    [Senate Hearing 109-154]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 109-154

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                                   H.R. 2985

    AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR THE FISCAL
             YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                 Architect of the Capitol (except House items)
                              Capitol Guide Board
                              Capitol Police Board
                          Congressional Budget Office
                        Government Accountability Office
                           Government Printing Office
                          Joint Committee on Taxation
                            Joint Economic Committee
                              Library of Congress
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses
                              Office of Compliance
                                  U.S. Senate

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

                                   __________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    99-872                 WASHINGTON : 2005
    _________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
    Printing  Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free
    (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
    Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

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

                     Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch

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

                             Administrative Support

                                Christen Taylor

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, April 13, 2005

                                                                       Page
    U.S. Senate: Office of the Secretary.............................     1
    Architect of the Capitol.........................................    71

                            Tuesday, April 19, 2005

    Library of Congress..............................................   121
    Government Accountability Office.................................   169

                           Wednesday, April 27, 2005

    U.S. Senate: Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper.......   209
    Capitol Police Board.............................................   241
    Capitol Guide Board..............................................   261

                            Wednesday, May 11, 2005

    Government Printing Office.......................................   265
    Congressional Budget Office......................................   285
    Office of Compliance.............................................   293

        Material Submitted by Agencies not Appearing for Formal Hearings

    Joint Committee on Taxation......................................   303
    Joint Economic Committee.........................................   314
    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   317

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Allard, Cochran, and Durbin.

                                  U.S. SENATE

                            Office of the Secretary

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

                   opening statement of senator wayne allard

        Senator Allard. The Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch,
    Committee on Appropriations, will come to order. We meet today
    to hear testimony from the Secretary of the Senate and the
    Architect of the Capitol on the fiscal year 2006 budget
    requests.
        It's my first hearing as chairman of this subcommittee, and
    I look forward to learning about the key issues and budget
    priorities within each of the legislative branch agencies.
        Overall, the request for the legislative branch totals
    $4.03 billion, an increase of $482 million, or a 13.5 percent
    increase over the fiscal year 2005 level. Clearly, in the
    constrained budget environment in which we will be operating,
    an increase of this level will be difficult, if not impossible
    to provide, so we will be seeking to ensure that all agencies
    have prioritized their budget requests, are taking steps to
    operate as cost effectively as possible, and are eliminating
    wasteful or unnecessary spending.
        Welcome to our witnesses this morning. We will hear first
    from Emily Reynolds, Secretary of the Senate, who's accompanied
    by the Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Mary Suit Jones, and
    the Financial Clerk of the Senate, Tim Wineman.
        Ms. Reynolds, your budget request totals almost $23
    million, an increase of about 7 percent over fiscal year 2005,
    primarily to accommodate routine pay and inflation-related
    increases, as well as to make some upgrades in a few areas.
        Following the Secretary of the Senate, we will take
    testimony from Mr. Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol. The
    AOC budget request totals $506 million, an increase of $157
    million over the current fiscal year. The increase is largely
    associated with several construction projects, including
    completion of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), construction of
    the Library of Congress storage modules at Fort Meade,
    Maryland, and a new offsite delivery facility for the Capitol
    Police, as well as startup costs and new personnel for the CVC.
        Your budget office is to be commended for putting together
    a budget justification which is transparent and thorough and
    explains all increases concisely, and we certainly appreciate
    that effort.
        There are a number of issues I'd like to explore with you
    today. Most important, of course, is the schedule and budget
    for completion of the Capitol Visitor Center. As I understand
    it, while much progress has been made, there's still a long way
    to go before the facility can be opened to the public, and the
    schedule remains unclear. There have been significant
    difficulties with this project, including coordinating two
    major construction contractors, weather-related delays,
    unforeseen site conditions, and, frankly, serious management
    problems. While it is too late to make major changes to how the
    project is being run, it is my expectation that you will make
    every effort to demand the best from your contractors, provide
    the Congress with a balanced assessment of progress as the
    project continues, and accept the counsel of the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO), which has been monitoring the
    project, providing recommendations from the start. GAO has done
    a very professional job in this oversight effort, and we
    appreciate this. Their projections on cost and schedule have
    been accurate, and their recommendations have been good.
        In addition to the CVC, there continues to be much
    construction activity around this campus. One of the primary
    reasons is security-related work that will continue even after
    the CVC is complete. All of us have construction fatigue and
    look forward to when this complex can be returned to a state
    that we can all be proud of, free of construction activity,
    dump trucks, jersey barriers, and torn-up streets. So we will
    be urging you to accelerate these efforts, which have been in
    the works for many years now.
        The perimeter security project and the visitor center seem
    to be emblematic of problems this agency continues to have with
    project management. As I understand it, about half of the major
    projects AOC has underway at this time are behind schedule, and
    too many are over budget, as well. We look forward to hearing
    what you're doing to improve project management.
        There are also concerns with the morale of your workforce.
    Highlighted in an article a few weeks back in The Hill
    newspaper, it seems that communication with employees is not as
    good as it should be. So we look forward to an update on how
    you're improving communication and employee morale.
        Finally, the AOC has been working to develop a long-range
    master plan for the Capitol complex, as well as condition
    assessments of each of the buildings. This should lead to a
    plan for prioritizing spending for both capital projects and
    deferred maintenance over the next 5 years. The master planning
    effort has been underway for some time, so we look forward to
    understanding when we will have a final product and a roadmap
    for future budget requirements.
        We will now turn to the Secretary of the Senate. I welcome
    you to the subcommittee and look forward to your testimony, Ms.
    Reynolds. And you may proceed.

                      opening statement of emily reynolds

        Ms. Reynolds. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And we
    look forward to working with you, as our legislative branch
    subcommittee chairman.
        I would ask, of course, that my full statement, which
    includes our complete Department reports, be submitted for the
    record. And today I'd like to take just a few minutes to give
    you a brief overview of the Secretary's operation and, of
    course, as you referenced, our budget request for fiscal year
    2006.
        Along with Mary Suit Jones and Tim Wineman, who, as you
    said, are here today, we have a good representation of our some
    26 department heads, an able team and a tremendous group of
    individuals who serve the Senate.
        Our budget request, as you said, is right at $23 million,
    representing almost $21 million in salary costs and $1.9
    million in operating costs. This is a slight increase from
    fiscal year 2005, mostly in COLA and merit increases, so that
    we can continue to attract and retain the kind of talent the
    Senate requires and, indeed, deserves for its operations. We
    also have a small increase of $200,000 in that operating budget
    to prepare specifically for a specialized and much-needed
    storage space for our curator and upcoming relocations for
    Senate security and our closed-captioning services operation.
    We also anticipate some additional costs for the support and
    maintenance of systems that are currently underway--systems
    upgrades that are currently underway in both the gift shop and
    the stationery room.
        Since the first Secretary was elected by the Senate in
    1789, our office has served the Senate in three principal ways;
    that is, to provide legislative, financial, and administrative
    support. And I'd like to briefly highlight some our
    accomplishments from last year in each of these areas.
        The legislative department, of course, consists of nine
    offices dedicated to ensuring that the Senate can carry out its
    constitutional responsibilities. And, to that end, one of our
    priorities remains the crosstraining among their specialties.
    In election years, our parliamentarians play a key and perhaps
    even little-known role. Following the elections, the
    parliamentarian must attest to the accuracy of each State's
    certificate of election for Senate races, a process that we
    have to have completed, obviously, before our Members can be
    sworn in. The parliamentarian also reviews the electoral
    ballots for the President and Vice President, and assists the
    Vice President and his staff in preparation for the joint
    session of Congress to count those electoral ballots.
        On the financial side, our disbursing office pays the
    Senate community every 2 weeks, of roughly 6,500 individuals,
    and we process over 125,000 bills each year. Of course, as you
    well know, this office also administers health insurance, life
    insurance, and all of the retirement programs for our Members
    and staff.
        We continue to make significant progress on the
    implementation of the financial management information system
    (FMIS), a 5-year strategic plan which this subcommittee
    generously provided the funding for now 3 years ago. Of course,
    FMIS' high priority is to provide efficiency, accountability,
    and ease of use for the 140 Senate offices that rely on the
    disbursing operation.
        On the administrative side of our operation, there were
    several noteworthy accomplishments from last year. With the
    assistance of our Senate curator, late next month we will
    unveil the portrait of former Majority Leader George Mitchell,
    and, soon after, we will add to our collection the portrait of
    another Maine Senator, Margaret Chase Smith. We have underway a
    commission to add to the Senate reception room a portrait to
    commemorate the authors of the Connecticut Compromise, Senators
    Ellsworth and Sherman.
        You might well have seen the ``Catalogue of Fine Art'',
    which we released last year, a beautiful piece of work. We hope
    to add a companion piece this Congress, the Senate ``Catalogue
    of Graphic Art'', which will be a compilation of our collection
    of 900 historic engravings and lithographs.
        And one of the most exciting initiatives we have underway,
    which this subcommittee has generously supported, is our work
    with the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board, which has now
    completed its second meeting. The board provides us with expert
    advice regarding our collections and preservation program. It's
    a group of 12 highly knowledgeable and esteemed experts in
    their fields of art, preservation, architecture, and they are
    giving generously of their time and talent to the Senate.
        In addition, our newly formed Senate Preservation Board of
    Trustees will meet next month. This group will supplement the
    work of the Curatorial Advisory Board and assist us in
    acquisitions and to facilitate preservation projects for the
    Senate. You may recall that your former colleague from
    Colorado, Senator Campbell, sent us on a search for a chair
    that was given to Vice President Charles Curtis to celebrate
    his Native American heritage. And that chair, now on loan to
    us--the search was victorious--and the chair now resides in the
    Vice President's ceremonial office.
        Since that acquisition, I'm pleased to report we've made
    progress on other fronts, as well. We have subsequently
    acquired a Brumidi oil sketch, which was a preliminary
    treatment for the signing of the first Treaty of Peace with
    Great Britain, which, of course, in its finished form, is on
    the first floor of the Capitol, in the Brumidi corridors. And I
    would add, just coincidentally, this year happens to mark the
    200th anniversary of Brumidi's birth. We are working with the
    Architect of the Capitol on several ways that we can
    commemorate that historic occasion in the Capitol this summer.
        Our historical office also came into possession, this last
    year, of a wonderful treasure of scrapbooks that contain
    photographs of nearly 900 Senators, from the Senate's early
    days up to the early 20th century. Many of these were from
    Members for whom we had no prior photograph or record. Some we
    believe may even be the photographs done by Matthew Brady, the
    very famous Civil War photographer. This treasure actually came
    to us from a lifelong Washington resident. He grew up on
    Capitol Hill, and one of his fondest memories is that he was
    often walked to school by Chief Justice Taft. Thanks to his
    generosity, our historical office is now putting together, for
    the first time ever, a pictorial directory of the images of all
    Senators who have served since 1789, by State and class.
        While we focus on the rich history and tradition of the
    Senate in the Secretary's office, we certainly don't ignore the
    fact that technology continues to dramatically change the way
    we deliver services to the Senate in this 21st century. The
    Senate Library, for example, just late last year completed an
    ambitious project to provide its entire catalog online through
    the Senate intranet, Webster, so you can now review our catalog
    of 158,000 items literally from your desk. In addition, the use
    of our public website, senate.gov, continues to grow, a 9
    percent increase last year, with almost 3.3 million visitors
    per month.
        The second of our two mandated systems, the Legislative
    Information System (LIS), is a technological achievement, in
    and of itself. I'm delighted to report that, already in this
    Congress, working in conjunction with the Office of Senate
    Legislative Counsel, we've used this system to draft
    legislation, and 75 percent of the introduced and reported
    bills have been created as XML documents through this project.
    Once again, this subcommittee has generously supported that
    initiative.
        And, quickly, there are two special projects I want to
    mention that don't necessarily fall tidily within our mission
    of legislative, financial, and administrative responsibilities,
    but they are two projects that we have the unique opportunity
    to work on in election and inaugural years. In November, we
    organized and executed the orientation program for our nine new
    Senators, their spouses, and staffs, and we were very fortunate
    to have the guidance of four of your colleagues, current
    Members, Senators Alexander, Carper, Pryor, and Voinovich, who
    wanted to set a new standard for orientation. And, thanks to
    their leadership, I believe we did, with an intensive 4-day
    program, with over two dozen Senators, on a bipartisan basis,
    serving as facilitators and instructors for their new
    colleagues.
        Our staff was also honored to assist the Joint
    Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in the
    preparation and execution of the 55th inaugural. From the
    closed-captioners, who provided the captioning for the
    jumbotrons, to the curator and Historian serving on the JCCIC
    website design team, it was really our honor to take a small
    role in that presentation.
        Our operation, as you can see, is one that relies heavily
    on its human capital. While our operating budget is small, it
    is the teamwork, it is our employees, that make the Secretary's
    operation click. We are collaborative partners in so many ways,
    and in so many different levels within our departments
    themselves, within the office, also with disbursing, reaching
    out to administrative managers on the applications of FMIS. We
    work closely with Mr. Hantman and the entire team in the
    Architect's office, on the construction issues, and the
    planning of the CVC. And, finally, in so many ways, we're
    joined with the Sergeant at Arms in the ongoing important
    effort of continuity of Government planning and preparation.

                               prepared statement

        It's a real privilege to be part of that team and to serve
    as the Senate's 31st Secretary, to be part of that rich
    tradition and heritage of the Senate, but also to be planning
    and preparing for its future. On balance, I believe we've
    presented a budget for you today that will enable us to
    continue to provide the best possible legislative, financial,
    and administrative services to the United States Senate.
        I thank you for your time and look forward to any
    questions. Thank you, sir.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Emily J. Reynolds
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin and Members of the Subcommittee, thank
    you for your invitation to present testimony in support of the budget
    request of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate for fiscal year
    2006.
        Detailed information about the work of the 26 departments of the
    Office of the Secretary is provided in the annual reports which follow.
    I am pleased to provide this statement to highlight the achievements of
    the Office and the outstanding work of our dedicated employees.
        My statement includes: Presenting the fiscal year 2006 budget
    request; implementing mandated systems: Financial Management
    Information System (FMIS) and Legislative Information System (LIS);
    Capitol Visitor Center; continuity of operations planning; and
    maintaining and improving current and historic legislative, financial
    and administrative services.
                 presenting the fiscal year 2006 budget request
        I am requesting a total fiscal year 2006 budget of $22,766,000.
        The fiscal year 2006 budget request is comprised of $20,866,000 in
    salary costs and $1,900,000 for the operating budget of the Office of
    the Secretary. The salary budget represents an increase over the fiscal
    year 2005 budget as a result of (1) the costs associated with the
    annual Cost of Living Adjustment in the amount of $672,000 and (2) an
    additional $608,000 for merit increases and other staffing. The
    operating budget represents an increase for (1) costs to be incurred
    for the support and maintenance of systems upgrades for the gift shop
    and stationery room and (2) costs to be incurred for the Curator's
    storage space along with the relocation of Senate Security and
    Captioning Services.
        The net effect of my total budget request for fiscal year 2006 is
    an increase of $1,480,000.
        Our request in the operating budget is a sound one, enabling us to
    meet our operating needs and provide the necessary services to the
    United States Senate through our legislative, financial and
    administrative offices.
        In reference to the salary budget, first and foremost, this request
    will enable us to continue to attract and retain talented and dedicated
    individuals to serve the needs of the United States Senate.

                                     OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Amount
                                                                         available        Budget
                                  Item                                  fiscal year      estimate       Difference
                                                                       2005, Public     fiscal year
                                                                        Law 108-447        2006
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Departmental operating budget:
        Executive office............................................        $525,000        $550,000        +$25,000
        Administrative services.....................................       1,135,000       1,290,000        +155,000
        Legislative services........................................          40,000          60,000         +20,000
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total operating budget....................................       1,700,000       1,900,000        +200,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         implementing mandated systems
        Two systems critical to our operation are mandated by law, and I
    would like to spend a few moments on each to highlight recent progress,
    and to thank the committee for your ongoing support of both.
    Financial Management Information System (FMIS)
        The Financial Management Information System, or FMIS, is used by
    approximately 140 offices (100 Senators' offices, 20 Committees and 20
    Leadership and support offices). Consistent with our five year
    strategic plan, the Disbursing Office continues to modernize processes
    and applications to meet the continued demand by our Senate offices for
    efficiency, accountability and ease of use. Our goal is to move to a
    paperless voucher system, improve the Web-FMIS system, and make payroll
    and accounting system improvements.
        During fiscal year 2004 and the first half of fiscal year 2005,
    specific progress made on the FMIS project included:
      --Web FMIS has been completely rewritten as a ``zero-client''
            application accessed via a website, ``webfmis.senate.gov''. Our
            implementation began in August 2004 with a pilot of 15 offices,
            including Senators, Committees and Leadership & Support
            offices. During the Fall, it continued for new office managers,
            and in January the intranet version of Web FMIS was provided to
            the new offices of the 109th Congress. As of the end of March,
            it was in use by 60 offices. Roll out to the remaining offices
            has been announced with a schedule of completion by the end of
            April.
      --The new version of Web FMIS provides functionality desired by the
            Web FMIS users group, which participated in the design process.
            The functionality enjoyed most by users is the automatic
            determination of funding year to which a payment is charged
            based on the obligation start date. This seemingly small change
            has improved efficiency and reduced mistakes substantially.
            Additionally, it has no files on the users PC, which improves
            our ability to function in a disaster recovery situation.
      --For the SAVI system, which enables Senate staff to create Expense
            Summary Reports online and to check the status of reimbursement
            payments, over a course of several upgrades, we provided
            additional user functionality. Specifically, the upgrades
            enabled users to prepare and submit Non-travel Expense Summary
            Reports (in addition to Travel Expense Summary Reports), to
            request e-mail notification of payments made via direct
            deposit, to define their own log-on ids and to maintain their
            own e-mail addresses; completed security enhancements; and
            implemented a simplified web address ``savi.senate.gov'' and
            architectural changes, which simplify disaster recovery
            infrastructure at the ACF.
      --As a non-Treasury disbursing office, the Senate pays bills via
            direct deposit and checks. During 2004, we made substantial
            progress on both fronts.
        --In March 2004, we implemented use of laser checks. Staff and
                vendors not receiving payments via direct deposit now
                receive checks printed on a laser printer. This has several
                benefits. Use of a standard laser printer enhances our
                ability to work off-site, should the need arise, and
                produces a higher quality print which prevents negotiation
                of checks for an unintended dollar amount and helps the
                Postal Service to deliver checks. Use of laser checks
                required that the U.S. Treasury create a check and stub
                form for use by the Senate.
        --In May 2004, we offered direct deposit payment to all external
                vendors. In 2002, we began making reimbursements to Senate
                staff via direct deposit and in June 2003 we made our first
                direct deposit payments to external vendors on a pilot
                basis. Of the approximately 6,000 non-payroll payments made
                in February 2005, overall, 59 percent were made via direct
                deposit; of the approximately 2,000 reimbursements to
                Senate staff, 87 percent were made via direct deposit and
                of the approximately 4,000 payments to external vendors, 47
                percent were made via direct deposit.
      --The Sergeant at Arms staff use ADPICS and FAMIS, the mainframe
            components of FMIS, for procurement activities. In 2004 we
            contracted with Bearing Point to make system and reporting
            enhancements to these systems that align system functionality
            with SAA business practices. By the end of March 2005, the
            requirements for the system enhancements were approved by the
            SAA staff and the reports were delivered for testing.
      --One of the goals of FMIS is to implement paperless voucher
            processing. This requires implementation of electronic
            signatures, and imaging of supporting documentation, both of
            which present complex and challenging issues. Our focus has
            been on revising the requirements for these functions,
            including a phased approach for implementation (i.e., a pilot
            vs. long term). In addition, we assessed the risks associated
            with paperless voucher processing, identified policy and
            process issues to be resolved, and began to analyze the
            appropriate hardware/software acquisition strategy.
      --Disaster operation services for FMIS are provided at the Alternate
            Computer Facility. In December 2004, we conducted an intensive
            two-day test of operating critical FMIS subsystems at this
            location. Our tests of all mainframe systems (i.e., payroll,
            ADPICS and FAMIS) were successful and we were able to simulate
            making payroll and voucher payments via direct deposit and
            check. Additionally, we were able to create, post, and print
            documents via Web FMIS and ADPICS. Document printing has always
            presented problems during past tests at other facilities;
            however, the system configuration at the ACF has resolved this
            problem.
      --The computing infrastructure for FMIS is provided by the Sergeant
            at Arms. Each year upgrades are made to the infrastructure
            software. The major upgrade this year is implementation of a
            new version of the mainframe operating system software, ``Z/
            OS'', scheduled for the end of April 2005. This required two
            steps, installation of an upgrade to the current operating
            system, OS390, which was completed in October 2004, and the
            upcoming implementation of Z/OS. These upgrades require FMIS
            testing, both before implementation to identify and resolve any
            incompatibilities, and after implementation to verify that all
            functions are working properly.
        During the remainder of fiscal year 2005 the following FMIS
    activities are anticipated:
      --Complete implementing the intranet version of Web FMIS in all
            Senate offices.
      --Implementing the system and reporting enhancements for the Sergeant
            at Arms.
      --Completing analysis of the appropriate hardware/software
            acquisition strategy for electronic signatures, and imaging of
            supporting documentation, and begin acquisition.
      --Conducting an additional test of FMIS functionality at the
            Alternate Computing Facility, including testing two FMIS sub-
            systems, Web FMIS reports and SAVI, that were not previously
            tested.
      --Implementing e-mail notification to vendors of payments made via
            direct deposit.
        During fiscal year 2006 the following FMIS activities are
    anticipated:
      --Conducting a pilot of the technology for paperless payment. This
            assumes identification of satisfactory hardware and software
            for electronic signatures and imaging of supporting
            documentation, and resolution of related policy and process
            issues.
      --Developing requirements for integrating the Funds Advance Tracking
            System (FATS system) into FMIS. The FATS system, a stand-alone
            PC-based system, tracks election cycle information used in the
            voucher-review process, and tracks travel advances and petty
            cash advances against dollar maximum and total allocation
            rules.
      --Implementing on-line distribution of payroll system reports.
        A more detailed report on FMIS is included in the departmental
    report of the Disbursing Office which follows.
    Legislative Information System (LIS)
        The LISAP project team is developing the Senate's legislative
    editing XML application (LEXA), and the Office of the Senate
    Legislative Counsel (SLC) began using it last year to draft
    legislation. The SLC offered valuable feedback throughout the year
    regarding LEXA's continued development as existing features were
    enhanced and additional document types, such as amendments and reported
    bills, were added to LEXA. The use of LEXA by the SLC has gradually
    increased, and so far in the 109th Congress, approximately 75 percent
    of the introduced and reported bills have been created as XML
    documents. The LISAP project team is now working with the Office of the
    Enrolling Clerk toward preparing engrossed and enrolled bills in XML.
        The document management system (DMS) for the SLC will be
    implemented once the SLC has completed the transition from XyWrite to
    LEXA and a substantial number of drafts are created in XML. The SLC's
    DMS will be integrated with LEXA and will provide a powerful tracking,
    management, and delivery tool. The software used to convert locator
    documents to XML was updated to provide a more robust tool, and a joint
    project to convert the compilations of current law to an XML format is
    nearing completion.
        The Government Printing Office (GPO) also began using LEXA last
    year to prepare and print XML documents as requested and to provide
    support for LEXA as directed in the 2004 Legislative Branch
    Appropriations Act. GPO took over maintenance and support of the coding
    and style sheet portion of LEXA that converts an XML document to
    locator for printing through Microcomp. GPO also developed the style
    sheet that will be used to display XML documents on the LIS website
    (www.congress.gov) and on thomas.loc.gov in a format that more closely
    resembles the printed document (without page and line numbers).
                             capitol visitor center
        While the Architect of the Capitol directly oversees this massive
    and impressive project, I would like to briefly mention the ongoing
    involvement of the Secretary's office in this endeavor. My colleague,
    the Clerk of the House, and I continue to facilitate weekly meetings
    with senior staff of the joint leadership of Congress to address and
    hopefully quickly resolve issues that might impact the status of the
    project or the operations of Congress in general.
        In addition, I also facilitate weekly meetings with the Architect's
    office for the senior staff of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Capitol
    Police, Rules Committee and Appropriations Committee, to address the
    expansion space plans for the Senate and any issues with regard to the
    CVC's construction that may directly impact Senate operations.
        Although the construction creates numerous temporary inconveniences
    to Senators, staff and visitors, completion of the Capitol Visitor
    Center will bring substantial improvements in enhanced security and
    visitor amenities, and its educational benefits for our visitors will
    be tremendous.
          continuity of operations and emergency preparedness planning
        The Office of the Secretary maintains a Continuity of Operations
    (COOP) program to ensure that the Senate can fulfill its constitutional
    obligations under any circumstances. Plans are in place to support
    Senate floor operations both on and off Capitol Hill, and to permit
    each department within the Office of the Secretary to perform its
    essential functions during and after an emergency.
        COOP planning in the Office of the Secretary began in late 2000.
    Since that time, we have successfully implemented COOP plans during the
    anthrax and ricin incidents, and have conducted roughly one dozen
    drills and exercises to test and refine our plans. In conjunction with
    the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Capitol Police, the Office of the
    Attending Physician, and the Architect of the Capitol, we have
    established and exercised Emergency Operations Centers, Briefing
    Centers and Alternate Senate Chambers, both on and off Capitol Hill.
        In addition, we have identified equipment, supplies and other items
    critical to the conduct of essential functions, and have assembled
    ``fly-away kits'' for the Senate Chamber, and for each department of
    the Office of the Secretary. Multiple copies of each fly-away kit have
    been produced. Some are stored in our offices, and back-up kits are
    stored nearby but off the main campus, as well as at other sites
    outside the District of Columbia. This approach will enable the Office
    of the Secretary to resume essential operations in 12 to 24 hours, even
    if there is no opportunity to retrieve anything from our offices.
        Today, the Office of the Secretary is prepared to do the following
    in the event of an emergency: support Senate Floor operations in an
    Alternate Senate Chamber within twelve hours on campus, and in 24 to 72
    hours off campus, depending upon location; support an emergency
    legislative session at a Briefing Center, if required; support Briefing
    Center Operations at any of three designated locations within one hour;
    and activate an Emergency Operations Center on campus or at Postal
    Square within one hour.
    Activities in the Past Year
        During the past year, the Office of the Secretary continued to
    update, refine and exercise emergency preparedness plans and
    operations. Specific activities included the following: Activated an
    Emergency Operations Center, Leadership Coordination Center and
    selected departmental COOP plans during the ricin incident response;
    participated in the Capitol Police Incident Command during the ricin
    incident response; provided supplies to temporary offices in the
    Capitol and Postal Square during the ricin incident response; conducted
    an offsite Alternate Chamber exercise and a Briefing Center exercise;
    and reviewed and updated the COOP plans of all departments of the
    Office of the Secretary.
        The central mission of the Office of the Secretary is to provide
    the legislative, financial and administrative support required for the
    conduct of Senate business. Our emergency preparedness programs are
    designed to ensure that the Senate can carry out its Constitutional
    functions under any circumstances. These programs are critical to our
    mission, and they are a permanent, integral part of the Secretary's
    ongoing operation.
     maintaining and improving current and historic legislative, financial
                          and administrative services
                              legislative offices
        The Legislative Department of the Office of the Secretary of the
    Senate provides the support essential to Senators to perform their
    daily chamber activities as well as the constitutional responsibilities
    of the Senate. The department consists of eight offices--the Bill
    Clerk, Captioning Services, Daily Digest, Enrolling Clerk, Executive
    Clerk, Journal Clerk, Legislative Clerk, and the Official Reporters of
    Debates--all supervised by the Secretary through the Legislative Clerk.
    The Parliamentarian's office is also within the Legislative Department
    of the Secretary of the Senate.
        Each of the nine offices within the Legislative Department is
    supervised by experienced veterans of the Secretary's office. The
    average length of service of legislative supervisors is 20 years. There
    is not one supervisor with less than 14 years of service. The
    experience of these senior professional staff is a great asset for the
    Senate. As in previous years and in order to ensure continued well-
    rounded expertise, the legislative team has cross-trained extensively
    among their specialties.
                                 1. bill clerk
        The Office of the Bill Clerk collects and records data on the
    legislative activity of the Senate, which becomes the historical record
    of official Senate business. The Bill Clerk's Office keeps this
    information in its handwritten files and ledgers and also enters it
    into the Senate's automated retrieval system so that it is available to
    all House and Senate offices via the Legislative Information System
    (LIS). The Bill Clerk records actions of the Senate with regard to
    bills, resolutions, reports, amendments, cosponsors, public law
    numbers, and recorded votes. The Bill Clerk is responsible for
    preparing for print all measures introduced, received, submitted, and
    reported in the Senate. The Bill Clerk also assigns numbers to all
    Senate bills and resolutions. All the information received in this
    office comes directly from the Senate floor in written form within
    moments of the action involved. As a result, the Bill Clerk's Office is
    generally regarded as the most timely and most accurate source of
    legislative information.
        The Bill Clerk's Office continues to provide Senate offices and the
    public information on Senate legislative status with a high degree of
    accuracy and speed, both through the Senate LIS system (when questions
    on status concern legislation from prior days) and over the phone
    (mostly for same-day information).
    Legislative Activity
        The Bill Clerk's Office processed less legislation and fewer roll
    call votes during the second session of the108th Congress compared to
    the first session of the 108th Congress. Below is a comparative summary
    of the second sessions of the 107th and the 108th congresses, as well
    as a comparative summary of both sessions of the 107th and the 108th
    congresses:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   107th           108th
                                               Congress, 2nd   Congress, 2nd
                                                  Session         Session
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Bills............................           1,298           1,032
    Senate Joint Resolutions................              23              16
    Senate Concurrent Resolutions...........              67              66
    Senate Resolutions......................             170             204
    Amendments Submitted....................           2,287           1,857
    House Bills.............................             298             322
    House Joint Resolutions.................              12              12
    House Concurrent Resolutions............              84              87
    Measures Reported.......................             406             317
    Written Reports.........................             219             208
                                             -------------------------------
          Total Legislation.................           4,864           4,121
                                             ===============================
    Roll Call Votes.........................             253             216
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For comparative purposes, here is a final cumulative summary of
    both sessions of the 107th and the 108th congresses:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              107th Congress  108th Congress
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Bills............................           3,181           3,035
    Senate Joint Resolutions................              53              42
    Senate Concurrent Resolutions...........             160             152
    Senate Resolutions......................             368             487
    Amendments Submitted....................           4,984           4,088
    House Bills.............................             562             604
    House Joint Resolutions.................              29              32
    House Concurrent Resolutions............             175             165
    Measures Reported.......................             653             659
    Written Reports.........................             351             428
                                             -------------------------------
          Total Legislation.................          10,516           9,692
                                             ===============================
    Roll Call Votes.........................             633             675
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assistance from the Government Printing Office (GPO)
        The Bill Clerk's office maintains a good working relationship with
    the Government Printing Office with a common goal to provide the best
    service possible to meet the needs of the Senate. Toward this end, the
    Government Printing Office continues to respond in a timely manner to
    the Secretary's request through the Bill Clerk's office for the
    printing of bills and reports, including the printing of priority
    matters for the Senate Chamber. Specifically, the Secretary requested,
    through the Bill Clerk, that GPO reprint (star print) roughly 40
    measures during the course of the Congress, and that GPO expedite the
    printing of slightly more than one hundred measures for consideration
    by the Senate.
    Projects
        Amendment Tracking System (ATS).--Rules Committee staff approached
    our office with the task of scanning submitted amendments onto the
    Amendment Tracking System on LIS. The Rules Committee has identified a
    need for Senate staff, to have all amendments submitted in the Senate
    made available to them online shortly after being submitted, especially
    during cloture. The Rules Committee also requested that the Secretary
    through the Bill Clerk assess the feasibility of lifting the page
    limitation for scanning amendments onto the ATS Indexer. In response,
    the Bill Clerk contacted the Technology Development division of the
    Sergeant at Arms office to outline the technical requirements needed to
    implement such a request. A draft has now been completed. Once the
    final version is delivered, the Secretary through the Bill Clerk, in
    consultation with the Legislative Clerk, will ascertain the legislative
    requirements needed in order for the staff to implement this request.
    The system must be designed and implemented without sacrificing
    critical services to the functioning of the Senate Chamber, and
    specifically the amendment process.
        Electronic Ledger System.--Shortly after the September 2001 attacks
    and the subsequent anthrax attacks in the Capitol complex, the Bill
    Clerk identified the need to have a electronic version of the official
    Senate ledgers in order to ensure the integrity of the information
    recorded in the ledgers. The electronic version will be portable for
    use during possible emergency scenarios. At the clerk's request, the
    Technology Development division of the Sergeant at Arms is working to
    develop two separate functions of this electronic ledger system. One is
    an electronic data entry system which will mimic the layout of the
    current Senate ledgers printed by the Government Printing Office; the
    other is a search function. Both of these programs will be housed on a
    separate server to maintain the integrity of the ledger data. The
    electronic ledger system is currently under development. To further
    advance the project, the ELS project team at Postal Square has spent
    much time updating and converting data.
                        2. office of captioning services
        The Office of Captioning Services provides realtime captioning of
    Senate floor proceedings for the deaf and hard-of-hearing and
    unofficial electronic transcripts of Senate floor proceedings to Senate
    offices via the Senate Intranet.
        Accuracy remains the watchword of Captioning Services. Overall
    caption quality is monitored through translation data reports,
    monitoring the captions in realtime and reviewing the caption files on
    the Senate Intranet.
        A cooperative effort between the Senate Rules Committee, the
    Judiciary Committee, the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the
    Senate in fiscal year 2002 to develop a Pilot Project to realtime
    caption Senate Committee Hearings resulted in a Judiciary Committee
    Captioning Committee Pilot Project.
        Voice recognition technology continues to improve and the Office of
    Captioning Services is on the cutting edge of testing and evaluating
    these products as they evolve. The Pilot Project to realtime caption
    Judiciary Committee hearings employed the newest hardware and software
    developed for voice recognition captioning.
        During fiscal year 2005, considerable energy was expended to update
    the hardware, software and documentation in our COOP flyway kit to
    enhance the ability to successfully caption from a remote location.
        The primary objective for fiscal year 2006 is to plan for the
    procurement and installation of equipment and relocation of the Office
    of Captioning Services to the Capitol Visitors Center.
                                3. daily digest
        The Senate Daily Digest serves seven principal functions:
      --To render a brief, concise and easy-to-read accounting of all
            official actions taken by the Senate in the Congressional
            Record section known as the Daily Digest.
      --To compile an accounting of all meetings of Senate committees,
            subcommittees, joint committees and committees of conference.
      --To enter all Senate and Joint committee scheduling data into the
            Senate's web-based scheduling application system. Committee
            scheduling information is also prepared for publication in the
            Daily Digest in three formats: Day-Ahead Schedule;
            Congressional Program for the Week Ahead; and the extended
            schedule which actually appears in the Extensions of Remarks
            section of the Congressional Record.
      --To enter into the Senate's Legislative Information System all
            official actions taken by Senate committees on legislation,
            nominations, and treaties.
      --To publish in the Daily Digest a listing of all legislation which
            has become public law.
      --To publish on the first legislative day of each month in the Daily
            Digest a ``Resume of Congressional Activity'' which includes
            all Congressional statistical information, including days and
            time in session; measures introduced, reported and passed; and
            roll call votes.
      --To assist the House Daily Digest Editor in the preparation at the
            end of each session of Congress a history of public bills
            enacted into law and a final resume of congressional
            statistical activity.
    Committee Activity
        Senate committees held a total of 787 meetings during the second
    session, as contrasted with 930 meetings during the second session, of
    the 107th Congress.
        As more specifically defined above, all hearings and business
    meetings (including joint meetings and conferences) are scheduled
    through the Office of the Senate Daily Digest and are published in the
    Congressional Record and entered in the web-based applications system
    (Legislative Information System). Meeting outcomes are also published
    by the Daily Digest in the Congressional Record each day.
    Chamber Activity
        The Senate was in session a total of 133 days, for a total of 1,031
    hours and 31 minutes. There was one live quorum call and 216 recorded
    votes. (A 20-Year Comparison of Senate Legislative Activity follows).

                                                                            20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1985          1986          1987          1988          1989          1990          1991          1992          1993          1994
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Convened.....................................           1/3          1/21           1/6          1/25           1/3          1/23           1/3           1/3           1/5          1/25
    Senate Adjourned....................................         12/20         10/18         12/22         10/21         11/21         10/28        1/3/92          10/9         11/26         12/01
    Days in Session.....................................           170           143           170           137           136           138           158           129           153           138
    Hours in Session....................................      1,25231"      1,27815"      1,21452"      1,12648"      1,00319"      1,25014"      1,20044"      1,09109"      1,26941"      1,24333"
    Average Hours per Day...............................           7.4           8.9           7.1           8.2           7.4           9.1           7.6           8.5           8.3           9.0
    Total Measures Passed...............................           583           747           616           814           605           716           626           651           473           465
    Roll Call Votes.....................................           381           359           420           379           312           326           280           270           395           329
    Quorum Calls........................................            20            16            36            26            11             3             3             5             2             6
    Public Laws.........................................           240           424           240           473           240           244           243           347           210           255
    Treaties Ratified...................................             6            12             3            15             9            15            15            32            20             8
    Nominations Confirmed...............................        55,918        39,893        46,404        42,317        45,585        42,493        45,369        30,619        38,676        37,446
    Average Voting Attendance...........................         94.64         95.72         94.03         91.58          98.0         97.47         97.16          95.4          97.6         97.02
    Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon....................           119           117           131           120            95           116           126           112           128           120
    Sessions Convened at 12 Noon........................            38            25            12            12            14             4             9  ............             6             9
    Sessions Convened after 12 Noon.....................            13             1            25             5            27            17            23            10            15            17
    Sessions Continued after 6 p.m......................           104            92            97            37            88           100           102            91           100           100
    Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight................             7            15             6             7             9            13             6             4             9             7
    Saturday Sessions...................................             3             2             3  ............             1             3             2             2             2             3
    Sunday Sessions.....................................             1  ............             1  ............  ............             2  ............  ............  ............  ............
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY--Continued
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1995          1996          1997          1998          1999          2000          2001          2002          2003          2004
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Convened.....................................           1/4           1/3           1/3          1/27           1/6          1/24           1/3          1/23           1/7          1/20
    Senate Adjourned....................................        1/3/96          10/4         11/13         10/21         11/19         12/15         12/20         11/20          12/9          12/8
    Days in Session.....................................           211           132           153           143           162           141           173           149           167           133
    Hours in Session....................................      1,83910"      1,03645"      1,09307"      1,09505"      1,18357"      1,01751"      1,23615"      1,04223"      1,45405"      1,03131"
    Average Hours per Day...............................           8.7           7.8           7.1           7.7           7.3           7.2           7.1           7.0           8.7           7.7
    Total Measures Passed...............................           346           476           386           506           549           696           425           523           590           663
    Roll Call Votes.....................................           613           306           298           314           374           298           380           253           459           216
    Quorum Calls........................................             3             2             6             4             7             6             3             2             3             1
    Public Laws.........................................            88           245           153           241           170           410           136           241           198           300
    Treaties Ratified...................................            10            28            15            53            13            39             3            17            11            15
    Nominations Confirmed...............................        40,535        33,176        25,576        20,302        22,468        22,512        25,091        23,633        21,580        24,420
    Average Voting Attendance...........................         98.07         98.22         98.68         97.47         98.02         96.99         98.29         96.36         96.07         95.54
    Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon....................           184           113           115           109           118           107           140           119           133           104
    Sessions Convened at 12 Noon........................             2            15            12            31            17            25            10            12             4             9
    Sessions Convened after 12 Noon.....................            12             7             7             2            19            24            21            23            23            21
    Sessions Continued after 6 p.m......................           158            88            96            93           113            94           108           103           134           129
    Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight................             3             1  ............  ............  ............  ............             2             3             8             2
    Saturday Sessions...................................             5             1             1             1             3             1             3  ............             1             2
    Sunday Sessions.....................................             3  ............             1  ............  ............             1  ............  ............             1             1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prepared by the Senate Daily Digest--Office of the Secretary.

