 Quick2000 Escape Hood brochures;
    and 6,500 Victim Rescue Unit brochures. What Every Staff Member Should
    Know About Emergencies at the United States Senate was distributed to
    4,500 people; Senate Office Building Evacuation Procedures for Those
    with Mobility Impairments had a distribution of 3,000. We distributed
    3,000 Emergency Supply Kits brochures; 2,000 copies of ``I'm Safe''
    Phone Home; and 3,500 copies of the Emergency Preparedness Guide. In
    addition, we worked with 105 offices to create tailored emergency
    information cards, over 4,000 of which have been distributed.
        We also published articles and notifications on key security and
    preparedness topics, and completed the rollout of much of our emergency
    preparedness equipment. Wireless emergency annunciators have been
    located across the Senate, and we participated in developing and
    fielding automated emergency defibrillators in our office buildings. We
    have deployed almost 1,200 Victim Rescue Units Senate-wide to
    supplement the escape hood program, and we distributed 407 Emergency
    Supply Kits to Senate offices. Over 20,000 items of equipment that have
    been distributed to offices and throughout Senate buildings have been
    inventoried and checked for serviceability.
        As a last item, the public address system is fully operational in
    all the Senate Office Buildings, garages, cafeterias, and in the Senate
    Child Care Center and the Page dorm. The system will be used to give
    instructions in the public areas of buildings during an emergency.
    Accountability
        During a threat or an incident, we must be able to establish an
    accurate and timely accounting of Senate Members and staff. In
    conjunction with the Capitol Police, we placed into production a system
    that provides the ability to take office accountability reports using
    tablet computers and wireless technology. The system maintains a
    database for personnel accountability in the event of emergency. It
    provides office managers and staff with the ability to construct lists
    for notification, delegate responsibilities for continuity activities,
    and track the status of office staff in an emergency. To date, 140
    Senate Member and Committee offices have been trained to use the
    system.
        We deployed a planning template that helps offices establish
    emergency action plans and keep them up to date. We trained 78 Office
    Emergency Coordinators and Chiefs of Staff on accounting for staff
    members, and also trained 220 staff members in emergency preparedness
    this past year.
        As we move forward we are prototyping a remote check-in capability
    that will use BlackBerry devices and will enable staff to check in
    without reporting to the assembly area. We are also testing a system
    that will provide a secure way to account for Senators at a Briefing
    Center or Alternate Chamber. The system will be able to be updated
    real-time.
    Mail Safety
        In addition to the priorities and programs outlined above, a
    critical aspect of our security stems from the anthrax and ricin
    incidents in the past years.
        As a result of these serious exposures, all mail and packages
    coming into the Senate are tested, whether they come through the U.S.
    Postal Service or from other delivery services. We have outstanding
    processing procedures in place here at the Senate. The organizations
    that know the most about securing mail cite the Senate mail facility as
    among the best, and when other government agencies look for ways to
    improve their mail security, they visit our facility.
        Last year, the Senate Post Office processed and delivered over
    14,200,000 items to Senate offices, including over 10,000,000 pieces of
    U.S. Postal Service mail; almost 4,000,000 pieces of internal mail that
    are routed within the Senate and other government agencies; almost
    70,000 packages; and over 150,000 courier items. And we are good
    stewards of taxpayer dollars in the process; we processed about 90
    percent of the number of items that the House of Representatives
    processed and we accomplished it for just over one-third of the cost
    that the House incurred.
        Early in fiscal year 2007 we anticipate moving into a newly
    constructed Senate Mail Facility that will include state-of-the-art
    mail and package inspection and testing. The new facility will provide
    a safer and more secure work environment for Post Office employees. The
    Senate Post Office will continue to process U.S. Postal Service mail at
    the new facility using the techniques we currently use. Once we move
    into the new facility, we will also take over package processing, which
    is currently provided by a vendor. We expect that bringing the
    processing of packages in house will increase the security of the
    packages and will save the Senate over $200,000 annually.
    Foreign Codels
        Our security efforts are not limited to Capitol Hill, but also
    include security for Senators on foreign Congressional delegations. The
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 authorized Capitol Police
    officers to travel outside the United States in a liaison capacity to
    coordinate security arrangements for Senators traveling individually or
    as part of a CODEL. SAA staff, the Capitol Police, and the Department
    of State have moved forward on implementing this authority. Capitol
    Police officers have been trained, and, over the next year, will start
    accompanying the State Department security personnel to enhance the
    security for Senators when they travel overseas.
      information technology: a strategy for security and customer service
        We continue to place special emphasis on leveraging technology to
    enhance security, emergency preparedness, service, and support for the
    United States Senate. Last year we created the Senate's first
    Information Technology Strategic Plan, An IT Vision for Security,
    Customer Service and Teamwork at the United States Senate 2005-2007,
    and this year we are half-way through executing that plan. We have
    already accomplished some impressive results.
      --The Senate's state-of-the-art alternate computing facility, which
            helps us ensure the Senate's continuity if an event prevents us
            from using our primary computing facility, has been completed
            and fully tested.
      --We continue to measure our customers' satisfaction, and to set
            goals for each year. This year, we set the goal at 80 percent
            satisfaction, and we exceeded that goal by earning a total
            customer satisfaction score of 85 percent, based on a 70
            percent response rate from offices.
      --The Senate's first security operations center, a state-of-the art
            command center to detect electronic threats and protect the
            Senate from them, has been developed and implemented.
      --We have implemented the Active Directory and Messaging Architecture
            in 99 percent of the Senate's offices. This project, the
            largest and most successful infrastructure project ever
            undertaken in the Senate, provides a state-of-the-art messaging
            infrastructure tailored to meet each office's security and
            privacy requirements.
      --We have installed 95 percent of an award-winning wireless
            infrastructure that supports cellular telephones, BlackBerry
            emergency communication devices, and data communications across
            the Senate campus.
        An IT Vision for Security, Customer Service and Teamwork at the
    United States Senate 2005-2007 provided a structure for setting
    priorities and guiding our activities. The plan outlines a strategic
    technology vision, mission, and five broad information technology
    strategic goals. The first annual revision of the plan, An IT Vision
    for Security, Customer Service and Teamwork at the United States Senate
    2006-2008, was recently produced. This updated plan will enable us to
    serve the Senate better by:
      --Reducing paper-based manual processes and moving business online,
      --Developing a consulting practice to align our information
            technology organization with the Senate's business
            requirements, and
      --Creating new information security and assurance initiatives to
            protect the Senate's technology infrastructure and data from
            new forms of security threats.
        We continue to invest in information technology and are pursuing
    major initiatives to support the Senate. The increased staffing levels
    requested will enable us to support new business applications, IT
    security, and inventory management.
    Secure, Accessible, Flexible and Reliable Systems in a Modern
            Information Infrastructure
        We are improving the security of the information infrastructure
    that protects data, respects privacy, enables continuous Senate
    operations, and supports our emergency and continuity plans. Our
    efforts over the past year have enabled us to support alternate sites
    and the replication of information, as well as emergency and
    contingency communications. We are delivering increased support for
    remote access and are completing the in-building wireless
    infrastructure. A significant commitment to information technology
    security will increasingly protect the Senate from external threats,
    and the multi-year telecommunications modernization project will
    improve the reliability of the infrastructure. This work all focuses on
    improving the ability of the Senate to accomplish its mission.
                Alternate Sites and Information Replication
        We continue to develop our ability to relocate information systems
    capability at the alternate computing facility (ACF). Every critical
    Senate enterprise information system has been replicated there, and
    this past December we conducted the first comprehensive test of the
    facility; the Senate's primary computing facilities were shut down
    completely and reconstituted at the ACF. This comprehensive exercise,
    which we intend to repeat twice a year, was a complete success. It also
    provided our technical staff with an opportunity to practice the
    procedures they would have to perform in an emergency.
        This past year, with guidance from the Committee on Rules and
    Administration, we provided the Senate's Leadership Offices and
    Committees the capability to replicate all of their data files at the
    ACF. As of February 2006, all of the Leadership Offices and seventeen
    Committees had taken advantage of this capability, which provides the
    Senate with an unprecedented ability to access institutional data in
    the event of an emergency.
                Emergency and Contingency Communications
        We have a comprehensive array of communications systems and options
    available so the Senate will be able to communicate in an emergency.
    This year we conducted final testing on our two Senate emergency
    response communications vehicles. These vehicles have network,
    telephone, and satellite connectivity, and provide the ability to
    relocate much of the Senate's information infrastructure virtually
    anywhere. We have trained deployment teams and are updating the
    vehicles' concept of operations documents.
                Remote Access
        Senate Continuity of Operations and reconstitution sites have been
    equipped with telecommunications, data networks, and video
    teleconferencing. Additionally, mobile and remote computing
    technologies allow Senate staff to access and modify their information
    and communicate from virtually anywhere, anytime. We provide enhanced,
    secure access to e-mail, files, the Senate intranet, and a host of
    applications. We also added the ability to provide inexpensive, secure
    access to our network from overseas. We will continue to enhance and
    expand these capabilities in order to support a potentially dispersed
    workforce and provide the ability to telecommute.
                In-Building Wireless Infrastructure
        This past year we completed installation of an in-building wireless
    infrastructure in all of the Senate Office Buildings. We are now
    working in the Capitol; the basement and attic levels are complete, and
    we will finish installation in the rest of the building this year. This
    innovative system, which won a Government Computing News Best Practices
    Award, improved signal strengths for the carrier for data-only
    BlackBerry service and for the major cellular telephone carriers. The
    infrastructure provides coverage in areas where it was previously poor
    or non-existent and enables Senate staff to connect back to their
    offices wirelessly. The system has substantially paid for itself,
    saving taxpayers nearly $3 million, because the carriers are paying us
    for the right to use it.
                Securing our Information Infrastructure
        During a recent four-month period, our most visible IT system, the
    Senate's website www.senate.gov, was the target of over 17 million
    discrete unsuccessful security events from almost 200,000 different
    Internet addresses. A recent external security review of the site
    helped us make some adjustments that will secure the site even more,
    but the site itself is a prime target for attacks.
        Similar to security in the physical world, security in the
    information technology world requires constant vigilance and the
    ability to deter attacks. The threats to our information infrastructure
    are increasing in frequency and sophistication, and they come from
    spyware, adware, malware, trojans, keyloggers, spybots, adbots, and
    trackware, all of which continuously search for vulnerabilities in our
    systems. Countering the evolving threat environment means increasing
    our awareness of the situation, improving our processes, and
    continually researching, testing, and deploying new security
    technologies. Because we have very little advance notice of new types
    of attacks, we have flexible security control structures and processes
    that are continually revised and adjusted.
        Protecting the Senate's information is one of the most important
    responsibilities of the Sergeant at Arms. This year we have taken
    tremendous strides in this area with the development and operation of
    the Senate's first security operations center (SOC). A redundant SOC is
    currently under construction at the alternate computing facility to
    ensure the Senate's continuity of information security operations. The
    mission of the SOC is to identify and understand threats, assess
    vulnerabilities, identify failure points and bottlenecks, determine
    potential impacts, and remedy problems before they adversely affect
    Senate operations. With the SOC, we implement proactive and preemptive
    actions to deter and thwart attacks on the Senate's information
    infrastructure and prevent compromise of precious and sensitive data.
        We augment this capability with close liaisons to other federal
    agencies to ensure we have the most up-to-date information and
    techniques for combating the threats. Running within the SOC, a state-
    of-the-art security information management system aggregates and
    reports on data from a variety of sources worldwide to help us track
    potential attackers before they can harm us. The combination of the
    security operations center, our defense-in-depth capability at all
    levels of our network infrastructure, and our enterprise anti-virus/
    anti-spyware programs have proven highly effective.
        One way we determine success in IT security is by measuring and
    tracking what does not happen. Because of improved processes,
    cooperation across the Senate, and improved security technologies, we
    have not experienced a systemic outage within our IT infrastructure due
    to a security incident in two years. Yet the threat environment, as
    measured by detected security incidents, remains very high. The Senate
    relies on electronic mail to carry out its business functions. In the
    past 90 days, our e-mail anti-virus controls detected and eradicated
    over 1.5 million infected e-mail attachments destined for Senate
    accounts. Other anti-virus/worm controls detected and countered 148,472
    viral events from 709 computers located in 120 Senate offices between
    November 20, 2005, and February 20, 2006. During this same period, a
    daily average of only 25-30 individual computers showed signs of
    infection. To date, 136 Senate offices use the managed anti-virus
    systems, and the systems protect over 11,000 Senate computers. This is
    one of the main reasons that worm outbreaks affect only about 60 Senate
    computers while just two years ago, outbreaks infected several thousand
    and caused notable disruption. Our anti-virus products are
    comprehensive.
        Information security must continue to be an area of emphasis and
    growth. We will continue to invest in this technology and we plan to
    increase the size of this group during fiscal year 2007.
                The Senate Telecommunications Modernization Program
        We are currently in the midst of a multi-year plan to modernize the
    Senate's entire telecommunications infrastructure. The modernization
    will provide improved reliability and redundancy to support daily
    operations and continuity concerns, and will take advantage of
    technological advances to provide a more flexible and robust
    communications infrastructure. During this past year we completed
    gathering the requirements and we now are in the final stages of
    preparing a request for proposals to be released this spring. We
    anticipate entering into a contract this summer to upgrade or replace
    Senate telecommunications systems, including the main DMS-100 telephone
    switch, G3i PBX, Conference Bridge, fax broadcast system, Group Alert
    System, voice mail system, and the telecommunications management system
    that we use for provisioning of telephone service and to generate the
    telephone bills and directories.
        Most of the Senate's voice communications infrastructure is based
    on older technologies. Under the telecommunications modernization
    program, we will re-engineer this infrastructure to provide redundancy
    for increased reliability and availability resulting in a state-of-the-
    art system built upon converged voice, data, and video communications
    technologies. This approach will allow economies of scale in
    construction and management, and from the user's side, the ability in
    the future to have a synchronized audio and video conference with
    document sharing and collaboration at their workstation. Users may also
    be able to access live or archived video on their workstation, and
    combine information from a database with a telephone call that is being
    transferred from one person to another.
    Modern Technology to Enhance Customer Service
                Customer Service, Satisfaction, and Communications
        We continue to pay attention to how well we meet the Senate's
    technology needs. Our third annual CIO Customer Satisfaction survey
    revealed that we reached an overall customer satisfaction rating of 85
    percent. We have conducted follow-up surveys for the last two years,
    and our customer satisfaction rating increased in each of those years.
    These results are very exciting and they indicate that we are moving in
    the right direction. The Customer Satisfaction survey helps the CIO
    organization develop a focused customer satisfaction action plan.
        This year, to provide status and critical information about Senate
    systems more quickly, we instituted a comprehensive system outage
    notification strategy linking e-mail notifications, Help Desk activity,
    and the Senate's intranet to report system outage information in near-
    real time. Another new and innovative communication approach we
    implemented is a CIO Web log or blog, which uses the power of the
    intranet as a communication channel to disseminate information to our
    customers quickly.
        We opened a new technology resource center in March that serves as
    a common technology document repository and technical library. This
    facility, with both hard-copy documents and an on-line library, is an
    outstanding resource for sharing technical information and for
    documenting and recording business practices for continuity purposes.
        In addition to our annual comprehensive survey, our Help Desk
    follows all of its service calls with a customer satisfaction survey.
    This past year our Help Desk contractor consistently posted customer
    satisfaction results at or above 96 percent.
                A New Information Technology Support Contract
        The final option period of our current IT support contract ends in
    September 2007. Due to the contract's large size, importance with
    respect to customer service, and complexity, we have begun the process
    of constructing a request for proposals that incorporates the lessons
    we have learned during the current contract. We expect to release the
    request for proposals during the summer of 2006, with contract award in
    early 2007. We plan to allow for a transition period to ensure minimal
    disruption or degradation in service quality.
                A Robust, Reliable, Modern Messaging Architecture
        We are completing deployment of the comprehensive Active Directory
    and Messaging Architecture that provides a spectrum of options for data
    management that ranges from centralized to distributed. A great success
    story, this project began in 2003 with the three primary goals of
    providing a computing platform that would enable offices to replace
    servers running the now-unsupported Windows NT 4 operating system,
    improving the messaging system, and providing offices with choices to
    meet their varying business needs. Technical design was led by CIO
    staff with support from our vendor partners. The design options were
    presented to Senate offices along with the expected impact on each
    office of migrating all computers, user accounts, and e-mail. We
    committed to specific time frames for completing each office migration,
    and we met those timeframes for every office.
                Web-Based and Customer-Focused Business Applications
        The CIO completed the design for the first Senate services portal
    this year. Based on requirements of Senate Leadership and the Committee
    on Rules and Administration, the portal, called TranSAAct, will move
    paper-based, manual processes to the Web. TranSAAct will allow Member
    offices to manage and track invoices for SAA services through a Web
    interface, and it will provide access to a host of Web-based
    applications, such as the on-line Service Academy Nominations System.
    Built on an extensible modern database framework, TranSAAct will allow
    for expansion as new applications are added. With the formal design of
    TranSAAct's first phase complete, we are currently engaged with the
    Administrative Managers Steering Group in a user verification and
    validation process that will lead to complete development and Senate-
    wide rollout later this year.
        We have continued delivering support to the Secretary of the Senate
    through improvements and enhancements of the Financial Management
    Information System (FMIS) and the Legislative Information System (LIS).
    We worked with the Secretary supporting FMIS by providing four Web FMIS
    releases which added functionality, improvements to the user interface,
    and enhancements to disaster recovery processes.
                Enhanced Communications and Infrastructure
        A variety of projects will provide enhanced communications within
    and between offices. Enhanced communications are being delivered on an
    improved network infrastructure, and frame relay bandwidth to the state
    offices has been significantly increased to support videoconferencing
    and data replication. The highly successful videoconferencing program,
    which enables staff members in Capitol Hill offices to conduct
    videoconferences with state offices and other remote locations, has
    installed nearly 400 endpoints to date. The electronic fax program is
    replacing stand-alone fax machines with an integrated server-based fax
    system that eliminates paper. We anticipate completion of the
    enterprise tape backup system during this year; the system already
    automatically backs up over one hundred servers located in our primary
    computing facility to the alternate computing facility.
                Promoting Modern Information Technology in the Senate
        A new Technology Demonstration Center, located with our customers
    in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, was opened this past year. At
    the Center, customers can try all of the available information
    technology equipment before making purchases. We also use the Center
    for live demonstrations of new and emerging technologies. We anticipate
    more of these types of activities in the Demonstration Center in the
    upcoming year.
        Last year we hosted two highly successful Senate Emerging
    Technology Conferences and Exhibitions to expose Senate staff members
    to new technologies and concepts. These conferences are designed around
    technology themes of immediate interest Senate-wide.
        In order to perform technology assessments, feasibility analysis,
    and proof of concept studies, we recently created an advanced
    technology assessment laboratory. Technologies and solutions are vetted
    and tested here prior to being announced for pilot, prototype, or mass
    deployment to the Senate. Results of studies performed in the
    laboratory are published on the emerging technology page of the CIO's
    intranet site on Webster. To ensure that the laboratory considers the
    proper technologies and solutions, we have also chartered a Senate-wide
    technology assessment group consisting of members of the CIO
    organization and our customers. The group performs high-level
    requirements analysis and helps prioritize new technologies and
    solutions for investigation in the laboratory, prototype development,
    pilot, and full-scale rollout.
       operations and support: consistently delivering excellent service
        The commitment to exceptional customer service is a hallmark of the
    Sergeant at Arms organization and the cornerstone of our support
    functions. The groups that make up our support team continue to provide
    exceptional customer service to the Senate community.
    Capitol Facilities
        Capitol Facilities staff works around the clock to ensure that the
    furniture and furnishings are of the highest quality, cabinetry and
    framing are outstanding, and the environment within the Capitol is
    clean and professional. We are in the process of implementing an
    integrated work management system with a Web interface for service
    requests. The system will enable customers to view all furnishings
    currently in stock without making an escorted trip to the storage
    facility, to request environmental services and keys, and to view
    special function rooms and request set-ups. Customers will be able to
    check the status of their requests through tracking numbers.
        This past year we also increased our support for the Senate in our
    framing and furnishings areas. We purchased a dry mounting press that
    expands the framing shop's capabilities by enabling permanent mounting
    of newspaper articles and photos, and we implemented a furniture
    finishing protocol that replicates the original finish for historical
    pieces in the Capitol.
        The opening of the Capitol Visitor Center will add 66,500 square
    feet of Senate space to our responsibilities: 41,000 square feet of
    office space, 8,000 square feet of meeting space, and 17,500 square
    feet of other space. Compared to our current obligations, we will clean
    and maintain almost one-third more office space and three times more
    meeting space, and will furnish over 50 percent more office and meeting
    space. This will require us to hire 17 new employees before the Center
    opens.
    Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail
        Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail, or PGDM, provides printing,
    photocopying, design, and production services to the Senate. Last year,
    it printed 16,850,962 sheets in color (a 12 percent increase over the
    2004 volume, and 400 percent increase over 2003), and it produced
    almost 10,000 floor charts. PGDM provides a variety of other services
    to the Senate including the management of the Senate Support Facility,
    and support for the digital scanning of incoming constituent
    correspondence.
        Senate Support Facility.--We are pleased to report that we have a
    new, fully operational Senate Support Facility that enables us to
    provide secure storage for use by the Secretary of the Senate and the
    Sergeant at Arms. This facility provides a secure, climate-controlled
    environment to warehouse the Senate's historical art and artifacts,
    Senate equipment and supplies, and some of the Senate's emergency
    transportation vehicles. The facility came on-line this past February,
    and all the contents and functions of the six previously dispersed
    warehouse locations have been moved and consolidated into the new
    facility.
        Correspondence Support.--During 2005 the guidance we provided to
    Members' staffs on addressing outgoing mail in a format that takes full
    advantage of postage discounts resulted in savings of almost $2
    million. We also started offering digital scanning of incoming
    constituent mail and outgoing response letters that works in
    conjunction with the existing correspondence management systems. This
    new capability enables users to import images of their office mail.
    Sixteen Senate offices have chosen to use these imaging services, and
    we scanned more than 240,000 documents during the first twelve months
    of this program.
    Employee Assistance Program
        Over the past year we enhanced and expanded our Employee Assistance
    Program. The program provides assessments and short-term counseling for
    Senate staff and their family members twenty-four-hours-a-day, seven-
    days-a-week. It improves the ability of supervisors to manage troubled
    employees, to enhance the work environment, and to improve employee job
    performance. It also helps employees find the resources they need to
    address some of the personal challenges they face every day. The
    Employee Assistance Program coordinates with security staff to train
    people on reacting to emergencies and to ensure that processes are in
    place to deal with emergencies.
        During the past year, the EAP staff worked with people in the
    offices affected by Hurricane Katrina, and built even stronger
    relationships with managers across the Senate. The staff also trained a
    Peer Support Team that can provide immediate support to employees and
    their family members if they are affected by a critical event.
    Recording Studio
        The Recording Studio televises the activity on the Senate Floor and
    in Committee hearings, and it provides a production studio and
    equipment for Senators' use. Last year, it televised all 1,222 hours of
    Senate Floor proceedings, as well as 744 Committee hearings.
        Committee Hearing Room Upgrade.--In 2003 we started a project to
    upgrade and install multimedia equipment in Committee hearing rooms.
    The project included digital signal processing, audio systems, and
    broadcast-quality robotic camera systems.
        To date we have installed upgrades in eight hearing rooms. Several
    more rooms are scheduled for upgrades in the near future. These
    enhancements include improved speech intelligibility and software-based
    systems that we can configure based on individual Committee needs. The
    system's backup will take over within minutes if the main electronics
    fail, and because the system is networked, staff can automatically
    route audio from one hearing room to other hearing rooms to accommodate
    overflow crowds.
        The most significant work we anticipate for the Senate Recording
    Studio over the next year is its move to the Capitol Visitor Center.
    This move will enable the Recording Studio to complete its upgrade to a
    full High Definition facility, and to implement a number of
    improvements that have been planned to coincide with the opening of the
    Center.
    Education and Training
        The Joint Office of Education and Training provides employee
    training and development opportunities for all Senate staff in
    Washington, D.C., and in the states. This past year, we conducted an
    assessment of our training program to ensure we are meeting the needs
    of the Senate community. The assessment helped us identify skills that
    are fundamental to success at the Senate, including the ability to
    communicate effectively and collaborate well. We also identified key
    skills for managers and supervisors, including the ability to motivate,
    create a vision, organize, and delegate. In response to the needs we
    identified, we will offer certificate curricula in communications and
    teamwork.
        The Education and Training group offered 425 classes in 2005, with
    6,920 Senate staff members taking advantage of these classes. The
    registration desk handled 31,960 e-mails, telephone calls, and on-line
    registration requests.
        Of the total number of classes, the technical training group
    offered 187 classes to 1,521 staff members, and provided coaching on
    various software packages and other computer-related subjects to 702
    staff members. The professional development area offered 237 classes to
    4,973 students, and delivered more than 50 special training and team
    building sessions to Member and Committee offices. The professional
    development group addresses team performance, communication, and
    conflict resolution, and we encourage managers and supervisors to
    request customized training for their offices. During the last quarter
    of the year, staff from the professional development group offered
    training through video teleconferencing to two state offices. In the
    health promotion area, 1,492 staff members participated in the Annual
    Health Fair held in September, and 1,240 participated in health
    promotion activities throughout the year, including cancer screening,
    bone density screening, and seminars on health-related topics.
        Most of the classes we offer are practical only for staff based in
    Washington, D.C., but we are continuing to expand our offerings to
    state office staff. In 2005 we offered three sessions of the State
    Training Fair to 119 state office staff, and we conducted our annual
    State Directors Forum for the 37 state managers and directors. The
    ``Virtual Classroom,'' an Internet-based training library of over 500
    courses, also enables state office staff to take advantage of the
    Senate's training resources; 379 staff members from state offices and
    Washington, D.C., have taken advantage of this training option.
                            challenges for next year
        We met the challenges that we faced this year, and adapted our
    responses to provide better service and support to the Senate. While we
    do not know all the challenges next year will bring, we can anticipate
    some of them. We expect that the Capitol Visitor Center will open, that
    we will start to move forward on an enhanced process for issuing and
    accounting for Congressional identification and access cards, and that
    this year's election will result in some changes in the membership of
    the Senate. We also know that we will face challenges related to IT
    security, our technical infrastructure, and our work moving the
    Senate's business to the Web. We are planning for these changes.
    Capitol Visitor Center
        The opening of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) will affect much of
    the work of this office. The Capitol Facilities group will be affected
    dramatically, since the work of that group will expand to include one-
    third more space than it currently maintains. The opening will also
    affect the Senate Recording Studio, which will move into the new space.
    The CVC incorporates significant security features, and we are working
    with other agencies to develop the processes to ensure that the Capitol
    remains secure.
        As part of the Capitol Visitor Center, we are installing state-of-
    the-art communications facilities in the Senate expansion space. We
    will provide a redundant communications path into the Capitol, and our
    in-building wireless coverage for cellular devices will extend into the
    core of the Center as well as into the Senate expansion space. We will
    also provide any additional office automation equipment required by the
    occupants of the space. Since most of the CVC's occupants are going to
    relocate from elsewhere on Capitol Hill, we do not expect to spend a
    significant amount of money on new equipment.
    Congressional Identification and Access Cards
        The Executive Branch is implementing a major initiative to use
    Smart Cards as standard identification and access cards across all
    departments of the federal government. We have been following the
    progress it is making, and are also looking to determine how to
    increase the security surrounding identification and access cards
    issued at the Senate and across the Legislative Branch agencies. The
    processes for issuing cards are different across the Capitol campus. We
    are starting to work with representatives from each major Legislative
    Branch agency to identify the requirements that satisfy each agency's
    or organization's security policies so we can determine how we might
    create standard processes. Just within the Senate, we issue
    identification and access cards to people from the media, pages,
    interns, temporary staff, full-time staff, and others. During the 108th
    Congress, we issued 41,000 cards--15,000 to the press. The challenge of
    tracking and recovering these cards has been daunting. By undertaking
    this initiative, we expect to be able to increase the accountability
    for the cards and the security of the Senate.
    Transition to New Congress
        This year, we will also face one challenge that we face every other
    year: the transition to a new Congress. Thirty-three Senators face
    election this year, and four Members have announced their retirement,
    so we will have at least four new Senators next year. The transition
    includes providing space for newly elected Senators, and providing the
    whole range of support they need to set up their offices and start
    accomplishing their work for the American people. We provide
    orientation for newly elected Senators, their Chiefs of Staff, and
    their Administrative Managers. We work to ensure that newly elected
    Senators learn about the resources available to help them serve their
    constituents and accomplish their legislative goals. We also make sure
    returning Senators and staff receive up-to-date information about the
    services available.
        We are engaged in closing down state and Capitol Hill offices of
    departing Members, equipping the transition office to house Senators-
    elect from the date of election until the beginning of the next
    Congress, moving the newly sworn-in Senators into their temporary
    suites, and then moving offices as required during the regular office
    move process.
        For closing offices, we shut down all communications services,
    determine which equipment can be inherited by Members' successors, and
    inventory and remove all equipment in coordination with the other
    activities of the office. For new and relocated offices, we establish
    all communications facilities, acquire and install all office
    automation and general office equipment, and ensure that everything
    works as it should.
    IT Security
        In the IT security threat environment, the list of potential
    threats to our information infrastructure is growing in number and
    sophistication. Over the next year, we will meet the challenge of
    managing a volatile security environment by: (1) expanding the role of
    the recently established security operations center; (2) optimizing our
    current configuration of security controls; (3) improving our
    collaboration with other federal agencies in the areas of incident
    response and situational awareness; (4) evaluating, testing, and
    deploying new security control mechanisms; and (5) enhancing
    communication with IT staff in Member and Committee Offices to give
    them timely and usable information in order to improve the security
    posture of their local IT systems.
    Information Technology Infrastructure
        We will complete the build out of the wireless infrastructure for
    laptops; for the Parking, Guide Service, and Capitol Police radio
    systems; and for the Senate Cloakroom paging systems. We will also
    aggressively pursue alternative hand-held communications devices and we
    will ensure that any devices we support will deliver seamless emergency
    notifications. Finally, over the next year we will award the
    telecommunications modernization contract and complete its first
    phases. This comprehensive upgrade and replacement of our
    telecommunications systems will enable the Senate to take advantage of
    Voice over Internet Protocol and converged voice, video, and data
    communications.
    Moving Business to the Web and Enterprise Software Initiatives
        We will continue our initiatives to reduce paperwork and move
    business to the Web by developing the TranSAAct portal to deliver and
    integrate services and systems and provide two-way Web interaction
    between customers and service providers. As we move forward on
    TranSAAct, we are working with Senate customers to identify and
    integrate additional requirements. We are also planning for the next
    major release of Microsoft's operating system, Vista. Deploying this
    system and integrating it with other applications will require
    tremendous effort. Building on these developments, we will work toward
    integrating systems and applications through a Web-services
    architecture that will reduce redundancy and eliminate ``stove-pipe''
    systems.
                                   conclusion
        We take our responsibilities to the American people and to their
    elected representatives seriously. The Office of the Sergeant at Arms
    is like dozens of small businesses, each with its own primary mission,
    each with its own measures of success, and each with its own culture.
    It has a fleet of vehicles that serves Senate Leadership, delivers
    goods, and provides emergency transportation. Our Photography Studio
    records historic events, takes official Senate portraits, provides the
    whole range of Capitol photography services, and delivers thousands of
    pictures each year. The SAA's printing shop provides layout and design,
    graphics development, and production of everything from newsletters to
    floor charts. The Office of the Sergeant at Arms also operates a page
    dormitory, a hair salon, and parking lots. It provides many other
    services to support the Senate community, including framing, flag
    packaging and mailing, and intranet services. Each of these businesses
    requires personnel with different skills and different abilities. One
    thing that they all have in common, though, is their commitment to
    making the Senate run smoothly.
        Over the past year, the staff of the SAA has kept the Senate safe,
    secure, and operating efficiently. This Committee and the Committee on
    Rules and Administration have provided active, ongoing support to help
    us achieve our goals. We thank you for your support and for the
    opportunity to present this testimony and respond to any questions you
    may have.
                  Appendix A--Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request
                                  attachment i
                      financial plan for fiscal year 2007
              office of the sergeant at arms--united states senate

                                                    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
                                                                        Fiscal      Fiscal       Fiscal Year 2006
                                                                       Year 2006   Year 2007 -----------------------
                                                                        Budget      Request                 Percent
                                                                                                Amount     Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries....................................................     $56,700     $62,604      $5,904        10.4
        Expenses....................................................     $65,505     $79,211     $13,706        20.9
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance....................    $122,205    $141,815     $19,610        16.0
                                                                     ===============================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments................................     $55,282     $57,757      $2,475         4.5
    Capital Investment..............................................     $17,262     $19,831      $2,569        14.9
    Nondiscretionary Items..........................................      $3,951      $4,640        $689        17.4
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.....................................................    $198,700    $224,043     $25,343        12.8
                                                                     ===============================================
    Staffing........................................................         910         944          34         3.7
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To ensure that we provide the highest levels and quality of
    security, support services and equipment, we submit a fiscal year 2007
    budget request of $224,043,000, an increase of $25,343,000 or 12.8
    percent compared to fiscal year 2006. The salary budget request is
    $62,604,000, an increase of $5,904,000 or 10.4 percent, and the expense
    budget request is $161,439,000, an increase of $19,439,000 or 13.7
    percent. The staffing request is 944, an increase of 34 FTEs.
        We present our budget in four categories: General Operations and
    Maintenance (Salaries and Expenses), Mandated Allowances and
    Allotments, Capital Investment, and Nondiscretionary Items.
      --The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
            $62,604,000, an increase of $5,904,000 or 10.4 percent compared
            to fiscal year 2006. The salary budget increase is due to the
            addition of 34 FTEs, a COLA, and merit funding. The additional
            staff will support the Capitol Visitor Center, augment our
            security team, expand services, and meet new requirements for
            the Senate community.
      --The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request for
            existing and new services is $79,211,000, an increase of
            $13,706,000 or 20.9 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. Major
            factors contributing to the expense budget increase are
            emergency preparedness in security operations and planning,
            $7,847,000; additional services and locations under the IT
            support contract, $1,535,000; telephone system maintenance,
            $1,097,000; consulting and equipment purchases for the Active
            Directory Messaging Architecture, $1,024,000; and maintenance
            costs related to Enterprise Storage, $585,000.
      --The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
            $57,757,000, an increase of $2,475,000 or 4.5 percent compared
            to fiscal year 2006. This variance is primarily due to an
            increase in Member mail system costs, $1,745,000; and state
            office security enhancements of $700,000, offset by decreases
            in office lease costs.
      --The capital investment budget request is $19,831,000, an increase
            of $2,569,000 or 14.9 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. The
            fiscal year 2007 budget request includes funds for the
            replacement and upgrade of the telephone system, $10,475,000;
            data network engineering costs, $2,345,000; electronic printing
            and publication network, $1,800,000; hardware purchases related
            to the SAN upgrade, $1,750,000; and the Network Upgrade
            project, $1,646,000.
      --The nondiscretionary items budget request is $4,640,000, an
            increase of $689,000 or 17.4 percent compared to fiscal year
            2006. The request funds three projects that support the
            Secretary of the Senate: contract maintenance for the Financial
            Management Information System (FMIS), $3,703,000; maintenance
            and necessary enhancements to the Legislative Information
            System (LIS), $840,000; and maintenance and enhancements to the
            Senate Payroll System, $97,000.
         attachment ii.--fiscal year 2007 budget request by department
        The following is a summary of the SAA fiscal year 2007 budget
    request on an organizational basis.

                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
                                                                        Fiscal      Fiscal       Fiscal Year 2006
                                                                       Year 2006   Year 2007 -----------------------
                                                                        Budget      Request                 Percent
                                                                                                Amount     Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Capitol Division................................................     $25,568     $35,399      $9,831        38.5
    Operations......................................................     $52,515     $53,558      $1,043         2.0
    Technology Development..........................................     $41,153     $47,676      $6,523        15.9
    IT Support Services.............................................     $66,927     $71,901      $4,974         7.4
    Staff Offices...................................................     $12,537     $15,509      $2,972        23.7
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.....................................................    $198,700    $224,043     $25,343        12.8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Each department's budget is presented and discussed in detail on
    the next pages.

                                                    CAPITOL DIVISION
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
                                                                        Fiscal      Fiscal       Fiscal Year 2006
                                                                       Year 2006   Year 2007 -----------------------
                                                                        Budget      Request                 Percent
                                                                                                Amount     Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries....................................................     $14,530     $15,908      $1,378         9.5
        Expenses....................................................      $7,938     $15,691      $7,753        97.7
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance....................     $22,468     $31,599      $9,131        40.6
                                                                     ===============================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments................................      $3,100      $3,800        $700        22.6
    Capital Investment..............................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    Nondiscretionary Items..........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.....................................................     $25,568     $35,399      $9,831        38.5
                                                                     ===============================================
    Staffing........................................................         273         278           5         1.8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Capitol Division consists of the Executive Office, the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness, the
      U.S. Capitol Police Operations Liaison, Post Office, Recording Studio and Media Galleries.

        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $15,908,000, an increase of $1,378,000 or 9.5 percent. The salary
    budget increase is due to the addition of five FTEs, a COLA and merit
    increases, and other adjustments. The Office of Security and Emergency
    Preparedness requires an additional COOP planning specialist, and the
    Post Office will add four mail specialists to handle the opening,
    examining, and sampling of commercially delivered packages to the new
    Senate offsite processing facility.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
    $15,691,000, an increase of $7,753,000 or 97.7 percent, and will
    primarily will fund security consultants and services required by the
    Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness.
        The mandated allowances and allotments budget request for state
    office security initiatives is $3,800,000.

                                                       OPERATIONS
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
                                                                       Fiscal      Fiscal        Fiscal Year 2006
                                                                      Year 2006   Year 2007 ------------------------
                                                                       Budget      Request                  Percent
                                                                                                Amount     Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries...................................................     $16,592     $18,308      $1,716         10.3
        Expenses...................................................      $5,971      $6,323        $352          5.9
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance...................     $22,563     $24,631      $2,068          9.2
                                                                    ================================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments...............................     $27,332     $26,777       ($555)        -2.0
    Capital Investment.............................................      $2,620      $2,150       ($470)       -17.9
    Nondiscretionary Items.........................................  ..........  ..........  ...........  ..........
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL....................................................     $52,515     $53,558      $1,043          2.0
                                                                    ================================================
    Staffing.......................................................         302         319          17          5.6
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Operations Division consists of the Central Operations Group (Director/Management, Parking Office, Printing,
      Graphics and Direct Mail, Photo Studio, and Hair Care Services), Facilities, and the Office Support Services
      Group (Director, Customer Support, State Office Liaison, IT Request Processing and Administrative Services).

        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $18,308,000, an increase of $1,716,000 or 10.3 percent. The salary
    budget increase is due to the addition of 17 FTEs, an expected 3.5
    percent a COLA, and merit increases. Facilities expects to hire 17
    staff to maintain the Senate expansion space in the Capitol Visitor
    Center.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
    $6,323,000, an increase of $352,000 or 5.9 percent. In Printing,
    Graphics and Direct Mail, increases in software and equipment
    maintenance, $185,000, and purchased equipment, $120,000, are offset by
    a decrease in warehouse rent, $860,000. Facilities furnishings and
    materials increase $516,000.
        The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
    $26,777,000, a decrease of $555,000 or 2.0 percent. This decrease is
    due to projected decreases in commercial and federal office expenses.
        The capital investment budget request is $2,150,000, a decrease of
    $470,000 or 17.9 percent. Funding is requested to purchase a new
    electronic printing and publishing network, $1,800,000, and to replace
    photo printing equipment and upgrade software, $250,000.

                                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
                                                                        Fiscal      Fiscal       Fiscal Year 2006
                                                                       Year 2006   Year 2007 -----------------------
                                                                        Budget      Request                 Percent
                                                                                                Amount     Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries....................................................     $11,787     $13,127      $1,340        11.4
        Expenses....................................................     $22,948     $23,398        $450         2.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance....................     $34,735     $36,525      $1,790         5.2
                                                                     ===============================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    Capital Investment..............................................      $2,467      $6,511      $4,044       163.9
    Nondiscretionary Items..........................................      $3,951      $4,640        $689        17.4
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.....................................................     $41,153     $47,676      $6,523        15.9
                                                                     ===============================================
    Staffing........................................................         134         140           6         4.5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Technology Development Services includes the Technology Development Director, Network Engineering and
      Management, Enterprise IT Operations, Systems Development Services, Information Systems Security and Internet/
      Intranet Services.

        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $13,127,000, an increase of $1,340,000 or 11.4 percent. The salary
    budget increase is due to the addition of six FTEs, a COLA and merit
    funding for fiscal year 2007. Technology Development requires six FTEs
    to support the growing demand on IT Security, to meet additional
    requirements for the ACF, and to eliminate of a backlog of development
    projects.
        The general operations and maintenance expense budget request is
    $23,398,000, an increase of $450,000 or 2.0 percent. This increase is
    due to increased equipment maintenance and professional services costs
    in IT Security, $422,000; the purchase of computer and mainframe
    equipment and furnishings in Enterprise IT Operations, $638,000; and
    hardware and software maintenance for Enterprise Storage, $585,000,
    offset by a decrease in support costs for the Senate Messaging
    Infrastructure, $1,000,000.
        The capital investment budget request is $6,511,000, an increase of
    $4,044,000 or 163.9 percent. Major projects include the SAN Upgrade,
    $1,750,000; network upgrade in support the Telecom Modernization Plan,
    $1,550,000; and the fiber optic migration, $900,000.
        The nondiscretionary items budget request is $4,640,000, an
    increase of $689,000 or 17.4 percent. The request consists of three
    projects that support the Secretary of the Senate: contract maintenance
    for the Financial Management Information System (FMIS), maintenance and
    necessary enhancements to the Legislative Information System (LIS), and
    maintenance and enhancements to the Senate Payroll System.

                                                   IT SUPPORT SERVICES
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
                                                                       Fiscal      Fiscal        Fiscal Year 2006
                                                                      Year 2006   Year 2007 ------------------------
                                                                       Budget      Request                  Percent
                                                                                                Amount     Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries...................................................      $5,714      $6,260        $546          9.6
        Expenses...................................................     $24,663     $27,821      $3,158         12.8
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance...................     $30,377     $34,081      $3,704         12.2
                                                                    ================================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments...............................     $24,850     $27,180      $2,330          9.4
    Capital Investment.............................................     $11,700     $10,640     ($1,060)        -9.1
    Nondiscretionary Items.........................................  ..........  ..........  ...........  ..........
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL....................................................     $66,927     $71,901      $4,974          7.4
                                                                    ================================================
    Staffing.......................................................         105         107           2          1.9
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The IT Support Services Department consists of the Director, Office Equipment Services, Telecom Services and
      Desktop/LAN Support branches.

        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $6,260,000, an increase of $546,000 or 9.6 percent. The salary budget
    will increase due to the addition of two FTEs, a COLA, and merit
    funding for fiscal year 2007. The additional FTEs will support
    procurement activities and provide advanced technical expertise.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
    $27,821,000, an increase of $3,158,000 or 12.8 percent. The most
    significant factors contributing to this increase are telephone system
    maintenance costs, $1,097,000, and annual escalations in the IT Support
    Contract, $1,535,000.
        The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
    $27,180,000, an increase of $2,330,000 or 9.4 percent. Major factors
    contributing to this budget request are voice and data communications
    for Washington D.C. and state offices, $17,395,000; procurement and
    maintenance of Members' constituent mail systems, $6,000,000;
    procurement and maintenance of office equipment for Washington D.C. and
    state offices, $2,857,000; and Appropriations Analysis and Reporting
    System, $500,000.
        The capital investment budget request is $10,640,000, a decrease of
    $1,060,000 or 9.1 percent, and consists primarily of equipment
    purchases for the replacement of the Capitol Hill telephone system,
    $10,475,000.

                                                      STAFF OFFICES
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
                                                                        Fiscal      Fiscal       Fiscal Year 2006
                                                                       Year 2006   Year 2007 -----------------------
                                                                        Budget      Request                 Percent
                                                                                                Amount     Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries....................................................      $8,077      $9,001        $924        11.4
        Expenses....................................................      $3,985      $5,978      $1,993        50.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance....................     $12,062     $14,979      $2,917        24.2
                                                                     ===============================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    Capital Investment..............................................        $475        $530         $55        11.6
    Nondiscretionary Items..........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........       100.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.....................................................     $12,537     $15,509      $2,972        23.7
                                                                     ===============================================
    Staffing........................................................          96         100           4         4.2
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Staff Offices Division consists of Education and Training, Financial Management, Human Resources, Employee
      Assistance Program, Process Management & Innovation, and Special Projects.

        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $9,001,000, an increase of $924,000 or 11.4 percent. The salary budget
    increase is due to the addition of four FTEs, a COLA, and merit
    funding. Process Management and Innovation requires two FTEs to oversee
    the Active Directory Messaging Architecture. Human Resources and
    Employee Assistance Program each requests an additional FTE to
    accommodate increased staff and demand.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
    $5,978,000, an increase of $1,993,000 or 50.0 percent. The bulk of this
    increase is due to funding for Process Management and Innovation's
    professional services and consultants in support of information
    technology prototypes and innovation research and development.
        The capital investment budget request is $530,000, an increase of
    $55,000 or 11.6 percent, for continuing project support.

                               STAFFING INCREASES

        Senator Allard. Well, thank you. I have a few questions
    that I feel that we need to ask to fully understand what kind
    of plan you are putting together. As we have mentioned, you
    have requested 34 additional staff. Half of those are for the
    CVC--they are new jobs. The other half is for duties and
    responsibilities outside the Capitol Visitor Center, and I
    would like to have an explanation of why you need those and
    what functions are driving that additional staff requirement
    outside the Capitol Visitor Center.
        Mr. Pickle. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I may, let me give you a
    broad answer for those 17 outside the Capitol and then give you
    a written response that breaks down each position. I think this
    will give you a much more thorough answer.
        Senator Allard. That would be helpful.

                                  MAIL SAFETY

        Mr. Pickle. Okay. Essentially, the 17 positions outside the
    CVC are positions that, for the most part, support or enhance
    security. For instance, 4 of those 17 are positions that will
    go to our new mail and package facility. As you know, we
    currently process our own mail at the Senate Post Office. It
    will be a state-of-the-art facility that this subcommittee has
    funded. By all accounts, it's one of the best in the Nation. A
    vendor currently processes packages, and we are taking over the
    package screening and delivery process ourselves. We will use
    four Federal employees to do it. We believe the cost savings
    will be about $200,000 per year. We base this on what we are
    currently paying to the vendor, and we also base it on what we
    see being done on the House side. I like to brag a little bit
    about our staff and what this subcommittee has supported in
    that regard. We currently process about 90 percent of the mail
    volume that the House does. A lot of people think it should be
    much more on the House side, but it's not. Our volume is 90
    percent of the House's volume. Yet, we process that mail at
    almost a $7 million savings per year because we use Senate
    employees. We think similar savings--not as great--will result
    from using Senate employees for the packaging process. In
    addition to those four staff members, there are other FTEs
    sprinkled throughout the SAA to support network applications,
    technology, as well as security and preparedness. One of the
    positions which I do want to highlight for just a moment is in
    our Employee Assistance Program. I don't think people realized
    how important that program is until we began to professionalize
    it here several years ago. Our Employee Assistance Program is
    under a lot of demand from the Senate community. As you know,
    every time we have an incident or a crisis here, we are
    overwhelmed with the particular needs of the staff who work
    here. This program also helps and benefits each office a great
    deal. It helps managers. It helps staff directors. It teaches
    staff to deal with employees that may have some problems and
    issues. It is a single position, but it's a very important
    position. And so what I would like to do with all the others,
    if I may, is give you a much more detailed breakdown, sir.
        [The information follows:]
           Sergeant at Arms Position Justification--Fiscal Year 2007
        Department: Office of Security & Emergency Preparedness
        Branch/Section: Continuity Programs
        Position Title: Continuity Of Operations Planning (COOP) Planning
    Specialist
        No. of Positions Requested: 1
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB10, $67,675-
    $101,508
        Essential Duties of Position: The new staff will operationally
    support the continuity program's existing relocation facilities and
    those that are coming online or being planned for fiscal year 2006. The
    new staff will work from classified or sensitive sites to ensure the
    Senate's operational viability, and will support the State Office COOP
    planning efforts that were initiated in fiscal year 2006.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. Some of these duties are being performed
    now. Current staff is assigned to support primary contingency
    facilities within the National Capitol Region and to support Member
    Offices' COOP planning efforts, but this leaves other facilities
    unattended with questionable operational status in the event of an
    emergency. The COOP planning support for Members' DC and State office
    locations is currently not being adequately supported and this work
    will overwhelm our current planning and preparedness capabilities.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: If the request is not approved, the level of
    planning, preparedness, and response to ensure an effective transition
    to a continuity of operations situation for Member Offices, Committees,
    Senate Offices, and the Senate as a whole will not be adequate. Not
    approving this position would limit our ability to support Member and
    Committee Offices' continuity planning efforts as well as our ability
    to ensure facility readiness for the Senate as a whole.