    Technology Updates and Government Printing Office
        The Daily Digest continues to send the complete publication at the
    end of each day to the Government Printing Office electronically. The
    Editor, Assistant Editor, and Committee Scheduling Coordinator function
    solely within the framework of adaptability to preparing Digest copy on
    computers, storing and sharing information, permitting prompt editing,
    and the final transfer to floppy disc. The Digest continues the
    practice of sending a disc along with a duplicate hard copy to GPO,
    even though GPO receives the Digest copy by electronic transfer long
    before hand delivery is completed adding to the timeliness of
    publishing the Congressional Record. The Digest office continues to
    feel comfortable with this procedure, both to allow the Digest Editor
    to physically view what is being transmitted to GPO, and to allow GPO
    staff to have a comparable final product to cross reference.
        The Daily Digest continues the practice of discussing with the
    Government Printing Office problems encountered with the printing of
    the Digest, and are pleased to report that with the onset of electronic
    transfer of the Digest copy, occurrences of editing corrections or
    transcript errors are infrequent.
        The Digest office continues to work closely with Senate computer
    staff to refine the LIS/DMS system, including further refinements to
    the Senate Committee Scheduling application which will improve the data
    entry process. The committee scheduling application was developed back
    in 1999 as a server-based web-enabled application that is browser
    accessible to all Senate offices on Capitol Hill. It was designed to
    replace the committee scheduling functions and reports that were
    supported by the mainframe-based Senate Legis System.
    Office Summary
        The Daily Digest consults on a daily basis with the Senate
    Parliamentarians, Legislative, Executive, Journal, and Bill Clerks, the
    Official Reporters of Debates, as well as the staffs of the Policy
    Committees and other committee staffs, and is grateful for the
    continued support from these offices.
                               4. enrolling clerk
        The Enrolling Clerk prepares, proofreads, corrects and prints all
    legislation passed by the Senate prior to its transmittal to the House
    of Representatives, the White House, the National Archives, the
    Secretary or State and/or the United States Claims Court.
        In 2004, 86 enrolled bills (transmitted to the President) and 14
    concurrent resolutions (transmitted to Archives) were prepared,
    proofread, corrected and printed on parchment.
        A total of 673 additional pieces of legislation in one form or
    another were passed or agreed to by the Senate, requiring processing by
    the Enrolling Clerk.
                               5. executive clerk
        The Executive Clerk prepares an accurate record of actions taken by
    the Senate during executive sessions (proceedings on nominations and
    treaties) which is published as the Executive Journal at the end of
    each session of Congress. The Executive Clerk also prepares daily the
    Executive Calendar as well as all nomination and treaty resolutions for
    transmittal to the President. Additionally, the Executive Clerk's
    office processes all executive communications, presidential messages
    and petitions and memorials.
    Nominations
        During the second session of the 108th Congress, there were 340
    nomination messages sent to the Senate by the President, transmitting
    24,420 nominations to positions requiring Senate confirmation and 26
    messages withdrawing nominations previously sent to the Senate. Of the
    total nominations transmitted, 336 were for civilian positions other
    than lists in the Foreign Service, Coast Guard, NOAA, and Public Health
    Service. In addition, there were 4,077 nominees in the ``civilian
    list'' categories named above. Military nominations received this
    session totaled 20,003 (6,077--Air Force, 5,324--Army, 7,375--Navy and
    1,227--Marine Corps). The Senate confirmed 27,047 nominations this
    session. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph six of Senate Rule
    XXXI, 4,129 nominations were returned to the President during the
    second session of the 108th Congress.
    Treaties
        There were 14 treaties transmitted to the Senate by the President
    during the second session of the 108th Congress for its advice and
    consent to ratification, which were ordered printed as treaty documents
    for the use of the Senate (Treaty Doc. 108-15 through 108-28). The
    Senate gave its advice and consent to 18 treaties with various
    conditions, declarations, understandings and provisos to the
    resolutions of advice and consent to ratification.
    Executive Reports and Roll Call Votes
        There were 14 executive reports relating to treaties ordered
    printed for the use of the Senate during the second session of the
    108th Congress (Executive Report 108-9 through 108-14). The Senate
    conducted 32 roll call votes in executive session, all on or in
    relation to nominations.
    Executive Communications
        For the second session of the 108th Congress, 4,932 executive
    communications, 212 petitions and memorials and 39 Presidential
    messages were received and processed.
    Legislative Information System (LIS) Update
        The staff consulted with the Senate Computer Center during the year
    concerning the ongoing improvements to the LIS concerning the
    processing of nominations, treaties, executive communications,
    presidential messages and petitions and memorials.
        The Senate Computer Center developed a new program for the
    Executive Calendar that has proved more efficient and error free. The
    SAA computer programming and systems design staff have were very
    helpful in consulting with our office concerning our requirements. The
    SAA also has underway a much needed redesign of a program for creating
    and publishing the Executive Journal.
                                6. journal clerk
        The Journal Clerk takes notes of the daily legislative proceedings
    of the Senate in the ``Minute Book'' and prepares a history of bills
    and resolutions for the printed Journal of the Proceedings of the
    Senate, or Senate Journal, as required by Article I, Section V of the
    Constitution. The Senate Journal is published each calendar year. In
    2004, the Journal Clerk completed the production of the 1,146 page
    Senate Journal for 2003.
        The Journal staff each take 90 minute turns at the rostrum in the
    Senate Chamber, noting by hand for inclusion in the Minute Book (i) all
    orders (entered into by the Senate through unanimous consent
    agreements), (ii) legislative messages received from the President of
    the United States, (iii) messages from the House of Representatives,
    (iv) legislative actions as taken by the Senate (including motions made
    by Senators, points of order raised, and roll call votes taken), (v)
    amendments submitted and proposed for consideration, (vi) bills and
    joint resolutions introduced, and (vii) concurrent and Senate
    resolutions as submitted. These notes of the proceedings are then
    compiled in electronic form for publication.
        After extensive testing, the LIS Senate Journal Authoring System
    was completed in early 2004. The Journal staff utilized this system
    through all phases of production for the first time to successfully
    compile the 2004 Journal which was sent to the Government Printing
    Office for printing in mid-March.
                              7. legislative clerk
        The Legislative Department provides support essential to Senators
    in carrying out their daily chamber activities as well as the
    constitutional responsibilities of the Senate. The Legislative Clerk
    sits at the Secretary's desk in the Senate Chamber and reads aloud
    bills, amendments, the Senate Journal, Presidential messages, and other
    such materials when so directed by the Presiding Officer of the Senate.
    The Legislative Clerk calls the roll of members to establish the
    presence of a quorum and to record and tally all yea and nay votes.
    This office prepares the Senate Calendar of Business, published each
    day that the Senate is in session, and prepares additional publications
    relating to Senate class membership and committee and subcommittee
    assignments. The Legislative Clerk maintains the official copy of all
    measures pending before the Senate and must incorporate into those
    measures any amendments that are agreed to. This office retains custody
    of official messages received from the House of Representatives and
    conference reports awaiting action by the Senate. This office is
    responsible for verifying the accuracy of information entered into the
    LIS system by the various offices of the Secretary.
        Additionally, the Legislative Clerk acts as supervisor for the
    Legislative Department providing a single line of communication to the
    Assistant Secretary and Secretary, and is responsible for overall
    coordination, supervision, scheduling, and cross training.
    Summary of Activity
        The second session of the 108th Congress completed its legislative
    business and adjourned sine die on December 8, 2004. During 2004, the
    Senate was in session 133 days and conducted 216 roll call votes. There
    were 317 measures reported from committees, 663 total measures passed,
    and there were 296 items remaining on the Calendar at the time of
    adjournment. In addition, there were 1,857 amendments processed.
    Cross-Training
        Recognizing the importance of planning for the continuity of Senate
    business, under both normal and possibly extenuating circumstances,
    cross-training is strongly emphasized among the Secretary's legislative
    staff. To ensure additional staff are trained to perform the basic
    floor responsibilities of the Legislative Clerk, as well as the various
    other floor-related responsibilities of the Secretary, approximately
    half of the legislative staff are currently involved or have recently
    been involved in cross-training.
    Legislative Information System (LIS) Enhancement
        In an effort to monitor and improve the Legislative Information
    System (LIS), the Legislative Clerk acts as the liaison between
    legislative clerks and technical operations staff of the Sergeant at
    Arms by scheduling and conducting meetings when necessary. Also, the
    Legislative Clerk reviews, prioritizes, and forwards change requests
    from the clerks to the technical operations staff. Over the past year,
    45 change requests submitted by the clerks to improve the system have
    been implemented.
                        8. official reporters of debates
        The Official Reporters of Debates prepare and edit for publication
    in the Congressional Record a substantially verbatim report of the
    proceedings of the Senate, and serve as liaison for all Senate
    personnel on matters relating to the content of the Record. The
    transcript of proceedings, submitted statements and legislation are
    transmitted in hard copy and electronically throughout the day to the
    Government Printing Office (GPO).
        The office works diligently to assure that the electronic
    submissions to GPO are timely and efficient. The Official Reporters
    encourage offices to make submissions to the Record by electronic
    means, which results in both a tremendous cost saving to the Senate and
    minimizes keyboard errors.
        To further efficiency, the office provides guidelines on format for
    the Congressional Record. These provide a helpful tool to assure an
    accurate and timely printing of each day's Record.
        The office updated its ProCat transcription software at the
    beginning of last year. With the help of the Information Systems
    department, the office was able to make the necessary adjustments to
    accomplish the latest software update.
                               9. parliamentarian
        The Parliamentarian's Office continues its performance of normal
    legislative duties. These include advising the Chair, Senators and
    their staff, as well as committee staff, House members and their
    staffs, administration officials, the media and members of the general
    public, on all matters requiring an interpretation of the Standing
    Rules of the Senate, the precedents of the Senate, unanimous consent
    agreements, as well as provisions of public law affecting the
    proceedings of the Senate.
        The Parliamentarians work in close cooperation with the Senate
    leadership and their floor staffs to coordinate all of the business on
    the Senate floor. The Parliamentarian or one of his assistants is
    always present on the Senate floor when the Senate is in session,
    standing ready to assist the Presiding Officer in his or her official
    duties, as well as to assist any other Senator on procedural matters.
    The Parliamentarians work closely with the staff of the Vice President
    of the United States and the Vice President himself whenever he
    performs his duties as President of the Senate.
        The Parliamentarians monitor all proceedings on the floor of the
    Senate, advise the Presiding Officer on the competing rights of the
    Senators on the floor, and advise all Senators as to what is
    appropriate in debate. The Parliamentarians keep track of the
    amendments offered to the legislation pending on the Senate floor, and
    monitor them for points of order. In this respect, the Parliamentarians
    reviewed more than 1,000 amendments during 2004 to determine if they
    met various procedural requirements, such as germaneness. The
    Parliamentarians also reviewed thousands of pages of conference reports
    to determine what provisions could appropriately be included therein.
        The Office of the Parliamentarian is responsible for the referral
    to the appropriate committees of all legislation introduced in the
    Senate, all legislation received from the House, as well as all
    communications received from the executive branch, state and local
    governments, and private citizens. In order to perform this
    responsibility, the Parliamentarians do extensive legal and legislative
    research. During 2004, the Parliamentarian and his assistants referred
    1,271 measures and 5,183 communications to the appropriate Senate
    committees. The office worked extensively with Senators and their
    staffs to advise them of the jurisdictional consequences of particular
    drafts of legislation, and evaluated the jurisdictional effect of
    proposed modifications in drafting. The office continues to address the
    jurisdictional questions posed by the creation of the Department of
    Homeland Security, which now has responsibility for hundreds of issues
    previously in the jurisdiction of other Senate committees, by the
    adoption of S. Res. 445 reorganizing intelligence and homeland security
    jurisdiction in the Senate, and by the enactment of the Intelligence
    Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The Parliamentarians have
    made dozens of decisions about the committee referrals of nominations
    for new positions created in Homeland Security, nominations for
    positions which existed before the department was created but whose
    responsibilities have changed, and hundreds of legislative proposals
    concerning the department's responsibilities.
        The staff of the Parliamentarian's Office is also frequently called
    on to analyze and advise Senators on a great number of issues arising
    under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The decisions made by the
    Parliamentarians on these matters were a significant factor in the
    consideration of the President's budgetary proposals, and the overall
    Congressional approach to its budget.
        Additionally, in the last four years, rules relating to legislation
    on appropriations bills, and the scope of conference reports on all
    bills were reinstated. This has opened up hundreds of Senate amendments
    to renewed scrutiny by the Parliamentarians, and has meant that the
    Parliamentarians now have the responsibility of potentially reviewing
    every provision of every conference report considered by both houses of
    Congress.
        The Parliamentarians have taken the lead in the Senate in analyzing
    the need for emergency procedural authorities of Congress generally,
    and the Senate in particular. The Parliamentarians took the initiative
    that led to the adoption of S. Res. 296 on February 3, 2004, which
    granted certain emergency authorities to enable the Senate leadership
    to alter the Senate's schedule in certain emergency situations.
        In 2004, as in all election years, the Parliamentarians received
    all of the certificates of election of Senators elected or reelected to
    the Senate, and reviewed them for sufficiency and accuracy, returning
    those that were defective and reviewing their replacements. Also in
    2004, as in all Presidential election years, the Parliamentarians
    worked with other professional staff of the Secretary of the Senate and
    our House counterparts to prepare for the orderly conduct of the joint
    session of Congress to count the electoral ballots for President and
    Vice President. The Parliamentarians reviewed the electoral ballots for
    President and Vice President sent by all the states and the District of
    Columbia to the Vice President, and held several briefings with the
    Vice President and his staff and the House Parliamentarians regarding
    the Vice President's routine duties while presiding over the joint
    session of Congress to count the electoral ballots.
                    financial operations: disbursing office
    Disbursing Office Organization
        The mission of the Senate Disbursing Office is to provide efficient
    and effective central financial and human resource data management,
    information and advice to the distributed, individually managed
    offices, and to Members and employees of the United States Senate. To
    accomplish this mission, the Senate Disbursing Office manages the
    collection of information from the distributed accounting locations in
    the Senate to formulate and consolidate the agency level budget,
    disburse the payroll, pay the Senate's bills, prepare auditable
    financial statements, and provide appropriate counseling and advice.
    The Senate Disbursing Office collects information from Members and
    employees that is necessary to maintain and administer the retirement,
    health insurance, life insurance, and other central human resource
    programs. The DO provides responsive, personal attention to Members and
    employees on a non-biased and confidential basis. The Senate Disbursing
    Office also manages the distribution of central financial and human
    resource information to the individual Member Offices, Committees, and
    Administrative and Leadership offices in the Senate while maintaining
    the appropriate control of information for the protection of individual
    Members and Senate employees.
        To support the mission of the Senate Disbursing Office, the
    organization is structured in a manner that is intended to enhance its
    ability to provide quality work, maintain a high level of customer
    service, promote good internal controls, efficiency and teamwork, and
    provide for the appropriate levels of supervision and management. The
    long-term financial needs of the Senate are best served by an
    organization staffed with highly trained professionals who possess a
    high degree of institutional knowledge, sound judgement, and
    interpersonal skills that reflect the unique nature of the United
    States Senate.
    Deputy for Benefits and Financial Services
        The primary responsibility of this position is to provide expertise
    on Federal retirement and benefits, payroll, and front office
    processes. Coordination of the interaction between the Financial
    Services, Employee Benefits, and Payroll sections is also a major
    responsibility of the position. Planning and project management of new
    computer systems and programs is also a key function. Ensuring that job
    processes are efficient and up to date, modifying computer support
    systems, implementing regulatory and legislated changes, and designing
    and producing up to date forms for use in all three sections are
    additional areas of responsibility.
        In November 2003, it was determined that the new IBM Mainframe
    operating system being released would not support our payroll system.
    An accelerated system implementation was required, so instead of the
    normal eighteen-month window, this implementation had to be completed
    in only eight months. A team to address the situation was composed of
    Disbursing Office staff with the Deputy as the project lead, key
    Sergeant at Arms personnel and outside contractors. The system was
    successfully tested and implemented as planned on August 1, 2004. The
    payroll system was brought up to web accessible status, a myriad of
    small problems was corrected, and a number of new functions were added
    to enable payroll to more efficiently handle the Senate's needs.
        In January, final touches on the Document Imaging System were
    completed and the first documents, the 2003 W-2s, were loaded into it.
    The Front Office, Employee Benefits, Payroll and Administrative
    sections' personnel were trained in the use of the system and the old
    procedure for the reissue of W-2 copies was discontinued. During the
    next few months, copies of the W-2s going as far back as 1998 were
    added to the files.
        In March, many of the forms and procedures for the Student Loan
    Repayment Program were examined and revised to increase accuracy and
    efficiency of processing.
        In September, the monthly payroll data provided to the Accounting
    Section was converted to e-format for transmittal to the Office of
    Personnel Management.
        In November, reports and projections for Agency contributions to be
    uploaded into the Accounting system were addressed. Requirements were
    detailed, and during the month the payroll upload portion was completed
    and the Accounting group is now working on their portion of the
    project.
    Front Counter--Administrative and Financial Services
        The Front Counter is the main service area of all general Senate
    business and financial activity. The Front Counter maintains the
    Senate's internal accountability of funds used in daily operations.
    Reconciliation of such funds is executed on a daily basis. The Front
    Counter provides training to newly authorized payroll contacts along
    with continuing guidance to all contacts in the execution of business
    operations. It is the receiving point for most incoming expense
    vouchers, payroll actions, and employee benefits related forms, and is
    the initial verification point to ensure that paperwork received in the
    Disbursing Office conforms to all applicable Senate rules, regulations,
    and statutes. The Front Counter is the first line of service provided
    to Senate Members, Officers, and employees. All new Senate employees
    (permanent and temporary) who will work in the Capitol Hill Senate
    offices are administered the required oath of office and personnel
    affidavit and provided verbal and written detailed information
    regarding their pay and benefits. Authorization is certified to new and
    state employees for issuance of their Senate identification card.
    Advances are issued to Senate staff authorized for an advance for
    official Senate travel. Cash and check advances are entered and
    reconciled in the Funds Advance Tracking System (FATS). Repayment of
    travel advances is executed after processing of certified expenses is
    complete. Travelers' checks are available on a non-profit basis to
    assist the traveler. Numerous inquiries are handled daily, ranging from
    pay, benefits, taxes, voucher processing, reporting, laws, and Senate
    regulations, and must always be answered accurately and fully to
    provide the highest degree of customer service. Cash and checks
    received from Senate entities as part of their daily business are
    handled through the Front Counter and become part of the Senate's
    accountability of federally appropriated funds and are then processed
    through the Senate's general ledger system.
                General Activities
        The Front Counter processed approximately 2,100 cash advances,
    totaling approximately $1.2 million and initialized 700 check/direct
    deposit advances, totaling approximately $780,000.
        Received and processed more than 27,000 checks, totaling over
    $3,450,000. Administered Oath and Personnel Affidavits to more than
    3,200 new Senate staff and advised them of their benefits.
        Maintained brochures for 10 Federal health carriers and distributed
    approximately 4,000 brochures to new and existing staff during the
    annual FEHB Open Season.
        Provided 36 training sessions to new Office Managers.
        The Front Office operations continued its daily reconciliation of
    operations without any auditable variation; continued to provide
    training and guidance to new Office Managers and business contacts; and
    spearheaded the advance processing of paperwork of the nine incoming
    offices resulting from the November elections. A major emphasis was
    placed on assisting employees in maximizing their Thrift Savings Plan
    contributions and making them aware of the Thrift Savings Plan catch up
    program when applicable. Front Office operations continued to provide
    the Senate community with prompt, courteous, and informative advice
    regarding Disbursing operations.
    Payroll Section
        The Payroll Section maintains the Human Resources Management System
    and is responsible for the following: processing, verifying, and
    warehousing all payroll information submitted to the Disbursing Office
    by Senators for their personal staff, by Chairmen for their committee
    staff, and by other elected officials for their staff; issuing salary
    payments to the above employees; rectifying returns of student loan
    allowance payments, jointly maintaining the Automated Clearing House
    (ACH) FEDLINE facilities with the Accounts Payable Section for the
    normal transmittal of payroll deposits to the Federal Reserve;
    distributing the appropriate payroll expenditure and allowance reports
    to the individual offices; issuing the proper withholding and agency
    contributions reports to the Accounting Department; and transmitting
    the proper Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) information to the National
    Finance Center (NFC), while maintaining earnings records for
    distribution to the Social Security Administration, and maintaining
    employees' taxable earnings records for W-2 statements, prepared by
    this section. The Payroll Section is also responsible for the payroll
    expenditure data portion of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
                General Activities
        The Payroll Section processed a January 1, 2004 cost of living
    increase of 2.12 percent. This was a preliminary cost of living
    increase based on the President's recommended plan at the time. The
    payroll section later processed a second cost of living increase on
    March 1, 2004 when Congress set the final cost of living rate of 4.42
    percent. Payroll was able to offer the offices several scenarios to
    retroactively implement the COLA.
        The Payroll Section maintained the normal schedule of processing
    TSP open season forms.
        Employees took full advantage of the increase of TSP deductions
    making the most of the new 14 percent/$13,000.00 maximum. For those
    employees over 50 years of age the TSP catch-up programs provided them
    an opportunity to make additional contributions in excess of the
    standard program.
        January 2004 represented the first full year for the processing of
    Flexible Spending Accounts and Long Term Care Accounts. The section has
    found that the files received for each of the above items were
    challenging as the third party vendors had not done business with the
    Federal Government in the past and were unfamiliar with standard
    processing procedures.
        The section helped the SAA's Information Technology staff upgrade
    the Payroll/Personal System from 31 bit technology to 64 bit
    technology. This upgrade enabled better security and additional Web
    based access to Disbursing Office Data. Each member of the section
    assisted in the testing and evaluation of the new product. The upgraded
    system was successfully put into production August 1, 2004.
        The elections of 2004 focused the efforts of the Payroll Section on
    preparing the system for the opening of incoming members' offices and
    the closing of departing members' offices.
        The Payroll Section participated in the December disaster recovery
    testing at the Alternate Computer Facility (ACF). Members of the
    section were able to access and process data to the computer at ACF
    from several locations and various computer connections. Finally, set-
    up of the ACH Fedline II system was completed. It established proper
    connections with the Federal Reserve to ensure that processed payrolls
    and vouchers could be transmitted from the ACF.
    Employee Benefits Section
        The primary responsibilities of the Employee Benefits Section (EBS)
    are administration of health insurance, life insurance and all
    retirement programs for Members and employees of the Senate. This
    includes counseling, processing of paperwork, research, dissemination
    of information and interpretation of retirement and benefits laws and
    regulations. In addition, the sectional work includes research and
    verification of all prior federal service and prior Senate service for
    new and returning appointees. EBS provides this information for payroll
    input and once Official Personnel Folders and Transcripts of Service
    are received, verifies the accuracy of the information provided and
    reconciles as necessary. Transcripts of Service including all official
    retirement and benefits documentation are provided to other federal
    agencies when Senate Members and staffers are hired elsewhere in the
    government. EBS processes employment verifications for loans, the Bar
    Exam, the FBI, OPM, and DOD, among others. Unemployment claim forms are
    completed, and employees are counseled on their eligibility. Department
    of Labor billings for unemployment compensation paid to Senate
    employees are reviewed in EBS and submitted by voucher to the
    Accounting Section for payment. Designations of Beneficiary for FEGLI,
    CSRS, FERS, and unpaid compensation are filed and checked by EBS.
        In 2004 OPM announced that there would be a FEGLI Open Season for
    employees to elect new or additional life insurance coverage. EBS
    drafted Open Season informational flyers and notified employees
    electronically and via mail outs. An innovative step taken with this
    mail out was to have FEGLI send direct notification to Senate
    employees, which provided more timely notice and saved mailing expenses
    to the Senate. Numerous employees were counseled and approximately 350
    Senate employees made FEGLI changes during the Open Season.
        In 2003 as part of our COOP goals, EBS worked with the Deputy for
    Benefits and Financial Services, the Senate Computer Center and other
    DO staff to outline the needs and parameters required for development
    and implementation of a document imaging system for use in
    electronically reproducing employee personnel folders. During 2004 EBS
    redesigned the file room to accommodate a new employee hired to assist
    with the document scanning as well as the document imaging hardware. In
    mid-2004 implementation of the document imaging system was achieved.
    This required extensive training and modification of many procedures
    and the forms-flow from EBS and Payroll to the file room as well as the
    flow of forms within the file room. Modification of procedures will
    continue as warranted. This system will allow computer-based access to
    new employee personnel folders and documents as well as the ability to
    access them from an off-site facility. To complete our COOP readiness
    with respect to employee personnel folder access, one future goal is to
    contract out the scanning of all ``prior'' employee personnel folder
    documents that are housed in the DO file room.
        Shortly before the onset of the FEHB Open Season, OPM announced
    that it would offer a new type of health plan to employees: High
    Deductible Health Plans, which incorporate a Health Savings Account
    (HSA) and a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA). As these plans are
    vastly different than those previously offered in the FEHB program, EBS
    worked diligently to become educated in all aspects of these plans and
    to understand the similarities and differences between HSAs, FSAs and
    HRAs. Many employees were counseled on the aspects of these new plans.
        The annual FEHB Open Season was held and approximately 500
    employees changed plans. These changes were processed and reported to
    carriers in record time. This year we were again able to offer an
    exciting tool for Senate employees. The Checkbook on-line Guide to
    Health Plans was made available to research and compare FEHB plans.
    This tool will remain available to staff throughout the year. As
    awareness and understanding of this valuable tool has increased,
    feedback is positive. Once again, the Disbursing Office hosted an FEHB
    Open Season Health Fair, which was attended by about 700 employees and
    as an additional service, it was open to all other federal employees on
    the Hill, including House, Capitol Police, Architect of the Capitol and
    Senate Restaurant employees. In addition to having health plan
    representatives available to provide information and answer questions,
    representatives from FSA Feds and Long Term Care Insurance were in
    attendance as well.
        While retirement case processing was about average for the year,
    retirement planning and counseling was brisk in the second half of 2004
    due to the impending retirement of 8 Senators, and the dissolution of
    their staffs and the potential changes to committee staffs. This
    resulted in the counseling of hundreds of employees including extensive
    research and calculation of Statements of Tentative Retirement
    Computations. Approximately 95 retirement cases were processed
    (including 8 death cases).
        Seminars were held for outgoing Members' staffs, as well as
    committees facing potential reorganization. Information disseminated
    spanned retirement, Thrift Savings Plan, health and life insurance, and
    unemployment compensation. Due to the large post-election turnover, EBS
    also hosted a seminar with the D.C. Office of Employment Services for
    outgoing staff who wished to apply for unemployment compensation. This
    opportunity for staff was well received.
        There was a great deal of turnover and rehire in 2004, as employees
    left staff to work on campaigns and then returned to the Senate after
    the elections. This caused an increase in appointments to be researched
    and processed, retirement records to be closed out, termination
    packages of benefits information to be compiled and mailed out, and
    health insurance registrations to be processed. Transcripts of service
    for employees going to other federal agencies, and other tasks
    associated with employees changing jobs remained constant this year.
    These required prior employment research and verification, new FEHB,
    FEGLI, CSRS, FERS and TSP enrollments, and the associated requests for
    backup verification.
        The government-wide CLER program for health insurance enrollment
    reconciliation, now in its third year, has finally become a usable and
    effective tool. Through much diligence and effective problem solving,
    EBS was able to assist with the improvements to this program.
        EBS continues to upgrade the information available on the DO
    Webster site and has added more downloadable forms. Newer video
    technologies and links are routinely used. In addition, EBS has been
    developing many computer-based forms and calculators for use in
    providing benefits information and estimates.
        Two detailed Power Point retirement seminars on CSRS and FERS were
    updated and conducted for interested Senate staff. The seminars were
    well attended and well received.
        Additionally EBS staff regularly provided a panel participant for
    the monthly New Staff Orientation seminars and quarterly Senate
    Services Fairs held by the Office of Education and Training.
        Interagency meetings were attended with time being spent on the
    FEGLI Open Season, guidance on the new FEHB plans, as well as
    continuing education and guidance on the FSA
        Program, LTCI, and the continuing TSP program changes and
    enhancements.
        Based on the continued operations in Iraq and the call to active
    duty of military reservists, the volume of Senate employees being
    placed in a Military Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status and subsequently
    returned to pay status continued to be elevated throughout 2004.
    Counseling and administration of their retirement and benefits was
    handled by EBS.
        Telephone inquiries, though not specifically tracked, continued at
    high levels, with the EBS staff of 7 pressed to answer calls
    thoroughly, yet quickly enough to keep lines open.
    Disbursing Office Financial Management
        Headed by the Deputy for Financial Management, the mission of
    Disbursing Office Financial Management (DOFM) is to coordinate all
    central financial policies, procedures, and activities to process and
    pay expense vouchers within reasonable time frames, to work toward
    producing an auditable consolidated financial statement for the Senate
    and to provide professional customer service, training and confidential
    financial guidance to all Senate accounting locations. In addition, the
    Financial Management group is responsible for the compilation of the
    annual operating budget of the United States Senate for presentation to
    the Committee on Appropriations as well as for the formulation,
    presentation and execution of the budget for the Senate. On a
    semiannual basis, this group is also responsible for the compilation,
    validation and completion of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
    DOFM is segmented into three functional departments: Accounting,
    Accounts Payable, and Budget. The Accounts Payable Department is
    subdivided into three sections: The Audit group, the Disbursement group
    and the Vendor/SAVI group. The Deputy coordinates the activities of all
    three departments, establishes central financial policies and
    procedures, acts as the primary liaison to the Human Resources
    Administrator, and carries out the directives of the Financial Clerk
    and the Secretary of the Senate.
                Accounting Department
        During fiscal year 2004, the Accounting Department approved nearly
    48,000 expense reimbursement vouchers, processed 1,300 deposits for
    items ranging from receipts received by the Senate operations, such as
    the Senate's Revolving Funds, to canceled subscription refunds from
    Member Offices. The number of vouchers that the Accounting Department
    approved decreased compared to fiscal year 2003, due to the Senate
    Committee on Rules and Administration increasing the sanctioning
    authority delegated to the Financial Clerk of the Senate from $35.00 or
    less to $100.00 or less. General ledger maintenance also prompted the
    entry of thousands of adjustment entries that include the entry of all
    appropriation and allowance funding limitation transactions, all
    accounting cycle closing entries, and all non-voucher reimbursement
    transactions such as payroll adjustments, COLA (cost of living) budget
    uploads, stop payment requests, travel advances and repayments, and
    limited payability reimbursements.
        This year the Accounting Department assisted in the validation of
    various system upgrades and modifications, including the testing
    required to implement Web Release 9.0 and the upgrade to a 64 bit
    mainframe operating system. During January 2004, the Accounting
    Department, with assistance from a contractor, Bearing Point, completed
    the 2003 year-end process to close and reset revenue, expense and
    budgetary general ledger accounts to zero. During June 2004, we
    successfully tested and implemented in Federal FAMIS another document
    purge including the archiving of Web report data for lapsed years.
    Further, toward the end of the fiscal year, the financial file rollover
    was performed to update FAMIS' tables and create the new index codes
    needed to accommodate data for fiscal year 2005. With the September
    2004 closing and as a result of looking into ways to modernize the
    monthly reporting of checks written by reel tape, the Accounting
    Department tested and implemented (with assistance from the SAA and
    Bearing Point) the electronic transmission of check data to Treasury
    via a secure dial-up.
        The Department of the Treasury's monthly financial reporting
    requirements includes a Statement of Accountability that details all
    increases and decreases to the accountability of the Secretary of the
    Senate, such as checks issued during the month and deposits received,
    as well as a detailed listing of cash on hand. Also, on a monthly
    basis, reported to the Department of the Treasury is the Statement of
    Transactions According to Appropriations, Fund and Receipt Accounts
    that summarizes all activity at the appropriation level of all monies
    disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate through the Financial Clerk of
    the Senate. All activity by appropriation account is reconciled with
    the Department of the Treasury on a monthly and annual basis. The
    annual reconciliation of the Treasury Combined Statement is also used
    in the reporting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as part
    of the submission of the annual operating budget of the Senate.
        This year, the Accounting Department transmitted all Federal tax
    payments for Federal, Social Security, and Medicare taxes withheld from
    payroll expenditures, as well as the Senate's matching contribution for
    Social Security and Medicare to the Federal Reserve Bank. The
    Department also performed quarterly reporting to the Internal Revenue
    Service (IRS) and annual reporting and reconciliation to the IRS and
    the Social Security Administration. Payments for employee withholdings
    for state income taxes were reported and paid on a quarterly basis to
    each state with applicable state income taxes withheld. Monthly
    reconciliations were performed with the National Finance Center
    regarding the employee withholdings and agency matching contributions
    for the Thrift Savings Plan. Starting in August, the Accounting Group
    began transmitting electronically all employee withholdings and agency
    contributions for life and health insurance, and federal retirement
    programs to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
        In addition to Treasury's external reporting deadlines there are
    some internal reporting requirements such as the monthly ledger
    statements for all Member offices and all other offices with payroll
    and non-payroll expenditures. These ledger statements detail all of the
    financial activity for the appropriate accounting period with regard to
    official expenditures in detail and summary form. Monthly, it is the
    responsibility of the Accounting Department to review and verify the
    accuracy of the statements before Senate-wide distribution. During the
    course of this year, various table changes were made to the ledger
    extract to suppress lapsed fiscal years and appropriations that do not
    require the monthly reports.
        The Accounting Department, in conjunction with the Deputy for
    Financial Management, continues to work closely with the Sergeant at
    Arms Finance Department in completing the corrective actions that were
    identified during the pro-forma financial statements auditability
    assessment. Based on the results of this exercise, 23 corrective
    actions were suggested including an action plan and proposed schedule
    to have them corrected. Some of the actions were rather simple to
    implement while others will take significantly longer. Of the 23
    corrective actions noted, 14 have been completed and 9 are still in
    process. As part of this project, the Accounting Group continues to
    work with the SAA to complete the draft of the Senate-wide
    capitalization policy and is assisting with the reconciliation between
    FAMIS and the newly implemented asset management system, Asset Center.
    The Accounting Group also drafted and finalized state taxes, stop pays,
    EFT payments, vendor file and travel advance procedures and is in the
    process of updating various additional sections of the financial
    policies and procedures book.
        As part of the financial statement initiative, steps were taken
    this year to procure a software package to assist with the compilation
    of data and automate the process of preparing the Senate-wide financial
    statements. The financial statement software will facilitate the
    preparation of closing, elimination and reclassification entries as
    well as provide the appropriate audit trails. The software was up and
    running in March 2005. As part of this initiative, the Accounting Group
    drafted the first internally developed set of unaudited financial
    statements to be used as our baseline on the testing of the newly
    acquired software following the guidance provided by OMB Bulletin 01-
    09, ``Form and Content of Agency Financial Statements.''
        On a consulting basis, the Deputy for Financial Management assisted
    the Senate Gift Shop on the implementation of their new accounting
    system and in the completion of their reconciliations for fiscal year
    2004. In addition, the Deputy was part of the task force to procure and
    acquire a new point-of-sale and accounting systems for the Senate
    Stationery Room.
        Toward the end of the calendar year, the Deputy for Financial
    Management also participated in successful disaster recovery testing at
    the ACF.
                Accounts Payable--Vendor/SAVI Section
        Created in the fall of 2003, the Vendor/SAVI section is responsible
    for maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the Senate's central
    vendor (payee) file, for the prompt completion of new vendor file
    requests, and service requests related to the DO's web-based payment
    tracking system known as SAVI. This section also assists the IT
    Department with periodic testing and monitoring of the performance of
    the SAVI system.
        Currently, there are more than 12,300 vendor records stored in the
    vendor file. Daily requests for new vendor addresses or updates to
    existing vendor information are processed within 24 hours of being
    received. In 2004, the A/P Department began paying vendors by
    electronic funds transfer (EFT). Besides updating mailing addresses,
    the Vendor/SAVI section facilitates the use of EFT by switching the
    method of payment requested by the vendor from check to EFT. Whenever a
    new remittance address is added to the vendor file, a standard letter
    is mailed to our vendors requesting tax and banking information. If a
    vendor responds to our letter and indicates they would like to receive
    EFT payments in the future, the method of payment will be changed. In
    August, this section coordinated a large mailing requesting EFT
    information from our home state office landlords and our largest
    commercial vendors. The mailing was a success. More than 40 percent of
    the targeted vendors responded to this mailing. Currently, more than
    650 vendors and over half of the home state office landlords are being
    paid by EFT.
        Service to Senate staff was significantly improved with the release
    of SAVI version 3.1 in late October. This version allows Senate staff
    to electronically create, save, and file expense reimbursement forms,
    track their progress, and get detailed information on payments made by
    DO. The most common service requests are requests for system user ids,
    system passwords and to reactivate accounts. Less common but more
    complicated are employee requests for an alternative expense payment
    method. An employee can choose to have their payroll set up for direct
    deposit but can have their vouchered expenses be reimbursed by paper
    check.
        The Vendor/SAVI section works closely with the A/P Disbursements
    group resolving returned EFT issues. EFT payments are returned
    periodically for a variety of reasons. The reasons given have included
    incorrect account numbers, incorrect ABA routing numbers, and, in rare
    instances, a nonparticipating financial institution. Most EFT return
    issues are easy to resolve; however, there are some instances that
    result with a vendor being converted back to paper check payments.
    Currently, there are no unresolved return EFT issues.
        The Vendor/SAVI section continues to electronically scan and store
    supporting documentation of vendor file requests. In the near future,
    this section will assist the IT Department test an automatic email
    notification system which will alert vendors when an EFT payment has
    been made and will give them information on the payment made.
        This year, the Vendor/SAVI section processed over 2,800 vendor file
    requests, completed nearly 1,300 SAVI service requests and mailed
    nearly 2,000 vendor information letters.
                Accounts Payable--Disbursements Department
        In 2004, well over 100,000 expense claims were received and
    processed by the department. More than 35,000 expense checks were
    written and approximately 50,000 direct deposit reimbursements were
    transmitted. The department performed at a high level to ensure that
    all vendors and employees continued to receive timely and accurate
    payments.
        After vouchers are paid, they are sorted and filed by document
    number. The number is an alpha-numeric code beginning with the letters
    D, PADV, V, IV, or CV and followed by numbers representing the fiscal
    year in which they were created, and another series of numbers
    representing, in ordinal sequence, the actual document number. Vouchers
    are grouped in 6-month ``clusters'' to accommodate their retrieval for
    the semi-annual Report of the Secretary of the Senate. Currently, files
    are maintained for the current period and three prior periods. Filing
    is current and accurate as few problems are encountered retrieving
    documents.
        A major function of the Department is to prepare documents,
    internally classified as ``adjustments.'' Such adjustments are varied
    and include the following: preparation of Foreign Travel advances and
    vouchers, reimbursements for expenses incurred by Senate Leadership,
    reissuance of items held as accounts receivable collections, reissuance
    of payments for which non-receipt is claimed, and various supplemental
    adjustments received from the Payroll Department. Such adjustments are
    usually disbursed by check, but an increasing number are now handled
    electronically via the Automated Clearing House (ACH).
        The Disbursements Department is also responsible for researching
    returned checks as vendors request additional information relating to
    payment allocation. Fortunately, few checks are returned. This is a
    result of the use of a centralized vendor file and accurate
    certification of payments. There are currently no unresolved returned
    check issues.
        The Accounts Payable Disbursements Department prepares for the
    distribution of the monthly ledgers to the 140 accounting locations
    throughout the Senate. At month's end, they are printed and delivered
    to Disbursing, usually to the attention of the Accounting Department,
    and received in Disbursements. The statements are sorted and
    disseminated according to special handling instructions from the
    office. Offices expressing no preference have their statements sent to
    their respective offices marked ``Personal and Confidential.'' The main
    objective of this process is to have each office receive their ledger
    statements for the month just ended by the 10th of the following month.
        A/P Disbursements also prepares the quarterly state tax returns.
    The dollar amounts are provided by the Accounting Department, and
    payment coupons are prepared for the 43 state jurisdictions. The
    coupons are obtained from each jurisdiction either in hard copy or on-
    line via the Internet. Vouchers are prepared electronically via an
    uploaded spreadsheet, which is used to generate check payments to the
    taxing authorities. Once the checks are written, letters of transmittal
    are prepared and mailed to the appropriate state jurisdictions and the
    District of Columbia.
        The Department also prepares the forms required by the Department
    of Treasury for stop payments. Stop payments are requested by employees
    who have not received salary or expense reimbursements, and vendors
    claiming non-receipt of expense checks. During this year, the A/P
    Disbursement Supervisor and the Accounts Payable Manager continued
    using the Department of Treasury--Financial Management Service (FMS)
    on-line stop pay and check retrieval process known as PACER. The PACER
    system allows us to electronically submit stop-payment requests and
    provides on-line access to digital images of negotiated checks for
    viewing and printing. Once a check is viewed, it is printed and may be
    scanned. Scanned images are then forwarded to the appropriate
    accounting locations via email. This process has been well received by
    Senate offices as well as vendors. This saves time and significantly
    reduces reliance on the Postal System. All Accounts Payable
    Disbursements staff have Treasury secure ID cards and are trained in
    the use of PACER. Given the time and money savings, as well as the
    overwhelmingly positive reception, large growth in the use of PACER for
    check retrieval purposes is anticipated.
        In October of 2004, the Accounts Payable Disbursements department
    began using laser checks. The tractor fed check writer system has been
    dismantled and a new, improved system was developed and implemented.
    The replacement was comprehensive in scope as new software, hardware,
    and new Treasury designed laser checks were introduced. The result is a
    user friendly, and more secure system. Accuracy has also improved as
    the new laser check printer font is much clearer than one from the old
    printer. This resulted in an immediate reduction in returned checks
    from the United States Postal System. It is anticipated that a new
    folder/inserter designed for our use will be purchased to eliminate
    manual hours spent on folding and hand stuffing checks into envelopes.
    Testing and demonstrations continue in efforts to find a machine which
    is both economical and efficient.
        A major project which has seen tremendous progress this year is the
    reconciliation of the replacement check account. A team was formed
    consisting of the Deputy for Financial Management, Accounts Payable
    Manager, Chief Accountant, Accounts Payable Disbursements Supervisor
    and Staff Accountants. There were over 250 unresolved items covering a
    variety of issues. Persistent and determined revenue collection
    procedures have resulted in the reduction of the unresolved items and
    fewer than 20 remain outstanding.
        The warehousing of documents has improved, and continues to evolve.
    Vouchers were housed at two facilities, but now all have been
    transferred to a single location. This location is larger, but there is
    need for expansion. Meetings with the Sergeant at Arms and consultants
    continue in an effort to provide state-of the-art warehousing. Plans
    call for current space requirements, anticipated space requirements,
    and the need for ``staging'' areas, telephone, copier, and fax access,
    climate control, and security.
                Accounts Payable--Audit Department
        The final section under the Accounts Payable Department is the
    Audit Section. The Accounts Payable Audit Section is responsible for
    auditing vouchers and answering questions regarding voucher preparation
    and the permissibility of expenses. This section provides advice and
    recommendations on the discretionary use of funds to the various
    accounting locations, identifies duplicate payments submitted by
    offices, monitors payments related to contracts, trains new Office
    Managers and Chief Clerks about Senate financial practices, trains
    Office Managers in the use of the Senate's Financial Management
    Information System, and assists in the production of the Report of the
    Secretary of the Senate. The Section also monitors the Fund Advance
    Tracking System (FATS) to ensure that advances are charged correctly,
    vouchers repaying such advances are entered, and balances are adjusted
    for reuse of the advance funds. An ``aging'' process is also performed
    to ensure that advances are repaid in the time specified by the advance
    travel regulations.
        The Accounts Payable Audit Section, currently a group of 12, has
    the responsibility for the daily processing of expense claims submitted
    by the 140 accounting locations of the Senate. The section processed
    approximately 133,000 expense vouchers in fiscal year 2004. The voucher
    processing ranged in scope from providing interpretation of Senate
    rules, regulations and statute, applying the same to expense claims,
    monitoring of contracts and direct involvement with the Senate's
    central vendor file. On average, vouchers greater than $100.00 that do
    not have any issues or questions are received, audited, sanctioned by
    Rules and paid by DO within 10 business days of receipt.
        During fiscal year 2004, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and
    Administration increased the delegated sanctioning authority for
    vouchers from $35.00 or less to $100.00 or less. The workload within
    this group increased by almost 50 percent with the responsibility to
    sanction vouchers whose totals are less than or equal to $100.00. These
    vouchers comprise approximately 60 percent of all vouchers processed.
    The responsibility for sanctioning rests with the Certifying Accounts
    Payable Specialists and are being received, audited, and paid within 5
    business days of receipt. The increase in sanctioning authority came as
    a direct result of passing two post-payment audits performed by the
    Rules Committee.
        Additionally, advance documents and non-Contingent Fund vouchers
    are now posted in Audit. The increase in sanctioning responsibilities
    allowed for two staff promotions to Certifying Accounts Payable
    Specialist and for the creation of one additional A/P Specialist
    position. One staff member was promoted from the Disbursements section
    to the Audit section to fill this newly created position.
        The reduced flow of vouchers to the Rules Committee also brought
    that committee into the on-line sanctioning process. Initially, four
    Senators' offices and the Committees comprised the pilot group.
    Currently, all vouchers over $100.00 are sanctioned electronically by
    the Rules Committee using Web FAMIS.
        The Accounts Payable Audit Group provided training sessions in the
    use of new systems, the process for generation of expense claims, the
    permissibility of an expense, and participated with seminars sponsored
    by the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Library
    of Congress. The Section trained 15 new Administrative Managers and
    Chief Clerks and conducted 4 informational sessions for Senate staff
    through seminars sponsored by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
        The Accounts Payable group also assisted the IT department and
    Vendor/SAVI group in the testing and implementation of the new on-line
    travel and non-travel expense summary reports (ESR). The new reports
    are not only available on-line, but they can be imported into a
    corresponding Web FMIS voucher, thus facilitating the preparation and
    accuracy of the voucher document. Routinely, during voucher processing,
    vendor information is verified against invoices, and corrections made
    as needed. The Audit Group has been fully trained in the new travel
    advance system and in the use of the four new WEB inquiries to assist
    offices with questions. Additionally the section provided testing
    support for the release of Web FMIS version 9 and is scheduled to
    assist in the testing of Version 10 this year.
        A cancellation process was established for advances in 2004. This
    was necessary to ensure repayment of advances systematically for
    canceled or postponed travel in accordance with Senate Travel
    Regulations. Advance procedures including cancellation were formally
    incorporated into the Policies and Procedures Manual. Cancellation
    procedures for other Web vouchers is scheduled for testing during a
    later system release. The A/P sections within the Policies and
    Procedures Manual are in the process of being updated and revised.
                Budget Department
        The third component of the Disbursing Office Financial Management
    Group is the Budget Department. The primary responsibility of the
    Budget Department is to compile the annual operating budget of the
    United States Senate for presentation to the Committee on
    Appropriations. The Budget Department is responsible for the
    preparation, issuance and distribution of the budget justification
    worksheets (BJW). In fiscal year 2004, the budget justification
    worksheets were mailed to the Senate accounting locations at the end of
    November, processed in December and reported the budget baseline
    estimates for fiscal year 2006 to OMB by mid-January, via the MAX
    database.
        This department is also responsible for the formulation,
    presentation and execution of the budget for the Senate and provides a
    wide range of analytical, technical and advisory functions related to
    the budget process. The Budget Department acts as the Budget Officer
    for the Office of the Secretary, assisting in the preparation of
    testimony for the hearings before the Committee on Appropriations and
    the Committee on Rules and Administration.
        During January, the Senate Budget Analyst is responsible for the
    preparation of 1099's and the prompt submission of forms to the IRS
    before the end of the month.
                    disbursing office information technology
    Financial Management Information System
        The Disbursing Office Information Technology (IT) Department,
    provides both functional and technical assistance for all Senate
    Financial Management activities. Activities revolve around support of
    the Senate's Financial Information System (FMIS) which is used by
    approximately 140 Senate accounting locations (i.e., 100 Senator's
    offices, 20 Committees, 20 Leadership & Support offices, the Rules
    Committee Audit section, and the Disbursing Office). Responsibilities
    include: Supporting current systems; testing infrastructure changes;
    managing and testing new system development; planning; managing the
    FMIS project, including contract management; administering the
    Disbursing Office's Local Area Network (LAN); and coordinating the
    Disbursing Office's Disaster Recovery activities.
        The activities associated with each of these responsibilities are
    described in more detail in the sections that follow. Work during 2004
    was supported by the Sergeant at Arms (SAA) Technology Services staff,
    the Secretary's Information Technology staff, and contracts with
    Bearing Point.
        The SAA Technology Services staff is responsible for providing the
    technical infrastructure, including hardware (mainframe and servers),
    operating system software (mainframe and servers), database software,
    and telecommunications; technical assistance for these components,
    including migration management, database administration and regular
    batch processing. Bearing Point is responsible, under the contract with
    the SAA, for operational support, and under contract with the
    Secretary, for application development. The DO is the ``business
    owner'' of FMIS and is responsible for making the functional decisions
    about FMIS. The three organizations work cooperatively.
        Highlights of the year include:
      --Implementation of three releases of Web FMIS including pilot
            implementation of an intranet-based version;
      --Implementation of two releases of SAVI, including a release that
            allows users to create Non-travel Expense Summary Reports in
            addition to Travel Expense Summary Reports;
      --Implementation of laser check printing which substantially improves
            the readability of checks by the postal service and banks;
      --Support of the Rules Committee's post payment audit for the Rules
            Committee Audit staff whereby they can do a statistically valid
            sample of vouchers of $100.00 and under (an increase from
            $35.00 effective January 1, 2004) for which sanctioning was
            delegated to the Financial Clerk;
      --Roll out of direct deposit payments to external vendors;
      --Coordinating and participating in the FMIS portion of a disaster
            recovery exercise for the Alternate Computing Facility; and
      --Conducting monthly classes, seminars, and demonstrations on Web
            FMIS.
        FMIS is not a single computer system. It is composed of many
    subsystems that provide Senate-specific functionality. These subsystems
    are outlined in the table that follows.

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

    Supporting Current Systems
        The IT section supports FMIS users in all 140 accounting locations,
    the Disbursing Office Accounts Payable, Accounting, Disbursements and
    Front Office Sections, and the Rules Committee Audit staff. The
    activities associated with this responsibility include:
      --User support--provide functional and technical support to all
            Senate FMIS users; staff the FMIS ``help desk''; answer
            hundreds of phone calls a year; and meet with Chiefs of Staff,
            Administrative Managers, Chief Clerks, and Directors of various
            Senate offices as requested;
      --Technical problem resolution--ensure that technical problems are
            resolved;
      --Monitor system performance--check system availability and
            statistics to identify system problems and coordinate
            performance tuning activities for parallel load and database
            access optimization;
      --Security--maintaining user rights for all ADPICS, FAMIS, SAVI, and
            Web FMIS users;
      --System administration--design, test and make entries to tables that
            are intrinsic to the system;
      --Support of Accounting Activities--provide assistance in the cyclic
            accounting system activities;
      --Support the Rules Committee post payment voucher audit process; and
      --Training--provide functional training to all Senate FMIS users.
        Of these, the post payment voucher audit deserves recognition. In
    December of 2002, the Rules Committee delegated to the Financial Clerk
    the authority for sanctioning vouchers of $35 and less; effective
    January 1, 2004 this threshold increased to $100.00. The authorization
    directed Rules and DO to establish a set of procedures for a semi-
    annual audit of these vouchers. The two offices agreed that Rules would
    conduct a random sampling inspection of these vouchers based on
    industry statistical standards. Under the supervision of the IT Group,
    Bearing Point created tools to determine the sample size, to enable
    selecting the sample from the universe of vouchers of $100 and less,
    and to determine the acceptable number of discrepancies given the
    sample size and the desired confidence interval. Both audits conducted
    in 2004 resulted in a favorable finding of zero discrepancies. The
    audit conducted in April 2004 for the six-month period ending March 31,
    2004, covered 18,368 vouchers and the audit conducted in November 2004
    for the six-month period ending September 30, 2004, covered 25,853
    vouchers.
    Testing Infrastructure Changes
        The SAA provides the infrastructure on which FMIS operates,
    including the mainframe, the database, security hardware and software,
    the telecommunications network, and a hardware and software
    installation crew and help-desk provider. During 2004 there was an
    upgrade of the mainframe operating system (OS390) in preparation for
    the implementation of the Z/OS operating system. This required that the
    Disbursing Office test all FMIS subsystems both in a testing
    environment and in the production environment.
    Managing and Testing New System Development
        During 2004, development and extensive integration system testing
    was performed and implemented with changes to the following FMIS
    subsystems: Web FMIS; Senate Vendor Information (SAVI) and Online ESR;
    and Checkwriter.
                Web FMIS
        The goal for 2004 was to update and simplify the underlying
    technology of Web FMIS, basically replacing all Visual Basic Client/
    Server and Cold Fusion Web technology with WebSphere web pages thereby
    creating a ``thin client'' application that can be accessed via an
    intranet browser. The Web FMIS Users Group worked closely with the team
    to rethink processes and redesign Web FMIS screens to maximize ease-of-
    use. The transition included four releases of Web FMIS during 2004:
      --Web FMIS r8.0.--Implemented in March 2004, focused on the list
            maintenance functions, and conducted a pilot of a new version
            of the report generation software, Crystal Reports version 9;
      --Web FMIS r8.1.--Implemented in June 2004, upgraded the version of
            the report generation software for all users, and concurrently
            addressed obtaining reports from ``archived years'' (i.e.,
            fiscal year 1999 and 2000), the data for which was archived
            from FAMIS. In addition, a ``report favorites'' function was
            added;
      --Web FMIS r9.0.--Implemented for pilot offices in August 2004, was a
            complete re-writing of the functions most used by offices,
            Document Entry and Budget Entry. In addition, it allows the
            start date to determine the funding year (thus eliminating the
            need to select a funding year from which to pay a bill), added
            the ability to import Non-travel Expense Summary Reports, and
            revamps the user security function to be based on ``roles''
            which provide the Web FMIS system administrators more
            flexibility in providing (or not providing) specific user
            functionality.
      --Web FMIS r9.1.--Implemented for pilot offices in November 2004,
            made system changes based on the pilot offices' use of Web FMIS
            r9.
        At the end of 2004, testing was conducted on Web FMIS r10, which
    reduces the files required on the PC for printing reports, adds new
    reports for committees that show expenses in the format required for
    their biannual budget justification, rewrites the DO functions as
    WebSphere web pages and provides additional DO functions such as an
    online deposit (CD) log, standard text for notes, and additional
    inquiries. Web FMIS r9.1 will be given to all new 109th Congress
    offices and to all new office managers from existing offices. All other
    offices will be transferred to the WebSphere version of Web FMIS when
    Web FMIS r10 is implemented.
        During 2004 work was conducted with Bearing Point to define the
    requirements for adding electronic signature and documentation imaging
    functionality, two key components for paperless voucher processing.
    Additionally, appropriate technology is being explored to provide these
    functions.
                Senate Automated Vendor Inquiry (SAVI) and Online ESR
        SAVI enables Senate staff to check the status of reimbursements,
    whether via check or direct deposit and whether or not referencing an
    on-line ESR. The on-line ESR function enables Senate staff to create
    expense summary reports. These documents can be imported into Web FMIS,
    reducing the data entry tasks for voucher preparation. The SAVI system
    was upgraded three times in 2004. Release 2.2, implemented in March
    2004, completed several security enhancements. Release 3.0, implemented
    for pilot offices in June 2004 and 3.1 implemented for all offices in
    October 2004, allow users to prepare and submit Non-travel Expense
    Summary Reports and to define their own logon ID.
                Checkwriter
        The Disbursing Office makes payments via direct deposit and via
    check.
      --Direct Deposit.--In 2002 the Disbursing Office began making expense
            reimbursements to Senate staff via direct deposit. In 2003 this
            was expanded to include external vendors. The initial pilot
            vendors provided materials to the Keeper of Stationery; and our
            first payments to them were transmitted on June 3, 2003. After
            a very successful initial pilot, the program was expanded
            larger-volume vendors, such as FedEx. During 2004, direct
            deposit was rolled out to all vendors.
      --Laser Checks.--In 2004 the printing of checks was switched from a
            continuous-feed impact printer to a laser printer when
            checkwriter version 5 was implemented in March 2004. The laser
            version provides more flexibility for continuance of operations
            by eliminating dependence on a harder-to-find printer. It also
            produces a higher print quality, which will help the Postal
            Service in the delivery of checks and will prevent checks from
            being negotiated for an unintended dollar amount. Use of the
            laser check printer required that Treasury create a 8.5 0A 10
            inches check and stub form. A folder-inserter machine was used
            for these checks, but the checks are incompatible with the
            machine. During 2005, work continues to identify a machine that
            will accept this heavy-grade check paper.
                Planning
        There are two main planning activities:
      --Schedule coordination--planning and coordinating a rolling 12-month
            schedule; and
      --Strategic planning--setting the priorities for further system
            enhancements.
                Schedule Coordination
        In 2004, two types of meetings were held among the DO, SAA and
    Bearing Point to co-ordinate schedules and activities:
      --Project specific meetings--a useful set of project specific working
            meetings, each of which has a weekly set meeting time and meets
            for the duration of the project (e.g., Document Purge meetings
            and Web FMIS requirements meetings); and
      --Technical meeting--a weekly meeting among the DO staff (IT and
            functional), SAA Technical Services staff, and Bearing Point to
            discuss coordination among the active projects, including
            scheduling activities and resolving issues.
                Strategic Planning
        The FMIS strategic plan has a longer time horizon than the rolling
    12-month time frame of the technical meeting schedule. It is designed
    to set the direction and priorities for further enhancements. In 2002 a
    five-year strategic plan was written by the IT and Accounting staff for
    Disbursing Office Strategic Initiatives. This detailed description of
    five strategic initiatives formed the basis for the Secretary of the
    Senate's request for $5 million in multi-year funds for further work on
    the FMIS project. The five strategic initiatives are:
      --Paperless Vouchers--Imaging of Supporting Documentation and
            Electronic Signatures.--Beginning with a feasibility study and
            a pilot, implement new technology, including imaging and
            electronic signatures, that will reduce the Senate's dependence
            on paper vouchers. This will enable continuation of voucher
            processing operations from any location, should an emergency
            occur;
      --Web FMIS.--Requests from Accounting Locations--Respond to requests
            from the Senate's Accounting Locations for additional
            functionality in Web FMIS;
      --Payroll System.--Requests from Accounting Locations--Respond to
            requests from the Senate's Accounting Locations for on-line
            real time access to payroll data;
      --Accounting Sub-system Integration.--Integrate Senate-specific
            accounting systems, improve internal controls, and eliminate
            errors caused by re-keying of data; and
      --CFO Financial Statement Development.--Provide the Senate with the
            capacity to produce auditable financial statements that will
            obtain an unqualified opinion.
    Managing the FMIS Project
        The responsibility for managing the FMIS project was transferred to
    the IT group during the summer of 2003 and includes developing the task
    orders with contractors and overseeing their work. In 2004, three new
    task orders were executed: Web FMIS r10; Fiscal Year 2004 Extended
    Operational Support (September 2004-August 2005); and SAA Finance
    System and Reporting Enhancements.
        In addition, work continued under two task orders executed in 2003:
    Web FMIS Thin Client; and Web FMIS Imaging and Digital Signature Design
    and Electronic Invoicing and Remittance Enhancements.
    Administering the Disbursing Office's Local Area Network (LAN)
        The DO administers its own Local Area Network (LAN), which is
    separate from the LAN for the rest of the Secretary's Office. Our LAN
    Administrator's activities included: Office-wide LAN Maintenance and
    Upgrade; Projects for the Accounting Section; and Projects for the
    Payroll and Benefits Section.
                Office-wide LAN maintenance and upgrade
        Existing workstations were maintained with appropriate upgrades
    including:
      --Configured and installed a new Windows 2000 server and transferred
            all critical DO data to this server;
      --Implemented an automatic update for the virus scanning software on
            each PC in the DO;
      --Selected and supervised installation of new printers for DO staff
            and placed multi-purpose printer/scanner/copier machines in
            strategic locations;
      --Installed new stand-alone PCs for communication with the Federal
            Reserve's Fedline system in the DO and at the Alternate
            Computing Facility; and
      --Maintained the Office Information Authorization form log which
            provides easy access from DO staff desktops to up-to-date
            information about the authorized contacts for each Senate
            office.
                Projects for the Accounting Sections
        The activities of the Accounting Section were supported with the
    implementation of a direct connection to the Treasury Department. This
    eliminated creating and delivering a monthly magnetic tape.
                Projects for Payroll and Employee Benefits Sections
        Activities of the Payroll and Employee Benefits sections were
    supported with three specific projects:
      --Implemented a Payroll Imaging system, developed by SAA staff. This
            system captures payroll documents turned in at the DO front
            counter electronically;
      --Assisted Benefits staff on transferring data electronically to
            other agencies; and
      --Training Payroll and Benefits staff on creating fillable PDF forms.
    Coordinating the Disbursing Office's Disaster Recovery Activities
        During 2004, the Sergeant at Arms' office completed the build out
    of the Alternative Computing Facility. In December 2004, a two-day test
    was performed to operate FMIS subsystems from this location. The tests
    of all mainframe systems (i.e., payroll, ADPICS and FAMIS) were
    successful and payroll and voucher payments were made via direct
    deposit and check. Additionally, documents were created, posted, and
    printed via Web FMIS and ADPICS. Document printing has always presented
    problems during past tests; however, system configuration at the ACF
    has resolved this problem. The next test is planned for May 2005, when
    additional FMIS sub-systems will be tested.
                Disbursing Office COOP Activities
        The DO staff wrote a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) in 2001.
    This document addresses issues beyond the scope of disaster recovery.
    Normal maintenance is performed on this document to ensure that it
    remains up-to-date and viable. In addition to the success of the
    disaster recovery testing in December, the DO's most significant COOP
    related activity was the setup and pre-positioning of essential
    equipment and supplies in the dedicated space at the ACF. This
    accomplishment significantly improves the DO's ability to quickly
    respond to and complete its core responsibilities.
                             administrative offices
                        1. conservation and preservation
        The Office of Conservation and Preservation develops and
    coordinates programs directly related to the conservation and
    preservation of Senate records and materials for which the Secretary of
    the Senate has statutory authority. This office's initiatives include
    deacidification of paper and prints, phased conservation for books and
    documents, collection surveys, exhibits, and matting and framing for
    the Senate leadership.
        Over the past year the Office of Conservation and Preservation has
    embossed 275 books and matted and framed 525 items for the Senate
    leadership. The office is especially proud to be a part of a Senate
    tradition. For more than 23 years, the office has bound a copy of
    Washington's Farewell Address for the annual Washington's Farewell
    Address ceremony. In 2004, a volume was bound for and read by Senator
    John Breaux.
        As mandated in the 1990 Senate Library Collection Condition Survey,
    the Office of Conservation and Preservation continued to conduct an
    annual treatment of books identified by the survey as needing
    conservation or repair. In 2003, conservation treatments were completed
    for 65 volumes of a 7,000 volume collection of House Hearings.
    Specifically, treatment involved recasing each volume as required,
    using alkaline end sheets, replacing acidic tab sheets with alkaline
    paper, cleaning the cloth cases, and replacing black spine title labels
    of each volume as necessary. The Office of Conservation and
    Preservation will continue preservation of the remaining 4,100 volumes.
        This office assisted the Senate Library with 531 books sent to the
    Library Binding section of the Government Printing Office (GPO) for
    binding and with five exhibits located in the Senate Russell building
    basement corridor. The Office of Conservation and Preservation also
    assisted the Senate Curator's staff with special matting & framing
    required for the World War II exhibit located on the first floor of the
    Capitol.
        This office continues to assist Senate offices with conservation
    and preservation of documents, books, and various other items. For
    example, the office is currently monitoring the temperature and
    humidity in the Senate Library storage areas, the vault and warehouse
    for preservation and conservation purposes
                                   2. curator
        The Office of Senate Curator, on behalf of the Senate Commission on
    Art (``Commission''), develops and implements the museum and
    preservation programs for the United States Senate. The Office
    collects, preserves, and interprets the Senate's fine and decorative
    arts, historic objects, and specific architectural features; and
    exercises supervisory responsibility for the chambers in the Capitol
    under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Through exhibitions,
    publications, and other programs, the Office educates the public about
    the Senate and its collections.
    Collections: Commissions, Acquisitions, and Management
        Portraits of Senators Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan and Robert
    Wagner of New York were officially unveiled on September 14, 2004 in
    the Senate Reception Room. The new paintings join portraits of the
    ``Famous Five'' Senators commissioned for the room and installed in
    1959.
        The painting of Senator George Mitchell for the Senate Leadership
    Portrait Collection was completed and approved by the Commission on
    Art, and the portrait of Senator Margaret Chase Smith is in its final
    stage. Both will be unveiled in 2005. Another important commissioned
    work in progress is a portrait of Senator Bob Dole.
        S. Res. 177 directed the Commission to commission a mural
    commemorating the Connecticut Compromise. The Rules Committee directed
    that the mural be added to the Senate Reception Room, and the
    Commission empaneled an advisory board of experts in the field to
    select and recommend an appropriate scene and three potential artists.
    These artists developed proposals, and the advisory board reviewed
    these sketches and have recommended a final candidate to the Commission
    for consideration.
        Fourteen objects were accessioned into the Senate Collection,
    including a Senate Reception Room chair from the 1860's (private
    donation); a reproduction Senate Chamber desk used on the set of the
    movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and'' ``Advise and Consent'' (gift
    of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society); an 1870's cabinet card album
    attributed to the Mathew Brady studio (private donation); and several
    historic prints and political cartoons.
        At the direction of the Commission, the Curator's Office
    facilitated the acquisition of a Cornelius & Baker armorial chandelier
    owned by Tudor Place in Washington, D.C. The purchase of this rare
    historic fixture, which is similar to one that hung in the second floor
    corridor of the Senate wing, is an important addition to the Capitol's
    decorative and lighting history.
        Twenty-four new foreign gifts were reported to the Select Committee
    on Ethics and transferred to the Curator's Office. They were
    catalogued, and are maintained by the office in accordance with the
    Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act. Appropriate disposition of 12
    objects in the collection was completed following established
    procedures.
        As construction continued on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), the
    office worked with the Architect of the Capitol's CVC staff to plan the
    two storage rooms designated for Senate Collection objects, to ensure
    the highest level of preservation standards. A conservator specializing
    in museum facility planning reviewed the design drawings and provided
    recommendations, including outfitting the storage spaces. A detailed
    survey of the entire collection was completed, and the findings will be
    incorporated into a Collection Storage Plan.
        An off-site collection storage facility, made available for use
    through a lease arranged by the Senate Sergeant at Arms (SAA) in 2003,
    continued to provide much needed secure, climate controlled, museum
    quality storage for objects in the Senate Collection. An additional 18
    objects were transferred to the storage facility.
        The office has worked for several years with the SAA regarding
    plans for the construction of a warehouse space to meet the stringent
    requirements for storing fine and decorative art. In 2004
    specifications developed by the office were used by the SAA to create
    plans and begin construction on such a space, in association with the
    larger effort to build a new Senate warehouse.
        The Curator's Office initiated a comprehensive project to
    photograph the 102 historic Senate Chamber desks (which includes the
    100 on the Senate floor and two desks currently in storage). One set of
    transparencies will be stored off-site for emergency purposes, while a
    second working set will be used for the web, image requests, and future
    publications. Twenty desks were photographed in 2004; the project is
    scheduled to be completed in December 2007.
        In keeping with established procedures, all Senate Collection
    objects on display were inventoried noting any changes in location. As
    directed by S. Res. 178, the office submitted inventories of the art
    and historic furnishings in the Senate to the Rules Committee. The
    inventories, submitted every six months, are compiled by the Curator's
    Office with assistance from the SAA and the AOC's Senate
    Superintendent's office.
    Conservation and Restoration
        A total of 24 objects received conservation treatment in 2004.
    These included 15 Senate Chamber desks, two large sculptures, three
    plaster reliefs, three oil on canvas paintings, and one manuscript
    collection.
        The initiative to conserve the 100 historic Senate Chamber desks
    began in 1999. Twice a year, during Senate recess periods, desks are
    removed from the Senate Chamber and sent out for restoration. Treatment
    is extensive, and follows a detailed protocol developed to address the
    wear and degradation of these historic desks due to continued heavy
    use. To date, 91 desks have been restored and the project is on track
    to be completed in 2005. A condition survey completed in 2003 stressed
    the necessity of installing rubber bumpers to the arms of the Senate
    Chamber chairs to protect the front of the desks from continued damage.
    Seventy-eight chairs are now modified with bumpers.
        Due to numerous construction projects in the Capitol, several works
    of art were relocated. The large sculpture, Justice and History,
    displayed in the Senate subway terminal, was moved in 2003 due to CVC
    construction. Work entailed separating the large sections of marble
    that comprise the sculpture and moving each half individually.
    Arrangements were made during January 2004 to restore the plaster
    surface by repairing the seam between the two halves and treating other
    minor damage and stains to the plaster coat. The conservator also
    performed treatment and cleaning on three plaster relief sculptures
    located nearby.
        In May 2004, the portrait, George Washington (Patriae Pater), and
    the sculpture, Eagle and Shield, were removed from display in the Old
    Senate Chamber to protect them from possible damage during construction
    on the roof above. A fine art handling company deinstalled and crated
    the art works. The office took the opportunity to have conservators
    assess the condition of the pieces and perform surface cleaning. The
    conservators also collected samples from the surface of the Eagle and
    Shield to document the historic finishes. Analysis of the samples will
    provide invaluable information to guide future restoration decisions.
        The Isaac Bassett Manuscript Collection will be microfilmed during
    2005. A conservator was hired to conduct an assessment of the
    collection, carry out necessary conservation treatment prior to
    microfilming, and rehouse the papers for preservation.
        The office initiated a detailed condition and identification survey
    of the nearly 100 historic mirrors in the Senate wing. A conservator
    was contracted to undertake the work, which will include extensive
    written and photo documentation for each piece. The project has
    significant benefits: the condition assessments will determine
    priorities for conservation and maintenance treatments; provide
    information on the age, origin, and importance of the frames; and
    furnish documentation for disaster planning. Half the mirrors have been
    surveyed, and the project will be completed in 2005.
        The Curator's staff participated in training sessions for the
    Capitol Police regarding the care and protection of art in the Capitol,
    and continued to educate the housekeeping personnel on maintenance
    issues related to the fine and decorative art collections.
    Historic Preservation
        Preservation work included extensive research, documentation,
    record keeping, and project review. The program emphasizes
    infrastructure development and oversight.
        The office worked with the AOC and the SAA to review, comment, and
    document Senate construction projects. In addition to offering
    direction in project development and methodology, the office maintains
    records on all known Senate wing projects. Documentation associated
    with those files varies in accordance with office involvement and
    impact on historic resources. Projects that required considerable
    review and assistance included: Brumidi corridor restoration phase
    VIII; window shutter refinishing; emergency strobe and horn
    installation; grand stairwell plaster replacement; marble step repair;
    plaster assessment program; Brumidi west corridor egress installation;
    and cell phone antenna installation. Additionally, the office is
    working closely with the AOC in the creation of an historic structures
    report for the Senate vestibule, adjacent stairwell, and small Senate
    rotunda. When completed, the report will provide critical documentation
    regarding the architectural history of these spaces, and will serve as
    the foundation for any future preservation work.
        The architectural chronology and social history databases
    established in 2003 were further refined, with new information entered
    as it became available and existing files systematically incorporated.
    While the office databases and files provide a significant resource for
    room and object histories, a project initiated in October will greatly
    increase the office's research capabilities. Currently, the historic
    preservation officer is working with the Senate Library to create an
    electronic database of all AOC, SAA, and Secretary of the Senate annual
    reports. Related to this effort, is a new initiative to photo document
    leadership suites during each Congress. This will allow the office to
    report on ``decorative'' changes in leadership rooms over time. With
    requests from Senate offices for information pertaining to room
    histories, architectural features, and historic images dramatically
    increasing, these initiatives allow for quick retrieval of necessary
    information.
    Historic Chambers
        The Curator's staff continued to maintain the Old Senate and Old
    Supreme Court Chambers, and coordinated periodic use of both rooms for
    special occasions. By order of the U.S. Capitol Police, the Old Senate
    Chamber was closed to visitors after September 11, 2001. However,
    during most Senate recesses in 2004, the historic room was opened to
    tours. Twenty-six requests were received from current Members of
    Congress for after hours access to the chamber. Of special significance
    was the filming of a documentary history on the Capitol by C-SPAN using
    high definition equipment. B-roll footage was also requested and
    provided to Lion Television in Scotland for a documentary on Charles
    Dickens in America. Twenty-one requests were received by current
    Members of Congress for admittance to the Old Supreme Court Chamber
    after hours. The office also coordinated with the AOC to install
    emergency strobe lights in each chamber as part of the life-safety
    upgrade program.
    Loans To and From the Collection
        A total of 76 historic objects and paintings are currently on loan
    to the Curator's Office on behalf of Senate leadership and officials in
    the Capitol. The staff added loans of two portraits for leadership
    suites, returned 11 paintings and prints at the expiration of their
    loan periods to their respective owners, and renewed loan agreements
    for 18 other objects. In addition, the office coordinated the loan of
    six oil study sketches by Robert Chester La Follette of Senators Clay,
    Calhoun, Webster, La Follette, and Taft, which relate to the 1958
    commission for the Senate Reception Room portraits. The sketches are
    currently on loan from the daughter of the late artist, and have been
    approved for accession into the Senate Collection in 2005.
        The Curator's Office obtained an oil sketch by Constantino Brumidi
    for study and appraisal. The painting is a preparatory sketch completed
    around 1874 by the artist for his fresco mural, the Signing of the
    First Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, located above room S-118 in
    the Brumidi Corridors. The sketch has now been acquired for the Senate
    Collection.
        The office continued to work with CVC staff to assemble information
    on Senate Collection objects. Condition reports were conducted on those
    objects currently being considered for loan, and exhibit labels were
    written for all Senate-related artifacts planned for the exhibition.
    The office also assisted in developing a CVC Art Task Force, composed
    of prominent curators, architects, and designers, to recommend short-
    and long-term plans for art in the Visitor Center. The first meeting
    was held in December, and a white paper will be developed in the next
    few months.
        The Secretary's china was distributed and returned six times in
    2004. It was used for events including a dinner for the Senate spouses,
    and luncheons for the current First Lady and former First Lady Nancy
    Reagan. The official Senate china was inventoried and used at 28
    receptions for distinguished guests, both foreign and domestic.
    Publications and Exhibitions
        Work continued on the United States Senate Catalogue of Graphic
    Art, to be published in 2005. The volume features the Senate's
    collection of more than 900 historic engravings and lithographs, and
    includes two full-length essays and almost 40 short essays discussing
    selected prints. The Senate Curator and Associate Senate Historian are
    co-authors of the publication. It is a companion volume to the United
    States Senate Catalogue of Fine Art published in 2003.
        In August 2004, the office de-installed the popular photographic
    exhibition, The United States Capitol: Photographs by Fred J. Maroon,
    and installed World War II: The Senate and the Nation's Capital, an
    exhibition of photographs exploring how the Senate ``went to war'' and
    how the war came to Washington, D.C. The Senate Historical Office and
    Curator's Office developed the exhibit, which is located on the first
    floor of the Senate wing.
        In association with the Office of Web Technology and a web design
    contractor, the office worked on developing and posting two interactive
    exhibits to the Senate web site. The exhibits, Take the Puck
    Challenge!, and Advise and Consent: The Drawings of Lily Spandorf, were
    originally produced for stand-alone kiosks in the Capitol. They are
    being translated into Flash presentations to become internet
    compatible. Take the Puck Challenge! features quizzes, games, and
    puzzles to introduce viewers to the political cartoons of the
    nineteenth-century satirical magazine, Puck. Advise and Consent
    explores the work of Lily Spandorf, an artist who sketched the filming
    of the Otto Preminger movie of the same name, filmed in and around the
    Capitol in 1962. Ms. Spandorf's drawings are owned by the Senate.
        The internet exhibit, ``I Do Solemnly Swear'': A Half Century of
    Inaugural Images, was developed for the Joint Congressional Committee
    on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC), and features images from the Senate's
    Graphic Art Collection illustrating inaugural events from 1853 to 1905.
        Several brochures were reprinted in 2004, and one new publication
    produced, The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee. The office also
    continued to be a significant contributor to Unum, the Secretary of the
    Senate's newsletter.
        As part of an ongoing program to provide information about the
    Capitol's art and historic spaces, new informational panels were
    installed for the paintings of George Washington at Princeton and
    Recall of Columbus.
    Policies and Procedures
        In 2004, the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board was established by
    statute. Composed of respected scholars and curators, this board was
    established to (i) provide expert advice to the Commission regarding
    the Senate's art and historic collections and preservation program, and
    (ii) assist in the acquisition and review of new objects for the
    collections. During 2004, the 12-member board was empaneled and the
    first meeting was held.
        Additionally, the Commission established the Senate Preservation
    Board of Trustees. This board, composed of eminent citizens, was
    established to enable the acquisition of significant art works and
    historical objects and to facilitate preservation projects for the
    Commission. Currently, the Commission, through the Curator's office, is
    fielding nominations for the board from Commission members and an
    initial meeting will be held in the spring of 2005.
    Collaborations, Educational Programs, and Events
        In preparation for the presidential inauguration, the JCCIC
    requested various assistance from the Curator's Office. The staff was
    responsible for handling all details regarding the historic painting
    and podium for display at the inaugural luncheon; assisting with the
    printed programs and gift portfolio; and developing a collecting plan
    to ensure appropriate material would be saved for the Senate
    Collection. The Curator's Administrator served on the JCCIC design team
    for the web site, while the Curatorial Assistant was assigned to the
    Committee, serving as its Deputy Capitol Coordinator.
    Office Administration
        As part of the continuing effort to safeguard collections and
    records against possible disaster, work began to microfiche and
    digitize the collection object files. These files are the primary legal
    title, research, and management records for all art and historical
    objects in the Senate's collections. Copies of the fiche and digital
    records will be kept off site for disaster recovery and archival
    purposes. Additional copies will be used on site for research and
    public information in order to lessen the wear and tear on the original
    paper records.
    Automation
        The office upgraded its electronic collection management database,
    allowing for more efficient and accurate conversion of collection
    information into web site applications. The staff is participating in a
    pilot program to introduce Groove project management software to the
    Secretary's Office.
        In 2004 a PDF version of the publication, United States Senate
    Catalogue of Fine Art, was posted on the web site, and work is
    proceeding to add the essays from that volume to the web pages for each
    piece of art. In addition, the office completed photographing and
    scanning the 980 historical engravings and political cartoons in the
    Graphic Art Collection; work on adding these to the site will begin
    shortly. Due to an increased presence of the Senate Collection on the
    Senate.gov web site, requests for collection images increased
    dramatically.
    Objectives for 2005
        A major initiative in the upcoming year will be the creation of
    several new museum quality storage areas for the Senate Collection. At
    the end of 2004, a site was selected for a new Senate warehouse
    facility that will be outfitted to include a room with climate control,
    security, and equipment to house Senate Collection objects. Work will
    include research and review of appropriate museum storage equipment and
    monitoring systems, and planning the move of collections into the new
    facility. Additionally, planning for the Curator's storage spaces in
    the CVC will be guided by the results of the contract with the
    conservator specializing in collections storage.
        Conservation and preservation concerns continue to be a priority.
    Projects in 2005 will include the restoration of nine Senate Chamber
    desks--completing the seven year conservation treatment program;
    assessment and conservation of the painting, the First Reading of the
    Emancipation Proclamation by F.B. Carpenter; and restoration of the
    Senate's historic portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart. Two
    conservators from the National Gallery of Art recently provided an
    assessment of the condition of paintings on display in the Senate wing,
    and provided recommendations for the conservation of the Stuart
    panting. Two recently commissioned paintings, of Blanche Kelso Bruce
    and James O. Eastland, will receive light cleaning and application of a
    varnish coat to enhance and protect the portraits now that the paint
    has properly cured.
        The Senate Preservation Board of Trustees will hold its first
    meeting. The Senate Curatorial Advisory Board will continue to meet
    semi-annually and address such issues as the Commission and the office
    of the Senate Curator may bring before it.
        Work on the United States Senate Catalogue of Graphic Art will be
    completed in 2005. Information panels for three paintings will be
    developed: The Florida Case before the Electoral Commission, The Battle
    of Lake Erie, and First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation.
        Internet exhibits will include sites on Isaac Bassett and the
    Senate Chamber desks. The Isaac Bassett exhibit will feature art works,
    historic images, and objects from the Senate Collection, as well as
    portions of the Bassett manuscript, highlighting the 64-year career of
    this nineteenth-century Senate employee. The Senate Chamber desk
    exhibit will bring together all historical information on the desks, as
    well as discuss the conservation efforts. The site will prove
    invaluable to anyone seeking information on desk occupants, desk
    styles, and Senate floor seating configurations. Other web activities
    include increasing the art and historic information on the site, and
    posting new acquisitions.
        To streamline the process for adding new objects to the Senate
    Collection, a tracking system for potential accessions will be
    developed. The system will improve the collection of information and
    the availability of collection documentation. A thorough review and
    consideration of the Incoming Objects Register collection will commence
    with the development of the tracking system. Additionally, the
    Registration department will implement an electronic tracking system to
    improve the accuracy and efficiency of loan renewals.
        Collection activities will include efforts to locate and recover
    historic Senate pieces long associated with the institution. Work has
    begun to find an early Senate Chamber chair by Thomas Constantine, a
    Russell Office Building desk by George Cobb, and furnishings associated
    with the Old Supreme Court Chamber.
        The office will proceed with the Connecticut Compromise mural and
    the portrait of Senator Bob Dole. Unveilings will be held for the
    Senator George Mitchell and Senator Margaret Chase Smith paintings.
        An oral history program will be developed, based on the Senate
    Historical Office's successful format, to document the history of the
    Senate's collections. Artists, cabinetmakers, donors, and others will
    be interviewed, and appropriate information posted on the Senate web
    site.
        Microfiching of the fine art collection files and microfilming of
    the Isaac Bassett papers will be completed, as will the project to
    digitize the annual reports from the AOC, SAA, and Secretary of the
    Senate. The office will continue to photograph the Senate Chamber
    desks.
        The office plans to expand its use of Groove project management
    software. It is hoped that by the end of the year all staff will
    achieve a reasonable level of proficiency in the program and that many
    projects will be managed and their status reported to the Secretary
    using this application.
        With the recent acquisition of the Cornelius & Baker armorial
    chandelier, the office will oversee the transfer and storage of the
    fixture, and will work with the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board to
    review options for the future use of the fixture within the Senate
    wing.
        The office will undertake several major research initiatives.
    Research on the Old Senate Chamber Eagle and Shield will be conducted
    in conjunction with major decorative art museums and scholars, and it
    is hoped that it will result in determining the origin, maker, and
    original condition of this important symbolic image. Research will
    begin on the Senate Chamber chairs. No original 1819 chairs remain in
    the chamber, and as new chairs were constructed over the years, many
    design features and materials changed. Documenting these changes will
    help determine the authenticity and age of any chair that might appear
    for sale or donation; currently several such chairs are being
    considered for acquisition.
        Of importance is the development of a five year plan for the Senate
    Preservation Program. In creating the plan, the Curator's staff will
    further their knowledge of state capitol preservation efforts by
    visiting other sites and meeting with local and state preservationists,
    and will seek advice from the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board. This
    will be a major initiative in advancing the Preservation Program.
                   3. joint office of education and training
        The Joint Office of Education and Training provides employee
    training and development opportunities for all Senate staff both in
    Washington D.C. and in the states. There are three branches within the
    department. The technical training branch is responsible for providing
    technical training support for approved software packages used in
    either Washington or the state offices. The computer training staff
    provides instructor-led classes; one-on-one coaching sessions;
    specialized training provided by vendors, computer based training; and
    informal training and support services. The professional training
    branch provides courses for all Senate staff in areas including
    management and leadership development, human resources issues and staff
    benefits, legislative and staff information, new staff and intern
    information. The Health Promotion branch provides seminars, classes and
    screenings on health related and wellness issues. This branch also
    coordinates an annual Health Fair for all Senate employees and four
    blood drives each year.
    Training Classes
        The Joint Office of Education and Training offered 581 classes in
    2004. 5,252 Senate employees participated in these classes. The
    registration desk handled 20,467 requests for training and
    documentation.
        Of the above total, in the Technical Training area 265 classes were
    held with a total attendance of 1,093 students. An additional 702 staff
    received coaching on various software packages and other computer
    related issues.
        In the Professional Development area 316 classes were held with a
    total attendance of 4,159 students. Individual managers and supervisors
    are also encouraged to request customized training for their offices on
    areas of need.
        The Office of Education and Training is available to work with
    teams on issues related to team performance, communication or conflict
    resolution. During 2004, 40 requests for special training or team
    building were met. Professional development staff also traveled to
    state offices to conduct specialized training and team building during
    the year. During the last quarter of the year, training was offered via
    video teleconferencing to two state offices.
        In the Health Promotion area, 708 Senate staff participated in
    Health Promotion activities throughout the year. These activities
    included cancer screening, bone density screening and seminars on
    health related topics. Additionally 1,310 staff participated in the
    Annual Health Fair held in September.
        The Joint Office of Education and Training has actively worked with
    the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness to provide security
    training for Senate staff. In 2004, the Office of Education and
    Training coordinated 53 sessions of escape hood and other security
    related training for 1,683 Senate staff.
    State Training
        Since most of the classes that are offered are only practical for
    D.C. based staff, the Office of Education and Training continues to
    offer the ``State Training Fair'' which began in March 2000. In 2004,
    two sessions of this program were offered to state staff. This office
    also conducted our annual State Directors Forum for the second year. In
    addition, this office has implemented the ``Virtual Classroom'' which
    is an internet based training library of 300+ courses. To date, 396
    state office and DC staff have used this training option.
                        4. chief counsel for employment
    Background
        The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (``SCCE'') is
    a non-partisan office established at the direction of the Joint
    Leadership in 1993 after enactment of the Government Employee Rights
    Act (``GERA''), which allowed Senate employees to file claims of
    employment discrimination against Senate offices. With the enactment of
    the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (``CAA''), Senate offices
    became subject to the requirements, responsibilities and obligations of
    11 employment laws. The SCCE is charged with all legal defense of
    Senate offices in all employment law cases at both the administrative
    and court levels. Also, on a day-to-day basis, the office provides
    legal advice to Senate offices about their obligations under employment
    laws. Accordingly, each of the 180 offices of the Senate is an
    individual client of the SCCE, and each office maintains an attorney-
    client relationship with the SCCE.
        The areas of responsibilities of the SCCE can be divided into the
    following categories:
      --Litigation (Defending Senate Offices in Federal Court)
      --Mediations to Resolve Lawsuits
      --Court-Ordered Alternative Dispute Resolutions
      --Preventive Legal Advice
      --Union Drives, Negotiations and Unfair Labor Practice Charges
      --OSHA/Americans With Disability Act (``ADA'') Compliance
      --Layoffs and Office Closings In Compliance With the Law
      --Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities
      --Litigation; Mediations; Alternative Dispute Resolutions
        The SCCE represents each of the 180 employing offices of the Senate
    in all court actions (including both trial and appellate courts),
    hearings, proceedings, investigations, and negotiations relating to
    labor and employment laws. The SCCE handles cases filed in the District
    of Columbia and cases filed in any of the 50 states.
    Union Drives, Negotiations And Unfair Labor Practice Charges
        In 2004, no employees attempted to unionize. Therefore, the SCCE
    handled no union drives.
    OSHA/ADA Compliance
        The SCCE provides advice and assistance to Senate offices in
    complying with the applicable OSHA and ADA regulations; representing
    them during Office of Compliance inspections; advising state offices on
    the preparation of the Office of Compliance's Home State OSHA/ADA
    Inspection Questionnaires; assisting offices in the preparation of
    Emergency Action Plans; and advising and representing Senate offices
    when a complaint of an OSHA violation has been filed with the Office of
    Compliance or when a citation has been issued. In 2004, the SCCE
    assisted all Senate offices in preparing for OSHA/ADA inspections, pre-
    inspected 12 offices, and gave 9 OSHA/ADA seminars.
    Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities
        The SCCE conducts legal seminars for the managers of Senate offices
    to assist them in complying with employment laws. In 2004, the SCCE
    gave 51 legal seminars to Senate offices. Among the topics covered
    were:
      --Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace;
      --The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995: What Managers Need to
            Know About Their Legal Obligations;
      --Managers' Obligations Under the Family and Medical Leave Act;
      --The Legal Pitfalls of Hiring the Right Employee: Advertising,
            Interviewing, Drug Testing and Background Checks;
      --Disciplining, Evaluating and Terminating an Employee Without
            Violating Employment Laws;
      --Management's Obligations Under the Americans With Disabilities Act;
      --Equal Pay for Equal Work: Management's Obligations Under the Equal
            Pay Act;
      --The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA): Steps Your
            Office Must Take to Verify Employment Eligibility;
      --Enhancing Diversity and Avoiding Discrimination in the Workplace;
            and
      --Workplace Violence.
    Preventive Legal Advice
        At times, a Senate office will become aware that an employee is
    contemplating legal action, and the office will request the SCCE's
    legal advice and/or that the SCCE negotiate with the employee's
    attorney before the employee files a lawsuit.
        Also, the SCCE advises and meets with Members, Chiefs of Staff,
    Administrative Managers, Staff Directors, Chief Clerks and General
    Counsels at their request. The purpose is to prevent litigation and to
    minimize liability in the event of litigation. For example, on a daily
    basis, the SCCE advises Senate offices on matters such as disciplining
    or terminating employees in compliance with the law, handling and
    investigating sexual harassment complaints, accommodating the disabled,
    determining wage law requirements, meeting the requirements of the
    Family and Medical Leave Act, and management's rights and obligations
    under union laws and OSHA.
                              5. senate gift shop
        The Senate Gift Shop was established under administrative direction
    and supervision of the Secretary of the Senate (SOS) in October 1992,
    (United States Code, Title 2--Chapter 4). The Gift Shop provides
    services to Senators, their spouses, staffs, and constituents, and the
    many visitors to the U.S. Capitol complex. Products include a wide
    variety of souvenirs, collectibles and fine gift items created
    exclusively for the U.S. Senate. Services include special ordering of
    personalized products, custom framing, gold embossing, engraving and
    shipping.
    Facilities
        For several years the services offered by the Senate Gift Shop were
    over-the-counter sales to walk-in customers at a single location.
    Today, after more than 10 years in operation, and as a result of
    extended services and continued growth, the Gift Shop now provides
    service from three different locations. Services from these locations
    include walk-in sales, telephone orders, fax orders, mail orders, and a
    variety of special order and catalog sales.
        Plans for the movement of inventory from the offsite warehouses to
    the soon-to-be completed SAA warehouse are currently being formulated.
    Plans include but are not limited to taking a physical inventory of
    Gift Shop merchandise stored at both offsite warehouses, devising
    methods for securing product on pallets and carts in preparation for
    transportation, transporting the merchandise, and the shelving of
    inventory upon delivery to the new warehouse.
        Operational procedures for the new location such as staffing
    requirements, receiving, shipping, and security are currently under
    consideration. These issues as well as other procedural considerations
    will be more clearly defined through a series of meetings and
    communications between SAA and SOS Gift Shop staff as the warehouse
    construction nears completion.
    Sales Activity
        Sales recorded for fiscal year 2004 are $1,494,744.51. Cost of
    goods sold during this same period are $1,005,348.34, accounting for a
    gross profit of $489,396.17.
        In addition to tracking gross profit from sales, the Senate Gift
    Shop maintains a revolving fund and a record of on-hand inventory. As
    of October 1, 2004, the revolving fund balance was $1,683,079.32 and
    the on-hand inventory was valued at $2,090,474.06.
    Additional Activity
        One of the most important objectives for 2003 and 2004 was
    replacing point-of-sale and accounting software, Basic Four, which was
    more than twenty years old and no longer meeting the increasingly
    unique needs of the Gift Shop.
        The company providing the hardware and performing the system
    installation of the new retail and financial management system, has
    completed the bulk of the contract work and is nearing completion of
    the last few deliverables of the contract. The deliverables that remain
    to be fulfilled include the ability to export and import financial data
    from the Senate Disbursing Office into the Gift Shop's Great Plains
    accounting system, the delivery of a basic Web Store/Kiosk database
    engine and the development of an e-commerce storefront.
        The selected software packages, Microsoft Retail Management System,
    Headquarters, Store Operations and Great Plains, are off-the-shelf
    products that required little modification to meet the specific
    requirements of Senate Gift Shop operations. Currently Gift Shop staff
    continue to modify and create databases that will serve as the
    foundation for the new retail system. Databases include inventory,
    financial data and other information required for detailed reports.
    Contractors are currently working to solve programming issues and are
    confident that they will be able to complete the contract obligations
    in the very near future.
        It is important to note that the new system not only will meet the
    Gift Shop's current and near-future requirements, but will also
    accommodate potential add-on features such as intranet and internet
    sales.
    Accomplishments and New Products in Fiscal Year 2004
                Official Congressional Holiday Ornaments
        The year 2002 marked the beginning of the Gift Shop's third
    consecutive ``four-year ornament series.'' Each ornament in the 2002-
    2005 series of unique collectibles features an architectural milestone
    of the United States Capitol and is packaged with corresponding
    historical text taken from the book, History of the United States
    Capitol: A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics by William
    C. Allen, Architectural Historian in the office of the Architect of the
    Capitol.
        Our 11th annual ornament was released in 2004 and shows the Capitol
    enlarged with new marble wings and cast-iron dome designed by
    Philadelphia architect Thomas U. Walter who was appointed architect of
    the Capitol extension in 1851. Walter enlivened the foreground of his
    drawing with a spirited scene of carriages, horses and crowds of
    people. In keeping with a Gift Shop tradition, the authentic colors of
    the original drawing were reproduced onto a white porcelain stone and
    set with a brass frame finished in 24kt gold.
        Sales of the 2004 holiday ornament exceeded 33,000, of which more
    than 7,400 were personalized with engravings designed, proofed and
    etched by Gift Shop staff. Sales revenue from this year's ornament
    generated more than $40,000 in scholarship funds for the Senate Child
    Care Center.
                Pickard China Porcelain ``Executive Authority'' Box
        Executive Authority, released in 2004, is the third in a series of
    four porcelain boxes that display different images from the Constantino
    Brumidi fresco paintings on the ceiling of the President's Room in the
    Senate Wing of the United States Capitol. The first and second boxes in
    the series, Liberty and Legislation, were released in 2002 and 2003.
    The final piece of this series, Religion, will be released later this
    year.
                United States Senate Catalogue of Fine Art
        The Gift Shop purchased for resale the book, United States Senate
    Catalogue of Fine Art. In order to ensure availability of this
    publication for an extended period of time, a large quantity was
    secured.
    Projects and New Ideas for 2005
                108th Congressional Plate
        The series of Official Congressional Plates will continue this year
    with the design, development and manufacture of the 108th and 109th
    Congressional Plates. The design stage for both plates has been
    completed and prototypes are being produced by Tiffany & Co.
        In addition to determining the design for the 108th and 109th
    Congressional Plates, final artwork is under development with Tiffany's
    for the 110th and 111th Congressional Plates.
                Constantino Brumidi Birthday Celebration
        This year marks the 200th Birthday of Constantino Brumidi, ``The
    Artist of the Capitol.'' In celebration of this special occasion, Gift
    Shop staff will work closely with the staff of the Curator's Office
    throughout 2005 on an initiative to add to our collection of Brumidi-
    inspired merchandise.
                Intranet/Webster
        The Gift Shop actively continues to develop its website. Primary
    considerations include website policy, design and layout, content and
    products to be featured. It is the Gift Shop's intention to quickly
    include links to the offices of the Historian, Curator and Senate
    Library so the Senate community using Webster will have ready access to
    additional information pertaining to the product or subject of their
    interest.
                              6. historical office
        Serving as the Senate's institutional memory, the Historical Office
    collects and provides information on important events, precedents,
    dates, statistics, and historical comparisons of current and past
    Senate activities for use by members and staff, the media, scholars,
    and the general public.
        The Office advises Senators, officers, and committees on cost-
    effective disposition of their non-current office files and assists
    researchers in identifying Senate-related source materials. The Office
    keeps extensive biographical, bibliographical, photographic, and
    archival information on the 1,784 former Senators. It edits for
    publication historically significant transcripts and minutes of
    selected Senate committees and party organizations, and conducts oral
    history interviews with key Senate staff. The photo historian maintains
    a collection of approximately 40,000 still pictures that includes
    photographs and illustrations of Senate committees and most former
    Senators. The Office develops and maintains all historical material on
    the Senate web site.
    Editorial Projects
        Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress, 1774-2005.--In May
    2003, both Houses of Congress adopted H. Con. Res. 138, authorizing
    printing of the sixteenth edition of the Biographical Directory of the
    United States Congress, 1774-2005. The first edition of this
    indispensable reference source was published in 1859; the most recent
    edition appeared in 1989. Since 1989, the assistant historian has added
    many new biographical sketches, expanded bibliography entries, and
    revised and updated most of the database's 1,875 Senate entries. In
    preparation for the new print edition, scheduled for release in late
    spring/early summer of 2005, the assistant historian has updated the
    Congress-by-Congress listing of members through the 108th Congress,
    updated the listing of executive branch officers, and completed the
    editing and proofing of all Senate-related information. In addition,
    existing information has been edited to allow for expanded search
    capabilities on the online version at http://bioguide.congress.gov.
        Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC).--In
    early 2004, the Office began consulting with the JCCIC to develop
    historical content for the JCCIC's web site. The Office conducted
    historical research and compiled files for every inauguration since
    1789. Based on the information collected, staff provided historical
    data for each inauguration, and wrote brief articles on all aspects of
    inauguration day, from the morning prayer service to the evening's ball
    (including the procession to the Capitol, the swearing-in ceremony, the
    inaugural luncheon, and the parade). The photo historian located and
    provided photographs and illustrations to accompany the inauguration
    profiles and articles. Office staff assisted JCCIC staff with
    publishing these materials to the Web site. In addition to the Web
    site, the Office assisted the JCCIC with developing the inaugural
    theme, and wrote and edited content for printed materials, including
    the platform program, luncheon program, and the luncheon portfolio.
        Capitol Visitor Center Exhibition Content Committee.--Staff
    historians continued to assist the Capitol Preservation Commission in
    drafting text for the exhibition gallery of the Capitol Visitor Center.
    During 2004, the Office worked with Donna Lawrence Productions to
    develop a script for a CVC visitor orientation film.
        Administrative History of the Senate.--During 2004, the assistant
    historian continued the research and writing of this historical account
    of the Senate's administrative evolution, taking advantage of newly
    discovered archival resources and improved search capabilities for
    contents of nineteenth-century newspapers and periodicals. This study
    traces the development of the offices of the Secretary of the Senate
    and Sergeant at Arms, considers nineteenth and twentieth-century reform
    efforts that resulted in reorganization and professionalization of
    Senate staff, and looks at how the Senate's administrative structure
    has grown and diversified over the past two centuries.
        ``Anchor of the Republic: The United States Senate, 1789-2006''.--
    The Office began work on a one-volume illustrated history of the
    Senate, intended for publication in late 2006. This book will focus on
    the Senate's unique constitutional responsibilities, the development of
    its traditions and prerogatives, and the contributions of significant
    personalities.
        Rules of the United States Senate, 1774-1979.--This work in
    progress will present a narrative history of the evolution of the
    Senate's standing rules, from their antecedents in the Continental
    Congress through their most recent recodification in 1979. Following
    the narrative section, a documentary section will include the original
    text of all standing rules, beginning with those the Senate adopted on
    April 16, 1789. It will reprint each of the seven subsequent
    recodifications (1806, 1820, 1828, 1868, 1877, 1884, and 1979) along
    with changes adopted between each recodification. Appendices will
    contain rules of the Continental Congresses, the Senate of the
    Confederate States of America, and the abandoned joint rules of
    Congress.
    Member Services
        Members' Records Management and Disposition Assistance.--The Senate
    archivist continued to assist members' offices with planning for the
    preservation of their permanently valuable records, with special
    emphasis on archiving electronic information from computer systems and
    transferring valuable records to a home state repository. The archivist
    updated the archival sections of the handbook, ``Closing a Senate
    Office'' and participated in meetings with all offices of retiring
    Senators to plan for the disposition of their records. The archivist
    worked with staff from all repositories receiving senatorial
    collections to ensure adequacy of documentation and the transfer of
    appropriate records with adequate finding aids. The archivist worked
    with the Committee on Rules and Administration to recommend a change in
    the source of Senate funding for shipment of members' official records
    to home-state archival repositories. Public Law 108-447 (December 8,
    2004) changed the funding from individual office accounts to the
    ``Miscellaneous Items'' appropriations account within the contingent
    fund of the Senate. The archivist worked with the Sergeant at Arms to
    develop protocols for the use of an electronic document management
    system operated by the Office of Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail.
    The system is available to all offices for scanning projects and it
    simultaneously produces a microfilm version suitable for archival
    preservation purposes. The Historical Office began using the system to
    produce security copies of its thirty years' accumulation of historical
    subject files. The archivist identified and worked with three pilot
    project members' offices to implement its use. The archivist conducted
    a seminar on records management for Senate offices.
        Committee Records Management and Disposition Assistance.--The
    Senate archivist provided each committee with staff briefings, record
    surveys, guidance on preservation of information in electronic systems,
    and instructions for the transfer of permanently valuable records to
    the National Archives' Center for Legislative Archives. Over 1,365 feet
    of Senate records were transferred to the Archives. The archivist
    updated and published Records Disposition Procedures for Offices of the
    Secretary of the Senate. The archival assistant continued to provide
    processing assistance to committees and administrative offices in need
    of basic help with noncurrent files. The archival assistant produced
    committee archiving reports in a database format covering records'
    transfers for the past five years. The archivist analyzed these reports
    to provide committees with suggestions for improvements. The archivist
    also worked with all committees to transfer a set of mark-up
    transcripts to the Archives for security purposes. The archivist
    continues revision of the Records Management Handbook for United States
    Senate Committees. Part of the revision entailed developing, with
    assistance from National Archives (NARA) staff, a protocol for transfer
    of electronic records to NARA's Center for Legislative Archives. The
    Committee on Governmental Affairs and its archivist developed and
    successfully implemented a project using this protocol. In the project,
    all electronic information pertaining to the development of homeland
    security legislation was appraised, organized, and sent to the
    archives.
        Senate Historical Minutes.--The Senate historian continued an
    eight-year series of ``Senate Historical Minutes,'' begun in 1997 at
    the request of the Senate Democratic Leader. In 2004, the historian
    prepared and delivered a ``Senate Historical Minute'' at twenty-four
    Senate Democratic Conference weekly meetings. These 400-word Minutes
    were designed to enlighten members about significant events and
    personalities associated with the Senate's institutional development.
    More than 200 Minutes are available as a feature on the Senate Web
    site.
        Association of Centers for the Study of Congress.--In May, the
    Historical Office cosponsored the second annual meeting of the
    Association of Centers for the Study of Congress in Washington. Among
    the centers involved in this promising new organization are those
    associated with the public careers of former Senators Howard Baker, Bob
    Dole, Everett Dirksen, Margaret Chase Smith, George Aiken, Thomas Dodd,
    Wendell Ford, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, John Stennis, and John
    Glenn. The Association elected Senate archivist Karen Paul as its
    secretary.
    Oral History Program
        The Historical Office conducts a series of oral history interviews,
    which provide personal recollections of various Senate careers. This
    year, oral history interviews were completed with Chuck Ludlam, former
    staff member of the Separation of Powers Subcommittee; Arthur
    Rynearson, former deputy Senate Legislative Counsel; and Leonard Weiss,
    former staff director of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Several
    other interviews are currently in progress.
    Photographic Collections
        The photo historian continued to catalog, digitize, and expand the
    Office's 40,000 item photographic collection. Photos and other images
    were added to the online collection of Senate Historical Minutes. A
    photographic exhibition (``Capitol Scenes: 1900-1950'') was developed
    for display on the Capitol's second floor, and a virtual exhibit was
    created of the same images for the Senate Web site. Working closely
    with the Senate Curator's Office and the Office of Conservation and
    Preservation, the photo historian helped to create and mount on the
    first floor of the Capitol's Senate wing a photographic exhibition
    entitled ``World War II: The U.S. Senate and the Nation's Capital.''
    The office acquired a late 19th and early 20th century collection of
    scrapbooks containing the photographic images of nearly 900 Senators
    who served from the Senate's earliest years through the 1920s. The
    photo historian also began working on a pictorial directory that will
    include an image of every Senator who has ever served, organized by
    state and class. This first-of-its-kind publication will offer a unique
    visual representation of the collective Senate from its beginnings to
    the present.
    Educational Outreach
        In coordination with the Joint Office of Education and Training,
    Historical Office staff provided seminars on the general history of the
    Senate, Senate committees, women Senators, and Senate floor leadership.
    Office staff also participated in seminars and briefings for specially
    scheduled groups. The historian and associate historian joined the
    Secretary of the Senate in making formal presentations at the June 2004
    Institute on Congress and American History at the Lyndon B. Johnson
    Library and Museum in Austin, Texas. Staff also made several
    international presentations. The historian addressed the ``Parliaments,
    Representation, and Society Seminar'' at the University of London's
    Institute of Historical Research and the associate historian was a
    featured speaker at a conference of the International Association of
    Oral History in Rome, Italy. Finally, on November 19, 2004, C-SPAN's
    ``Washington Journal'' devoted an hour-long program to the history of
    the Senate and the work of the Senate Historical Office.
                               7. human resources
        The Office of Human Resources was established in June 1995 as a
    result of the Congressional Accountability Act. The Office develops and
    implements human resources policies, procedures, and programs for the
    Office of the Secretary of the Senate that not only fulfill the legal
    requirements of the workplace but which complement the organization's
    strategic goals.
        HR's responsibilities include recruiting and staffing; providing
    guidance to managers and staff; training; job analysis; compensation
    planning, design, and administration; leave administration; records
    management; employee handbooks and manuals; internal grievance
    procedures; employee relations and services; and organizational
    planning and development.
        The Human Resources Office also administers the Secretary's Public
    Transportation Subsidy program and the Summer Intern Program that
    offers college students the opportunity to gain valuable skills and
    experience in a variety of Senate support offices.
    Ongoing projects for 2005
                Classification and Compensation Review Completed
        HR conducted a complete classification and compensation study. The
    classification study included a comprehensive collection of current job
    classifications and specifications for every position in the Office.
    For 2005 and beyond, HR will for maintain and update the entire system.
                Policies and Procedures
        The Secretary, through HR, will update and revise the Employee
    Handbook of the Office of the Secretary. With nuances in employment law
    and other advances, the policies will be reviewed, coordinated with
    counsel (if necessary), revised and updated annually.
        In regard to potential violations for said procedures, the
    Secretary, through HR and the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment, has
    developed an effective method to coordinate inquiries.
                Employee Self-Service (ESS)
        HR has implemented use of the Employee Self-Service system (ESS)
    which is a secure system enabling Secretary staff to review and update
    personnel information pertaining to addresses, phone numbers and
    emergency contact information. Employees are now able to review and
    correct information to their electronic personnel records kept by HR.
    Staff and managers can also access leave records and reports through
    this system. The ability to review and update this information is
    instrumental to maintain accurate contact lists for emergencies or
    other contingencies.
                New Leave Tracking System
        In the past, employees of the Secretary of the Senate had to
    maintain ``timesheets'' for each day of work throughout the year. This
    system was maintained by each employee and signed off on by the
    supervisor and/or department head. HR created a new leave tracking
    system whereby attendance is only recorded by the exception, or
    absence. Leave slips have been created for staff to complete and submit
    prior to needing to take leave. The supervisor approves the request and
    forwards it to HR to be entered into the system. Staff now have access
    to their leave balance which is maintained by HR. As a result of this
    new tracking system, directors and HR are able to generate a multitude
    of reports to analyze leave usage by department and organization-wide
    and to review leave balances.
                Attraction and Retention of Staff
        HR has the ongoing task of advertising new vacancies or positions,
    screening applicants, interviewing candidates and assisting with all
    phases of the hiring process.
                Outreach
        HR has initiated development of an Elder Care Fair that will be
    available for all Senate staff interested in learning more about local
    and nationwide services available to assist the elderly and those
    responsible for their care. HR is working closely with the Senate
    Office of Education and Training and the Employee Assistance Program to
    identify and contact agencies that may be of assistance to Senate
    staff. The goal is to conduct this one day event in the last quarter of
    2005.
                Training
        In conjunction with the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment, HR has
    worked on preparing training for department heads and staff. The
    training topics include Conducting Background Checks, Providing
    Feedback to Employees and Goal Setting. These skills will further
    enhance the ability to our staff to comply and succeed in the
    development of the staff of the Secretary of the Senate.
                Orienting New Staff
        Because first impressions make such a lasting impression, HR has
    developed a new consistent means of orienting new staff joining the
    Office of the Secretary. This new system allows for a seamless
    transition from the orientation of HR, policies, parking, and metro
    subsidy, to the particular department the staff member is joining.
                Interns and Fellows
        HR has been instrumental in the internship program and coordination
    of the Heinz Fellowship program. The next group of summer interns will
    begin in June 2005.
                Employee Feedback and Development
        A key to maintaining and improving performance standards, as well
    as ensuring completion of organizational objectives, is providing
    employee feedback. HR, in conjunction with the Executive Office and
    department heads, has established a new comprehensive tool to evaluate
    staff at all levels of the organization.
                             8. information systems
        The staff of the Department of Information Systems provides
    technical hardware and software support for the Office of the Secretary
    of the Senate. Information Systems staff also work closely with the
    application and network development groups within the Senate Sergeant
    at Arms (SAA), the Government Printing Office (GPO), and outside
    vendors on technical issues and joint projects. The Department provides
    computer related support for the all LAN-based servers within the
    Office of the Secretary of the Senate. Information Systems staff
    provide direct application support for all software installed
    workstations, initiate and guide new technologies, and implement next
    generation hardware and software solutions.
    Mission Evaluation
        The primary mission of the Information Systems Department is to
    continue to provide the highest level of customer satisfaction and
    computer support for all departments within the Secretary of the
    Senate's operation. Emphasis is placed on the creation and transfer of
    legislation to outside departments and agencies, meeting Disbursing
    office financial responsibilities to the member offices, and office
    mandated and statutory obligations.
        Functional responsibilities for supporting other departments were
    expanded, as staffing levels were maintained. Information System staff
    functionality was expanded by moving the IT structure from a local LAN
    support structure to an enterprise IT support process. Improved
    diagnostic practices were adopted to stretch support across all
    Secretary departments. Several departments, namely Disbursing, Office
    of Public Records, Chief Counsel for Employment, Page School, Senate
    Security, and Stationery and Gift Shop have dedicated information
    technology staff within those offices. Public Records, Stationery, and
    Gift Shop remote support was added in 2004. Information Systems
    personnel continue to provide a multi-tiered escalated hardware and
    software support for these offices.
        For information security reasons, Secretary departments implement
    isolated computer systems, unique applications, and isolated local area
    networks. The Secretary of the Senate network is a closed local area
    network to all offices within the Senate. Information Systems staff
    continue to provide a common level of hardware and software integration
    for these networks, and for the shared resources of inter-departmental
    networking. Information System staff continue to actively participate
    in all new project design and implementation within the Secretary of
    the Senate operations.
    Improvements to the Secretary's LANs
        The Senate chose Windows NT as the standard network operating
    system in 1997. The continuing support strategy is to enhance existing
    hardware and software support provided by the Information Systems
    Department, and augment that support with assistance from the SAA
    whenever required. The Secretary's network supports approximately 300
    user accounts and patron accounts in the Capitol, Hart, Russell,
    Dirksen, and the Page School locations.
    Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
        The Office of Information System began disaster planning for the
    Secretary's office in June, 1998. In January, 2001, this planning
    process had evolved to include other working groups within the Senate .
    Working with the Office of Senate Security, SAA, GSA, and GAO
    personnel, the Information System COOP plan was developed in March
    2001. Initial emphasis was placed on the continuation of legislative
    and financial business elements within the Senate.
        Beginning in January 2001, new product technology was implemented
    to migrate and store legislative data off-line. This success of the
    initial pilot project was used to facilitate solutions in other
    Secretary offices. The same technology was applied to provide the
    department of Public Records with off-line storage capabilities in July
    2001.
        Near-line server storage solutions augment the normal tape archival
    process. Individual server data continues to be backed up each night.
    At present snap servers are deployed in key locations and smaller units
    are located off-site and are rotated on a bimonthly basis.
    Fiscal Year 2004 Highlights
                1. Active Directory and Message Infrastructure Project
                        (ADMA)
        The original plan involved replacing all CC:MAIL servers and
    gateways with a decentralized Microsoft Outlook solution. The
    Secretary's office previously had six Post Offices in six different
    server domains. There was no central Public Address Book for all
    Secretary employees. Additionally, Secretary Mail requirements needed
    to be refined to insure the implemented solution was both cost-
    effective and reliable for the Office of the Secretary.
        The Microsoft Outlook E-Mail client solution is referred to as the
    Messaging Architecture, and the replacement of the existing Windows NT
    server installed base is referred to as the Active Directory project.
    The initial plan outlined that all staff employees be enrolled in one
    central Active Directory Secretary enterprise. Each department (except
    the Disbursing and Employment Counsel office) is to be structured as a
    Organizational Unit within the new enterprise. In November 2004, the
    Office of Employment Counsel migrated to ADMA. Completion of the
    remaining offices will occur in fiscal year 2005.
                2. Office of Public Records (OPR) Upgrades
        Upgrades to all OPR hardware and software were implemented in
    fiscal year 2004. This involved replacing four (4) new servers at the
    PSQ location, and consolidating all OPR data to a new hardware platform
    in SH-232. Operating System software was ungraded and Database software
    was transferred to a Windows2000/SQL2000. During the February ricin
    event, OPR staff relocated and were able to operate and continue their
    scanning operation.
                3. Senate Library Catalog Project
        The existing Senate Library hardware and software server operation
    in SRB-20 was mirrored to facilitate access to the Library Web Catalog
    for all Senate offices on the Senate Intranet. Previously only
    workstations within SOS could access the catalog. Home and state
    offices can now take advantage of the numerous library resources. The
    mirrored server operation at another location provides a redundant data
    backup to the primary Russell location. Future migration of the catalog
    information to the Storage Area Network (SAN) located at the Alternate
    Computing Facility is now possible.
                4. Legislative Operation Upgrades
        The Journal Clerk hardware and software business applications was
    updated in fiscal year 2004. The previous version of software was last
    updated in 1997, and this new software application now takes advantage
    of the LIS repository located at PSQ. Composition of the Senate Journal
    is more accurate and takes advantage of the internal LIS architecture.
                5. Gift Shop Procurement
        A search began early in 2002 to investigate and find a solution for
    a replacement hardware and software system for the Senate Gift Shop and
    Stationery operations. A procurement was awarded in 2002. New hardware
    servers and Point-Of-Sale workstations were installed in January 2004,
    the older POS applications retired, and new system integration
    completed in February 2004. This is a long-term project which involves
    the creation of a new product database, an e-commerce point-of-sale
    application, inventory control software, and Disbursing Office reports
    generation package.
                6. Stationery Room Renovation Procurement
        Similar to the Gift Shop renovation project, the Stationery Room
    awarded a contract to replace the existing business method. This
    process had not been updated in over ten years. Additional hardware and
    software was installed in 2004 to support the new point-of-sale system.
        In May 2004, an enhancement to the Metro Subsidy system began which
    would allow Senate offices to request allotted subsidies in advance
    using a web-browser based connection. SAA provided the web-entry portal
    and the Secretary installed the necessary SQL database server. An
    additional hardware server and new workstations were installed in
    December 2004 to support the PTI solution.
                7. Curator Project Management Software
        In May 2004, the Curator's office desired a method to more
    efficiently create, edit, publish, and distribute information relative
    to numerous contracts and outside vendor projects. After evaluating
    these business requirements, the IT solution implemented now provides
    multi-user collaboration software (Groove) to track and monitor these
    numerous projects. In parallel, working with SAA Research &
    Development, this solution was deemed valuable to other Senate offices
    as this package allows staff to communicate and share files regardless
    of location.
                         9. interparliamentary services
        The Office of Interparliamentary Services (IPS) has completed its
    23rd year of operation as a department of the Secretary of the Senate.
    IPS is responsible for administrative, financial, and protocol
    functions for all interparliamentary conferences in which the Senate
    participates by statute, for interparliamentary conferences in which
    the Senate participates on an ad hoc basis, and for special delegations
    authorized by the Majority and/or Minority Leaders. The office also
    provides appropriate assistance as requested by other Senate
    delegations.
        The statutory interparliamentary conferences are: NATO
    Parliamentary Assembly; Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group;
    Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group; British-American
    Interparliamentary Group; United States-Russia Interparliamentary
    Group; and United States-China Interparliamentary Group.
        In June, the 45th Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S.
    Interparliamentary Group was held in Idaho. Arrangements for this
    successful event were handled by the IPS staff.
        As in previous years, all foreign travel authorized by the
    Leadership is arranged by the IPS staff. In addition to delegation
    trips, IPS provided assistance to individual Senators and staff
    traveling overseas. Senators and staff authorized by committees for
    foreign travel continue to call upon this office for assistance with
    passports, visas, travel arrangements, and reporting requirements.
        IPS receives and prepares for printing the quarterly financial
    reports for foreign travel from all committees in the Senate. In
    addition to preparing the quarterly reports for the Majority Leader,
    the Minority Leader, and the President Pro Tempore, IPS staff also
    assist staff members of Senators and committees in filling out the
    required reports.
        Interparliamentary Services maintains regular contact with the
    Office of the Chief of Protocol, Department of State, and with foreign
    embassy officials. Official foreign visitors are frequently received in
    this office and assistance is given to individuals as well as to groups
    by the IPS staff. The staff continues to work closely with other
    offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms in
    arranging programs for foreign visitors. In addition, IPS is frequently
    consulted by individual Senators' offices on a broad range of protocol
    questions. Occasional questions come from state officials or the
    general public regarding Congressional protocol.
        On behalf of the Leadership, the staff arranges receptions in the
    Senate for Heads of State, Heads of Government, Heads of Parliaments,
    and parliamentary delegations. Required records of expenditures on
    behalf of foreign visitors under authority of Public Law 100-71 are
    maintained in the Office of Interparliamentary Services.
        Planning is underway for the 44th Annual Meeting of the Mexico-U.S.
    Interparliamentary Group, and the second meetings of both the U.S.-
    Russia Interparliamentary Group and the U.S.-China Interparliamentary
    Group, all of which will be held in the United States in 2005. Advance
    work, including site inspection, will be undertaken for the 46th Annual
    Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group meeting to be held in the United
    States in 2006. Preparations are also underway for the spring and fall
    sessions of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
                                  10. library
        The Senate Library provides legislative, legal, business, and
    general information services to the United States Senate. The library's
    collection encompasses legislative documents that date from the
    Continental Congress in 1774; current and historic executive and
    judicial branch materials; and an extensive book collection on American
    politics, history, and biography. Other resources include a wide array
    of on-line systems used to provide nonpartisan, confidential, timely,
    and accurate information services to the Senate. The library also
    authors content for three Web sites: Legislative Information Service,
    Senate.gov, and Webster.
    Notable Achievements
        Senate Library catalog available to all Senate staff via Webster.
        Web inquiries increased 73 percent and overall inquiries increased
    61 percent.
        Final design requirements for the off-site storage facility
    submitted to SAA.
        Adjourn time and vote information added to Floor Schedule on
    Senate.gov.
    Information Services
                Research
        Legal, legislative, business, and general research is the library's
    primary mission. The complexity of research requests may require
    several hours of staff time and numerous resources, while working under
    strict deadlines. While these request totals are fewer than the Web-
    based inquiries, they dominate daily library activity. This year the
    library answered 33,750 research inquiries that resulted in the
    delivery of 3,265 information packages. Activities supporting research
    requests included 2,747 faxes, 156,891 photocopies, and 6,945 pages
    printed from the microform collection. The library also loaned 2,165
    books and congressional documents to Senate offices. In addition, 371
    Senate staff established new borrowing accounts, bringing total
    accounts to 2,754.
        These research skills are critical in the librarians' ability to
    author material for three different Web sites. Since the 2002 redesign
    of senate.gov--the Senate's official public Internet site--the
    librarians have also become essential content providers, organizational
    consultants, and text editors. The 73 percent increase in visitors to
    library-authored online resources underscores the library's role in
    creating and delivering quality information products on the Web.
        Traditional inquires--which are telephone, fax, walk-in, and e-mail
    inquiries--plus visitors to library-authored Web resources increased
    total requests by 61 percent over last year.