        Department: Facilities
        Branch/Section: Environmental Services
        Position Title: Facilities Worker
        No. of Positions Requested: 14
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB3, $33,824-
    $50,733
        Essential Duties of Position: The new facilities day staff will
    clean corridors, perform stairway maintenance, set up water for special
    events, and clean up waste. Throughout the day, the staff will ensure
    that the area is clean, decontaminated, and free of all fluid, debris,
    spots, stains and odor. The staff will assist in moving furniture,
    delivering non-furniture items, cleaning public restrooms, setting up
    for special events, and removing trash.
        The new facilities night staff will clean elevators and stairwells,
    conduct early morning room set-ups and break downs, and clean corridors
    and restrooms. The staff will also undertake nightly office cleaning
    and floor care, and will spot clean fabric wall panels.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. These duties are not currently being
    performed. They will be required upon the opening of the Senate
    Expansion Space of the CVC.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, we believe that
    the cost of contracting these services at the service level the Senate
    expects would be prohibitive. Capitol Facilities provides a
    significantly higher level of service than does the AOC's contractor.
    Capitol Facilities consistently delivers the high level of service
    required by the Senate, including an environment that is consistently
    dust-, debris-, and smudge-free; restrooms that are stocked, cleaned
    and sanitized; and floors that are free of dust, debris, soil and
    stains.

        Department: Facilities
        Branch/Section: Environmental Services
        Position Title: Lead Facilities Worker
        No. of Positions Requested: 2
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB4, $37,581-
    $56,368
        Essential Duties of Position: New staff will dedicate 75 percent of
    their time to performing the same duties as the Facilities Workers that
    make up their teams. The remaining time will be dedicated to inspecting
    the team's work.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. These duties are not currently being
    performed. They will be required upon the opening of the Senate
    Expansion Space of the CVC.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, we believe that
    the cost of contracting these services at the service level the Senate
    expects would be prohibitive. Capitol Facilities provides a
    significantly higher level of service than does the AOC's contractor.
    Capitol Facilities consistently delivers the high level of service
    required by the Senate, including an environment that is consistently
    dust-, debris-, and smudge-free; restrooms that are stocked, cleaned
    and sanitized; and floors that are free of dust, debris, soil and
    stains.

        Department: Facilities
        Branch/Section: Facilities Management
        Position Title: Facilities Services Supervisor
        No. of Positions Requested: 1
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB6, $46,395-
    $69,593
        Essential Duties of Position: New staff will assign work, provide
    performance accountability, and provide leadership to the team leaders
    and facilities workers. In addition this staff member will plan work,
    ensure adherence to safety procedures and measures, and ensure that
    staff members comply with Capitol Facilities policies and procedures.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. These duties are not currently being
    performed. They will be required upon the opening of the Senate
    Expansion Space of the CVC.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, facilities
    workers and team leaders will not have the guidance necessary to meet
    the cleaning and service needs of the Senate Expansion Space. Customer
    service and customer service will be affected adversely.

        Department: Post Office
        Branch/Section: Package Delivery Services
        Position Title: Mail Specialist
        No. of Positions Requested: 3
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB3, $33,824-
    $50,733
        Essential Duties of Position: New staff will screen all incoming
    commercial carrier package deliveries (e.g., deliveries from UPS,
    FedEx, DHL, etc.). In addition, these three specialists will process
    items that are too large for the Congressional Acceptance Site.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. These duties are currently being performed
    by a contractor. The current service levels provided by the contractor
    are inadequate and result in late deliveries, incorrect routings, and
    damaged, lost, and unprocessed items.
        The new positions are requested to enable the Senate Post Office to
    bring the processing of packages in house. We expect that this will
    result in significantly better service. The cost to the Senate is
    approximately $170,000 per year, but will result in savings in excess
    of $200,000 annually.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, the Senate will
    continue to experience inadequate service levels, and it will not
    realize the $200,000 savings that we anticipate. The Senate will have
    to continue contractor support at approximately $470,000 per year.
    Costs and savings represent total amounts for the Package Delivery
    service.

        Department: Post Office
        Branch/Section: Package Delivery Services
        Position Title: Lead Mail Specialist
        No. of Positions Requested: 1
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB4, $37,581-
    $56,368
        Essential Duties of Position: New staff will monitor employees
    processing commercial carrier packages (e.g. FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) and
    ensure that proper screening procedures are followed at all times.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. These duties are currently being performed
    by a contractor. The current service levels provided by the contractor
    are inadequate and result in late deliveries, incorrect routings, and
    damaged, lost, and unprocessed items.
        The new position is requested to enable the Senate Post Office to
    bring the processing of packages in house. We expect that this will
    result in significantly better service. The projected salary cost for
    one Lead Mail Specialist is $36,000 in fiscal year 2007. Cost to the
    Senate is approximately $50,000 per year, but will result in savings in
    excess of $200,000 annually.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, the Senate will
    continue to experience inadequate service levels, and it will not
    realize the $200,000 savings that we anticipate. The Senate will have
    to continue contractor support at approximately $470,000 per year.
    Costs and savings represent total amounts for the Package Delivery
    service.

        Department: Technology Development
        Branch/Section: Systems Development--Enterprise Database Support
        Position Title: Senior Information Technology Specialist
        No. of Positions Requested: 1
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: Pay Band 10,
    $67,675-$101,508
        Essential Duties of Position: New staff will administer Windows
    System and SQL Server Databases.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. Duties are currently being performed by
    one individual in the Enterprise Database Support group. Significant
    growth in demand for services and advanced technology implementations
    of this software have created a critical need for additional resources.
    The same person who performs these duties also ensures continuous
    systems availability and performs disaster recovery duties. Having only
    one person with the expertise and daily involvement with the underlying
    architecture that supports critical Senate services, such as Senate.gov
    and the ADMA Blackberry backend database, puts the Senate in a
    precarious position.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, services will
    continue to be supported, but not as rapidly as the demand warrants. In
    addition, Senate services may be severely affected by lack of support
    if our single existing resource is unavailable.

        Department: Technology Development
        Branch/Section: Enterprise IT Operations--Enterprise Ops
        Position Title: Information Technology Operations Specialist
        No. of Positions Requested: 3
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB6, $46,395-
    $69,593
        Essential Duties of Position: New staff will manage current
    production systems that are running at the ACF, such as the enterprise
    SILO tape backup system, systems failed over to the ACF, and various
    facility related tasks. Duties also include providing first response to
    problems during emergencies, backing up the primary facility support
    duties for the 24 X 7 Blackberry server, and monitoring and
    administering the Senate's email system and payroll applications.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. These duties are being performed by one
    thinly staffed shift at the ACF five days per week. Some of the duties
    are being conducted remotely and some by rotating Primary Computing
    Facility staff from Postal Square. However, significant gaps exist.
        With the continued evolution of the systems running from the ACF
    there is a need to fully support the ACF with multiple shifts. The ACF
    is now running key services, such as all enterprise backups of critical
    applications. Transitioning into a multi-shift operation, similar to
    the operation of the primary computing facility, is needed to support
    the continued expansion of workload, and to maintain a continuously
    efficient operation.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, we run the risk
    of delaying resolution of system problems that arise outside of normal
    business hours. We also run the risk of delaying response time in the
    case of an emergency, and directly affecting business continuity.

        Department: Technology Development
        Branch/Section: IT Security
        Position Title: Senior Information Security Specialist
        No. of Positions Requested: 2
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB10, $67,675-
    $101,508
        Essential Duties of Position: The new staff would collect and
    analyze data in the Security Operations Center and resolve or eliminate
    anomalies/security events; assist Member offices on network security
    issues; monitor SAA enterprise systems; improve external contact in
    order to stay abreast of rapidly changing computer network attack
    profiles; and make full use of new enterprise-wide security
    technologies deployed this year that allow us to perform activities
    that were formerly performed by contractors. Staff also will provide
    support and analysis associated with the new capabilities in Symantec
    client software (firewall, anti-spyware/adware, etc.).
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. IT Security currently has staff that
    performs most of the essential duties described, but the staff will not
    be able to meet the additional demands it anticipates. Due to the
    number of new security initiatives that are the result of increasing
    threats, the overall workload of the staff continues to grow. Security
    issues and systems are increasingly complex, requiring more time and
    resources for satisfactory resolution and adequate backup.

        Department: IT Support Services
        Branch/Section: Office Equipment Services--Order Services
        Position Title: Senior Procurement & Supplies Specialist
        No. of Positions Requested: 1
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB 5, $41,756-
    $62,635
        Essential Duties of Position: New staff will handle wireless device
    issues including provisioning telecommunications/wireless services,
    providing advanced troubleshooting for major vendors and systems, using
    a comprehensive understanding of multiple product lines and service
    offerings to provide rate and service plan analysis for customers,
    conducting complete hot swaps, modifying accounts, and providing
    billing support.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. These duties are currently being performed
    by SAA staff. Senate wireless equipment needs have increased
    dramatically over the past two years and the trend is continuing.
    Although staffing levels have remained the same, Senate staff expects
    wireless equipment to be available immediately. Current resources make
    it extremely difficult to stay abreast of the ordering demands and the
    programming and tracking of wireless equipment.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, the SAA will not
    be able to fully meet the Senate's service level expectations. We think
    that the least costly approach is through hiring an additional staff
    member as opposed to contracting for this support. We do not believe
    that reduced service levels are acceptable to the Senate.
        The pay salary range will be $41,756 to $62,635. When a contractor
    was approached about the possibility of providing one person to do only
    some of the duties discussed above, their cost estimate was $150,000 to
    $175,000 per year.

        Department: IT Support Services
        Branch/Section: Desktop/LAN Support--CMS Coordination
        Position Title: Principal Information Technology Specialist
        No. of Positions Requested: 1
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB 11 Pay Range:
    $73,086-$109,628
        Essential Duties of Position: This position will evaluate and guide
    vendor development efforts in the areas of Web development, electronic
    messaging, and electronic document management; lead projects,
    especially those related to constituent e-mail processing; be a
    technical resource for other CMS Coordination staff; and perform
    liaison work with other SAA departments.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. These tasks are currently being performed
    by contract staff that has been engaged to provide these capabilities.
    The new position is being requested in order to continue to have access
    to this level of experience and expertise.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, the CMS
    Coordination group will continue to incur the higher cost of
    contracting out for this position. The CMS Coordination group supports
    the existing model for correspondence management, but in order to adapt
    to the changes that will result from the introduction of new electronic
    communications capabilities in Senate offices and an anticipated
    increase in the number of CSS vendors, we need additional staff. The
    new staff must have in-depth expertise in Web form development,
    electronic messaging, and electronic document management. Because CSS
    vendors will soon operate within a different, more stringent contract
    structure, existing staff's time will be fully committed to ensuring
    contract compliance. In addition, existing staff will oversee the e-
    Newsletter vendor contracts. These activities will require all of the
    existing CMS Coordination resources. The pay range for the new position
    is $73,086-$109,628. The position is currently contracted out at
    $205,577 per year.

        Department: Process Management & Innovation
        Branch/Section: IT Research & Deployment--Technology Assessment
        Position Title: Principal Information Technology Specialist
        No. of Positions Requested: 2
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB11, $73,086-
    $109,628
        Essential Duties of Position: The new positions will be responsible
    for all aspects of the Active Directory & Messaging Architect (ADMA)
    design. All design changes, security updates, migration processes,
    software updates, product upgrades, and add-in products, whether part
    of the core system or peripherally integrated, must go through a
    rigorous design, testing, pilot, and implementation process.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. These duties are currently being performed
    by on-site contractor staff at an annual cost of approximately
    $600,000. Replacing these contractors with staff will create a
    significant dollar savings for the Senate and will allow for more
    flexibility in work assignments. These duties will be ongoing for many
    years to come and the recurring annual dollar savings will be over
    $300,000.
        An additional benefit is continuity of institutional knowledge. On-
    site contractors are subject to periodic personnel changes. When
    contractors leave, all of the Senate-specific technical and business
    institutional knowledge leaves with them and there is a significant
    learning curve and negative service impact associated with the
    replacement of staff. This situation will be avoided by using permanent
    Senate staff.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: The current cost of on-site contractors
    performing these duties is approximately $600,000 per year. The cost of
    these FTEs will easily be less than $300,000 resulting in at least a
    $300,000 savings.

        Department: Staff Offices
        Branch/Section: Human Resources
        Position Title: Human Resources Technician
        No. of Positions Requested: 1
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB5, $41,756-
    $62,635
        Essential Duties of Position: The new staff will be responsible for
    scanning personnel records into the personnel records management
    system, which will be implemented during fiscal year 2006. This staff
    member also will provide support to the HR Administrators in carrying
    out their labor relations responsibilities with respect to the unions
    representing Capitol Facilities and Recording Studio employees.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. These duties are not being performed now.
    A vendor has been chosen for the records management system and we are
    working on an implementation plan. Negotiations on Collective
    Bargaining Agreements are currently underway with the two unions
    representing the Capitol Facilities and Recording Studio employees.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: It would be impossible for the current HR
    Technician to assume this new workload. If this position is not
    approved, HR Administrators will be required to assume these lower-
    level responsibilities and the level of service that will be provided
    to clients will be adversely affected. It will take longer to classify
    positions, it will take longer to fill positions, training activities
    will be provided less frequently, availability to consult with clients
    will be affected, etc. In order to accomplish essential functions and
    to meet critical deadlines, we might be required to pay overtime to
    non-exempt staff and to provide compensatory time to other staff.

        Department: Staff Offices
        Branch/Section: Employee Assistance Program
        Position Title: EAP Counselor
        No. of Positions Requested: 1
        Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB9, $62,260-
    $93,388
        Essential Duties of Position: The new staff will provide
    comprehensive mental health assessment, referral, and follow-up
    services in the workplace and provide counseling and short-term therapy
    for staff and family members on a wide range of sensitive and complex
    matters. Staff will also counsel supervisors in the recognition and
    referral of employees with problems and promote good mental health
    practices through articles, training programs, publications, Web page,
    etc.
        Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
    a new position is requested. The present EAP (staff of two) is trying
    to cover these duties.
        If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
    impact on the Senate: With a reduction in proactive outreach to
    troubled employees there will be higher turnover, an impact on moral,
    and, in some cases, an impact on employee productivity.

                               STAFFING INCREASE

        Senator Allard. I want to follow up on that with some other
    questions. If we are not able to provide the increases that you
    asked for, would we get a decrease in services?
        Mr. Pickle. I think it's a combination of the two. And the
    best analogy I can use--in 1997, I believe it was, or 1998,
    there was a conscious effort on the part of the Sergeant at
    Arms to reduce FTEs. There was about a 50 FTE reduction that
    year. By all accounts, from people who are still here and the
    people we deal with, after the reduction, the services that we
    provided did not meet expectations. September 11 exacerbated
    the problem. It created additional needs. It created a need for
    additional staff and additional technologies. We will keep
    plugging away and do the very best job, and that will be our
    goal, but I think there will be some diminishing of services.
        Senator Allard. Well, we're looking at the chart here on
    your FTE budget for the Sergeant at Arms, and I see where we
    had a decrease in personnel from 2000 to 2001.
        Mr. Pickle. Yes.
        Senator Allard. And then from there, we have a regular
    steep climb----
        Mr. Pickle. Yes.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. In personnel. And so, I would
    like to get back to the 18 that you requested last year.
        Mr. Pickle. Yes.
        Senator Allard. Can you tell us the status of those new
    hires?
        Mr. Pickle. Out of the 18 positions you gave us last year,
    12 have been filled. The other six have been announced and
    posted. Two of those six had job offers made to them, but they
    withdrew their acceptance and did not come onboard. So, we
    still have six of those which have been posted but not filled.
    Our dilemma is that some of these jobs are of such significance
    and importance to us that we don't want--especially in the
    technology area--to take people just to fill the slot. We are
    looking for the very best. So we may penalize ourselves
    somewhat by not hiring right away, but I think that's the best
    course of action.
        Senator Allard. Okay. We want to look at that closely.
        Mr. Pickle. I understand.
        Senator Allard. You have four there that haven't been
    filled for various reasons, and I assume that that request you
    made is in addition to the 18 that we provided for last year.
        Mr. Pickle. Yes, the 34 are in addition. Yes, sir.

    CUSTODIAL WORKERS FOR THE SENATE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER EXPANSION SPACE

        Senator Allard. Now, there are 17 personnel you have
    included that are supposed to be for cleaning and maintaining
    the expansion space in the Capitol Visitor Center. The
    Architect of the Capitol, if you have noticed his budget, has
    included $1.5 million for a custodial contract for the entire
    Capitol Visitor Center. So, it looks from our point of view as
    though there has been a double accounting here. Doesn't it make
    sense to let AOC contract out for this requirement?
        Mr. Pickle. You know, I think in a perfect world, it makes
    sense that we have one organization do everything. It just
    makes sense. The only reason I believe we have a Capitol
    facilities division that does maintenance, is that the Senate
    was a little unhappy with some of the contract work done years
    ago. It was a decision made by whomever was in charge at that
    time that the maintenance functions be put under the Senate,
    and that's why we have a Capitol facilities division that does
    maintenance and cleaning on the Senate side of the Capitol. I
    don't have any strong feelings on it except to say that it's
    usually better when you have people who are working around the
    Senate and sensitive information and documents, its better to
    have people who work for you, who you have some control over.
    You have a much more stable workforce. Now, whether this is an
    in-house workforce under the Architect or under us, I really
    don't care. I just think that we need to get the best people we
    can.
        Senator Allard. It might be that we have to try a
    contractor. If it doesn't work out, we could always go back----
        Mr. Pickle. Sure.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. The other route.
        Mr. Pickle. Sure.
        Senator Allard. But it's something we'll look at, at least.
        Mr. Pickle. Mr. Chairman, you know, I think what--the way
    we envisioned that--and it's pretty simplistic. We currently
    maintain the Senate wing of the Capitol. What we are going to
    have in the CVC is an expansion of the Senate wing. So, we were
    just going to enlarge our workforce to cover that. But again,
    whatever makes economic sense and is more efficient, we are all
    for.

                      SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

        Senator Allard. The budget for the security and emergency
    preparedness has grown from $4 million in 2002 to $8.5 million
    in fiscal year 2006. And there's another large increase we're
    looking at for this year----
        Mr. Pickle. Yes.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. A total of $18 million. Why
    are we looking at an increase of this magnitude, and can we
    begin to expect the budget to begin to level out instead of
    seeing these large double-digit increases?
        Mr. Pickle. It is a large increase at first blush. But I
    think that much of what we have in the area of security has
    been funded since 2002 in part by the Emergency Response Fund
    (ERF) as well as reprogramming that this subcommittee has
    allowed us to do and provided for us. The ERF funds have
    decreased. We now have items that need to be funded on an
    annual basis, and the supplemental is no longer available.
    These items have a life cycle to them. There are other items
    which are services and outsourced services that we provide here
    on the Hill--and these are all new services since 2001-2002 for
    the most part and to over 450 State offices. So, the job has
    increased enormously. I would like to say there is a
    moderation, but in all honesty, I don't see how it's going to
    moderate much. I think once we have a base, we will try to live
    within that base, and obviously, we will live within what we
    are given. But we simply meet the demands of the Senate, and
    what we are----
        Senator Allard. Have you looked at what funding we have
    picked up in ongoing programs and emergency funding and--how
    many years out we may be looking at before we can stabilize our
    base, assuming that we don't have any more emergency
    appropriations?
        Mr. Pickle. I have not personally, but we will get an
    answer for you on that.
        Senator Allard. I think that would be helpful to the
    committee to understand what is happening in that area.
        Mr. Pickle. We'll do it.

                          TELEPHONE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT

        Senator Allard. Can you give me an update on the status of
    the telephone system replacement and what's happening there?
        Mr. Pickle. Last year, this subcommittee provided about
    $10.5 million for the telecommunications modernization plan.
    This year, we are asking for another $10.5 million. We are near
    the completion of our RFP, or request for proposal, that will
    go out to the different vendors in the communications industry.
    We are hoping to start right away on making some of the changes
    here, modernization changes. As you know, it's a lot of money.
    I think you asked me the question last year, will we spend all
    $10 million in the one fiscal year. My answer was probably not.
    And we were absolutely right; we haven't spent it all. Do we
    need to do it? We do. The current telephone system is 20 years
    old. So, and in the past 20 years, technology has changed
    tremendously. The industry is going toward a converged
    technology where you have a convergence of digital, video, and
    voice data. We need to do things such as replace switches,
    replace handsets--all the handsets--we need to make sure that
    our voice mail works, that all of the different wireless
    devices we have, whether they are Blackberry or cell phones or
    pagers, can be integrated. It's a big job, and it will take
    some time.
        Senator Allard. Yes, and there are some changing
    technologies. Voice over Internet Protocol----
        Mr. Pickle. Yes.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Has the potential to save a
    lot of money, but that technology has to be worked out. There
    are some issues as to the domain that have to be worked out
    before we get those kinds of things, but it means things are
    getting more competitive. And hopefully, we can hold down
    costs.
        Mr. Pickle. Well, they certainly are, and we fully believe
    that the bids that we get will include Voice over Internet
    protocols. We know that the phone industry, the
    telecommunications industry, believes that's where we are going
    with telephony.
        Senator Allard. Yes. Do you still expect the cost to total
    close to $20 million when we're all done?
        Mr. Pickle. To my understanding, approximately $20 million.
        Senator Allard. Okay, and I am assuming that you are
    expecting an improvement in service to the end users?
        Mr. Pickle. Absolutely, yes--my CIO is going to guarantee
    it.

                            MAIL PROCESSING FACILITY

        Senator Allard. I'm glad they're here to hear that. Okay,
    let's talk a little bit about the mail processing facility.
    What's the status of this facility, and what are your total
    cost projections there?
        Mr. Pickle. The mail facility--I believe our total cost is
    $14.9 million, some of which has come from the supplemental. We
    hope to have the mail facility completed in the near future.
    We're going to take one of our remote mail facilities, and move
    it to another facility here, a little west and north of us. And
    at the mail facility, we are going to be able to do the mail
    processing and screening, as well as the package delivery and
    screening. So, it will be one consolidated location. And we're
    within budget, and we're meeting the milestones there.

                               VENDOR DELIVERIES

        Senator Allard. Okay. Now, following up on this, the one
    part of it is the process, and the other one is the delivery
    here to the Capitol----
        Mr. Pickle. Yes.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. And you're planning on
    implementing, on a pilot basis, a new method of transferring
    deliveries (other than mail) to the Capitol. Could you tell me
    a little bit about the status of that pilot project?
        Mr. Pickle. Yes. Currently the Capitol Police have a remote
    site. They had a permanent site, but they have been forced to
    move for various reasons, and they are at an interim site now.
    Essentially what takes place there is many of the goods which
    are destined for the Capitol are delivered there, they're
    examined or screened, and then they are transported here to the
    Capitol. I don't want to get into much more than that if you
    don't mind. We are revalidating our requirements. We are
    working closely with the Architect and the House and also
    having discussions with the Library of Congress. What we are
    proposing to do is create a new transfer model. And in very
    simple terms, what it will do is it will allow us to receive
    goods and perishables and other items at a remote site. These
    items will be offloaded from vendors trucks. They will be
    screened and examined, and declared safe. They will be put on
    Government trucks and delivered here to the Capitol. There are
    several advantages to this. First of all, we reduce
    dramatically the number of trucks you see here on the campus,
    and that's a big security issue. We also have items delivered
    by trusted employees, Federal employees who have been vetted
    and had background checks conducted on them. And third, it
    should save us in damaged goods, late goods and perishables,
    and lost goods.
        Senator Allard. Ultimately, that could lead to us having
    our own truck fleet here on the Capitol.
        Mr. Pickle. It would--yes, but at a very small level. I
    would compare it to something you see at other agencies such as
    the State Department, the White House, or the CIA, very
    similar. It's a very cost-effective process, I understand, from
    looking at these programs.

                               STRATEGIC PLANNING

        Senator Allard. Now, in your opening comments, you talked
    about trying to meet our interests as far as setting down goals
    and objectives and meeting those. Is this what you refer to as
    your strategic plan?
        Mr. Pickle. Strategic plan, yes it is.
        Senator Allard. When will you have that available?
        Mr. Pickle. We should have that--I'm going to look over my
    shoulder--in a month. I got the right answer, yes.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Well, we'll look forward to having it
    in a month.
        Mr. Pickle. Okay, great. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. Well, we do look forward to seeing what you
    have put together there.
        Mr. Pickle. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. I don't believe we have any more questions.
    I want to thank you for your service.
        Mr. Pickle. Thank you very much.
        Senator Allard. I believe you are going to be here for the
    next panel as well.
        Mr. Pickle. Yes, sir, the next couple, I think.
        Senator Allard. So, we're not going to let you off too easy
    here----
        Mr. Pickle. Okay.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. This morning.
        Mr. Pickle. Thank you, sir.
                           U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

    STATEMENT OF HON. WILSON LIVINGOOD, CHAIRMAN, CAPITOL
                POLICE BOARD AND CAPITOL GUIDE SERVICE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            HON. WILLIAM H. PICKLE, SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER
            HON. ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, FAIA
            CHRIS McGAFFIN, ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. So now we'll move to the next panel. We
    have before us now the Capitol Police Board. I want to thank
    all of you for your service, and we're expecting testimony from
    Mr. Livingood and Acting Chief McGaffin. Mr. Livingood.
        Mr. Livingood. Yes, sir.
        Senator Allard. You'll go first, and then we'll call on
    Acting Chief McGaffin.

                         STATEMENT OF WILSON LIVINGOOD

        Mr. Livingood. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
        I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the U.S.
    Capitol Police fiscal year 2007 budget request. With me today
    are the members of the Capitol Police Board--Bill Pickle, Alan
    Hantman, and also with us today is the Acting Chief of Police,
    Chris McGaffin.
        Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
    subcommittee for their ongoing support of the men and women of
    the U.S. Capitol Police. Your commitment to their continued and
    diligent efforts to develop better security operations,
    response forces, and law enforcement capabilities has
    significantly contributed to providing a safe and secure
    environment for Members of Congress, staff, constituents, and
    the general public.
        The Capitol Police Board appreciates the opportunity to
    present and discuss the issues and challenges behind the
    Capitol Police fiscal year 2007 budget request. The security
    challenge confronting the U.S. Capitol Police today remains
    constant and complex. However, it is a challenge the department
    successfully manages each day of the year.
        The Capitol Police Board is acutely aware of the need for
    fiscal restraint. To address the absolute requirement for
    fiscal restraint, we work on a regular basis with the
    administrative and financial team of the Capitol Police in the
    exercise of appropriate financial management in all areas and
    divisions of the department. In addition, we have been
    judicious in the new initiatives we included in our request.
    The goal is methodical and consistent fiscal management.
        In keeping with prior conference committee directives, good
    management of our core process, and maximum utilization of our
    workforce, the Capitol Police has made a concerted effort to
    contract out activities that would benefit from outsourcing.
    Our fiscal year 2007 budget submission includes proposals for
    continuing funding for these outsourced activities as well as
    proposals for new outsourced activities. This will allow the
    U.S. Capitol Police to more fully concentrate on its core
    security mission.
        It is that core mission for which I want to offer my thanks
    to the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. They
    coordinate the people, organizations, and resources necessary
    to respond to a variety of threats we face today. It is an
    extremely difficult job to manage a legislative complex
    completely open to the public while at the same time ensuring
    the safety of the Congress, staff, and visitors against
    increased threats. It is a job the U.S. Capitol Police perform
    with skill and excellence everyday.
        The men and women of the Capitol Police have the Board's
    greatest respect. We speak to them every day, and we listen to
    them. Each one considers it an honor to protect, serve, and
    welcome our citizens and people from around the world to our
    Nation's Capital who come to participate in the legislative
    process, to witness democracy in action, and partake in the
    history of this unique place.

                       ACCOLADE TO DEPARTING CHIEF GAINER

        Today is Chief Gainer's final day with the U.S. Capitol
    Police. I know I speak for all the members of the Capitol
    Police Board when I extend my deepest thanks to him for his
    services to the Capitol Police department and to the Congress.
    Chief Gainer is first and always a cop's cop. Through his
    leadership, the capabilities of the department have been
    greatly enhanced. Every person who works here or visits here is
    a beneficiary of his hard work, dedication, and
    professionalism. We wish him well and the very best as he
    begins the next phase in his career.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Wilson Livingood
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear
    before you today to discuss the U.S. Capitol Police fiscal year 2007
    budget request. With me today are the members of the Capitol Police
    Board, William Pickle, Senate Sergeant at Arms, and Alan Hantman,
    Architect of the Capitol. Christopher McGaffin, the Acting Chief of
    Police is also with us.
        Before I begin Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee
    for their ongoing support of the men and women of the U.S. Capitol
    Police. Your commitment to their continued and diligent efforts to
    develop better security operations, response forces and law enforcement
    capabilities, has significantly contributed to providing a safe and
    secure environment for Members of Congress, staff, and the general
    public.
        The Capitol Police Board appreciates this opportunity to present
    and discuss the issues and challenges behind the U.S. Capitol Police
    fiscal year 2007 budget request. The security challenge confronting the
    U.S. Capitol Police today remains constant and complex. However, it is
    a challenge that the Department successfully manages each day of the
    year.
        The Capitol Police Board is acutely aware of the need for fiscal
    restraint. To address the absolute requirement for fiscal restraint, we
    work on a regular basis with the administrative and financial team of
    the Capitol Police in the exercise of appropriate financial management
    in all areas and divisions of the Department. In addition, we have been
    judicious in the new initiatives we included in our request. The goal
    is methodical and consistent fiscal management.
        In keeping with prior conference Committee directives, good
    management of our core process and maximum utilization of our
    workforce, the U.S. Capitol Police has made a concerted effort to
    contract out activities that would benefit from outsourcing. Our fiscal
    year 2007 budget submission includes proposals for continuing funding
    for these outsourced activities as well as proposals for new outsourced
    activities. This will allow the U.S. Capitol Police to more fully
    concentrate on its core security mission.
        It is that core mission for which I want to offer my thanks to the
    men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. They coordinate the people,
    organizations, and resources necessary to respond to the variety of
    threats we face today. It is an extremely difficult job to maintain a
    legislative complex completely open to the public, while at the same
    time ensuring the safety of the Congress, staff, and visitors against
    increased dangers. It is a job performed with skill.
        The men and women of the Capitol Police have my greatest respect. I
    speak to them every day, and I listen to them. Each one considers it an
    honor to protect, serve, and welcome our citizens and people from
    around the world to our Nation's Capitol--who come to participate in
    the legislative processes, to witness democracy in action, and partake
    in the history of this unique place.
        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Capitol Police Board, I would like
    to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today, and for
    your consideration of this budget request.
        I would now like to introduce Acting Chief McGaffin who will
    present the Capitol Police's fiscal year 2007 Budget in more detail.

        Senator Allard. Well, thank you for your statement. And
    now, we'll go to Acting Chief McGaffin.

                       STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MC GAFFIN

        Acting Chief McGaffin. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to tell you
    also that it's an honor to appear before this subcommittee
    today with the Capitol Police Board and to represent the United
    States Capitol Police in this hearing. We are here to present
    our fiscal year budget for 2007, but I am also here to thank
    you, the Senate and this subcommittee for all the support that
    it's given us over the years. I'll finish 34 years of service
    to the United States Capitol Police and to the Congress this
    July, and I have watched this police department grow and
    professionalize over these several decades significantly
    because of the support of Members of Congress and the United
    States Senate like yourself, sir. And if I can take this moment
    to thank you personally for all that you have done for this
    police department, the men and women of this police
    department--those who are still here serving with me and those
    who have retired over the last several decades, I'd like to do
    that as well. I have submitted remarks and my testimony for the
    record, and I am very much looking forward to answering
    questions you may pose today.
        Senator Allard. We'll make those remarks part of the
    record.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Christopher McGaffin
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before the Appropriations Committee today to
    discuss the United States Capitol Police fiscal year 2007 budget
    request. The United States Capitol Police maintains the honor of
    protecting the Congress, its legislative process, as well as staff and
    visitors from harm. We protect and secure Congress so it can fulfill
    its constitutional responsibilities in a safe and open environment. As
    the foremost symbol of American representative democracy, Congressional
    operations are a highly visible target for individuals and
    organizations intent on causing harm to the United States and
    disrupting the legislative processes of our government. It is the duty
    of the men and women of the Capitol Police to do all in our power to
    prevent these acts and, if such acts, should occur, to respond
    appropriately to ensure the safety and well being of our stakeholders.
        The employees of the Unites States Capitol Police are dedicated to
    their work and thus we as a team have had significant accomplishments
    in the past year, including:
      --Greeted and screened over 8.7 million staff and visitors throughout
            the Capitol Complex and screened over 59,500 people for three
            holiday events; conducted over 17,000 canine explosive
            detection sweeps; coordinated over 3,300 special events and
            dignitary visits; screened over 85,000 vehicles and 72,000
            individuals at the Capitol Visitors Center as work proceeded
            uninterrupted; screened over 574,000 vehicles by the TIGER
            Team; conducted 136 physical security assessments; and
            performed 521 electronic countermeasures assessments as well as
            other protective functions.
      --Gained re-accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law
            Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA). This repeated, independent,
            outside validation of our preparation and compliance with
            national standards clearly affirms our Strategic Plan, strength
            of policies, training, operational readiness and overall
            professionalism and indicates that the USCP has achieved a
            level of excellence and has internalized positive change.
      --Implemented a new financial management system in 12 months, on time
            and within budget, for the first time in the history of the
            Department.
      --Developed a strategy and identified requirements and business
            processes for the implementation of the Asset Management System
            which will bring greater accountability and control over assets
            within the Department, as well as, launched the first steps to
            align the Department's internal controls with government-wide
            standards.
        In the ever-changing threat environment, the U.S. Capitol Police
    accomplishes its mission through varied, and complementary functions to
    provide round the clock protection to Congress. In an effort to
    maintain the flexibility of Department operations and maintain
    operational readiness, the USCP over the past several years, with the
    support of Congress, has made significant investments in human capital
    and Department infrastructure. This has been accomplished by augmenting
    our intelligence capabilities and coordination among the intelligence
    community, hardening our physical security and counter surveillance
    capabilities, automating antiquated security and administrative support
    systems, enhancing our detection and response capabilities for
    explosive devices as well as chemical and biological agents, and
    augmenting our incident command and emergency response and notification
    systems. Each of these and their related activities has come with high
    resource requirements for maintenance in order to ensure that our
    systems are operational 24/7. The majority of these infrastructure
    investments were funded with emergency, supplemental or reprogrammed
    prior year funding and now require annual, on-going operational
    maintenance and life cycle replacement.
        Our fiscal year 2007 budget request of $295.1 million represents an
    increase of $48.1 million or 19.5 percent over the enacted amount for
    fiscal year 2006, adjusted for rescissions. This includes an increase
    of $31.4 million for personnel costs and $16.7 million for non-
    personnel costs. However, when the $10 million from the no-year
    reprogramming of funds, approved by your Committee, was used to support
    fiscal year 2006 operational requirements, is taken into consideration
    the requested increase is $38.1 million or 14.8 percent.
        The Congress has made the commitment through resources and policy
    support to create a formidable Police Department with diverse
    capabilities designed to deter or respond to any threat to the Capitol
    Complex. Over the last 5 years, the Department has grown in human
    capital, security infrastructure, command and control and, security and
    law enforcement capability. The Department has a tremendous base of
    capabilities, which requires substantial resources to maintain. The
    intent of this budget request is to address targeted manpower needs and
    the annual sustainment of the Department's capabilities, which have
    been sourced through a variety of means. From a manpower perspective,
    the Department is continually reviewing its operational concept to
    determine the most effective manner in which to conduct operations. The
    intent of this effort is to be as effective and efficient as possible.
        New initiatives in our fiscal year 2007 budget request include
    additional personnel resources for both sworn and civilian; outsourcing
    background and polygraph functions in Human Resources, Information
    Systems maintenance and replacement systems, operating costs for the
    Office of Inspector General as well as the new Office of Professional
    Responsibility; new costs for activities acquired from other agencies
    such as maintenance of the radio communications systems transferred
    from the Senate and certain security equipment maintenance from the
    Department of Defense.
        The following represents a more detailed look at the USCP fiscal
    year 2007 request.
        Personnel.--The fiscal year request for salaries of $246,700,000
    supports the current authorized FTE levels, as well as, an additional
    request of 91 new officer FTEs for critical operational requirements,
    10 additional FTEs for Library of Congress (LOC) attrition and seven
    new civilian support positions. With the new officers, the sworn FTE
    level is 1,759. The revised civilian FTE level is 421 for a total
    Department FTE count of 2,180. Included in the personnel budget is a
    request for overtime. Staffing levels are driven by security needs and
    augmented by overtime to meet operational requirements. The 494,700
    hours requested consist of 449,300 hours for sworn and 45,400 hours for
    civilians. The $28.1 million request is based on estimated overtime
    posting and coverage requirements and approximate costs for sworn
    manpower shortage, late sessions of Congress, Special events, security
    alerts, arrests and court time and a small amount of civilian overtime
    requirements.
        Non-Personnel.--The fiscal year request for non-personnel items is
    $48,383,000. The following highlights the majority of the non-personnel
    request for the USCP.
      --$16,900,000 is for Physical Security.--This includes contractual
            support for physical security maintenance and support projects
            such as comprehensive preventive maintenance to support the
            maintenance, repair and preventive maintenance of the security
            systems on the Capitol Complex on a 24/7 basis. Included are
            security installation support, security network, and
            specialized security equipment; the camera system, vehicle
            barriers, and the annunciators; maintenance of security
            equipment such as current CCTV equipment, Digital Video
            Recorder, metal detectors and X-ray packages; Life Cycle
            Replacement of equipment such as Duress Alarms for Members and
            Committees; Card Access and Intrusion Alarms.
      --$11,232,000 is for Information and Communication.--This includes
            maintenance, repair, licensing and support of new and existing
            systems such as engineering professional services and radio
            systems contract support, annual contracts supporting
            Blackberry and Nextel devices and fit out of the radio van.
            Information Systems modernization Phase III includes systems
            such as the Asset Management System, Case Management system and
            Web portal system; Lifecycle replacement for such items as
            Personal Computers due to be replaced, radio support, Nextels,
            Verizon phones, purchase and refreshment of Police Radios.
      --$4,318,000 is for Protective Services.--This will provide
            appropriate travel related funding for the Dignitary Protection
            Division (DPD) to ensure the safety and security of the
            Congressional Leadership and other Congressional Protectees.
            The funding for the last 3 years has required reprogramming
            each year to meet costs. Travel increases are related to fuel
            costs, rental cars and hotel costs. External training is
            requested for protective operations.
      --$2,916,000 is for Human Resource Management.--This provides for
            contractual services for Human Resources Management such as the
            National Finance Center for payroll administration; AVUE, which
            is the HR Management system; Time and Attendance System
            Programming and employee training (Workbrain system) and the
            outsourcing of 6 sworn staff for the Background check and
            polygraph function. This will free up the 6 sworn officers to
            be put back in to the field and will offset the number of new
            positions required for the CVC. This request also includes
            $400,000 for tuition reimbursement for USCP employees.
      --$2,731,000 is for Financial Management and Accountability.--This
            includes contractual support for the Office of Financial
            Management including Audit and Review Services, Outsourcing
            contract support and a cross servicing agreement for the
            financial management system. This line item also includes
            funding for agency wide projects such as copier maintenance,
            vehicle fuel and tort claims.
      --$2,664,000 is for Logistic Support.--This includes funding for
            refreshment of uniforms, purchase of new uniforms for new
            recruits and other officers such as K-9 and CERT officers.
            Funding is also requested for maintenance and repair of the
            Police vehicle fleet.
      --$786,000 Hazardous Incident Response.--This represents replacement
            of a bomb suit for hazardous devices. Also includes maintenance
            for such items as radiological and biological detectors and
            hazardous material equipment, life cycle replacement and
            purchase of required equipment and supplies for the hazardous
            material response team to comply with OSHA and other safety
            standards.
        In keeping with prior Conference Committee directives, good
    management of our core processes and maximum utilization of our
    workforce, the USCP has made concerted efforts to contract out
    activities that are conducive to outsourcing. Our fiscal year 2007
    budget submission includes our proposals for continuing funding for
    these outsourced activities as well as proposals for new outsourced
    activities, allowing the USCP to concentrate on its expertise. The 2007
    request includes outsourcing services in the amount of $20.4 million,
    which includes information technology, physical security systems and
    maintenance, administration, background and polygraph services,
    veterinarian services, security control operators, financial asset
    management system, accounts payable, and installation of equipment.
        The U.S. Capitol is still faced with numerous threats, including a
    vehicle-borne explosive attack, terrorist-controlled aircraft attack,
    armed attacks on the Capitol Complex, suicide bombers or positioned
    explosive attacks, chemical, biological and/or radiological attacks and
    attacks on Members and staff as well as ordinary crime. To accomplish
    this mission, the Department will continue to work diligently to
    enhance its intelligence capabilities and provide a professional 21st
    Century workforce capable of performing a myriad of security and law
    enforcement duties, supported by state of the art technology to prevent
    and detect potential threats and effectively respond to and control
    incidents. With the help of Congress and the Capitol Police Board, the
    Department will continue developing professional administrative
    capabilities based on sound business and best practices, while raising
    the caliber and capability of its sworn and civilian personnel.
        The United States Capitol Police must maintain the ability to be
    prepared for any situation and the attainment of that goal depends, in
    part, on having the right people, the right strength and the right
    numbers, organized into an effective and flexible blend of capabilities
    and skills. The Department continues to prepare and train officers by
    holding Department-wide intelligence briefings when significant or
    critical information is gathered; disseminating intelligence and
    tactical information in daily roll-calls and conducting field and
    table-top exercises in efforts to enable our officers to have the tools
    necessary to do their jobs. Additionally, the Department's officials
    routinely participate in a wide-range of tabletop exercises with top
    experts in federal, state and local law enforcement.
        As Acting Chief of the Capitol Police, I take great pride in the
    many years of service this Department has provided to the Congress.
    Building on that legacy, we at the USCP look forward to continuing to
    safeguard the Congress, staff, and visitors to the Capitol Complex
    during these challenging times. In addition, we look forward to working
    with the Congress and particularly this Committee.
        I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and am ready
    to address any questions you may have.

                  ACCOLADE FOR U.S. CAPITOL POLICE DEPARTMENT

        Senator Allard. Did you give your full statement, Mr.
    Livingood?
        Mr. Livingood. It's been submitted for the record, sir.
        Senator Allard. I would just like to say like so many
    Members, I visit the Capitol at all hours. It might be in the
    middle of the night or 6:30 in the morning. But I have always
    felt like security was working well and always felt like I was
    treated in a courteous and helpful manner, and we appreciate
    that. I think on behalf of all of the Members, I would just
    like to thank you.
        Acting Chief McGaffin Thank you, sir.

                   EXPLANATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 INCREASES

        Senator Allard. Now, the Capitol Police Board is requesting
    close to an increase of 20 percent over the current year. If
    you look at the reprogramming of funds last year, it's closer
    to 15 percent. Could you explain why the board believes we need
    to have an increase of this magnitude?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Thank you, sir. As you noted,
    approximately $10 million of our request that's being expended
    in this fiscal year in fact came from no year or supplemental
    funding. So, it does reduce, in one measurement, the overall
    request, as you pointed out, and I thank you for recognizing
    that. I would say that there are two major drivers for the
    increase. Under the FTE increase, as you noted earlier, we're
    asking for 101 more FTEs in our sworn ranks, and we're asking
    for 7 additional FTEs in our civilian administrative ranks.
    These FTE increases on the sworn side are principally required
    in terms of supporting the Capitol Visitor Center, and that's
    what we see as a mission expansion for us in this coming fiscal
    year. The subcommittee has provided funding in fiscal year 2006
    for 45 positions to help us provide the adequate security for
    the CVC. We are also moving a number of security posts from
    Capitol division assignments into the CVC, which are no longer
    going to be necessary once the CVC is open. But we still have a
    shortfall of approximately 63 FTEs, which we're asking for in
    the fiscal year 2007 budget. In addition to that, we are asking
    for an increase of approximately 11 FTEs for our dignitary
    protection division, and these are the men and women who are
    assigned to protect the congressional leaders in the Senate and
    in the House. In the past year, they have been operating at a
    staffing level of about 82 percent, and that division alone has
    the highest per capita cost for overtime than any element
    within the police department. We have not dropped protection
    for these leaders at all, but it is being incurred at the
    expense of additional duty. So, we are asking for an increase
    there.

         LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ATTRITION AND OTHER NEW POSITION REQUESTS

        The Library of Congress attrition numbers that we have
    asked for over the last several years include an FTE increase
    of 10. And then finally, we are asking for an increase of
    approximately 17 FTEs to augment our counterterrorism
    initiatives as they repel and thwart any operational or
    planning initiatives which may be brought to this complex via
    the number one threat that we see vehicle-born improvised
    explosive devices. That group, which is referred to as a Tiger
    Team, is being managed exclusively out of overtime funds as
    well. Moving from the salary account, or staying within the
    salary account, sir, additional duty, the overtime requests
    have increased as well. And as I pointed out, the number of
    personnel that we have to apply to all the duties and
    responsibilities we have in this fiscal year we have to augment
    with additional duty. And as we schedule ahead, as we look
    ahead to requirements that are expanding, as well as holding
    steady into 2007, we see a need to increase our request for
    additional duty.

                             NONPERSONNEL INCREASES

        Systems maintenance and communication systems are the other
    area that are driving this budget up. And such areas that
    insist on this maintenance, such as our financial systems, our
    information technology systems, and our security systems are
    requiring some additional funding as well. Now having said
    that, we are working diligently with your staff to reduce this
    request for markup, and we have applied, with the help of the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others, some
    strategies that we think will successfully reduce this request
    for fiscal year 2007. And I hope to come back to you, and
    expect to come back to you through your staff very soon with a
    lower request in several of the areas that we just identified.

      TIGER TEAM AND DIGNITARY PROTECTION DIVISION NEW POSITIONS DISCUSSED

        Senator Allard. I'd like to now follow up on the 28 new
    officers you have requested. As I understand it 11 of those FTE
    are for the dignitary protection detail, and the remaining
    would be the 17--for your Tiger Team. What is driving the
    increases in those two areas?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir. The dignitary protection
    division where we have asked for an increase of 11 is being
    driven principally by the amount of overtime that we have had
    to work to maintain security for 10 leaders of Congress.
        Senator Allard. Very good.
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir, and the 17 that are
    assigned to the Tiger Team are the counterterrorist group that
    I have described that are positioned around the Capitol grounds
    at intersections who conduct random checks of vehicles
    traversing the grounds. This group is one that we are taking
    another look at because we have been funding that out of
    additional duty. And with cooperation with your staff, we are
    going to see if there is a cost benefit that can be achieved by
    reducing that 17 on the FTE side of the ledger and bringing
    some efficiencies where we can find additional duty to offset
    that as we have been doing up to this point.

                     REDUCTION IN POLICE OVERTIME EXPLAINED

        Senator Allard. Thank you. How have you managed your
    reduction in overtime? I remember in last year's budget we had
    set some caps on how much overtime you could pay. Are you
    confident we are not incurring any additional risks as a result
    of the reduction in overtime funds?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Well, first, we are very grateful
    for the funding for additional duty and overtime the
    subcommittee has supported us with, and I can tell you that we
    are going to stay within our budget this fiscal year. One of
    the methods that we are employing right now to ensure that we
    stay within budget now and ideally confined a manner in which
    to lower our request for additional duty and overtime in the
    fiscal year 2007 budget request is the result of some great
    collaboration that we have entered into with the Government
    Accountability Office. Staff and support from that agency has
    assisted us in developing what we call a threat matrix. And
    just to quickly describe that, what we have been able to do
    with the help of the GAO is to apply criticality factors to
    every single post that we have, every single job that we
    perform up here. And those criticality factors are allowing us
    to identify where our critical needs are versus where our
    ideally positioned needs are.
        So, in other words, in assessing everything that we are
    doing, we're understanding what are the most important posts
    that have to be manned each day. Now, one of the byproducts of
    this review was that we have discovered some efficiencies that
    we have been able to achieve already where we found there were
    some posts that were being performed by two elements within the
    police department, which we were able to fold into one. And
    that kind of analysis is allowing us to stay within our budget
    this year, and it's the same analysis that's going to allow us
    to--I'm optimistic--successfully reduce our additional duty
    requests for next year.
        Senator Allard. Well, I want to compliment you on working
    with the GAO and helping to set some priorities there. I think
    that helps the Members to understand where they want to be as
    far as risk and what level of security they want to have.
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Thank you, sir.

                   DISCUSSION ON COMP TIME BALANCE REDUCTION

        Senator Allard. On the comp time, what is the status of
    reducing comp time balances within the department such that no
    more than 240 hours will be carried over from one year to the
    next?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. We have conducted an audit of all
    exempt employees of the police department to determine how many
    have comp time balances in excess of 240 hours. Approximately
    62 of the 200 plus exempt employees of the department find
    themselves in that category. What we have done is to develop
    and administer an internal control system in which without
    interrupting any of the management oversight, without
    interrupting any of the supervisory responsibilities that these
    62 members would bring to the day-to-day job. All comp time
    balances will be reduced to the 240 mark by the end of this
    year, and there is absolutely no expectation on the part of any
    of us that we would carry more than 240 hours into the next
    leave calendar year.
        Senator Allard. Now, the carryover from one year to the
    next, is that manageable?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. I guarantee we are going to manage
    this down, yes, sir. And we have found ourselves in this
    situation for several different reasons, but the most pressing
    one is all the work that all of us have been performing over
    these last several years. And as we find opportunities to take
    time off and to enjoy some of the comp time, we are doing it.
    But the fact of the matter is that many managers, including
    myself, will never be able to use all the comp time that we
    have on the books, and that just goes with the job.
        Senator Allard. Goes with being a manager.
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir.
        Senator Allard. I'm not a clock watcher either, and I
    understand. But we are going to get this issue resolved by what
    date do you anticipate, or what time line?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. It will be resolved within this
    leave calendar year. And if I am not mistaken, I believe by
    January 6, 2007, at the end of the last pay period in this
    leave calendar year, everyone's balance will be where it needs
    to be.

                       LIBRARY OF CONGRESS MERGE PROGRESS

        Senator Allard. Very good. Now, what is the status in
    detailing officers from the Capitol Police to the Library of
    Congress, and has progress been made in the last year in
    improving the police operation at the library?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Mr. Chairman, we currently have 31
    Capitol Police officers assigned to the Library of Congress.
    That includes an inspector and most recently, two sergeants who
    have been assigned as part of that complement. As you know,
    within our budget request, we request authorization to fill
    vacancies that occur due to attrition in the Library of
    Congress, and that's what we are doing again this year. The
    role that our officers are providing to the Library is to
    augment their security, and I must say they have. The
    inspector, Tom Reynolds, has just done a magnificent job making
    the Library of Congress feel part of the Capitol Police and the
    Capitol Police feeling part of the Library of Congress. In the
    area of operations, we have run evacuation drills, we have run
    training programs for their managers, for their supervisors,
    such things as motorcycle training and patrol techniques. We
    have included the Library of Congress police department in our
    own department's award ceremony, and we are all working
    together. There are some bumps in the road, not to avoid those
    or not to think about those, but we are doing well.

                   SCREENING VEHICLES AT LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

        Senator Allard. Well, one area that has been called to my
    attention is the screening of the vehicles going to the Library
    of Congress, and the information I'm getting is that this is
    not sufficiently thorough. Have you looked at this, and do you
    believe this is something that we ought to address?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir, we have looked at this,
    and we are right now examining the feasibility of bringing the
    Library of Congress delivery system--delivery requirements
    within our own offsite delivery center. Right now, we process
    somewhere in the area of about--on average, 80 trucks a day
    that come through the interim offsite delivery center, and the
    Library has requested to utilize that center for deliveries to
    its building complex as well. And we are making some
    recommendations to the Capitol Police Board, which will be
    reviewed and considered by that group to work toward ensuring
    that the security of the Library of Congress is just as great
    as this office building here.
        Senator Allard. Do you think you can get something to us in
    about 30 days or so on the cost estimate of the revised plan?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir.
        Senator Allard. We'd need that for our budget purposes. And
    so, if we can have the Board act and get back to us within that
    time period, we would appreciate it.
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir.

                   CAPITOL POLICE GENERAL COUNSEL DISCUSSION

        Senator Allard. In regard to the Capitol Police general
    counsel: Why do we need additional counsel, and why is the
    current general counsel on the payroll of the House of
    Representatives?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. There has been a remarkable increase
    in the work that counsel has had to perform. In the several
    years that I have been in an executive position, I have seen
    this work increase dramatically. I personally bring a lot of
    work to that office. We have assigned counsel to our Office of
    Professional Responsibility to assist us in the areas of
    discipline. We have assigned work to our Office of Employment
    Counsel regarding performance and performance evaluations of
    our own personnel. The workload simply has increased. Now, we
    are undertaking a review with the Capitol Police Board to
    determine where those positions need to be.
        Senator Allard. Now, is there any other position in the
    Capitol Police force that's not on the Capitol Police force,
    but on that of either the House or Senate?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Not that I'm aware of, sir.
        Senator Allard. The answer's no?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. I don't believe there are any other
    positions, sir.
        Senator Allard. Okay. I see that Mr. Pickle is indicating
    that he doesn't believe there is any. So, this is an exception
    to what we ordinarily have before us.

                 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RESPONSIBILITIES

        In 2000, legislation was enacted that created the Chief
    Administrative Officer for the Capitol Police in order to
    address long-standing administrative problems in the
    department. Then in 2002, the CAO issued a plan, as required by
    law, to carry out the Chief Administrative Officer's
    responsibilities. Now, while improvements have been made, the
    U.S. Capitol Police still does not have auditable financial
    statements or a comprehensive foundation for financial
    management according to the Government Accountability Office.
    And now, Mr. Stamilio, what are the most significant areas
    still to be addressed from the CAO Act, and the biggest
    challenges you face in meeting those requirements?
        [The information follows:]

        Since becoming an independent agency in fiscal year 2003,
    the Capitol Police has made significant strides in creating a
    solid foundation for financial management and becoming a fully
    functioning, best practices financial management operation We
    have, this fiscal year, implemented, on time and within budget,
    a full scale, predominately paperless, JFMIP compliant
    financial management system, report all financial transactions
    to the U.S. Treasury, have identified core competencies for all
    financial management staff and tied those competencies to
    individual development plans for all financial management
    staff. We have also finalized a total of 95 financial
    management policies and procedures as well as instituted a risk
    management plan and assessment tool for evaluating internal
    controls within financial management operations. Additionally,
    we have received reports on our internal controls from our
    external auditors, a practice that is highly encouraged but not
    required.
        We also manage travel, purchase and fleet card programs and
    maintain robust monitoring programs for the travel and purchase
    card programs to ensure proper use of the cards. In addition,
    we have implemented a paperless, on-line, just in time process
    for the ordering of office supplies to reduce costs by
    eliminating central storage and reducing inventory. We pay
    travel claims in an average of 4 days and have established and
    maintain standard contract formats, terms, conditions and
    clauses and as a practice. We prepare a semi annual statement
    of disbursements that reports all payment activity for all
    funds and recently redesigned our budget execution process to,
    for the first time, manage the budget in the manner in which it
    was formulated and ties the budget to the strategic planning
    process. This provides greater transparency to the operations
    of the Department as well as provides managers with more robust
    tools with which to manage operations and make decisions.
        We anticipate that with the implementation of the asset
    management system, the completion of a full set of audited
    financial statements, and the ongoing review of internal
    controls through implementation of our risk management plan,
    and the ongoing review and generation of policies and
    procedures, we will be nearly complete with our transition.
    While we currently do not produce a full set of federal
    financial statements, we do produce one of the statements, a
    Statement of Budgetary Resources, which is audited by an
    external audit firm and has received an unqualified opinion for
    all audits completed. We thank the Committee for your support
    of our initiatives to this point and look forward to reporting
    that we have reached our goal in the new future.

        Acting Chief McGaffin. I'll ask Tony to come forward. Mr.
    Chairman, I would like to point out, because he may be a little
    too modest to do this himself, some of the success that his
    office has achieved--you're absolutely right. In 2002, the
    Chief Administrative Officer plan called for a follow-up in 21
    areas of responsibility. This included 71 discreet actions that
    he was responsible for following up on. And of that, only seven
    remain open as we sit here today. And of those seven, we expect
    only three to remain open by the end of this fiscal year. I
    would suspect that Mr. Stamilio would talk to your subcommittee
    and your staff about some of the success he has had in
    implementing a financial management system or a new budget
    system, IT systems. And there's a performance system that we
    have in our police department now for executives and employees
    that is long overdue, and he and his staff have put together
    one of the most dynamic communications and evaluations systems
    that any law enforcement agency that I'm familiar with has. And
    these are all part of the plan that originated in 2002, and
    that has been rolled up into his own business plan and part of
    our strategic plan. So, there's great news in the work that he
    has brought to this endeavor.

                    CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ACTION PLAN

        Senator Allard. Well, I am particularly interested in the
    action plan.
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir.
        Senator Allard. Tony.
        Mr. Stamilio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to respond. As Chief McGaffin pointed out, as did
    you, the legislation that provided for a Chief Administrative
    Officer and a plan--resulted actually in a plan that was built
    in 2001 and again revised in 2002. As we reviewed the specific
    actions required of that plan that was obviously initiated by
    the department, there are only seven major actions that are
    left, three of which I don't expect to be accomplished by the
    end of this fiscal year. Those three include the documenting of
    our policies and procedures. Now, this is a significant
    undertaking. If I could just put that piece in context for you
    because I think it's a significant challenge.
        First off, it's not that the department has not documented
    its policies and procedures because it certainly has and
    continues to do so. We have more work to do in this area. When
    we have built procedures to put in place the types of controls
    that we need to have and now we're in the business of
    documenting those and incorporating those into our general
    orders process. I anticipate that that will probably take
    somewhere between 3 and 6 months beyond the end of the fiscal
    year to a point that I could come back to you and say I feel
    like our body of documentation of our policies and procedures
    is sufficient and supports an operation. So, that's one area
    that remains and quite frankly, will continue as policy and
    procedure must continually be updated. But it's one that
    clearly has our focus. And with the support of GAO, we have got
    some increased focus in terms of the level of specificity
    required there. The second two areas that will not be
    accomplished by the end of this fiscal year include
    implementing the cost accounting system and complete financial
    statements.

               IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

        In both of those two initiatives, we made a conscious
    decision to delay work on those and instead pull forward, with
    obviously significant financial support from the Congress, the
    implementation of our financial management system. That's a
    very significant achievement because included in that system
    are many of the internal controls and the processes that we
    have been doing manually that are now part of the automated
    system. I'm proud to say that our Office of Financial
    Management and Office of Information Systems has put that in
    place inside a year under budget and that is our system of
    record and has been through the entire fiscal year. A companion
    to that system is something that is a work in progress, and
    that is the asset management system. Again, with the support of
    Congress, the finances are available. It was impossible from a
    management perspective to field both of those systems at the
    same time.
        And so, we offset the implementation of one with the other.
    The requirements of the asset management system are built. The
    policy and procedures have been drafted, and we are in the
    implementation stage of the asset management system at this
    point in time and anticipate that that will be operating
    probably by the end of this fiscal year at the latest, or at
    least phase one of that will be operating. With a solid
    financial management system and a solid asset management
    system, we will be in a much better posture to be prepared to
    do clean financial statements. And in fact, that is our goal.
    And so, the decision to delay was to posture us to be in a
    position to be able to do that.

         SUMMARY OF REMAINING CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER INITIATIVES

        Senator Allard. So, let me just summarize this. We have 11
    left.
        Mr. Stamilio. No sir, we have seven left.
        Senator Allard. Oh, seven left. And then, you're going to
    have four of those seven completed, you think, by the end of
    this fiscal year.
        Mr. Stamilio. Yes, sir. That's correct.
        Senator Allard. And then, the three remaining that you will
    have after this year will be documentation, then the cost
    accounting system, and then the asset management system.
        Mr. Stamilio. Right.
        Senator Allard. Now, those are really important aspects,
    probably the meat of the whole thing in those last three.
        Mr. Stamilio. The third being the financial statements,
    yes, sir.
        Senator Allard. I see.
        Mr. Stamilio. Now----
        Senator Allard. The asset management is in the cost
    accounting area?
        Mr. Stamilio. No, the asset management provides us the
    capability to value our fixed assets and----
        Senator Allard. Sure, that's in inventory.
        Mr. Stamilio [continuing]. Prepare a balance sheet that
    would withstand the scrutiny of an external audit. And so, that
    is a component that will put us in a position where we can have
    clean financial statements.
        Senator Allard. And when do you think you'll have all this
    in place for there not to be a problem with an external audit?
        Mr. Stamilio. Our target is to have clean financial
    statements at the end of fiscal year 2008.
        Senator Allard. Okay. So 2 years down the road is what
    you're looking at?
        Mr. Stamilio. Yes, sir. At this point.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Stamilio. And depending on our ability to fully
    implement and have confidence in the asset management system,
    we may be able to push that up, but I'm very confident that by
    the end of fiscal year 2008, we will have clean financial
    statements.
        Senator Allard. Well, obviously there needs to be
    functional systems and they need to be accurate. They are very
    important systems, particularly from an oversight standpoint.
        Mr. Stamilio. Yes, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        USCP advances in the Administrative Arena start in the area
    of Human Capital.
        First, the Performance Evaluation and Communication System
    (PECS) was implemented and training for it was completed. This
    is a competency-based personnel performance management system
    and is linked to Departmental goals and objectives in the
    Strategic Plan.
        Second, USCP's personnel information system modernization
    is well underway. Accomplishments include: AVUE Implementation:
    Phase I accomplished for the Data Accuracy/Integrity Project
    (Workbrain Organizational. alignment and Reporting), enhanced
    WorkBrain Reporting for Overtime; employee Self-Service
    implemented and a Customer Resource Center established.
        A third advance toward this Human Capital goal is in the
    area of training. We shifted focus of Entry-Level and In-
    Service Training from traditional enforcement to Security
    Operations and Intelligence Training. Specifically, scenario-
    based training has been implemented, a security screening
    certification program has been approved, and recruit officer
    curriculum review was completed.
        We have also gained ground on our Strategic Objective
    entitled ``Leveraging technology to improve productivity.'' The
    point of this objective is to provide responsive, high quality,
    cost-effective information technology services and solutions in
    a timely manner. Strategic Initiatives that support this
    objective include developing and maintaining an Enterprise
    Architecture to align business requirements and information
    technology investments across USCP, and modernize business
    systems, including transitioning to a target architecture
    comprised of interoperable systems and applications, provide
    browser-enabled access to all USCP applications, utilize
    Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) technology to implement
    renovated applications and provide a phased approach to
    implementing target architecture.
        With regard to leveraging technology, the first step is to
    maintain and keep operational the installed Base of Information
    Technology (IT) Systems. This initiative encompasses the
    operation, maintenance and continued development of major
    systems critical to USCP operations: Computer Aided Dispatch,
    Time and Attendance, Records/Document Management Network
    Infrastructure, MAXIMO, Livescan Fingerprinting, Senate PERS,
    Radio Support Infrastructure, Microsoft Outlook (email), MS
    Windows 2000 Suite.
        We can report that all projects are on track and milestones
    are being achieved to support this initiative.
        A second step (in leveraging technology) is to complete the
    modernization of Administrative and Law Enforcement Programs.''
    On this front, progress has been particularly strong for
    supporting Computer Aided Dispatch, Reports Processing and the
    Momentum Financial Management System (FMS).
        USCP has made progress to gain accreditation and
    certification of major systems in compliance with the Federal
    Information Security Management Act (FISMA). USCP annually
    assesses risk, certifies and accredits major systems, once
    every three years, using a third party vendor, and is audited
    annually as part of the financial audit--as well as 6 month
    reviews by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). USCP is
    in compliance with the Federal Information Security Management
    Act (FISMA). OIS identifies personnel with significant
    information system security roles and responsibilities,
    documents those roles and responsibilities, and provides
    appropriate information system security training before
    authorizing access to the system. During fiscal year 2005,
    various tools and techniques were used to monitor events on the
    information systems to detect attacks, and provide
    identification of unauthorized use of the system. Using a third
    party, USCP used appropriate vulnerability scanning tools and
    techniques to scan for vulnerabilities.
        A great deal of progress was made regarding Enterprise
    Architecture (EA). 95 percent of our systems are compliant with
    EA and this supports our strategic objective: ``To provide
    responsive, high quality, cost-effective information technology
    services and solutions in a timely manner.'' We completed (and
    submitted for GAO review) our EA plan (version 3). In addition,
    we drafted an EA version 4 with case management and asset
    management systems included. Finally, the Department aligned
    the IT Strategic Plan to the USCP Strategic Plan using the
    ProVision modeling tool.
        The Department developed and maintained an electronic
    document and records management system that is secure and
    quickly accessible (Hummingbird document management system). In
    addition, we developed and implemented a training plan for 625
    personnel on the ways of Hummingbird, record management policy,
    and records disposition.
        There have been several accomplishments as regards our
    strategic objective for Financial Management--to provide
    timely, reliable, and responsible financial management
    services, and ensure accountability for assets and resources.
        First, we have been able to formulate, submit and execute a
    USCP Budget, consistent with our strategic plan and
    congressional direction. As far as improving our budget
    execution, progress included: meeting with Bureaus/Offices
    throughout fiscal year 2005 to review spending plans;
    developing list of fiscal year 2005 unfunded items and
    identified savings sufficient to fund many of these items; and
    developing and submitting fiscal year 2006 spending plan to
    committees.
        USCP has responsibly managed the Department-wide
    acquisition processes and procedures in accordance with
    applicable principles of law and authorities. Specifically we
    have completed implementation of the purchase card program and
    initiated a fleet card pilot program.
        We have performed all planning and preparatory work
    necessary for the new financial management system, Momentum, to
    become operational on October 5, 2005. The Department also
    trained 95 percent of Momentum users and hired two new systems
    accountants.
        As regards Asset Management--accomplishments included the
    following: completed requirements definition of asset
    management project; completed on-site assessment of ``as-is''
    asset management flows; identified definitive set of 629 user
    requirements; analyzing and evaluating asset management best
    practices to steer development of USCP's policies and
    procedures; analyzing business process reengineering for USCP's
    Property Management Program; analyzing ``to-be'' asset
    management flows; analyzing feasibility of a phased-in
    implementation approach; and updated Enterprise Architecture to
    reflect Asset Management.
        We have made significant progress on implementing programs
    to assure compliance with environmental, safety/OSHA
    regulations. For example, we have established Mishap Reporting
    Procedures and new data collection software for tracking and
    trending on-the-job injuries. Also we have developed a program
    to identify, document and correct workplace hazards. Of the
    more than 500 identified safety deficiencies by the Office of
    Compliance during the 108th Congress in USCP occupied spaces,
    100 percent of USCP action items were abated. Successfully
    abated over 350 safety deficiencies in USCP occupied spaces. We
    also successfully established a Safety Awareness Program.
        In other logistics areas we have improved warehouse
    inventory management, updated and revised internal standard
    operating procedures and improved our preventative maintenance
    system.

                DISCUSSION ON NEW POLICE CHIEF SELECTION STATUS

        Senator Allard. I would encourage you to keep on it and
    keep up the work. Now, Mr. Livingood, where are we in finding a
    new chief for the department, and what time frame do you think
    we are looking at for a hire there?
        Mr. Livingood. Mr. Chairman, the Capitol Police Board has
    requested the department to develop a concept for the search
    for a new Chief of Police. This concept is being developed as
    we speak to include use of a search firm, the selection
    criteria, and items such as that. Upon approval of the concept,
    a statement of work and deliverables, the process is estimated
    to be accomplished in approximately 3 to 4 months.

                       INSPECTOR GENERAL SELECTION STATUS

        Senator Allard. Very good. Now, what about the inspector
    general? That's another area where we have a search process in
    place.
        Mr. Livingood. Yes, sir. The search has been completed by
    the search firm, and the first interviews by the three
    inspector generals selected I understand has been completed or
    is in the process of being completed, and we, the Board, will
    start interviews, we think, within the next 2 weeks--2 to 3
    weeks.

                      MASTER TRAINING PLAN--CAPITOL POLICE

        Senator Allard. Now, I'd like to move to training. You
    talked somewhat in your comments, Chief McGaffin, about
    training. Do we have a master training plan for our Capitol
    Police?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. We have--the training services
    bureau, that's the group that is responsible for providing all
    the training for the police department, has developed a 2-year
    business plan that includes within it steps toward improving
    master training plans, schedules, initiatives associated with
    all the training within the police department.
        Senator Allard. So, it also includes organizational
    training policies as well as----
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Sir----
        Senator Allard [continuing]. On-the-street training, so to
    speak.
        Acting Chief McGaffin. It certainly does. It cuts all the
    way across--sworn civilian, recruit, in-service, and it is
    undergoing a review now with great emphasis and great energy
    being placed on improving it and ensuring that it meets every
    core competency that is being identified within all the
    positions and jobs we have in the department.
        Senator Allard. So, what do you see as the greatest
    challenge in updating this document?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. It is a challenge, and we are
    working toward meeting it.
        Senator Allard. What part of it is the greatest challenge?
        Acting Chief McGaffin. Oh, the greatest challenge? I'm
    sorry, Mr. Chairman. We have several. One is staffing. You
    know, to identify core competencies and the training
    requirements and the different positions we have is a
    challenge, but a greater one is to ensure that you have the
    right instructor staff and competencies within that instructor
    staff to deliver the training. And so, it's a balance. Within
    limited FTE staffing levels, we have got to pull men and women
    out of the line to put them into the training services bureau.
    So, we are looking at some strategies that would achieve
    efficiencies in those areas as well to include adjunct
    instructors who would be considered practitioners who would
    come off the line.
        For example, in our driver training program or our firearms
    program, when we would be running those courses, we would be
    bringing officers who are, in fact, drivers and who have been
    certified as instructors in that area to come in and conduct
    those classes. We also use our legal staff to come in and to
    conduct legal updates and constitutional law reviews for us.
    So, we are looking for efficiencies there as well, but that is
    a big challenge.

                                CLOSING REMARKS

        Senator Allard. I'd like to thank you, Chief McGaffin. This
    is sort of a last-minute responsibility you have had to incur.
    It's difficult to show up before this subcommittee, but we just
    want to thank you for stepping forward, and you have done a
    great job. Thank you for that. I also want to thank the whole
    Police Board for your effort.
                              CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD

    STATEMENT OF HON. WILSON LIVINGOOD, CHAIRMAN, CAPITOL
                POLICE BOARD AND CAPITOL GUIDE SERVICE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            HON. WILLIAM H. PICKLE, SERGEANT AT ARMS
            HON. ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, FAIA
            TOM STEVENS, DIRECTOR OF VISITOR SERVICES

        Senator Allard. We'll now move on to the Capitol Guide
    Board. Mr. Livingood, you're the chairman, so you'll be our
    next panel. We're ready when you are.
        Mr. Livingood. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
    for the Capitol Guide Board to appear before this subcommittee.
    I am pleased to come before you today to report on the
    operations of the Capitol Guide Service and the Congressional
    Special Services Office. With me today are Mr. William Pickle,
    the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and Mr. Alan Hantman, the
    Architect of the Capitol, who are members of the Capitol Guide
    Board, and Mr. Tom Stevens, Director of Visitor Services.

                                PRIMARY FUNCTION

        The primary function of the Capitol Guide Service is to
    provide an educational, accessible, and enjoyable visit to the
    United States Capitol for over 1 million visitors each year.
    The employees of the Capitol Guide Service and the
    Congressional Special Services Office provide a wide range of
    tour-related services to Member offices and public. We have
    had, as I said, over 1 million visitors this year, and that's
    on public tours, large group of Member's tours, congressional
    staff-led tours, and adaptive tours for visitors with
    disabilities.
        At the current level, we this year may well reach over 1.5
    million visitors to the Capitol before October 2006.
        As a quick background and I have submitted my full
    testimony for the record, but just as a quick background, the
    Capitol Guide Service has been in existence since 1876, and
    they initially employed three guides.
        And since then, as you know, the Guide Service and the role
    of the Guide Service has expanded--not only in terms of
    managing visitors to the Capitol, but in terms of added
    responsibilities. Following the events of September 11, the
    Capitol Guide Board called upon the Guide Service to assist the
    Capitol Police with emergency preparedness. Guide Service
    management is now equipped with emergency radios, providing a
    communications bridge to the Guide Service's own radio system.
    All Guide Service personnel have been trained in evacuation
    procedures. The Guide Service staff assists the Capitol Police
    in evacuation of all those tourists on public tours when
    needed.
        In addition to its daily responsibilities, the Guide
    Service and the CSSO help facilitate visitors through the
    Capitol during special events, such as the 2005 Presidential
    Inauguration, the lying in State for President Ronald Reagan
    and the lying in honor for Rosa Parks.

                                 BUDGET REQUEST

        The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Capitol Guide
    Service and the Congressional Services Office is $8,489,000.
    This request includes $4,450,000 for existing operations, which
    is an increase of $352,000 or 8.6 percent over the fiscal year
    2006 budget. Of that amount, 93 percent of this increase
    includes the COLA and increases in personnel benefits.
        The single largest increase in the fiscal year 2007 request
    includes an additional $4,039,000 to fund 71 additional FTEs
    and related equipment for operations in the new Capitol Visitor
    Center. The Guide Service and Congressional Special Services
    Office are currently funded for 72 employees, so this is in
    addition to that. The Architect of the Capitol has conducted a
    thorough study of the number and type of new positions
    necessary for tour operations in the new Capitol Visitor
    Center. The Guide Board's request for fiscal year 2007 funding
    reflects this need. In addition, the funding request includes
    the tour-related equipment necessary for beginning the
    transition to operations in the Capitol Visitor Center as soon
    as possible.
        As we begin to transition to the new Capitol Visitor
    Center, we welcome the opportunity to increase the duties and
    responsibilities of the Capitol Guide Service to meet the needs
    of the congressional community and the visiting public.
        In closing, the dedicated employees of the Capitol Guide
    Service and the Congressional Special Services Office do a
    tremendous, dedicated job in providing the maximum in visitor
    service to all who come here to the Capitol. Yet, none of this
    would be possible without the support of this subcommittee.
    Thank you for your ongoing support, and we'll be happy to
    answer any questions at this time.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Wilson Livingood
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
    opportunity for the Capitol Guide Board to appear before the Committee.
    I am pleased to come before you today to report on the operations of
    the Capitol Guide Service and its Congressional Special Services
    Office. With me today are Mr. William H. Pickle, the Senate Sergeant at
    Arms and Mr. Alan Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol, who join me as
    Members of the Capitol Guide Board. Also with me today is Mr. Tom
    Stevens, Director of Visitor Service, who has the pleasure of
    overseeing the day to day operations of the Capitol Guide Service.
        The primary function of the Capitol Guide Service is to provide an
    enjoyable and accessible visit to the United States Capitol for over
    one million visitors annually. In fiscal year 2005 the Guide Service
    accommodated approximately 353,000 visitors on Public tours alone.
    Also, the Guide Service led approximately 96,000 visitors on Member
    Reserved Group tours, 19,000 on Congressional member tours (early-
    morning tours) and 7,000 on Dome tours. The Guide Service also trained
    over 3,000 Congressional staff to give tours and regulated the flow of
    approximately 680,000 visitors on staff-led tours. Additionally, the
    Guide Service through its Congressional Special Services Office,
    provided over 850 hours of sign language interpreting services for
    Congressional business, accommodated more than 1,300 visitors on
    adaptive tours for visitors with disabilities and provided elevator
    escorts for more than 9,000 visitors. If current levels are an
    indicator, we may reach 1.5 million visitors to the Capitol before this
    October.
        The Capitol Guide Service has been in existence since 1876,
    employing three guides when it was established for the centennial
    celebration. The Capitol Guide Board--similar in composition to the
    Capitol Police Board (House and Senate Sergeants at Arms and Architect
    of the Capitol)--was established in 1970 to formalize the Guide Service
    as a professional entity within the Congress and to supervise and
    direct its operation.\1\ The authorizing legislation in 1970 called
    upon the Guide Service, which employed twenty-four guides at the time,
    to not only provide educational tours of the Capitol but also to
    ``assist the Capitol Police by providing ushering and informational
    services, and other services not directly involving law enforcement, in
    connection with ceremonial occasions in the Capitol or on Capitol
    Grounds,'' among other duties.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Effective January 3, 1971, Public Law 91-510 made the tour
    guides legislative employees under the jurisdiction of the Capitol
    Guide Board. The first free guided tour was conducted on January 3,
    1971.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since then, the role of the Guide Service has expanded to include
    additional responsibilities. Following the events of 9/11, we called
    upon the Guide Service to assist the Capitol Police with emergency
    preparedness. Guide Service management is now equipped with emergency
    radios, providing a communications bridge to the Guide Service's own
    radio system. All Guide Service personnel have been trained in
    evacuation procedures. It falls to the Guide Service staff to assist
    the Capitol Police in the evacuation of those on public tours, who for
    the most part, have never been inside the Capitol Building before.
        Today, we are budgeted for 72 Guide Service employees to perform
    these services. We welcome the opportunity to increase the duties of
    the Guide Service to meet the needs of the Congressional community as
    we transition to the Capitol Visitor Center.
        For fiscal year 2007, the Guide Service is requesting a total
    budget of $8,489,000. This request includes $4,450,000 for existing
    operations which is an increase of $352,000 or 8.6 percent over the
    fiscal year 2006 budget. Of that amount, $328,000 (93 percent) of this
    increase over fiscal year 2006 includes the estimated fiscal year 2007
    COLA and increases in personnel benefits. This part of the requested
    increase would enable the Guide Service to maintain the level of
    service currently being provided to Members of Congress and their
    guests based on current visitation volume and services provided.
    Secondly, this request includes $4,039,000 to fund 71 additional FTEs
    and related equipment to operate in the new Capitol Visitor Center.
        The staff of the Capitol Guide Service and its Congressional
    Special Services office has done a tremendous job in providing the
    utmost in visitor services to all who come to experience the Capitol.
    The accomplishments of this office would not be possible without the
    support of this Committee. We thank you for your support and the
    opportunity to present this testimony and answer your questions.

                         CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER OPENING

        Senator Allard. Well, thank you. I have four questions here
    I'd just like to cover with you this morning. The Guide Service
    and you are planning for the opening of the Capitol Visitor
    Center. Is this going to be a seamless operation as we move
    forward with the CVC operations?
        Mr. Livingood. Alan, do you want----
        Senator Allard. Mr. Hantman.
        Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, good morning.
        Senator Allard. Good morning.
        Mr. Hantman. Tom Stevens has been meeting with our
    transition team, with our operations team regularly for the
    last couple of years; talking about the role of the Capitol
    Guide Service with respect to the operations of the visitor
    center itself. We fully expect that once we get the executive
    director on board and working together with this team, which
    needs to be enlarged, both on the executive director side as
    well as on the Guide Board side, that we will have a seamless
    operation. Clearly, the plan is for hiring, starting in 2007,
    for the Capitol Guide team, the additional 71 people that Zell
    has identified. And obviously, the new functions that the Guide
    Service will be accommodating; such as boarding buses, talking
    to people before they actually get off the buses, to come into
    the visitor center, greeting people once they come through the
    screening area, working in the orientation theater areas,
    bringing people into those theaters, out of the theaters to be
    broken up into smaller groups to tour the Capitol building
    itself. Inside the exhibition areas--all of these functions and
    the new information desks inside the visitor center as well,
    will be staffed by the new people identified for the Guide
    Service. It's a tremendous increase in the responsibility and
    scope. And with the ability now to welcome and educate people
    as they come to visit their Nation's Capitol, as we have not
    been able to do in the past, will be a wonderful new role, an
    expanded role for the Guide Service.

                             FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS

        Senator Allard. Now, you've got 71 FTEs, and 24 of those
    are going to be full time, and you're planning on 37 that will
    be half time, or part time.
        Mr. Hantman. Tom.
        Mr. Stevens. It's 37 FTEs that actually split for 6-month
    positions, so it's actually 74 bodies, if you will, during the
    peak season.
        Senator Allard. Okay, and do you anticipate any
    difficulties in hiring these half-time employees?
        Mr. Stevens. Well, we don't at this point. Zell has
    volunteered their services to assist us in recruiting and
    advertising and actually hiring those folks.
        Senator Allard. Where are you anticipating the half-time
    employees would come from?
        Mr. Stevens. Well, what we see now are a number of college
    students, retirees, folks that go south for the winter, but are
    up here during the summer that enjoy the environment and come
    to work for us. And this is in addition to our volunteer
    staffing that we'll actually be beefing up.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Now, are you confident that the
    numbers of Guide Service employees requested for the CVC are
    sufficient?
        Mr. Stevens. I certainly believe for year one we will have
    sufficient staffing. Hopefully we will not have any kind of
    legislation that limits our maximum staffing levels. That is,
    we are budgeted for 143 FTEs, including the current staff. Some
    of those might be 9-month employees, some 6 month, and some 3
    month. It's obviously unrealistic to try to hire all those
    people and get them trained in a 1-month period. So, it'll be a
    ramping up just as the season ramps up for us and then slowly
    ramping down in the fall, as does the visitor season.

                     HIRING FOR THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

        Senator Allard. Based on the oversight that we have been
    having on a monthly basis with the Capitol Visitor Center,
    testimony is indicating that May is when the CVC would open.
    When do you begin hiring for the CVC positions with a May
    opening date?
        Mr. Stevens. I think we have to anticipate somewhere very
    close to the first of the year, aggressively advertising and
    recruiting. Part of the challenge in training is finding
    adequate space. We do some training now, but our facilities are
    very limited. Maybe we can borrow some space to do some larger
    training classes of 50 or 60 at a time, but that's probably
    going to be the biggest challenge because much of what we do is
    very unique to our office. They aren't skills that people
    typically bring with them from previous employment. So, it does
    take several weeks to even give people a rudimentary knowledge
    of the building to where we are comfortable with them actually
    interacting with the visitors.

                            CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

        Senator Allard. Do we have to deal with a certificate of
    occupancy on the new Capitol Visitor Center where people are
    not allowed in until you get your final inspection? My point is
    we may have part of the Capitol Visitor Center available if we
    could get into it before final inspection for employee
    training.
        Mr. Hantman. We would expect, Mr. Chairman, that for
    training functions, some of the functions that Tom and the team
    will need to go through, that we'd be able to do that a period
    of weeks before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the
    central area. The training that would have to go on that would,
    say, use outside sample groups, if you will, to move through
    the center would probably be done more likely after a
    certificate of occupancy was obtained for general people to
    come in as opposed to employees.
        Senator Allard. Okay. That's all the questions I have.
    Again, I want to thank the panel for showing up this morning
    and testifying before this subcommittee.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        The subcommittee stands in recess until Wednesday, April
    26, at 10:30 a.m. when we will take testimony from the
    Government Accountability Office on its fiscal year 2007 budget
    request, as well as receive an update from the Architect of the
    Capitol and the GAO on the progress of the Capitol Visitor
    Center. Look forward to seeing you then. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., Wednesday, April 5, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, April 26.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senator Allard.

                        GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF
                THE UNITED STATES
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            GENE L. DODARO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
            SALLYANNE HARPER, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
            GEORGE G. STRADER, CONTROLLER

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. The hour of 10:30 having arrived and
    staying on schedule like we do, we're going to call the
    Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch to order. This is a
    hearing on the 2007 budget for the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO). We will meet today to take testimony on the
    fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Government
    Accountability Office, as well as review other GAO matters.
        Welcoming our witnesses this morning, we have Mr. David
    Walker, Comptroller General; Gene Dodaro, Chief Operating
    Officer; Sallyanne Harper, Chief Administrative Officer; and
    George Strader, GAO's Controller. I look forward to hearing how
    you are implementing goal setting and tying that in with your
    budget figures and employee performance.

               NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE ON MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM

        Before we discuss GAO's fiscal 2007 budget request, I'd
    like to take a few moments to discuss an issue of deep concern
    to me. On April 2 of this year, the New York Times published a
    story alleging that the Government Accountability Office--and I
    quote, ``ignored evidence that contractors doctored data,
    skewed test results, and made false claims,'' close quote, in a
    2002 report on missile defense. The article was based on
    information provided by Mr. Subrata Ghoshroy, a GAO analyst who
    is on loan to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
        The information provided by Mr. Ghoshroy raises several
    troubling issues and calls into question the integrity of the
    GAO's investigative process. Even more disturbing are Mr.
    Ghoshroy's accusations that GAO personnel deliberately
    undermined this investigation and possibly altered documents to
    avoid investigating key items that might have lead to
    revelations of contractor fraud.
        I am especially interested in knowing how GAO made a
    unilateral decision to alter the scope of the investigation
    without securing the concurrence of the members who requested
    the investigation.
        Mr. Walker, I realize that some have used this issue to
    promote their own political agenda. In the context of this
    hearing, the policy does not interest me, really. I am
    interested in the process. And as the subcommittee responsible
    for overseeing the GAO, I believe we have an obligation to get
    to the bottom of the allegations. The GAO's reputation and
    credibility depends upon its ability to accurately investigate
    the executive branch on behalf of Congress. Accountability,
    integrity, and reliability are GAO's core tenets and I think we
    need to maintain those.
        So Mr. Walker, please proceed with your statement.
        Mr. Walker. Sure. Would you like me to address that issue
    now.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        And then, let's go ahead and move on to your budget.

              MR. WALKER'S RESPONSE TO THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE

        Mr. Walker. That'll be great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's
    a pleasure to be back before you and I look forward to talking
    about the budget. But let me go ahead and address this issue,
    because I think it is important we try to put it to rest.
        First, the allegations lack merit. Just because they are
    printed, doesn't mean they are true. I can tell you that we
    conducted three internal reviews on this matter. Any time that
    I received a complaint, from either Mr. Berman or Mr. Ghoshroy,
    I expeditiously took steps to try to review those. I
    commissioned three internal reviews and all of those reviews
    came out to say that the assertions lacked merit.
        Furthermore, there was a prize winning investigative
    reporter from 1 of the top 10 papers in the United States--who
    spent months last year conducting an independent investigation
    of this. And after months, the reporter determined that it
    lacked merit and was not worthy of publication.
        Furthermore, I think it's important for you to know, that
    this report was 1 of about 4,000 that we've issued in the last
    several years. It's also one of many that we've issued on
    national missile defense, and we take our quality control
    procedures very seriously. We want you to be able to rely upon
    our work and for the American people to be able to rely on our
    work. I think it's important for you to also know that last
    year we had two independent peer reviews conducted of GAO's
    quality assurance processes. One by KPMG on our financial
    audits. One by a multinational team lead by Canada, involving
    seven countries who looked at our quality control procedures
    and non-financial audit work. You can rely on our work.

                LESSONS LEARNED FROM MISSILE DEFENSE ENGAGEMENT

        Now with regard to lessons learned. There are two important
    lessons learned from this engagement. Number one, we never
    should have accepted it from day one. We were asked to do work
    on a matter that, after further investigation, was pending in
    the Federal courts. In my view, there was an attempt to get GAO
    to intervene in private party litigation and to use GAO's work
    to further that private party litigation. That is wholly
    inappropriate, in my opinion.
        So first, we made a mistake by accepting the engagement.
    But after it became clear, and after we had accepted to do some
    work, that we were being asked to do something relating to
    litigation that was pending, we made an attempt to modify the
    objectives of the engagement, in order to be able to do
    something without directly intervening in that litigation.
        In doing that, we made a second mistake. And that is, when
    we communicated with the requestor's staff about the need to
    make a change and what our change would be, we did not
    communicate it in writing. That was a mistake. As a result,
    that led to an expectation gap between the requestor and us as
    well as I think, this particular employee who is on a leave of
    absence, who has dogged us ever since.
        We have modified our procedures with regard to engagement
    acceptance. We have also modified our procedures with regard to
    modifying engagement objectives after we've accepted an
    engagement. We have not had any other instances like this
    occur, and I can assure you we'll do everything we can to make
    sure it doesn't reoccur. But I can also assure you, that you
    can rely upon our work including that report.

                     BACKGROUND ON MISSILE DEFENSE ARTICLE

        Senator Allard. Now, I'm just going to follow up with a
    question and we'll just get this off the table and move on with
    the budget. It's really unusual for a GAO employee to come
    forward like this. I can't recall any, and you indicated in
    your testimony that has never happened. In this particular
    instance, what caused your analyst to complain to the press,
    from your point of view?
        Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, to a certain extent, I would be
    speculating. I think the problem is, that the analyst wanted us
    to do the original work and when we modified the scope of the
    engagement to make sure that we did not interject GAO into
    ongoing litigation, I think the analyst had difficulty
    accepting that, even though it was very consistent with GAO's
    longstanding policy well before I was at GAO, that we won't
    interject ourselves into pending litigation.
        I think the analyst also had difficulty in understanding
    that while every person's opinion counts at GAO, no matter what
    your position is, no matter what your level is, no matter what
    your classification is, in the final analysis while everybody
    needs to be heard and is heard, we make institutional
    decisions.
        Senator Allard. And this was in a lawsuit that he had a
    personal interest in?
        Mr. Walker. To my knowledge, he didn't have a personal
    interest. But it's also my understanding; he may have known
    some of the parties who did have a personal interest in the
    litigation. That's something that we're following up on. Since
    the report appeared in the New York Times, I have received
    information from a party, not in government, but a very high
    ranking official who's aware of this situation, who believes
    that there may have been some relationships that need to be
    reviewed, and we are in the process of doing that. These are
    allegations. They may or may not be true. And unless and until
    we review it and investigate it, I would prefer not to go into
    more detail. But I would be more than happy to keep you
    apprised, as I promised Congressman Berman as well as Senator
    Grassley to keep them apprised.
        Senator Allard. Well I would appreciate that. I'm glad that
    you feel that you've learned some things. We all make mistakes
    occasionally and we need to learn from those mistakes. But
    aside from that, do you think the review was taken in the most
    professional and unbiased manner possible?
        Mr. Walker. You can rely on that work, Mr. Chairman. The
    other thing that one has to keep in mind, is the Justice
    Department was already well aware of this matter.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Walker. And so, this was not something new. This was
    not something where people were relying on GAO to be able to
    advise the Justice Department as to whether or not the
    Government's interest should be protected. In fact, the Justice
    Department conducted its own independent review, it's my
    understanding, to determine whether and to what extent they
    should intervene in this action. They decided not to intervene
    in this action.
        I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, we have spent a tremendous
    amount of time institutionally, as well as myself individually,
    and we've spent a significant amount of taxpayer resources
    taking this matter very seriously. I'm just hoping we're to the
    point that we can move forward.

             PRIOR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CONGRESS ON MISSILE DEFENSE

        Senator Allard. Yes. You've now talked to Mr. Berman and
    Senator Grassley about this misjudgment that you've made in
    taking on the case and subsequently had to change the scope.
    Even though it was after the fact, did they agree in light of
    the court case, that this is a change that needed to be made?
        Mr. Walker. They understand and they accept what we did and
    why we did it. I've spoken to Mr. Berman on several occasions
    over several years about this. In fact, I was very surprised
    when the article appeared in the New York Times, because there
    had been no attempt to communicate with me on this for almost 2
    years. After all the efforts I had taken, and that we
    institutionally had taken on this, it was really a surprise to
    me. In fact, the letter that resulted in the New York Times
    article--the 41 page letter, dated December 19, 2005, was never
    provided to me or anybody else at GAO. We had to get it off of
    Mr. Berman's website the day after it appeared in the New York
    Times.
        Senator Allard. I see.
        Mr. Walker. I will say for the record, that I had the
    professional courtesy to send Subrata Ghoshroy a copy of my
    response to his letter, which I think obviously, is
    appropriate.

       GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S POLICY ON ENGAGEMENTS PENDING
                                   LITIGATION

        Senator Allard. Yes. Now your policy, prior to 2002, has
    not been to take on studies that might involve you in a court
    case. Is that the policy now?
        Mr. Walker. Our policy was and remains not to have GAO
    directly address issues that are pending before the Federal
    courts.
        Senator Allard. Is it just Federal courts or is it local
    courts too?
        Mr. Walker. It's general--it's any court. But typically,
    its Federal courts when somebody would be involving us to do
    anything regarding Federal spending, programs or whatever else.
    We never should have accepted it. Once we did accept it, we
    endeavored to try to be able to modify the objectives to not
    directly intervene. But that created certain expectation gaps
    within our organization and outside our organization. In fact,
    I communicated with Mr. Berman about this within the last
    couple of weeks and I think we both agree, that rather than
    modify the objectives, we probably should have said, we're not
    going to do anything.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Walker. Because it created certain expectation gaps.
    So, as you know, no good deed goes unpunished. I mean you're
    trying to provide some type of service. But we have learned
    lessons. In summary, you can rely on this report and we did
    take the complaints very seriously.

         GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES

        Senator Allard. Now how does GAO deal with concerns that
    are raised by analysts as to the direction the report is going
    in or the conclusions being drawn during the course of the job?
        Mr. Walker. Let me provide an overview of our quality
    control procedures, Mr. Chairman. I think it would help. As you
    can imagine, we receive 25 to 50 requests in a typical week
    from the Congress for us to do work. Every Monday afternoon,
    Gene Dodaro, our Chief Operating Officer, after getting input
    from me, chairs a meeting reviewing all of those requests
    involving the managing directors of all of our key teams, and
    we make a decision, typically within 10 days, on whether or not
    we're going to accept it. We also assign who is going to be the
    leader. We also identify, given the nature of the work, the
    complexity of the work, what we're being asked to do, and who
    the other key stakeholders are that need to be involved. For
    most of the work that we do, there are multiple key
    stakeholders, or multiple organizations, as was the case with
    this report. There are usually a number of key organizations
    that have to be involved to bring the right skills and
    knowledge together to do the best job and to mitigate related
    risk.
        Then staff are assigned. We have an extensive quality
    control process that includes periodic status reports on each
    major engagement. We also have a quality control process that
    includes internal reviews of all draft reports. We have a
    quality control process that includes providing an opportunity
    for any of the agencies that would be affected, to comment on
    the report before it is made final. If there are differences of
    opinion within our agency between key stakeholders, they are to
    buck it up the chain of command. If necessary, to my level, to
    get it resolved.
        Interestingly with regard to this report, we have a policy
    where before we issue any report, every stakeholder that's
    assigned to the engagement has to sign off on the report. That
    was the case here, including the person who's complaining.
        Senator Allard. So the person who's raising the complaint
    signed off on the report?
        Mr. Walker. He signed off on the report.