                                 TABLE 1.--SENATE LIBRARY INQUIRY HISTORY, 2000 TO 2004
                         [Traditional Requests and Visitors to Library-Authored Web Information]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Category
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                 Year(s)                                Traditional
                                                                      Phone, Fax, E-   Web See Table       Total
                                                                      mail & Walk-in   2 for details
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2004............................................................          33,750         602,236         635,986
    2003............................................................          46,234         348,198         394,432
    2000-2002 Average...............................................          38,660           2,003          40,663
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Senate.gov
        The Senate Library's mission includes providing accurate, timely,
    and professionally organized information about the U.S. Senate on
    Senate.gov--the most widely read publication authored by the Office of
    the Secretary. The librarians' expert knowledge of the legislative
    process and sophisticated research skills are used to develop,
    customize, and deliver meaningful and relevant information. They are
    able to tailor information to meet the needs of various Web audiences
    and they possess the critical skills required to provide organized and
    meaningful content.
        Senate.gov accomplishments for 2004:
      --The Floor Schedule posted on the home page was enhanced this year
            by including the adjournment time and a link to the day's
            recorded votes, an expansion of the library's original 2003
            mandate to publish the convene time and the Senate's daily
            program. Prior to nightly posting of the interactive Schedule,
            Senate staff were solely dependent upon cloakroom recorded
            messages.
      --Librarians designed Statistics & Lists to provide easy access to
            more than 80 lists of Senate information, including 28 that
            detail senatorial biography and service records. Librarians
            created a subject arrangement for quick access to the varied
            lists. Topics range from Active Legislation (subject-organized
            research aids providing bill numbers), to Senators who have
            cast more than 10,000 votes, to books about art and
            architecture in the U.S. Capitol.
      --Librarians researched and designed an historically important page
            featuring links to the final Resume of Congressional Activity
            for each year since the Resume was created in 1947. To maintain
            currency, the latest monthly Resume is posted upon publication
            in the Congressional Record. Web designers for both LIS and
            THOMAS--the public site for legislative status information--
            quickly adopted the senate.gov Resume page to enhance their
            existing content.
        The library's Web experience benefits offices under the Secretary
    needing to publish Internet information. The library designed a page
    for Senate Printing and Document Services that provides location,
    hours, and contact information, including an e-mail address for public
    document requests. The page also includes links to guides on
    identifying bill numbers and online texts of legislation, and provides
    definitions of the various categories of legislation. Librarians also
    coordinate with several Secretary's offices in the posting of monthly
    senate.gov articles, which complement Senate business. For instance,
    presidential cabinet nominations or an article announcing the United
    States Senate Catalogue of Fine Art, was prominently featured for Web
    visitors.
        The importance of long-range planning to meet the rapidly changing
    technical environment was the subject of a series of senate.gov vision
    meetings conducted this year. The meetings focused on four topics: the
    value of a taxonomy for site organization and content access;
    developing a structured workflow and standard editing style; acquiring
    appropriate software; and designating staff to support the expanding
    Web responsibilities.

       TABLE 2.--SENATE.GOV AND LIS VISITORS TO LIBRARY RESOURCES IN 2004
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Visitors
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Active Legislation on Senate.gov........................         213,014
    Reference homepage on Senate.gov........................         281,836
    Virtual Reference Desk on Senate.gov....................          86,637
    Hot Bills List on LIS...................................          11,363
    Appropriations Tables, Fiscal Year 1987-2005 on LIS.....           9,386
                                                             ---------------
          TOTAL.............................................         602,236
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Legislative Information System (LIS)
        The Legislative Information System (LIS) serves as a gateway to
    electronic resources critical to the work of legislative branch staff.
    The Senate Library serves on an editorial committee with Congressional
    Research Service (CRS) staff tasked to meet the constantly changing
    information needs of legislative staff. The committee responds to
    congressional staff needs by adding features, reorganizing and
    improving content, and enhancing design elements. Among the library's
    most popular LIS products for Senate staff are the Hot Bills List and
    Appropriations Tables.
        The library is also working on improvements in LIS nomination and
    treaty chronologies. The project will ensure that all Senate hearing
    information is fully identified, regardless of when the hearing was
    conducted. The research and data entry strategies will be determined in
    2005.
                Webster
        A major accomplishment in 2004 was the establishment of Senate-wide
    access to the online library catalog via Webster--the Senate's
    Intranet--which required a coordinated effort by staff from the Office
    of the Secretary, the Sergeant at Arms, and the catalog vendor. On-site
    installation and reliability testing of the catalog began in January.
    The server was transferred to Postal Square in July, where subsequent
    security testing was completed before the October 25, 2004 official
    release. The catalog provides staff with desktop access to more than
    158,000 bibliographic records. These records include legislative
    materials dating from the 19th century, executive and judicial branch
    documents, and more than 35,000 books on the Senate, American history,
    politics, political biography, and legislative issues. Staff may
    request same-day book delivery via a catalog link. The catalog also
    provides full-text electronic access to selected congressional
    hearings, executive branch documents, and periodicals.
        The Webster home page announcement feature was successfully used to
    promote service seminars, National Library Week events, and the release
    of the library catalog. More than 150 staff attended the Webster-
    announced events.
                Instructional Services
        The Information Services team serves as the Search Help Desk for
    the Front Page on Webster. Front Page is an information gateway to
    commercial databases such as LexisNexis, Westlaw, ProQuest, Leadership
    Directories, Congressional Quarterly, Bureau of National Affairs,
    National Journal, Federal Document Clearinghouse, Associated Press, and
    Reuters. This responsibility requires that each librarian maintain
    expert search skills and the ability to instruct staff in the use of
    these electronic resources.
        Library staff, in conjunction with the Joint Office of Education
    and Training (JOET), provide monthly LIS training sessions in which
    Senate staff are instructed in the latest electronic research
    strategies. Students learn efficient LIS search strategies for the
    Congressional Record, bill summary and status reports, roll call votes,
    and committee actions. As the LIS Help Desk, the library continues
    staff training by answering content and search strategy questions and
    providing personalized instruction. The JOET also requested the
    library's assistance in developing a survey to determine the best
    strategies for delivering information to Senate staff.
                Public Relations
        The library hosted 25 public relations events in 2004, including
    ``Services of the Senate Library'' seminars, new staff and state staff
    orientations, Senate Page School seminars, and a Secretary of the
    Senate ``block party.'' The library also provided tours to several
    visiting groups, including Catholic University, University of Maryland,
    University of North Carolina, federal librarians, GPO staff, and a
    delegation from Japan.
    Technical Services
                Acquisitions
        The library received 11,553 new acquisitions in 2004. Of this
    number, 7,523 were congressional documents, 3,314 were executive or
    judicial publications, and the remaining 716 items were books related
    to politics, American history, or biography. There were several major
    acquisitions in 2004, including 127 bound volumes of Senate and House
    bills from the 107th Congress; a 42-volume reprint of the Annals of
    Congress, containing the congressional debates from 1789-1824; and a
    significant portion of the 28 volumes of the John C. Calhoun papers.
        As a participant in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP),
    the library receives categories of legislative and executive and
    judicial branch publications from the Government Printing Office (GPO).
    In 2004, the library received 3,314 items through FDLP. The trend to
    distribute government publications electronically has significantly
    reduced the number of paper documents issued. GPO reports that 86
    percent of new government documents will only be distributed
    electronically. The library responded by adding more than 8,300
    government document links to the online catalog. The links provide
    Senate staff with immediate desktop access to the materials.
        A major project is the ongoing review of the items received through
    FDLP. During this fourth year of the project, 2,031 items were
    withdrawn from the collection and 1,660 (79 percent) of the items were
    donated to requesting federal libraries. The project's final phase
    improves document access by integrating executive branch documents with
    other collections under a single library classification system. This
    year the cataloging staff reclassified and integrated 326 government
    documents.
        The library's acquisitions committee meets monthly to review and
    approve all book purchases. The committee is composed of the Librarian,
    two reference librarians, and the acquisitions librarian. Library staff
    make recommendations to the committee through a Web-based selection
    tool that allows staff to suggest titles for possible purchase.
                Cataloging
        The library's highly productive cataloging staff draws on years of
    experience to produce and maintain a catalog of 158,111 items. During
    the year, 8,172 items were added to the catalog and an overall 8
    percent increase in titles cataloged was realized.
        Cataloging efforts in 2004 focused on historic treaties, Senate
    executive reports, and older Senate hearings. In many instances, the
    Senate's collection holds the only known copy of the document. This
    work contributed to a 33 percent increase over the previous year in
    cataloging historic material. As a result, the library contributed 636
    new personal and treaty name records through the Name Authorities
    Cooperative program (NACO), a total that exceeds that of many larger
    institutions. The privilege to participate in NACO recognizes the
    professional expertise of the library's catalogers.
                Offsite Storage and Collection Maintenance
        A warehouse facility, scheduled for completion in 2005, will
    provide the Senate with permanent, well-designed offsite storage. The
    facility will meet the library's long-term need to preserve the
    Senate's archival collections. The warehouse will provide storage for
    50,000 volumes, security and fire suppression, museum-standard humidity
    and temperature control, and air filtration. An archive of 20,000
    historic and rare congressional documents is scheduled for the initial
    transfer to the warehouse. To meet Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
    requirements, the warehouse will have access to the Senate network and
    telecommunications systems. Space for collections and equipment
    belonging to the Historical Office and Office of Conservation and
    Preservation will also be provided.
        An important preservation project in 2004 involved 19th century
    editions of the Annals of Congress--the official record of
    congressional debate from 1789-1824. Multiple sets were carefully
    examined to identify the best candidates for preservation. The selected
    sets were cleaned, wrapped, boxed, and labeled for eventual rebinding.
    Another aspect of collection maintenance is binding contemporary
    materials for permanent retention. These materials include the
    Congressional Record, Federal Register, and committee publications. In
    2004, five shipments of 685 volumes were processed for binding at GPO.
    Administrative
                Budget
        Budget reductions in 2004 totaled $11,009.52. Eight years of
    aggressive budget monitoring has resulted in reductions totaling
    $70,940.37. Continual review of purchases has eliminated materials that
    do not meet the Senate's current information needs. This oversight is
    also critical in offsetting cost increases for core materials and for
    acquiring new materials. The goal is to provide the highest service
    level using the latest technologies and best resources in the most
    cost-effective way.
                Professional Staff Development
        During 2004, Library staff participated in 124 training sessions,
    workshops, conferences, tours, and professional development seminars.
    The emphasis on continuing education and training is necessary to
    maintain and upgrade skill levels, particularly in the ever-changing
    field of technology. In addition to classes on news and legal
    databases, staff attended technical training sessions that included Web
    design, Internet research, taxonomy construction, cataloging
    techniques, and book preservation. Senior staff also conducted several
    review sessions on the application of cataloging rules.
        Library staff toured the Senate Page School, the National Archives,
    and several Library of Congress divisions including Maps, Photographs
    and Prints, Loan, and Recorded Sound. Staff also attended several
    professional conferences including Computers in Libraries, Federal
    Depository Library, and the American Association of Law Libraries.
                Unum, Newsletter of the Office of the Secretary of the
                        Senate
        Unum staff coordinated a photo of the entire Secretary's staff, the
    first since April 1994. The photo was published in the Autumn 2004
    issue. The Secretary's quarterly newsletter, produced by Senate Library
    staff since May 2000, is a continued success. With distribution to
    approximately 1,200 readers, Unum serves as an historic record of
    accomplishments, events, and personnel in the Office of the Secretary
    of the Senate.
    Major Library Goals for 2005
        Acquire an XML editing tool for Web publishing.
        Implement an organizational structure for the library's home page
    on Webster.
        Complete integration of library resources onto the Secretary's
    network.
        Implement an LIS standard for committee hearing data entry.
        Transfer 20,000 volumes to the new warehouse.