      ENSURING THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORTS ARE IMPARTIAL

        Senator Allard. Okay. Now, what steps do you take to ensure
    that your employees or consultants that you are working with
    don't have an over sympathetic relationship with individuals
    involved in your investigation, in a way that might distort the
    outcome of that report?
        Mr. Walker. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have professional
    independence standards that relate to GAO. We also have
    supplemental internal policies and procedures. We set a very
    high bar on both institutional independence, as well as
    individual independence with regard to particular engagements.
    So when we're staffing, we're looking for that. The people have
    to let us know if they think they have any potential
    impairments that we need to be aware of. I would ask Gene
    Dodaro, our Chief Operating Officer, to comment in more detail.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Dodaro.
        Mr. Dodaro. Good morning, Senator. We have several
    different safeguards in place. Annually, each employee is to
    sign a statement of independence, saying that they are free
    from any personal impairments. Every employee also files a
    financial disclosure statement that's reviewed by their
    supervisor, so we can tell if they have any financial interest
    that may be an issue.
        Then, when individual engagements are staffed, every
    employee is reminded that they are to notify their manager if
    they have any personal or other conflicts with their assignment
    to that engagement. And then, they sign off on every individual
    engagement.
        Now, we didn't have that particular procedure in place back
    when this engagement was conducted, but we've added it since
    then. We've always had the annual certification. We've always
    had the requirement that each employee notify managers if they
    have any conflicts of interest.
        So the burden is on individual employees to notify
    managers. But we do have institutional safeguards and do some
    independent checking, as well.
        Senator Allard. Okay. And just kind of a summary question
    here. Mr. Dodaro, you mentioned a couple lessons learned. Can
    we just get a summary of lessons learned and then actions that
    have been taken, so that doesn't happen again?
        Mr. Walker. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. We'd be happy to
    provide that for the record.
        Senator Allard. If you would, please.
        Mr. Walker. We will do it.
        [The information follows:]

        Question. How has GAO responded to the allegations about the
    February 2002 missile defense program report and what changes, if any,
    have you made to GAO's internal processes as a result?
        Answer. We have taken these concerns very seriously. In total, I
    initiated three internal reviews to respond to the concerns and most
    recently, in April 2006, provided a detailed response to Senator
    Grassley and Representative Berman addressing questions about the
    report. In summary,
      --The three internal reviews that have been conducted, including one
            by our Inspector General, found that our 2002 report was done
            in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
            standards and the allegations raised were not substantiated. In
            particular, these reviews determined that there was no credible
            evidence supporting the assertion of conflicts of interest by
            GAO personnel involved with the engagement nor was there any
            credible evidence that would raise questions regarding the
            integrity of our workpapers.
      --The missile defense report's findings represent the consensus view
            of our most senior technical and professional staff.
            Differences of opinion during the course of the work were
            resolved by the time the report was issued, as evidenced by the
            signatures of all the ``stakeholders'' on the engagement,
            including the employee making the assertions. As a result, we
            continue to stand behind the report. While the employee who
            made the allegations, like all the other team members did play
            a role in this engagement, he was one of four technical people
            involved in the project. In addition, while all GAO employees'
            opinions are important and sought, the opinion of a single
            individual is not sufficient to create an institutional
            position.
      --Importantly, the objective of our engagement was not to adjudicate
            whether false claims had or had not been made nor did we
            attempt to do so. In hindsight, we should not have accepted the
            original July 2000 request because of the then-ongoing
            litigation over the central issues involved in the sensor test.
            Once we identified the need to restructure the engagement in
            order to be consistent with long-standing GAO policy involving
            matters pending before the courts, we took corrective action to
            avoid directly inserting GAO into the issues that were the
            subject of the litigation. The Justice Department was already
            aware of allegations of false claims prior to GAO issuing its
            report. Furthermore, the Justice Department conducted its own
            review of this matter and decided not to pursue it. As I have
            noted in previous communications on this matter, we should have
            done a better job of communicating to the requester that we
            were revising our audit scope and objectives and documenting
            such revisions. Clearly this communication gap underlies the
            fundamental misunderstanding that is at the heart of this
            dispute both internally and externally, which has now consumed
            a significant amount of time and taxpayer resources over
            several years.
      --GAO has a strong, clear, and consistent record of aggressively
            pursuing fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement within
            government, including the Defense Department, in general, and
            defense contracting and weapons acquisitions, in particular. In
            fact, eight individual DOD areas are on GAO's high risk list
            including weapons systems acquisition and several government
            wide high risk areas apply to DOD as well. Our reviews of
            missile defense issues have been an important part of this body
            of work.
        In part as a result of the 2002 missile defense report, we have
    clarified our written policies and introduced new procedures pertaining
    to requests for work that deal with issues in litigation. Our written
    policies have been revised to emphasize that our Office of General
    Counsel should help identify and analyze any ongoing or anticipated
    litigation that could affect the engagement acceptance decision, and
    that this office should be consulted about such matters. In addition,
    the July 2004 update to our Congressional Protocols specifies that one
    of the factors that will be considered in determining whether to accept
    congressional requests is whether the matter is pending before
    administrative or judicial forums. We also have been giving greater
    attention to this issue at our weekly Engagement Acceptance Meeting,
    where all new congressional requests and mandates are discussed to
    determine, among other things, whether the work should be done and the
    appropriate level of Office of Comptroller General involvement. Known
    or potential issues involving litigation are discussed at the
    Engagement Acceptance Meeting as part of deciding whether GAO should
    accept the engagement. Lastly, we hold bi-weekly Engagement Review
    Meetings to discuss progress or issues on ongoing assignments that may
    require senior GAO management attention, such as litigation that may
    have been initiated since an engagement was begun and that may impact
    the engagement's scope or objectives.
        Regarding the issue of communicating changes in the scope of GAO
    work to requesters, once I became aware of the miscommunication on the
    missile defense engagement, we strengthened our internal policies and
    practices to protect against such communication problems in the future.
    Specifically, our practice is now to not only discuss significant
    changes in the scope of work, but also to document this discussion with
    a letter to the requester outlining the changes. Additional
    communication requirements in the protocols include holding discussions
    and sending documenting letters concerning our acceptance/declination
    of a request; and our agreement with the requester on the terms of the
    engagement. The practice of providing briefings and sending letters to
    the requester whenever there is a significant change in the objectives
    or scope of an engagement--coupled with the attention we give to these
    issues in Engagement Acceptance and Engagement Review Meetings--should
    help ensure solid communications with our congressional clients on
    these issues.
        In regard to assuring the independence of GAO staff, at the start
    of each engagement, the engagement's Director discusses the need to
    maintain independence with the engagement team and asks if anyone has
    any independence issues. This discussion is documented. If an
    individual's personal impairment cannot be mitigated, the individual
    will not perform the audit. When the design of an engagement is
    completed and documented (referred to as a design matrix), all
    engagement staff and stakeholders certify on the design matrix that
    they are free of any impairments to their independence and that they
    will notify their supervisor if such impairments should arise.
        Finally, it is our longstanding policy and practice that GAO's
    professional staff represent their independence by (1) signing an
    annual Statement of Independence stating that they have no personal or
    external impairments and understand the requirements for independence
    as stated in our professional standards (Generally Accepted Government
    Auditing Standards), (2) identifying financial interests and filing an
    annual Financial Disclosure report that is reviewed by Executive
    Committee members, Managing Directors, or designees; and (3) reporting
    to their Managing Director when they are seeking employment at the
    entity being audited and obtaining their Managing Director's approval
    to engage in outside activities.
        Question. What policies and practices have you put in place to
    assure that (1) GAO does not accept requests for work on matters
    involving pending litigation, (2) changes in the scope of work are
    communicated to requesters, and (3) GAO staff are free of any
    impairments related to the subject or conduct of an engagement?
        Answer. It has been our long-standing policy to generally avoid
    addressing any issue that is directly related to a matter pending in
    the Courts. In addition, we do not believe it is appropriate to use GAO
    as a means of advancing the interests or positions of private parties
    in pending litigation, whether intentionally or unintentionally. As a
    general rule, we will seek to avoid such engagements unless we believe
    we can structure our work to avoid influencing or directly interfering
    with pending litigation.
        In part as a result of the 2002 missile defense report, we have
    clarified our written policies and introduced new procedures pertaining
    to requests for work that deal with issues in litigation. Our written
    policies have been revised to emphasize that our Office of General
    Counsel should help identify and analyze any ongoing or anticipated
    litigation that could affect the engagement acceptance decision, and
    that this office should be consulted about such matters. In addition,
    the July 2004 update to our Congressional Protocols specifies that one
    of the factors that will be considered in determining whether to accept
    congressional requests is whether the matter is pending before
    administrative or judicial forums. We also have been giving greater
    attention to this issue at our weekly Engagement Acceptance Meeting,
    where all new congressional requests and mandates are discussed to
    determine, among other things, whether the work should be done and the
    appropriate level of Office of Comptroller General involvement. Lastly,
    we hold bi-weekly Engagement Review Meetings to discuss progress or
    issues on ongoing assignments that may require senior GAO management
    attention, such as litigation that may have been initiated since an
    engagement was begun and that may impact the engagement's scope or
    objectives.
        Regarding the issue of communicating changes in the scope of GAO
    work to requesters, once we became aware of the miscommunication on the
    missile defense engagement, we strengthened our internal policies and
    practices to protect against such communication problems in the future.
    Specifically, our practice is now to not only discuss significant
    changes in the scope of work, but also to document this discussion with
    a letter to the requester outlining the changes. Additional
    communication requirements in the protocols include holding discussions
    and sending documenting letters concerning our acceptance/declination
    of a request; and our agreement with the requester on the terms of the
    engagement. The practice of providing briefings and sending letters to
    the requester whenever there is a significant change in the objectives
    or scope of an engagement--coupled with the attention we give to these
    issues in Engagement Acceptance and Engagement Review Meetings--should
    help ensure solid communications with our congressional clients on
    these issues.
        In regard to assuring the independence of GAO staff, at the start
    of each engagement, the engagement's Director discusses the need to
    maintain independence with the engagement team and asks if anyone has
    any independence issues. This discussion is documented. If an
    individual's personal impairment cannot be mitigated, the individual
    will not perform the audit. When the design of an engagement is
    completed and documented (referred to as a design matrix), all
    engagement staff and stakeholders certify on the design matrix that
    they are free of any impairments to their independence and that they
    will notify their supervisor if such impairments should arise.
        Finally, it is our longstanding policy and practice that GAO's
    professional staff represent their independence by (1) signing an
    annual Statement of Independence stating that they have no personal or
    external impairments and understand the requirements for independence
    as stated in our professional standards (Generally Accepted Government
    Auditing Standards), (2) identifying financial interests and filing an
    annual Financial Disclosure report that is reviewed by Executive
    Committee members, Managing Directors, or designees; and (3) reporting
    to their Managing Director when they are seeking employment at the
    entity being audited and obtaining their Managing Director's approval
    to engage in outside activities.

      GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S FISCAL YEAR 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Senator Allard. Okay. Let's go ahead and proceed with your
    budget, and hear what you have to say in that regard.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that very
    much. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you again, and I want to thank your subcommittee for your past
    support. Briefly, I'd like to touch on some of our
    accomplishments for last year, and then our budget request for
    2007.
        In the last fiscal year, ended September 30, 2005, as you
    know, GAO is trying to lead by example in transforming what we
    do and how we do business, focusing on positive results that
    benefit the Congress and the American people. Last year, we met
    or exceeded 10 of our 14 performance measures. We matched or
    set all time records for three of those performance measures.
    We achieved $39.6 billion in financial benefits. That's an $83
    return for every $1 invested in GAO. That's number one in the
    world. Nobody's even close. Nobody else is even in double
    digits. We had a 93 percent positive client feedback score and
    we set all time records on our employee feedback scores. So on
    all dimensions; it was a very good year.
        We issued two strategic documents of critical importance to
    the Congress and the country. The first was our ``High Risk
    Update'' listing high risk programs, functions, and activities
    in the Federal Government. The second one was our ``21st
    Century Challenges'' document, which I know Mr. Chairman,
    you've seen. This document lays out a series of questions that
    need to be asked and answered in order to re-engineer the
    Government to address 21st century challenges and capitalize on
    related opportunities.
        We strengthened various partnerships, both domestically and
    internationally. For example, we led the effort to develop the
    first ever strategic plan for auditors general around the
    world, modeled after GAO's plan. We also led the effort that
    resulted in the first ever National Intergovernmental Audit
    Forum strategic plan which involves Federal, State, and local
    auditors. It's important that we partner for progress, because
    we all have limited resources, if we're going to achieve
    maximum results.
        We successfully completed, as I mentioned before, two
    external peer reviews, providing assurance to the Congress and
    the American people in connection with our quality control
    processes. They resulted not only in clean opinions, but also a
    number of global good practices that were identified.
        A couple of areas for continuous improvement were noted in
    the reports, and we are taking steps in light of those
    recommendations. We have implemented additional flexibilities
    provided by this Congress, dealing with our human capital
    classification and compensation systems. We now have market-
    based pay ranges for all GAO personnel. We now have a
    compensation system that pays based upon skills, knowledge, and
    performance. We also have extended pay banding to all of our
    administrative personnel. There are no GAO employees on the GS
    system. Not one.
        We are a window to the future, Mr. Chairman, with regard to
    this area. We most recently--and this is in fiscal 2006, had to
    accomplish the most difficult thing we'll ever do internally
    and that is to make tough decisions for our so-called Band II,
    or mid-level senior auditors, investigators, analysts, and
    evaluators, to determine which ones should benefit from higher
    pay ranges that came out of the pay study and which ones should
    not.
        We found when that pay study came out, that it was good
    news and bad news. The good news was, depending on a person's
    level of responsibilities and their performance; they should
    have the opportunity to earn up to $10,000 more than under our
    old system. The bad news was that if some persons were not
    leading on a recurring basis or their performance did not
    justify, we were paying them too much. And so, we had to go
    through a system, on an individual by individual basis, which I
    am happy to answer questions on if you so desire, that resulted
    in decisions for applicable individuals, including some
    resulting from personal appeals that came to me.
        In the final analysis, we've got only 1 percent of our Band
    II employees that have made independent appeals to our external
    review body. I think that is a minor miracle, and we obviously
    look forward to working with that body to resolve those
    appeals.

       GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST

        As far as 2007, as has been the case, we are trying to be
    modest with regard to our budget requests. We know the country
    is in a deficit situation. We're asking for about a 5-percent
    increase relating directly and overwhelmingly to mandatory and
    uncontrollable increases.
        I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman that you not
    just consider what our increase is for this year, but also how
    we've been treated over the last several years. For example,
    since fiscal 2000, GAO's budget has increased 10 percent in
    constant dollars. The average legislative branch constant
    dollar increase during the same period is 36 percent. So I
    would respectfully suggest that you not just look at what we're
    asking for now, but how we've been treated in the past and what
    results we're generating for the Congress and the American
    people, making the tough decisions that you're going to have to
    make, with regard to limited resource allocations.
        We're asking for 50 additional full-time equivalents
    (FTEs). The reason we're asking for them, is that we're facing
    increasing supply and demand imbalances in congressional
    requests versus our ability to address those requests in a
    timely manner in several areas, such as healthcare and homeland
    security.
        And last, we're asking for a few targeted investments based
    on a business case, one time money that we would hopefully get
    funded for and will reverse out of our base, for things like
    replacing our 20 year old financial management system and
    enhancing our physical and information security requirements.
    In that regard, Mr. Chairman, it's not just for us, but we're
    one of several contingent sites for the Congress in the event
    of an unexpected catastrophic event.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So, we're not just trying to take care of ourselves and our
    people, we're also trying to be in a position to help the
    Congress in the event that the Congress needs to use our
    facilities, which has already happened once in the history of
    the republic. I hope it won't happen again. But if it does, we
    want to be ready.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of David M. Walker
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear
    before the Committee today in support of the fiscal year 2007 budget
    request for the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). This
    request will help us continue our support of the Congress in meeting
    its constitutional responsibilities and will help improve the
    performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for
    the benefit of the American people.
        Budget constraints in the federal government grew tighter in fiscal
    years 2005 and 2006. In developing our fiscal year 2007 budget, we
    considered those constraints consistent with GAO's and the Committee's
    desire to ``lead by example.'' In fiscal year 2007, we are requesting
    budget authority of $509.4 million, a reasonable 5 percent increase
    over our fiscal year 2006 revised funding level. In the event Congress
    acts to hold federal pay increases to 2.2 percent, our requested
    increase will drop to below 5 percent. This request will allow us to
    continue making improvements in productivity, maintain our progress in
    technology and other transformation areas, and support a full-time
    equivalent (FTE) staffing level of 3,267. This represents an increase
    of 50 FTEs over our planned fiscal year 2006 staffing level and will
    allow us to rebuild our workforce to a level that will position us to
    better respond to increasing supply and demand imbalances in areas such
    as disaster assistance, the global war on terrorism, homeland security,
    forensic auditing, and health care.
        I am proud of the work we accomplished this past fiscal year in
    support of the Congress and the American people. We provided our
    congressional clients with timely, objective, and reliable information
    on how well government programs and policies are working and, when
    needed, recommendations for improvement. In the years ahead, our
    support to the Congress will likely prove to be even more critical
    because of the pressures created by our nation's current and projected
    budget deficit and growing long-term fiscal imbalance. Indeed, as it
    considers those fiscal pressures, the Congress will be grappling with
    tough choices about what government does, how it does business, and who
    should do the government's business. GAO is a valuable tool for helping
    the Congress review, reprioritize, and revise existing mandatory and
    discretionary spending programs and tax policies. Additionally, through
    its involvement domestically with the federal, state, and local audit
    community and internationally with its national audit office
    counterparts, GAO has played--and will continue to play--an important
    role in helping to ensure the financial integrity of U.S. funds
    expended at home and abroad. GAO-led efforts to develop and implement
    the first-ever strategic plans for the National Intergovernmental Audit
    Forum and the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions
    have helped improve the effectiveness of these audit organizations and
    GAO to work more efficiently and cost-effectively.
        In an effort to identify areas for potential improvement, GAO
    underwent two peer reviews in fiscal year 2005. We obtained a clean
    opinion on our performance audit practice from an international team of
    experienced auditors--the first time that we have sought such an
    opinion. The independent reviewers concluded that we have designed and
    implemented an effective system of quality controls to provide
    reasonable assurance of complying with generally accepted government
    auditing standards, which are designed to ensure that audits of
    government activities are objective, independent, and reliable. This
    opinion validated that the Congress and the American people can rely on
    our work and products. Also during fiscal year 2005, GAO received an
    unqualified report, or clean opinion, on the results of the external
    peer review of its financial audit practice. External peer reviews are
    conducted on a 3-year cycle, and this is the fourth such clean opinion
    that GAO has received from an external peer reviewer since the program
    began in fiscal year 1996. The external peer reviewer, KPMG LLP, found
    that the system of quality control for GAO's financial auditing
    practice met professional standards and that GAO in fact complied with
    the standards.
        In fiscal year 2005, we met or exceeded targets for 10 of our 14
    performance measures, while setting or matching all-time records for 3
    measures. We documented $39.6 billion in financial benefits--a return
    of $83 for every dollar we spent--and over 1,400 nonfinancial
    benefits--a record for us. Our targets for fiscal years 2006 and 2007
    will continue to challenge the agency in our efforts to support the
    Congress and serve the American people. Beginning with fiscal year
    2006, we will add 2 internal operations measures to the list. These 2
    new performance measures will assess how well our mission and people
    are supported by our infrastructure operations staff.
        In fiscal year 2005, we issued two products that will assist the
    Congress as it addresses future challenges. Recognizing the importance
    and scope of these reports, we provided a copy to every member of
    Congress and each Committee, as well as the White House. Our report
    entitled 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
    Government provides a series of illustrative questions related to 12
    areas of federal activity as well as our perspective on various
    strategies and approaches that should be considered as a possible means
    to address the issues and questions raised in the report. Drawing on
    our institutional knowledge and extensive program evaluation and
    performance assessment work for the Congress, we presented over 200
    specific 21st century questions illustrating the types of hard choices
    our nation needs to face as it reexamines what the federal government
    should do, how it should do it, and how it should be financed. We also
    issued our High-Risk Series: An Update, which identifies federal areas
    and programs at risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement and
    those in need of broad-based transformations. The issues affecting many
    of these areas and programs may take years to address, and the report
    will serve as a useful guide for the Congress's future programmatic
    deliberations and oversight activities. The current administration has
    looked to our high-risk program in shaping governmentwide initiatives
    such as the President's Management Agenda, which has at its base many
    of the areas we had previously identified as high risk. The Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with GAO, is currently
    working to ensure that agencies develop detailed action plans to
    address high-risk areas, with the ultimate objective, over time, of
    seeing these items removed from our high-risk list.
        As in past years, during fiscal year 2005, our work covered a
    number of major topics of concern to the nation and, in some cases, the
    world. For example, we reported on the nation's long-term fiscal
    challenges, the financial condition of the airline industry, spending
    and reconstruction activities related to Iraq and Afghanistan, and
    strengthening the visa process as an antiterrorism tool. We also
    examined the Department of Defense's (DOD's) transformation challenges,
    base realignment and closure issues, increasing the strategic focus of
    federal acquisitions, protecting against identity theft, the oversight
    of electricity markets, zero down-payment mortgages, and immigration
    enforcement. We testified many times before the Congress, contributing
    to the public debate on a variety of topics that included Social
    Security reform, pension reform, postal reform, GSE oversight, wildland
    fire management, gasoline prices, the flu vaccine, veterans' health
    care, benefits for members of the Reserves and National Guard, digital
    broadcast television, long-term health care financing, passport fraud
    detection, reducing the tax gap, information security, and a range of
    financial management and accountability issues. In addition, we
    conducted a range of work on a variety of legislative branch agencies
    and projects, including the Capitol Visitor Center, the Architect of
    the Capitol, and the U.S. Capitol Police.
        This past year we also continued to take steps internally to help
    us achieve our goal of being a model federal agency and a world-class
    professional services organization. These steps helped us to address
    our three major management challenges--human capital, physical
    security, and information security. Through the GAO Human Capital
    Reform Act of 2004, the Congress granted GAO several additional human
    capital flexibilities that will allow us, among other things, to move
    to an even more performance-oriented and market-based compensation
    system. As you have heard me say many times, our most valuable asset is
    our people, and the flexibilities granted in this act will help us to
    continue to modernize our people-related policies and strategies,
    which, in turn, will help ensure that we are well-equipped to serve the
    Congress and the American people in the years to come. As a result, we
    are continuing to take a range of actions designed to modernize our
    human capital policies and practices. In fiscal year 2005, we adopted a
    broad pay band approach and a more performance-oriented pay system for
    our administrative staff. In fiscal year 2006, we implemented a more
    market-based and skills-, knowledge-, and performance-oriented
    classification and pay system for all of our employees.
        My testimony today will focus on our budget request for fiscal year
    2007 to support the Congress and serve the American people and on our
    performance and results with the funding you provided us in fiscal year
    2005.
             gao's fiscal year 2007 request to support the congress
        Our fiscal year 2007 budget request will provide us the resources
    necessary to achieve our performance goals in support of the Congress
    and the American people. This request will allow GAO to improve
    productivity and maintain progress in technology and other
    transformation areas. We continue to streamline GAO, modernize our
    policies and practices, and leverage technology so that we can achieve
    our mission more effectively and efficiently. These continuing efforts
    allow us to enhance our performance without significant increases in
    funding. Our fiscal year 2007 budget request represents a modest
    increase of about $25 million (or 5 percent) over our fiscal year 2006
    revised funding level--primarily to cover uncontrollable mandatory pay
    and price level increases. This request reflects a reduction of nearly
    $5.4 million in nonrecurring fiscal year 2006 costs used to offset the
    fiscal year 2007 increase. This request also includes about $7 million
    in one-time fiscal year 2007 costs, which will not recur in fiscal year
    2008, to upgrade our business systems and processes.
        As the Congress addresses the devastation in the Gulf Coast region
    from Hurricane Katrina and several other major 2005 hurricanes, GAO is
    supporting the Congress by assessing whether federal programs assisting
    the people of the Gulf region are efficient and effective and result in
    a strong return on investment. In order to address the demands of this
    work; better respond to the increasing number of demands being placed
    on GAO, including a dramatic increase in health care mandates; and
    address supply and demand imbalances in our ability to respond to
    congressional interest in areas such as disaster assistance, homeland
    security, the global war on terrorism, health care, and forensic
    auditing, we are seeking your support to provide the funding to rebuild
    our staffing level to the levels requested in previous years. We
    believe that 3,267 FTEs is an optimal staffing level for GAO that would
    allow us to more successfully meet the needs of the Congress.
        In preparing this request and taking into account the effects of
    the fiscal year 2006 rescission, we revised our workforce plan to
    reduce fiscal year 2005 hiring and initiated a voluntary early
    retirement opportunity for staff in January 2006. These actions better
    support GAO's strategic plan for serving the Congress, better align
    GAO's workforce to meet mission needs, correct selected skill
    imbalances, and allow us to increase the number of new hires later in
    fiscal year 2006. Our revised hiring plan represents an aggressive
    hiring level that is significantly higher than in recent fiscal years,
    and it is the maximum number of staff we could absorb during fiscal
    year 2006. These actions will also position us to more fully utilize
    our planned FTE levels of 3,217 and 3,267 in fiscal years 2006 and
    2007, respectively.
        Our fiscal year 2007 budget request includes approximately $502
    million in direct appropriations and authority to use about $7 million
    in estimated revenue from rental income and reimbursable audit work.
    Table 1 summarizes the changes we are requesting in our fiscal year
    2007 budget.

                         TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST, SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CHANGES
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Cumulative
                            Budget category                              FTEs            Amount         percentage
                                                                                                          change
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2006 enacted budget authority.....................           3,217        $489,560   ...............
        Less: rescission..........................................  ..............          (4,896)  ...............
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
          Fiscal year 2006 revised budget authority...............  ..............        $484,664   ...............
                                                                   =================================================
    Fiscal year 2007 requested changes:
        Nonrecurring fiscal year 2006 costs.......................  ..............         ($5,380)              (1)
        Mandatory pay costs.......................................              50          18,469                3
        Price level changes.......................................  ..............           4,073                4
        Relatively controllable costs.............................  ..............           7,528   ...............
        Adjustment due to rounding................................  ..............               1   ...............
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal--requested changes.............................              50         $24,691                5
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
          Total fiscal year 2007 budget authority required to                3,267        $509,355   ...............
           support GAO operations.................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO.

        Our fiscal year 2007 budget request supports three broad program
    areas: Human Capital, Engagement Support, and Infrastructure
    Operations. Consistent with our strategic goal to be a model agency, we
    have undertaken a number of initiatives to implement performance-based,
    market-oriented compensation systems; adopt best practices; benchmark
    service levels and costs; streamline our operations; cross-service and
    outsource activities; and leverage technology to increase efficiency,
    productivity, and results.
        The Human Capital Program provides the resources needed to support
    a diverse, highly educated, knowledge-based workforce comprising
    individuals with a broad array of technical and program skills and
    institutional memory. This workforce represents GAO's human capital--
    its greatest asset--and is critical to the agency's success in serving
    the Congress and the nation. Human Capital Program costs represent
    nearly 80 percent of our requested budget authority.
        To further ensure our ability to meet congressional needs, we plan
    to allocate approximately $17 million for Engagement Support to:
    conduct travel, a critical tool to accomplish our mission of following
    the federal dollar cross the country and throughout the world, and to
    ensure the quality of our work; contract for expert advice and
    assistance when needed to meet congressional timeframes for a
    particular audit or engagement; and ensure a limited presence in the
    Middle East to provide more timely, responsive information on U.S.
    activities in the area.
        In addition, we plan to allocate about $91 million--or about 18
    percent of our total request--for Infrastructure Operations programs
    and initiatives to provide the critical infrastructure to support our
    work. These key activities include information technology, building
    management, knowledge services, human capital operations, and support
    services.
                        performance, results, and plans
        In fiscal year 2005, the Congress focused its attention on a broad
    array of challenging issues affecting the safety, health, and well-
    being of Americans here and abroad, and we were able to provide the
    objective, fact-based information that decision makers needed to
    stimulate debate, change laws, and improve federal programs for the
    betterment of the nation. For example, as the war in Iraq continued, we
    examined how DOD supplied vehicles, body armor, and other materiel to
    the troops in the field; contributed to the debate on military
    compensation; and highlighted the need to improve health, vocational
    rehabilitation, and employment services for seriously injured soldiers
    transitioning from the battlefield to civilian life. We kept pace with
    the Congress's information needs about ways to better protect America
    from terrorism by issuing products and delivering testimonies that
    addressed issues such as security gaps in the nation's passport
    operations that threaten public safety and federal efforts needed to
    improve the security of checked baggage at airports and cargo
    containers coming through U.S. ports. We also explored the financial
    crisis that weakened the airline industry and the impact of this
    situation on the traveling public and airline employees' pensions. We
    performed this work in accordance with our strategic plan for serving
    the Congress, consistent with our professional standards, and guided by
    our core values (see appendix 1). See table 2 for examples of how GAO
    assisted the nation in fiscal year 2005.

                          TABLE 2.--EXAMPLES OF HOW GAO ASSISTED THE NATION IN FISCAL YEAR 2005
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Goal          Description                            GAO provided information that helped to
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1 Provide timely, quality    Improve the transition from active duty to civilian status for veterans with
           service to the Congress    serious war-related injuries
           and the federal           Address long-term health care financing pressures on state and local
           government to address      government budgets
           current and emerging      Identify challenges associated with transferring the Medicare appeals process
           challenges to the well-    from the Social Security Administration and HHS
           being and financial       Improve patient safety at Department of Veterans' Affairs hospitals
           security of the American  Improve the security of Social Security numbers
           people                    Address the challenges of pension reform
                                     Strengthen the security screening process for passengers and checked baggage
                                      at the nation's airports
                                     Improve the oversight of Federal Housing Administration single-family and
                                      multifamily lenders
                                     Improve the oversight of electricity markets by the Federal Energy Regulatory
                                      Commission
                                     Identify challenges associated with the Department of Energy's (DOE's)
                                      nuclear facility designs
                                     Monitor the growth in the digital television market
                                     Analyze issues contributing to the declining financial condition of the
                                      airline industry
        2 Provide timely, quality    Improve the management of funds for the global war on terrorism
           service to the Congress   Increase the security of cargo containers to prevent terrorist activity
           and the federal           Alert the Congress to issues affecting the DOD's major weapon systems
           government to respond to  Analyze funding options for a new federal foreign assistance program--the
           changing security          Millennium Challenge Account
           threats and the           Promote government efforts to address threats to the security of the nation's
           challenges of global       information systems
           interdependence           Strengthen the visa process as an antiterrorism tool
                                     Improve management of the U.S. Coast Guard's Deepwater Program
                                     Shape the debate on improving military pay and benefits
                                     Strengthen the U.S. strategic export control system
                                     Identify improvements needed to secure critical IT systems used by U.S.
                                      financial markets
                                     Report to the Congress on the 2005 base realignment and closures (BRAC)
                                      defense transformation
        3 Help transform the         Increase the public's understanding of the federal government's long-term
           federal government's       fiscal challenges
           role and how it does      Implement governmentwide civil service reforms
           business to meet 21st     Oversee federal tax policy
           century challenges        Increase debts collected from criminals
                                     Decrease improper payments made by the USDA Food Stamp Program and other
                                      federal agencies
                                     Manage multibillion dollar IT modernizations and investments at the
                                      Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Office of Personnel Management
                                     Improve agencies' strategic purchasing practices
                                     Examine changes in key areas of federal activity that could affect the
                                      federal government's fiscal future
                                     Enhance the knowledge base on comprehensive national indicators
                                     Improve postal operations through reform legislation
        4 Maximize the value of GAO  Foster among other federal agencies GAO's innovative human capital practices,
           by being a model federal   such as broad pay bands; performance-based compensation; and workforce
           agency and a world-class   planning and staffing strategies, policies, and processes
           professional services     Share GAO's model business and management processes and other transformation-
           organization               related information with counterpart organizations in the United States and
                                      abroad
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Source: GAO.

                    outcomes of our work and the road ahead
        During fiscal year 2005 we monitored our performance using 14
    annual performance measures that capture the results of our work; the
    assistance we provided to the Congress; and our ability to attract,
    retain, develop, and lead a highly professional workforce (see table
    3). For example, in fiscal year 2005 our work generated $39.6 billion
    in financial benefits, primarily from actions agencies and the Congress
    took in response to our recommendations. Of this amount, about $19
    billion resulted from changes to laws or regulations, $12.8 billion
    resulted from agency actions based on our recommendations to improve
    services to the public, and $7.7 billion resulted from improvements to
    core business processes. See figure 1 for examples of our fiscal year
    2005 financial benefits.

                               TABLE 3.--AGENCYWIDE SUMMARY OF ANNUAL MEASURES AND TARGETS
                                                  [Dollars in billions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2001        2002        2003        2004        2005        2006        2007
        Performance measures        Actual      Actual      Actual      Actual      Actual      Target      Target
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Results:
        Financial benefits......       $26.4       $37.7       $35.4       $44.0       $39.6       $39.0       $40.0
        Other benefits..........      $799        $906      $1,043      $1,197      $1,409      $1,050      $1,100
        Past recommendations            79          79          82          83          85          80          80
         implemented (percent)..
        New products with               44          53          55          63          63          60          60
         recommendations
         (percent)..............
    Client:
        Testimonies.............       151         216         189         217         179         210         185
        Timeliness (percent)....        95          96          97          97          97          98          98
    People:
        New hire rate (percent).       N/A          96          98          98          94          97          97
        Acceptance rate                N/A          81          72          72          71          75          75
         (percent)..............
        Retention rate with             91          91          92          90          90          90          91
         retirements (percent)..
        Retention rate without          95          97          96          95          94          94          95
         retirements (percent)..
        Staff development              N/A          71          67          70          72          74          75
         (percent)..............
        Staff utilization              N/A          67          71          72          75          75          78
         (percent)..............
        Leadership (percent)....       N/A          75          78          79          80          80          80
        Organizational climate         N/A          67          71          74          76          75          76
         (percent)..............
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO.
    Note: N/A indicates the information is not available or the target is not applicable.
    In fiscal year 2006, we will add two internal operations measures to our list of performance measures on which
      we report. These measures will help us determine how well our internal operations (1) help employees get their
      jobs done and (2) improve employees' quality of life in the workplace.

      FIGURE 1.--GAO'S SELECTED MAJOR FINANCIAL BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL
                                    YEAR 2005
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Description                            Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reduced funding for a missile defense system..................       4.7
        In an April 2003 report, we stated that to successfully
      develop an effective and suitable missile defense system,
      the Missile Defense Agency must be willing to adopt
      knowledge-based acquisition practices that have made other
      developers successful. Our report acknowledged that the
      agency's development strategy for the Kinetic Energy
      Interceptor Program included knowledge-based practices, but
      concluded that the agency had not implemented two important
      practices: (1) using well-developed technologies during
      system integration and (2) fully testing a system before
      fielding it. In response, the Missile Defense Agency is
      scaling back development of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor
      Program until technologies are mature. Over a 5-year period--
      from fiscal years 2005 through 2009--program funding will be
      reduced by about $5.2 billion, which has a net present value
      of about $4.7 billion.
    Avoided higher costs associated with a nuclear waste disposal        4.5
     process......................................................
        In a June 2003 report, we recommended that DOE pursue
      legislative clarification from the Congress because of a
      legal challenge that threatened DOE's ability to proceed
      with its less costly strategy for treating and disposing of
      radioactive tank wastes with lower concentrations of
      radioactivity. DOE estimated that pursuing a more expensive
      treatment and disposal strategy suitable for wastes with
      higher concentrations of radioactivity would increase waste
      treatment disposal costs by $55 billion to $60 billion at
      its Savannah River Site. The fiscal year 2005 National
      Defense Authorization Act contained a provision that
      clarified DOE's authority to follow its planned treatment
      and disposal strategy, thus avoiding a more costly process.
      We calculated that the net present value of the cost
      avoidance for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 was about $4.5
      billion.
    Improved the Army's force structure...........................       3.4
        In a report examining the Army's force structure, we
      recommended that the Army establish mission criteria to
      provide a firmer basis for its Strategic Reserve, Domestic
      Support, and Homeland Defense force requirements. Such
      criteria would help to ensure that the Army had the right
      number and types of soldiers available for these purposes.
      Rather than request additional end strength, the Army
      reconfigured its existing force's structure. In April 2003,
      DOD reported that the Army had included force structure
      changes in its fiscal year 2004 budget, which supported
      increased units for military police; military intelligence;
      special forces; and chemical, civil affairs, and
      psychological operations. Based on this action, the Army has
      been able to rebalance its force structure to create needed
      units with minimal increases in authorized end strength. The
      amount shown represents the net present value of the force
      structure changes over a 5-year period (fiscal years 2004
      through 2008).
    Reduced the cost of federally subsidized housing projects.....       2.7
        We determined that the Department of Housing and Urban
      Development (HUD) had not developed the systems it needed to
      track the status of unexpended balances in its project-based
      Section 8 housing program and therefore could not use this
      information to help manage the program and formulate budget
      requests for it. As a result of our work, the Congress
      required HUD to better enforce the legislative provisions
      requiring the recapture of capital funds not being utilized
      by public housing authorities. In fiscal year 2005, we
      documented--using HUD data--that a financial benefit of
      about $2.7 billion in current dollars resulted from HUD's
      recapture of about $2.5 billion of fiscal year 2003 dollars.
    Avoided costs associated with higher payment rates at skilled        2.0
     nursing homes................................................
        In 2002, we assessed the impact of a 16.6 percent increase
      in Medicare's daily rate for skilled nursing facilities on
      nurse staffing ratios. Our analysis showed that nurse
      staffing ratios changed little from April 1, 2001, through
      September 30, 2002--the period during which the rate
      increase was in effect. In fiscal year 2003, the cost to the
      federal government of reinstating the payment rate increase
      was approximately $1 billion per year. Since we issued our
      report, the Congress has considered reinstating the rate
      increase, but it has chosen not to, largely on the basis of
      our analysis. The net present value of the annual cost
      avoidance for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 is $2 billion.
    Increased tax revenues........................................       1.8
        We reported that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) did
      not have systems or procedures in place to allow it to
      identify and actively pursue unpaid tax cases that may have
      some collection potential. Based on our work, IRS has taken
      action to better assess the potential for collecting unpaid
      tax assessment cases and has used that information to better
      target its collection efforts. Specifically, in 2004 IRS
      began implementing a sophisticated modeling technology to
      identify productive and less productive cases to ensure that
      its resources are devoted to cases with a higher likelihood
      of collection and to help prevent premature suspension of
      collection efforts. IRS's analysis of the yield on
      collection cases after employing this modeling in fiscal
      year 2004 shows that this yield increased by about $1.8
      billion (in current year dollars), or 8.4 percent from the
      previous year (fiscal year 2003), without significant
      staffing level increases.
    Ensured continued investment in the General Services                 1.3
     Administration's (GSA) online purchasing system..............
        As of 2003, GSA had spent $84 million to develop,
      implement, and maintain Advantage, a system for ordering
      products and services online. However, 5 years after the
      system was launched, only 35 percent of all government-
      contracted vendors participated in the program, and agencies
      were largely using the system to compare pricing. To ensure
      GSA's level of investment matched customer needs, we
      recommended that the agency develop a business case for a
      system such as Advantage, and in January 2005, GSA selected
      a new business strategy that would significantly enhance the
      system's capabilities to serve as a broker between buyers
      and suppliers and provide agencies with an automated tool
      for formulating acquisition requirements and developing
      requests for quotes. GSA projects over $1.5 billion in
      financial benefits to result from electronic transactions,
      spend analysis (analysis of expenditures that shows how
      money is spent on goods and services), a searchable
      procurement data repository, and competitive pricing. This
      financial benefit has a net present value of just over $1.3
      billion.
    Reduced Navy and Air Force appropriations.....................       1.3
        DOD policy requires the Defense Working Capital Fund to
      maintain cash levels to cover 7 to 10 days of operational
      cash and 6 months of capital asset disbursements. Our
      analysis showed that the January 2004 reported actual cash
      balance for the Air Force Working Capital Fund exceeded the
      10-day cash requirement by about $1.5 billion, and the
      Navy's Working Capital Fund reported actual cash balance
      exceeded the budgeted cash balance by $659 million and $408
      million at the end of fiscal years 2002 and 2003,
      respectively. The Congress reduced the Navy and Air Force
      fiscal year 2005 Operation and Maintenance appropriations by
      just under $1.3 billion due to excessive cash amounts.
    Eliminated the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's       1.1
     (NASA) Prometheus 1 project..................................
        We issued a report questioning whether NASA had
      established the initial justification for its investment in
      the Prometheus 1 project and how the agency planned to
      ensure that critical nuclear power and propulsion system
      technologies were sufficiently developed to support deep
      space probes like the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. We also
      reported that the approved Prometheus 1 funding profile was
      inadequate to support the planned mission--a launch to
      Jupiter's Icy Moons in 2015. NASA has subsequently deferred
      the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission indefinitely, reducing
      the agency's funding needs by about $1.22 billion through
      fiscal year 2009; the net present value of this reduction is
      over $1.1 billion.
    Reduced the budget request for a new foreign assistance              1.0
     program......................................................
        In March and June 2004, we provided the Congress with
      information to help it assess the President's $2.5 billion
      fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Millennium Challenge
      Account--a new foreign assistance program intended to
      provide economic assistance to countries that demonstrate a
      commitment to ruling justly, investing in people, and
      encouraging economic freedom. Our work provided the Congress
      with a framework for identifying relationships and trade-
      offs between funding levels, compact length, and number of
      compacts (i.e., agreements). Our analysis indicated that by
      reducing assistance target levels, the length of compacts or
      both with participating countries, the program could operate
      at a lower funding level. We also estimated the effect of
      funding compacts partly from future appropriations. Our work
      facilitated the Congress's decision to reduce the
      appropriation for the Millennium Challenge Account in fiscal
      year 2005 to $1.5 billion.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Many of the benefits that result from our work cannot be measured
    in dollar terms. During fiscal year 2005, we recorded a total of 1,409
    other benefits. For instance, we documented 75 instances where
    information we provided to the Congress resulted in statutory or
    regulatory changes, 595 instances where federal agencies improved
    services to the public, and 739 instances where agencies improved core
    business processes or governmentwide reforms were advanced. These
    actions spanned the full spectrum of national issues, from ensuring the
    safety of commercial airline passengers to identifying abusive tax
    shelters. See figure 2 for additional examples of GAO's other benefits
    in fiscal year 2005.

                  FIGURE 2.--GAO'S SELECTED OTHER (NONFINANCIAL) BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2005
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Description
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO CHANGE
                    LAWS

    Intelligence Reform and Terrorism     Our work is reflected in this law in different ways. In our May 2004
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No.   testimony on the use of biometrics for aviation security, we reported on
     108-458).                             the need to identify how biometrics will be used to improve aviation
                                           security prior to making a decision to design, develop, and implement
                                           biometrics. Using information from our statement, the House introduced a
                                           bill on July 22, 2004, directing the Transportation Security
                                           Administration (TSA) to establish system requirements and performance
                                           standards for using biometrics, and establish processes to (1) prevent
                                           individuals from using assumed identities to enroll in a biometric system
                                           and (2) resolve errors. These provisions were later included in an
                                           overall aviation security bill and were eventually included in the
                                           Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, enacted in
                                           December 2004.
                                          We conducted a body of work assessing the physical screening of airport
                                           passengers and their checked baggage. We found that the installation of
                                           systems that are in line with airport baggage conveyor systems may result
                                           in financial benefits, according to TSA estimates for nine airports. We
                                           also found that the effectiveness of the advance passenger screening
                                           under the process known as Secure Flight was not certain. TSA agreed to
                                           take corrective actions in these areas, and the Congress required TSA in
                                           the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act to prepare a plan
                                           and guidelines for installing in-line baggage screening systems, and
                                           enacted measures to promote Secure Flight's development and
                                           implementation.
    Real ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109- We reported on the verification of identity documents for drivers'
       13).                                licenses, noting that visual inspection of key documents lent itself to
                                           possible identity fraud. To demonstrate this, our investigators were able
                                           to obtain licenses in two states using counterfeit documents and the
                                           Social Security numbers of deceased persons. The Congress established
                                           federal identification standards for state drivers' licenses and other
                                           such documents and mandated third-party verification of identity
                                           documents presented to apply for a driver's license.
    Ronald W. Reagan National Defense     We assisted the Congress in crafting major improvements to a program
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year     intended to compensate individuals who worked in DOE facilities and
     2005 (Pub. L. No. 108-375).           developed illnesses related to radiation and hazardous materials
                                           exposure. In a 2004 report, we identified features of the originally
                                           enacted program that would likely lead to inconsistent benefit outcomes
                                           for claimants, in part because the program depended on the varying state
                                           workers compensation systems to provide some benefits. We also presented
                                           several options for improving the consistency of benefit outcomes and a
                                           framework for assessing these options. When the Congress enacted the
                                           Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005,
                                           it revamped this energy employees' benefit program. Among other changes,
                                           this law federalized the payment of worker compensation benefits for
                                           eligible energy contractor employees and provided a schedule of uniform
                                           benefit payments.
    Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement  Our work over the past several years has helped the Congress to establish
     Act (Pub. L. No. 108-447).            and assess the impacts of the recreational fee demonstration program.
                                           Under this trial program, the Congress authorized the National Park
                                           Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
                                           and the Forest Service to charge fees to visitors to, among other things,
                                           reduce the maintenance backlog at federal parks and historic places and
                                           protect these lands from visitor impacts. Since the program's inception
                                           in 1996, we have identified issues that needed to be addressed to improve
                                           the program's effectiveness that included providing (1) a more permanent
                                           source of funds to enhance stability, since the current program had to be
                                           reauthorized every 2 years; (2) the participating agencies with greater
                                           flexibility in how and where they apply fee revenues; and (3)
                                           improvements in interagency coordination in the collection and use of
                                           revenue fees to better serve visitors by making the payment of fees more
                                           convenient and equitable and reducing visitor confusion about similar or
                                           multiple fees being charged at nearby or adjacent federal recreational
                                           sites. As a result of this body of work, the Congress addressed these
                                           issues by passing the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act in
                                           December 2004. This act permits federal land management agencies to
                                           continue charging fees at campgrounds, rental cabins, high-impact
                                           recreation areas, and day-use sites that have certain facilities. The act
                                           also provides for a nationally consistent interagency program, more on-
                                           the-ground improvements at recreation sites across the nation, enhanced
                                           visitor services, a new national pass for use across interagency federal
                                           recreation sites and services, and public involvement in the program.
    Consolidated Appropriations Act,      Our work is reflected in this law in different ways. At the time of our
     2005 (Pub. L. No. 108-447).           August 2003 report, the original 1999 expiration date for the franchise
                                           fund pilots operating at the Departments of Commerce, Veterans Affairs,
                                           Health and Human Services, the Interior, and the Treasury and at the
                                           Environmental Protection Agency had been extended three times. These
                                           franchise funds, authorized by the Government Management Reform Act of
                                           1994, are part of a group of 34 intragovernmental revolving funds that
                                           were created to provide common administrative support services required
                                           by many federal agencies. For example, the Commerce Franchise Fund's
                                           business line provides IT infrastructure support services to the agency.
                                           We concluded that increasing the period of authorization would help ease
                                           concerns of current and potential clients about franchise fund stability
                                           and might allow franchise funds to add new business lines, and we
                                           suggested that the authorizations be extended for longer periods. The
                                           Congress provided permanent authority to the Treasury franchise fund in
                                           the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, passed on December 8, 2004.
                                          In 2003, we reported that most agencies could not retain the proceeds from
                                           the sale of unneeded property and this acted as a disincentive to
                                           disposing of unneeded property. We stated in our high-risk report on
                                           federal real property that it may make sense to permit agencies to retain
                                           proceeds for reinvestment in real property where a need exists.
                                           Subsequently, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, the Congress
                                           authorized the Administrator of GSA to retain the net proceeds from the
                                           conveyance of real and related personal property. These proceeds are to
                                           be deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund and are to be used as
                                           authorized for GSA's real property capital needs.
                                          In December 2003, we reported that 184 out of 213 Alaska Native villages
                                           are affected, to some extent, by flooding and erosion. However, these
                                           villages often have difficulty qualifying for federal assistance to
                                           combat their flooding and erosion problems. In our report, we recommended
                                           that the Denali Commission adopt a policy to guide investment decisions
                                           and project designs in villages affected by flooding and erosion. In this
                                           legislation, the Congress provided the Secretary of the Army with the
                                           authority to carry out ``structural and non-structural projects for storm
                                           damage prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial
                                           damage in Alaska, including relocation of affected communities and
                                           construction of replacement facilities.''
    Consolidated Appropriations Act,      To improve the federal government's ability to collect billions of dollars
     2005 (Pub. L. No. 108-447).           of outstanding criminal debt, we recommended in a 2001 report, that the
                                           Department of Justice work with other agencies involved in criminal debt
                                           collection, including the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the
                                           Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and OMB, to develop a strategic
                                           plan that would improve interagency processes and coordination with
                                           regard to criminal debt collection activities. The conference report that
                                           accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, directed the
                                           Attorney General to assemble an interagency task force for the purposes
                                           of better managing, accounting for, reporting, and collecting criminal
                                           debt.

        OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO
       IMPROVE SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC

    Encouraged improvements in the        Our report found that the Department of Education's (Education) system for
     process for ensuring states'          resolving noncompliance with the Individuals with Disabilities in
     compliance with education laws for    Education Act is protracted. We found that resolution of noncompliance
     the disabled.                         cases often takes several years, in part because Education took a year on
                                           average from the time it identified noncompliance to issue a report
                                           citing the noncompliance. We therefore recommended that Education improve
                                           its system of resolving noncompliance by shortening the amount of time it
                                           takes to issue a report of noncompliance and by tracking changes in
                                           response times under the new monitoring process. In response to our
                                           recommendation, Education has instituted an improved process for managing
                                           and tracking the various phases of the monitoring process, which includes
                                           the creation of a database to facilitate this tracking. This new tracking
                                           system will enable Education to better monitor the status of existing
                                           noncompliance, and thus enable the department to take appropriate action
                                           when states fail to come into compliance in a timely manner.
    Identified a weakness in Medicare's   In 2004, we found that the 24-hour 1-800-MEDICARE help line, operated by
     telephone assistance service.         the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), did not answer 10
                                           percent of the calls we placed to test its accuracy, often because it
                                           automatically transferred some calls to claims administration contractors
                                           that were not open for business at the time of the call. This call
                                           transfer process prohibited callers from accessing information during
                                           nonbusiness hours, even though 1-800-MEDICARE operates 24 hours a day. As
                                           a result, we recommended that CMS revise the routing procedures of 1-800-
                                           MEDICARE to ensure that calls are not transferred or referred to claims
                                           administration contractors' help lines during nonbusiness hours. In
                                           response, CMS finished converting its call routing procedures. As a
                                           result, calls placed after normal business hours will be routed to the
                                           main 1-800-MEDICARE help line for assistance.
    Highlighted the need for increased    United States Department of Agriculture scientists at the Plum Island
     security at a federal disease         Animal Disease Center research contagious animal diseases that have been
     research facility.                    found in other countries. The mission of the facility, now administered
                                           by DHS, is to develop strategies for protecting the nation's animal
                                           industries and exports from these foreign animal diseases. In our
                                           September 2003 report, Combating Bioterrorism: Actions Needed to Improve
                                           Security at Plum Island Animal Disease Center, we made several
                                           recommendations to improve security at the facility and reduce
                                           vulnerability to terrorist attacks. Among other things, we recommended
                                           that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
                                           Secretary of Agriculture, enhance incident response capability by
                                           increasing the size of the guard force. DHS has informed us that this has
                                           been completed. According to the Director of Plum Island, DHS has more
                                           than doubled the number of guards assigned on each shift on Plum Island.

        OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO
          PROMOTE SOUND AGENCY AND
          GOVERNMENTWIDE MANAGEMENT

    Recommended a process to increase     DOD spending on service contracts approaches $100 billion annually, but
     the efficiency of DOD procurements.   DOD's management of services procurement is inefficient and ineffective
                                           and the dollars are not always well spent. Many private companies have
                                           changed management practices based on analyzing spending patterns and
                                           coordinating procurement efforts in order to achieve major savings. We
                                           recommended that DOD adopt the effective spend analysis processes used by
                                           these leading companies and use technology to automate spend analysis to
                                           make it repeatable. In response, DOD is developing new technology to do
                                           that. According to DOD and contractor project managers, one phase of the
                                           project was completed in December 2004. In March 2005, DOD approved a
                                           business case analysis to seek follow-on funding for developing a DOD-
                                           wide spend analysis system.
    Improved the Air Force's oversight    As part of our audit of Air Force purchase card controls, we identified
     of purchase card transactions.        transactions that Air Force officials acknowledged to be fraudulent as
                                           well as potentially fraudulent transactions that the Air Force had not
                                           identified. To improve Air Force oversight of purchase card activity and
                                           facilitate the identification of systemic weaknesses and deficiencies in
                                           existing internal control and the development of additional control
                                           activities, we recommended that the Air Force establish an agencywide
                                           database of known purchase card fraud cases. In lieu of establishing a
                                           separate agencywide database, during fiscal year 2003, the Air Force
                                           Office of Special Investigations initiated quarterly reporting on its
                                           purchase card investigations to the DOD IG for macro-level analysis of
                                           systemic weaknesses in the program. Our ongoing collaboration with the
                                           DOD IG on DOD's purchase card program confirmed that the Air Force's
                                           Office of Special Investigations is working effectively with DOD's IG on
                                           data-mining techniques for detection of potentially improper and
                                           fraudulent purchase card transactions. As a result of our work, the Air
                                           Force has taken action to reduce the financial risk associated with
                                           undetected fraud and abuse in its purchase card program.
    Encouraged the Census Bureau to       For the 2000 Census, the United States Census Bureau (Bureau) printed
     produce training materials in other   material used to train census workers only in English, except in Puerto
     languages.                            Rico where training materials were available in Spanish. However, to
                                           better prepare census workers--some of whom speak Spanish as their first
                                           language--to locate migrant farm workers and other hard-to-count groups,
                                           we recommended that the Bureau consider providing training materials in
                                           languages other than English to targeted areas. In response to our
                                           recommendation, the Bureau is researching foreign-language data
                                           collection methods as part of its preparations for the 2006 Census test
                                           and, more generally, plans to identify areas and operations that will
                                           require in-language training materials for areas with very large, new
                                           migrant populations where it will not be possible to hire bilinguals.
                                           Moreover, the Bureau's June 2005 request for proposals for a Field Data
                                           Collection Automation System includes a requirement for the contractor to
                                           provide training applications and materials in English and Spanish for
                                           the handheld computers enumerators are to use to count nonrespondents.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO.

        One way we measure our effect on improving the government's
    accountability, operations, and services is by tracking the percentage
    of recommendations that we made 4 years ago that have since been
    implemented. At the end of fiscal year 2005, 85 percent of the
    recommendations we made in fiscal year 2001 had been implemented,
    primarily by executive branch agencies. Putting these recommendations
    into practice will generate tangible benefits for the nation over many
    years.
        During fiscal year 2005, experts from our staff testified at 179
    congressional hearings covering a wide range of complex issues (see
    table 4). For example, our senior executives testified on improving the
    security of nuclear material, federal oversight of mutual funds, and
    the management and control of DOD's excess property. Over 70 of our
    testimonies were related to high-risk areas and programs (see table 5).
             Table 4.--Selected Testimony Issues, Fiscal Year 2005
    Goal 1: Address Challenges to the Well-Being and Financial Security of
            the American People
    Head Start grants management
    Retirement options for seniors
    Postal service reform legislation
    Wildland fire management
    National air traffic system
    Providing services to seriously injured veterans
    Endangered Species Act
    Preparing for influenza pandemic
    Long-term health care costs and government budgets
    Veterans' disability claims
    Medicaid financing issues
    Amtrak's Acela train
    Rural housing service
    Federal oversight of the E-rate program
    Overseeing the U.S. food supply
    Energy demand in the 21st century
    Social Security reform
    Meeting the future demand for energy in the United States
    Protecting nuclear material handled at science and environmental sites
    Federal real property
    Goal 2: Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of
            Globalization
    Army's modular forces
    Acquisition challenges facing the Navy's DD(X) destroyer program
    Oil for Food program
    Managing violations of restricted air space
    Protecting U.S. officials overseas from terrorist attacks
    Implementing laws that protect the security of information
    U.S. passport fraud
    Tactical aircraft modernization
    Unmanned aerial vehicles
    Federal oversight of mutual funds to ensure investor security
    DOD's business transformation
    DOD's national security personnel system
    Cargo security strategies
    DOD security clearances
    Condition of Coast Guard aircraft and ships used in deep waters
    Port security
    Transportation security issues
    Acquisition challenges facing the Army's future combat systems
    Goal 3: Help Transform the Federal Government's Role and How it Does
            Business
    Long-term fiscal issues affecting the federal government
    Air Force procurement protests
    Space shuttle workforce issues
    Management and control of DOD's excess property
    High-risk federal programs
    Improper Payments Information Act
    Gaps in military pay and benefits
    Human capital transformation at DHS
    Reducing the tax gap
    Pricing federal multiple award contracts
    Army National Guard travel reimbursement issues
    Agencies' continuity of operations plans
    21st century challenges for the federal government
    Preparing for emergencies at federal agencies
    U.S. government financial statements
    Performance budgeting
    Space acquisitions and investment planning
    DHS's Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
                            gao's high-risk program
        Issued to coincide with the start of each new Congress, our high-
    risk update, first used in 1993, has helped Members of the Congress who
    are responsible for oversight and executive branch officials who are
    accountable for performance. Our high-risk program focuses on major
    government programs and operations that need urgent attention or
    transformation to ensure that our government functions in the most
    economical, efficient, and effective manner possible. Overall, our
    high-risk program has served to identify and help resolve a range of
    serious weaknesses that involve substantial resources and provide
    critical services to the public. Table 5 details our 2005 high-risk
    list.

                       TABLE 5.--GAO'S 2005 HIGH-RISK LIST
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Year
                       2005 high-risk area                      designated
                                                                 high risk
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Addressing challenges in broad-based transformations:
        Strategic Human Capital Management \1\..............            2001
        U.S. Postal Service Transformation Efforts and Long-            2001
         Term Outlook \1\...................................
        Managing Federal Real Property \1\..................            2003
        Protecting the Federal Government's Information                 1997
         Systems and the Nation's Critical Infrastructures..
        Implementing and Transforming the Department of                 2003
         Homeland Security..................................
        Establishing Appropriate and Effective Information-             2005
         Sharing Mechanisms to Improve Homeland Security....
        DOD Approach to Business Transformation \1\.........            2005
        DOD Business Systems Modernization..................            1995
        DOD Personnel Security Clearance Program............            2005
        DOD Support Infrastructure Management...............            1997
        DOD Financial Management............................            1995
        DOD Supply Chain Management (formerly Inventory                 1990
         Management)........................................
        DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition......................            1990
    Managing federal contracting more effectively:
        DOD Contract Management.............................            1992
        DOE Contract Management.............................            1990
        NASA Contract Management............................            1990
        Management of Interagency Contracting...............            2005
    Assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of tax law
     administration:
        Enforcement of Tax Laws \1\ \2\.....................            1990
        IRS Business Systems Modernization \3\..............            1995
    Modernizing and safeguarding insurance and benefit
     programs:
        Modernizing Federal Disability Programs \1\.........            2003
        Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer            2003
         Insurance Program \1\..............................
        Medicare Program \1\................................            1990
        Medicaid Program \1\................................            2003
        HUD Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and Rental                 1994
         Housing Assistance Programs........................
    Other: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic            1995
     Control Modernization..................................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Legislation is likely to be necessary, as a supplement to actions by
      the executive branch, in order to effectively address this high-risk
      area.
    \2\ Two high-risk areas--collection of unpaid taxes and earned income
      credit noncompliance--have been consolidated to make this area.
    \3\ The IRS financial management high-risk area has been incorporated in
      this high-risk area.

    Source: GAO.

                               concluding remarks
        We are grateful for the Congress's continued support of our joint
    effort to improve government and for providing the resources that allow
    us to be a world-class professional services organization. We are proud
    of the positive impact we have been able to affect in government over
    the past year and believe an investment in GAO will continue to yield
    substantial returns for the Congress and the American people. Our
    nation will continue to face significant challenges in the years ahead.
    GAO's expertise and involvement in virtually every facet of government
    positions us to provide the Congress with the timely, objective, and
    reliable information it needs to discharge its constitutional
    responsibilities.
        This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
    questions the Members of the Committee may have.
       appendix i.--serving the congress--gao's strategic plan framework

                  COST FOR 50 ADDITIONAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS

        Senator Allard. Well thank you for your testimony. Total,
    you're going to have about a $25 million request, which is 5
    percent over fiscal year 2006 and we'll look very closely at
    your request. We've got 50 new employees that are coming on.
    You have about 3,217 employees now, according to the facts that
    I have here. Now, we've tried to break that out on the employee
    costs at $7.5 million. So I was just doing some quick math
    here. That's $150,000 per employee. I'm kind of curious. That's
    not salary. I'm sure there's benefits figured in there, and
    insurance, and other things, retirement plan, everything else.
    So I just want to have you verify how it is, that you come up
    with $150,000.
        Mr. Walker. Sure.
        Let me provide an overview, and I'm going to turn to
    Sallyanne Harper to provide some additional information, Mr.
    Chairman, with your indulgence.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Walker. The compensation adjustments are for several
    things. Number one, to bring us up to our full compliment of
    3,217. We've been authorized that for a full FTE level, but we
    haven't been there in several years. We're now on track to do
    that and, therefore, to the extent that we do that, we're going
    to need some money to be able to maintain that next year.
        Second, for pay increases. Our policy is, if you're
    performing at meets expectation or better on all applicable
    competencies and you're paid within applicable competitive
    compensation ranges, you're going to get some across-the-board
    pay adjustment. In addition to that, you're going to get an
    additional adjustment based on how you do relative to your
    peers.
        Senator Allard. So the $7.5 million not only includes the
    new 50 employees, but also there is some pay increase
    adjustments figured in.
        Mr. Walker. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Allard. Okay. So the $150,000 is entirely too
    generous.
        Mr. Walker. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. And then, we have
    the 50 employees, not all of which are going to be hired on day
    one. They'll be hired throughout the year.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Walker. And depending upon what you finally give us for
    a budget, it will determine how many we can hire, if we can
    hire them, and when we can hire them.

             CALCULATING THE TOTAL EMPLOYEE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT

        But you raise an excellent point, which I would like to
    reinforce. And that is, we're trying to get our employees to
    understand more about the concept of total compensation, which
    you and I have talked about before. It's not just how much you
    pay in cash, in the form of salary, bonuses, incentive awards,
    and things of that nature, but it's also how much you receive
    in the form of healthcare, pension, and other benefits. In our
    budget, the average load factor that we have to bare directly
    is about 24 percent, I believe.
        However, when you consider the fact that some costs are
    borne by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), with regard
    to things like the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) cost,
    et cetera, the actual load factor is about 31 percent. So for
    every $1 we pay somebody, they receive compensation of $1.31
    because of other benefits that ultimately, the taxpayers have
    to pay.
        But I would ask Sallyanne if she's got anything she wants
    to add on this.
        Ms. Harper. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that----
        Senator Allard. So, I just want to clarify, if I might,
    before we move to the last statement. So, if you pay them a $1,
    there's one-third of that----
        Mr. Walker. Added----
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Added on. It would add on as
    additional benefits. So the $1 that you talk about in actual
    cash, becomes $1.32 because of the benefits of the employee.
        Mr. Walker. Two points, Mr. Chairman. For our budget, which
    is before you, the $1 becomes $1.24. For our financial
    statements, which is important, which is ultimately what the
    taxpayers have to bear, $1 becomes $1.31.
        Senator Allard. I see. Okay.
        Ms. Harper. The only addition I would make, Mr. Chairman,
    is that we do disproportionately hire into the analyst core and
    that is a higher salary rate in general, than other portions of
    our budget. So the evaluators, the analysts, and particularly
    the specialists are going to have a higher initial compensation
    rate than people in the administrative and professional
    services community.
        Mr. Walker. It's important, Mr. Chairman, to note for the
    record, that last year, over 90 percent of the people that we
    hired as auditors, investigators, analysts, evaluators, and
    attorneys had advanced degrees from top schools in the country.
    We are hiring some of the Nation's best and brightest, and it's
    very, very important that we be able to compensate them
    appropriately, because we are only as good as our people.
        Senator Allard. Particularly in what you're trying to
    accomplish, that's your personnel incentive.
        Mr. Walker. Eighty percent of our budget is personnel cost.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Walker. And so, if we don't get adequately funded, it
    starts cutting into the bone pretty quickly.

                               EARLY RETIREMENTS

        Senator Allard. Let me move on to early retirements. Would
    you please explain your criteria for approving voluntary early
    retirement applications and ensuring that areas where there is
    a supply and demand imbalance or a recruiting challenge, are
    not negatively impacted?
        Mr. Walker. Well thank you for the question and let me also
    thank you and your colleagues for giving us the legislative
    authority that we needed to make more intelligent decisions in
    this area.
        Basically, several years ago, we sought and the Congress
    gave us authority to be able to target early retirement offers
    to a greater extent, than previously was the case; you also
    gave us the authority to say no. Basically, we're trying to use
    early retirement offers to help realign GAO's workforce, to be
    able to reallocate resources from areas where we have more
    supply than demand, to areas where we have more demand than
    supply. We're also trying to use it to try to help with
    succession planning. Because as you probably recall, Mr.
    Chairman, before I came to GAO, we had a hiring freeze for
    about 5 years. We were downsized 40 percent. And so, we had a
    real gap in our development pipeline and a very high and
    increasing percentage of people that were going to be eligible
    for retirement.
        The bottom line is anybody can come forward and seek early
    retirement. But whether or not they're going to be approved, is
    based upon what we need from a workforce standpoint to meet our
    client demands, and we also consider the performance of the
    individual. We're not looking to lose people in areas where we
    have supply and demand imbalances and ones that are top
    performers. We're looking to try to use this as a strategic
    workforce realignment tool.
        Most people that come forward are approved, but not all.

           GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S MARKET-BASED PAY SYSTEM

        Senator Allard. Okay. Now let's go to your GAO pay system.
    You've gone into it in some detail already. What are the major
    objectives of your market-based pay system and how would you
    assess your success in meeting those objectives?
        Mr. Walker. There are a number of objectives, Mr. Chairman.
    Number one, the overall objective is that we want to be able to
    attract, retain, motivate, and reward a top flight workforce.
    Compensation is one element to do that, but it's only one. As
    you know, Mr. Chairman, those of us--yourself, myself, all of
    us here included, don't come into Government to maximize our
    net worth. We come into Government to maximize our abilities
    and to make a difference. And it's not just about the money,
    it's also about the difference that you can make in the lives
    of others.
        But we need to be competitive with those organizations that
    we actually compete for talent. Whether that be the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB), whether that be the Congressional
    Budget Office (CBO), whether that be the think tanks, or
    whether that be the major accounting firms, whom we actually
    compete with for talent, based upon hiring and to whom we lose
    people. So we wanted to make sure that we achieve that
    objective. We also wanted to make sure that we were targeting
    our limited resources. Because, we have limited resources.
    Therefore, we are targeting money to where the market requires
    it and where performance supports it. We want to target our
    dollars based on skills, knowledge, and performance.
        And so my view is, by conducting our first ever competitive
    compensation study in the history of GAO, which was created in
    1921, we are now in a much better position to provide
    reasonable assurance that we are paying competitively and
    allocating our dollars more intelligently. I think that's not
    only in our interest, it's in the Congress' and the country's
    interest.
        Senator Allard. Yes. I applaud you for those efforts in
    that area. They're not unique in the private sector, but
    certainly unique on the Government's sector.

      CHANGES TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S PAY SYSTEM IN THE
                                   PAST YEAR

        Now, what changes in the pay system have occurred in the
    last year? Anything specific that you want to highlight for us?
        Mr. Walker. The biggest changes that have occurred in the
    last year, and when I say the last year, I'm including this
    current fiscal year.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Walker. We now have implemented the new market-based
    compensation ranges. That's number one. Number two, we have
    also implemented a new system for determining annual pay
    adjustments for all of our personnel. And number three, the
    effects of the restructuring that I mentioned before, the so-
    called Band II level personnel, that has taken place. Let me
    briefly touch on that, as you know, under the old system of
    compensation in Government, everybody had the right to be paid
    at the pay cap, irrespective of their performance. It was an
    entitlement. It wasn't a matter of if somebody was going to
    make the pay cap, it was only a matter of when they were going
    to make the pay cap. Because until we received an exemption
    from the Congress, we had to give the across-the-board pay
    adjustment that the executive branch had to give every year to
    all employees, irrespective of their performance. And believe
    it or not, on the executive branch side, even unacceptable
    performers are by law, entitled to that adjustment, which I
    would respectfully suggest Congress may want to reconsider.
    Now, there's not very many GAO employees in that category,
    okay? But intellectually it makes no sense.
        So we have implemented new competitive compensation ranges.
    There were pluses and minuses to that. There were some of our
    occupations and some levels, where we've raised our pay ranges,
    both the cap as well as the minimum, are subject to statutory
    limits. As you know, we can't pay what we call a Band III,
    which is an assistant director, more than a GS-15, step 10
    level. And so, that's a constraint.
        But below that, it's market based and everybody has the
    opportunity to make the pay cap, but not necessarily the right.
    For the higher levels you have to perform in excess of certain
    levels in order to be in top end of the pay range. The reason
    is, because there is an overlap with the next level of
    responsibility. Our philosophy is that you can justify paying
    people at a lower level, who are really strong performers as
    much as people as the next level, but you can't justify paying
    below average performers, at a lower level of responsibility,
    more money than somebody at the next level, who might be a
    higher performer would be paid.
        Senator Allard. Yes.

                             BAND II RESTRUCTURING

        Mr. Walker. Now, the most challenging aspect of this, Mr.
    Chairman, has to do with this Band II restructuring. And I'll
    give you a few stats to bring it to life. We had 1,238 Band
    II's when we started this process. That's out of about 3,200
    employees. So you can see, that's the largest component of our
    workforce. When we received the results of the competitive
    compensation study, we had to make the decision on which one of
    those 1,238 should be put in the higher pay range, which gives
    them a chance to make up to $10,000 more, and which ones should
    not. In some cases, individuals may be making more than they
    should be making, based upon the market ranges. We had an
    extensive process that resulted in everybody being able to
    apply. Of the 1,238, 794 applied, 757 were deemed eligible, 409
    were initially placed into the higher Band IIB range. Seventy-
    eight of the ones who were not originally placed, appealed
    directly to me. I placed 19 of the 78 into Band IIB. In
    addition, five, who didn't even appeal to me, were placed into
    Band IIB because I modified the relative performance criteria.
    Therefore, some individuals benefited from that change, even
    through they did not appeal.
        So in summary, 433 or 35 percent of all our Band II's, were
    placed in the higher pay range. There are 236 people who, when
    we made the decisions based upon their roles, responsibility,
    relative performance, and potential, did not justify being
    placed into the higher pay range, but were already getting paid
    in the higher pay range. So they were making in excess of
    competitive compensation levels. For those people, we did not
    cut anybody's pay, because they played by the rules. It
    wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be fair.
        At the same time, if they were already paid in excess of
    competitive compensation levels, we didn't give them the
    automatic across-the-board adjustments because they were
    already paid in excess of competition compensation levels. But
    we did give them the right to make additional pay increases,
    based on their performance. And a vast majority did get some
    pay increase even if they didn't get the across-the-board
    adjustment. They will, if they end up getting moved to the next
    level, or as pay ranges change over time. So that's where we
    are. And I apologize, that took a little bit of time, but it's
    a fairly complicated matter.

                     EMPLOYEE PERCEPTION OF NEW PAY SYSTEM

        Senator Allard. Okay. I want to follow up a little more on
    that. What is the morale, after you've implemented that system,
    among the employees?
        Mr. Walker. We do an annual confidential electronic
    employee feedback survey, which we'll do in July and that will
    give us more concrete information on morale. I will give you my
    opinion, based upon extensive interaction with our employees,
    talking to our managing directors, talking to our Employee
    Advisory Council, meeting with our employees, and answering
    their questions.
        My view is that there is no easy way to tell somebody that
    their pay is in excess of competitive compensation levels.
    There's no easy way to tell somebody that you are not going to
    continue to receive across-the-board adjustments that you've
    been receiving year, after year, after year. All right. And so
    my view is that there is a significant percentage of those
    individuals who were not placed into the higher pay range, that
    are disappointed, and I'm sure that that's had some impact on
    their ``morale.''
        At the same point in time, we've taken several steps to try
    to mitigate any adverse morale impact. First, rather than only
    allowing for competitive placements from the so-called lower
    IIA pay range to the higher IIB pay range, once a year, we're
    going to have a second competitive placement process that will
    be effective near the end of June. We've erred on the side of
    generosity in allocating the number of competiting positions,
    so that more people will have an opportunity to make it. We're
    going to do another competitive process next January. So
    basically, that means within a 12-month period of time, we will
    have had three placement cycles, and then we'll move to an
    annual cycle after that.
        My view is that while a significant percentage of the
    people who did not get placed into IIB and my understanding is
    that there were 345 people out of 3,200 roughly, who did not
    receive an across-the-board increase, because of this factor or
    because they were otherwise paid in excess competitive
    compensation levels.
        Obviously, a significant percentage of those people aren't
    happy with the result. But that's a subset of our workforce.
    That's only about 11 percent of our workforce. I feel confident
    that not only was it the right thing to do, but it was
    necessary to do especially given tight budgets.
        The other thing that we did to try to ease the pain which,
    as I said before, was not to cut anybody's pay. In addition we
    told every Band II employee who was onboard in January, that
    they would have the opportunity to earn up to what they
    could've earned under the old system, which in Washington, is
    almost $119,000 a year in cash compensation only, with benefits
    added on top of that. They will have that opportunity to earn
    that but at a slower rate than they could have under the old
    system. So we're preserving their ability to make what they
    could have under the old system at a slower rate, but we're
    providing them an opportunity to make more money if their
    skills, knowledge, roles, responsibility, and performance
    justify. Over the long term, this will clearly be a plus. In
    the short term, sometimes you have to have short-term pain to
    get long-term gain. And that's where we're at.
        Senator Allard. Well, we had a communication from one
    employee here, who felt that somehow or the other, he'd been
    promised that he was automatically going to get this annual
    increase and this particular year, it would have been a 2.6-
    percent increase. Do you have any response to that?
        Mr. Walker. Well without knowing the facts, I can say this,
    I never committed, nor would I ever commit to pay an across-
    the-board pay increase to an individual who's paid in excess of
    competitive compensation levels. I never committed to that, nor
    would I commit to that.

             POTENTIAL FOR GOVERNMENT-WIDE USE OF MARKET-BASED PAY

        Senator Allard. Okay. Would you recommend this pay system
    be used Government-wide, at this point in time?
        Mr. Walker. I believe there are several aspects of what
    we've done, that have potential merit for broad-based
    application throughout Government. Although each workforce is
    different, and therefore you need to make some changes. For
    example, I believe that individuals who perform at a meets
    expectation level or better, who are paid within competitive
    compensation ranges, should, at a minimum, receive some pay
    adjustment, based upon how the pay ranges change each year.
        In addition to that, I believe that any additional pay
    adjustment that people receive should be based on how they
    perform relative to their peer group. So that means, if you do
    like we do, where we set the bar high on expected performance
    and if you hit that bar for meets expectations, you're going to
    get something. But how much extra you're going to get, depends
    upon how you compare to your peer group, with the top
    performers getting more money than people who are good
    performers, but not top performers.
        I think that framework has a great deal of intellectual
    merit, and when I've gone around speaking to executives and
    others at other agencies, they have found that it is a possible
    bridge from a system where 85 percent of the pay was on auto
    pilot and 15 percent was merit based, to one where everything
    relates to merit, but you're going to get something, as long as
    you're a solid performer. But how much more you'll get, depends
    upon how you do relative to your peers.

                LESSONS LEARNED IN IMPLEMENTING MARKET-BASED PAY

        The other thing that I think makes sense is you've got to
    do market-based compensation studies. Most agencies in
    Government have never done that. When you end up going to broad
    banding, you really need to make sure you make solid decisions
    on how many bands you set up, based upon roles and
    responsibilities. We made two mistakes in 1989. Hindsight is
    always 20/20.
        Senator Allard. Well, you learn.
        Mr. Walker. Yes. We made mistakes in 1989. Number one, we
    combined two GS levels into one pay band that we shouldn't
    have, because they were different roles of responsibility. That
    caused us to have to do this Band II restructuring, because it
    was clear that we had people with different roles and
    responsibilities. Second, the agency assumed that the GS pay
    ranges were reflective of the market.
        Now they may or may not have been in 1989, but they're
    surely not today. So when agencies are moving forward, they
    have to be careful on how many pay bands they set up, based
    upon meaningful differences in roles and responsibilities.
    Then, they need to conduct competitive compensation studies to
    decide what the pay ranges ought to be for those bands.
        The last thing that I would say that's relevant, is that
    it's okay to have overlaps in pay ranges. It's okay from
    somebody in a lower level to have the opportunity to make as
    much or more than the lower end of the pay range at the next
    level. But in my view, the only people that you can justify
    doing that for, are very strong performers. That shouldn't be
    an entitlement. Because otherwise, you don't get equal pay for
    work of equal value, over time. And that's one of our
    objectives too, though I didn't mention it before, that I think
    is an important principle.

                         STAFFING UP TO REDUCE BACKLOGS

        Senator Allard. Last year, you talked about your single
    biggest backlog was in the area of healthcare. Have you fully
    staffed that area, now?
        Mr. Walker. I would ask Gene Dodaro to look at some data.
    We clearly still have a backlog in the healthcare area. But I
    would footnote before Gene gets into the area, the backlog
    we're going to talk to you about, is engagements that we've
    accepted. And one has to use a note of caution, because there
    could be demand on the Hill that we haven't received yet and
    have not accepted yet. In some cases, people don't send us
    things because they already know that we have a backlog. So
    with that footnote, I would ask Gene to give you the backlog
    statistics.
        Senator Allard. Gene.
        Mr. Dodaro. Mr. Chairman, we've begun addressing the
    backlog issue in healthcare and have made a little progress,
    but not much. Basically what's occurring there, because of
    large growth in healthcare expenditures and the interest in
    healthcare, particularly with the addition of the prescription
    drug benefit in Medicare part D, the requests and mandates from
    Congress just keep coming in at a fast pace. And there's also
    more interest now in how FDA handles drug safety issues.
    There's more interest in bioterrorism concerns and public
    health preparedness and readiness. So the range of issues just
    keeps growing, both in the Medicare program, as well as the
    Medicaid program, in public health, and in the regulatory
    structure. So we don't believe we can make much more progress
    unless we add additional people.
        We've also reinforced a process that we've had in place for
    a number of years now, to look at potential mandates. When
    Congress introduces a bill, there's often a requirement for a
    GAO study in there and so, we try to talk to the people once
    the bills are introduced. If it's something that may not fall
    within our scope of our responsibility, or be something that
    we've already addressed we try to deal with it.
        The other big backlog area has been in homeland security.
    And of course following September 11, 2001, a lot of concerns
    about the areas that the Department of Homeland Security is
    addressing. And then, came Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, et
    cetera. And a lot of concern has, as everybody knows, emerged
    about the Federal Government's response in that area. And so
    that has occurred in addition to the continuing concerns about
    air transportation, railroad security, port security, and all
    the other issues that have been addressed. So that's been
    layered on top and is causing an additional backlog in that
    area, as well.
        Ms. Harper. Mr. Chairman, to address the second----
        Senator Allard. Ms. Harper.
        Ms. Harper [continuing]. Part of your question, healthcare
    is on track to be fully staffed. Their hiring is going very
    well this year, so their staff should be fully onboard as we
    come toward the end of the fiscal year.
        Mr. Walker. And the third area, Mr. Chairman, where there's
    a big backlog, is natural resources and the environment, for
    fairly obvious reasons and yourself being from the West, you
    can appreciate some of those issues.

     COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S SUPPLY-
                                DEMAND IMBALANCE

        Senator Allard. Yes. Okay. I'd like to have you provide,
    unless you already have it with you, a comparative analysis of
    GAO's current supply and demand imbalance between staff
    capacity and job demands of the last 5 and 10 years. Can we do
    that with current figures?
        Mr. Walker. We'll be happy to provide data for the record,
    Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]

        Question. For each of GAO's 13 mission areas, please
    compare changes in the supply/demand imbalance between staff
    capacity and job demands for fiscal years 2006, 2001, and 1996.
    How does GAO measure supply and demand as it relates to this
    issue? What criteria does GAO use to identify backlogs?
        Answer. As of the end of March 2006, GAO had 374 requests
    from Congress that had not yet been started (defined as the
    imbalance between supply and demand). This compares to the 361
    requests pending at the end of fiscal year 2001 and 349
    requests pending at the close of fiscal year 1996.
        Pending requests include those (1) assigned to teams but
    still awaiting screening at GAO's weekly Engagement Acceptance
    Meeting, (2) approved at the EAM to start but not yet begun,
    and (3) awaiting staff. It does not include work that is
    contingent on a future due date or event.
        The following table shows the number of pending requests
    for each of GAO's 13 mission teams as of the end of March 2006
    and the end of fiscal year 2001. GAO's mission teams were
    organized by the current Comptroller General beginning in
    fiscal year 2001, so information on their pending requests in
    1996 does not exist.

                        PENDING REQUESTS BY MISSION TEAM
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Current Team                     2001 \1\       2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Acquisition and Sourcing Management (ASM).....           23           37
    Applied Research and Methods (ARM)............            3            3
    Defense Capabilities and Management (DCM).....            8           21
    Education, Workforce, and Income Security                18           23
     (EWIS).......................................
    Financial Management and Assurance (FMA)......            1           44
    Financial Markets and Community Investment               15           13
     (FMCI).......................................
    Health Care (HC)..............................           84           82
    Homeland Security and Justice (HSJ)...........           NA           45
    International Affairs and Trade (TAT).........            7           12
    Information Technology (IT)...................           17           12
    Natural Resources and Environment (NRE).......           59           54
    Physical Infrastructure (PI)..................           38           22
    Strategic Issues (SI).........................           12            6
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Tax Administration and Justice (TAJ) had 69 pending requests at the
      end of fiscal year 2001 and the Office of Special Investigations (0SI)
      had 7. TM was merged mainly into HSJ and SI and 0SI was merged mainly
      with FMA and the Office of General Counsel.

               GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S HIGH RISK LIST

        Senator Allard. Another area I wanted to cover before we
    bring things to a close is your high risk list. Can you give us
    a rating of how effective that program might be?
        Mr. Walker. Well Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking that
    question. It's a very timely question. I have to give credit to
    my predecessor, Chuck Bowsher and the individuals who were at
    GAO in the early 1990's for creating the high risk list. It's
    been public since around about 1992. Since I've been
    Comptroller General, I've tried to work with our GAO executives
    and others, to make it a much more strategic list. Not just
    focused on fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement which will
    never be zero, but also to address major transformation
    challenges facing the Federal Government and to take a more
    strategic approach.
        I'm pleased to say, that a very high percentage of our
    hearings and a very high percentage of our financial benefits
    and other accomplishments, are directly related to the high
    risk list. The Congress is focusing on the high risk list for
    the most part. GAO continues to focus on it. The administration
    is now working with us to create action plans for every high
    risk area. As you know, the President's management agenda is
    based, in large part, on GAO's high risk list and that is not
    an accident.
        Furthermore, GAO's high risk program is being emulated in
    other countries, in other States, and localities and is now on
    the short list for an Innovations in Government Award from
    Harvard. Whether or not we'll be selected, we've made the short
    list. This program is making a difference, and I think it's an
    example of when you're dealing with an entity that's as vast as
    the Federal Government and when you've got limited resources,
    you need to figure out some way to target. We can target, the
    Congress can target, the agencies can target whatever resources
    and authorities they have, to have the most impact. This has
    clearly been a valuable tool in getting that done.
        I don't know if Gene has anything.

     HISTORY AND IMPORTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S HIGH
                                   RISK LIST

        Mr. Dodaro. Mr. Chairman, I've been involved in the program
    since it was created back in 1990 and I can tell you, it has
    tremendous value over time in sustaining attention between
    administrations and with changes in the Congress. A lot of
    these problems require sustained attention over time. And even
    for some of them, the areas that are still on the high risk
    list, even though they have not been taken off yet, there's
    been a lot of progress made because of this sustained
    attention. Medicare, for example, now has a means to measure
    the level of improper payments that they're sending out. That
    didn't exist when we put them on the list back in 1990 and
    that's enabling them to measure the degree of progress that
    they're making and target corrective actions.
        Tax enforcement, the latest measure of the tax gap had
    occurred back in 1988 and because that area has been on the
    high risk list, there has been a new estimate made of the tax
    gap, which is about $300 billion. In the Department of Energy
    (DOE) area for example, on contracting, since we've put that on
    the list, even though they're not taking off yet, they're now
    competing contracts, where they had not been before and other
    progress has been made.
        So it's a very, very effective means and I could tell you,
    when Dave and I have met with heads of agencies, nobody really
    wants to be on the list and they're making concerted progress
    to get off. And they see the benefits of also being on the
    list, to get attention to their area.
        Mr. Walker. But let me footnote, Mr. Chairman, in addition
    to everything that Gene said, by taking a much more strategic
    and transformational approach to the high risk list, I must
    say, that I have actually received two telephone calls from
    heads of agencies, thanking us for putting them on the high
    risk list. And let me tell you why. Because one of the things
    that we've also done, is we've noted which items on the high
    risk list not only require action by the executive branch, but
    also require action by the Congress. And when you look at that
    high risk list, anything that has an asterisk, means that both
    branches of Government have to be involved to create a more
    positive future. In many cases, by putting an item on the high
    risk list, that provides attention and additional momentum for
    changes not just within the executive branch, but also within
    the legislative branch. One example of that, is a topic that
    you talked about earlier, namely human capital reform. We put
    that on our high risk list in January 2000. There's been more
    done administratively and legislatively in the human capital
    area since January 2000, than the 20 years prior to that.
    Therefore, it can make a difference. It is making a difference.

     CRITERIA FOR COMING ON AND OFF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S
                                 HIGH RISK LIST

        Senator Allard. Let me serve the role of a devil's
    advocate, we have two that have been on there--DOE and the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contract
    management. They've been on there forever. And there hasn't
    seemed to be any improvement. Doesn't that diminish the
    effectiveness of your program?
        Mr. Walker. Well we've had a number that have come off over
    the years and we've had some that have come on over the years.
    I can assure you, that people don't come off until they earn
    coming off.
        The other thing that is different here is that within 1
    year of my coming on board, one of the things that we did
    working with GAO's executives and also providing an opportunity
    for comments from the Congress and the executive branch, we
    came up with clearly defined, transparent, and consistently
    applied criteria for what it took to go on the list and what it
    took to come off the list. This has helped tremendously.
        And the last thing I would say is this, the current
    administration is taking the high risk list seriously, as
    evidenced by the fact that they're working with us and the
    agencies to try to develop a specific action plan for each item
    to eventually get off the list. In some cases, it took years
    for people to get where they are, and it's going to take years
    to get off.
        The most prominent example, Mr. Chairman, is that the
    Defense Department has 8 of 25 high risk areas individually and
    shares all 6 of the Government-wide areas. So it has 14 of 25.
    And in many cases, Mr. Chairman, it's not just because it's
    going to take a long time to deal with it and there needs to be
    more attention in the executive branch, it's because there
    needs to be more attention paid in the legislative branch.
    There needs to be more accountability than there has been, in
    many regards.
        Senator Allard. Have we ever had any legislative agencies
    on this list?
        Mr. Walker. This list has been geared toward the executive
    branch, which is an overwhelming percentage of Federal revenues
    and expenditures. And as you might imagine, Mr. Chairman, that
    raises certain sensitivity issues, since we are a sister agency
    to other legislative branch agencies.
        Senator Allard. Just a thought I had. Okay. Before
    concluding the hearing, I would like to thank your staff for
    the exceptional work that they do to support this subcommittee.
    And in particular, Bernard Ungar and Terrell Dorn have been
    steadfast in their commitment to support our oversight of the
    Capitol Visitor Center.
        In addition, Gloria Jarmon and many of your other staff
    provide outstanding advice and guidance to the subcommittee
    routinely and we appreciate their efforts.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        There will be some additional questions that will be
    submitted to your agency for response in the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
        Question. GAO's budget requests 50 additional full-time equivalent
    employees. What is the full-year cost for the additional FTEs, and why
    isn't this cost made clear in the budget justification?
        Answer. The full-year cost for 50 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff
    is about $5.8 million using an average annual salary of $116,362
    including benefits. Our workforce plan projects that we will end fiscal
    year 2006 with an onboard strength of 3,350 staff. This staffing level
    will position GAO to utilize 3,217 FTEs in fiscal year 2006 and 3,267
    FTEs in fiscal year 2007.
        The cost to support these staff in fiscal year 2007, assuming no
    other staffing changes, is included in the budget request as part of
    estimated annualization costs. The annualization cost represents the
    difference between the estimated costs to be paid in fiscal year 2006
    and fiscal year 2007. The annualization cost has been reduced by
    expected savings from leave-without-pay and part-time schedules, and
    includes the cost to maintain our student intern and knowledge transfer
    programs. The intern program has been an effective recruitment tool for
    permanent hires, especially in our specialized areas of accounting and
    financial management. The knowledge transfer program is a vital tool in
    our succession planning strategy to help ensure continuity of
    operations.
        Question. Given that GAO's budget was cut below the request in
    fiscal year 2006, how has the agency managed to maintain the fully
    authorized level of FTEs?
        Answer. We expect to be able to maintain 3,217 FTEs in fiscal year
    2006 primarily due to lower average compensation costs than estimated.
    We estimate our actual fiscal year 2006 compensation costs will be
    lower than we estimated in January 2005 at the time our budget request
    was prepared, primarily due to: (1) a lower on-board strength at the
    beginning of fiscal year 2006 than assumed in our budget request; and
    (2) institution of our new compensation program which is market-based
    and more performance-oriented that will result in somewhat lower
    average salary growth than originally expected.
        Question. Given GAO is requesting 50 additional employees, why is
    there a need for $500,000 in additional costs for contract services?
        Answer. Based on our current assessment of trends in engagements
    and audits, we anticipate an increasing demand for technical expertise.
    We expect to continue to rely on external experts and advisors in
    disciplines related to our work in physical infrastructure, education,
    pension simulations, health care, natural resources, economic analyses,
    and survey assistance. Contract services support congressional
    engagements by providing specialized, expert advice and assistance not
    readily available from GAO staff and not necessarily needed on a
    recurring basis. Contract services are also used when certain kinds of
    expertise are needed within a compressed time-frame to meet
    congressional needs for particular engagements, projects, or audits.
    For example, we plan to use contract services to provide expertise on a
    congressional request related to utility tunnels.
        Examples of contract services can range from expert advice on
    specific issues to an analysis of a particular program. We have found
    that contracts--such as with the National Academies--provide an
    efficient, flexible vehicle to obtain technical assistance and
    expertise in highly specialized areas. We have used the expertise of
    the National Academies in such areas as: information on trends in
    printing and dissemination, technologies to protect structures from
    wildfires, environmental indicators, air traffic control modernization
    and privatization, vulnerabilities of federal lands to climate changes,
    and the Capitol Visitor Center.
        Question. GAO's budget includes $3.894 million in ``relatively
    controllable costs'' associated with information technology. Please
    provide a breakout of the projects and activities that comprise the
    $3.894 million estimate, and the projected impact of not funding each
    of these items.
        Answer. In preparing our fiscal year 2007 budget request, we
    vigorously scrubbed our requirements and limited the items included in
    our request to selected, targeted initiatives that we believe are
    essential to our ability to maintain our effectiveness and
    productivity. These initiatives primarily relate to (1) enhancing
    critical business systems and (2) addressing security requirements
    resulting from recent federal guidance. If funding is not directly
    provided for the requested initiatives, we may need to consider
    delaying these improvements which will only result in increased cost
    over time due to future price level increases. Alternatively, we may
    need to consider our staffing levels in fiscal year 2007 in order to
    ensure that we could pursue these initiatives. The following table
    provides additional information on the requested increases for
    Information Technology activities and the impact of not funding these
    items.

         FISCAL YEAR 2007 INCREASES REQUESTED FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
                                   ACTIVITIES
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Activity                              Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Replace GAO's financial management system..................        1,400
        GAO's financial management system needs to be replaced
      now and is a priority effort over the next 2 years. Our
      financial management system is antiquated, is no longer
      supported by the vendor, fails to meet current business
      system requirements, and is in danger of failing. If the
      system is not replaced expeditiously, we run the risk of
      being unable to (1) effectively operate our financial
      management system, (2) produce auditable financial
      statements, and (3) meet internal control standards
      without extensive manual intervention and support.
        In fiscal year 2006, we plan to select a government
      cross-service provider and begin a phased implementation
      in fiscal year 2007. The replacement financial management
      system will provide integrated budgeting, purchasing, and
      accounting functionality while enhancing the information
      available to program managers, and allow us to meet our
      goal of being a model agency.
    Enhance the Engagement Management and Job Information                425
     Systems...................................................
        In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, we plan to continue the
      redesign of the Engagement Management System and Job
      Information Systems. With the integration of existing
      systems such as the Congressional Contact System and
      Staffing Information System into the Engagement
      Management System, the new system will provide a more
      robust management tool which will allow one information
      source and access point for planning, staffing, and
      management of GAO's evaluation work. Currently, GAO
      maintains multiple systems with similar data, requiring
      managers to enter redundant data into multiple databases,
      reconcile information to ensure its accuracy, and access
      multiple systems to obtain information needed to manage
      and conduct congressional engagements.
    Improve IT security and systems............................        2,069
        In fiscal year 2006, GAO will relocate its alternate
      computing facility for disaster recovery and continuity
      of operations from a commercial site to one that is
      shared with other legislative branch agencies. In fiscal
      years 2006 and 2007, we will continue to implement
      security features to identify and stop potential hackers
      and improve the overall security of the agency's
      information and technology assets.
        In fiscal year 2007, we will initiate the transition to
      Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) to comply with federal
      guidance and policy to implement IPv6 by fiscal year
      2008. This will require the upgrade of numerous
      infrastructure devices and GAO applications to ensure
      interoperability and IT security.
        With the completion of installing SIPRNet--DOD's
      Internet for sharing data classified up to the secret
      level--in the field offices, our efforts will shift to
      installing access to DOD's Non-classified Internet
      Protocol Router Network system, NIPRNet, in fiscal year
      2007. Electronic access to DOD's systems allows staff to
      obtain information needed to complete engagements without
      incurring travel costs.
        In addition, we will build upon our design of the
      Hurricane Central Portal to create portals that will
      provide a single access point to enterprise information
      resources, tools, and common applications within the GAO
      network. These portals will facilitate timely and
      effective staff research and access to data needed to
      respond to congressional inquiries. The initial focus
      will be a portal for the core business and analyst
      communities.
                                                                ------------
          Total................................................        3,894
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. GAO's budget proposes $3.819 million in ``relatively
    controllable costs'' associated with building management. Please
    provide a breakout of this requested increase, and the impact of not
    funding these items.
        Answer. In preparing our fiscal year 2007 budget request, we
    vigorously scrubbed our requirements and limited the items included in
    our request to selected, targeted initiatives that we believe are
    essential to our ability to maintain our effectiveness and
    productivity. These initiatives primarily relate to (1) cyclical
    maintenance identified in our 2005 GAO Building Condition Assessment
    Report, and (2) security requirements resulting from recent federal
    guidance. If funding is not directly provided for the requested
    initiatives, we may need to consider delaying these improvements which
    will only result in increased cost over time due to future price level
    increases. Alternatively, we may need to consider our staffing levels
    in fiscal year 2007 in order to ensure that we could pursue these
    initiatives. The following table provides additional information on the
    requested increases for Building Management activities and the impact
    of not funding these items.

     FISCAL YEAR 2007 INCREASE REQUESTED FOR BUILDING MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Activity                              Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GAO Building Maintenance and Repair........................          922
        In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, we plan to undertake
      several maintenance and repair projects identified in our
      2005 Building Condition Assessment report. In fiscal year
      2007, we plan to continue upgrades to the heating,
      ventilation, and air-conditioning systems, replace the
      cooling towers, upgrade the handicapped lift, and perform
      cyclical maintenance on the building elevators. In order
      to ensure the safety of GAO staff, we could not defer
      critical elements, such as elevator upgrades.
    Increase Security For Incoming Mail And Packages...........          400
        We plan to relocate and consolidate our mail and
      package receiving facilities to help ensure the safety
      and security of GAO staff and assets in the event of the
      receipt of hazardous materials.
    Upgrade Contract Security Force............................          610
        In fiscal year 2005, we restructured the contract for
      the security force to upgrade the qualifications for the
      security force to Special Police Officers, gradually
      replacing GSA guards. The restructuring will help ensure
      a more professional, secure environment. In fiscal year
      2006, we completed the restructuring of the security
      force and have attained full staffing with special police
      officers. The requested increase represents the
      annualized cost of making the transition from GSA guards
      to special police officers. If the requested funding is
      not available, we would be required to reduce the number
      of officers that we could support and determine other
      ways to help mitigate the potential risks to GAO staff
      and assets.
    Integrated Electronic Security System (IESS)...............        1,225
        We plan to implement an IESS at GAO headquarters in
      fiscal year 2006 and expand the system to the field
      offices in fiscal year 2007. The IESS will allow GAO to
      integrate headquarters and field office access control,
      surveillance, and alarm systems and provide the ability
      to monitor field activity from a console in the
      headquarters Command Control Center. We anticipate some
      savings will result from integrating the field offices
      and headquarters control systems and less reliance on the
      Federal Protective Service (FPS) in the field. The
      integrated system will allow GAO to comply with Homeland
      Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD 12) which sets
      forth requirements for using government-issued
      identification, Smart Cards, to permit access to federal
      agencies.
    Security Investigations....................................          197
        In fiscal year 2006, we will start conducting higher-
      level investigations on contractors and interns to meet
      the requirements of HSPD 12 for the issuance of
      government identification to allow access to federal
      facilities. In addition, in fiscal year 2007, a
      significant number of staff are due for cyclical updates
      of their security clearance which is required to gain
      access to needed information and facilities.
    Upgrade Tax Rooms..........................................          225
        We plan to assess secure space in the field offices and
      implement changes needed to comply with Internal Revenue
      Service guidelines for storing tax returns and other
      sensitive information.
    Design For Library & 7th Floor.............................          240
        We plan to redesign the physical layout of our library
      facility to (1) reconfigure space to improve work
      collaboration as we reduce our physical collection and
      migrate to greater use of electronic resources, and (2)
      design additional workspace to accommodate displaced GAO
      staff when the GAO Building is used as an alternate
      facility for congressional staff.
                                                                ------------
          Total................................................        3,819
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
        Question. How many GAO staff did not perform at a satisfactory
    level (meets expectations or better rating) in 2005 and were thus
    ineligible for purchase power protection?
        Answer. Only 8 staff did not perform at a meets expectation level
    or better and therefore did not receive an annual adjustment. In
    addition, 19 staff did not meet the relative performance requirements
    for satisfactory performance and therefore did not receive an annual
    adjustment.
        Question. What happened to these individuals?
        Answer. The 8 employees whose performance was not at a meets
    expectations level or better did not receive the annual adjustment or
    any other salary increases or performance bonuses. The remaining 19
    employees did not receive the annual adjustment, but were assessed for
    performance based compensation and were eligible to receive a
    performance bonus.
        Question. Were the affected employees aware of the reasons for
    being denied their COLA's?
        Answer. Yes. GAO has implemented a market-based and performance-
    oriented compensation system and does not provide an across-the-board
    increase to all employees regardless of their performance, roles and
    responsibilities or salary in relation to the market. Our annual
    adjustment reflects changes in the cost of labor and is one component
    of an employee's compensation. As noted above, some employees were
    ineligible for this adjustment due to their performance.
        Employees who didn't receive adjustments due to ``below
    expectations'' ratings were made aware that their appraisals made them
    ineligible for salary adjustments or performance bonuses. The 19
    employees who didn't receive annual adjustments due to the relative
    performance criteria were considered for performance based
    compensation. All staff can access a performance-based compensation
    report from a web-based system This report contains information about
    employees' ratings, base salary increases and/or performance bonuses,
    but does not provide a specific explanation of why the amount may be a
    bonus rather than a base salary adjustment. Various communications were
    undertaken to inform staff as to the nature and basis for 2006 salary
    adjustments--including who was or was not eligible for the annual
    adjustment component. These included a special Comptroller General
    televised chat for which the briefing materials were posted for all
    staff. A GAO order covering the annual adjustment and performance-based
    compensation process was issued for notice and comment. Lastly, a PBC
    guide with calculation examples was posted on the GAO intranet. Human
    Capital Office staff also provided specific explanations of individual
    salary adjustments to employees upon request.
        Question. What affect has the GAO Human Capital Reform Act had on
    the morale of the employees in your agency?
        Answer. The Human Capital Reform Act (HC II) was passed in July
    2004 and provided GAO with several flexibilities including permanent
    authority for the Comptroller General to offer voluntary early
    retirement, voluntary separation incentive payments, enhanced annual
    leave for key employees, flexible relocation benefits and an executive
    exchange program. In addition, the act authorized the Comptroller
    General to establish revised pay retention regulations and to determine
    the annual salary adjustment for GAO staff rather than increasing
    salaries by the percentage authorized for the General Schedule. The
    Comptroller General's authority to establish the amount of the annual
    adjustment was effective for increases effective on or after October 1,
    2005. Therefore, January 2006 represented the first exercise of this
    authority.
        GAO conducts an annual employee feedback survey to give staff an
    opportunity to provide input on various issues relating to their
    employment at GAO. The results from the 2005 survey which was the first
    conducted since the passage of Public Law 108-271 (May and June 2005)
    show morale improved from the prior year with 71.24 percent of
    employees agreeing or strongly agreeing that their morale was good. In
    the 2004 survey (July and August of 2004), 68.76 percent of employees
    agreed or strongly agreed that their morale was good. While we can't
    attribute changes in morale to this particular legislation or any other
    single factor, the next survey will be conducted in the summer of 2006
    after the HC-II pay flexibilities have been exercised. Employees'
    responses on the morale question have trended upwards in 2003, 2004 and
    2005 and we will track the 2006 responses when the survey is completed
    in light of the legislation and other changes that have occurred in the
    agency in the past year.
        Question. Why did you not allow for a minimum of a two year
    transition period before implementing the GAO annual pay adjustment
    provisions?
        Answer. We did. In 2003, as part of our legislative proposal, the
    Comptroller General laid out plans for a 2-year transition period with
    increases under the new authority occurring in January 2005 at the
    earliest. Public Law 108-271 was passed in July of 2004 and provided
    for implementation of the Comptroller General's annual pay adjustment
    authority to be effective for any increases effective after October 1,
    2005. In January 2005, GAO adjusted employees' salaries at the same
    time and to the same extent as the General Schedule and January 2006
    was the first year in which GAO employees received a different annual
    adjustment than the executive branch.
        Question. Why was the restructuring of GAO senior analysts (Band
    IIs) carried out?
        Answer. As part of our overall human capital transformation
    efforts, GAO has developed and implemented a modern classification
    system and a market-based and more performance-oriented compensation
    system. The principles that guided the development of our
    classification and compensation system are as follows:
      --Enable GAO to attract and retain top talent
      --Result in equal pay for work of equal value over time
      --Reflect the roles and responsibilities that staff are expected to
            perform
      --Be reasonable, competitive, performance-oriented; and based on
            skills, knowledge and roles
      --Be affordable and sustainable based on current and expected
            resource levels
      --Conform to applicable statutory limits.
        The purpose of restructuring the Band II position was to clearly
    distinguish between the roles and responsibilities of those analysts
    who are generally individual contributors and/or sometimes provide
    overall leadership on selected engagements and those who are expected
    to consistently take on a leadership role for a broad range of
    engagements over time. When comparing Band II roles, responsibilities
    and pay to the market, the Watson Wyatt compensation study validated
    that these two roles should have different pay ranges. By better
    linking roles and responsibilities to the appropriate market-based pay
    ranges, senior analysts will be more equitably compensated.
        Question. When did the idea of the senior analyst (Band II)
    restructuring occur to you?
        Answer. The issue of how GAO classifies its analyst staff first
    surfaced in 2000 during the development of GAO's competency-based
    performance system. As part of the competency validation effort, some
    Band II employees reported that certain work activities associated with
    leadership and the development of staff were relevant and important to
    their responsibilities and other employees indicated that they were not
    relevant. As a result of this bimodal response, these work activities
    were not included in the competency-based performance system, but the
    reasons for the differing response remained a matter of concern.
        In preparation for the development of market-based compensation
    ranges, it was essential to address the issue of Band II roles and
    responsibilities in order to ensure appropriate benchmarking with
    comparable positions. The results of the market-based study, which was
    conducted from July to October of 2004, indicated that the different
    Band II roles should have different pay ranges. In response, the Band
    II restructuring effort was formally announced to staff in May 2005,
    placement decisions were relayed to individual employees in December
    2005 and placements actions effected in January 2006.
        Question. Did you ever mention the possibility of restructuring
    GAO's Band IIs during the legislative consideration of your human
    capital proposal? Why not?
        Answer. At the time of the 2003 hearings on human capital II, GAO
    had not formulated any response to address the issues associated with
    Band IIs' roles and responsibilities. We had no idea in 2003 what the
    results, if any, of our market-based compensation study would be.
        Question. What have been the benefits and costs of the Band II
    restructuring process?
        Answer. There are significant benefits to implementing a modern and
    credible classification and compensation system. It supports our
    continuing efforts to achieve our strategic goal of maximizing the
    agency's value by becoming a model federal agency and a world class
    professional services organization. The Band II restructuring process
    was integral to the effort to classify positions to the appropriate
    levels of responsibility and appropriate market-based salary ranges.
    While direct cost savings were not the impetus for our classification
    and compensation initiatives, over 80 percent of our budget is composed
    of people-related costs. Our restructuring of Band II along with the
    agency-wide implementation of a market-based and performance-oriented
    compensation system is a key element in the efficient use of our
    budget. Our previous pay system did not result in equal pay for equal
    work, was financially unsustainable and harmed the agency's ability to
    adequately reward strong performance. The new system will support our
    efforts to attract, retain, award and motivate top talent.
        However, we recognize that there are also costs associated with any
    significant change and the restructuring was difficult for GAO staff,
    particularly for long-term employees directly affected by the
    restructuring. Transformation efforts take patience and perseverance to
    achieve results and we fully expect that employees' acceptance of these
    changes will take time.
        Question. How much did GAO ``save'' by freezing the salaries and
    denying one-half of bonuses earned of its staff?
        Answer. The implementation of a market-based compensation system
    was not designed to save the agency money. In fact, only 47 staff (2.6
    percent) assessed for performance-based compensation and onboard as of
    the effective date of these increases received no salary increase or
    performance bonus this year. Our compensation system is a part of our
    overall transformation effort whose goal is to establish modern,
    effective, and credible human capital policies in order to ensure that
    GAO is well positioned to serve our congressional clients, maximize our
    performance, operate the organization within the resources provided in
    a constrained budget environment, and assure our accountability and
    service to the nation not only now, but also in the future.
        There were 236 Band II Analysts and Specialists who were placed in
    Band IIA and who had salaries in excess of the IIA maximum rate. Under
    the policy adopted to mitigate the impact of the Band II restructuring,
    these staff whose average salary is approximately $109,000 were
    provided 50 percent of their performance-based compensation as a base
    salary adjustment not to exceed the maximum ``transition'' rate. The
    transition rate allows all band IIA employees to earn a maximum salary
    equal to the maximum rate that these employees were eligible to earn in
    2005 as Band IIs, i.e., $118,700 in Washington, D. C. (Note: In some
    locations, the transition maximum was slightly higher than the former
    Band II maximum due to differing locality rates.) If these 236
    employees had been provided with the 2.6 percent annual adjustment and
    the additional 50 percent of their PBC, the added annual cost would
    have been approximately $882,000.
        Question. What is GAO's policy for paying the relocation expenses
    of an employee who requests a transfer from HQ to a region?
        Answer. GAO does not pay the relocation expenses for employees who
    request to be transferred. As required by Federal Travel Regulation
    302.1-1, GAO only offers relocation benefits if GAO determines that a
    transfer is in the interest of the Government. GAO always decides in
    advance of issuing a job announcement if it will offer relocation
    benefits for a position. If the decision is made to offer relocation
    benefits, that notation is made in the job announcement. Employees
    receive relocation benefits only if they are chosen for a position
    which includes relocation benefits in the job announcement. Employees
    who request to transfer from headquarters to a field office (or vise
    versa) are generally allowed to transfer if a position is available,
    however, the agency does not pay their relocation expenses.
        Question. In recent years, GAO, as well as other federal agencies,
    has invested significant resources to upgrade security. Yet, both
    physical and information security remain a management challenge for the
    GAO. Please describe why these areas continue to be a management
    challenge.
        Answer. The continuing dynamics of information technology (IT) and
    security is the primary reason for GAO's management challenge. It is a
    challenge that is not unique to GAO--all federal agencies are dealing
    with this challenge. Essentially, changing security threats, evolving
    security guidance, and new technologies have created an environment in
    a high state of flux. Our experience has already shown that security
    designs implemented today may not have the same effect of protecting
    our information resources from a newly designed threat, or variant of
    an existing threat, tomorrow.
        The explosion of the Internet, e-commerce and web-based services,
    along with the rapidly expanding presence of wireless and other
    computing devices, has created new challenges for protecting IT
    systems, privacy information and other agency information assets. In
    addition, the ease with which technology allows the sharing and
    transfer of information and the portability of cellular devices, tablet
    computers, and PDAs presents ongoing IT security threats--such as
    viruses, worms, spyware, zero day exploits, as well as pharming,
    phishing and spoofing exploits. Unfortunately, these are risks and
    challenges that are not likely to abate as we look forward and as new
    threats and the potential for new exploits emerge.
        The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has
    significantly increased its government-wide guidance on IT, providing
    more and greater detail in direct response to legislative direction and
    the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). FISMA, in
    turn, has expanded the visibility of each federal agency's IT programs
    and how secure they are--and caused an increase in the workload and
    resources needed to comply with government-wide standards and reporting
    requirements. Furthermore, the guidance on implementing and reporting
    on FISMA requirements, as well as the related NIST standards and
    technology approaches continues to evolve. We foresee an increase
    rather than a decrease in work directly supporting these initiatives.
        Also, directives to move towards new technologies, such as IPv6,
    the next generation Internet protocol, may require a significant
    restructuring of network architectures and network services. (OMB has
    mandated that all Federal agencies must be using IPv6 by June 2008.) By
    implementing some of these new technologies, the existing mechanisms
    implemented to secure the network and information systems may need to
    be discarded and replaced by very different technologies, creating
    their own set of new challenges. Significant changes in technology will
    require additional resources for training and education of staff to
    meet the challenge. In the case of IPv6, it is critical that we develop
    and implement a sound transition plan to acquire, test and deploy the
    needed infrastructure equipment to implement IPv6 and ensure secure
    compatibility and interoperability with customers, clients, business
    partners, and service providers. The full implication of IPv6
    implementation from a security standpoint is just now emerging as
    industry and organizations/agencies gain a greater understanding of the
    protocol.
        In addition, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12 and
    Office of Management and Budget guidance require federal agencies
    implement a new federal employee identification standard in October
    2006. The technical requirements to implement these directives are
    contained in the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 201
    guidelines. However, the vendor community is still developing and
    testing products capable of meeting the new standards and requirements.
    Meanwhile, agencies are trying to develop systems and processes to
    implement the new guidelines in a timely fashion in the absence of
    street-ready products.
        Question. What further investments do you believe are necessary to
    resolve the challenge?
        Answer. Due to the dynamic nature of the security and IT
    environments, there is no silver bullet to resolve the challenge. By
    following consistent standards and best practices, GAO has implemented
    a defense-in-depth approach using measured technical security controls
    to protect our information systems and information at the perimeter,
    throughout the network, and at the desktop. We still face mounting
    challenges from changing technologies and multi-vendor solutions. Most
    environments today must still rely on multi-vendor solutions that lack
    appropriate levels of integration. As the industry matures, we should
    see more integrated solutions on the market. GAO's future investments
    will be in support of our desire to consolidate security solutions to a
    limited number of vendors providing integrated effective solutions and
    reporting capabilities. These solutions will require both investments
    in technologies and human resources. As GAO moves forward, we will
    continue to review and update our security tools and approaches to
    ensure they are the most cost effective--and are responsive to ever
    evolving threats.
        Overall, the increasing and more sophisticated outsider threats,
    together with additional legislative mandates, presage a steady level
    of spending, at a minimum, for security initiatives to ensure the
    safeguard of our information resources and compliance with IT security
    regulations. While the composition of IT security funding will likely
    change to meet new security challenges and government wide
    requirements, we don't--at this time--envision overall costs
    decreasing, particularly in light of the required move to IPv6.
        GAO has several actions planned or underway in the area of physical
    security which will help improve our security posture, including an
    integrated access security system which utilizes enhanced Smartcard
    technology, more stringent background investigations for federal
    employees and contractors, and a more robust security force of special
    police officers. However, given the dynamic nature of the nation's
    post-September 11 security environment, the challenge is continually
    evolving.
        Question. What is the status of your effort to install an
    integrated access security system?
        Answer. GAO is working with a solutions provider to work through
    the details of implementing the new technology. During fiscal year
    2006, we plan to establish an Emergency Operations Center in
    headquarters as the focal point of our efforts to integrate physical
    security issues. This Center will allow us to monitor and control
    physical access issues in both headquarters and the field. It will also
    allow us to reduce our reliance in 10 field offices on local Federal
    Protective Service Staff and security forces. We also plan to install
    turnstiles in the headquarters lobby areas, implement Smartcard
    technology consistent with HSPD 12 and FIPS 201, and implement a
    visitor and credential management system in headquarters. In fiscal
    years 2007 and 2008, we plan to phase implementation of the access
    security system to the field offices.
        Question. What is the status of your disaster recovery/continuity
    of operations program?
        Answer. We have put in place a structured plan and process--which
    we test on a periodic basis--for business continuity planning and
    disaster recovery. We have also expanded the capability of our offsite
    alternative computing facility to ensure the recovery and restoration
    of the IT systems that support the agency's business processes in the
    event of a disruption. Expanded capabilities include the installation
    of additional file servers, operating systems, storage, back-up, data
    lines, additional remote access licenses and replication technology to
    synchronize headquarters production data at the alternative computing
    site. And, we are in the process of moving our alternative computing
    facility from a commercial site to the legislative branch facility
    which will save us about $126,000 annually, while providing the
    foundation for better coordination with other legislative branch
    entities. The move will occur during the summer, 2006.
        Question. Given the current environment of fiscal constraint, it is
    unlikely the Congress will be able to fully fund your budget request.
        a. What impact will this have on your plans for an FTE increase?
        b. How will this affect your ability to meet the Congress' needs
    for information?
        Answer. If the Congress is unable to fully funding our budget
    request, we may need to consider delaying some of the requested
    initiatives which will only result in increased cost over time due to
    future price level increases. Alternatively, we may need to consider
    reducing our planned staffing level in fiscal year 2007 in order to
    ensure that we could pursue the critical initiatives.
        GAO already has a significant supply and demand imbalance with 374
    requests from the Congress that had not been started as of March 2006.
    If we are unable to increase our staffing, this imbalance will likely
    continue. We will work with our clients on the Hill to determine their
    priorities for our work, but we will obviously not be able to complete
    all that they have requested.
        Failure to increase our staffing to the requested level would also
    have an impact on the timeliness of our work. While we continue to
    receive good marks on our service to the Congress, we recognize that we
    could always improve the timeliness of our work.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Allard. The subcommittee stands in recess until
    tomorrow, April 27 at 10:30 a.m., in Senate Dirksen 116, when
    we will take testimony on the progress of the Capitol Visitor
    Center construction. Thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Whereupon at 11:32 a.m., Wednesday, April 26, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:34 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senator Allard.

                              OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

    STATEMENT OF TAMARA E. CHRISLER, ACTING EXECUTIVE
                DIRECTOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            SUSAN ROBFOGEL, CHAIRWOMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
            PETER EVELETH, GENERAL COUNSEL
            ALMA CANDELARIA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
            BETH HUGHES BROWN, BUDGET AND FINANCE OFFICER

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Good morning. This morning we meet to take testimony from
    three legislative branch agencies: the Office of Compliance,
    the Government Printing Office (GPO), and the Congressional
    Budget Office (CBO). Each agency will appear as a separate
    panel. I would like to welcome all of our witnesses this
    morning.
        I will hear first from Ms. Tamara Chrisler, Acting
    Executive Director of the Office of Compliance, accompanied by
    Ms. Susan Robfogel, Chair of the Board of the Office of
    Compliance, and Pete Eveleth as General Counsel.
        The Office of Compliance is requesting $3.4 million, an
    increase of roughly 11 percent over the current budget, and
    would fund three additional employees. The Office's budget is
    small in view of its responsibilities. I plan to focus most of
    my questions on the recent revelations concerning the health
    and safety of the utility tunnels.
        Ms. Chrisler, you may proceed with your testimony.
        Ms. Chrisler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TAMARA E. CHRISLER

        Senator Allard. Good morning.
        Ms. Chrisler. As you mentioned, Chairwoman Robfogel and
    General Counsel Pete Eveleth are with me this morning. Also
    joining us from the Office of Compliance are Alma Candelaria,
    Deputy Executive Director, and Beth Hughes Brown, our Budget
    and Finance Officer.
        And let me take a moment on behalf of the Office of
    Compliance and thank you for the opportunity to present to you
    this morning in support of our fiscal 2007 budget request.
    Chair Robfogel and I have submitted for the record written
    statements, and we appreciate the opportunity to be able to
    appear before you this morning and just highlight some of the
    items that we believe to be of significant importance in our
    budget request.
        As you know, in fiscal year 2006, the Office of Compliance
    submitted to you a zero-based budget request. And we thank the
    chairman, we thank the subcommittee, for support in that budget
    request. Because of your support, the Office was able to carry
    out its mission, as well as improve its inspection program,
    which is of great significance.
        Again, in fiscal year 2007, the Office of Compliance is
    presenting a zero-based budget request. And the request is
    designed to assist the Office in ensuring that Congress is a
    model employer, that the legislative branch is a model
    workplace and a safe working environment. And we are asking
    your support in supporting our budget request so that we can
    meet those goals.
        Specifically, the Office of Compliance is requesting
    additional funding to further a GAO recommended baseline
    survey. This survey will allow us to gather data so that we
    know what the employees and the employers in the legislative
    community know about their rights, their responsibilities, the
    CAA, as well as the Office of Compliance. This information will
    allow the Office to engage in best practices, so that we may
    measure our performance and so that we may focus our efforts on
    education and outreach to the areas that are needed.
        If we focus our efforts and provide assistance and
    resources where the need is, then we will be able to ensure
    that offices become self-sufficient and enable offices to know
    where potential violations are themselves, correcting them
    themselves, to assure a safe and healthy working environment.
    This type of proactive approach will, in the long run, save
    money. And Senator, it will save lives.

                          NEW FTE POSITIONS REQUESTED

        In addition, the Office of Compliance is requesting
    additional funding for three additional full-time equivalent
    (FTE) positions, one being for a program manager-type position
    to assist with dedicated service to the Office's programs and
    projects, another for the accounts payable function of the
    office, and the other for a management analyst position for the
    General Counsel's Office.
        Now significantly, the management analyst position will
    allow the inspectors to go about the business of inspecting,
    which is where their skills are and where their knowledge is.
    Currently, the inspectors inspect facilities. They return to
    the Office. They input data. They record data. They track data,
    which is taking away from where the inspectors are really
    needed, out in the field, inspecting the facilities, monitoring
    progress and abatement. And we request your support in the
    request for this additional management analyst position in the
    General Counsel's Office.
        I would like to note, Mr. Chairman, that two of the three
    positions that we are requesting can and will be funded by the
    Office of Compliance through reprogramming of contract money.
    So although we are requesting three FTE positions, we are in
    the position to find two of those ourselves.
        Last, but equally as significant as the other items that I
    have mentioned, is the Office's request for additional funding
    to inspect the Capitol Visitor Center. Because the center is
    anticipated to be completed and opened in the near future, this
    area will increase the Office of Compliance's responsibility by
    0.7 million square feet. And because the Office is committed to
    ensuring that this area, as well as the rest of the campus, is
    safe and healthy and compliant, we are requesting your
    assistance in ensuring that funding allows us to do this.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Again, Mr. Chairman, these are just but a few items in our
    budget request that I wanted to highlight and bring to your
    attention this morning. I thank you for the opportunity to be
    able to present to you. At this time, I would ask that Chair
    Robfogel be allowed a few minutes to address the subcommittee.
    And Chair Robfogel, General Counsel Eveleth, and myself will
    remain available to answer any questions that you have.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Tamara E. Chrisler
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the
    opportunity to appear before you today in support of the fiscal year
    2007 budget request of the Office of Compliance.
        Board Chair Susan Robfogel is in attendance with me today to
    express the support of the Board of Directors for the Office's fiscal
    year 2007 budget request. Also with me today are General Counsel Peter
    Ames Eveleth, Deputy Executive Director Alma Candelaria, and
    Administrative and Budget Officer, Beth Hughes Brown.
        We present you again this year a completely zero based budget. We
    hope that the transparency of the zero based format assists the
    Committee in understanding from the ground up how the Office operates
    its mandated programs in employment dispute resolution, in Occupational
    Safety and Health and ADA public access inspections and enforcement,
    and in education and outreach programs. This year, we have requested a
    total of approximately $300,000 in additional funding.
        2005 marked the 10th anniversary of the passage of the
    Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. As we begin this agency's
    second decade, we can look back at much progress, and some rough
    patches along the way. In February, 2004, the Government Accountability
    Office issued its major Report ``Office of Compliance: Status of
    Management Control Efforts to Improve Effectiveness'' GAO-04-400. At
    approximately the same time, the Office issued its first comprehensive
    Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2004-2006. Both of these documents, and
    our strides in implementing them since 2004, reflect the continuing
    improvement in the Office's focus on its core missions, and its growing
    engagement with Congress and legislative branch agencies in
    collaborative initiatives to enhance our services in the mandated areas
    of dispute resolution, safety and health enforcement, and education and
    outreach to our regulated community.
        Recently, the Office formally adopted interim performance measures
    for fiscal year 2006, after extensive stakeholder consultations--
    including with the staff of this Committee. Such performance measures
    represent another step toward the best practices in strategic planning
    and management controls which GAO challenged this Office to achieve. We
    are now also fully engaged in two other strategic initiatives: the
    preparation of our next Strategic Plan, which will guide the Office in
    fiscal year 2007 and beyond; and a complete Human Capital Review, which
    is intended to result in a position classification, pay banding, and
    possible pay for performance structure for the Office. The Office's
    budget request is designed to further the goals of our strategic plan.
        As recommended in the GAO Report and reflected in our Strategic
    Plan, we continue to shift our focus in providing all our services to a
    more interactive approach, enabling regulated employers to achieve
    greater voluntary compliance with the varied requirements of the
    Congressional Accountability Act. Legislative branch agencies are faced
    with many employment, security and safety challenges. Our primary
    mission is to advance safety, health and workplace rights for employees
    and employers of the legislative branch, as mandated by the Act. We
    strive toward that goal with just 17 full time equivalent (FTE)
    positions and a current budget of about $3.1 million.
        As this agency continues to implement the recommendations of the
    GAO Report, and the goals and performance measures of our Strategic
    Plan, we meet new operational challenges as we become better at what we
    do. We have carefully prioritized our needs, and limited our requested
    enhancements to meet only those challenges which handicap our ability
    to make broader progress at this point in our development. This
    morning, I will highlight a few of those requests.
                               dispute resolution
        The Office's day-to-day employment dispute resolution function
    involves controversies under ten different laws, everything from
    alleged discrimination to the alleged failure to pay required overtime.
    This dispute resolution activity remains largely unnoticed because of
    the confidential nature of the counseling, mediation and hearing
    processes conducted by the Office. Hundreds of disputes in nearly all
    legislative branch agencies, as well as in offices of Members and
    committees of both chambers have quietly been addressed through the
    administrative dispute resolution system since 1995. The assistance to
    employing offices and employees provided by this discreet service is
    perhaps one of the great untold success stories of the past decade
    regarding our contribution to the quality of Congress's internal
    operations.
        We are, however, operating with an employment dispute resolution
    electronic case tracking system which was installed at the agency's
    inception in 1996. This antiquated system (which is entirely different
    from the Occupational Safety and Health inspection tracking system
    which this Committee authorized last year) is very hard to use, and is
    no longer compatible with our other operating systems. We have explored
    whether it would be cost effective to upgrade this system, and have
    been told by experts that it is cheaper to replace it. We are
    requesting funds to implement that recommendation.
                         safety and health enforcement
        GAO's 2004 Report found that ``In contrast to most other CAA
    requirements, OOC is not fully in compliance with the CAA requirement
    that it `conduct periodic inspections of all facilities' of the
    agencies covered by the provision.'' GAO also found a ``dramatic
    increase'' in the number of health and safety inspections requested by
    employing offices and covered employees, and observed that the Office's
    resources ``have not kept pace with this growth.'' We thank this
    Committee for its positive response to GAO's finding.
        For the current fiscal year, the Office received a significant
    increase in OSH inspection and enforcement funding to enable us for the
    first time to substantially comply with the Act's mandate that this
    agency complete a comprehensive safety and health inspection of the
    entire Capitol Hill campus during each Congress. The Office is now well
    along in this definitive effort to establish the required authoritative
    and comprehensive OSH base line for all 17 million square feet of
    covered space in the D.C. metro area. General Counsel Eveleth and I are
    pleased to report to you that as of today, the agency is on track to
    complete that biennial inspection by the end of the 109th Congress.
    Inspection of 100 percent of the campus is one of our recently adopted
    performance measures. Thanks to you, we are better able to help the
    Capitol Hill campus become safer and healthier much faster than
    otherwise would have been possible.
        As the Office gains experience with this much more intense and
    efficient inspection regimen, it has become clear that the ``down
    time'' our inspectors are currently spending back in the office doing
    administrative tasks can be more cheaply and efficiently performed by a
    lower cost management analyst, thus freeing up the inspectors to spend
    more time in the field. We expect that the cost of this FTE will be
    substantially offset by increased efficiencies in the use of inspector
    time, and we plan to reprogram contractor funds to fund the salary of
    this position. As several of our performance measures relate to
    increased inspection efficiencies, we have requested that you approve
    an additional position for this purpose.
        The impact of the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center during
    fiscal year 2007 will add approximately 0.7 million square feet to our
    inspection load. Thus, we are seeking funding for that added activity.
                           educating our constituency
        The Office is mandated by Congress to ``carry out a program of
    education for Members of Congress and other employing authorities of
    the legislative branch of the Federal Government respecting the laws
    made applicable to them and a program to inform individuals of their
    rights under laws made applicable to the legislative branch of the
    Federal Government. . . .'' 2 U.S.C. 1381(h)(1). While the Office
    continues to carry out this core mandate of the Act through various
    educational and outreach activities, we have maximized our limited
    capacity in this area.
        A key obstacle to greater educational effectiveness is our lack of
    comprehensive data regarding how and where we need to focus our
    efforts. A primary agency performance measurement tool recommended in
    the GAO Report is the establishment of a knowledge baseline regarding
    the Congressional community's understanding of the Act and of the
    Office's role in enforcing it. Such a baseline can best be established
    through a survey. The survey data will help us better target our
    education efforts and measure results. We are seeking funding for the
    undertaking of survey activities to establish the baseline against
    which we will measure our success in achieving our statutory mandates.
                               management support
        The Office of Compliance makes extensive use of service vendors and
    personal services contractors to provide many of our vital functions,
    including employment dispute resolution and OSH inspections. In
    general, this practice provides significant cost savings and allows
    this small agency to maintain capacities on an ``as-needed'' basis.
    However, some core internal control functions are currently also under-
    served or contracted out due to our limited FTE authorization, which at
    17 is two less than the agency was authorized in fiscal year 1998.
        The Office has just two FTE's dedicated to all IT, HR, general
    administrative support and fiscal management functions. This situation
    has resulted in inefficiencies, work load overages, and the necessity
    to contract out core functions, such as accounts payable. Accounting
    staff is necessary to ensure that a separation of functions can be
    maintained in our fiscal management. We are requesting one analyst FTE
    to address our HR and program analyst deficit, and an accounting
    technician FTE to bring our basic accounting and other fiscal
    responsibilities on staff. The cost of these FTE's will be partially
    offset by a reduction in contractor expenses.
                                   conclusion
        There are a number of other requests in our budget submission which
    we commend for your consideration. On behalf of the Board of Directors,
    the appointees and the entire staff of the Office of Compliance, I
    again thank you for the Committee's support of the efforts of this
    agency; I recommit to you that we are dedicated to using every dollar
    of taxpayer money carefully and efficiently; and I respectfully request
    that the Committee respond favorably to the Office's fiscal year 2007
    budget request. We will be happy to respond to any questions which you
    may have.
                      appendix--the congressional mandate
        The Office of Compliance was established to administer and enforce
    the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1301, et seq.
    The Congressional Accountability Act applies 12 workplace, employment,
    and safety laws to Congress and other agencies and Instrumentalities of
    the legislative branch. These laws include: the Occupational Safety and
    Health Act of 1970; the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Act;
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Americans with
    Disabilities Act; the Rehabilitation Act of 1970; the Family Medical
    Leave Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Age Discrimination in
    Employment Act; the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act;
    the Employee Polygraph Protection Act; and veteran's employment and
    reemployment rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code. The Act
    was amended in 1998 to apply the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act.
        Currently, the Office has regulatory responsibility for employers
    in the legislative branch employing approximately 30,500 employees. The
    Office is also charged by the Act to make recommendations to Congress
    as to whether additional employment and public services and
    accommodations laws should be made applicable to the employing offices
    within the legislative branch.
        Under the direction of the Executive Director, the Office
    administers a dispute resolution system to resolve disputes and
    complaints arising under the Act, and carries out an education and
    training program for the regulated community on the rights and
    responsibilities under the Act. The General Counsel has independent
    investigatory and enforcement authority with respect to certain of the
    laws administered under the Act and represents the Office in all
    judicial proceedings under the Act.
                        the board of directors and staff
        The Office has a five-member, non-partisan Board of Directors
    appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of both houses of
    Congress. The Board appoints the executive leadership of the agency,
    acts as an adjudicative body in reviewing appeals by parties aggrieved
    by decisions of Hearing Officers on complaints filed with the Office,
    and advises Congress on needed changes and amendments to the Act. The
    Board members, who serve five-year terms, come from across the United
    States, and are chosen for their expertise in the laws administered
    under the Act. In a major vote of confidence in the current leadership
    of the Office, Congress enacted legislation in 2004 and in 2005
    granting authority to the bipartisan Congressional leadership to
    appoint the current chair and members of the Board to a second 5 year
    term in office, and to the Board to appoint the executive leadership of
    the Office to second five year terms.
        The Office of Compliance currently has 17 full-time employees and
    pays the part-time Board members on a ``when-actually-employed'' basis.
    Our staff performs a multiplicity of functions, including:
    administrative dispute resolution, occupational safety and health and
    disability access enforcement, labor relations regulatory activity,
    education, Congressional relations, professional support for the Board
    of Directors, and general administrative and fiscal functions. The
    Office performs the functions of multiple agencies in and for the
    Executive Branch, including but not limited to, the Equal Employment
    Opportunity Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
    Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and the Federal Labor
    Relations Authority. The Office regularly contracts for the part-time,
    as-needed services of approximately 30 other individuals as mediators,
    Hearing Officers, and safety and health investigators. The Office's
    senior full-time safety and health investigator is on permanent detail
    from the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration.
                          biennial osh-ada inspection
        In the fiscal year 2006 budget, Congress provided substantial
    additional funding to permit the Office of the General Counsel to meet
    the statutory Occupational Safety and Health mandate to examine all
    legislative branch facilities during the 109th Congress biennial cycle
    of inspections. The total amount of covered premises in the
    metropolitan Washington region is in excess of 17 million square feet.
    The Office is intensely engaged in the implementation of the biennial
    inspection regimen, and continues to carry out the GAO recommendation
    that the inspection program include interactive and collegial
    involvement on the part of the affected agencies.
        As part of the revamped inspection regimen, the Office is now
    utilizing a recently installed electronic tracking and report system
    for OSH inspections and enforcement, and has adopted a widely
    recognized risk assessment code (RAC) to classify all hazards found to
    exist in the ongoing inspections.
                       more consultation and collegiality
        GAO also recommended that ``OOC should establish congressional and
    agency protocols . . . between the Congress, legislative branch
    agencies, and OOC on what can be expected as OOC carries out its
    work.'' (GAO Report, Introduction) The Office of Compliance continues
    to develop new approaches to OSH and other regulatory activities which
    involve greater consultation, coordination, and transparency in dispute
    resolution, and in investigatory and enforcement activity. This effort
    is time intensive and requires partnerships with employing offices and
    employees and a concomitant educational and training initiative to
    improve management and employee understanding of best practices. These
    activities are focused on fostering more cooperative efforts at
    achieving compliance with standards but they do not negate the
    statutory mandate to enforce the law.
                          strains on agency resources
        In last year's budget request, this Office highlighted the drastic
    under-resourcing of the agency's OSH inspection and enforcement
    responsibility. We thank the Committee for its leadership in
    significantly improving the level of resources we are able to employ in
    meeting the OSH challenge.
        In this budget, the problems are less evident to outside
    stakeholders, but no less urgent with regard to the Office's ability to
    carry out its mission. We are requesting three FTE's to address chronic
    major shortfalls in our administrative support capabilities in IT and
    equipment maintenance, fiscal controls; and to address the emerging
    need for more administrative support for the much larger OSH inspection
    activities. The Office of Compliance continues to operate with three
    fewer FTE's than it was provided when the agency began operations in
    1996. However, our responsibilities and statutory missions have not
    diminished. We respectfully submit that restoration of three FTE's will
    greatly assist the Office in continuing to address the recommendations
    of the 2004 GAO Report, and better serving our customer community.
        We are also asking for funds to better focus our education and
    outreach efforts, and a number of other inexpensive enhancements to
    many of our program efforts which nevertheless provide significant
    added value to the quality of workplace life on Capitol Hill.

        Senator Allard. Ms. Robfogel.

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF SUSAN ROBFOGEL

        Ms. Robfogel. I will emphasize only one point because I
    know there are, as you say, there are many questions that you
    have with respect to some of the safety violations that have
    been discussed so extensively in the last few weeks.
        I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for the
    support that you provided to the Office during the 2006 year.
    As a result of the increased funding that we received last
    year, the Office has been able to engage in a much rigorous
    inspection of the entire congressional campus. And although we
    are only 63 percent completed with respect to our inspection
    with the 109th Congress, we have already identified 10,000
    safety violations.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        What our emphasis needs to be as we go forward is to be
    sure that we have the funding to deal with abatement and
    enforcement and to help the various constituents who are part
    of the congressional campus to keep their building safe, and to
    learn how to recognize safety violations when they see them.
        We want to keep doing the job that we are trying to do, to
    keep people who work on the Hill safe and to keep visitors who
    come to the Hill safe. You have gone a long ways toward helping
    us do our job. We need a little bit more support going forward.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Susan Robfogel

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I
    am Susan Robfogel. As Chair of the Board of Directors of the
    Office of Compliance, I am honored to be here today to join
    Tamara Chrisler in testifying on the Office's fiscal year 2007
    budget request. I want to take this opportunity to express my
    appreciation and that of the rest of the Board for the
    increased funding appropriated to the Office of Compliance in
    fiscal year 2006 for purposes of completing a comprehensive
    safety and health biennial inspection. I can assure you that
    the Office is on track with this vital effort.
        Mr. Chairman, the Board would like to commend the work of
    the entire staff in achieving so many goals in the past few
    years. We now have a Strategic Plan with a performance line of
    sight to individual work plans; we have established or are
    developing protocols to enable us better to partner with the
    agencies for which we have employment law and safety and health
    jurisdiction; and we have worked with this Committee, and GAO
    to improve and systematize our business practices in budget,
    performance measures, and strategic planning.
        This record of improvement is the result of the hard work
    and dedication of the four statutory officers who are appointed
    by the Board, and the dedicated staff they have assembled.
    While the Board wholeheartedly supports all of the budget
    requests, we wish to underscore the need which the agency has
    to increase its FTE complement to 20. Right now the FTE
    complement of 17 is two less than the 19 the Office was
    afforded in fiscal year 1998. Over the past several years, the
    agency has concentrated its available resources on enhancing
    its service delivery, particularly in the OSH area.
    Consequently, there is a compelling need for basic operational
    support staff. I can assure you that the Office of Compliance
    will continue to make the most efficient use of every dollar
    which is appropriated by this Committee.
        We are available to address any questions.

        Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony.
        I would like to follow up on your request. You have
    requested an 11-percent increase over the current year. You
    gave us some brief explanation. I would like to go over and
    make sure I understand that.
        Ms. Chrisler. Yes.
        Senator Allard. Those increases are in the area of three
    additional full-time employees. It looks to be pretty much on
    the management side, a program manager, an accounts payable
    technician, and then a management analyst. Is that correct?
        Ms. Chrisler. That is correct, for the General Counsel's
    Office.
        Senator Allard. And what is your priority on those? Did you
    give those in the way of priority to us?
        Ms. Chrisler. Thank you. The management analyst position is
    a significant position. And that is a very significant
    position.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Ms. Chrisler. The accounts payable position, what we have
    now, Senator, is a very small human resource, as well as budget
    staff, extremely small. And we are contracting some of those
    services out now, which are core functions of our office. And
    to, frankly, be more efficient and more effective in managing
    our office, that accounts payable position is significant, as
    well.
        Senator Allard. I see.
        Ms. Chrisler. The program manager-type position for our
    office would be split between managing programs, managing
    projects, as well as carrying out some of the human resource
    functions in the Office, as well. So although all three
    positions are desperately needed by the Office, we are able to
    fund two of them.
        Senator Allard. Well, I know it is difficult to set
    priorities, and that is a tough question. I respect and thank
    you for your straightforward response.
        Ms. Chrisler. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Allard. Now the Capitol Visitor Center, that is
    another reason for that increase?
        Ms. Chrisler. Yes, it is, Senator.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Now, are there any other factors that
    I did not pick up on in your testimony or maybe you did not
    have in your testimony that is contributing to the 11-percent
    increase that you are requesting?
        Ms. Chrisler. There are a number of items that we are
    requesting assistance for. The main ones are for the full-time
    equivalent positions, the baseline survey, the case tracking.
    What is significant and of main importance for us is to be able
    to maintain our progress that we have made so far. The Office
    wants to be able to sustain itself. And the Office is
    requesting assistance to be able to grow with the surrounding
    circumstances.
        There are many circumstances that are getting greater
    attention and requiring greater responsibility and greater
    inspection and management by our Office. And we are asking your
    support in general for us to be able to move with and maintain
    the progress that we have made and also continue to make
    progress, because as the campus moves and grows and as
    incidents and issues and circumstances come to the attention of
    the Office, we want to be in the position to provide the
    services and resources that are necessary.

                     BIENNIAL SAFETY AND HEALTH INSPECTIONS

        Senator Allard. How would you evaluate your biennial health
    and safety inspection of the Capitol, including the House and
    Senate facilities?
        Ms. Chrisler. The progress on that is going very well. As
    Chair Robfogel mentioned, we are 63 percent into that process.
    And along with me this morning is General Counsel Eveleth, who
    maintains overall management of that program. And I would like
    to defer to him to add additional comments to that question.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Eveleth. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have made significant
    progress over the past years as a result of the additional
    funding that we received for fiscal year 2006. In our 108th
    Congress biennial inspection, we were only able to cover 25
    percent of the square footage, that is, of the approximately 16
    million-plus square footage. There will be an additional
    700,000 once the visitor center comes online. But we were only
    able to do 25 percent in the last biennial.
        At this point, as has been said, we have covered 63
    percent. And we anticipate completing the biennial inspection
    for the 109th Congress by September of this year. So that is a
    big step forward.
        Senator Allard. It is.
        Mr. Eveleth. As a result of that, we have identified, as
    was indicated, something like 10,000 violations, as opposed to
    our last inspection, where we discovered 2,600 violations. That
    number, in turn exceeded the biennial inspection for the 107th
    Congress where we identified something like 360 violations.
    That does not mean it is because things have gotten worse. It
    is just that we are doing a much more thorough baseline
    inspection.
        Senator Allard. And under those violations, have you tried
    to break them down into categories?

                        FINDINGS BY RISK ASSESSMENT CODE

        Mr. Eveleth. I can tell you, I can break it down. We have a
    system which we call a RAC system. That is a risk assessment
    code system. This is common in industry, and in other
    departments. And ours is based on the Department of Defense's
    risk assessment code system.
        It is a combination of rating each hazard during the
    inspection according to the risk of injury or illness or
    potential of death. It depends upon a combination of the
    probability that an employee could be hurt and the severity of
    the illness. The RAC's are based on that. And the most serious
    RAC rating would be a risk one, and that goes to a risk five,
    which is de minimis.
        Now we ourselves do not count risks that are de minimis. We
    just do RAC one through four. And so I can tell you----
        Senator Allard. The 10,000 only includes one through four.
    It does not include five?
        Mr. Eveleth. No. We do not even record de minimis ones.
        Senator Allard. So the 10,000 would get you the RAC one,
    two, three, and four.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right. And of the RAC's, there are 20--this is
    as of today or last week--we discovered 20 RAC ones--those are
    the most serious--1,655 RAC two's; 7,681 RAC three's; and 759
    RAC four's.
        Senator Allard. What would be an example of a RAC four?
        Mr. Eveleth. A RAC four would be such things as--let us
    see. I have some examples of that. There may be some electrical
    cord hazards, some ladder hazards, broken ladder, some fall
    protection hazards. There might be a problem with fire
    extinguishers, that they are not currently inspected. There
    might be an issue about storage shelving hazards, overloaded
    shelves or something.
        Senator Allard. I have a pretty good feel where that is.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        Senator Allard. And a RAC one example would be?
        Mr. Eveleth. Well, a RAC one would be--as you know, the
    tunnels would be an example of that, where there would be
    falling concrete, where there is asbestos, and things of that
    nature. A lot of electrical issues would also be a RAC one--
    where a worker could be exposed to an electrical hazard.
        Senator Allard. Bare wires or something like that.
        Mr. Eveleth. Bare wires and so forth.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Eveleth. And when we do the RAC's, it is not a one-
    size-fits-all kind of RAC. In other words, an electrical hazard
    in one situation might be a RAC one and another might be a RAC
    four, depending on the circumstances. For example, if there
    were a wet floor or something, that would heighten the risk, if
    someone were to be shocked.

    FIRST OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE COMPLAINT UNDER THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
                                   HEALTH ACT

        Senator Allard. Now I would like to proceed to one of the
    RAC ones, the one that has the most publicity at this point in
    time. That is the complaint that you filed with the Architect
    of the Capitol regarding a condition of the Capitol complex
    utility tunnels. Now this is the first time that OOC has filed
    a complaint under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. You
    have filed other complaints, but this is the first one under
    that act.
        Mr. Eveleth. That is correct.
        Senator Allard. Why did the OOC believe it necessary to
    file a complaint?
        Mr. Eveleth. Well, my predecessor, as you know, issued a
    citation back in the year 2000. And when I came on board in
    2003, my intent was to determine which were the most hazardous
    areas. And the first areas that we began to look at were areas
    that had not been inspected at all in the past. And I wanted to
    be sure what was going on there.
        And in 2005, we began, when we had additional resources
    that we did not have before, we began our inspection of the
    Capitol Power Plant tunnels and the Capitol Power Plant itself,
    because that was an area where a citation had been issued
    previously. And what we discovered in the course of that, that
    while some work had been done, in effect very little work had
    been done. That is to say, in 2000 a contractor that had been
    inspecting the tunnels under the engagement of the Architect of
    the Capitol--that contractor identified areas within the
    tunnels that needed to be fixed within 1 year, immediate
    attention, as well as other ones that had to be done within 5
    years.
        What we discovered in our inspection was--and they were
    also required to monitor the progress of those things, because
    they continued to deteriorate. Those tunnels are very hot. They
    go up to 130 degrees, some of the tunnels, and they are also
    damp. And that combination causes rust. And the rust in the
    rebar that is under the cement, it expands as a result of
    rusting. And whole sections can and have delaminated. That is,
    they have fallen down. And smaller areas have spalled. So that
    is a very serious situation. And the contractor said, ``You
    need to do these things within a certain period of time.''
        Senator Allard. Is that what the original contractor said
    in 2000?
        Mr. Eveleth. That is what the original contractor said,
    right, back in 2000. Our citation back in 2000 basically
    tracked what that contractor had found and said to fix these
    issues. Continue to monitor, fix the safety communication
    system so that people within the tunnels can notify the people
    outside the tunnels, if they have to get out, if there is an
    emergency, and also to assure that there were sufficient number
    of egress points so they could be rescued in the event of a
    collapse or injury or what have you.
        And when we went through the tunnels in June 2005, we
    discovered that the communications system, although it had
    initially been improved, was not working properly. And not all
    the areas were covered by the communications system.
        A number of the egress points had been welded shut during
    past years. And there were not--there was an insufficient
    number of egress points. And finally, they had not completed
    the repairs or made any attempt to do the repairs in most of
    the areas that had been identified by the contractor.
        We met with the Architect of the Capitol, as we do monthly,
    that is to say, representatives of the Architect of the Capitol
    and described the problem. They gave us a tentative mitigation
    plan, which we examined. And we reached the conclusion--and I
    told the Architect about this as well--we reached the
    conclusion that it was insufficient. And it was insufficient in
    at least two respects.
        In one respect, it was insufficient because insufficient
    monies were going to be reprogrammed or were going to be asked
    for in this fiscal year. I think less than $4 million was being
    requested. Whereas the contractor back in 2000 had said it will
    be at least $13 million in order to just do the concrete, to
    prevent the spalling of the concrete and things like that. So
    we knew that an insufficient amount was being requested. And
    therefore, it would not be possible to do all the repairs
    within short order.
        And the other aspect of it that was of most concern to us
    was that there were no intermediate measures that were being
    undertaken or proposed by the Architect until the full repairs
    could be made. And there was no suggestion about putting in
    netting or any other kinds of things that might be able to be
    done to protect the workers.
        And because of that, we decided that it was necessary to
    file a complaint.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Eveleth. I am sorry if that is an overlong answer.
        Senator Allard. No, we needed that detail. Thank you.
        The question, then, is what kind of follow up do you have?
    This has gone on for 6 years now.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        Senator Allard. Well, 5\1/2\ years. I have been an
    inspector myself, and I always would say I will be back in 1
    month and see how you are doing. Why was there not that kind of
    follow up?
        Mr. Eveleth. I cannot answer that entirely, because I was
    not on duty at that time. But what I can tell you is that under
    the citation, the Architect was supposed to have completed the
    repairs during the following fiscal year.
        Senator Allard. So we were just taking the word of the
    Architect that the work had been done?
        Mr. Eveleth. No, no, sir, no. I am saying that they had a
    couple of years in order to do the work.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Eveleth. And then we would go back and see whether they
    had done the work.
        Senator Allard. I see.
        Mr. Eveleth. There was not a continuing reporting process.
    That is number one.
        Two, we did not have the resources, frankly, to do all the
    inspections and to follow up on all these things until--as I
    say, when I got on duty, my primary interest was to look at
    those violations and citations that looked the most serious and
    those that had not been inspected at all. And so I turned to
    that.
        Now should we have done more? Absolutely we should have
    done more. And now we are in a position to do more. And that is
    what our whole intention is to do by this RACS system, is to be
    able to identify those violations that are the most serious in
    terms of likelihood of occurrence and likelihood of injury to
    people. And that is going to be our emphasis.
        Senator Allard. And do you have a system of tracking these
    violations now within the Office of Compliance?
        Mr. Eveleth. We do now.
        Senator Allard. When did you put that into effect?
        Mr. Eveleth. Pardon me?
        Senator Allard. When did you put that into effect?
        Mr. Eveleth. We asked for that, I believe it was, for our
    fiscal year 2005 budget. And then we have been in the process
    ever since of loading into that tracking system not only our
    current inspections--that is, when the inspectors go out, they
    come back to the Office, they load it into our system, and it
    says exactly where the violation is, the RAC number, what code
    section is being violated, and when the employing office or the
    Architect will abate it. And then we analyze that data, and we
    will go back as soon as we have the information from them and
    tell them, yes, we think that is appropriate or no, you have to
    speed that process up.
        But thank goodness for that appropriation, because when you
    are talking about 10,000 violations, plus what we have found in
    earlier years, it is impossible to keep track of it without
    some kind of a solid database.
        Senator Allard. You do. And you have to prioritize.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        Senator Allard. As an inspector, if I found a serious
    violation, I would say I will be back in 2 weeks or I will be
    back in 30 days----
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. To follow up on things. If it
    was less serious, I would say, well, I will pick it up in a
    couple of months and see how you are doing.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        Senator Allard. So it seems to me that if it is a RAC one,
    it needs to be followed up a little more closely than if it is
    some other less serious violation.
        Mr. Eveleth. Absolutely. And what we do, when our
    inspectors go in and they see a RAC one situation, they
    immediately issue a notice of serious deficiency and tell them
    to fix it. And we follow up on all those RAC ones right away.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Eveleth. Now obviously if you have a situation like the
    tunnels, that is not something that can be fixed like that.
        Senator Allard. No. I understand that.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        Senator Allard. We are doing our best to respond to that,
    by the way, if you noticed.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right. And we greatly appreciate that.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Eveleth. That is critical.