                                                 SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2004--ACQUISITIONS
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Books         Government Documents          Congressional Publications
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                         Reports/    Total
                                                            Ordered    Received    Paper      Fiche     Hearings    Prints     Bylaw       Docs
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January..............................................         25         67        275        103        192         15         74        113        839
    February.............................................          5         30        176         76        204         14         68        112        680
    March................................................         20         69        243        103        313         25        208        202      1,163
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          1st Quarter....................................         50        166        694        282        709         54        350        427      2,682
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    April................................................         14         70        171         56        212         15        138        292        954
    May..................................................         33         75        167          0        334         27         88        158        849
    June.................................................         18         51        151          6        331         20        119        192        870
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          2nd Quarter....................................         65        196        489         62        877         62        345        642      2,673
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    July.................................................         16         62        237          0        281         32         77        295        984
    August...............................................         12         37        134        166        392         23         80        316      1,148
    September............................................         15         42        222        242        233         14         61        354      1,168
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          3rd Quarter....................................         43        141        593        408        906         69        218        965      3,300
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    October..............................................         15         90        160         43        203         10        115        289        910
    November.............................................         30         66        173         80        252         16         75        343      1,005
    December.............................................         22         57        220        110        233          6         68        289        983
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          4th Quarter....................................         67        213        553        233        688         32        258        921      2,898
                                                          ==================================================================================================
          2004 Total.....................................        225        716      2,329        985      3,180        217      1,171      2,955     11,553
          2003 Total.....................................        355      1,034      2,484        992      3,171        266        596      3,155     11,698
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    Percent Change.......................................     -36.62     -30.75      -6.24      -0.71      +0.28     -18.42     +96.48      -6.34      -1.24
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2004--CATALOGING
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Bibliographic Records Cataloged
                                                                          S.    ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Hearing              Government Documents     Congressional Publications      Total
                                                                       Numbers             -------------------------------------------------------  Records
                                                                       Added to    Books                                                  Docs./   Cataloged
                                                                         LIS                  Paper      Fiche     Hearings    Prints     Pubs.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January.........................................................         21         97          5          0        327          7         20        456
    February........................................................         39         16          1          0        188        108         60        373
    March...........................................................         12         22          5          0        393          2         60        482
                                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          1st Quarter...............................................         72        135         11          0        908        117        140      1,311
                                                                     =======================================================================================
    April...........................................................          2         32          6          1        221          6         45        311
    May.............................................................         15         30          4          0        267          0         65        366
    June............................................................          5         33          2          0        284         19         65        403
                                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          2nd Quarter...............................................         22         95         12          1        772         25        175      1,080
                                                                     =======================================================================================
    July............................................................          3         24          8          0        338          2         35        407
    August..........................................................         26         28          5          8        187          6         21        255
    September.......................................................         24         81          5          0        277          4         75        442
                                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          3rd Quarter...............................................         53        133         18          8        802         12        131      1,104
                                                                     =======================================================================================
    October.........................................................         17         23          9          9        385          0         60        486
    November........................................................         67         21         28          7        186          7         69        318
    December........................................................          9         18         10         16        276          3         87        410
                                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          4th Quarter...............................................         93         62         47         32        847         10        216      1,214
                                                                     =======================================================================================
          2004 Total................................................        240        425         88         41      3,329        164        662      4,709
          2003 Total                                                        221        618        159         81      2,713        490        294      4,355
                                                                     =======================================================================================
    Percent Change..................................................      +8.60     -31.23     -44.65     -49.38     +22.71     -66.53    +125.17      +8.13
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2004--DOCUMENT DELIVERY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Micrographics  Photocopiers
                                                         Volumes  Materials  Facsimiles   Center Pages      Pages
                                                         Loaned   Delivered                 Printed        Printed
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January...........................................       125        219        173           523         5,128
    February..........................................       148        227         81           421         6,320
    March.............................................       222        376        260           599         9,834
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
          1st Quarter.................................       495        822        514         1,543        21,282
                                                       =============================================================
    April.............................................       152        288        160           318        11,705
    May...............................................       210        283        158           143         8,444
    June..............................................       195        308        208           707        12,818
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
          2nd Quarter.................................       557        879        526         1,168        32,967
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
    July..............................................       193        322        235           640         5,435
    August............................................       179        260        112           275         9,588
    September                                                215        240        175           225         8,009
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
          3rd Quarter.................................       587        822        522         1,140        23,032
                                                       =============================================================
    October...........................................       220        241        112           146         7,983
    November..........................................       168        259        112           323         7,250
    December..........................................       138        242        118           202         7,122
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
          4th Quarter.................................       526        742        342           671        22,355
                                                       =============================================================
          2004 Total..................................     2,165      3,265      1,904         4,522        99,636
          2003 Total..................................     1,664      4,078      2,747         6,945       156,891
                                                       =============================================================
    Percent Change....................................    +30.11     -19.94     -30.69        -34.89        -36.49
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             11. senate page school
        The United States Senate Page School exists to provide a smooth
    transition from and to the students' home schools, providing those
    students with as sound a program, both academically and experientially,
    as possible during their stay in the nation's capital, within the
    limits of the constraints imposed by the work situation.
    Summary of Accomplishments
        Accreditation by the Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools
    continues until December 31, 2008.
        Two page classes successfully completed their semester curriculum.
    Closing ceremonies were conducted on June 4, 2004, and January 14,
    2005, the last day of school for each semester.
        Orientation and course scheduling for the Spring 2004 and Fall 2004
    pages were successfully completed. Needs of incoming students
    determined the semester schedules.
        Extended educational experiences were provided to pages. Twenty-one
    field trips, two guest speakers, opportunities to compete in writing
    and speaking contests, to play musical instruments and vocalize, and to
    continue foreign language study with the aid of tutors of four
    languages were all afforded pages. Nine field trips to educational
    sites were provided for summer pages as an extension of the page
    experience. National tests were administered for qualification in
    scholarship programs as well.
        Effective and efficient communication and coordination among SAA,
    Secretary, Party Secretaries, Page Program, and Page School continues.
        The community service project embraced by pages and staff in 2002
    continues. Items for gift packages were collected, assembled, and
    shipped to military personnel in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the USO in
    Frankfurt, Germany where distribution of the boxes to troops en route
    to war zones take place. Pages included letters of support to the
    troops serving in Operation Enduring Freedom. Several recipients of
    gift packages wrote letters to Pages expressing appreciation.
        The evacuation and COOP plans have been reviewed and updated. Pages
    and staff continue to practice evacuating to primary and secondary
    sites.
        Staff and pages participated in escape hood training.
        Tutors were trained in evacuation procedures.
        Updated materials/equipment were purchased. These included math
    software, ten graphing calculators, supplemental English textbooks, a
    chemistry textbook, and three pieces of equipment to provide for
    computer experiments in science.
        Faculty have pursued learning opportunities. The entire faculty and
    principal attended a Learning and the Brain conference. Michael Bowers,
    history instructor, participated in a seminar conducted in
    Williamsburg, VA: ``The Unpleasantness in the Colonies: The American
    Revolution From A British Perspective.'' Raymond Cwalina, math
    instructor, completed three graduate courses in mathematics and
    attended an Advanced Placement calculus seminar. He also attended the
    regional and national conventions of the National Council of Teachers
    of Mathematics.
        Facility re-design to maximize space was completed.
        Upgrading science laboratory equipment was accomplished which
    allows computer labs to be performed and reduces quantities of supplies
    used.
    Summary of Plans
        Our goals include:
      --Individualized small group instruction and tutoring by teachers on
            an as-needed basis will continue to be offered.
      --Foreign language tutors will provide instruction in French,
            Spanish, German, and Latin.
      --The focus of field trips will be sites of historic, political, and
            scientific importance which complement the curriculum.
      --Staff development options will include attendance at a technology
            conference, seminars conducted by the Joint Office of Education
            and Training, and subject matter conferences conducted by
            national organizations.
      --The community service project will continue.
                       12. printing and document services
        The Office of Printing and Document Services (OPDS) serves as
    liaison to the Government Printing Office (GPO) for the Senate's
    official printing, ensuring that all Senate printing is in compliance
    with Title 44, U.S. Code as it relates to Senate documents, hearings,
    committee prints and other official publications. The office assists
    the Senate by coordinating, scheduling, delivering and preparing Senate
    legislation, hearings, documents, committee prints and miscellaneous
    publications for printing, and provides printed copies of all
    legislation and public laws to the Senate and the public. In addition,
    the office assigns publication numbers to all hearings, committee
    prints, documents and other publications; orders all blank paper,
    envelopes and letterhead for the Senate; and prepares page counts of
    all Senate hearings in order to compensate commercial reporting
    companies for the preparation of hearings.
    Printing Services
        During fiscal year 2004, the OPDS prepared 4,515 printing and
    binding requisitions authorizing the GPO to print and bind the Senate's
    work, exclusive of legislation and the Congressional Record. Since the
    requisitioning done by the OPDS is central to the Senate's printing,
    the office is uniquely suited to perform invoice and bid reviewing
    responsibilities for Senate printing. As a result of this office's cost
    accounting duties, OPDS reviews and assures accurate GPO invoicing and
    plays an active role in providing the best possible bidding scenario
    for Senate publications.
        In addition to processing requisitions, the Printing Services
    Section coordinates proof handling and job scheduling and tracking for
    stationery products, Senate hearings, Senate publications and other
    miscellaneous printed products, as well as monitoring blank paper and
    stationery quotas for each Senate office and committee. The OPDS also
    coordinates a number of publications for other Senate offices, from the
    Curator, Historian, Disbursing, Legislative Clerk, and Senate Library
    to the U.S. Botanic Garden, U.S. Capitol Police and Architect of the
    Capitol. These tasks include providing guidance for design, paper
    selection, and specifications for quotations, monitoring print quality
    and distribution. Last year's major printing projects included the
    Report of the Secretary of the Senate, the Semiannual Report of the
    Architect of the Capitol and a variety of printed materials required
    for the Presidential Inauguration including invitations, parking
    passes, maps, tickets and signage. The office also provided guidance
    and informational packets for new Senate office staff. Current major
    projects for the office include a full color version of the ``History
    of the U.S. Botanic Garden 1861-1991'' and the ``U.S. Senate Catalogue
    of Graphic Art'' a companion volume to the fine art catalogue produced
    by the Senate Curator's office in 2003.
    Hearing Billing Verification
        Senate committees often use outside reporting companies to
    transcribe their hearings, both in-house and in the field. The OPDS
    processes billing verifications for these transcription services
    ensuring that costs billed to the Senate are accurate.
        During 2004, OPDS provided commercial reporting companies and
    corresponding Senate committees a total of 787 billing verifications of
    Senate hearings and business meetings. This translated to an average of
    41.4 hearings/meetings per committee, an eight percent decrease from
    2003, typical of an election year. Over 56,000 transcribed pages were
    processed at a total billing cost of approximately $367,000.
        The OPDS utilizes a program developed in conjunction with the
    Senate Sergeant at Arms Computer Division that provides more billing
    accuracy and greater information gathering capacity, and adheres to the
    guidelines established by the Senate Committee on Rules and
    Administration for commercial reporting companies to bill the Senate
    for transcription services. During 2004 the office reached its goal of
    increasing efficiency and accuracy by processing all file transfers
    between committees and reporting companies electronically. Department
    staff continue training to apply today's expanding digital technology
    to improve performance and services.

                                      HEARING TRANSCRIPT AND BILLING VERIFICATIONS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percent change
                                                           2002            2003            2004          2004/2003
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Billing Verifications...........................             953             975             787            -8.0
    Average per Committee...........................              50            51.3            41.4            -8.0
    Total Transcribed Pages.........................          71,558          70,532          56,262            -8.0
    Average Pages/Committee.........................           3,766           3,712           2,961            -8.0
    Transcribed Pages Cost..........................        $471,807        $461,807        $366,904            -8.0
    Average Cost/Committee..........................         $24,832         $24,288         $19,311            -8.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                             CONGRESSIONAL RECORD STATISTICS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           2002            2003            2004
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pages Printed:
        For the Senate..............................................          14,489          16,835          12,642
        For the House...............................................          15,201          16,259          14,243
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total Pages Printed.......................................          29,690          33,094          26,885
                                                                     ===============================================
    Copies Printed & Distributed:
        To the Senate...............................................         439,953         307,917         227,192
        To the House................................................         301,383         441,735         331,165
        To the Executive Branch and the Public......................         532,813         449,750         323,957
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total Copies Printed & Distributed........................       1,268,603       1,199,402         882,314
                                                                     ===============================================
    Production Costs:
        Senate Costs................................................      $6,339,539      $9,886,805      $7,961,741
        House Costs.................................................      $6,609,307      $9,563,592      $9,026,893
        Other.......................................................        $539,535        $693,141        $555,010
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total Production Costs....................................     $13,488,381     $20,143,538     $17,543,644
                                                                     ===============================================
    Costs Per Copy Cost.............................................          $12.14          $16.79          $19.88
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Although accessing legislative documents through the Internet is
    popular, there is still a strong need for printed documents, especially
    for larger sized legislation like the omnibus conference reports. The
    OPDS continually tracks demand for all classifications of congressional
    legislation and twice yearly adjusts the number of documents ordered in
    each category to closely match demand. Document waste has decreased
    significantly over the past several years.
        The office supplements depleted legislative documents where needed
    by producing additional copies in the DocuTech Service Center which is
    staffed by experienced GPO detailees that provide Member offices and
    Senate committees with on-demand printing and binding of bills and
    reports. In March 2004, the office coordinated the installation of a
    new and improved DocuTech high speed digital copier and production
    publisher. This machine helps to decrease the quantities of documents
    printed directly from GPO and increases the ability to reprint
    documents on-demand on a larger scale. In 2004, the DocuTech Center
    produced 471 tasks for a total of 660,554 printed pages. The DocuTech
    is networked with GPO allowing print files to be sent back and forth
    electronically, which provides an advantage of quickly printing
    necessary legislation for the Senate floor and other offices in the
    event of a GPO COOP situation.
        The primary responsibility of the Documents Services Section is to
    provide services to the Senate. However, the responsibility and this
    office's dedication and assistance to the general public, the press,
    and other government agencies is virtually indistinguishable from the
    services provided to the Senate. Requests for material are received at
    the walk-in counter, through the mail, by fax, and online. In addition,
    the office handled over 20,000 phone calls in 2004 pertaining to
    document requests and legislative questions. Recorded messages, fax,
    and e-mail operate around the clock and are processed as they are
    received along with mail requests. The office stresses prompt,
    courteous and accurate answers to the various public and Senate
    requests.

                                      SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CUSTOMER SERVICE STATISTICS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Congress/    Public      FAX                 Counter
                          Calendar year                         session      mail     request     E-mail    request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2002.....................................................    107/2nd      3,637      1,866        662     55,930
    2003.....................................................    108/1st      1,469      2,596        735     53,040
    2004.....................................................    108/2nd      1,137      2,229        564     36,780
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On-line Ordering
        The past year has brought significant changes in providing new
    services and improving existing ones. In 2004 many more Senate offices
    have taken advantage of the on-line blank paper ordering system
    implemented in 2003. With help from the Secretary's Office of Web
    Technology Department, OPDS expanded its content on senate.gov
    including new links to other sources of legislative information. The
    ability to order documents on-line, once reserved for staff only, has
    been opened for public use. The Legislative Hot List Link, where
    Members and staff can confirm arrival of printed copies of the most
    sought after legislative documents is still very popular. The site is
    updated several times daily--each time new documents arrive from GPO in
    the Document Room. The Office of Printing and Document Services
    continues to seek new ways to use technology to assist Members and
    staff with added services and improved access to information.
                          13. office of public records
        The Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains
    records, reports, and other documents filed with the Secretary of the
    Senate involving the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended; the
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995; the Senate Code of Official Conduct:
    Rule 34, Public Financial Disclosure; Rule 35, Senate Gift Rule
    filings; Rule 40, Registration of Mass Mailing; Rule 41, Political Fund
    Designees; and Rule 41(6), Supervisor's Reports on Individuals
    Performing Senate Services; and Foreign Travel Reports.
        The office provides for the inspection, review, and reproduction of
    these documents. From October 2003, through September 2004, the Public
    Records office staff assisted more than 2,000 individuals seeking
    information from reports filed with the office. Additional assistance
    was provided by telephone, and given to lobbyists attempting to comply
    with the provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. A total of
    93,655 photocopies was sold in the period. In addition, the office
    works closely with the Federal Election Commission, the Senate Select
    Committee on Ethics and the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives
    concerning filing requirements.
    Fiscal Year 2004 Accomplishments
        The Public Records office revised and improved the lobbying pages
    on senate.gov based upon recommendations of an independent survey of
    North American disclosure web sites. The office also completed
    transition to the next generation of server hardware. During the ricin
    incident, the office COOP plan was activated and operational in three
    hours.
    Plans for Fiscal Year 2005
        The office intends to develop on-site redundancy in conjuncture
    with other offices under the Office of the Secretary that have scanning
    functions. The office also plans to modernize the on-site public access
    software.
    Automation Activities
        During fiscal year 2004, the Senate Office of Public Records
    automated the Foreign Travel Reports filed under the Mutual Security
    Act of 1954. This is the first time that these records have been
    automated. The value to the Senate is that in the event of a COOP
    activation, they become easily accessible off-site.
    Federal Election Campaign Act, as Amended
        The Act requires Senate candidates to file quarterly reports, and
    pre and post election reports in the case of candidates running for
    office in 2004. Filings totaled 4,677 documents containing 290,592
    pages.
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
        The Act requires semi-annual financial and lobbying activity
    reports. As of September 30, 2004, 6,231 registrants represented 19,758
    clients and employed 30,402 individuals who met the statutory
    definition of ``lobbyist.'' The total number of lobbying registrations
    and reports was 51,496.
    Public Financial Disclosure
        The filing date for Public Financial Disclosure Reports was May 17,
    2004. The reports were available to the public and press by Friday,
    June 11th. Copies were provided to the Select Committee on Ethics and
    the appropriate state officials. A total of 2,692 reports and
    amendments were filed containing 15,695 pages. There were 328 requests
    to review or receive copies of the documents.
    Senate Rule 35 (Gift Rule)
        The Senate Office of Public Records has received over 1,392 reports
    during fiscal year 2004.
    Registration of Mass Mailing
        Senators are required to file mass mailings on a quarterly basis.
    The number of pages was 519.
                              14. senate security
    Introduction
        The Office of Senate Security (OSS) was established under the
    Secretary of the Senate by Senate Resolution 243 (100th Congress, 1st
    Session). The Office is responsible for the administration of
    classified information security programs in Senate offices and
    committees. In addition, OSS serves as the Senate's liaison to the
    Executive Branch in matters relating to the security of classified
    information in the Senate.
    Personnel Security
        Five hundred twenty-three Senate employees held one or more
    security clearances at the end of 2004. This number does not include
    clearances for employees of the Architect of the Capitol nor does it
    include clearances for Congressional Fellows assigned to Senate
    offices. OSS also processes these clearances.
        In the past year, OSS processed 1,904 personnel security actions, a
    21.3 percent decrease from 2003. One hundred twenty-two investigations
    for new security clearances were initiated last year, and 61 security
    clearances were transferred from other agencies. Senate regulations, as
    well as some Executive Branch regulations, require that individuals
    granted Top Secret security clearances be reinvestigated at least every
    five years. Staff holding Secret security clearances are reinvestigated
    every ten years. During the past year, reinvestigations were initiated
    on 62 Senate employees. OSS processed 137 routine terminations of
    security clearances during the reporting period and transmitted 310
    outgoing visit requests. The remainder of the personnel security
    actions consisted of updating access authorizations and compartments.
        The length of time required for the Department of Defense (DOD) and
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to process Senate staff for
    security clearances has increased from 207 days to 260 days. The
    average time for investigations has increased by 25.6 percent relative
    to 2003. Since the previous increase for 2002 to 2003 was 66.7 percent,
    this represents a very significant increase in the last two years. The
    average time for an initial investigation conducted and adjudicated by
    the Department of Defense (DOD) is 256 days from the date that OSS
    requests the investigation until the letter from DOD granting the
    clearance is received in Senate Security. The average time for DOD
    initial investigations increased 30.6 percent. The periodic
    reinvestigation process averages 270 days, a increase of 2.7 percent
    relative to 2003. The average time for an initial investigation
    conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and adjudicated
    by DOD is 252 days while the periodic reinvestigation process averages
    264 days. The FBI times represent an decrease of 5.6 percent and 29.0
    percent respectively.
        Two hundred seven records checks were conducted at the request of
    the FBI. This represents a 4.0 percent increase in records checks
    completed by OSS.
    Security Awareness
        OSS conducted or hosted 63 security briefings for Senate staff.
    Topics included information security, counterintelligence, foreign
    travel, security managers' responsibilities, office security
    management, and introductory security briefings. This represents a 20.3
    percent decrease from 2003.
    Document Control
        OSS received or generated 2,802 classified documents consisting of
    86,109 pages during calendar year 2003. This is a 5.0 percent increase
    in the number of documents received or generated in 2003. Additionally,
    63,750 pages from 2,670 classified documents no longer required for the
    conduct of official Senate business were destroyed. This represents an
    18.2 percent decrease in destruction. OSS transferred 1,185 documents
    consisting of 43,970 pages to Senate offices or external agencies, up
    57.2 percent from 2003. These figures do not include classified
    documents received directly by the Appropriations Committee, Armed
    Services Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, and Select Committee
    on Intelligence, in accordance with agreements between OSS and those
    Committees. Overall, Senate Security completed 6,657 document
    transactions and handled over 193,829 pages of classified material in
    2004, a decrease of 0.4 percent.
        Secure storage of classified material in the OSS vault was provided
    for 107 Senators, committees, and support offices. This arrangement
    minimizes the number of multiple storage areas throughout the Capitol
    and Senate office buildings, thereby affording greater security for
    classified material.
    Secure Meeting Facilities
        OSS secure conference facilities were utilized on 1,145 occasions
    during 2004. Use of OSS conference facilities decreased 16.7 percent
    from 2003 levels. Six hundred seventy-three meetings, briefings, or
    hearings were conducted in OSS' three conference rooms. Of those, nine
    were ``All Senators'' briefings and five were hearings. OSS also
    provided to Senators and staff secure telephones, secure computers,
    secure facsimile machine, and secure areas for reading and production
    of classified material on 472 occasions.
                              15. stationery room
        The mission of the Keeper of the Stationery is:
      --To sell stationery items for use by Senate offices and other
            authorized legislative organizations.
      --To select a variety of stationery items to meet the needs of the
            Senate on a day-to-day basis and maintain a sufficient
            inventory of these items.
      --To purchase supplies utilizing open market procurement, competitive
            bid and/or GSA Federal Supply Schedules.
      --To maintain individual official stationery expense accounts for
            Senators, Committees, and Officers of the Senate.
      --To render monthly expense statements.
      --To insure receipt of reimbursements for all purchases by the client
            base via direct payments or through the certification process.
      --To make payments to all vendors of record for supplies and services
            in a timely manner and certify receipt of all supplies and
            services.
      --To provide delivery of purchased supplies to the requesting
            offices.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                                   2004            2003
                                                Statistical     Statistical
                                                Operations      Operations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gross Sales.............................      $4,740,221      $4,843,716
    Sales Transactions......................          58,682          61,140
    Purchase Orders Issued..................           6,741           7,545
    Vouchers Processed......................           7,485           8,689
    Metro Fare Media Sold...................          67,836          52,279
        $20.00 Media........................          60,564          46,260
        $10.00 Media........................           4,124           3,023
        $5.00 Media.........................           3,148           2,996
                                             ===============================
    Full Time Employees (FTE)...............              13              13
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fiscal Year 2004 Highlights and Projects
        Communications.--The Stationery Room stressed communication with
    the Administrative Managers Steering Group to keep in touch with the
    customers' needs.
        Flag Modernization Project.--The Stationery Room was tasked to
    serve on a committee with the other three business unit owners of the
    flag process. This effort was facilitated by staff of the Senate
    Sergeant at Arms and a consultant. The consultant was contracted by the
    SAA to outline all of the processes involved and to identify how each
    user of the process interacted with the other business unit owners. The
    consultant was also tasked to make recommendations to streamline the
    process.
        Mass Transit Electronic FORM.--During the first quarter of the
    fiscal year, the Stationery Room began a pilot project to expedite and
    streamline the purchase processes of the Mass Transit Subsidy Program.
    Evolving from the pilot, the concept was to develop a Web-based
    application that could provide the same functionality and ease of use
    by the Program Administrators, yet be supported within the Senate
    community. In cooperation with the SAA IT Development Group, the
    application was written as a Web-based product. This electronic version
    is now being deployed through the use of the Senate's intranet server.
        Computer Modernization Project.--During the first half of fiscal
    year 2004, Stationery Room staff spent considerable time working with a
    consultant to develop a requirements document, to outline the
    technological needs of the Department in order to move from technology
    now two decades old to a more robust application. As a result of the
    requirements document, in May 2004, Stationery Room staff began working
    with key staff members of the Secretary's Executive Office and the SAA
    Procurement staff to develop a ``Statement of Work'' to be used for the
    Request for Proposal phase and awarding of a contract. In September
    2004, a contract was executed to provide software tailored to the needs
    of the Senate Stationery Room.
        Warehouse Project.--The Senate Stationery Room has been involved in
    this long-term SAA project. The project mission was to determine the
    warehouse needs by each business user and then find a facility to meet
    those needs. Current usage, along with future requirements were
    determined with the assistance of SAA staff and consultants.
    Additionally, the Stationery Room took the opportunity to factor in
    COOP requirements that could support this department should a
    displacement occur.
                               16. web technology
        The Office of Web Technology is responsible for web sites that fall
    under the purview of the Secretary of the Senate, including: the Senate
    Web site, www.senate.gov (except individual Senator and Committee
    pages); the Secretary web site on the Senate intranet, Webster; an
    intranet site currently used for file-sharing by Secretary staff only;
    and a LegBranch web server housing web sites and project materials
    which can be accessed by staff at other Legislative Branch agencies.
    Senate Web Site (www.senate.gov)
        Senate Web site content is maintained by over 30 contributors from
    7 departments of the Secretary's Office and 3 departments of the
    Sergeant at Arms. Throughout 2004, senate.gov content providers focused
    on fine-tuning and reorganizing content for usability, based on
    personal experience and feedback from the public. Collaboration
    continued throughout the year resulting in the coordinated posting of
    monthly feature articles in the major areas of the site.
        Several new items were added to the site as well, including: A new
    subsection in the Reference Section called ``Statistics & Lists''; the
    Placement Office web page posting their brochure & employment bulletin;
    and a collection of several Classic Senate Speeches.
        Activities contemplated and/or underway at year's end include: A
    search feature, already available to Senate offices for use on their
    own sites; a redesign of the Homepage, bringing additional content up
    to the front page; several multimedia/animated presentations: The
    Political Cartoons of Puck--completed and soon to be posted; the
    Drawings of Lily Spandorf--75 percent complete; and Issac Bassett's
    papers Senate Desks Redesign and expansion of the Virtual Tour.
        The Senate Web site (www.senate.gov) content is managed using the
    Documentum Web Content Management System which allows content providers
    to create and post information to the web site without knowing the
    format language of the web, HTML. The Department of Web Site Technology
    completed several system-enhancing development projects in 2004.
      --Creation of a Java Servlet Page (JSP) Slideshow application
      --Development of templates for Statistical Tables
      --Authoring in XML--The Cloture Motions Project
      --Sending Graphic Art Prints Data to GPO
      --Upgrading Documentum 4i to Documentum 5i
      --Publishing to Webster from Documentum--the Library Catalogers
            Project
        Below is a description of several projects and how specific
    problems were solved or the Documentum content management system was
    enhanced to provide more functionality for the content providers.
    JSP Slideshow
        The Request: Several offices requested a slideshow application
    where images could be shown in an effective and interesting manner. The
    original template was designed for the Inaugural Print Objects the
    Curator's Office planned to exhibit for the inauguration.
        The Solution: All needed objects from the Curator's database were
    exported into an XML format. Then, using another style sheet,
    individual XML files and all associated files (five different-sized
    graphics for each print, and an XML file that contains descriptive
    information about the graphics and links the graphics to the CMS
    object) were created. This method was highly effective since it allows
    the Curator's Office to keep information only in one place and then
    offers unlimited repurposing of this information by sending the data in
    an XML format to the Content Management System.
        The Slideshow template makes an actual JSP, java servlet page, file
    that includes all necessary information about the slideshow. This
    project was the first time JSP technology was used on the Senate's
    central site, which was recently made possible through the upgrade of
    the Cold Fusion Application Server. Besides being able to offer users
    more interaction, and thus a more enjoyable web visit, using JSP
    technologies was also a proof of concept for using Java through Cold
    Fusion.
        Individual instances of the slideshow template were made for each
    inauguration in the exhibit, 1853-1905. The Curator's Office can easily
    modify the data in any part of the exhibit without knowledge of web
    technologies. The final aspect of this project was to make a slideshow
    of the slideshows, thus connecting each small slideshow into one large
    cohesive exhibit. This was done through the modification of the
    original slideshow template to allow seamless integration as users
    click through the exhibit.
                Moving Forward:
        The Curator's Office has already found other uses for the slideshow
    template, such as a timeline for the unveiling of two portraits in the
    Senate Reception Room and is now in the midst of an exhibit on Daniel
    Webster. The slideshow template has been enhanced in several different
    ways to allow for other purposes. The Historical Office used a simpler
    version for their Capitol Scenes: 1900-1950, on-line exhibit. The
    Historical Office also plans to use a slightly modified version of this
    same template for two upcoming online exhibits.
        Many more slideshows will be appearing on the Senate web site
    through the extension of the JSP Slideshow template.
                Examples:
        ``I Do Solemnly Swear'': A Half Century of Inaugural Images http://
    www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/common/image_collection/inauguration_
    slideshow.htm
        Capitol Scenes: 1900-1950 RLINK"http://www.senate.gov/
    artandhistory/history/common/slideshow/capitol_scenes.jsp" http://
    www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/slideshow/
    capitol_scenes.jsp
        Vandenburg and Wagner Time Line http://www.senate.gov/
    artandhistory/art/common/slideshow/vandenburg_wagner.jsp
        Daniel Webster Objects http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/
    common/slideshow/daniel_webster.jsp
    Statistical Tables
        The Request: The Senate Library requested a way to post their
    statistical information online. None of the currently existing
    templates gave them the control they desired for their information.
        The Solution: New content templates were created specifically for
    tables. These ranged from two-column tables up to seven-column tables
    that offer controls to the content authors on how the information is
    displayed. For example, they can choose to have a print friendly
    version, if the information is applicable, or to include standard
    header information, which is encapsulated separately and thus reusable,
    or to display vertical lines to make the information more readable.
        This office worked very closely with the Senate Library to make
    these various table templates work for all their complex information
    needs. Through XML we are able to offer multiple renditions of the same
    information for different displays (i.e., viewing online, printing, or
    pdf formats). This solution greatly appealed to the librarians since it
    now enables them to update the information in just one file and have
    all the various presentations of this information updated automatically
    from their one source file.
                Moving Forward:
        The Senate Historical Office has plans to begin using these same
    templates to disseminate some of their data well suited for a table.
    Additionally, they would like to have more renditions made from the
    same data source, XML file, such as a rich text format (RTF) for
    internal use.
        The Senate Curator's Office has asked for the same abilities,
    arranging data in columns for some of their information. Pieces of the
    program for the original tables have been reused to accomplish their
    goals.
                Examples:
        Statistics & Lists Home Page (two-column) http://www.senate.gov/
    pagelayout/reference/two_column_table/stats_and_lists.htm
        Measures Proposed to Amend the Constitution (three-column) http://
    www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/three_column_table/
    measures_proposed_ to_amend_constitution.htm
        Votes by Vice Presidents to Break Tie Votes in the Senate (four-
    column) http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/four_column_table/
    Tie_Votes.htm
        Sunday Sessions of the Senate (since 1861) (five-column) http://
    www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/five_column_table/
    Sunday_Sessions.htm
        George W. Bush Cabinet Nominations (six-column) http://
    www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/six_column_table/Bush_cabinet.htm
        Inaugural Luncheons (Curator's Office) http://
    wip.cmsprod.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/common/collection_list/
    inaugural_luncheons.htm
    Authoring in XML--The Cloture Motions Project:
        The Request: The Senate Library maintains statistical information
    on the various Cloture Motions filed during a Congress. This
    information is very complicated in terms of the special cases that
    occur with these proceedings. This statistical information is highly
    sought after and required in several different formats. Due to the
    complexity of this information none of the previously created table
    templates would suffice and a new solution was requested.
        The Solution: The seven-column table template was used as a base
    for the cloture motion tables. Using the advances made in the seven-
    column table we were able to greatly reduce the development time of the
    cloture motion table template.
        One of the major obstacles to overcome was how to fit all the
    information within the normal width of the screen. We worked very
    closely with the Library Staff to find a solution acceptable to all.
    These solutions included using footnotes for certain sections, legends,
    hyperlinks to measures and bills, and customized codes for indenting
    and spacing issues. These are highly specialized tables that contain
    advanced business logic to most accurately display the information in a
    very useful manner.
        Since this information is so useful to a variety of organizations
    we also enabled the publishing of the XML document directly. This
    allows other groups to take the data maintained by the Senate
    librarians and to utilize the data in a manner most efficient for them
    (i.e., database querying and RSS feeds). Organizations can access this
    information online, so no files will need to be transferred through
    other means, and the most current information is always available.
        An additional advance accomplished through this project was the
    authoring of the XML data. Since many cloture motions may exist in a
    single Congress and each one can contain a great deal of information it
    became impractical to use the XML editor that came packaged with the
    Content Management System. We explored several other options for the
    librarians to edit the data and came up with two solutions that are
    acceptable to all offices involved.
                Moving Forward:
        Information that changes often, is displayed in several different
    formats, and that could possibly be used by other organizations is an
    excellent candidate for XML technologies. Creating the XML application
    that delivers Active Legislation/Hot Bills information to
    www.senate.gov and INK"http://webster"http://webster was a springboard
    for this application. As content authors experience the reduction of
    tedious work, updating the same information in many files, more and
    more of these types of XML applications will prove themselves
    invaluable. The Library is always adding additional categories of
    information they maintain that would be enhanced through these
    applications. Additionally, the Historical Office would like to keep
    similar information in a rich text format (RTF) to be used by word
    processors. This is a relatively simple extension of the already
    existing application.
                Examples:
        Cloture Motions--108th Congress http://wip.cmsprod.senate.gov/
    pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/test_108_2.htm
        Cloture Motions--108th Congress (Print Version) http://
    wip.cmsprod.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/
    test_108_2.shtml
        Cloture Motions--108th Congress (Raw XML Data) http://
    wip.cmsprod.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/
    test_108_2.xml
    Graphic Art Prints to GPO
        The Request: The Curator's Office needed to provide to the
    Government Printing Office the information about their graphic art
    prints for the Senate Graphic Art Catalogue. All information about the
    graphic art objects is currently maintained in their database. The
    titles of each one of these objects are very specific and have many
    styles applied to them inside the database to ensure their proper
    presentation. Upon exporting this information all the style information
    was lost and would have needed to be reentered. This opened up the
    possibility of unnecessary additional work for the Curator.
        The Solution: An XML application was developed that was able to
    preserve the styles of the data, along with all other relevant
    information. The first step was to export the data into XML. Then,
    using FileMaker Pro's built-in website functionality, a web page
    displaying only the object titles was created. Using a product that
    automates computer keystrokes, a program was written to cycle through
    each title on the generated website, copying each title to a Word
    document (still preserving style data), advancing one record, and
    repeating the process until it traversed through all 1,000 Graphic
    Print Objects. The Word document containing the titles was converted to
    an XML file using a third-party product and was merged with the
    original XML data export, thus producing one XML file with all the
    style information preserved.
        The final XML file was transformed into a word document and a PDF
    file sent to GPO. Development of this automated conversion process
    greatly reduced the amount of work that needed to be performed,
    decreasing the time required to generate the necessary data and
    improving the quality of the data sent to GPO.
                Moving Forward:
        Since the Curator's Office uses a FileMaker Pro database, which
    produces XML reports, this was a great proof of concept of how we can
    manipulate the data into necessary forms. Some third party software was
    used due to the complexity of the project, but the knowledge gained of
    these add-on XML tools will assist toward solving complex formatting
    and printing needs in the future.
    Library Catalogers Publishing to Webster
        The Request: The cataloging group in the Senate Library wished to
    have certain pdf files and graphics of book covers available to the
    Senate Community. They wanted something that was easy to use and thus
    did not require much training.
        The Solution: We added a new cabinet to the Content Management
    System just to be used by the catalogers. Next, we created a new web
    publishing configuration to push the content from the newly created
    cabinet to the Secretary's portion of http://webster. This required the
    installation of software on the Webster Server, which we accomplished
    by working closely with the developers and administrators of that
    server.
                Moving Forward:
        Establishing this link between http://webster and our Documentum
    Content Management System opens up many possibilities for the future.
    We now could utilize the same system to manage the Secretary's portion
    of Webster. This would enable non-technical employees to control the
    information disseminated to Senate Staff without involving a
    programmer. Additionally we can add more complexity for the catalogers
    as their needs grow.
    Web Site Activity Statistics
                Senate Web Site Statistics
        In 2003, only 24 percent of visitors to the site saw the main
    Senate Homepage, the majority coming to the site via a bookmarked page
    (possibly directly to their Senator's site) or to a specific page from
    a search engine. That figure rose to 35 percent in 2004, as more people
    found the main Senate Homepage. Statistics on individual page activity
    show substantial increases in all areas of the main Senate site.
        In 2004 the number of visitors to the entire web site (Senators'
    and Committees' sites included) increased about 9 percent, however, the
    number of visitors to the Senate Homepage increased by 57 percent.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      2003 Visitors/  2004 Visitors/      Percent
                            Title of Web Page                              Month           Month         Increase
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Visits--Entire Site.............................................       3,029,666       3,293,721               9
    Senate Homepage.................................................         734,094       1,152,367              57
    Senators Home...................................................         264,190         273,841               4
    Legislation & Records Home......................................          65,904          84,765              29
    Committees Home.................................................          60,747          73,147              20
    Reference Home..................................................          20,593          23,486              14
    Art & History Home..............................................          14,807          20,413              38
    Visitors Home...................................................          12,095          16,123              33
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Reviewing statistics on web page usage help the content providers
    better understand what information the public is seeking and how best
    to improve the presentation of that data. The main Senate homepage and
    the homepages of the six subject areas (buckets) receive the most
    visits as people navigate around the site (see chart above). Within the
    buckets we find that visitors are consistently drawn to the following
    content items, listed in order of popularity.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Percent
                              2004 Top Pages                          2003 Visitors/  2004 Visitors/  increase 2003-
                                                                           Month           Month           2004
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Roll Call Votes.................................................          34,860          39,408              13
    Leadership Page.................................................          12,789          17,469              37
    Active Legislation List.........................................          12,311          17,751              44
    Session Schedule for 2004.......................................          10,121          15,219              50
    Organization Chart..............................................          11,405          14,140              24
    Committee Hearing Schedule......................................          10,552          13,318              26
    Bill and Resolutions Page.......................................           7,289          12,806              76
    Statistics & Lists..............................................  ..............          12,005         ( \1\ )
    Congressional Record Page.......................................           5,247          11,899             127
    Virtual Tour of the Capitol.....................................           7,335          11,052              51
    Individual States Page..........................................           5,437          10,139              86
    Calendars & Schedules...........................................           7,425          10,081              36
    Historical Office Page..........................................           5,341           9,608              80
    Nominations Page................................................           6,682           8,813              32
    Virtual Reference Desk..........................................           4,561           7,182              57
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ New in 2004.