          COMPLAINT AGAINST ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL ABOUT THE TUNNELS

        Senator Allard. Apparently your office is involved in a
    legal proceeding to address the complaint with the Architect of
    the Capitol, I understand.
        Mr. Eveleth. That is correct.
        Senator Allard. What is the status of that process? And how
    do you expect it will conclude?
        Mr. Eveleth. Well, we are now in the process of--we have
    submitted position papers, both sides. The hearing officer has
    been appointed. We will be setting out our respective witnesses
    and all the pretrial stuff that goes with that.
        Senator Allard. This is a hearing procedure----
        Mr. Eveleth. That is correct.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Using a hearing officer, not a
    full-blown court case. Is that right?
        Mr. Eveleth. Well, the process is this: A hearing officer
    is appointed by the Executive Director of the Office of
    Compliance. A full litigation proceeds with discovery and so
    forth. There is then a hearing before a hearing officer, who
    issues a report. That report then may be appealed. The results
    of his order in this case will be appealed to the board of
    directors of the Office of Compliance. And then the
    dissatisfied party may go to the United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit. So it is an administrative proceeding
    before the Office of Compliance, but subject to appeal to the
    court.

             ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL PLAN TO REMEDY TUNNEL ISSUES

        Senator Allard. Now, has the Office of Compliance had an
    opportunity to review the Architect's plan that was submitted
    on April 10, to both Senator Durbin and myself to remedy the
    tunnel problems?
        Mr. Eveleth. There was an excerpt given to us, I believe,
    last week. And later last week, we asked the Architect to
    provide that to us.
        Senator Allard. That is, almost 30 days after we received
    it, it was given to you?
        Mr. Eveleth. Right. And we just received it this morning.
    So I have not had a chance to look at it yet. But we were asked
    by the Architect's Office to respond to that. But as I said, we
    just got it this morning.
        Senator Allard. Okay. I am surprised that he did not allow
    you to review that before he submitted it to the subcommittee.
        Mr. Eveleth. Well, I believe the position of the
    Architect's counsel was that because we were in litigation,
    they were not going to share that information with us, and that
    was really something that should be governed by the discovery
    under the proceedings that are now before the hearing officer.
        Senator Allard. When did the litigation get filed?
        Mr. Eveleth. February 28.
        Senator Allard. The 28th.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        Senator Allard. So their immediate response is not to talk
    to you after that litigation is filed?
        Mr. Eveleth. Well, I think there could be more
    communication, yes, sir.
        Senator Allard. Yes. So you would have preferred that they
    communicated with you at least before they submitted the plan
    to us.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        Senator Allard. As a consequence, we do not know how you
    really feel about that evaluation because you just got it
    yesterday.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right. Today.
        Senator Allard. Today?
        Mr. Eveleth. Right. This morning. That is correct.
        Senator Allard. You did not have a chance to review it for
    this testimony.
        Mr. Eveleth. No, I did not.
        Senator Allard. I would like to get your evaluation on that
    as soon as possible. As soon as you do get a chance to evaluate
    it, would you send it to the subcommittee as part of your
    response for this hearing?
        Mr. Eveleth. Yes, indeed.
        [The information follows:]

        As was discussed at the hearing, that report was not provided to
    the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) until the morning of the
    hearing. We are attempting to provide overall comments to the abatement
    plan itself, but also to the specific questions you posed. This is
    based on the assessment of the members of our staff and our contract
    safety consultants as well as a recent summary briefing by the staff of
    the Architect of the Capitol on May 11, 2006, respecting the AOC plan.
        The Architect's plan raises complex technical questions that this
    office will need to address with respect to the adequacy of the
    measures proposed to be undertaken, both in the short and long term, to
    correct the hazardous conditions. This will require the services of
    structural engineering firms and other experts in order to make these
    assessments. Since this office does not presently have on hand the
    necessary technical expertise to evaluate the AOC plan, it is in the
    process of interviewing experts for these purposes. Accordingly, this
    should be considered to be a preliminary report. With this caveat,
    however, the OOC is fully supportive of the emergency supplemental
    budgetary support to fund the AOC plan.
        We met with representatives from the AOC's safety, engineering, and
    tunnels staffs on May 11, 2006, to provide further explanation of the
    report. The AOC's report (on page 42) provides immediate and mid-term
    estimates of costs exceeding $117 million. While that estimate provides
    a breakdown of costs for each tunnel for fiscal year 2006, 2007, and
    2008, it does not provide a similar breakdown for each program area
    (i.e., asbestos abatement, communications upgrade, egress improvements,
    etc.). At the meeting with the AOC officials, we became aware that
    additional financial sheets existed that would provide this
    information. The AOC provided those figures to the OGC on May 16, 2006,
    and they are currently being reviewed by this office.
        The Architect's abatement plan provides a plan of action, not only
    for the conditions identified in the Complaint, dated February 28, 2006
    (falling concrete, emergency communications, and emergency egress), but
    also for those conditions identified in Citations 60 and 61 (asbestos
    and heat stress).
    Comments on the Abatement Plan
        At our meeting with the AOC on May 11, 2006, Susan Adams, Director,
    Safety, Fire and Environmental Programs for the AOC, noted that the
    abatement plan was developed by the AOC in a 10-day period immediately
    following their March hearings before the Appropriations Subcommittee
    and in response to specific requests from Senators Durbin and Mikulski.
    This fact raises two concerns. First, the Report indicates that even
    though the Architect was aware of the serious conditions in the tunnels
    as a result of Citation 24 issued in CY 2000 and the repeated inquiries
    from OOC inspectors on behalf of the tunnels workers during the 108th
    inspections, the original fiscal year 2007 budget request from the AOC
    identified only $1.8 million to be reprogrammed in fiscal year 2006 and
    $1.75 million in fiscal year 2007 for the correction of the hazards and
    tunnel maintenance. That is a very small percentage of the amount now
    identified as necessary to correct these significant hazards. Second,
    we are concerned about the accuracy of both the monetary and time
    allocations assessed for the individual elements of the abatement plan.
    While we are certain that the AOC made every reasonable and good faith
    efforts to prepare reasonable estimates, past experience would indicate
    that estimates developed under such conditions may not necessarily
    prove to be accurate either in terms of the length of time or the
    amount of resources it will take to effectively abate the hazards,
    especially since the contracted for condition assessments have not been
    completed, and the full extent of remedial measures necessarily have
    not been determined. Therefore, both interim and long-term measures
    proposed by the AOC plan may be inadequate to fully protect the tunnel
    workers, and may consequently place them at further risk.
        In addition, we believe that parts of the AOC's abatement plan do
    not provide adequate interim protective measures. For example, one
    interim measure involves the Construction Management Division of the
    AOC (now Construction Division) conducting visual inspections in order
    to identify those areas where the risk of falling concrete is most
    severe. Prior consultant reports indicate that visual inspections may
    not adequately identify all areas of potential delamination and
    spalling. The CD is tasked with removing concrete sections at risk of
    falling. This is a cumbersome and time consuming process. Workers must
    erect structures to protect the piping system from falling concrete
    pieces, and the small, confined spaces make access to the spalling
    concrete difficult. Therefore, it is unlikely that these interim
    measures can be completed by the end of the calendar year as estimated
    by the AOC. The longer this process takes, of course, the longer tunnel
    workers and others will be exposed to this serious hazard. Additional
    information should be sought from the AOC to ascertain whether
    sufficient resources are being dedicated to this task.
        Under the AOC plan, hazards in the Y tunnel will be among the last
    to be permanently fixed. The study which will advise whether the Y
    tunnel should be replaced or repaired is scheduled to be completed by
    the end of fiscal year 2006. However, if the recommendation is made to
    replace the tunnel, then another study will be required to determine if
    other options, such as alternative sources of power for the buildings
    serviced by the Y tunnel, are available. That study is not anticipated
    to be completed until at least the middle of 2007. Again, because of
    the lack of sufficient egress points, the high heat levels, and the
    advanced state of deterioration in this tunnel, we are concerned about
    the adequacy of interim measures to protect workers using this tunnel.
        In the abatement plan, the AOC requests approximately $14 million
    for complete asbestos removal in the tunnels and the installation of
    new insulation. The OOC endorses this approach in theory. GAO
    accurately testified to the Appropriations Subcommittee on April 27,
    2006, that the industry standard calls to leave asbestos in place,
    unless it is going to be subject to further damage, or access is needed
    for maintenance. During that hearing, however, neither GAO nor the AOC
    discussed a principal justification for complete removal of asbestos in
    additional areas of the tunnels where the steam pipes generate
    excessive heat levels that adversely affects the integrity of the
    tunnels and the health and safety of tunnel workers. These adverse heat
    conditions only serve to exacerbate the problems already present
    causing further deterioration and spalling of the concrete. We are
    informed by the AOC that by replacing the current asbestos coverings
    with other types of insulation, the temperatures in tunnels could be
    significantly reduced. Therefore. the hybrid approach of removing only
    damaged or friable asbestos and the asbestos found in the excessively
    hot areas, therefore, may not be effective from either an abatement or
    cost effectiveness standpoint. Accordingly, we believe that before a
    decision is made with respect to adopting the hybrid approach this
    issue should be carefully studied.
        Of particular concern is the fact that the abatement plan provides
    no mechanism for the sharing of information with the Office of
    Compliance which is responsible for assuring that the violations set
    forth in the underlying citations are fully abated. The General Counsel
    is responsible for monitoring abatement. In order to provide
    appropriate oversight and evaluation of the effectiveness and progress
    of the abatement measures, the AOC must make continuously available
    full access to the information produced by the AOC and its contractors.
    This is an area where this office can be of assistance in providing
    independent analyses and assessments for the Subcommittee.
    Comments to Specific Questions
        We were asked to address those priorities that are most urgent and
    those that could be dealt with at a later time.
        While all of the conditions addressed in our Complaint and
    Citations 60 and 61 are significant, in our judgment the highest
    priority must be given to those hazards that create the most serious
    and imminent risk of harm. First and foremost are those measures that
    protect the tunnel workers from falling concrete. Second, is protection
    from friable asbestos exposure. Finally, are those risks that are
    exacerbated as a result of the heat stress.
          Asbestos Issues in the Tunnels and Vaults As of May 2, 2006
    A.What has the AIR SAMPLING shown so far?
        1. We have reviewed 79 ``valid'' sample results provided to us by
    the AOC.
      --``Valid'' means samples that were not overloaded, voided or field
            blanks.
        2. Nine (9) of these sample results exceeded 0.1 fiber per cubic
    centimeter; however, only one employee's exposure exceeded 0.1 fiber/cc
    after the results were adjusted for time.
      --0.1 fiber/cc is the OSHA permissible exposure limit (``PEL'') for
            an 8-hour time-weighted average (``TWA'').
      --``Adjusted for time'' means time-weighted or averaged for an 8-
            hour period.
        3. The one employee whose ``time-weighted'' sample exceeded 0.1
    fiber/cc had a TWA exposure of 0.30 fiber/cc averaged from the two (2)
    samples of his exposure for that day.
      --That employee was an AOC inspector, but it is not clear from the
            monitoring records what he was doing that produced a much
            higher exposure level.
        4. That employee's 30-minute exposure (3.49 fiber/cc) exceeded the
    excursion limit.
      --The excursion limit (``EL'') is another OSHA PEL for asbestos; the
            EL limits 30-minute exposures to 1.0 fiber/cc.
        5. The documentation records did not have sufficient detail to
    explain why this worker's exposure was significantly greater than the
    other employees' sample results.
        6. The OOC performed five samples on Tunnel Shop employees last
    week.
      --The ``preliminary'' results for both time-weighted averages and 30-
            minute excursions have been less than the OSHA PELs.
      --``Preliminary'' means we have received facsimile results from the
            OSHA laboratory but do not have the formal confirmation of the
            results.
        7. The OOC monitoring for the Tunnel Shop is not complete.
      --During the sampling done last week, Tunnel Shop employees were
            performing escort duties, tracing circuits and walk-through
            duties.
      --These duties would not be expected to disturb the asbestos and
            create large exposures.
      --The OOC intends to sample Tunnel Shop employees during repairs and
            when they use equipment likely to disturb asbestos.
      --These tasks occur intermittently; therefore, it might take some
            months before the OOC's sampling has been completed.
    B. Is the personal protective equipment (PPE) used in the tunnels
            adequate?
        1. From the sample results done so far, so good. The ``half-face''
    respirators and Tyvek coveralls (which also cover the shoes) provide
    adequate protection for these levels.
      --``Half-face'' respirators seal across the top of the nose and don't
            cover the eyes.
      --``Full-face'' respirators seal across the forehead and shield the
            eyes.
        2. OSHA requires different types of respiratory protection for
    higher exposure levels.
      --Half-face respirators may be used if exposures don't exceed 10
            times the PEL.
      --The highest exposure (time-weighted and excursion) is 3 to 3.5
            times the PEL.
        3. If future samples (done during operations that disturb asbestos
    more than the samples taken to date) exceed 10 times the PEL, full-face
    respirators would need to be used.
      --Higher levels would require even more protective respirators.
      --If levels exceed 10 times the PEL, then (at least) full-face
            ``powered-air purifying'' would be needed.
      --Levels higher than 100 times the PEL would require supplied-air
            respirators operated in the pressure demand mode.
      --The highest levels (more than 1,000 times the PEL) would also
            require an auxiliary self-contained breathing apparatus (often
            called an ``escape bottle'').
    C. What DECONTAMINATION is required?
        There are two sets of requirements for decontamination.
        1. One set is for workers who maintain the tunnels and the
    equipment within the tunnels.
      --Hygiene requirements for these workers are found in the General
            Industry Standard [Sec. 1910.1001].
        2. A second set of requirements for hygiene is found in the
    Construction industry standard [Sec. 1926.1101]
      --The definition of construction work [Sec. 1926.32(g)] lists
            ``construction, alteration, and/or repair.''
      --Workers who are abating the asbestos, performing cleanup associated
            with abatement activities, or performing construction,
            alterations and/or repair must comply with the Construction
            Industry requirements.
    D. What decontamination does the general industry standard require for
            asbestos?
        The General Industry requirements for ``hygiene facilities and
    practices'' lists the following required elements for employees who are
    exposed above a TWA or EL:
      --Clean change rooms must be provided with separate storage areas to
            prevent street clothes from being contaminated from protective
            clothing and equipment.
      --Showers must be used, at least at the end of the shift.
      --Employees required to shower must not wear clothing or equipment
            outside the workplace during the shift.
      --Lunchroom facilities with positive pressure, filtered air supply
            must be readily accessible to employees.
      --Employees must wash their hands and faces before eating, drinking
            or smoking.
      --Employees must not enter lunchroom facilities with protective work
            clothing or equipment unless surface asbestos fibers have been
            removed.
    E. What decontamination is required by the construction industry
            standard?
        1. The Construction Industry standard [Sec. 1926.1101(j)] has
    different ``hygiene facilities and practices'' required for different
    types of asbestos work.
        2. The most stringent requirements are for ``large Class I'' jobs.
      --``Class I'' work involves removing thermal system insulation or
            surfacing asbestos-containing materials or presumed asbestos-
            containing materials (``ACM/PACM'').
      --``Large jobs'' involve more than 25 linear feet or 10 square feet
            of thermal system insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM.
        3. The less stringent requirements are for ``small'' Class I jobs,
    and for Class II and Class III jobs where exposures exceed a PEL or
    where exposures have not been determined.
      --``Small jobs'' involve less than 25 linear feet or 10 square feet
            of thermal system insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM.
      --Class II work involves removing ACM other than that in Class I.
            Examples include: wallboard, floor tile, roofing, siding, and
            mastics.
      --Class III work involves repair and maintenance operations where ACM
            is likely to be disturbed.
        4. Employees doing Class IV work in a regulated must comply with
    the hygiene practices of the other employees in the area.
      --Class IV work during which employee contact, but do not disturb,
            ACM or PACM, and activities to clean up dust, waste and debris
            resulting from Class I, II and III activities.
    F. What decontamination is required for ``large'' Class I jobs?
        1. Decontamination area must be adjacent to, and connected with,
    the regulated area.
        The decontamination area must have an equipment room, shower, and
    clean room in series.
      --Employees must enter and exit through the decontamination area.
        2. Equipment rooms must have impermeable, labeled containers to
    contain and dispose of contaminated PPE.
      -- Employees do not remove their respirators in the equipment room.
        3. A shower area must be adjacent to equipment room and the clean
    room, unless the employer can demonstrate that this location is not
    feasible.
        4. Where the shower area is not adjacent to the equipment room,
    before proceeding to the shower, employee must either--
      --remove contamination from their work suits using a HEPA vacuum, or
      --remove contaminated work suits and don clean work suits.
        5. A clean change room must be equipped with storage containers for
    each employee.
      --Employees must change into street clothing in the clean change
            rooms, or in a clean change area if a room adjacent to the
            equipment room is not feasible.
      --Upon entering a regulated area, employees must don PPE and
            respirators in the clean room or area.
        6. Lunch areas on site must be in areas where exposures are less
    than the PELs.
    G. What are the decontamination requirements for ``small Class I''
            jobs, or ``Class II'' or ``Class III'' jobs where exposures
            either exceed a PEL or haven't been determined?
        1. An equipment room or area must be established adjacent to the
    regulated area, covered by an impermeable drop cloth on the floor or
    horizontal working surface.
      --The room or area must have impermeable, labeled containers to
            contain and dispose of contaminated PPE.
      --Area must be of sufficient size for cleaning equipment and removing
            PPE without spreading visible contamination beyond the area.
      --Work clothing must be cleaned with a HEPA vacuum before it is
            removed.
      --All equipment and surfaces of containers must be cleaned before
            removing them from the equipment room or area.
      --Employees must enter and exit the regulated area through the
            equipment area.
    H. What have our inspectors found regarding decontamination procedures?
        1. During an inspection, one of our inspectors observed a briefing
    to Tunnel Shop personnel from a safety contractor (Mr. Hedges from
    ``The Safety Company'') on AOC decontamination policy.
      --The stated goal was to use some General Industry and some
            Construction Industry requirements; that goal would not produce
            a compliant policy.
      --The briefing resulted in a discussion of end-of-day showering
            versus showering to prevent contamination from spreading into
            other campus buildings.
      --The only decontamination that our inspectors observed was the
            removal of PPE, which had been worn over the work clothes that
            are taken home for cleaning.
    I. What information is required in monitoring records?
        1. Monitoring records must include the following information
    [Sec. 1910.1001(m)(1) and Sec. 1926.1101(n)(2)]:
      --The date of measurement;
      --The operation involving exposure to asbestos which is being
            monitored;
      --Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their
            accuracy;
      --Number, duration, and results of samples taken;
      --Type of respiratory protective devices worn, if any; and
      --Name, social security number and exposure of all employees whose
            exposure are represented.
        2. The two required items that we have found to be of concern in
    the past are:
      --The description of the operations lack sufficient detail to
            determine the potential sources and pathways of exposure.
        --For example, there is no information associated with the single
                employee whose exposure is 3 times the PEL to offer an
                explanation as to why both of his sample results on that
                day were much higher than the others.
      --All of the employees whose exposure is represented by a sample are
            not documented.
        --For example, the descriptions that AOC provided indicated one or
                two people were doing the same operations in the same area
                and, presumably, their exposures would be similar. The
                names of these employees, however, are not identified in
                the records.

        Senator Allard. Thank you. Now, rather than both your
    office and the AOC spending a lot of resources in litigation, I
    am interested in focusing on results wherever possible. Can the
    Office of Compliance work cooperatively with the Architect to
    come up with appropriate remedies to this, or has this
    litigation step made that impossible?
        Mr. Eveleth. No. I would certainly prefer to do it that
    way. I think that is really what should be done. I think we
    should be working--we do work--we do meet with the Architect
    monthly on other matters, as well. And we have worked fairly
    cooperatively with them. And I do not see why it could not be
    done in this instance. I also think that we could be working as
    well with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), because
    we know that they are involved in this, as well. And I would
    think that the combined resources of all of us--and as I have
    said before, we all lay our cards out on the table, because
    this is one entity, this is the legislative branch. This is not
    x corporation versus something or other. This is one entity,
    and I look forward to working with the Architect and GAO, if at
    all possible, in this.
        Senator Allard. I think one thing that would help us in
    working with him is to set priorities of those items that are
    most urgent to take care of and those that could be dealt with
    at a later time. We tried to work that out with our emergency
    supplemental request. But I think at some point in time we will
    ask you that question, and the Architect. So when you are
    discussing back and forth with one another, that would be an
    important helpful response for this subcommittee.
        Mr. Eveleth. We would be certainly pleased to do that. And
    that is what we are trying to do.

      OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION APPROVED METHODS FOR
                                ABATING ASBESTOS

        Senator Allard. Very good. Now the Architect of the Capitol
    testified last week that they were using Occupational Safety
    and Health Administration (OSHA) approved methods. From what
    you understand, are they using OSHA approved methods or not, or
    do you need to review the plan before you respond to that?
        Mr. Eveleth. Is this with respect to asbestos?
        Senator Allard. Yes. That is on the decontamination
    procedures.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right. Right. Yes and no. We have reviewed
    some of the samples that we were provided and the data that
    accompanied that. I do not think that we received all the data
    yet. And in addition, we are also doing some asbestos testing
    ourselves, as an office. There are certain requirements that
    are set out under the OSHA regulations. And there are two
    problems that we are seeing now, and one is that there is a
    lack of a description of the operations, adequate description
    of the operations, that the tunnel workers, or whoever it is
    that is in the tunnel, could be the CMD people, as well as the
    tunnel workers who are doing work in the tunnels.
        And there is a lack of sufficient detail to determine what
    it is that they are doing. That is very important in order to
    make a determination about whether the levels of asbestos
    exceed the standards. Because you could just be walking through
    the tunnel, and it is not--you are not--if you are not engaged
    in your usual activity, you are not in a position to judge what
    the degree of risk is.
        And this is very important because the amount of protection
    that you are required to have, in terms of face masks and other
    things like that, come into play, depending on whether or not
    you are exceeding the exposure levels or not. If you exceed
    them greatly, then you need different kinds of masks than you
    would need if you are only exceeding it----
        Senator Allard. If I remember his testimony, he talked
    about a half face mask----
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. As opposed to a full face
    mask.
        Mr. Eveleth. There are full face masks there. And there are
    others, as well.
        Senator Allard. Do you think there might be a need for a
    full face mask?
        Mr. Eveleth. It would depend on the degree of exposure to
    asbestos.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Eveleth. And if there is a great deal, then you need a
    full face mask. And if there is even more than that, then you
    need something that actually pumps air, oxygen, into the mask
    and so forth.
        Senator Allard. So you are not sure that they are complying
    with OSHA approved methods at this point. That is the bottom
    line. Is that correct?
        Mr. Eveleth. I think that would be an accurate way of
    putting it. And also, there are issues, I think, that involve
    decontamination, that is to say, whether they provide a clean
    room for people to take off their work clothes, if there may be
    fibers of asbestos on it. There are certain requirements with
    regard to taking a shower before they go out of the area and so
    forth and so on. And some of those are still questionable.
        Senator Allard. Well, when you review his report that you
    just received----
        Mr. Eveleth. Yes.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Keep that question in mind. If
    you could give us a more complete answer back, we would
    appreciate that.
        Mr. Eveleth. Okay. Happy to.
        [The information follows:]

        Question. Does the AOC follow OSHA-approved methods with
    regard to asbestos, in terms of personal protective equipment
    and decontamination procedures?
        Answer. The type of personal protective equipment (PPE)
    that is required depends on the exposure level. For example, if
    the level of exposure does not exceed 10 times the permissible
    exposure limit (PEL), half-face mask respirators may be used.
    The limited sample data available to date shows the highest
    exposure is 3 to 3.5 times the PEL. If this were the highest
    exposure, then half-face mask respirators would be adequate.
    If, however, future samples were taken during operations that
    disturbed asbestos more than the samples taken to date, and the
    samples exceeded 10 times the PEL, full-face mask respirators
    would be required. See Asbestos Issues in the Tunnels and
    Vaults, B.1. below. Because we currently do not have sufficient
    data to ascertain whether the PPE now used in the tunnels is
    adequate, we cannot definitively determine the amount of
    asbestos to which workers are exposed in the course of
    performing their usual duties.
        With regard to decontamination procedures, based upon
    limited inspection, it did not appear that the decontamination
    procedures followed by the AOC in April 2006 were fully code-
    compliant. As discussed more fully in Asbestos Issues in the
    Tunnels and Vaults, pp. 6-8, below, the OSHA General Industry
    Standard that applies to workers who maintain the tunnels and
    equipment within the tunnels sets forth specific protective
    measures for employees who are exposed to asbestos levels above
    the PEL. These include providing clean changing rooms with
    separate storage areas to prevent street clothes from being
    contaminated from protective clothing and equipment, showers,
    and limitations upon workers wearing protective equipment in
    areas outside the workplace. A second set of requirements is
    found in the Construction Industry Standard. We understand from
    recent discussions with the AOC that it will be revising its
    decontamination procedures to bring them into compliance with
    OSHA requirements.

                                  AIR SAMPLING

        Senator Allard. Now, unfortunately, the Architect of the
    Capitol has not consistently and systematically sampled the air
    in the tunnels for the presence of asbestos. And as a result,
    we have no documentation on what exposure there may have been
    in the past. Is AOC currently using appropriate methods of
    sampling? Can you answer that question?
        Mr. Eveleth. I would prefer, if I could, to defer to submit
    this afterward, because I would rather use the knowledge of my
    safety experts on that. And they could give you a much more
    detailed and----
        Senator Allard. That would be fine.
        Mr. Eveleth [continuing]. Precise answer. Because I am a
    lawyer, as you know, and----
        Senator Allard. Okay. I will give you some time to do that.
    I am wondering is it unreasonable to request that you respond
    back to our concerns within 10 days?
        Mr. Eveleth. I think we could certainly do that.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Well, we will expect it in 10 days.
    If you cannot, if you would notify the subcommittee----
        Mr. Eveleth. I will do so.
        Senator Allard. I would appreciate that.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        [The information follows:]

        Question. Is the AOC currently using appropriate methods of
    sampling the air in the tunnels for the presence of asbestos?
        Answer. Sampling asbestos correctly necessitates collecting
    samples under all several scenarios, from those with the most
    exposure risk to those with the least. This includes taking
    samples under circumstances under which asbestos may be
    disturbed and become airborne. In our discussions with the AOC,
    it appears that it recognizes deficiencies in the methods it
    has employed in taking asbestos samples. Specifically, there
    are too few samples, taken under circumstances that are the
    least likely to disturb the asbestos, and the monitoring
    records lack sufficient detail to determine potential sources
    and pathways of exposure. For example, the monitoring is
    unrepresentative because the samples we reviewed were not taken
    when employees were performing duties such as performing
    repairs or using equipment likely to disturb asbestos and
    create greater exposures. Specific details follow in Asbestos
    Issues in the Tunnels and Vaults, A. 6&7 & I, below.

                         DISTANCE BETWEEN EGRESS POINTS

        Senator Allard. With respect to the new utility tunnel for
    the Capitol Visitor Center, we had some discussion on that in
    our last hearing as to the appropriate travel distance between
    egress points in such tunnels. Now that is a 750-foot tunnel
    that has no escape hatches. Is there a safety code that
    mandates what the distance should be?
        Mr. Eveleth. Yes, there is. And I would--let me give you,
    if I may, a brief response to that. And I will also supplement
    that, if I may. But it is my understanding, after speaking to
    our safety experts is that yes, there is a requirement. And as
    we understand it, the distance, there should be an exit at
    least every 800 feet, which means--in other words, there would
    be a 400-foot travel distance for an employee to get to an
    exit. It is every 800 feet if the tunnel is fire sprinkler
    protected. In other words, you get a greater distance if there
    is a sprinkler in there. If there is not----
        Senator Allard. Is that tunnel that was just constructed
    fire sprinkler protected?
        Mr. Eveleth. We have not inspected that. I do not know the
    answer to that. But I do know that that is the requirement. In
    other words, there would be 600 feet between exits if it is not
    fire sprinklered. It is 800 if it is fire sprinklered.
        Senator Allard. I see.
        Mr. Eveleth. So that in this instance, it is assuming that
    it is not fire sprinklered. It would appear--but, of course, we
    have not inspected it. We do not know what it looks like. There
    may be something that we do not know about it. So I do not
    really want to opine more than I just have.
        Senator Allard. Now there seems to be more confusion. The
    Department of Labor has their Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration and they have a fire code here. It is the NEPA
    101 Life Safety Code. If I refer to that document, does that
    make sense to you?
        Mr. Eveleth. Yes.
        Senator Allard. Okay. In that document, in paragraph
    40.2.6.1, they say the travel distance measured in accordance
    with section 7.6, that is the travel distance to exits, shall
    not exceed 200 feet or 60 meters.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right. But I believe that there is another
    section, which is 40.2.6.3.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Well, I think we are confused on the
    subcommittee. I am wondering if you can resolve this.
        Mr. Eveleth. Certainly.
        Senator Allard. And get a memo to us on that.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right. Because there is a special exit travel
    distance requirement for low and ordinary hazard special
    purpose industrial occupancy. That is the way it----
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Eveleth. And that is apparently a more lenient issue.
        Senator Allard. It depends on the type of tunnel that you
    are dealing with.
        Mr. Eveleth. That is correct. That is correct.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Well, if you would work that out.
        Mr. Eveleth. Sure.
        Senator Allard. And we are interested in making sure that
    we are meeting the code with the new tunnel.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        Senator Allard. That is the bottom line.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        [The information follows:]

        Question. Clarify the travel distances between escape hatch
    for tunnels (with and without sprinkler). Which Life Safety
    code applies under what circumstances?
        Answer. The Life Safety Code was developed to provide
    protective measures for building occupants when there is a
    fire. However, the main hazard in Capitol Hill utility tunnels
    is a steam leak. Although most of the time when safety people
    think about a ``travel distance'' issue, they think of fire
    safety and the Life Safety Code, unfortunately, there is not a
    specific tunnel safety code. Although we are not certain what
    standard should apply in steam tunnels, we want to be very sure
    we understand what the generally applied practice is. There
    probably is an ``industry practice'' for the major tunnel
    designers and builders, and we have been received some
    preliminary data that indicates it may be about 500 feet, from
    exit to exit (point-to-point). We need to ascertain the
    industry practice in order to determine if the General Duty
    Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act applies in
    this circumstance; if there is an industry practice, the
    General Duty Clause requires that it be followed.
        Some of the remedies in the Life Safety Code to protect
    tunnel occupants from fire could actually make conditions in
    the tunnels more hazardous, if a steam leak were to occur. For
    example, a fire barrier would not help, because it would
    compartmentalize sections of the tunnel and cause steam buildup
    and intensity. If steam leaks, what the workers need to be able
    to do is to run away from the leak and get out of the area or
    tunnel. In the case of the Capitol Visitor Center utility
    tunnel the only safety item at issue is whether the distance
    between the two exits is too great. The tunnel was installed
    with only two exits--one at either end, with the distance
    between exits of almost 800 feet.
        We have had discussions of this issue with the AOC and the
    CVC contractors who built this tunnel. A review of the
    engineering consultant's assertions to the AOC would appear to
    indicate that there is no outside limit to the travel distance
    that is required under the Life Safety Code due to the way the
    engineering contractor characterized the tunnel. We disagree
    with the underlying assertion that unlimited distance is
    acceptable, since, among other factors, the industry practice
    would suggest otherwise.
        What we have been told by the AOC is that installing
    another egress point would be expensive and that there is no
    money for doing it. This week, the Office of Compliance met
    with representatives from the AOC and the CVC contractors, and
    explained to them that we wanted to do further research into
    the issue and verify what is the ``acceptable norm'' for tunnel
    egress, as a matter of industry practice. Until we've completed
    our research, the OOC is not taking the position that another
    egress is needed in the CVC tunnel, but we do want to find out
    what other organizations are doing when they build new utility
    tunnels. We anticipate that we will reach a conclusion by the
    end of this month, and we will so advise the Subcommittee.
        If an additional egress is required, the additional
    construction may be done after the CVC has been opened to the
    public. Hence, the opening need not be delayed by this
    consideration.

                FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IN THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

        Senator Allard. As you know, a debate is going on now
    between the Architect of the Capitol's fire marshal and the
    Capitol Police Board as to the fire alarm system in the Capitol
    Visitor Center. Do you have any comments as to how this issue
    can be resolved expeditiously, and who ultimately should have
    the authority to make the final determination?
        Mr. Eveleth. We have not been involved in these discussions
    or consulted in these discussions, but I think we are generally
    aware of the position of the fire marshal. Our position has
    been during our inspections, and this does not deal with the
    CVC, but our belief is that, certainly except for the Capitol,
    our belief is that if a fire alarm is pulled, then the alarm
    should go off. And rather than having it do what it does in the
    Capitol, where there is an annunciator board, and the Capitol
    Police then go and check to see whether there is actually a
    fire or not. And then they come back and do what they need to
    do. If there is a fire, obviously they allow the alarm to go
    off.
        That is a unique situation. And it is unique. And for a
    number of good reasons, it is done that way. But it is done
    that way because there are a large number of Capitol police
    available, which means that they can travel to the location of
    wherever that fire alarm has been pulled in short order and get
    back and do something about it.
        That is not the case with some of the larger office
    buildings on the Hill. And that is not the case with the
    visitor center, as well. So it would be--our belief is that
    when a fire alarm is pulled, that the alarm itself should
    sound.
        Senator Allard. So your recommendation would be to treat
    the Capitol Visitor Center like any of the other large
    buildings around and still keep the Capitol under its exemption
    status because of the number of officers that are available in
    the immediate area.
        Mr. Eveleth. That is correct.
        Senator Allard. I see. I understand that that is the
    position of the fire marshal.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right.
        Senator Allard. But it is not the position of the Police
    Board. Is that correct?
        Mr. Eveleth. That is correct. Right. Now your other
    question was who should make the decision, I believe.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Eveleth. And normally the decision like that is made by
    the authority having jurisdiction, which, of course, is a term
    of art in the building industry. And normally that is an
    authority that is sort of independent of the parties in the
    sense that, for example, if I am a builder and I want to do
    something, I either have to follow code or I have to come up
    with something that provides the equivalent level of safety and
    protection, safety protection. And it is usually some
    independent entity that makes that decision.
        A number of years ago, a couple of years ago, the Architect
    asked to be designated as the authority having jurisdiction, so
    that it could in effect waive the prescriptive requirements and
    implement its own. This agency notified the Senate that it
    objected to that position, because it felt like it needed the
    separation between the individual deciding the case and the--I
    think that the----
        Senator Allard. So the OOC has notified the Senate that
    they do not think there is enough distance between the
    Architect, as far as personal culpability, I guess, for you to
    be happy with the Architect making the decision. Is that right?
        Mr. Eveleth. We would not be happy with the Architect being
    the authority having jurisdiction over matters of which it is
    itself both an advocate for change and approving the change.
    And so that was the position we took then.
        Senator Allard. I see.
        Mr. Eveleth. Our position----
        Senator Allard. Now where did that recommendation go to?
        Mr. Eveleth. I cannot recall. We received notice that they
    had asked for that authority. And we wrote a letter. And I
    cannot tell you at this point----
        Senator Allard. Well, you had asked through the
    appropriation process.
        Mr. Eveleth. It could have been. I can dig that up. I just
    do not remember off the top of my head.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Eveleth. But what I am getting at is I think we also
    took the position then that the Office of Compliance is a
    perfect model for being an authority having jurisdiction. That
    is to say, it is an independent entity that can make judgment
    about health and safety issues. And I would think that would
    also be true in this sort of situation.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Eveleth. And there is a full method of litigating that,
    really, if they object and we would issue a citation, I mean,
    our board would decide. And if they wanted to challenge it in
    the court, they could do that. Hopefully, it would not come to
    all that. But it is the principle that we are talking about.
        Senator Allard. Hopefully you would work it out and
    quickly.
        Mr. Eveleth. Right. Right. We would do it, we would hope to
    do it quickly.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Eveleth. We think the law is pretty clear on this.
        [The information follows:]

        Question. With regard to the debate between the Fire
    Marshall and the Capitol Police Board as to the fire alarm
    system in the Capitol Visitor Center, how can this issue be
    resolved expeditiously? Who should have the authority to make
    the final determination? When and to whom in the Senate did the
    OOC recommend that the AOC not be the authority having
    jurisdiction (AHJ)?
        Answer. Relevant to the question of the proper procedures
    to be applied in the operation of the fire alarm systems in the
    CVC are the findings by the OOC's General Counsel described in
    his biennial report to Congress, Report on Occupational Safety
    and Health Inspections during the 108th Congress pursuant to
    the Congressional Accountability Act, pp. 19-21 (excerpt
    attached). As noted in that Report, under the Fire Code, a fire
    alarm system is required that activates a general alarm
    throughout a building to alert occupants of fire or other
    emergencies.
        There are two exceptions to this requirement. First, a
    positive alarm sequence is permitted that allows a three-minute
    delay in the activation of the general alarm. Trained personnel
    are allowed up to 180 seconds to investigate; if the system is
    not reset, all alarms are activated automatically. This delay
    is intended to permit an investigation to determine whether
    there is a false alarm. The AOC Fire Marshal has endorsed the
    use of the pre-signal sequence in the Capitol building where
    there is a sufficient number of trained officers on duty to
    enable them to complete an investigation within three minutes.
    The second exception permits a pre-signal system that requires
    that the initial fire alarm system be automatically transmitted
    without delay to a municipal fire department and an on-site
    person to respond to a fire emergency. The specific
    deficiencies in the existing fire alarm system procedures in
    the House and Senate office buildings are discussed in detail
    in the Report.
        With regard to who should have the authority to make the
    final determination on this and other issues, we noted some of
    this agency's concerns in a letter to the Honorable C.W. Bill
    Young dated February 20, 2004 (copy attached). Although the
    Life Safety code does have not any conflict of interest
    restrictions, other building codes do place such restrictions
    on the official enforcing the code. If the Appropriations and
    relevant Oversight Committees determine that the Office of
    Compliance should be specifically designated as the authority
    having jurisdiction over these matters or to resolve disputes
    between other entities, the Office is well-situated to handle
    such responsibilities. Indeed, under the Congressional
    Accountability Act, the Board of Directors of the Office of
    Compliance is designated to serve as a neutral forum for
    resolving all disputes arising under the CAA, subject to court
    review.
        In particular, Congress vested the Board with the authority
    to determine whether a modification in the application of a
    health or safety standard is warranted because of special
    circumstances. In particular, by virtue of Sec. 1341(c)(4) of
    the CAA, employing offices may request from the Board of
    Directors of the Office of Compliance variances from the health
    and safety standards otherwise applicable by showing that the
    alternative proposed would provide a place of employment which
    is as safe and healthful as required by the standard from which
    the variance is sought. Procedural Rules of the Office of
    Compliance, Sec. 4.26 (b)(4). Alternatively, the citation and/
    or complaint procedures under the Office of Compliance's
    Occupational Safety and Health Act jurisdiction could be
    followed to make a final decision on the issue.

        Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony. You have been
    helpful.
        Mr. Eveleth. Thank you.
                           GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF BRUCE R. JAMES, PUBLIC PRINTER
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            MIKE WASH, CHIEF TECHNICAL OFFICER
            STEVE SHEDD, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

        Senator Allard. We will go to the next panel now. Our next
    panel will be the Government Printing Office.
        I want to welcome Mr. Bruce James and his team. GPO is
    requesting $151 million, an increase of $29 million over the
    current year or a 24-percent increase. The increase is in part
    due to the requirement to update the U.S. Code over 6 years, as
    well as some initiatives to further modernize the agency.
        Mr. James, you have accomplished much in your 4 years as
    Public Printer, and we appreciate your service. You have a
    great deal to be proud of, including reversing the trend of
    annual losses at the Government Printing Office, revamping the
    agency into, as you put it, a 21st century digital platform
    capable of addressing ongoing technological changes in how
    information is processed and disseminated, and developing new
    business lines, such as the electronic passports.
        You will be a tough act to follow. And we hope you will
    stay on in the Government Printing Office until the President
    can find a suitable replacement. We look forward to reviewing
    the various initiatives you have requested for fiscal year 2007
    and a status report of your efforts to make further
    improvements to modernize the Government Printing Office.
        You may proceed with your testimony now, Mr. James.

                       OPENING REMARKS OF BRUCE R. JAMES

        Mr. James. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Allard. Good morning.
        Mr. James. I have a statement I would like to submit for
    the record.
        Senator Allard. I will ask unanimous consent. Without
    objection, we will do that.
        Mr. James. Thank you. And I will make a few opening
    remarks. But before I do, I would like to introduce two of my
    colleagues at the table with me. The first is Mike Wash, who is
    the Chief Technical Officer of the Government Printing Office.
    Mike came in about 2 years ago to join us and has the
    responsibility for evaluating new technologies that are coming
    down the road that could impact Government printing,
    particularly the dissemination of Government information.
        He also has a responsibility for the development of what we
    are calling the future digital system, which is the system that
    will ingest all Government information and then be in a
    position to reprocess that information and send it to the
    Internet or send it out for printing or however else in the
    future someone might want to use it.
        I also have with me Steve Shedd, who is the Chief Financial
    Officer of the Government Printing Office. Steve has been with
    us for nearly 3 years now. He came to us after experience in
    the private sector both with private and public companies as a
    chief financial officer. And they will assist me, if you ask me
    any tough questions.
        Now as I was sitting in the audience, Mr. Chairman, I could
    not help but observe your shirt. And, you know, some people
    might just say, well, this is just another shirt with, you
    know, a suit. But as I sat out there, I was trying to think of
    the exact mix of cyan, magenta, yellow, and black that I would
    use to print that shirt, to reproduce it. And, you know, that
    got me thinking that much of what we do at the Government
    Printing Office is just that subject, that there is a certain
    mix of colors that we would use in printing ink to reproduce
    that shirt accurately.
        That would be analog printing, of course. But interestingly
    enough, if we presented it in a digital form on a TV set or on
    a computer screen, there would be a different set of primary
    colors involved with it. And I think what has happened here not
    only in the Government, but what has happened in the
    information industry, is that for many, many years we went
    along as if everything would be printed. So all of the
    information was gathered. It was maintained. It was coded for
    future printing.
        And what we found, of course, today is that printing is
    just one way of delivering information. As a matter of fact,
    much of the Government's information is now being delivered in
    digital format, as you are well aware. Last year, the
    Government Printing Office put 92 percent of all Government
    publications on the Internet. And the 8 percent missing is
    because we have not figured out how to do maps and other kinds
    of things, but we will get there.
        So we are making great progress. There are certain things
    that we are focused on, in particular that I am focused on, in
    my last months of service. First is the GPO building complex
    itself. In terms of square footage, the complex is twice the
    size of the Capitol. It is almost the size of the Empire State
    Building. It is a very large building complex that was built
    for a different purpose than the enterprise that we have today.
    At one time, there were nearly 10,000 employees housed in the
    Government Printing Office buildings. Today we are down to just
    above 2,000. And we do not see that number of employees
    climbing greatly.
        So we have a facility that is obsolete in every way. Now
    rather than come to this subcommittee and to Congress and ask
    for public funds to replace that building and re-equip it for
    the future, instead we have worked out, I think, a very
    ingenious plan for converting the existing real estate we have
    into cash that would allow us to build a new building and equip
    that building as we need to do without losing title to that
    property for the Government.
        What is significant about that is that about $35 million of
    what we spend each year at the Government Printing Office goes
    to the maintenance of this obsolete campus. And it is money
    that we would not have to otherwise spend if we were not there.
        And, you know, I sit here in front of you asking for a
    relatively modest amount of money. But I want you to think
    about that $35 million that we are spending each year that we
    do not have to spend. If we get on with this building project,
    we will be able to actually reduce the request to this
    subcommittee for appropriations each year. So any help that you
    can give us in helping to move this project along, we would
    much appreciate it.
        The second very important thing that we are engaged in is
    the building of the future digital system, which falls under
    Mike Wash. That system, as I mentioned 1 minute ago, is the
    future. What it will do is take Government information into the
    system. It will not be coded for printing. It will have a
    generic coding scheme in it that both identifies the kind of
    information it is, whether it is a headline or a paragraph or
    what it is.
        It also will contain the source, who created the document,
    when was it created, that type of information. And it will be
    stored in such a way that it will allow us to authenticate the
    fact that the information is actually what the author wrote. It
    will allow us to preserve that information in perpetuity. And
    it will allow us to repurpose that information and send it out
    however the Government might require it in the future, or
    however a public user might want that information in the
    future.
        The third thing that I think is very important is that it
    is one thing to take the ongoing information of the Government
    and be prepared to deliver it digitally. But, you know, we have
    a 200-year history. And that history is very important. We have
    tons, carloads, trucks, warehouses full of paper all across the
    country that represent the legacy documents of the United
    States Government.
        Now we are very fortunate to have 1,250 library partners in
    the Federal depository library system, which has maintained
    those books for us in print, and not only maintained those
    books, but most importantly have helped the public get the
    information from those books.
        But our libraries are changing. The entire world is
    changing. And we have to be able to go back and digitize that
    legacy collection and also make it available over the Internet.
    Now we believe we probably can find the funds to do this
    ourselves, with not much help from Congress.
        The next area that we are focused on is workforce
    retraining. We have a lot of people at GPO that are used to the
    analog world, those who once set type with linotype machines,
    once made plates, once operated offset presses. And I do not
    believe they are threatened in any way by the changes that we
    are talking about. As a matter of fact, our 23 bargaining units
    have been very supportive of the changes that we are making.
    And I think the reason is that over our 145-year history we
    have been through many technological changes, each of which
    made the Government Printing Office stronger. And they see this
    as just part of a pattern.
        But we owe it to these folks to build on the skills that
    they have acquired over the years, to now introduce and train
    them in new digital skills. And we are focused on that.
        We also are focused on replacing our legacy computer
    systems. You hear this, the Appropriations Committee hears
    this, almost from every agency. When I walked in the door, I
    could not believe the state of the computer systems. I mean,
    these were machines that I had not seen in 30 years that were
    held together with spit and chewing gum. And as our employees
    retire, we had a 81-year-old retire not so long ago, I mean, we
    are losing the skills that are required to keep those systems
    up to date. So we are in the process of replacing our legacy
    computer systems with state-of-the-art equipment that is
    properly sized, properly constructed to be able to allow us to
    move along in the future. And we are asking for help in regard
    to replacing those systems.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And the last thing that we are all focused on, particularly
    Judy Russell, the Superintendent of Documents, with me, and
    that is working with our Federal depository libraries to create
    the Federal depository library system of the future. It is
    clear that as we change in the way we process information,
    libraries, too, are changing. And we want to make sure that we
    are completely aligned with our libraries. These have been very
    valuable partners for many years. And we do not want to lose
    the value of that partnership, which we believe is helping the
    American public find and use Government information.
        And that concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Bruce R. James
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch
    Appropriations: It is an honor to be here today to present the
    appropriations request of the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) for
    fiscal year 2007.
        Mr. Chairman, this will be the last time I have the privilege of
    appearing before you. Over the past three years, with the strong
    support of this Subcommittee, we have managed to turn GPO in a new
    direction, one that promises a positive future for our great agency for
    many years to come. Now, after three and a half years of working to
    achieve that result and much more, it is time for me to begin the plans
    for return to my home in Nevada. My pledge was to remain as Public
    Printer for the 3 to 5 years it would take to reposition GPO for the
    future. I have advised the President that I will continue to serve
    until a new Public Printer is chosen. I want to assure you that I will
    work hard to make a smooth transition of leadership so that GPO does
    not miss a step going forward.
                                  2005 results
        Since my appointment as Public Printer, we have been transforming
    GPO into a 21st century digital platform capable of addressing ongoing
    technological changes in how information is processed and disseminated.
        Our goal is to provide Government information in the form and
    formats our customers want and need in this burgeoning digital era, and
    to ensure that the abiding mission of the GPO--Keeping America
    Informed--continues to be carried out for generations to come.
        A primary order of business has been restoring and maintaining
    GPO's financial health. I am pleased to report that our efforts to
    modernize and prepare GPO for the future, with Congress's support, are
    generating measurable--and ever improving--returns to GPO's bottom
    line.
        Net income from consolidated GPO operations for fiscal year 2005
    increased to $6.1 million from $1.3 million the previous year,
    reversing the pattern of losses from the last decade. We also recorded
    another reduction to our long-term liability for the Federal workers
    compensation program.
        Our financial turnaround has also been aided significantly by
    efforts to right-size GPO's workforce through voluntary separation
    incentive programs supported by Congress. In 2003 and 2004 we reduced
    GPO's workforce by 542 positions, resulting in a savings in personnel
    compensation and benefits costs of about $38 million annually.
        During the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, another incentive
    program, which was carried out under the Consolidated Appropriations
    Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-447), resulted in a further
    reduction of 89 positions. Recurring annual savings from this recent
    program will be approximately $8 million commencing October 1, 2006.
        Fiscal year 2005 marked a turning point in our transformation
    efforts with the release early in the year of our Strategic Vision for
    the 21st Century, which was transmitted to Congress and distributed to
    GPO's stakeholders in both the public and private sectors.
        This document provides a framework for how our transformation
    goals--development of a digital content system to anchor all future
    operations, reorganization of the agency into new product- and service-
    oriented business lines along with investment in the necessary
    technologies, adoption of management best practices agency-wide
    including retraining to provide needed skills, and relocation of the
    GPO to facilities that are sized and equipped to meet our future
    needs--will be carried out and funded. During the year we made
    significant progress in each of these directions.
        The core of our future operations will revolve around a digital
    content system that we currently refer to as FDsys, for Future Digital
    System. FDsys is being designed to organize, manage, and output
    authenticated content for any use or purpose.
        With the approval for transferring the unexpended balances of prior
    year appropriations to GPO's revolving fund, we secured the majority of
    the funds we will need to bring FDsys into operation. In the
    development of this system, we are engaging key elements of our
    customer community in Congress, in Federal agencies, and in the library
    community, and we are working under the guidance of the Joint Committee
    on Printing.
        We created a new business line for Security and Intelligent
    Documents in 2005 that consolidates our longstanding expertise in
    security documents and offers a broad range of consultative services to
    Congress and Federal agencies attempting to respond to new standards
    and statutory requirements in this area. An early product of the unit
    was the security printing requested by the Joint Congressional
    Committee on the Inauguration to support the first Presidential
    inaugural ceremonies since 9/11. This business unit is working closely
    with the Social Security Administration, the State Department, the
    Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies with secure
    and intelligent documents responsibilities.
        We also created a new Digital Media Services business line to
    provide essential retraining in digital production skills and
    eventually generate content from legacy documents for ingest to FDSys.
    We are developing an efficient and cost-effective approach to legacy
    digitization to be carried out by this new business line, and are
    currently engaged in a demonstration project as approved by the Joint
    Committee on Printing.
        During 2005 we endowed other business lines with new capabilities.
    To improve plant production efficiency and broaden the range of product
    and service options for Congress and Federal agencies, we invested in a
    variety of new color and digital production technologies.
        We augmented our expert printing procurement services by partnering
    with a nationwide firm to provide innovative new convenience
    duplicating and printing services to Federal agencies across the
    country. This contracting mechanism features provisions for capturing
    Federal documents electronically, which will significantly assist our
    efforts to broaden the availability of Federal information for public
    access and reduce the incidence of ``fugitive documents.'' We also
    significantly increased the dollar limit on our popular simplified
    purchase agreements, expanding and simplifying the ability of Federal
    agencies to procure products and services directly from lists of pre-
    qualified vendors without first having to go through GPO.
        Under the leadership of GPO's Superintendent of Documents, we
    engaged the depository library community in a dialog to define the
    future of the Federal Depository Library Program while continuing to
    move the Program toward a predominately electronic basis as required by
    Congress. The total number of titles we now make available on GPO
    Access (www.gpoaccess.gov) increased to more than 300,000, with an
    average of 37 million retrieved every month, and the dollars we now
    dedicate to distributing print publications to depository libraries has
    fallen by at least 50 percent over the past decade.
        In our Sales of Publications Program, we developed a plan to
    partner with private sector sales and distribution providers who can
    expand Government publications sales offerings to the public,
    implementing a key recommendation of a management audit of GPO ordered
    by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in Public Law 105-55.
    The plan would also return a portion of the revenues to GPO. We have
    issued a Request for Proposal for these services.
        We continued work on our Oracle enterprise system, which will
    replace a number of labor intensive accounting and inventory functions
    with IT solutions, reducing cost and speeding work throughput. Expanded
    employee training opportunities were also made available, ranging from
    new offerings on the shop floor to ``transformational leadership''
    seminars for all supervisors and managers. Our Digital Conversion
    System will also provide new retraining opportunities.
        Although the GPO is not subject to the Government Performance and
    Results Act (GPRA), we take the spirit and intent of its provisions
    seriously, particularly its emphasis on performance measurement. During
    the year we worked to design systems to provide quantitative
    measurement in evaluating the progress of our strategic and management
    initiatives, and in this request we are seeking funds to implement that
    system.
        Progress toward our goal to relocate the GPO to new facilities
    moved ahead in fiscal year 2005 with the delivery of a formal plan for
    this project by our expert real estate advisory consultant. The plan,
    along with draft legislative language to authorize the project, was
    submitted to our oversight and Appropriations Committees accompanied by
    legislative briefings. We also began work on a plan to establish an
    ancillary production site for passports and other essential Government
    documents, and will be consulting further with our oversight committee
    on this matter this year.
                            fiscal year 2007 request
        Our fiscal year 2007 appropriations request is designed to provide
    for:
      --Continuation of our congressional printing and binding operations
            and information dissemination services at required levels;
      --Essential investment in projects to continue the transformation of
            the Federal Depository Library Program to a predominately
            electronic basis, by improving the cataloging, preservation,
            authentication, and provision of public access to electronic
            Federal Government information; and
      --Investment in information technology to improve the efficiency and
            effectiveness of GPO's operations, and completion of the
            program we have begun to retrain GPO's workforce to meet
            changing technology demands.
        Congressional Printing and Binding.--For the Congressional Printing
    and Binding Appropriation, which covers printing and related services
    for Congress, we are requesting $100,285,000. This is an increase of
    $13,076,000 over the level provided for fiscal year 2006. As you know,
    the funding level provided for this appropriation in fiscal year 2006
    is equal to fiscal year 2005, minus the one percent rescission. The
    increase is required to cover mandatory pay and price level changes and
    projected changes in specific congressional printing categories based
    on historical data, and is partially offset by ongoing improvements in
    productivity. Mandatory items include funding for the production of the
    2006 Edition of the U.S. Code, which by law is fully updated and issued
    every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, as well as
    required support capabilities residing at the alternative computing
    facility. Our request also provides funding to begin investment in a
    new generation of publishing systems that will be capable of fully
    supporting Congress's current and future information product needs.
        Salaries and Expenses Appropriation.--For the Salaries and Expenses
    Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents, we are requesting
    $43,000,000, an increase of $9,996,000 over the level provided for
    fiscal year 2006. This appropriation provides for the cataloging,
    indexing, and distribution of Government publications to Federal
    Depository and International Exchange libraries and other recipients
    designated by law.
        The increase is necessary for mandatory pay and price level
    changes, increased information technology support costs, and
    distribution of the 2006 edition of the U.S. Code to depository
    libraries and other recipients as required by law. Equally as
    important, our request includes funding for essential investments to
    sustain our commitment to meeting the changing needs of the Federal
    Depository Library Program (FDLP) in the digital era. For fiscal year
    2005, 71 percent of all new titles made available to the FDLP were in
    online format only, while an additional 21 percent of new titles were
    in electronic and one or more tangible formats such as print or
    microfiche. Only 8 percent of new were made available in print only. In
    other words, 92 percent of new titles in the program were made
    available online, whether or not there were tangible equivalents.
        As this data shows, the FDLP is now a predominately electronic
    program. The funding increase we are seeking will nurture and sustain
    the digital transformation of the FDLP, expanding the availability of
    the program's resources nationwide while providing for essential
    improvements to ensure permanent access and authenticity. The projects
    we are proposing include digital conversion of GPO's pre-1976
    cataloging records to expand the availability of our online catalog
    resource; targeted capital investment for authentication and other
    technologies supporting GPO Access; authentication and cataloging of
    Web-harvested documents; and essential training for depository
    librarians and other user support.
        Our request is also designed to advance another key initiative of
    our strategic vision for the future. In cooperation with the Library of
    Congress and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),
    we are developing an agreement under which the three agencies will make
    a concerted effort to digitize and provide online public access to
    Federal documents reaching back to the Nation's earliest days. As a
    result of this effort, the comprehensive historical collection of
    Federal publications--reports, legislation, congressional proceedings,
    executive orders, presidential papers, regulations, and more--will be
    available for search and retrieval at the push of a button from any
    library, classroom, office, or home. We are now involved in a
    demonstration project for legacy digitization.
        As our society becomes increasingly electronic, the demand for
    access to Government information--including information that until now
    has been available only in print--is growing. Several elements of both
    the public and private sectors have begun to respond to need for
    retrospective digitization to meet that demand and reduce costs to
    libraries. These efforts are commendable, but with their proliferation
    there is a growing need for an approach that will ensure
    standardization, comprehensiveness, and efficiency while preventing
    wasteful overlap and duplication of effort. I have met on this subject
    with the Librarian of Congress and the Archivist of the United States
    and we expect to conclude an agreement on this effort in the near
    future. While GPO will fund its role in this effort from available
    resources, our request for fiscal year 2007 includes $2 million to
    provide data tagging and related technical support for newly digitized
    content that is made available to the FDLP.
        Revolving Fund.--For GPO's revolving fund, we are requesting an
    appropriation of $8,231,000, an increase of $6,251,000 over the level
    provided for fiscal year 2006.
        This will provide funds to acquire essential information technology
    infrastructure and systems development, including risk reduction and
    security enhancements, computer-aided manufacturing, replacement of our
    antiquated job-cost reporting system, implementation of a Government
    Performance and Results Act (GPRA) compliance system, and other
    measures. Our request will also be used to complete the training
    program we have initiated with fiscal year 2006 funds to define GPO's
    workforce needs, assess the skills of current employees, identify the
    gaps, and design and deliver targeted, just-in-time training to close
    those gaps. A well-trained workforce and modernized information
    technology architecture are prerequisites to implementing our vision of
    GPO's digital future.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch
    Appropriations, thank you for all the support you have shown for our
    efforts to transform GPO. With your support we can continue our record
    of achievement. We look forward to working with you in your review and
    consideration of our request.

                              FACILITY RELOCATION

        Senator Allard. Well, thank you for your testimony, Mr.
    James. We have just a few questions here.
        It appears that your plans to move the Government Printing
    Office out of the current facility are not moving along quite
    as expeditiously as you would like. If the Government Printing
    Office is unable to relocate in the near future, how will that
    impact the Government Printing Office's plans to further
    modernize its operations?
        Mr. James. Well, we are not going to let a building stop
    us. I mean, the Government Printing Office is not about a
    building. It is about systems and people. And so we are not
    about to let a building stop us. But I think this is maybe even
    more personal to me as the leader of the GPO. It just to me is
    a travesty to allow taxpayer money to be flushed down the drain
    the way we are doing this.
        I mean, we can do a better job. And that is what I have
    been working at, to try and give the taxpayers a better deal on
    this. And I know that you have, too. This subcommittee and the
    House Appropriations Committee have been working with us all
    the way along on trying to get this done, too.

                                 TOP CHALLENGES

        Senator Allard. What are the top challenges that you face
    or the Government Printing Office faces? And what advice would
    you provide for your successor?
        Mr. James. Well, I think the things I've talked about today
    are the remaining big challenges in front of the Government
    Printing Office. The most important things, I think, that I
    have done over the last almost 4 years are to make certain we
    had the right people in the right positions and then to help
    them to develop a long-term strategy that would serve the
    American public and serve Congress, and then to help get that
    program off and going. And we are there.
        The remaining big challenges include the redevelopment of
    the building. And, you know, it is not just a matter of getting
    congressional approval to proceed. Once we have that approval,
    there is a big challenge of finding a new location for the GPO
    and hiring an architect and building a building and equipping
    that building. So that is probably the largest challenge.
        And I think that everything surrounding digital information
    is the other challenge. I think Mike Wash and his team are
    doing a superb job of building the system, but it will require
    continual attention and strict attention to make sure it is
    successful.

                               BUDGET PRIORITIES

        Senator Allard. Given the budget constraints we are faced
    with, it is unlikely that we are going to be able to come up
    with a 24-percent increase. It will probably be something less
    than that. And as I have asked of all the other agencies, I
    hope you can give us a prioritized list, because that would be
    very helpful as we negotiate with the House on this, if we know
    which things are most important to you. I would hate to think
    that in the negotiating process we gave up the most valuable
    for something of less importance.
        Mr. James. Sure.
        Senator Allard. So it would help us to make sure that your
    agency gets its badly needed resources in the proper priority.
        Mr. James. We would be pleased to do that. And I think we
    have a good relationship with staff and would be pleased to
    work with them and help them understand the priorities.
        Senator Allard. If you could do that, for the record, we
    would appreciate it.
        Mr. James. Yes, sir, be happy to.
        [The information follows:]
                 GPO Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Priorities
                       congressional printing and binding

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 In millions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2006 Enacted Level.............................        $87.2
    Fiscal Year 2007 Requested Level...........................        100.3
                                                                ------------
          Total Increase Originally Requested..................         13.1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Approximately $12.1 million is needed for essential requirements,
    including funding for mandatory pay and price changes to cover
    contractual wage agreements and inflation, an adjustment to the fiscal
    year 2006 base to cover a projected shortfall for fiscal year 2006
    (which will be funded from unexpended balances of prior year
    appropriations transferred to the revolving fund last year),
    anticipated workload increases in several congressional printing
    categories based on projections from historical data, and the
    production of official and bylaw copies of the 2006 edition of the U.S.
    Code in accordance with statutory requirements.
        Additional requirements of $1 million include funding for a planned
    replacement of GPO's Microcomp composition system, which will require
    the approval of the Joint Committee on Printing.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 In millions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Essential Requirements:
        Mandatory pay and price changes........................         $2.3
        Adjustment to fiscal year 2006 base....................          1.4
        Anticipated workload increases.........................          3.7
        Production of 2006 U.S. Code...........................          4.7
                                                                ------------
          Total................................................         12.1
                                                                ============
    Additional Requirements: Microcomp replacement.............          1.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             salaries and expenses

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 In millions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 2006 Enacted Level.............................        $33.0
    Fiscal Year 2007 Requested Level...........................         43.0
                                                                ------------
          Total Increase Originally Requested..................         10.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        With the exception of the mandatory pay increases and the printing
    and distribution of copies of the 2006 edition of the U.S. Code to
    depository libraries, GPO's requested increase of approximately $10
    million covers projects directly related to the broad range of
    information life-cycle activities required by the congressionally-
    mandated transition to a primarily electronic Federal Depository
    Library Program (FDLP) and to building the infrastructure to support
    it. Because these activities are interrelated and support each other,
    GPO must proceed with multiple priorities to meet Title 44 mandates in
    the online information environment.
        If funding at the originally requested level is not an option, GPO
    will scale back digital initiatives or slow down progress on the
    electronic transition rather than pursue one or two priorities to the
    exclusion of others. Elimination or more substantial reduction of any
    of these activities through funding prioritization will necessitate
    consultation with the depository library community.
        If appropriations cuts are required GPO could still support its
    mission with essential requirements totaling approximately $7.1
    million, a 29 percent reduction from the initial request for the
    Salaries and Expenses Appropriation. These requirements include
    mandatory pay and related costs, printing and distribution of the 2006
    edition of the U.S. Code for depository libraries, expenses due to
    investment in IT and GPO's Future Digital System (FDsys), FDLP training
    and user support of FDsys (with funding reduced by 20 percent, or
    $265,000, from the original request), conversion of pre-1976 cataloging
    records (with funding reduced by 63 percent, or $500,000;
    implementation of this project will be modified from a single multi-
    year contract to multiple single-year contracts, with requests for
    funding to be made in subsequent years), cataloging of web-harvested
    documents (with funding reduced by 10 percent, or $63,000),
    authentication of web-harvested and digitized documents (with funding
    reduced by 10 percent, or $45,000), and capital expenses associated
    with authentication and access.
        Additional requirements shown below total approximately $2.9
    million. They include funds for data tagging and processing new
    digitized content for access (while a demonstration project for legacy
    digitization has been authorized by the Joint Committee on Printing,
    GPO does not yet have authorization for the full legacy digitization
    project, and if not provided for fiscal year 2007, funding could be
    requested in subsequent years once the project is approved), as well as
    restoration of the reductions shown above for FDLP training and user
    support for FDsys, conversion of pre-1976 cataloging records,
    cataloging of web-harvested documents, authentication of web-harvested
    and digitized documents, and capital expenses associated with
    authentication and access.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                In millions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Essential Requirements:
        Mandatory pay and related costs.....................           $0.8
        U.S. Code 2006 edition, printing and distribution...            2.0
        Expenses due to investment in IT and FDsys..........            1.2
        FDLP training and user support of FDsys.............            1.1
        Conversion of pre-1976 cataloging records...........             .3
        Cataloging of web-harvested documents...............             .6
        Authentication of web-harvested and digitized                    .4
         documents..........................................
        Capital expenses associated with authentication and              .7
         access.............................................
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................            7.1
                                                             ===============
    Additional Requirements:
        FDLP training and user support of FDsys.............             .3
        Conversion of pre-1976 cataloging records...........             .5
        Cataloging of web-harvested documents...............             .05
        Authentication of web-harvested and digitized                    .05
         documents..........................................
        Data tagging and processing new digitized content               2.0
         for access.........................................
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................            2.9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 revolving fund

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 In millions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 2006 Enacted Level.............................         $2.0
    Fiscal Year 2007 Requested Level (Fiscal year 2007 request           8.2
     is a total of $3 million for training and $5.2 million for
     IT projects; fiscal year 2006 enacted provided $2 million
     for training).............................................
                                                                ------------
          Total Increase Originally Requested..................          6.2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Of the requested increase, approximately $1.0 million is needed for
    essential requirements, which represents an increase over the funds
    provided for fiscal year 2006 for workforce training and development to
    provide GPO employees with the skills needed for GPO's digital future.
    Total funds approved for fiscal year 2006 for training were $2 million;
    GPO is requesting a total of $3 million for training for fiscal year
    2007.
        Additional requirements of $5.2 million are requested for high risk
    infrastructure replacement to cover 8 projects to mitigate high
    technical risk areas, a secure documents system infrastructure to
    provide IT support for GPO's secure and intelligent documents business
    unit, a computer-aided manufacturing system to integrate GPO's
    production systems with IT monitoring, replacement of GPO's outdated
    PROBE system that provides job cost tracking, an application
    infrastructure to integrate GPO business systems into Oracle, a
    Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) compliance system to
    monitor and evaluate program performance, and a metadata repository to
    standardize data used in GPO's business systems.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 In millions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Essential Requirements: Workforce retraining...............         $1.0
                                                                ============
    Additional Requirements:
        High risk infrastructure replacement...................          2.3
        Secure documents system infrastructure.................           .8
        Computer-aided manufacturing...........................           .5
        PROBE replacement......................................           .5
        Oracle application infrastructure......................           .5
        GPRA compliance system and implementation..............           .3
        Metadata repository....................................           .3
                                                                ------------
          Total................................................          5.2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              EMPLOYEE RETRAINING

        Senator Allard. Now Congress approved $2 million in the
    Government Printing Office 2006 budget for workforce training.
    Can you update us on your efforts on that?
        Mr. James. You want to know how we spent that money?
        Senator Allard. Yes. We want to know what the results are.
        Mr. James. I would like to submit the specifics for the
    record. But I will give you sort of a general view of what we
    have done with this.
        In my judgment, the most important thing was to make
    certain our 330 supervisors are completely trained in what
    being a supervisor is all about. In the past, we moved people
    from the workforce that were skilled craftsmen just almost
    based on seniority into these, what I call, these leadership
    positions without sufficient background and training of what it
    takes to be a leader.
        So the first thing we did was focus on helping all of our
    roughly 330 supervisors/leaders to understand their
    responsibilities and what they need to do in a digital world
    and actually in a world of today. And we used the strategic
    vision document as the working tool of how to get them to
    understand what their role was and how to carry this down to
    employees.
        We then set up a new business unit that we call the digital
    media group. And this is the group that will do the conversion
    of the legacy documents of the Government into digital
    documents. And this will create hands-on training for hopefully
    several hundred GPO employees over the next few years as we
    complete that digitization. So those are the big initiatives
    that were undertaken in the last year. But I will give you a
    full explanation of that for the record.
        Senator Allard. Thank you.

                           Use of GPO Training Funds

        For fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $1.9 million
    (after rescission) to GPO's revolving fund for workforce
    development and training.
        Approximately $500,000 has been allocated to a
    demonstration project for the digitization of selected legacy
    Government documents that has been approved by the Joint
    Committee on Printing. The project will train a targeted
    element of GPO's workforce in essential digitization skills.
        Approximately $100,000 has been allocated to the provision
    of training in PC skills, electronic publishing, new pre-press
    technologies, customer service improvement, and apprentice
    training.
        The balance of the funds are for a GPO-wide skills
    assessment and implementation of retraining and include the
    following: $170,000 for a needs analysis and skills assessment,
    $630,000 for classroom training, $270,000 for e-training,
    $130,000 for a Learning Management System, and $100,000 for
    career transition services.

                          ELECTRONIC PASSPORT PROGRAM

        Senator Allard. What is the status of the electronic
    passport program that you are working on with the State
    Department?
        Mr. James. That is one of the most challenging jobs that we
    have had. The State Department is one of our best customers.
    And as you know, this is a program that has been mandated by
    Congress. And that is to include a biometric chip in all of the
    U.S. passports. And the law is requiring that of other
    countries, too, that want to have the visa exemption.
        We have been working for about 2 years on that program with
    the State Department. We actually have working samples out in
    the field right now. We are delivering official passports. I
    believe in the last couple of weeks, we started delivering
    official passports with chips and antennas. We have learned a
    lot in this process. We probably have more knowledge than
    perhaps any other organization in the country at this point
    about what goes into dealing with these chips in a paper
    product.
        As a matter of fact, we have learned so much that we are
    looking at sharing this with other agencies to meet some of
    their requirements, both for ID cards and for other kinds of
    secure and intelligent documents that the Government will need.
    I have come to the conclusion that I think the Government
    Printing Office can be of great service to other agencies in
    the development and maintaining of a proprietary Government
    technology that will help ensure that documents cannot be
    counterfeited and they are authentic documents.
        We are looking at doing this with some interesting models.
    We are looking at getting in the business of producing ID
    cards.
        Senator Allard. What kind of ID cards?
        Mr. James. These are the new ID cards that are required
    that have RFD devices in them that will be for all agency
    employees. And there we are looking at the possibility of doing
    a Government-owned, contractor-operated plant within GPO
    facilities. In other words, taking the best advantage of the
    private sector and their know-how and how to officially
    manufacture, but yet keeping it within a Government facility
    for the necessary security protections.
        So we have learned at lot. We have made great progress. I
    think this will be one of the fast-growing areas in the future
    for the Government Printing Office.
        Senator Allard. So you actually have it in some passports
    now.
        Mr. James. Yes, we do.
        Senator Allard. Is that part of the trial basis, or is this
    now just part of routine procedure in those few that you have
    out there?
        Mr. James. I think you are asking me to speak for my
    customer here, the State Department, on this. And it is my
    impression that we are still moving cautiously. You know, with
    old U.S. passports, I should say the former passports, we knew
    what would happen if somebody left it in the trunk of their car
    or ran it through a washing machine. You know, we need more
    experience here in what happens in the real world as people use
    these devices or these passports, so that we can make certain
    that the manufacturing techniques we have used will withstand
    as much as they possibly can. So we are moving cautiously on
    this one.

                    FUTURE OF THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

        Senator Allard. Thank you. You also said you are engaging
    the depository library community in a dialogue on the future of
    the depository library system. What is the status of that
    effort?
        Mr. James. Well, let me put it this way. I think that
    together the library community and the GPO have come a long way
    in the last 3 years. I began to discuss with the depositories a
    little over 3 years ago what I thought was going to be required
    in the digital future. And there were, I think it is fair to
    say, some real skeptics initially.
        But as we have, over the last 3 years, worked so closely
    together on taking a look at this, I think that probably it is
    best summed up by a letter I think you recently received,
    signed by the presidents of the five largest library
    associations strongly endorsing the direction that we are
    going. And I think that while we do not have a complete
    solution yet, I think we are engaged in a very positive way. We
    know we cannot please everybody. But it is our intention to get
    to the point that we have a consensus within the community of
    the best way to go forward with this.
        Senator Allard. So you are in the discussion process right
    now.
        Mr. James. Yes, sir.
        Senator Allard. And you have not decided exactly how you
    are going to proceed from this point.
        Mr. James. That is absolutely correct.
        Senator Allard. Thank you. That is all I need for your
    testimony. Thank you very much.
        Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Allard. We wish you well.
        Mr. James. Thank you.
                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD B. MARRON, ACTING DIRECTOR
        Senator Allard. Good morning, Dr. Marron. We meet again
    today. It seems like we have been seeing each other on a fairly
    regular basis here. You are the last panel for this morning. I
    would ask that you, Dr. Marron, Acting Director of CBO, to
    present your testimony on CBO's $37 million request. This is a
    5.5-percent increase over fiscal year 2006 and supports current
    services.
        Now, Dr. Marron, we understand you have done an excellent
    job heading up the CBO since your appointment just a few months
    ago. And we appreciate your service. Please go ahead with your
    testimony.
        Dr. Marron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
    here today. You have our written statement, so I will try to be
    very brief. Let me start by thanking you for your past support
    of CBO's budget request, most recently for the 2006 request.
        As you know, CBO's mission is to provide the Congress with
    timely, objective, nonpartisan information about budget and
    economic issues. It has been my great privilege to be with the
    agency for about 6 months now and to be Acting Director since
    early this year. And just on a personal note I would like to
    say I am just incredibly impressed with the enthusiasm and
    skill and esprit de corps of the CBO and its people. I feel
    like we are doing an excellent job for the Congress. And I hope
    to keep that up.
        As you say, our fiscal 2007 request is for $37 million,
    which would be an increase of $1.9 million over our
    appropriation for 2006. It is an increase of 5.5 percent. This
    is pretty much a plain vanilla request on our part. There are
    no new initiatives. We view it as a current services budget. It
    allows us to maintain a level of productivity, allows us to
    maintain our 235 FTEs, and hopefully allows us to, you know,
    continue the productivity that we have built up in recent
    years. Hopefully, it is well documented in our submission.
        Our budget is overwhelmingly for people. As we discussed
    the other day, about 90 percent of the budget goes toward our
    people. And in essence, that is what is driving our budget
    request this year. Most of the request is concentrated in
    people, both because of benefit increases, because of a cost of
    living adjustment (COLA), and because of merit increases that
    we would expect to award to people.
        In addition, there is a component in there for IT. As you
    will recall, last year there was an across-the-board
    rescission. We, to get through this year, focused most of that
    on our IT budget. We deferred a variety of projects. And so our
    budget request in essence has a variety of those investments
    coming back in 2007 being funded.
        I am happy to say that I believe CBO provides good value to
    the Congress and through the Congress to the American people.
    It has been true in the past, and we intend to make sure it is
    true in the future.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And with that, happy to take any questions.
        Senator Allard. Well, thank you, Dr. Marron.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Donald B. Marron
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to present
    the fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Congressional Budget Office
    (CBO).
        CBO is a small legislative support agency. Its mission is to
    provide the Congress with timely, objective, nonpartisan analyses of
    the budget and the economy and to furnish the information and cost
    estimates required for the Congressional budget process. That mission
    is its single ``program.'' Approximately 90 percent of CBO's
    appropriation is devoted to personnel, and the remaining 10 percent, to
    information technology, equipment, supplies, and other small purchases.
        The total current-services request for fiscal year 2007 is
    $37,026,000 a $1.9 million, or 5.5 percent, increase over the
    appropriation for fiscal year 2006 (after the 1 percent rescission).
    Although CBO's original projected increase from fiscal year 2006 to
    fiscal year 2007 was 4.4 percent, this request incorporates CBO's need
    to restore resources that were eliminated in fiscal year 2006 by the
    rescission.
        The requested increase is dominated by $1.7 million for increases
    in staff salaries and benefits, which are estimated to grow by 5.3
    percent in 2007. CBO's information technology accounts will increase by
    $220,000, or 15.6 percent, primarily to restore information technology
    funding that was reduced to meet the fiscal year 2006 rescission. The
    remainder of CBO's nonpersonnel budget will increase by 1.7 percent to
    cover modest inflationary increases in various accounts.
        With the requested funds for 2007, CBO plans to continue to support
    the Congress in exercising its responsibilities for the budget of the
    U.S. government. CBO supports the Congressional budget process by
    providing analyses required by law or requested by the Committees on
    the Budget, the Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on
    Finance, the House Committee on Ways and Means, other committees, and
    individual Members. Contributing in various forms, CBO:
      --Reports on the outlook for the budget and the economy to help the
            Congress prepare for the legislative year, including the
            construction of baseline budget projections to serve as neutral
            benchmarks for gauging the effects of spending and revenue
            proposals;
      --Estimates the effects of the President's budgetary proposals on
            outlays and revenues, including effects resulting from impacts
            on macroeconomic activity;
      --Assists the Committees on the Budget in developing the
            Congressional budget resolution by providing alternative
            spending and revenue paths and the estimated effects of a
            variety of budget options;
      --Reports on programs and activities for which authorizations for
            appropriations were not enacted or are scheduled to expire;
      --Estimates the costs of legislative proposals, including formal cost
            estimates for bills reported by committees of the House and
            Senate, which also identify the costs of mandates on states,
            localities, Indian Tribes, and the private sector;
      --Conducts policy studies of governmental activities having major
            economic and budgetary impacts;
      --Provides the Congress with analyses of policy options, but not
            policy recommendations, to alter federal outlays and receipts
            in the near term and over the longer horizon to help the
            Congress make budgetary choices, set priorities, and adapt to
            changes in circumstances;
      --Constructs statistical, behavioral, and computational models to
            project short- and long-term costs and revenues of government
            programs and their effects on the economy; and
      --Reports on emerging economic developments (such as natural
            disasters) and their possible budgetary consequences.
        In fiscal year 2007, CBO's request will allow the agency to build
    on current efforts specifically, the request:
      --Supports a workload of more than 1,700 formal estimates of the
            costs of proposed or enacted legislation and of mandates
            included in legislation (generally conveyed in about 600
            separate documents) and approximately 160 analytical reports
            and other products, as well as a heavy schedule of
            Congressional testimony;
      --Supports 235 FTEs, the same number as in 2006, including an across-
            the-board pay adjustment of 2.7 percent for staff earning a
            salary of less than $100,000 (which is consistent with the pay
            adjustment requested by other legislative branch agencies);
      --Funds a projected 5.4 percent increase in the cost of benefits and
            funds a combination of promotions and merit increases,
            including pay adjustments for staff whose salary exceeds
            $100,000 and who therefore do not receive an automatic annual
            increase;
      --Supports CBO's share of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory
            Board (FASAB) budget requirement ($443,025);
      --Sustains management and professional training and development
            ($152,400);
      --Maintains and continues development of CBO's financial management
            system ($101,390);
      --Supports the agency's telecommunications services to the Alternate
            Computing Facility ($75,000); and
      --Allows for upgrading Microsoft Office software throughout the
            agency ($75,000).
        Before I close, I would like to point out that over the past two
    fiscal years, CBO has streamlined operations while increasing services
    to the Congress and meeting ever growing requirements. Those efforts,
    which have included working in cooperation with other legislative
    branch agencies and other government organizations, have focused on
    reducing costs in information technology; library operations; printing
    and reproduction; storage services; and financial management, including
    payroll processing, auditing, and reporting. Consequently, the fiscal
    year 2007 submission requests the funding required for CBO to maintain
    its current services.
        I would also like to report that CBO received a clean opinion on
    its fiscal year 2004 financial statements.
        In addition, I would like to state that the agency is committed to
    applying many principles of the Government Performance Results Act as
    discussed in the Senate's fiscal year 2006 report.
        Finally, I would like to thank the Committee for its support of
    CBO's 2006 budget request. The funding provided this year will allow
    CBO to continue to provide the Congress with vital analyses as well as
    enable the agency to make cost-effective investments to enhance
    productivity and reduce costs.

                       PREPARATION OF REPORTS TO CONGRESS

        Senator Allard. Now, in the past 2 years, CBO has increased
    the number and reduced the preparation time of reports for the
    Congress. That is admirable. Would you explain to the
    subcommittee how you managed to accomplish that?
        Dr. Marron. Absolutely. I would say the key to that really
    is good management, to establishing timelines, deadlines, and
    encouraging folks to meet those. There are always some
    slippages, but, you know, to have guideposts for people to
    strive for, and then also to have a culture in which we make a
    lot of effort up front to make sure that the projects that we
    choose to undertake are ones that we can get through the entire
    process to see the light of day, to make sure that we have
    requests whenever possible from Members of Congress, and then
    just to carry that forward.
        So, I would ascribe that essentially to good management.

                             ONE PERCENT RESCISSION

        Senator Allard. Now in fiscal year 2006, a 1-percent
    rescission was applied to all the agencies. The one exception
    would have been the Department of Veterans Affairs. What was
    the impact of that reduction on your activities?
        Dr. Marron. The primary impact on us was to defer a variety
    of information technology investments, upgrading servers,
    upgrading PCs. Some of those have some flexibility in the
    timing of those. And we decided to put them out of this year
    and push them into next year.
        Senator Allard. And that is reflected in this year's
    budget?
        Dr. Marron. Exactly right. You will see that there is a
    larger percentage increase in the IT budget, somewhere in the
    11-percent range--and a significant part of that increase is
    essentially those investments showing up in 2007.

                    BUDGETARY ANALYSIS OF DRAFT LEGISLATION

        Senator Allard. I see. Now I understand CBO has had a draft
    of Senator Lott's legislation to redevelop the Government
    Printing Office facility since December. We had a discussion
    about that in the panel before you. As I understand it, until
    the bill is scored, Senator Lott is reluctant to move forward.
    What is the status of your efforts to provide a budgetary
    analysis of this draft legislation to the Rules Committee?
        Dr. Marron. Our people are definitely working on it. The
    proposal raises some challenging issues which raise some nuance
    scoring issues, but we are working to expedite and it should be
    available quite soon.
        Senator Allard. I would urge you move ahead with that. Is
    it possible for you to give us a commitment on a date?
        Dr. Marron. I cannot right now, but let me check with my
    folks back in the office, and I will get back to you.
        Senator Allard. Okay. I think it is important for us to get
    the Government Printing Office issue settled as fast as we
    possibly can. If you can get that to us quickly, we would all
    appreciate it.
        Dr. Marron. Okay. Absolutely.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Allard. Very good. I do not have any other
    questions. You got off kind of easy.
        Dr. Marron. So I will thank you for that.
        Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony.
        And this subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, May 3, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado:
        Opening Statement of.........................75, 167, 199, 223, 269
        Questions Submitted by......................................45, 261
        Statement of.................................................     1
    Ayers, Stephen, Chief Operating Officer, Architect of the Capitol   141

    Billington, James H., Librarian of Congress; Chairman of the
      Board, Open World Leadership Program, Library of Congress......     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     4

    Brown, Beth Hughes, Budget and Finance Officer, Office of
      Compliance.....................................................   269

    Candelaria, Alma, Deputy Executive Director, Office of Compliance   269
    Chrisler, Tamara E., Acting Executive Director, Office of
      Compliance.....................................................   269
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          271........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................   269
    Cylke, Kurt, Director, Books for the Blind and Physically
      Handicapped, Library of Congress...............................     1

    Doby, Chris, Financial Clerk, Office of the Secretary, U.S.
      Senate.........................................................    75
    Dodaro, Gene L., Chief Operating Officer, Government
      Accountability Office..........................................   223
    Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   142
        Questions Submitted by......................................50, 263

    Eveleth, Peter, General Counsel, Office of Compliance............   269

    Hantman, Alan M., FAIA, Architect of the Capitol..........141, 199, 217
        Prepared Statement of........................................   146
        Summary Statement of.........................................   143
    Harper, Sallyanne, Chief Administrative Officer, Government
      Accountability Office..........................................   223
    Huff, Julia, Chief of Operations, Copyright Office, Library of
      Congress.......................................................     1

    James, Bruce R., Public Printer, Government Printing Office......   295
        Opening Remarks of...........................................   295
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          298........................................................
    Jones, Mary Suit, Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Office of
      the Secretary, U.S. Senate.....................................    75

    Livingood, Hon. Wilson, Chairman, Capitol Police Board and
      Capitol Guide Service, Capitol Guide Board...................199, 217
        Prepared Statements of.....................................200, 218
        Statement of.................................................   199

    Marron, Dr. Donald B., Acting Director, Congressional Budget
      Office.........................................................   309
        Prepared Statement of........................................   310
    McGaffin, Chris, Acting Chief of Police, U.S. Capitol Police
      Board..........................................................   199
        Prepared Statement of........................................   201
        Statement of.................................................   201
    Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service,
      Library of Congress............................................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................    25
    Peters, Marybeth, Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................    14
    Pickle, Hon. William H., Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S.
      Senate..................................................167, 199, 217
        Prepared Statement of........................................   170
        Statement of.................................................   168

    Reynolds, Emily, Secretary of the Senate, Office of the
      Secretary, U.S. Sen-
      ate............................................................    75
        Prepared Statement of........................................    78
    Robfogel, Susan, Chairwoman, Board of Directors, Office of
      Compliance.....................................................   269
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          275........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          275........................................................

    Schornagel, Karl, Inspector General, Library of Congress.........     1
    Scott, Donald L., Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library of
      Congress.......................................................     1
    Shedd, Steve, Chief Financial Officer, Government Printing Office   295
    Stevens, Tom, Director of Visitor Services, Capitol Guide Board..   217
    Strader, George G., Controller, Government Accountability Office.   223

    Walker, David M., Comptroller General of the United States,
      Government Accountability Office...............................   223
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          233........................................................
    Wash, Mike, Chief Technical Officer, Government Printing Office..   295
    Weiss, Mark, Director, Capitol Power Plant, Architect of the
      Capitol........................................................   141

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

    Accomplishments..................................................   151
    Annual Operating Budget..........................................   149
    Architect of the Capitol Chief Financial Officer Selection.......   164
    Capital Projects:
        Budget.......................................................   148
        And the Library Logistics Warehouse Prioritization...........   159
    Capitol Visitor Center Budget....................................   150
    Construction Overhead Costs......................................   161
    Contract Management Improvements.................................   164
    Dirksen Infrastructure Improvement Project.......................   160
    Employee Safety in the Tunnels...................................   158
    Fiscal Year 2007 Budget:
        Concerns.....................................................   141
        Increase.....................................................   154
    Government Accountability Office Reports on Power Plant Staffing.   163
    Internal Controls Implementation.................................   164
    Office of Compliance Complaint...................................   157
    Overall Planning Process.........................................   147
    Performance-based Budget.........................................   163
    Safety Hazards in the Utility Tunnels............................   141
    Senate Office Building Improvements..............................   150
    Stewardship and Prioritizing Projects............................   146
    Tracking Office of Compliance Citations..........................   159
    Tunnel Repair Plans..............................................   159
    Utility Tunnel Conditions........................................   155
    Welcoming Remarks................................................   141
    West Refrigeration Plant Project.................................   162
        Challenges...................................................   162

                              CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD

    Budget Request...................................................   218
    Capitol Visitor Center Opening...................................   219
    Certificate of Occupancy.........................................   221
    Full-time Equivalents............................................   220
    Hiring for the Capitol Visitor Center............................   220
    Primary Function.................................................   217

                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

    Budgetary Analysis of Draft Legislation..........................   312
    One Percent Rescission...........................................   311
    Preparation of Reports to Congress...............................   311

                        GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   260
    Background on Missile Defense Article............................   225
    Band II Restructuring............................................   253
    Calculating the Total Employee Cost to the Government............   250
    Changes to the Government Accountability Office's Pay System in
      the Past Year..................................................   252
    Comparative Analysis of the Government Accountability Office's
      Supply-Demand Imbalance........................................   257
    Cost for 50 Additional Full-time Equivalents.....................   249
    Criteria for Coming On and Off the Government Accountability
      Office's High Risk List........................................   260
    Early Retirements................................................   251
    Employee Perception of New Pay System............................   254
    Ensuring the Government Accountability Office Reports are
      Impartial......................................................   228
    Government Accountability Office's (GAO's):
        Fiscal Year 2005 Accomplishments.............................   231
        Fiscal Year 2007:
            Budget Request...........................................   232
            Request to Support the Congress..........................   235
        High Risk:
            List.....................................................   258
            Program..................................................   247
        Market-based Pay System......................................   252
        Policy on Engagements Pending Litigation.....................   227
        Quality Control Procedures...................................   227
    History and Importance of the Government Accountability Office's
      High Risk List.................................................   259
    Lessons Learned:
        From Missile Defense Engagement..............................   225
        In Implementing Market-based Pay.............................   256
    Mr. Walker's Response to the New York Times Article..............   224
    New York Times Article on Missile Defense Program................   223
    Outcomes of Our Work and the Road Ahead..........................   238
    Performance, Results, and Plans..................................   236
    Potential for Government-wide Use of Market-based Pay............   255
    Prior Discussions With the Congress on Missile Defense...........   226
    Staffing up to Reduce Backlogs...................................   256

                           GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    Budget Priorities................................................   302
    Congressional Printing and Binding...............................   302
    Electronic Passport Program......................................   305
    Employee Retraining..............................................   305
    Facility Relocation..............................................   301
    Fiscal Year 2007 Request.........................................   300
    Future of the Depository Library Program.........................   306
    GPO Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Priorities...................   302
    Revolving Fund...................................................   304
    Salaries and Expenses............................................   303
    Top challenges...................................................   302
    2005 Results.....................................................   298
    Use of GPO Training Funds........................................   305

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

    Acquisitions Budget Request......................................     3
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    45
    Analog-Digital Transition........................................    40
    Architect of the Capitol--Library of Congress Buildings and
      Grounds........................................................     8
    Building the Library for the Future..............................     6
    Capitol Visitor Center...........................................    41
    Cassette Machine Replacement.....................................    39
    Celebration of American Creativity...............................    42
    Congressional Research Service Realignment.......................23, 48
        Savings......................................................    28
    Consultation With Congressional Research Service Staff...........    29
    Copyright:
        Deposits Facility............................................    21
        Records Preservation.........................................    46
        Reengineering Program........................................    31
    Digital:
        Competencies.................................................    47
        Talking Books:
            Audit....................................................    41
            Program..................................................    38
    Director's Report--Fiscal Year 2006 Staffing Changes, November 3,
      2005...........................................................    56
    Federal Agency Overhead..........................................    21
    Fee Service Activities...........................................    49
    Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request..................................18, 25
    Future Fee Increase..............................................    19
    GENPAC...........................................................    45
    Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)....................    20
        And Library Planning.........................................    21
    Impact of Retirements............................................    31
    Introduction of Inspector General................................    22
    Library of Congress..............................................     4
    Logistics Center.................................................     4
        Cost.........................................................    19
        Review.......................................................20, 22
    Management Initiatives...........................................    26
    National Audio-Visual Conservation Center--Culpeper..............     3
        Status.......................................................    32
    National Audio-Visual Conservation Center--Packard Contribution..    33
    Open World Leadership Center.....................................     9
    Open World Leadership Program....................................    44
    Open World Strategic Plan........................................    44
    Options for Displaced Employees..................................    29
    Other Budget Priorities..........................................     3
    Partnerships With National Libraries.............................    43
    Performance Measurement..........................................    34
    Proposed Changes to Legislative Language.........................     8
    Reengineering Project Delays.....................................    32
    Research Agenda..................................................    25
    Results-based Decisionmaking.....................................    37
    Retirement Incentives............................................    29
    Review of Copyright Office Work and Accomplishments..............    14
    Technology and Staffing..........................................    24
    The Library of Congress of Today.................................     5
    The Library's:
        Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request..............................     6
        Funding Priorities...........................................     6
    Workforce Transformation......................................2, 30, 46
    World Digital Library............................................    43

                              OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

    Air Sampling.....................................................   289
    Architect of the Capitol Plan to Remedy Tunnel Issues............   282
    Asbestos Issues in the Tunnels and Vaults as of May 2, 2006......   284
    Biennial Safety and Health Inspections...........................   277
    Complaint Against Architect of the Capitol About the Tunnels.....   281
    Dispute Resolution...............................................   272
    Distance Between Egress Points...................................   290
    Educating our Constituency.......................................   273
    Findings by Risk Assessment Code.................................   277
    Fire Alarm System in the Capitol Visitor Center..................   292
    First Office of Compliance Complaint Under the Occupational
      Safety and Health Act..........................................   278
    Management Support...............................................   273
    New FTE Positions Requested......................................   270
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration Approved Methods
      for Abating Asbestos...........................................   288
    Safety and Health Enforcement....................................   272

                           U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

    Accolade:
        For U.S. Capitol Police Department...........................   204
        To Departing Chief Gainer....................................   200
    Capitol Police General Counsel Discussion........................   208
    Chief Administrative Officer:
        Action Plan..................................................   210
        Responsibilities.............................................   209
    Discussion on:
        Comp Time Balance Reduction..................................   207
        New Police Chief Selection Status............................   213
    Explanation of Fiscal Year 2007 Increases........................   204
    Implementation of New Financial Management System................   211
    Inspector General Selection Status...............................   214
    Library of Congress:
        Attrition and Other New Position Requests....................   205
        Merge Progress...............................................   207
    Master Training Plan--Capitol Police.............................   214
    Nonpersonnel Increases...........................................   205
    Reduction in Police Overtime Explained...........................   206
    Screening Vehicles at Library of Congress........................   208
    Summary of Remaining Chief Administrative Officer Initiatives....   211
    Tiger Team and Dignitary Protection Division New Positions
      Discussed......................................................   206

                                  U.S. SENATE

                            Office of the Secretary

    Administrative Offices...........................................   105
    Capitol Visitor Center...........................................    81
    Continuity of Operations and Emergency Preparedness Planning.....    81
    Disbursing Office Information Technology.........................    99
    Federal Election Commission Online Filing........................   140
    Financial Operations: Disbursing Office..........................    90
    Implementing Mandated Systems....................................    79
    Legislative Offices..............................................    82
    Lobbying Disclosure Reports......................................   138
    Maintaining and Improving Current and Historic Legislative,
      Financial and Administrative Services..........................    82
    New Technology in the Senate.....................................   138
    Presenting the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request...................    79
    Study of Senate Staff Pay........................................   139

                        Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

    Challenges for Next Year.........................................   181
    Custodial Workers for the Senate Capitol Visitor Center Expansion
      Space..........................................................   195
    Guiding Principals...............................................   169
    Information Technology: A Strategy for Security and Customer
      Service........................................................   175
    Mail:
        Processing Facility..........................................   197
        Safety.......................................................   188
    Operations and Support: Consistently Delivering Excellent Service   180
    Security and Emergency Preparedness..............................   196
    Security and Preparedness: Protecting the Senate and Planning for
      the Unknown....................................................   173
    Sergeant at Arms Position Justification--Fiscal Year 2007........   189
    Staffing Increases.............................................188, 194
    Strategic:
        Plan.........................................................   169
        Planning.....................................................   198
    Telephone System Replacement.....................................   196
    Vendor Deliveries................................................   197

                                       -