    Webster Statistics
        Statistics for the Secretary's web site on Webster, the Senate
    Intranet, show that the vast majority of visitors go directly to the
    Disbursing Office section. This section contains information on
    Employee Benefits (insurance, retirement, payroll, etc.) and provides
    access to the many forms employees need to complete to obtain or modify
    these benefits. Other popular items include the Office of Printing and
    Document Services Document Order and Print Order Forms, and the page
    that lists all Secretary of the Senate services.
    E-Mail to the Webmaster
        The nature of e-mail to the webmaster has changed over the past two
    years. The improved site navigation has reduced, to only one or two a
    day, the number of questions regarding how to find information on the
    main site. In late 2003 improved error-handling was added to the site
    to prevent a visitor from getting the standard ``page not found'' error
    when a broken link was encountered. A message is now displayed that
    provides the Webmaster's e-mail address and the visitor is
    automatically directed back to the main Senate Homepage or the
    Senator's Homepage, depending on where the error occurred. Many
    visitors take the opportunity to write the Webmaster alerting us to
    broken links. This, in turn, has fostered more communication between
    this office and Senators' System Administrators as we work together to
    clean up the broken links on the entire site.
    Search Engine Implementation
        In 2003 a search engine was installed, configured, and tested for
    senate.gov. In 2004 testing has continued, focusing on how to improve
    the search results by adding or editing metadata associated with the
    content items. It was hoped that more relevant and standardized
    keywords, and better descriptions and titles would improve the
    relevance ranking of the search results. Further research and
    investigation is required as to how to configure the search engine for
    best results. Meanwhile, the search engine has been made available to
    Senate offices for use on their own web sites.
    Training
        In December 2004 the Web Site Technology staff and several content
    providers in the Secretary's office joined SAA staff in an onsite three
    day XML class. In addition to teaching valuable technical skills and
    familiarizing staff with XML tools, this class gave content providers a
    good understanding of the power and scope of XML.
                  legislative information system (lis) project
        The Legislative Information System (LIS) is a mandated system
    (Section 8 of the 1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2 U.S.C.
    123e) that provides desktop access to the content and status of
    legislative information and supporting documents. The 1997 Legislative
    Branch Appropriations Act (2 U.S.C. 181) also established a program for
    providing the widest possible exchange of information among legislative
    branch agencies. The long-range goal of the LIS Project is to provide a
    ``comprehensive Senate Legislative Information System'' to capture,
    store, manage, and distribute Senate documents. Several components of
    the LIS have been implemented, and the project is currently focused on
    a Senate-wide implementation and transition to a standard system for
    the authoring and exchange of legislative documents that will greatly
    enhance the availability and re-use of legislative documents within the
    Senate and with other legislative branch agencies. The LIS Project
    Office manages the project.
    Background: LISAP
        An April 1997 joint Senate and House report recommended
    establishment of a data standards program, and in December 2000, the
    Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House
    Administration jointly accepted the Extensible Markup Language (XML) as
    the primary data standard to be used for the exchange of legislative
    documents and information.
        Following the implementation of the Legislative Information System
    (LIS) in January, 2000, the LIS Project Office shifted its focus to the
    data standards program and established the LIS Augmentation Project
    (LISAP). The over-arching goal of the LISAP is to provide a Senate-wide
    implementation and transition to XML for the authoring and exchange of
    legislative documents.
        The current focus for the LISAP is the development and
    implementation of an XML authoring system for legislative documents
    produced by the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel (SLC) and the
    Office of the Enrolling Clerk. The XML authoring application is called
    LEXA, an acronym for the Legislative Editing in XML Application. LEXA
    features many automated functions that provide a more efficient and
    consistent document authoring process. The LIS Project Office has
    worked very closely with the SLC to create an application that meets
    the needs for legislative drafting.
        In early January 2004, LEXA was installed throughout the SLC, and
    the 40-member office of attorneys and staff assistants participated in
    a two-day training course, designed by a contractor, to transition from
    XyWrite to LEXA and from locator codes to XML. It takes several months
    for a drafter to learn to use XyWrite and the locator formatting codes.
    Following the two-day LEXA training course, SLC staff immediately began
    producing XML documents using LEXA, and the first XML draft to become a
    bill was introduced on January 22, 2004. The SLC first used LEXA to
    draft short and simple bills and resolutions, gradually adding longer,
    more complex documents. The SLC also offered valuable feedback
    throughout the year regarding LEXA's continued development as existing
    features were enhanced and additional document types, such as
    amendments and reported bills, were added to LEXA. Following the
    January training course, the contractor also created a reference
    manual. As new features were added to LEXA, the LIS Project Office
    continued to update the manual. The updated, comprehensive manual was
    distributed in January 2005. The manual provides screen shots and step-
    by-step instructions for all LEXA features. The Office also developed
    additional training materials and provided a one day training session
    in December for all SLC staff on new LEXA features, including a one-
    click process to change a document prepared for the 108th Congress to
    one for the 109th Congress. The SLC intends to use LEXA for as many
    drafts as possible and will gradually increase the number throughout
    2005. Through April 1, 2005, 75 percent of the 770 introduced and
    reported bills and resolutions for the 109th Congress have been created
    as XML documents.
        The LIS Project Office worked closely with several key House,
    Library of Congress, and Government Printing Office (GPO) groups
    involved in the XML project to ensure that changes to the House and
    Senate XML authoring applications do not adversely affect the exchange
    of electronic documents among all organizations processing the
    documents. A new document type definition (DTD) change and approval
    process was developed so that all parties have an opportunity to test
    and comment on all proposed changes to the exchange DTDs before changes
    are made and distributed.
        Another important joint project of Senate and House offices
    involves the conversion of locator documents to XML. The locator
    conversion software was recently updated to provide a more robust tool,
    and a joint project is underway to convert the compilations of current
    law to an XML format. The compilations are updated by both the House
    and Senate Legislative Counsel Offices and are used as the basis for
    many legislative drafts. The compilations conversion project will be
    completed by July 2005.
        As LEXA becomes more widely used in the SLC and other offices,
    support of the application becomes increasingly important. The 2004
    Legislative Branch Appropriations Act directed the GPO to provide
    support for LEXA much as they have for XyWrite for many years, and GPO
    has made steps toward providing that support. GPO purchased Xmetal, the
    base software, and installed LEXA in late July. In August, the LIS
    Project Office conducted two evenings of LEXA training for the second
    shift of GPO staff who support the bill printing process. GPO now uses
    LEXA to update XML documents as requested via the Senate Bill Clerk,
    and the XML drafts are used to create the printed and locator versions
    of bills. In October, GPO took over maintenance and support of the
    coding and style sheet portion of LEXA that converts an XML document to
    locator for printing through Microcomp. GPO has also developed a style
    sheet that is used to display XML documents on the LIS website
    (www.congress.gov) and on thomas.loc.gov. The XML display more closely
    resembles the printed version (without page and line numbers). House
    XML bills are currently being tested, and once a majority of Senate
    bills are available in XML, the Senate XML versions will be posted on
    LIS as well.
        The LIS Project Office provides support for LEXA via the LEXA
    HelpLine and LEXA web site. The HelpLine is provided through a single
    phone number that rings on all the phones in the office, and the
    website is located on a server accessible by the legislative branch.
    The website, legbranch.senate.gov/lis/lexa, is used to distribute
    updates of the application to GPO and provides access to release notes,
    the reference manual, and other user aids.
        The document management system (DMS) for the SLC will be
    implemented once the SLC has completed the transition from XyWrite to
    LEXA and a substantial number of drafts are created in XML. Since mid-
    2004, the Systems Development Services group of the Office of the
    Sergeant at Arms has been working on updating the DMS to the most
    recent release of Documentum which was a major change for the base
    software of the DMS. The Systems Development Services group provides
    support and maintenance for the LIS/DMS, and that group will also
    support the DMS for the SLC once it is deployed. The LIS Project Office
    has been monitoring the upgrade effort and will contract for transition
    training to be developed and delivered prior to implementation. The DMS
    will be integrated with LEXA and will provide a powerful tracking,
    management, and delivery tool.
        The LIS Project Office will continue to work with the SLC to refine
    and enhance LEXA, including developing software to create and print
    conference reports and to use and update the XML versions of the
    compilations of current law. The team will next address the specific
    needs of the Office of the Enrolling Clerk. Additional functionality to
    produce engrossed bills and amendments and enrolled bills will be added
    to LEXA, and that office will receive training. Other Senate offices
    that do drafting with XyWrite may follow, including the Committee on
    Appropriations.
        The legislative process yields other types of documents such as the
    Senate and Executive Journals and the Legislative and Executive
    Calendars. Much of the data and information included in these documents
    is already captured in and distributed through the LIS/DMS database
    used by the clerks in the Office of the Secretary. The LIS/DMS captures
    data that relates to legislation including bill and resolution numbers,
    amendment numbers, sponsors, co-sponsors, and committees of referral.
    This information is currently entered into the database and verified by
    the clerks and then keyed into the respective documents and reverified
    at GPO before printing. An interface between this database and the
    electronic documents could mutually exchange data. For example, the
    LIS/DMS database could insert the bill number, additional co-sponsors,
    and committee of referral into an introduced bill while the bill draft
    document could supply the official and short titles of the bill to the
    database.
        The Congressional Record, like the Journals and Calendars, includes
    data that is contained in and reported by the LIS/DMS database.
    Preliminary DTDs have been designed for these documents, and
    applications could be built to construct XML document components by
    extracting and tagging the LIS/DMS data. These applications would
    provide a faster, more consistent assembly of these documents and would
    enhance the ability to index and search their contents. The LIS Project
    Office will coordinate with the Systems Development Services Branch of
    the Office of the Sergeant at Arms to begin design and development of
    XML applications and interfaces for the LIS/DMS and legislative
    documents. As more and more legislative data and documents are provided
    in XML formats that use common elements across all document types, the
    Library of Congress will be able to expand the LIS Retrieval System to
    provide more content-specific searches.
                            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

    STATEMENT OF ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
        Senator Allard. I think we'll start, Mr. Hantman, with your
    testimony, and we may have to interrupt it shortly, but let's
    go ahead and see.
        Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, look forward
    to working with you as the new Chair of the subcommittee.
    There's an awful lot for us to talk about, and I certainly look
    forward to that opportunity to do so.
        I want to thank the subcommittee for its support in the
    past, without which we could not have completed many critical
    projects, continued to provide exemplary services, and assured
    continuity of operations in the U.S. Capitol, Senate office
    buildings, and throughout the Capitol complex.
        Mr. Chairman, the AOC has served Congress since 1793, the
    year President Washington helped lower the cornerstone into
    place and construction of the Capitol began. Today, the AOC's
    responsibilities include the care and maintenance of nearly 300
    acres and approximately 15 million square feet of historic
    buildings, which will soon include the Capitol Visitor Center.

                    ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL STRATEGIC PLAN

        When we implemented our strategic plan 2 years ago, we
    developed four goals that guide us in setting priorities when
    submitting budget requests, balancing our workload, and
    assessing and measuring our accomplishments. As we work to
    achieve these goals, we evaluate our efforts to improve and
    excel in growing as an organization; thereby, meeting and
    exceeding customer expectations. Accordingly, we're requesting
    $506 million across all AOC-managed appropriations to provide
    operations and renovation activities, while also focusing on
    security, upgrading fire and life-safety elements, and
    addressing customers' requests and priorities.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2006 MAJOR PROJECTS

        Major capital projects included in this budget are the
    construction of Library of Congress storage modules 3 and 4
    that you mentioned, the planned construction of the U.S.
    Capitol Police offsite delivery center, the installation
    upgrade of fire and life-safety and security measures,
    completion of additional fire egress and protection projects,
    and a variety of other renovations and upgrades throughout the
    Capitol complex.
        Noteworthy, of course, is the Capitol Visitor Center
    project, which is the largest addition to the U.S. Capitol in
    its history, increasing the size of the existing building by
    some 70 percent. Included in the 580,000 square foot center is
    the construction of 170,000 square feet of expansion space for
    the Senate and House. Construction completion of the visitor
    center portion of the project is scheduled for September 2006.
        With regard to the Senate office buildings, in fiscal year
    2004 we completed 45,892 work orders requested by Senators and
    their staffs. So far this fiscal year, we have completed some
    22,250 Senate work orders to date. In addition, we've been
    working on a number of priority projects, including modernizing
    elevators, upgrading public restrooms, opening and maintaining
    the Senate staff exercise facility, completing election year
    moves in record time, and renovating, restoring, and upgrading
    several committee rooms to accommodate state-of-the-art
    equipment.
        With the increased need for perimeter security measures,
    we're installing new security features throughout Capitol Hill.
    In addition to bollards and other features compatible with
    Senate building design installed to date along Constitution
    Avenue, we anticipate similar installations to complete the
    outer Senate perimeter over the next 2\1/2\ years.

                           EMPLOYEE FEEDBACK PROGRAM

        Our strategic plan contains two goals which focus on our
    employees, while providing the highest-quality services. One of
    our objectives was to develop a comprehensive employee feedback
    program. Accordingly, in September 2004, I invited more than
    300 employees from across the AOC to participate in 25 focus
    group sessions. We asked them to identify problems and
    challenges, to help us find ways to solve them, and to make
    improvements within the organization. In October 2004, the
    Human Resources Management Division surveyed all employees,
    asking them to pinpoint specific areas where we needed to
    improve customer satisfaction. Our employees spoke, and we are
    listening.
        Over the next several months, we will be rolling out action
    plans, meeting with our employees to address the issues they
    raised, and share concerns, ideas, and suggested solutions with
    one another to continuously improve the organization.
        In conclusion, over the past several years, the AOC has
    undergone significant change, and we have reaffirmed our
    commitment to providing superior services for the Congress and
    the American people. My team of 2,000 dedicated employees and I
    are committed to fulfilling our objective, to ensure our
    continuous improvement across all of our areas of
    responsibility.
        Our request for funds for fiscal year 2006 supports our
    activities as good stewards to maintain and preserve the
    national treasures under our care, as well as to respond to our
    customers' requests for priority projects and programs. In
    addition, we continue to strive to achieve the level of safety,
    security, preservation, and cleanliness expected across the
    Capitol complex.
        We have completed tens of thousands of work orders, to our
    clients' satisfaction, and have achieved many of our goals due
    to the hard work and dedication of AOC employees. I am very
    privileged and honored to lead such a professional team. The
    subcommittee's support in helping us achieve these goals is
    greatly appreciated.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Once again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify
    today. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. And
    good morning, Senator Durbin. Thank you for your support.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, members of the Committee, thank you
    for this opportunity to testify today. I want to thank the Committee
    for its support, without which we could not have completed many
    critical projects, continued to provide exemplary services, and assured
    continuity of operations in the U.S. Capitol, in the Senate Office
    Buildings, and throughout the Capitol complex.
        The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) has served
    Congress since 1793--the year President George Washington helped
    tradesmen lower the cornerstone into place and construction of the U.S.
    Capitol began. Since that time, the men and women who make up the AOC's
    workforce have focused on preserving, maintaining, and enhancing the
    national treasures entrusted to us. Today our responsibilities include
    the care and maintenance of approximately 300 acres and nearly 15
    million square feet of historic buildings, with the newest increment of
    growth being the upcoming Capitol Visitor Center (CVC).
                               strategic planning
        When we implemented our Strategic Plan two years ago, we developed
    four goals that encompass the primary responsibilities of our
    organization. They are: Facilities Management, Project Management,
    Human Capital, and Organizational Excellence. These goals drive our
    day-to-day activities. They guide us in setting priorities with regard
    to submitting budget requests, balancing our workload, and assessing
    and measuring our accomplishments. As we work to achieve these goals,
    we evaluate our efforts so we continue to excel, meet and exceed
    expectations, and grow as an organization.
                           overview of budget request
        The AOC fiscal year 2006 budget incorporates the needs of our
    clients, including the Library of Congress and the U.S. Capitol Police.
    We believe we have met the challenge of building a budget that supports
    stewardship of our national treasures, while balancing fiscal
    responsibility and the needs of the Congress. Our fiscal year 2006
    budget was developed to continue to provide routine operations and
    renovation activities while also focusing on security, upgrading fire
    and life-safety elements, addressing clients' requests and priorities,
    and identifying operational, transitional, and cost-to-complete needs
    associated with the CVC.
        Accordingly, we are requesting $506 million across all AOC managed
    appropriations ($438 million not including items specific to the House)
    for fiscal year 2006 to support the maintenance, care, and operations
    of the buildings and grounds of the Capitol complex, which consists
    primarily of the Capitol, Senate and House Office Buildings, Library of
    Congress, U.S. Capitol Police headquarters, Botanic Garden, and Capitol
    Power Plant. This includes a request for an operating budget of $280
    million ($242 million not including operations specific to the House),
    $17 million for annually funded projects, $137 million for capital
    projects ($107 million not including items specific to the House), $37
    million for the completion of the construction of the CVC, and $35
    million to transition to operating the CVC.
                                operating budget
        The request for an operating budget of $280 million (less CVC
    operations) includes mandatory payroll increases; price level
    inflationary increases for materials, services, and utilities, and
    other general operations increases. Additional increases in our
    operating budget incorporate client-driven requirements for leases of
    facilities and related operations and maintenance costs.
                             annual projects budget
        The fiscal year 2006 budget for annually funded projects totals $17
    million. Noteworthy proposed annual projects include: Copyright Office
    Move/Reconfiguration for the Library of Congress Buildings ($5.5
    million); Conservatory Claim for the Botanic Garden ($3.5 million);
    Restoration of East Front Bronze Doors for the Capitol Building
    ($702,000); and the Upgrade Filtration Efficiency Project for the
    Library of Congress Buildings ($700,000).
                            capital projects budget
        Two key elements used in preparing our capital budget are the
    Capitol Complex Master Plan and the Facility Condition Assessments
    (FCAs). The Capitol Complex Master Plan identifies preservation and
    maintenance requirements for proposed new facilities, while FCAs
    determine preservation and maintenance requirements for existing
    facilities. Based on the Capitol Complex Master Plan and FCAs, all
    proposed and existing facility requirements feed into the Capital
    Improvement Plan (CIP) which prioritizes and incorporates project needs
    over a five-year period (fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010).
        Accordingly, the CIP process was utilized in determining the fiscal
    year 2006 Capital Projects multi-year request of $122 million, $72
    million of which directly addresses specific client needs. Noteworthy
    proposed capital projects include:
      --The Library of Congress Modules 3 & 4 ($40.7 million) entailing the
            construction of two environmentally-controlled storage
            buildings to be located in Fort Meade for the storage of
            Library of Congress collections.
      --The U.S. Capitol Police Off-Site Delivery Center ($23 million)
            which includes the acquisition of land, design, and
            construction of an off-site delivery facility.
      --Life-safety and security projects ($14.5 million) which include
            requirements for emergency exit signs and lighting upgrades,
            upgrades to air filtration systems, and building upgrades to
            address other life-safety issues.
      --Fire egress and protection projects ($12.6 million) which address
            deficiencies in egress from buildings, stairwells, and fire
            wall boundary protection.
      --Renovation projects ($24.7 million) to include renovations in
            emergency electrical service, refinishing historic woodwork,
            legislative call system upgrades, restroom upgrades, high-
            voltage switchgear replacement, and heating ventilation/air
            conditioning replacement.
                         capitol visitor center budget
        The CVC project is the largest addition to the U.S. Capitol in its
    history. Included in the 580,000 square foot Visitor Center is the
    construction of 170,000 square feet of expansion space for the Senate
    and House. Building a major underground three-story facility, adjacent
    to the world's most recognizable symbol of democracy, which is a fully
    functioning office building, conference center, and museum, is truly a
    significant challenge. The project is now 55 percent done and scheduled
    for completion in fall 2006.
        Many obstacles have been faced since we broke ground in 2000. Yet,
    despite these challenges, our project team recently met a critical,
    major milestone. On January 20, 2005, President Bush exited the Capitol
    onto the Rotunda steps where he reviewed the troops marching across the
    new granite pavers installed across the East Front Plaza, thereby
    continuing an Inaugural tradition.
        The Sequence 1 contractor responsible for excavation and structural
    work has essentially completed its tasks. The Sequence 2 contractor has
    been working to install fireproofing, masonry block, interior wall
    stone, mechanical ductwork, and piping. The award of construction
    contracts is imminent for the exhibit space and the Senate expansion
    space.
        My budget request for the CVC consists of several major components,
    the most significant being the construction cost-to-complete of $36.9
    million. While no Congressional decision has been made regarding
    governance, startup and operational costs of $15.3 million are
    anticipated. Therefore, until such decision is reached, the AOC has
    included these expenses in its budget submission. This incorporates
    initial estimated costs associated with the daily care, maintenance
    activities, operation of the facility, and associated payroll and
    benefits costs. Additionally, the multi-year project budget of $20
    million supports the required activities and programs for the
    transitional and start-up costs for visitor services, exhibits, food
    services, gift shops, telecommunications, and information technology
    infrastructure support.
        Mr. Chairman, the progress made on the CVC in just the past 12
    months has been remarkable. At the same time, the Capitol building has
    been open, fully functional, and accommodating of Members and staff, as
    well as the visiting public throughout construction and during these
    times of heightened security. When the CVC opens, it will complement
    and support the U.S. Capitol as the ``People's House,'' offering free
    and open access for all people so they may learn about, and experience,
    our legislative process.
                      senate office building improvements
        In fiscal year 2004, we completed 45,892 work orders in the Senate
    Office Buildings. To date, we have completed nearly 22,250 work orders
    in fiscal year 2005. In addition, we have been working on a number of
    important projects including:
      --Modernizing elevators.--The Hart Office Building Elevator
            Modernization Project was completed in December 2004, six
            months ahead of schedule and on budget. The Russell Office
            Building elevators have been completely modernized. The Dirksen
            Office Building Elevators Cab Modernization Project will begin
            this summer.
      --Upgrading public restrooms.--The Hart Office Building northwest
            restroom stack and the Dirksen Office Building north stack was
            completed last year. Currently, the Dirksen Office Building
            basement level restrooms are under construction, which will be
            followed by the ground floor restrooms, which will complete the
            renovations in that building. There are two remaining stacks to
            be completed in the Hart Office Building, which will begin this
            year and be completed in fiscal year 2006.
      --Staff Exercise Facility.--In May 2004, our office opened the Senate
            Staff Exercise facility.
      --Russell Office Building Basement Corridor Renovation.--The
            renovation of the C Street corridor of the Russell Office
            Building was completed and the Delaware Avenue corridor is
            currently being renovated.
      --Renovation of the Dirksen Swing Suite Space.--The renovation of
            this space provides for the consolidation of support functions
            and adds two swing suite spaces thus improving the temporary
            office conditions for newly-elected Senators and speeding the
            Senate move process.
      --Election Year Moves.--Election year moves were completed on
            February 26--the earliest we have ever accomplished this task.
      --Committee Room Renovations.--Room 106 in the Dirksen Building and
            Agriculture Committee Hearing Room were completely renovated to
            upgrade the infrastructure, and add state-of-the-art sound and
            video capabilities, while at the same time, preserving the
            historic architecture of the rooms. In fiscal year 2005, five
            committee rooms will be renovated, followed by an additional
            five in fiscal year 2006.
                                capitol building
        The U.S. Capitol has been the stage for several high-profile events
    this past year. In June 2004, the world's eyes turned to us as we bid
    farewell to President Ronald W. Reagan. Our employees, working together
    with Congressional leadership and other Legislative branch
    organizations, did a tremendous job to ready the building and grounds
    for the respectful and historic lying-in-state ceremonies.
        In January, the West Front of the Capitol was readied for the 55th
    Presidential Inaugural ceremony. Our team worked diligently to design,
    plan, and construct the platform; contract for the sound system,
    Jumbotron screens, and ramps and crossovers; install security fencing
    and crowd control features; set up 28,000 chairs; build the media
    platform; hang flags, draperies, and bunting; prepare Statuary Hall for
    the inaugural luncheon, and draft a contingency plan to move the
    ceremony to the Rotunda in case of inclement weather. Most importantly,
    on January 19, we worked throughout the night to remove all the snow
    from the Grounds, leaving a pristine setting for the Inaugural on the
    East and West Fronts of the Capitol.
        In fiscal year 2004, we completed more than 20,000 work orders in
    the Capitol Building. To date this fiscal year, we have completed more
    than 10,000.
                              capitol power plant
        An on-going project, designed to meet the current and future needs
    of the Capitol complex, is the expansion of the West Refrigeration
    Plant at the Capitol Power Plant. This project addresses the advancing
    age of the East Refrigeration Plant, and the need to reliably meet
    future cooling requirements of the expanding Capitol complex. The
    chilled water capacity will be online by November 2005, with the
    overall project scheduled for completion in April 2006. When finished,
    the expanded facility will enable the Capitol Power Plant to reliably
    meet cooling requirements through 2025 and will significantly increase
    overall plant efficiency.
        In addition to addressing future energy needs, the Power Plant
    staff is also working to beautify the facility and the grounds
    surrounding it. This month, we began efforts to install 20-foot-wide,
    brick-paved sidewalks, which will be shaded by two rows of trees,
    alongside the Plant's newly-created park area. In addition, a
    decorative wrought iron fence will be erected to replace the security
    fence now surrounding the Power Plant. The AOC has been working closely
    with the Ward 6B Advisory Neighborhood Committee, the National Capital
    Planning Commission (NCPC), and other agencies to improve and transform
    the South Capitol Street corridor into a grand urban boulevard.
                               perimeter security
        With the increased need for permanent security measures throughout
    the Capitol complex, we are installing effective, aesthetically-
    pleasing, perimeter security features on Capitol Hill. Senate perimeter
    security efforts completed over the last year include the installation
    of bollards along Constitution Avenue, extending from the Russell,
    Dirksen, and Hart Senate Office Buildings. We also installed 14
    hydraulic vehicle barriers stations in Constitution Avenue. Over the
    next year, we anticipate installing the remaining bollards and vehicle
    barriers that complete the outer Senate perimeter.
                                project delivery
        We have taken several steps to improve our project delivery. Last
    September, we established a pilot Project Management organization
    comprised of project managers, construction managers, and construction
    inspectors. The proposed alignment establishes clear performance
    expectations for delivering projects on time and within budget now that
    the project and construction management functions reside, for the first
    time, within the same organization.
        A good design equals good construction. Construction management is
    intrinsically linked to project management. Through this new project
    management organization and process, we will ensure that the design and
    construction teams interact daily. This alignment is endorsed by the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) to, ``align project management
    staff and resources with AOC's mission-critical goals.''
        In accordance with our Strategic Plan, an annual ``lessons
    learned'' exercise is conducted for projects identified by our clients.
    During this time a comprehensive assessment of each project is
    undertaken to apply lessons learned to future projects and facilitate
    continuous improvement.
                    human capital/organizational excellence
        Our Strategic Plan contains Human Capital and Organizational
    Excellence goals which focus on employees and providing the highest
    quality services to both our internal and external clients through
    improved business programs, processes, and systems.
        One of our objectives under the Human Capital Strategic Plan goal
    was to develop a comprehensive employee feedback program that will
    utilize focus groups, surveys, and other related mechanisms. In
    September 2004, I invited more than 300 employees from across the AOC--
    all divisions, levels, and shifts--to participate in 25 focus group
    sessions. We asked them to identify problems, help us to find ways to
    solve them, and make improvements within the organization. In October,
    the Human Resources Management Division (HRMD) asked all employees to
    share their opinions in a customer satisfaction survey. The questions
    focused on the services HRMD provides and how well they deliver those
    services.
        By coupling the feedback and the survey results, we were able to
    pinpoint specific areas where we needed to take action. In other words,
    our employees spoke and we listened.
        They told us that we needed to do a better job communicating, that
    we needed to provide clearer, easier-to-understand information, and
    that we needed to better explain work processes, policies, and
    procedures. They also indicated that we needed to provide clearer
    direction with regard to expectations and job performance, and
    recognize employee accomplishments more often. These issues also
    applied to setting internal standards so our employees receive
    satisfactory customer support from our Human Resources, EEO, and other
    service organizations.
        Over the next several months, we will be rolling out action plans
    and meeting with employees to address the issues they raised. This
    effort will help us to continue to foster an environment where we can
    share concerns and ideas with one another to continue to improve the
    organization.
                                employee safety
        One area we continue to make great strides in is our effort to
    reduce the injury and illness rate. I am pleased to report that for the
    fourth consecutive year, our rate decreased dramatically. During fiscal
    year 2004, we saw a 26 percent reduction in the injury and illness
    rate. Since fiscal year 2000, this rate has been reduced by 67 percent
    and is now below the Federal average.
        We attribute this reduction to a number of initiatives, including
    inspections of project worksites, daily safety discussions in our shops
    at the beginning of each shift, the posting of monthly safety messages
    throughout our shops and offices, active participation by employees in
    our Jurisdictional safety committees, and most importantly, to the
    constant diligence of each AOC employee and supervisor who is committed
    to doing their job safely and correctly. To assure that our employees
    have the requisite skills and equipment needed to do their jobs safely,
    I will continue to maintain robust training and safety budgets.
        While I am very proud of my workforce and our past accomplishments,
    I will not be satisfied until we achieve our ultimate goal of a
    workplace free of injury and illness. Toward this end, I have
    challenged my colleagues to reduce the injury rate by an additional 10
    percent. I look forward to reporting on our progress toward an injury-
    and illness-free workplace to this Committee next year.
                                   conclusion
        Over the past several years, the AOC has undergone significant
    change, and we have reaffirmed our commitment to providing high-quality
    service to Congress and the American people. In its August 2004 report
    to Congress, the GAO indicated that:
      --``AOC has made progress in preparing agency-wide financial
            statements; supporting an audit of its September 30, 2003,
            balance sheet; and establishing related internal control
            policies and procedures.''
      --``. . . AOC has made progress addressing employee communications by
            developing a number of policies and procedures, such as a
            strategic communications plan, a draft employee feedback
            manual, a customer satisfaction survey manual, and a focus
            group guide.''
      --``Our January 2003 report provided AOC with recommendations for
            establishing and implementing an effective information security
            program. In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC had made
            progress toward implementing these recommendations.''
      --``AOC has fulfilled our worker safety recommendation by developing
            performance measures to assess the long-term impacts and trends
            of workers' compensation injuries and costs.''
      --``During the six-month review period, AOC took steps to develop the
            Capitol Complex Master Plan.''
      --``AOC made progress in the development of its environmental program
            and its movement toward a more strategic approach. In
            particular, AOC has completed the baseline assessment as well
            as the waste stream analysis for its facilities and
            operations.''
        Although we still have much more to accomplish as outlined in our
    Strategic Plan, GAO has noted, ``organizational transformation does not
    come quickly or easily and the changes underway at the AOC would
    require a long-term, concerted effort.'' My team and I are committed to
    fulfilling our responsibilities over the long-term to ensure that our
    transformation continues as planned.
        Our request for funds for fiscal year 2006 is in direct response to
    our responsibility to maintain and preserve the facilities under our
    care, as well as to respond to our customers' requests for priority
    projects and programs. In addition, we continue to strive to achieve
    the level of safety, security, preservation, and cleanliness expected
    across the Capitol complex. We have completed tens of thousands of work
    orders to our clients' satisfaction and have achieved many of our goals
    due to the hard work and dedication of AOC employees. I am very
    privileged and honored to lead such a professional team.
        The Committee's support in helping us achieve these goals is
    greatly appreciated. Once again, thank you for this opportunity to
    testify today. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

        Senator Allard. I'd like to also welcome Senator Durbin. I
    had indicated earlier, Senator Durbin, that, when you arrived,
    we'd give you an opportunity to make some opening comments if
    you wish. And then, also, I just wanted to thank both Ms.
    Reynolds and Mr. Hantman for taking the time to testify here
    before us today.
        We're ready to move to a question and response period, but
    I wanted to give you an opportunity to present your opening
    statement first. So why don't you proceed?

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, first let me welcome you to
    the subcommittee.
        Senator Allard. Thank you.
        Senator Durbin. It's an honor to serve with you. I think
    you are the third Chair that I've served with on this
    subcommittee, and I'm looking forward to working with you. And
    in the interest of time, let me put my statement in the record,
    and you can go straight to questions, and I'll follow you.
        [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin

        Mr. Chairman, first of all I'd like to welcome you,
    Chairman Allard, to the Legislative Branch subcommittee. I had
    the pleasure of working with your former colleague from
    Colorado, Senator Campbell, as the last Chairman of this
    subcommittee and I look forward to working with you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling today's first
    budget oversight hearing of fiscal year 2006 where we will hear
    testimony on the budget requests of the Secretary of the Senate
    and the Architect of the Capitol.
        I want to join the Chairman in welcoming today's witnesses,
    Emily Reynolds, Secretary of the Senate, and Alan Hantman,
    Architect of the Capitol.
        Thanks to both of you for attending this morning.
        Ms. Reynolds, welcome back to the subcommittee for your
    third year as Secretary of the Senate. I think that you and
    your staff are doing a superb job and your budget request looks
    very straightforward.
        My staff and I greatly appreciate your guidance and
    leadership in the CVC decision-making progress. I realize that
    this is a long, difficult, and at times frustrating process.
    Your dedication and determination are very admirable.
        I would appreciate any comments you might wish to include
    with regard to the CVC.
        Mr. Hantman, good morning and welcome. Your budget request
    this year is $506 million, which is an increase of $156.5
    million or 44 percent over fiscal year 2005 enacted. I realize
    that a large portion of your request is for Library of Congress
    and Capitol Police project items. All in all, your operating
    budget request seems fairly straightforward.
        I was encouraged to read that the rate of accidents and
    injuries within the Architect's office continues to improve.
    This has been a major area of concern to me, as you know, and I
    am glad to see these numbers are coming down so dramatically.
        I hope you will talk a little about the Capitol Visitor
    Center project. I hope you will update the Subcommittee on when
    you believe the CVC will open and what the final cost will be.
    I realize that the project has grown in size and scope from the
    original design when we broke ground back in 2000, but I don't
    think those changes account for the magnitude of the delay and
    cost overruns.
        Last year, I asked you if you thought the spring 2006
    estimated completion date for the CVC was accurate. While I
    don't recall your answer off-hand, I think I know what your
    answer would be if I asked you the same question today. So now
    I'd like to ask you if you think the fall 2006 date is
    accurate. In your testimony you state that since breaking
    ground in 2000, the CVC is now 55 percent complete. I find it
    hard to believe that the remaining 45 percent of this project
    can be finished in the next 17 months.
        Mr. Hantman, as you know, this subcommittee is responsible
    for providing adequate funding to complete AOC projects such as
    the CVC. However, in order to do that, it is critical that we
    receive the most accurate information available from you and
    your staff. It appears that the Government Accountability
    Office has been far more effective than your office in
    providing accurate information to the members of this
    subcommittee and our staffs on your funding requests.
        I was very concerned to read a February 23, 2005 article
    from ``The Hill'' newspaper entitled, ``Fear and Loathing at
    the AOC,'' which addressed the results of a 22-page survey
    taken by 300 of your employees. I hope that you and your
    management team are making every effort to address the
    allegations of abuse and mismanagement alluded to by these
    employees. It troubles me that some long-standing issues at AOC
    continue to exist, such as poor communications and very low
    morale. You are responsible for 2,000 employees. It is critical
    that these employees feel they can trust you and your front
    office. Without the trust and confidence of your employees, you
    cannot effectively run this organization.
        Finally, Mr. Hantman, I'm eager for you to update the
    Subcommittee on your progress in making the Capitol complex a
    safer work environment.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.

                           INAUGURAL ADDRESS EFFORTS

        Senator Allard. Very good, thank you.
        Ms. Reynolds, you did mention, in your testimony, that you
    did a lot of work on the inaugural, and I want to just thank
    you, your staff and the Architect of the Capitol, for your work
    during the Inaugural Address. I think it was a very successful
    effort, and I think most Members appreciate all the fine work
    that went into that. And I just think that's worth mentioning
    at this particular point in time.
        Which leads me into a question, Ms. Reynolds, what were all
    your responsibilities in coordinating that effort? I'd like to
    know some of the challenges you faced. We just had an election,
    and then we had the inaugural in January. And if you can share
    some challenges with us, we'd appreciate it, perhaps suggestion
    of what might be done differently at the next inaugural.
        Ms. Reynolds. No, I appreciate that. We certainly took our
    lead from the Joint Committee on the Inaugural, from Senator
    Lott and his team. And I think one thing that we found--
    clearly, the Joint Committee did a beautiful job, and came, to
    us with the numerous things that were needed. I think, for us,
    one legacy I'd like to leave behind is a very distinct record
    of the precise things that the Secretary's office is involved
    with in that inaugural effort. For example, the official
    reporters of debates actually have a position on the platform
    so that they're there to transcribe the inaugural. For me, it's
    the first time I've been through that, while, again, the
    institutional memory, that important part of our staff that
    have been here for years, they know the things they do every 4
    years, but we found that it wasn't in our own operation in any
    sort of concise record.
        One thing I'd like to leave behind for the next Secretary
    is that concise record of exactly what expectations that a
    joint committee on the inaugural will have for us. The second
    piece of that is, we were delighted to work with the committee
    on the inaugural luncheon, which is staged in Statuary Hall.
    That was a huge effort on the part of our staff; again, taking
    the lead from Senator Lott and his team. But they did an
    extraordinary job in executing the lunch. And, most especially,
    the Curator's Office takes the lead in whichever historical
    painting is displayed at that luncheon, which is a reflection
    of the theme of the inaugural itself.
        So, we're involved in a variety of different levels, a
    variety of different ways. It was a learning experience for me,
    as well. And I would add, also, that many of our staff, and
    myself included, had the opportunity and the high honor to
    serve as escorts that day; again, assisting the Joint
    Committee.
        So, we play in this at a variety of different levels. Some,
    were well informed going in; others, learned along the way. But
    with the Joint Committee providing the leadership, I think
    we're even better prepared to step up to the plate in the next
    4 years and have that clear and concise knowledge, of precisely
    what our role is.

          CURATORIAL ADVISORY BOARD AND PRESERVATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES

        Senator Allard. You mentioned, in your testimony, the new
    boards, the Curatorial Advisory Board and the Preservation
    Board of Trustees. What, specifically, are you doing to promote
    the efforts to the Senate community and beyond that these two
    boards were set up to carry out?
        Ms. Reynolds. Thanks for asking that, because this is
    such--as I said, it's such an important initiative for all of
    us. And much of this really is an education process, it's a
    building process. The Curatorial Advisory Board, again, as I
    mentioned--12 really outstanding individuals, 13 counting our
    curator, who serves as its chair--they have already been a
    significant help to us in helping us identify possible
    acquisitions, in spreading the word, with all of them as
    professionals, whether it's from Monticello, Winterthur, the
    retired White House curator--their network of associates,
    people they've worked with through the years, has already been
    very helpful to us in identifying some possible acquisitions,
    and we've relied on their counsel very heavily already.
        The Preservation Board, which, as I said, will meet in
    May--I'm anxious for that meeting--again, an esteemed group of
    individuals, who will come at this from both a business
    perspective, a philanthropic perspective--so I'm interested in
    working with them, at their first meeting, to begin to paint
    that blank canvas, if you will, of what specific direction that
    board takes.
        Within our Senate community, we unveiled the Brumidi oil
    sketch that I mentioned, very recently, thanks to Senator
    Stevens, in the President pro tempore's office, and Roll Call
    covered that. We've done a feature in our Secretary newsletter
    of UNUM, which we do every quarter, and will continue to
    educate our own community about the efforts underway. And,
    again, through both of these boards, people who have a reach,
    not only within our Senate community, but certainly well
    beyond, I anticipate that we'll continue to see renewed
    interest in the possibility of both returning some historic
    artifacts to the Senate that perhaps we've lost through the
    years, and also pinpointing acquisitions that will reflect the
    history and the tradition of this institution.

                             CHANGING TECHNOLOGIES

        Senator Allard. Technology is changing all our lives
    rapidly, both at home and, I think, here in the Capitol. And
    I'll have to admit that I have a certain fixation for high
    technology, myself, and am not reluctant to step into some of
    the challenges of new technology in my own personal office. I'm
    curious to know how you stay on top of those advances, and
    then, once you decide to bring them in, how can we be assured
    that they're going to operate as advertised.
        Ms. Reynolds. Well, probably, to the latter portion of your
    question, the best way we're assured that they operate as
    advertised is the feedback from our own Senate community, and
    that's why having folks, for example, like the administrative
    managers involved with our FMIS, the various pilot projects
    that we roll out. Having folks involved early on to help us in
    knowing what works and what doesn't is key.
        But, quickly, I would say, in terms of how we stay abreast
    of technological developments, it's really threefold.
        First of all, we have, internally, a top-notch information
    systems department that's on the cutting edge and that helps
    us, across the board, in remaining there and providing that
    sort of service internally to the Secretary's office.
        Second of all, our department heads are all continually
    looking for better ways to do business, whether it's, as I
    said, working through the process of putting the library
    catalog online, to something as simple as providing an online
    service for individuals to order their paper through printing
    and document services, but, again, those simple things that now
    can be done with the click of button, if you will. And our
    department heads are very much involved in that process.
        And, finally, again, part of that collaborative effort,
    since our Sergeant at Arms takes the lead on technology in the
    Senate, we, again, work very closely with them on technological
    advances. They're a huge help to us in that regard.
        Senator Allard. Now I would like to go ahead and call on
    Senator Durbin. And Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that you're able to
    join us this morning, chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
    Senator Cochran.

                                 SENATE CLERKS

        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Reynolds, thank you for being here, and thank you for
    your service to the Senate.
        In your capacity, you're responsible for the professional
    staff that supports our legislative activity in the Senate. The
    clerks process the work we perform on the floor. What is the
    current status of that group, in terms of hires and
    qualifications and vacancies?
        Ms. Reynolds. Right now, we are fully staffed on that
    legislative team. And I appreciate you asking about them,
    because they are really, in so many ways, the quiet, unsung
    heroes of the Senate. You know, because you're there, the hours
    that they put in on a daily basis. And, at the end of the day,
    when the Senate adjourns, when those four bells go off, their
    work, in essence, really begins, in so many ways. They return
    to their offices to prepare the Calendar of Business, the
    Executive Calendar, to complete the transcriptions and send
    those to the Government Printing Office for the printing of the
    Congressional Record overnight, the completion of the Daily
    Digest, which, of course, is completed in that record. So it
    really is a remarkable team.
        But it's important, with that team, because of the
    importance of the Senate's constitutional responsibilities, to
    make sure that we have a balance of Senate professionals, many
    of whom have 20 plus years of experience in that team, and also
    constantly bring in fresh blood--younger people, if you will,
    folks who are here to serve the Senate in a nonpartisan way,
    and hopefully make it a career so that we have that continuity.
        It's so important on that team, when you look at--in the
    fact that, within the last two decades, there have been 11
    Secretaries, so you see the importance of that institutional
    memory, that constant learning process. For example, in one of
    our departments, where we knew we had a retirement coming in a
    very critical position, we began the transition process, if you
    will, the succession planning, 1 year in advance, so that we
    were assured, on the day that that individual departed, we
    weren't going to miss a beat; again, in that very critical
    service. So we try to look--we try to look to the future, we
    remain as constant as we possibly can; again, recognizing that
    your constitutional responsibilities are first and foremost in
    our minds.

                         STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM

        Senator Durbin. And, of course, in addition to long hours
    and important job responsibilities, they face the cruel and
    unusual punishment of listening to our speeches all day, so
    they deserve some recognition and reward for that. How is the
    Student Loan Repayment Program coming along?
        Ms. Reynolds. It's coming along. It's growing.
        Senator Durbin. Tell me how you use it.
        Ms. Reynolds. The legislation specifies that the program be
    used for retention and recruitment; and, that, of course, is
    the byword for the Senate offices. As you well know, with each
    Member as his or her own employing office, it is up to each
    office, at the current time, to decide how they administer the
    program. And you and I have spoken about this before in--I
    think, at last year's hearing. We conducted a fairly in-depth
    survey now about 1 year ago. We had 60 something odd offices,
    out of the 140 in the Senate, respond. But we found, obviously,
    great support for the program. We found that folks--they set
    their parameters in different ways as to how they employ the
    program. Many require at least 6 months of service before the
    individual is eligible for the student loan. Some set various
    and different caps within the office as to how much they
    actually give for the loan. I think the amount is up to $500.
    But that will vary among offices. So the administration of it
    is actually driven by each individual office.
        What we are constantly looking for are ways to streamline
    the process, because it can be a cumbersome process. And, to be
    honest, you know, sometimes we're chasing up to as many as 100
    lenders, if you will, to make sure those payments are going to
    the right place. And, obviously, loans, of course, within the
    industry are constantly being sold and repackaged. That's a
    challenge for us. And within the course of the last few months,
    we've introduced a paperwork process that we hope will help
    both the disbursing office and the individual receiving the
    loan.
        We currently have just under 900 individuals participating
    in the program, at a cost of about just over $3 million to the
    Senate right now. And, at last report, Senator Durbin, we had
    about 126 offices participating. That's roughly the same number
    as the previous year.

                           RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT

        Senator Durbin. What has been your personal experience
    about the retention and recruitment angle? When I first brought
    this up, it was in the hopes that student loan repayment would
    be an incentive for good, talented graduates to come work here
    on Capitol Hill and not be discouraged by the, perhaps, lower
    startup pay than they might find in another place, or to retain
    those who enhance their education, and we'd like to keep on and
    use their talents. So what has your experience been in that?
        Ms. Reynolds. I think, again, I'm going to refer back to
    the surveys that we received, because that's one area that we
    specifically addressed in the surveys of the offices. Many
    offices--and, again, this is anecdotal evidence--but they
    mentioned to us instances where they wanted to hire--you know,
    an office wanted to hire a young lawyer, obviously who had
    significant bills from law school, and they said, frankly, that
    without the opportunity to use that as a recruitment tool, they
    might have lost that talent somewhere else; again, because of
    the pay structure here.
        So while much of this is anecdotal evidence, it was very
    strong anecdotal evidence that the offices take that retention
    and recruitment tool seriously, as do we in the Secretary's
    office, as well. So we employ the program, as well, and use it
    in the same ways.
        Statistical evidence, hard to come by on that; but the
    anecdotal evidence from the offices, very positive in using it
    as a tool.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I don't know, maybe it's been
    2 or 3 years since we've had this, and it kind of started in an
    odd way; let a thousand flowers bloom, we said to each office,
    ``Here's what we're--here are the goals. See how they work with
    your policies, personnel policies.'' I'm hoping that we can
    gather this information and maybe harmonize some of this. I
    don't want a top-down rulemaking procedure, but if there are
    ways to put in some safeguards, to avoid abuses, to make sure
    there's no waste, to enhance the initial goals of the program,
    I'd like to do that, too.
        Thank you, Ms. Reynolds.
        Ms. Reynolds. We look forward to working with you on that.
    Thank you, sir.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. Well said. And I would note that we do have
    a lot of people here today that are part of the office of the
    secretary, the parliamentarian, enrolling clerk, Senate
    security, and they do a tremendous job. I don't know how they
    keep the place running sometimes, but they're able to do it,
    and with a good deal of grace and finesse, keeping a lot of big
    egos happy, and they're to be commended for their job.
        Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Congratulations to you are in order for----
        Senator Allard. Thank you.
        Senator Cochran [continuing]. Your assuming the
    chairmanship of this important subcommittee. We welcome you,
    not only to the Committee on Appropriations, but in your new
    undertaking as chairman of this subcommittee, and we look
    forward to working closely with you and trying to support you
    in every way.
        Senator Allard. Thank you.

              THE SENATE DISBURSING OFFICE, ``THE FRONT COUNTER''

        Senator Cochran. Welcome to the subcommittee, Ms. Reynolds
    and Mr. Hantman. We appreciate very much your cooperation with
    our Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee and the good
    work that each of you do in carrying out your responsibilities.
        These are very important jobs. I am impressed. When I read
    the summary of your responsibilities, I always come across some
    item of information that surprises me. Today, for example--and
    I don't know why I had overlooked this in the past--I found out
    that the front counter is the place where the financial
    business of the Senate is handled, and that's under the
    jurisdiction of the Secretary. Could you tell us what the
    origin of the phrase ``the front counter'' is?
        Ms. Reynolds. That is a great question, and I'm going to
    defer to our financial clerk, Tim Wineman, to answer that.
        Mr. Wineman.
        Mr. Wineman. It is literally just that, a front counter. It
    kind of resembles an old banking organization. We used to be
    located in the second floor of the Capitol Building, right down
    from the Senate Chamber, and there was a huge counter that
    Senators and staff would come in to conduct daily business with
    the Disbursing Office, and we'd have staff behind the counter.
    And it's just evolved over the years as, kind of, the receiving
    point for the work that comes in from the Senate offices.
    General business is conducted there, inquiries, new staff are
    sworn in there, financial transactions, as far as issuing cash
    advances for travel. So it's kind of similar to a bank lobby
    atmosphere, and it literally is just that, there's a big
    counter there, and that's the term that's been used over the
    years.
        Senator Cochran. But it doesn't function as the House Bank
    used to.
        Mr. Wineman. No, sir.
        Senator Cochran. No.
        I just want to be sure that----
        Mr. Wineman. In fact, I'd like to be very clear on that.
        Having been here during that time, and there was a
    significant amount of publicity, no, it does not function as
    the House Bank.
        Senator Cochran. Right. Well, it is, obviously, an
    important responsibility, and the offices are physically
    located in the Hart Senate Office Building?
        Mr. Wineman. First floor of the Hart Building, yes, sir. We
    were asked to move a number of years ago, after spending a lot
    of time in the Capitol, when we--we literally outgrew the space
    that was in the Capitol building. And so, when the Hart
    Building was opened, in 1982, we moved over there and are
    located on the first floor, yes, sir.
        Senator Cochran. Well, we appreciate your good work in
    supervising that operation.
        Mr. Wineman. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Cochran. Is there sufficient request in the budget
    for the operation of the front counter?
        Mr. Wineman. Yes, sir. The Secretary has been very
    supportive of, not only the entire Disbursing Office, but our
    front-counter operation, as well.
        Senator Cochran. That's great. Well, we thank you for that
    explanation and information.
        Mr. Wineman. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cochran. Now, could I ask a question of the
    Architect?
        Senator Allard. You may, Mr.----
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a moment?
        Senator Cochran. Sure.
        Senator Durbin. I just wanted to make a record here that
    when I was elected to the Senate, in 1996, and came to sign up
    for my payroll, they said, ``You've worked here before,'' and I
    said, ``Yes, I was an intern here in 1966, 30 years ago.'' And
    they said, ``Yes, we kept your file,'' and they brought it out.
        So pretty good file work there.
        Senator Cochran. Very good, thank you.

                             CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

        Mr. Hantman, thank you for being here and participating in
    this exercise, too. I think the biggest challenge you're facing
    is the new visitor center. I appreciate very much your taking
    time to take me on a tour recently and show me the work that
    was in progress. It is really quite an impressive undertaking.
    And, of course, it's very expensive, as well.
        What efforts are you making to try to hold down the costs?
    I hear rumors about overruns and schedule deadlines not being
    met. What are you personally trying to do to help get control
    over that project?
        Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, it is, as you know, a very
    complex project. And perhaps what we can best explain it by
    using some things that I don't expect you to be able to
    visualize or see very clearly from the dais.
        If we could just set up a board or two over here.
        This project, as you know, Mr. Chairman, has evolved since
    its inception. The budget for the CVC was first set in 1998. We
    talked a little bit about the inaugural, with the Secretary a
    little while ago, and the inaugural that we just celebrated was
    really key to how the entire visitor center was framed.
        Before I get into that, if I may, I think I would be
    remiss, if I could----
        Senator Cochran. Well, I'd just rather for you to
    succinctly respond to the question that I asked, rather than go
    into the history and the description of the project in detail.
    That'll come later, I'm sure, when the chairman is asking
    questions.
        Mr. Hantman. Well, we have a full-time accountant on the
    job, Mr. Chairman. Every change order or any purchase order
    that comes on through is reviewed by our accounting group. Our
    project executive, Mr. Bob Hixon, who is behind me right now,
    reviews all of those, and we make sure that we pay only those
    that are really appropriate and that we authorized the work for
    in the first place.
        What we are trying to do is get the remaining contracts on
    the street and awarded as soon as we can, because the inflation
    rate continues to rise. And if we can award them, we can hold
    the rates that we currently have; otherwise, we might have to
    rebid areas such as the expansion spaces for the Senate, for
    the House, for the exhibition areas, for the tunnel under the
    House office--House Capitol side of the connector.
        So we're trying to move forward as quickly as we can to
    make sure that we lock in the prices and the bids that we have
    at this point in time, to make sure that the contractors
    understand that we're going to be holding them to their
    responsibilities, as well, and that we monitor that effectively
    on a day-to-day basis.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here and
    participate in the hearing.
        Senator Allard. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
    appreciate you taking a personal interest in this. I had an
    opportunity to have a tour by Mr. Hantman.
        I thought it was a very good tour. I'm, like you, very
    impressed with the scope of the facility. I look forward as I
    think many members do, at getting into that facility. The
    sooner we can get there, the better I think everybody will
    feel.

               BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) PROCESS

        I know that it's a particular challenge for you, Mr.
    Hantman. You are requesting a pretty sizeable increase--45
    percent--over the current budget. That type of increase does
    catch the attention of all of us. How have you scrubbed that
    budget? Have you tried to set priorities within the budget so
    that if we're unable to meet your request, where would you
    recommend that we make reductions?
        Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, you alluded, in your opening
    statements, on the issues of project management and master
    planning, two very key areas, in terms of improving our control
    and our projections on what the costs will be going forward,
    not only on individual projects, but in budgets that we will be
    bringing forward to this subcommittee in years to come. So, we
    have a CIP process, which is a Capital Improvements Plan. In
    that process, we rank all of the proposed projects that come
    forward, on a strong basis. If we could put up that board, that
    would be pretty helpful, I think. But what we do is, first, we
    have to identify projects, we have to evaluate those projects,
    we have to rank them and rate them before going into the budget
    process. So this CIP process that we have used this year for
    the first time is something that gives us a prioritization of
    those projects based on fire and life-safety issues, based on
    physical security issues, historic preservation and stewardship
    issues, impact on our mission, and the economics of it. We rank
    all of these projects on a scale that gives a real value to
    each one of them as they relate to each other and to those five
    key areas.
        So, if we were told to cut back on our projects at this
    point, Mr. Chairman, what we would do is go back down to our
    list of elements we currently have been asking for, and start
    at the bottom. Those things that are ranked the lowest in the
    project budget, we would start eliminating, to the point at
    which you are willing to fund the rest of it.
        Senator Allard. And does our staff have this list and these
    rankings on these projects that we can look at, at some point
    in time?
        Mr. Hantman. We certainly could review all of those
    projects with a full background, in terms of how we prioritized
    them in the first place. And we'd be happy to sit down and
    review that. And certainly we wouldn't cut anything unless we
    specifically worked with you and your staff.
        Senator Allard. We could be facing a pretty tight budget
    here.
        Mr. Hantman. Yes.
        Senator Allard. And it would be nice if we could give it
    some thought ahead of time. And so, the sooner you could share
    where your priorities are with our staff, I think it would be
    very helpful to them, and helpful to members on this
    subcommittee, to see where you're thinking is on those
    reductions.
        Mr. Hantman. We have that prioritization, already, sir.
    It's how we established the budget request. We'd be more than
    happy to sit down and review it. We can start from the bottom
    up, and whatever we have to eliminate because of budget
    criteria, we'd be ready to do that.
        Senator Allard. Very good.
        [The information follows:]

                                       TABLE 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2006 LINE ITEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              PROJECT EVALUATION SCORING
     PROJECT     PROJECT TITLE      PROGRAM AREA     JURISDICTION        PROJECT       PROJECT COST  --------------------------------------------    NOTES
     NUMBER                                                              MANAGER           \1\          A      B      C      D      E     TOTAL
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 SECTION 1--
                  PROJECTS
             (EXCLUDING SUPREME
             COURT) ATTAINING A
               SCORE OF 90 OR
             HIGHER IN AT LEAST
               ONE EVALUATION
                CATEGORY \2\

     000231D Smoke Detector      BIM-SER.......  LOC.............  PRichards.....      $3,700,000      80     90     80     80     20      350  ..........
              Upgrades, JAB
     000231E Smoke Detector      BIM-SER.......  LOC.............  PRichards.....       3,700,000      80     90     80     80     20      350  ..........
              Upgrades, JMMB
      020188 Emergency           BIM-SER.......  USC.............  JScuderi......       2,980,000      40     90     60     80     60      330  ..........
              Electrical
              Service Upgrade,
              USC
     970711D High Voltage        BIM-SER.......  SOB.............  ZBajbor.......         540,000   .....     90     80     70     40      280  ..........
              Switchgear
              Replacement, HSOB
     970711E High Voltage        BIM-SER.......  HOB.............  ZBajbor.......       2,120,000   .....     90     80     70     40      280  ( \3\ )
              Switchgear
              Replacement, FHOB
              & RHOB
                 Ford House      ..............  ................  ..............      (1,070,000)  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .......  ..........
                  Office
                  Building
                  (FHOB)
                 Rayburn House   ..............  ................  ..............      (1,050,000)  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .......  ..........
                  Office
                  Building
                  (RHOB)
     970711F High Voltage        BIM-SER.......  LOC.............  ZBajbor.......       2,270,000   .....     90     80     70     40      280  ( \3\ )
              Switchgear
              Replacement, TJB
              & JMMB
                 Thomas          ..............  ................  ..............      (1,090,000)  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .......  ..........
                  Jefferson
                  Building
                  (TJB)
                 James Madison   ..............  ................  ..............      (1,180,000)  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .......  ..........
                  Memorial
                  Building
                  (JMMB)
    970269GA Compartment         BIM-GEN.......  USC.............  KSchonbgr.....       2,630,000      50     90     40     60     30      270  ..........
              Barriers and
              Horizontal Exits,
              USC
    970269GB West Terrace        REG-FIR.......  USC.............  KSchonbgr.....       1,700,000   .....     90     10  .....     20      120  ..........
              Egress Doors and
              Stairs, USC

                 SECTION 2--
             REMAINING PROJECTS
             (EXCLUDING SUPREME
                   COURT)

      020238 Book Storage        BIM-GEN.......  LOC.............  MVarga........      40,700,000      80     40     80     70     10      280  ..........
              Modules 3 & 4,
              Fort Meade, LOC
     000018A Emergency Lighting  REG-FIR.......  HOB.............  SSethi........       4,790,000   .....     80     40     10     40      170  ..........
              Upgrade, RHOB
     000018C Emergency Lighting  REGFIR........  HOB.............  SSethi........       2,700,000   .....     80     40     10     40      170  ..........
              Upgrade, LHOB
     000018D Emergency Lighting  REG-FIR.......  HOB.............  SSethi........       1,030,000   .....     80     40     10     40      170  ..........
              Upgrade, FHOB
     000207B Emergency Lighting  REG-FIR.......  SOB.............  RSoriente.....       3,600,000   .....     80     40     10     40      170  ..........
              Upgrade, HSOB
     020202A Emergency Exit      BIM-SER.......  USC.............  JScuderi......       1,000,000   .....     80     40     10     20      150  ( \4\ )
              Signs and
              Lighting, USC
      030293 East Front          BIM-SIT.......  CG..............  ACoulson......         740,000      80  .....     60  .....  .....      140  ..........
              Plantings, CG
      030130 Window              BIM-SHL.......  HOB.............  RIngram.......       3,710,000   .....     30     20     60     20      130  ..........
              Replacement, FHOB
     930281D Public Restrooms    BIM-INT.......  SOB.............  KOlmsted......       2,400,000      10     20     40     20  .....       90  ..........
              Upgrade, South
              Stack, HSOB
     020100B Public Restrooms    BIM-INT.......  HOB.............  KOlmsted......       1,500,000      10     20     40     20  .....       90  ..........
              Upgrade, Phase I,
              FHOB
      960043 Off-Site Delivery/  BIM-GEN.......  USCP............  WPerlenfn.....      23,000,000   .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .......
              Screening
              Facility, USCP
                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   SUBTOTAL--Se  ..............  ................  ..............     104,810,000   .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .......  ..........
                    ctions 1
                    and 2

             SECTION 3--SUPREME
             COURT PROJECTS \2\

      030302 Building Security   BIM-SEC.......  SC..............  ACopeland.....       1,800,000   .....     20     30     20     90      160  ( \5\ )
              Upgrade, SC
                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   SUBTOTAL--Se  ..............  ................  ..............       1,800,000   .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .......  ..........
                    ction 3
                                ================================================================================================================
                   TOTAL--Secti  ..............  ................  ..............     106,610,000   .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .......  ..........
                    ons 1, 2
                    and 3
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             \1\ ``Project Costs'' shown represent funding as identified in the fiscal year 2006 Budget Request; with the exception of the last three
               projects in Section 2, ``Project Costs'' are ``Final Project Estimates'' as developed by the AOC's Cost Estimating Group based on completed
               drawings and a completed Project Check List.
             \2\ Projects receiving a score of ``90'' or higher in one or more of the Project Evaluation Categories are considered highly desirable for
               accomplishment within the fiscal year identified.
             \3\ Project Nos. 970711E and 970711F have been separated into two parts so as to accommodate notation of costs associated with each building
               comprising the project.
             \4\ Original funding request in fiscal year 2005 was $2 million; only $1 million was approved; this project covers the additional $1 million
               still needed to accomplish the project.
             \5\ This is the Second Phase of a 2-phase project; the 1st phase was approved in the fiscal year 2005 LICP of the Supreme Court.

        Senator Allard. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Hantman. And, being a
    liberal arts major, I don't have a clue what that chart means,
    so I'm just going to ask you some general questions here.
    What's the final cost of the Capitol Visitor Center?

                      CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER COST CHANGES

        Mr. Hantman. The final cost of the visitor center, as being
    projected by GAO right now, is $517 million.
        Senator Durbin. Can you recall the first estimated cost and
    what the difference might be?
        Mr. Hantman. The original estimate for the visitor center,
    set back in 1998, was $265 million.
        Senator Durbin. And if you were asked, and you're about to
    be, how would you explain the difference?
        Mr. Hantman. I think that one of the charts we can put up
    right now is one--as the chairman mentioned earlier, the
    Government Accountability Office has been sitting with us since
    the inception of the job. This is basically, a report that they
    are just putting out right now, which talks about the summary
    of the construction cost increases.
        The first bullet talks about three-quarters of the $250
    million increase is due to ``factors beyond, or largely beyond,
    the AOC's control.'' Scope additions is the first item. The
    first is the House and the Senate expansion space. When the
    original project was designed, Mr. Durbin, we were going to be
    designing just shells, just the concrete floors, no electrical,
    no mechanical systems. There was no program to tell us what the
    Senate space might ultimately be, what the House space might
    ultimately be. After 9/11, we were given $70 million to finish
    off those spaces. That was without a program, without a design.
    As the design evolved, as the House and the Senate approved the
    programs and we went out to bid on those, that $70 million was
    found to be low, in terms of the quality of materials and the
    type of program that we were directed to do. So even that $70
    million was not inadequate, but that essentially added to the
    base of $265 million. New scope of work.
        The next bullet item is the security and life-safety
    enhancements. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cochran, this
    project has really lived through the same type of loss of
    innocence, if you could say, that our country has, due to the
    9/11 attacks and the anthrax attack on the Senate office
    buildings. We have seen multiple infusions of new dollars for
    new criteria go into this project.
        Another one of the changes, certainly after the anthrax
    incident, was, to redesign our mechanical room once again to
    incorporate major filtration systems to take care of the type
    of threats that we were facing.
        Security threats throughout the history of this project
    have been added to its costs, just as Homeland Security has
    been adding to their responsibilities. And the big challenge,
    Mr. Durbin, that we've had on this project has been that it's
    no longer the same project we started with. We're talking about
    adding $140 to $150 million of new work to the project that we
    had to do, while we were under contract. After the design was
    done, we had to try to get change orders and all of this new
    work incorporated and still try to meet a schedule for an
    inaugural in 2005. And that basically became fairly impossible
    to do with all the mechanical changes.
        So, these changes forced us, basically, to split what we
    anticipated originally as a single contract for the whole
    project into several pieces. First of all, we split it into a
    preconstruction contract so that our construction manager,
    Gilbane, could remove all of the utilities from inside the
    footprint of the project, so that we would not slow up the work
    of the major contractors, to come later. Then, because of the
    multiple redesigns of the mechanical spaces, we had to break
    out the excavation, the foundations, the structural work so
    that we could begin to work on that right away and try, still,
    to keep our schedule to complete this project within the
    parameters of the 2005 inaugural. So, that contract went ahead.
        In the next contract, which we were redesigning for the
    changed mechanical spaces, we gave a criteria to the bidders to
    meet the 2005 inaugural. Out of five bidders, three dropped
    out, saying that was impossible. And in order to change--to at
    least retain competitive bidding, we said, okay, we need to
    support the inaugural in 2005, we recognize we're not going to
    be finished, and we need to work on an extended schedule to be
    able to do that. And that's essentially what we did. We did a
    top-down construction, put on all the granite. The President
    actually stood on the central rotunda steps, as you know, and
    the troops passed in review. We got that work done.
        So the challenge has been----
        Senator Durbin. That was a pretty expensive review, wasn't
    it?
        Mr. Hantman. In terms----
        Senator Durbin. Never mind. We set that as your goal. And I
    know you were living up to it. And I'm glad we did it. It
    apparently called for additional work and expense. And you
    lived up to your responsibility there. The President--the
    inaugural went off, I think, flawlessly in that regard, except
    for the outcome of the election, which I won't get into.
        Let me ask you, when will the CVC be open to the public?
        Mr. Hantman. Our construction schedule calls for us to be
    completed in the fall of 2006. We're looking at--our contractor
    schedule talks about September 2006 right now.

                          CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER FTES

        Senator Durbin. So why would you have such a dramatic
    increase in a request for FTEs if we're--for this next fiscal
    year, when the CVC won't be open until the very end of that
    fiscal year?
        Mr. Hantman. We're actually phasing that in, Mr. Durbin.
    We're taking a look at--right now, our operations plan--and we
    have consultants, Zell Corporation, that came in, folks who are
    experts in visitor flow and operations of major spaces like
    this, and we've been meeting with Emily Reynolds and people
    from the Capitol Preservation Commission, 1\1/2\ years now,
    with the Zell group. What they're recommending is that we
    actually have an executive director for that group and a core
    staff. They should be onboard right now, basically, planning
    for the ultimate phasing in of the 260 people that Zell
    projects will need. And that executive director could certainly
    look at the Zell report and say that that number is off this
    way----
        Senator Durbin. These 260 are for the CVC exclusively.
        Mr. Hantman. That's correct.
        Senator Durbin. And you're asking for those FTEs in this
    year's fiscal appropriation, though the center will not be open
    until September of this next fiscal year?
        Mr. Hantman. We have authorization now, I believe, for 16
    of those 260 people. And of those 16, what we've started to do
    is actually hire--rather interview people--we can't hire them
    until we have an obligation plan signed for us--the people who
    are looking at the operations of the building. Potentially an
    assistant superintendent for the Capitol Building so that he or
    she could get together a staff that will make sure that the
    mechanical systems, the electrical systems, all of the things
    that are being installed correctly. They will be able to review
    that, be familiar with the systems when the building is
    essentially turned over. Those are the first people we want to
    bring on.

                CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER COMPLETION AND OPERATIONS

        Senator Durbin. Open to the public September 2006 is what
    you're saying?
        Mr. Hantman. From a construction perspective. From an
    operational perspective, Senator, the issue is, we have not yet
    hired that executive director. We've not been authorized to
    bring on any staff to do the operations side of it. We need
    that component, as well, so that whatever the operations group
    brings to the building, we'll be able to integrate it.
        And I don't know if, Ms. Reynolds, you have anything to say
    about that. We talked about this just this Monday evening.
        Senator Allard. If I might interrupt, Senator Durbin, and
    follow up on this, you're certain, from a construction aspect,
    that September 2006 would be when it's completed, open for
    occupancy.
        Mr. Hantman. That will depend, again, on the operations
    team, when they come on and what kind of work they can do early
    enough. In the best of all possible worlds, Mr. Chairman, this
    operations group would come on, and they would work in parallel
    with us, in terms of their programs--and the hiring that they
    need to do to get their staff together.

                             STRATEGIC PLAN NEEDED

        Senator Allard. Do you have a strategic plan in place
    where, when you reach this stage, we have some assurance that
    there's a step-by-step approach on how everybody's going to
    move into the offices and, a time schedule in which you
    anticipate that's going to happen? If you could elaborate
    further on whether you have the strategic plan.
        Mr. Hantman. Two points. First of all, let me clarify the
    September date again, in terms of construction. We have not
    gotten authority yet to award the expansion space for the
    House, for the Senate, for the exhibits.
        So I'm not sure. As soon as we can award that, we can
    assess what their completion date for those components of it
    will be. But in terms of the operations of the visitor center,
    the Congress has not yet determined who will be responsible for
    operating the visitor center, who they will report to, what
    committee they will report to; and, therefore, no decision has
    been made whether it will be an AOC responsibility or it will
    be another committee's responsibility, another group.
        Senator Allard. And why aren't those decisions being made?
        Ms. Reynolds. With your permission, let me just add a note
    here, Mr. Chairman.
        Those decisions have not been made. They are an ongoing
    discussion between Senate leadership, House leadership, and
    members of the Capitol Preservation Commission. They've been
    going on for several months now, most predominantly at the
    staff level, obviously with feedback to the respective members.
        I think, clearly, if we're looking at an 2006 opening date,
    clearly the need for those decisions is sooner, rather than
    later. Suffice it to say, we're working closely with the
    Architect on it, and it's--this is another one that's a team
    effort. We'd certainly appreciate your advice and counsel on
    this, as well, but, again, being done at the leadership level
    and with the Capitol Preservation Commission.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I just might say that we hold
    our witnesses and agencies accountable. Now we ought to hold
    ourselves accountable. I think the leadership on both sides of
    the Rotunda need to get together immediately and work this out.
    And I know it's contentious, and it hasn't been easy, but we
    can't blame them if the CVC doesn't open because we can't
    explain who's going to be in charge and make these key
    decisions. So, if you would like to reach out to Senator Frist,
    I'll reach out to Senator Reid, and let's see--Senator
    Cochran--maybe we can get some movement here on this.
        Senator Allard. I do think that we need to sit down with
    the leadership and put together some kind of strategic plan on
    how we're going to go through this and make these decisions,
    step by step. Has any kind of proposal been made to the
    leadership at all from your office? Have we suggested anything
    to them? Say, ``Look, we think this is realistic now. Can you
    agree to this?'' Have we taken that step?
        Ms. Reynolds. We took a step about 6 months ago, I think,
    and went back to the leadership with--not so much with an
    overall governance proposal, but we did provide to the
    leadership on both the Senate and the House side, really, more
    of an update, a working update, as a result of the operational
    meetings that have been held over the course of the last year
    with Zell, with this consultant, and really just looking
    broadly at the organization itself. As I said, the
    conversations have taken place over the last few months, with
    both Senate and House officers and staff. Obviously, this--
    because it is an extension of the Capitol, this will be,
    presumably, a decision of the joint leadership and the CPC, of
    course, which has members from both sides.
        We've made progress. We are not yet prepared, I will say,
    at least at the staff level, with an overall recommendation.
    Again, we'd be--I'd love the opportunity to brief you all on
    the various and different proposals that have been made, the
    various and different discussions. And, you're absolutely
    right, this is one that needs our time and attention.

                 CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

        Senator Allard. Mr. Hantman, I know when the project
    started out we had a couple of different contractors, and they
    didn't get along very well at the very start. Do we have an
    overall contractor that's in charge right now? It seems to me
    one of the things that needs to happen in a project, you need
    to have one contractor that's in charge, and you put incentives
    in place for them to perform and carry out what they say they
    will do. And it seems to me if we have one contractor who's in
    charge, he can be helpful to the staff in putting together some
    sort of strategy on how we can get this thing wrapped up in a
    timely manner, while holding down our costs.
        Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, with the help of the General
    Services Administration, we conducted a nationwide search for a
    construction manager. We hired the Gilbane Corporation to be
    that construction manager and make sure that they coordinated
    the work of all of our contractors on the job. Our first-phase
    contractor for the excavation, for the structure, for all of
    that work, Centex Corporation, has completed their work.
    They're off the job. Our second-phase contractor, who is doing
    all the electro-mechanical and architectural finishes work, is
    Manhattan Corporation. And, in terms of coordination for the
    expansion spaces, to minimize complications, we're expecting
    that they, also, would be running the work, although we go for
    competitive bids on the expansion spaces, on the exhibit areas,
    things of that nature.
        So, yes, we do have people in place, both from Manhattan
    and the Gilbane side, and we are giving whatever advice that we
    possibly can to the Capitol Preservation Commission about
    what's going to be in place at what point in time, and how we
    can phase this work, so that we can get that center opened
    appropriately and in good order.
        Senator Allard. Well, then, who's ultimately accountable
    for getting this done on time? Is this Gilbane?
        Mr. Hantman. Our construction manager, Gilbane, is
    accountable to us. We have the fiduciary responsibility,
    certainly. And under our project executive, Bob Hixon, they
    report through to Bob Hixon, and Bob Hixon reports through to
    me.
        Senator Allard. Gilbane--are they doing their job? It seems
    to me this is their responsibility, to help you put together a
    strategic plan. Are they doing their job in that regard?
        Mr. Hantman. Well, in terms of strategic plan, relative to
    operations, that is not their responsibility. It is the
    construction side of it only, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Allard. Go ahead, Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Are there any incentives or penalties in
    the contract with Gilbane, for performance?
        Mr. Hantman. For the contractors, we have liquidated
    damages. For Gilbane, they are a fee-based organization, and if
    they're not performing--it's up to us, basically, to make sure
    that they do perform or to take away work from them and give it
    to somebody else who can perform, when they don't.
        Senator Durbin. How much has Gilbane been paid?
        Mr. Hantman. I believe it's something like $15.5 million
    for the CVC Base and $2 million for the Senate shell.
        Senator Durbin. Okay.
        Mr. Hantman. I can verify that number.
        [The information follows:]

        As previously stated, I would like to verify the
    information referring to the amounts paid to Gilbane. In
    reference to the CVC base contract with Gilbane $15.5 million
    has been obligated and $13 million has been paid or expended.
    For the Senate shell space $2 million has been obligated and
    $1.6 million has been expended.

        Senator Durbin. But there are no incentives for them, as
    the management side of this. The incentives relate to the
    actual construction.
        Mr. Hantman. We have incentives for the contractors, in
    terms of--if they meet their schedules, they move ahead. We
    have awards for them, yes.
        Senator Allard. You know, it's not entirely clear to me who
    figures out the costs and the timeline schedule. Is that
    Gilbane, or is that your office or one of the contractors? Who
    puts that schedule together and says that it gets us to
    September, gets us to some kind of date after that, which we
    don't seem to be able to get specified.
        Mr. Hantman. Gilbane has the responsibilities for the
    master schedule. We have a schedule that came in from Manhattan
    Corporation, who is the contractor onsite now charged,
    basically, with all the work to finish the job. The issue,
    then, is--what Gilbane needs to do is take the schedules for
    the expansion space, for the exhibit areas, areas that we've
    not yet awarded, integrate them into a schedule, and make sure
    that we can all finish when we need to finish.
        Senator Allard. And why haven't those other spaces been
    awarded yet?
        Mr. Hantman. We need to have obligations plans signed by
    the House and the Senate to allow us to spend the dollars to do
    that, and we've not yet got those signatures.
        Senator Allard. I see. Okay.

                        CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER SCHEDULE

        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman?
        If I might ask Mr. Hantman--the GAO, when they took a look
    at this, agreed with your final cost figure, but disagreed with
    the occupancy--or maybe not disagreed, but said they felt that,
    by schedule, it wouldn't be completed until March 2007. Do you
    take issue with that date that they came up with?
        Mr. Hantman. Again, when we talk about the project, if we
    could define the nature of the project. The Capitol Visitor
    Center portion of it, the area that will welcome visitors,
    where people will walk down the entry ramps--and I'd welcome
    the opportunity to take you on a tour, Mr. Durbin--be screened,
    come into the great hall, go to the information booths, go see
    the orientation film, go on the tour, go to the cafeteria, go
    to the restrooms--all of that is projected in the current
    contracts that we have with Manhattan Corporation. The part
    that has not yet been awarded, and the part that will not be
    ready, at this point in time, in the fall of 2006, is, in fact,
    the expansion space, which has not yet been awarded. And that's
    where GAO is going and pushing that off. And until we get the
    contractor onboard and we work with them, we don't know what
    the schedule is for that work.
        Senator Durbin. And the contractor decision depends on
    leadership in Congress to decide responsibility----
        Mr. Hantman. We have bids on that now, Senator. The issue
    is--we can't award those bids, because we don't have the
    obligation plans signed to award them. Then we could move ahead
    and move with that contractor to nail down a completion time.
        Senator Durbin. Okay.

                    CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER EXHIBITION SPACE

        Senator Allard. Well, are there other things, other than
    the expansion space, that could be causing a delay on this
    project?
        Mr. Hantman. The exhibit areas, Mr. Chairman. There's a
    wonderful exhibit area, which I showed you as we walked
    through--and, again, I'd welcome the opportunity for anybody
    who's not seen it, to take them through that again--we have not
    been able to award the contract for the construction of the
    exhibition areas. The Secretary of the Senate and the whole
    senior staff on the Capitol Preservation Commission, has the
    concern of, should we open the visitor center if the exhibition
    area is not ready to be opened, as well? And that's a debate
    that the Preservation Commission staff have been having. From
    my perspective, the best of all possible worlds, it should all
    be ready. We should be able to have full exhibits, have the
    air-conditioning system tested, so the original documents,
    amendments to the Declaration, amendments to the Constitution,
    all of those original documents that we're planning to put into
    the exhibition area, would safely be able to be installed
    there. We need to award the contract and move ahead and see
    just how we can shake it out. We still think we can make that.
        Senator Allard. I want to move on, but Ms. Reynolds, did
    you want to respond?
        Ms. Reynolds. I just wanted to add a word to what Mr.
    Hantman said, in terms of bringing the documents into the
    building and readying the exhibition space. And I certainly
    appreciate the commitment and the drive that the Architect has
    to get this facility up and running for all of us. It will be
    tremendous when it's done. But from an archival standpoint,
    both the Clerk of the House and I have the responsibility to
    work with the National Archives, who, of course, are the
    repository of the records of Congress. So one thing we would
    like very much to do--and I believe we have a meeting scheduled
    in this regard--is to have Mr. Hantman fully brief both the
    Archives and the Library of Congress, from whom we anticipate
    we will also borrow some documents, so that those
    preservationists, those archivists, can understand both the
    project in full, how the work will proceed, potentially, around
    the exhibition space, so that they have the assurance, before
    they loan precious documents to us, that they have the
    assurance and feel good about the prospect that those documents
    will be protected in this exhibition space if we still have
    ongoing work going on in other aspects of either the CVC or the
    expansion space itself.
        So, again, we'll keep you posted on that, but I think we
    have one additional important step to make, if you will, and I
    certainly didn't want to leave the impression that there's a
    delay, if you will, from our end. But we do have that
    responsibility, to protect the records of Congress, and need to
    make that one additional stop with those archival experts.
        Senator Allard. I think it would be helpful for this
    subcommittee if we can get some sort of timeline set down here
    with some estimated costs, and then we can check it off as we
    go along. And if for some reason AOC doesn't meet the timeline,
    we can ask why. And if you're under budget, we can have a
    celebration, when we reach those various milestones. I think a
    lot of Members in the Senate would feel more comfortable if we
    could have some sort of timeline out there to get things nailed
    down as best as we possibly can.
        Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.

                      ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL MANAGEMENT

        Senator Allard. I think it would make life much easier.
        The other thing that I would want to bring up, there's an
    article here about the AOC staff survey, and your staff
    expressed some dissatisfaction. I think you need to have
    workers that have bought into what you're doing. Noting some of
    the things several employees expressed concern about charges of
    favoritism and uneven and unfair work distribution, hire and
    promotions that were not necessarily based on qualifications
    and experience but based on personal connections. Those are the
    kind of comments that have been pulled out and that I have
    before me here. Is that a problem that you think truly exists?
    And even if it's a few employees, perhaps it is something to
    correct. I'd like to know what your suggestions are in that
    regard.
        Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, we take those kind of charges
    very seriously, and we investigate every one of them. What we
    have tried to do, over the 8 years that I have been here, is to
    create a human resources division that is responsible, not only
    to external clients, but to internal clients. Our staff are the
    backbone of the agency. The AOC is a service agency, and the
    2,000 people we have essentially are our most valuable
    commodity. So, we are making sure that we have fair and open
    hiring practices, promotion practices, that we post jobs
    between jurisdictions, which never used to happen. Basically--
    somebody who worked for the House office buildings wouldn't
    apply for a job in the Senate office buildings. They do that
    now. We make sure that the benefits are the same. If you're
    doing the same work, you get the same benefits. The
    classification of all jobs are just the same. So anytime that
    we hear something like that--and I hear it, I will talk to
    people, we will talk to our human resources folks and make sure
    that we get a full answer and that these people are treated as
    fairly as possible within the guidelines of the Federal
    Government-type regulations.
        Senator Allard. I do recognize there is a challenge----
        Mr. Hantman. There is.
        Senator Allard. But I'd encourage you to sit down and work
    with the employees and see if we can get it resolved. It sounds
    to me like maybe you've made some efforts in that regard, and I
    appreciate that.
        Mr. Hantman. If I could make a statement, Mr. Chairman,
    that was a very disturbing newspaper article. The headline was
    ``Fear and Loathing in the AOC.'' Those are very, very heavy
    words. I had our folks go back to all the surveys. First of
    all, please be aware, we initiated 25 task groups; 300 people
    around our agency from all areas were invited in to talk, to
    give their points of view in an open manner, with an outside
    facilitator, impartial people, to talk about, what was wrong
    with their jobs. We wanted to know basically what the problems
    were, what the challenges were, how we can start addressing
    those challenges. We also conducted a survey that went across
    the entire agency, talking about the quality of services and
    how we can improve them.
        As a result of the surveys we've set up eight committees on
    communications--no question about that, we have to improve our
    communications--human resources, procurement, senior
    leadership, strategic planning, all of these issues. We have
    groups that have been set up to address these issues.
        But I think it's important to note that we went back to the
    surveys, and we studied these words that we saw. And the word
    ``loathing,'' ``repercussions,'' ``payback,'' those with
    negative connotations did not appear in any of the surveys that
    came back from our employees. Ninety-six employees, out of 215
    participating, used the word ``fear.'' But the word ``fear''
    was used regarding their concern about having their jobs
    outsourced following a study we're conducting as a
    congressional mandate. They did not use it in the context of
    fear in the workplace. I'm thinking that, clearly, there are
    some people who are not open enough or secure enough to express
    their opinions. We had a celebration for people who have
    Government service of, 30 to 35 years, last week. And I told
    the people in the labor division who were talking there that we
    want them to speak openly and talk about that. But I think it's
    important to note that that headline had nothing to do with
    what the surveys and the focus groups showed.
        So, basically, our conclusion really is, the journalist's
    choice of words were the journalist's choice of words. The fear
    was--related to outsourcing, not to the way people are treated.
    Most people stated that they liked their jobs. There was
    certainly room for improvement in communications and other
    areas, but it was a totally inappropriate headline.
        Senator Allard. I wanted to give you an opportunity to
    respond to that, because I think that you needed to have that
    opportunity.

         CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT

        Now, let me go on to the GAO report. And I know you have a
    chart over here. You just must be itching to use that chart.
        I want to give you an opportunity to respond to some of the
    criticism from the GAO report, and I think that's what that
    chart's all about. So why don't you go ahead and respond to
    those comments from the GAO report?
        Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, the Capitol Visitor Center, I
    call it a magnificent challenge. It truly is that. As I
    indicated earlier Senator Durbin, the nature of the project has
    changed significantly since its inception, adding roughly $150
    million of new work to the project as it was under design and
    construction.
        If we could put the GAO summary of reasons back again,
    please.
        The GAO does talk about management. They talk about--we
    could have done a better job doing management. In retrospect,
    when you look at the issues that we have to deal with, managing
    all the changes, the multiple changes--from the security
    perspective, from the expansion perspective--we needed to
    manage them, and we could have managed them more effectively,
    but we have managed them very well right now.
        So where we talk about three-quarters of the $250 million
    increase due to factors, ``beyond, or largely beyond, AOC's
    control,'' that's GAO's language, ``77 percent of their $250
    million increase was beyond our control.'' The next line talks
    about design-to-budget items impacted by market conditions.
        The market volatility--since the budget for the House and
    the Senate expansion spaces was established in 2001, there have
    been material price increases. We have two estimates done for
    every piece of costs, Mr. Chairman. One of them is done by
    Gilbane, our construction manager; another is done by an
    outside firm, Hanscomb Corporation. We compared the two
    estimates for the work. With the escalating costs, the Hanscomb
    group indicates, in the Washington metropolitan area, some 22
    percent escalation has occurred within the last 12 months,
    alone. So when you've established a budget years ago, and you
    see that kind of escalation, the $35 million budget set for
    each of the expansion spaces for the House and the Senate did
    not conceive of that level of additional dollars. So that has
    impacted us tremendously.
        Limited competition due to a saturated construction market.
    You can see construction cranes all over the Washington
    metropolitan area. The pool of labor is down. The competitive
    bidding is down also, because there's enough work to go around,
    and contractors don't have to cut their prices; they can pick
    their jobs.
        Added costs to bidders due to security. As you know, Mr.
    Chairman, we have trucks being checked on The Mall. Thousands
    of trucks are being inspected by--and going through a big
    screening area--by the Capitol Police. They're double-checked
    when they come onto First Street, before they come on site. All
    of the workers that come onto our site are screened. They
    undergo retinal scans and police background checks. People in
    the construction industry who have a police record are not able
    to work on our job. That's a premium that contractors add to
    their contracts.
        Added--low estimates, and design not changed to meet the
    budget. When our numbers have come in higher than we
    anticipated, higher than our outside contractors and cost
    estimators have said, we come up with lists of things that
    could be eliminated from the project, could be changed. One of
    the things, which you may be aware of, we have a Buy America
    situation. If we had been able to bid our stone work on the
    international market, our contractors tell us, we could have
    saved $10 million. We have stone from Tennessee, from Ohio,
    from Pennsylvania. We fabricate in Wisconsin, in Vermont. All
    of this is American, and we're paying for that premium.
        So the issue is, we could cut out some of that stone, we
    can go to sheetrock, we can go to wood. What we're doing here,
    Mr. Chairman, is, we're building for the future. This is not a
    speculative office building. This is not a normal building.
    This is something that complements and supports the Capitol
    that's survived for 200 years; and, with the good Lord's grace,
    will survive for hundreds more. So this is a complement. It
    supplements what, in fact, is happening in the building. And
    the quality of the finishes--the stone, the bronze work, there
    is stone on the floor, there are quality woods, there are
    materials that make sense, and that your great-grandchildren
    will be proud to visit in future years. So, if we come up with
    lists of things to cut because our numbers come in high, we are
    told, no, we cannot cheapen the work. And I don't want to
    cheapen it, either.
        So the budget cannot be, as a normal job would be, one
    where you cut things out, you change it, you eliminate
    components of it. That is not an option open to us right now.
    So we are living with what the--essentially, the industry tells
    us the costs are going to be by those who choose to bid our
    projects.
        Senator Allard. Based on the GAO report and your experience
    up to this point, what have been your lessons learned? If you
    were to start back over with the project again, what would you
    do differently to make it a better project than what it is
    today?
        Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, any architect or engineer who
    does a major project, and it's underway, under construction,
    has a tremendous fear of the words, ``While you're at it, why
    don't you''--add a piece to the exhibit areas, add new security
    criteria, change this, do a change order to your contract,
    because I don't like the way that's coming in. With the outside
    pressures we've had since 9/11, Mr. Chairman, nobody could have
    foreseen all the security issues that we have.
        As far as the expansion spaces are concerned, there's no
    doubt in my mind that those were meant to be future expansion
    spaces. When 9/11 hit, we got the money to finish them off, we
    made basic changes. We had to redesign our structure so that
    hearing rooms could have the long spans that they now have
    while they were under construction basically, this is in terms
    of the structure.
        So have your programs set on everything that you're going
    to do. Go to a single contractor--that was our original goal,
    but, because of the timeframe--and that was the timeframe that
    Senator Durbin referred to--we had this inaugural date to hit.
    It turned out to be impossible once all of these $150 million
    worth of changes were put in the project. Yet, we were still
    driving our contractors to do that, and we put out bids on that
    basis. We shouldn't have put out bids on that basis. We should
    have recognized earlier that that's a criteria that will lose
    us the bidders and the competitiveness of the bidding process.
        Senator Allard. I think that's a comment well made. As soon
    as you start changing the original order, you open up the
    contract, and it just becomes a blank check, and it's very
    difficult to control costs once you've done that. I've been in
    the position where I had a construction project. You know, I
    was building a veterinary hospital. And as soon as I started
    requesting a change here or there, you just open the whole
    thing up. And I can imagine, with this size of a project,
    that's a huge, huge issue. Do you think there might be any more
    major changes coming forward that could impact cost?
        Mr. Hantman. Well, as was indicated in your opening
    remarks, GAO, last time around, when we came before the
    subcommittees for costs, they said, ``There's further risk out
    there.'' GAO still indicates that there is further risk out
    there. Hopefully, not on the magnitude that we're talking about
    to date.
        We need to award the contracts that we have yet to award,
    and make sure that we can move ahead as expeditiously as
    possible. That's the best way to control the costs.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions or
    comments while we wrap this up?
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I'm very glad that we've had
    an opportunity to have this exchange, and the question and
    answers have been very informative and helpful to our
    understanding of where we are with the visitor center project
    and the responsibilities of these fine individuals, who serve
    as Architect and Secretary of the Senate. We appreciate your
    service and your cooperation with our efforts to help make sure
    we're getting what we're paying for and we are not being frugal
    and living up to our responsibilities to the general public and
    to the Congress, itself, and the American people, in
    particular.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more with
    your comments, and I also understand the frustration when you
    have numerous bosses, like the Architect of the Capitol has. We
    all have our own views, and I understand the challenges of your
    position, but I do think the more we can get down as a plan,
    the better off we'd all be so we can understand that. So,
    again, I would encourage you to get something in writing to us,
    some kind of a plan. It would be helpful, I think, for the
    subcommittee.
        I agree with the chairman, this has been a very helpful
    hearing, from both of you. And I know there's a lot of
    dedicated people here that want to do the right thing for
    Congress, and want to do the right thing for the people. We do
    want this to be something we're all proud of, and I do see a
    lot of things in that visitor center that are just great. I
    want to make sure we can get through this with as few bumps as
    we possibly can toward completion.
        I want to thank all of you for your effort. Thank you.
        Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Reynolds. Thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Allard. And I would request, of the witnesses,
    that, within 1 week, if you could respond to additional
    questions in writing, then we'll make those a part of the
    record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Offices for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                     Questions Submitted to Emily Reynolds
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
        Question. What are your recommendations for the closed captioning
    of Senate hearings based on the pilot project your office conducted in
    conjunction with the Judiciary Committee?
        Answer. In September, 2003, the Office of the Secretary, in
    coordination with the Judiciary Committee, agreed to implement a pilot
    program for the closed captioning of Senate committee hearings, based
    on language included in the fiscal year 2003 Legislative Branch
    Appropriations report.
        The pilot is summarized based on the request given to us by your
    committee to assess the feasibility, use and cost of the closed
    captioning pilot for committee hearings.
        The original plan called for the pilot to run for a period not to
    exceed 90 days with the Secretary's Office of Captioning Services to
    provide the hardware and software using voice recognition technology, a
    technology selected at the suggestion of the Judiciary Committee. The
    Judiciary Committee provided funding for the product contract.
        The Secretary's office invested almost $18,000 in support of the
    project, which included equipment and training. In addition, the
    director of captioning services served as the project manager and
    provided extensive counsel and training. A room on the mezzanine level
    of Hart 216 was prepared and furnished by the Architect of the Capitol
    and the Sergeant at Arms for the captioners' work given the need for a
    noise-free environment. The Senate Recording Studio also assisted in
    providing the necessary feed and encoding equipment.
        The project concluded on October 6, 2004, following the completion
    of two captioned hearings for the Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately,
    the project encountered delays involving both the contractor and the
    technology, which eventually led to the selection of a second
    contractor in order to complete the pilot.
        The first contractor began work on January 21, 2004, and conducted
    its first dry run on a committee hearing on February 25. A second dry
    run followed approximately one week later on March 3. The contractors
    were not familiar with the realtime captioning software, and on-site
    training was provided. In addition, software bugs with the technology
    had to be addressed and remedied. The contractors also experienced
    numerous hardware problems, making it difficult to determine at times
    whether the problems were software or hardware related. An overall lack
    of experience in the use of voice recognition technology led to a high
    error rate, so high the captions could not be understood.
        The Judiciary Committee opted to terminate their contract with the
    first contractor in mid-March, 2004, and proceeded to engage a second
    operator just over one month later. The second contractor began
    training in late August, and two dry runs of committee hearings were
    conducted in September.
        The contractor employed the voice recognition technology on
    September 22 and again on October 6 to cover two Judiciary Committee
    hearings that were broadcast on the Senate's internal television
    committee channel. In the first hearing, the average percentage of
    sentences with recognition errors was 55 percent. In the second
    hearing, the captioners showed improvement with the technology reducing
    the average percentage with recognition errors to 42 percent. (As a
    standard of comparison, captioning services for Senate broadcasts posts
    an accuracy rate of 99 percent).
        The second contractor's captioners continued to experience setbacks
    with both the software and hardware, and have rendered their opinion
    that at least currently, the realtime captioning project is not
    appropriate for Senate committee work, particularly given the unique
    language of the Senate and the requirement for accuracy.
        The Secretary's office provided a means for the Senate community to
    respond to the pilot, with comments, creating an e-mail address,
    ccpilot@sec.senate.gov. Two e-mail notices were sent prior to the
    internal broadcasts of the two closed captioned hearings.
        Four responses were received at the e-mail address. One was an
    inquiry as to how to access the hearing; a second was from a committee
    staffer inquiring further about the pilot. Two responses came from a
    Congressional Research Service staffer who suggested transcript
    corrections.
        To the best of our knowledge, voice recognition technology has not
    yet been employed to realtime caption television programming. In
    addition, the availability of voice writers is minimal in the region,
    particularly those with captioning experience. While the technology may
    hold promise for the future, on the basis of the pilot project, it is
    not a feasible technology for the Senate's use at this time.
        Question. What information can your office provide to Senate
    offices on employment compensation, hiring and benefit practices,
    particularly for those newly-elected Senators who are in the process of
    setting up shop? Would it be useful for Senate offices to have an
    outside organization study compensation, hiring and benefit practices
    for Senate staff, and in your view, would it be appropriate for us to
    fund such a study?
        Answer. Two departments under the direction of the Secretary, the
    Disbursing Office and the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (SCCE)
    can and do provide information to Senate offices, including newly-
    elected Senators' offices, regarding compensation, hiring and benefit
    practices.
        With respect to hiring and benefit practices, the SCCE does the
    following: (1) informs offices about how and where to advertise job
    openings, how to interview candidates, how to conduct reference and
    background checks, how to establish appropriate criteria for selecting
    among job applicants, and how to finalize and document job offers; (2)
    provides each office with dozens of sample employee policies that are
    used across the Senate and assists the office with customizing the
    policies; (3) assists offices with preparing employee policy manuals
    and supervisors' manuals; (4) educates the offices about the range of
    benefits customarily offered by Senate offices, such as the number of
    days of paid leave, paid holidays, and paid FMLA leave, and assists
    offices in establishing their benefits; (5) educates the offices about
    all of their legal obligations and employees' legal rights under
    employment laws, which include compensation, hiring and benefit
    practices.
        Like the SCCE, the Disbursing Office provides extensive and
    detailed information to newly elected Senators' offices during the
    Senators-elect orientation program and in one-on-one training with all
    new offices. The training includes both written and verbal information
    on the budget structure and available funds by fiscal year for the
    office, the salary limitations for the office, the appointment and
    hiring procedures including the statutory prohibitions on when
    appointments and transfers can be effective, other employment
    restrictions, procedures and requirements for salary adjustments and
    termination processing, guidelines and procedures for processing
    overtime and paying for unused annual leave, and any other relevant
    employment and payroll procedures. Counseling on all federal benefits
    (retirement, Thrift Savings Plan, health insurance, life insurance,
    flexible spending accounts) is also provided to all new Senate
    employees.
        With respect to compensation, because each member's office is, by
    law, an individual employer, each office establishes its own salaries.
    Twice each fiscal year, the Report of the Secretary of the Senate is
    published in compliance with Section 105 of Public Law 88-454, approved
    August 20, 1964, as amended. The Report is a full and complete
    statement of the receipts and expenditures of the Senate.
        Based on the work of both the Disbursing Office and the Senate
    Chief Counsel for Employment, it would be neither useful or necessary
    to hire an outside organization to study compensation, hiring and
    benefit practices. Because each office is an individual employer,
    employee positions and job responsibilities are not the same across
    offices, and salaries and benefits often reflect issues unique to each
    state. To the extent policies and benefits are common across offices,
    that information is already shared across, and provided to, Senators'
    offices.
                                     ______

                      Questions Submitted to Alan Hantman
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
                                     budget
        Question. AOC is in the process of conducting a mid-year review of
    the current year budget. Based on this analysis, do you believe there
    will be any funding this year that could be reprogrammed to any
    projects AOC is requesting in the fiscal year 2006 budget? If there are
    savings, please explain why.
        Answer. The mid-year review resulted in satisfying some emerging
    fiscal year 2005 needs and a few fiscal year 2006 needs as well. The
    review identified potential sources of funding to pay the Botanic
    Garden claim, the closing costs for the ACF purchase and the Capitol
    Power Plant-Replace Ash Handling.
                                 strategic plan
        Question. In December 2003, AOC issued a strategic plan for the
    agency. How is the implementation of that strategic plan specifically
    affecting your organizational structure and the resources you need for
    fiscal year 2006?
        Answer. Resources in terms of both dollars and FTEs are needed to
    continue to make progress in implementing improvements (outlined in our
    Performance Plan) in key areas such as project management, IT security,
    Enterprise Architecture, worker safety, financial controls, and
    employee communications. We have not requested additional FTEs to
    implement these improvements and have ensured that the dollars
    requested in our budget are aligned with our strategic action plans. As
    part of our internal process to develop our budget, we require each
    responsible manager to include discussion on how the requested budget
    is linked to accomplishing one or more of AOC's Strategic goals.
        In addition, the AOC proposed organizational structure would allow
    us to more effectively manage day-to-day operations and achieve our
    strategic goals. It will facilitate delegations of authority and
    clarify lines of communications by formally recognizing the official
    management structure of the agency.
        Question. In your testimony you say ``we are continuously
    evaluating our efforts so that we continue to excel, meet and exceed
    expectations.'' On what basis can you say AOC is excelling, meeting and
    exceeding expectations?
        Answer. The AOC is constantly reviewing our progress and looking
    for ways to improve our operations. Examples of improvements that allow
    us to excel, meet, and exceed expectations include:
      --Financial Management
        --Developed a Management Control Program Policy--currently in the
                review and approval process. Implementation team is forging
                ahead as the policy receives final approval. The team has
                completed the initial review of the first two internal
                control cycles: payroll and procure-to-pay.
      --Project Management
        --Implemented a ``pilot'' PM organization to align staff with
                mission critical goals.
        --Continued to implement a Program Development Process that
                includes the prioritization of projects by a senior-level
                panel comprised of all jurisdictional superintendents. The
                project prioritization process was most recently used in
                the summer of 2004 in conjunction with determining the
                fiscal year 2006 Line Item Construction Program (LICP) as
                recently submitted to The Congress.
        --Developed tools to effectively communicate priorities and
                progress of projects. Formal Program Development Process
                procedures have been developed and communicated to all
                parties through various means. Briefings have occurred.
                Portions of these procedures, as appropriate, have been
                included in AOC manuals. The process, to include its
                specific application to the recommended fiscal year 2005
                Line Item Construction Program (LICP), has further been
                communicated through the AOC's Capital Improvement Plan
                (CIP) prepared in February 2004. These procedures, to
                include their application to the recommended fiscal year
                2006 LICP, are similarly being captured and communicated
                through the revised CIP currently nearing completion.
      --Created an employee feedback process manual (undergoing final
            review of procedures for implementation).
      --Conducted Focus Groups and a Human Resources Management Division
            Customer Satisfaction Survey--action plans are being developed
            to address opportunities for improvement especially in the
            areas of communication, on a wide variety of AOC issues,
            policies and procedures.
      --Completed the 2004 Building Services Customer Satisfaction Survey
            (BSCSS) and reported findings and action plans to stakeholders.
      --Linked senior executive and employee performance management systems
            to our strategic goals and objectives.
      --Launched our workforce planning office which is currently
            developing a workforce plan/strategy to outline the process for
            AOC long-range workforce planning.
      --Continued to implement IT Investment Management, Enterprise
            Architecture and Security programs.
        Question. What are the most significant challenges you face in
    meeting your strategic plan goals and how does your budget attempt to
    address these priorities?
        Answer. One of the biggest challenges we face, like many government
    agencies, is the aging of our workforce and the need to transfer
    knowledge to the next generation of skilled workers.
        Maintaining our aging and historic facilities is another challenge
    we face. This is why the Facility Condition Assessment (FCAs) are so
    critical to achieving our Facilities Management Goal. The funding
    request for a FCA of the Library of Congress is an example of this.
        In our fiscal year 2006 budget development process, we aligned the
    requests by budget line item to ensure our budget was consistent with
    the Strategic Plan goals and objectives. This was our first attempt to
    move towards a performance based budget. We are continuing to refine
    this process as we prepare future budgets.
        As outlined in our strategic plan, a significant impact on the
    achievement of these goals is the time and money spent responding to
    data calls, and meeting with various groups that are conducting reviews
    of the AOC. The AOC staff is devoted to ensuring these various groups
    have the most accurate and complete information available to support
    the reviews.
                        chief operating officer position
        Question. I understand you are working with a panel made up of the
    Public Printer, the Comptroller General, the Chief Administrative
    Officer of the House and someone yet to be appointed from the Senate
    Sergeant at Arms to select a new Deputy ACO/COO. Could you please
    explain to the committee the process you are using to review applicants
    and make a selection? Has the panel ever met to discuss and approve
    this selection process? Have criteria been established for use by the
    panel in evaluating candidates? Did the panel participate in the
    establishment of these criteria and approve them? When do you expect a
    selection to be made? How many people applied?
        Answer. As instructed by the Committees, in mid-December, 2004, we
    initiated contact with several executive employment search firms to
    identify and select one to conduct a nation-wide recruitment for a new
    COO. After a review of several executive employment search firms, we
    contracted with Korn/Ferry International on December 22, 2004.
      --Korn/Ferry initiated their recruitment search process and suggested
            that AOC also initiate a recruitment announcement through the
            Federal U.S.A. Jobs system.
      --AOC staff coordinated the vacancy announcement language with Korn/
            Ferry and the announcement was posted from January 21 through
            March 4, 2005.
        On March 15, 2005, candidate review criteria, developed by Korn/
    Ferry for their use to narrow the number of candidates to be referred
    to the panel, were submitted to the panel for review and input.
    Received input on the review criteria from each of the panel members,
    (last one dated March 30, 2005). In addition to the review criteria
    panel members also suggested steps they would like to follow in
    completing their review and interview of candidates.
        On April 5, 2005, the panel was provided with a matrix documenting
    their input on the review criteria to be used by Korn/Ferry in
    completing the candidate review process. The panel was also provided
    information on suggestions they submitted for ``next steps'', and on
    information they requested from Korn/Ferry for the panel's review and
    interview of candidates.
        On April 14, 2005, the Committees were sent an update on the
    process, including the matrix outlining the criteria that Korn/Ferry
    would use in their review of candidates; In addition, we have outlined
    the ``next steps'' that the panel wanted to follow for their review and
    interview of candidates.
        While Korn/Ferry was completing their review of the candidates, the
    AOC began to work with the panel members' staff to block out times when
    the panel could convene to review and interview the candidates. Based
    on the initial information received on the panel members' availability,
    the earliest date when all the members could convene is May 26, 2005.
        On April 28, 2005, I sent a letter to all the panel members asking
    that they review their calendars to see if they could meet before May
    26. From the information received to date, the panel will have their
    initial meeting on May 17. Based on the travel schedule of some of the
    panel members, it currently appears that the next date they can convene
    is May 26. I anticipate that the panel will likely need to convene
    several times to complete their review.
        On May 3, 2005, Korn/Ferry delivered the candidate books to the AOC
    and they in turn were delivered to the panel the next day.
        Next steps (as suggested by the panel):
      --The panel reviews the candidate information for the top 12
            candidates that have been submitted to them.
      --The panel narrows the number of candidates to a short list of best
            qualified.
      --The panel interviews the best qualified to determine the top
            candidates (not less than three).
      --The panel refers (not less than three) candidates for my
            consideration, interview and selection.
        Completion of my part of the review and interview of candidates is
    dependent on the panel completing its work. If they cannot complete
    their review until late in May or early June, we may need an extension
    of time. If it appears that this will be necessary, I will make such a
    request for the Committee's consideration as soon as we have that
    information.
                               project management
        Question. Project management was one of the areas cited by the
    Government Accountability Office as needing improvement in its 2003
    report on the AOC. What improvements have you made in this area and
    what specific examples can you cite of ``lessons learned?'' Over half
    of AOC's current construction projects over $250,000 are behind
    schedule. Why? What is AOC doing to control schedule overruns? I
    understand AOC established a pilot project management organization last
    September and that is an improvement over the old way of operating,
    including better accountability for managers. Why is it still a pilot
    and why are employees reporting to both their ``old'' boss and their
    ``new'' boss? Isn't it time to move ahead with this and finalize the
    structure, as recommended by GAO?
        Answer. Organization Improvements: On September 1, 2004 the AOC
    implemented a ``pilot'' Project Management organization. This
    organization is comprised of Project Managers, Construction Managers,
    and Construction Inspectors. The proposed alignment establishes clear
    performance expectations for delivering high quality design and
    construction projects on time and within budget mainly because the
    project and construction management functions reside, for the first
    time, within the same organization. The alignment is based largely on
    recommendations and observations made by GAO, specifically to ``align
    project management staff and resources with AOC's mission-critical
    goals'' and that ``too many hats'' are being worn by those assigned
    project management responsibilities.
        The pilot Project Management organization is tasked with delivering
    the projects identified through our Program Development Process that
    leads to the development of Capitol Improvement Plans. Smaller projects
    are managed by staff in the Engineering and Architecture Divisions, and
    some projects are managed directly by staff in the Superintendent's
    offices. In addition, there are four projects that are being managed by
    dedicated teams hired specifically for these one-time capital
    improvements efforts: the Capitol Visitor Center, the West
    Refrigeration Plant expansion, the Supreme Court Modernization, and
    most recently, the Hill-wide Perimeter Security program. Decisions as
    to who manages which projects are made jointly by Project Management,
    Architecture and Engineering and Superintendent's management staff. The
    primary goal, however, is to have the Project Management organization
    manage CIP projects, with the remaining project work being managed by
    others. Since September 1, 2004, an effort has been made to transition
    the aligned organization and its assigned workload while ``bridging''
    those projects in transition to avoid losing institutional knowledge.
        Lessons Learned: The AOC continues to show progress in using its
    best practices to successfully executing design and construction
    projects. Key findings from last year's Lessons Learned surveys (fiscal
    year 2004) concluded that the AOC needed to focus on project planning,
    scope development, and design coordination. In the ensuing months the
    AOC developed critical check lists and sign-off sheets to assure that
    all necessary project elements had been considered and appropriately
    addressed before proceeding. The Program Development Process leading to
    CIP development is serving as a gate-keeping mechanism to assure that
    inadequately-developed projects do not proceed forward in the funding
    request stream.
        In addition, development and publication of the Program of
    Requirements (Pre-design Manual) and assuring consistency with IDIQ
    design task Orders will also significantly improve project scoping and
    documentation before they are sent forward as part of developing the
    CIP.
        Schedule Overruns: One of the key components to creation of the
    pilot Project Management organization was to establish clear
    performance expectations for delivering projects on time and within
    budget. Success in achieving these performance indicators is
    anticipated because the project and construction management functions
    reside, for the first time, within the same organization. When
    variances with schedule, quality or budget arise, the project team is
    required to work together in an attempt to overcome the variance and
    keep the customer apprised accordingly.
        In addition, each of the jurisdictions at the AOC have been
    assigned a Jurisdictional Executive from the Project Management
    organization. Each Jurisdictional Executive acts as the liaison between
    the customer and the project-delivery organizations for resolution of
    project-related issues. The goal with this arrangement is to foster
    continuous communications and to keep projects moving forward on-time
    and within budget.
        Although the pilot organization has made several positive steps
    with respect to project delivery and reporting, it must be recognized
    that achieving an optimal goal for ``on schedule'' is a multi-step and
    multi-year endeavor. As noted previously, many measures and processes
    have been put in place, but the AOC has not yet delivered a CIP project
    developed with the benefit of the Pre-design Manual, and there are
    additional refinements to the Program Development Process that need to
    be defined, such as creating an Acquisition Strategy process. The
    expectation that a seven-month-old organization can overnight correct
    problems inherent in projects developed years ago without benefit of
    the new processes and organizational structured and accountability is
    overly optimistic. GAO pointed out in its original General Management
    Review that such changes take years to accomplish in an orderly and
    measured manner. The AOC is confident that it continues to make steady
    progress in project delivery and reporting.
        Pilot Organization Approval: On April 22, 2005, letters were sent
    by the Architect of the Capitol to both Appropriation's Committees,
    providing notification of his plan to implement a new organizational
    structure for the Agency. The proposed organizational chart delineated
    changes to the current, higher-level management structure, which in-
    turn would modify the reporting structure for the Project Management
    organization, upon implementation. The letters indicated that the
    proposed organizational structure would be implemented in May, unless
    other feedback was provided by the Committees. It was thought prudent
    to await the implementation of the higher-level management structure,
    before implementing the pilot organization. Subsequent feedback to the
    letters has been received by the Committees and the requested follow-on
    information is being provided. Procedures for implementation of the
    pilot organization will commence immediately after implementation of
    the AOC organizational structure.
        When the pilot organization was established in September 2004, it
    was made clear to the impacted employees that their official management
    structure would remain unchanged and that supervisory actions such as
    performance evaluations would continue to be performed by their current
    supervisor. This direction has not changed. Communications between the
    Acting Director of Project Management and the management of the
    impacted employees are continuous in an attempt to minimize confusion
    and disruption to the staff. It is acknowledged that implementation of
    the pilot organization will eliminate any perceptions of a ``dual''
    reporting structure for the employee.
                               perimeter security
        Question. Approximately $120 million has been appropriated for
    perimeter security since 1999. I understand on the Senate side, the
    work is at least a year behind the schedule that we were given last
    year, with completion now planned for fall of 2007. Why has it slipped
    by a year? Will additional funds be required to complete the overall
    perimeter security work around the Capitol complex? How much and when
    is it needed?
        Answer. Work was prioritized to complete those items necessary for
    the Inauguration. Completion of all remaining work presently funded is
    scheduled for fall of 2006, with the exception of First St., N.E.,
    which will be complete in fall of 2007 and Maryland Avenue, N.E., which
    will be complete the fall of 2008. Additional funding will be required
    for the completion of perimeter security for the Capitol Complex. The
    total amount and date required, is needed as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Funding
               Jurisdiction                Required         Date Required
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Office Buildings...........      $5,985,000  2007 Budget
    House Office Buildings............       4,319,000  August 2005
    Supreme Court.....................       2,885,000  2007 Budget
    Library of Congress (Phase 1).....       5,637,000  June 2005
    Capitol Square \1\................       8,200,000  June 2005
                                       -------------------------------------
          TOTAL.......................      27,026,000  ....................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Supplemental.

                 master plan and facility condition assessment
        Question. In July 2001, this Committee directed AOC to develop a
    master plan for the Capitol complex since the existing master plan is
    25 years old. What is the status of the master plan? AOC has also been
    working to develop condition assessments for each of the buildings.
    What is the status of that effort and what are the most significant
    capital requirements should we expect over the next 5 years?
        Answer. In August 2004, a contract was awarded to a consulting team
    to undertake development of the Capitol Complex Master Plan. In
    December, a draft Vision Statement for the plan was completed and
    reviewed by an Expert Advisory Panel through meetings convened by the
    National Academies of Science and Engineering. Based on that meeting,
    the consultants moved forward with the development of various complex-
    wide concept plans. A second meeting with the Expert Advisory Panel was
    convened by the National Academies during the week of March 7, 2005 for
    the purpose of reviewing the various concept plans. We are now entering
    the stage where more detailed facility plans are developed for each
    jurisdiction. This will involve extensive interaction and consultations
    so as to accommodate each jurisdiction's facility needs within an
    overall Concept Plan for the Capitol Complex. The Capitol Complex
    Master Plan initiative is on schedule for completion in late 2006, and
    remains within budget.
        Contracts for Facility Condition Assessments (FCAs) for the Capitol
    Building, House and Senate were completed in early 2005. Projects
    identified as a result of these studies will begin to appear with the
    AOC's submission of its fiscal year 2007 Budget Request. FCAs for all
    other jurisdictions, except for the Library of Congress, are ongoing
    with completion of the House, Senate, and Capitol scheduled for
    completion Spring 2005 and the remaining jurisdictions are scheduled
    for late 2005. Funding for the Library of Congress FCA was requested in
    the AOC's fiscal year 2006 Budget Submission and, subject to the
    receipt of funding, would start in the fall of 2005.
        Capital Projects are classified as one of four types with Deferred
    Maintenance (DM), Capital Improvement (CI), and Capital Renewal (CR)
    identified primarily through FCAs while Capital Construction (CC),
    which is new construction of a building or construction that enlarges
    and existing facility, identified primarily through the Capitol Complex
    Master Plan. Because the Capitol Complex Master Plan is ongoing, and
    because 7 of the 10 jurisdictions do not yet have completed Facility
    Condition Assessments, it will be 2 to 3 years before a comprehensive
    and complete list of Major Capital Projects, defined as those over $10
    million, will be available. In the interim, and based only on the three
    FCAs completed to date, the following Major Capital Projects, have been
    identified:

                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      PROJ NO          PROJECT TITLE          COST RANGE         TYPE
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      HB05004A Cable TV System Upgrade,         $10-20  CI
                Phase I, HOB
        950042 Infrastructure                    10-20  CI
                Improvements, Phase I,
                DSOB
      SB05004A Cable TV System Upgrade,          10-20  CI
                Phase I, SOB
        000228 Fire Damper Installation,         10-15  CI
                FHOB, RHOB & LHOB
        990347 480V Switchgear and               10-20  CR
                Transformer Replacements,
                RHOB
       900265H Dome Rehabilitation, Phase        50-60  CR
                II, USC
        970280 Interior Renovations, HUGE        40-50  DM
                & HUGW
        970279 Domestic Hot and Cold             10-25  DM
                Water System Replacement,
                RHOB
        990364 Exterior Stone and Metal          30-50  DM
                Preservation, USC
        970351 Subway Upgrade, RSOB to           10-25  CI
                Capitol, RSOB
        030335 Emergency Evacuation and          10-25  CI
                Notification System
                Upgrade, USC
        990401 Window Restoration and            10-20  CR
                Replacement, USC
        970278 Heating System Conversion--       10-20  CR
                Steam to Hot Water, LHOB
        980298 House Chamber Renovation,         25-50  CR
                USC
        980050 HVAC System Upgrade, Phase        20-30  CR
                1, HOB
        980433 Garage Concrete                   20-40  DM
                Replacement , RHOB
        990402 Sprinkler System                  40-50  CI
                Installation, USC
       040234F Fire Alarm System Upgrade,        20-30  CI
                RHOB
        030320 Fire Damper Installation,         20-30  CI
                DSOB
        030319 Smoke Management System           20-30  CI
                Installation, HSOB
       030309B Enhanced Filtration for           70-90  CI
                Air Handling Systems,
                DSOB
       030309B Enhanced Filtration for           60-80  CI
                Air Handling Systems,
                RSOB
       030309B Enhanced Filtration for           30-40  CI
                Air Handling Systems,
                HSOB
       030309A Enhanced Filtration for           30-40  CI
                Air Handling Systems,
                LHOB
       030309A Enhanced Filtration for           25-35  CI
                AC1-15 & AC22-25, CHOB
       030309A Enhanced Filtration for           10-20  CI
                Air Handling Systems,
                FHOB
        000299 Smoke Management System           20-40  CI
                Installation, RSOB
        980050 HVAC System Upgrade, Phase        20-30  CR
                2, HOB
        030004 Parking Garage, Lot 9,            30-40  CC
                RHOB
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              capitol power plant
        Question. GAO recently made recommendations to cut operating costs
    at the Power Plant. Do you have any plans to implement these
    recommendations in fiscal year 2006? How much funding might be saved by
    proceeding with GAO's recommendations?
        Answer. The start-up, testing, and post construction activities for
    the expansion of the West Refrigeration Plant and the new plant central
    control system will commence in the 1st quarter of fiscal year 2006 and
    tentatively complete in the 3rd quarter. Due to the nature of these
    manpower intensive activities, it is unlikely that we will implement
    manpower changes until fiscal year 2007. The major cost saving
    recommendation for the efficient use of fuel has been implemented and
    we expect to save approximately $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2006.
                         fire and life safety projects
        Question. AOC has been provided close to $190 million in the past 5
    years for fire and life safety projects to ensure the buildings in the
    Capitol complex meet appropriate codes and standards. How much more
    needs to be done and at what cost? What is the schedule for completion
    of all fire and life-safety related projects?
        Answer. Considerable improvements in Fire Protection and Life
    Safety of the buildings in the Capitol complex have been completed and
    implementation of others continue throughout the complex. As shown in
    the Capital Improvements Plan there are numerous additional projects
    including fire alarm, smoke detector and fire sprinkler upgrades,
    emergency lighting and exit light upgrades, firefighter telephone
    installations, audibility and intelligibility upgrades, kitchen exhaust
    system upgrades, and egress improvements which remain to be completed.
    For fiscal year 2006 there are nine projects totaling $24,850,000. The
    total projected cost for projects included in fiscal year 2007 through
    fiscal year 2010 in the CIP ranges from $264 million to $499 million.
    It will take approximately 8 years to complete all currently defined
    projects. In addition, there are several egress studies and designs
    which will be completed in fiscal year 2007 for which cost and schedule
    projections cannot be made at this time.
                   capitol police off-site delivery facility
        Question. The pending supplemental appropriations bill in the
    Senate includes $23 million as requested by the Capitol Police Board
    for a new off-site delivery facility for the police. This project was
    first identified as a ``top 5 priority'' in the Capitol Police 1999
    Master Plan, yet the project has been very slow to gain momentum. It is
    now urgent with the new baseball stadium forcing USCP out of the
    current space within the year. Can you assure us that you will make
    this project a very high priority and obligate funds this fiscal year?
        Answer. The safety and well-being of those who work in and visit
    the Capitol and the ability to facilitate the legislative process are
    our top priorities. To ensure we achieve these objectives, all items,
    for use in the Capitol complex undergo an inspection process prior to
    entering the Capitol perimeter. Having an acceptable Capitol Police
    Off-site Delivery Facility is critical to the entire community and our
    goal is to obligate the funds this fiscal year.
                           fort meade storage modules
        Question. The budget includes $41 million for the construction of
    two additional storage modules for the Library of Congress at Fort
    Meade, MD. Could you explain the status of construction of the first
    and second modules at Fort Meade? I understand this is a long-term
    project, with many more modules to be constructed to meet the Library's
    storage needs. What is the total cost and timeframe for the Fort Meade
    storage modules project?
        Answer. The first Book Storage Module is complete and the building
    is occupied. The second Book Storage Module is 98 percent complete and
    should be occupied by the latter part of May, 2005. The Library of
    Congress currently plans to design and contract a total of 13 High
    Density Book Storage Module at Fort Meade. If Modules 3 and 4 are
    appropriated in fiscal year 2006, the Library of Congress desires to
    construct a new Book Storage Module every two years. At this pace, the
    thirteenth module will be complete and ready for use in 2026. The total
    cost in current year dollars, excluding design fees, is expected to be
    as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Book Storage Module 1...................................      $3,500,000
    Water Tank..............................................       4,100,000
    Book Storage Module 2...................................       9,500,000
    Book Storage Modules 3 & 4..............................      40,700,000
    Supporting Infrastructure...............................  \1\ 20,000,000
    Book Storage Module 5...................................      11,000,000
    Book Storage Modules 6-13 ($11,000,000 each)............      88,000,000
                                                             ---------------
          TOTAL.............................................     176,800,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ To be split among all projects.

                                 privatization
        Question. I understand GAO has been asked to look at whether
    privatizing any AOC functions would make sense. Do you have any
    suggestions as to whether consideration ought to be given to
    contracting-out any of AOC's in-house functions?
        Answer. We have been and will continue to look for areas that may
    be appropriate for consideration. We have outsourced a number of areas
    including trash and waste removal; shuttle bus service; pest control;
    some janitorial functions; a variety of A/E support functions;
    information resources help desk operation and most of IRM's server
    support; lawn mowing and snow removal; several audit and accounting
    functions; art work conservation; emergency elevator repair; equipment
    repair and maintenance (fork lifts, floor machines); kitchen exhaust
    hood/duct inspection, testing and cleaning; testing, inspection and
    certification of elevators; testing and certification of fire alarm
    systems; testing and certification of fire extinguishers; and window
    cleaning. We are considering options to outsource facilities management
    of the ACF (assuming purchase) and for Capitol Police Buildings and
    Grounds; and outsourcing of replacement of high efficiency HVAC
    filters.
                             gao management review
        Question. What is the status of AOC meeting GAO's recommendations
    from its 2003 review of the AOC relative to financial management
    improvements, including preparing auditable financial statements? What
    remains to be done in the financial management area? Are the resources,
    including staffing levels, in your budget request adequate to meet
    these requirements?
        Answer. August 2004 report (GAO-04-966) says the following in
    relation to Auditable Financial Statement and Related Internal
    Controls: ``The ability to prepare agencywide financial statements
    that, along with related internal controls, can be independently
    audited represents a key component of an organization's ability to
    institutionalize financial management best practices and establish a
    sound foundation of accountability and control. AOC has made progress
    in preparing agencywide financial statements; supporting an audit of
    its September 30, 2003, balance sheet; and establishing related
    internal control policies and procedures. As part of its efforts to
    prepare agencywide financial statements, AOC put in place internal
    control policies and procedures related to funds control, financial
    reporting, and inventory management, and is starting work on other
    actions to further enhance financial control and accountability.''
        Question. How has AOC improved its internal control framework,
    including establishing an environment in which management and employees
    maintain a positive and supportive attitude toward internal controls
    and conscientious management (see p. 41 of GAO/03/231)?
        Answer. For the past two years as a part of our financial audit,
    our auditors have conducted a review of internal controls. All of their
    stated concerns have either been addressed or are being addressed. We
    are in the process of establishing an Internal Control Program. This
    program will assist us in establishing an ``accountability'' framework
    that will include training of all management employees on their
    responsibilities with respect to internal controls.
        Question. What has AOC done to develop and communicate consistent
    human capital policies and procedures at all levels (p. 43 GAO/03/231),
    including provision of pay raises, bonuses, and awards?
        Answer. As part of its Human Capital Plan, AOC has continued to re-
    write policies that need revision, or write new AOC wide policies that
    didn't previously exist. Listed below by fiscal year are the policies
    in supervisor's offices and available on AOC's intranet. For policies
    that have a direct impact on employees, hard copies are distributed to
    every AOC employee. To facilitate understanding of some policies,
    briefings are given to supervisors and/or employees where they are
    given an opportunity to ask questions. In addition, supervisors and
    managers use a variety of methods to communicate policies to their
    employees. As part of reviewing the focus group result findings, AOC
    management is currently considering other measures that should be
    taken.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Date
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 2003:
        Determining Eligibility for Sunday   6/15/03
         Premium Pay.
        Performance Review Plan for Exempt   7/1/03
         Personnel.
        Hours of Duty......................  9/2/03
    Fiscal Year 2004:
        Holiday Pay........................  11/21/03
        Absence and Leave..................  12/5/03
        Awards.............................  12/19/03
        Leadership Development Program.....  6/14/04
        Clearance of Separating Employees..  7/19/04
    Fiscal Year 2005:
        Avenues for Assistance.............  10/04
        Pay Under the Architect's Wage       3/1/05
         System.
        Career Staffing....................  Completed, awaiting approval
        Performance Communication and        Completed, awaiting approval
         Evaluation System.
    Currently under development:
        Pay Under the General Schedule.....
        Employee Development...............
        Exempt Personnel...................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Why did it take AOC 18 months from the time the GAO's
    report was issues, to initiate an employee survey, to begin to address
    GAO's recommendation to comprehensively collect and analyze data from
    employee relations groups?
        Answer. GAO made the following recommendation in their January 2004
    report ``Gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or
    surveys before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is
    taking actions to address any identified employee concerns.'' The AOC
    addressed this recommendation in September 2004 by conducting employee
    focus groups. This was completed ahead of the GAO recommended date and
    in line with our Performance Plan.
                             capitol visitor center
        Question. Several changes to the CVC contract appear to be due to a
    simple lack of coordination with both internal officials, such as the
    fire marshal, and other organizations including the Supreme Court. Why
    did this happen and what are you doing to prevent this in the future?
        Answer. Several changes such as stair pressurization and fire
    damper monitoring are a result of professional disagreements between
    the Fire Marshal and the designer of life safety systems for the CVC.
    The uniqueness of a below grade building and inherent conflicts between
    the desire for increased security and the often inflexible nature of
    building code contributes to areas of disagreement on how to best
    handle life safety issues. These differences came about during normal
    review of building life safety systems as the details were developed.
        The Supreme Court issue you are referring to is the requirement
    that the book tunnel between the Supreme Court and Library of Congress
    be undisturbed when the utility tunnel is constructed. Apparently the
    construction sequence requiring removal of the book tunnel for
    excavation of the utility tunnel and subsequent rebuilding was not
    known to Supreme Court security personnel, and could not be
    accommodated. We are proceeding to build the utility tunnel up to the
    book tunnel on both sides with minimal impact to the utility tunnel
    construction.
        Question. Why was the Government responsible for all of the CVC
    Sequence 1 delay when monthly CVC progress reports indicated that the
    Sequence 1 contractor was not devoting sufficient resources to keep the
    project on schedule?
        Answer. The CVC contract requires the government to compensate the
    contractor in time and money for delays cause by differing site
    conditions or owner changes that delay his work. Weather delay is
    compensable only with time. During negotiation with the Sequence 1
    contractor and all of the subcontractors, a portion of the delay was
    attributed to weather. However, most of the delay was due to differing
    site conditions and changes to the Sequence 1 contract for added scope.
    These problems created inefficiencies that kept the Sequence 1
    contractor from fully staffing the project while awaiting direction on
    corrective action.
        Question. GAO's risk-based cost and schedule estimates for the CVC
    to date have been much more accurate than the AOC's or that of their
    construction management firm. What is AOC doing to integrate risk
    assessment in its future estimates?
        Answer. The estimates prepared by AOC and our construction manager
    have been based on what was known at the time. We did not ask for
    additional funding beyond the needs that could be identified. The delay
    costs for Sequence 1 in Spring 2003 were based on the delay of a couple
    of months that had occurred to date, and did not contemplate an
    additional eight and a half months of delay to Sequence 1 that
    followed. There was also an expectation at that time that the delay
    impact on commencing Sequence 2 work would be minimal since it was felt
    the two contracts could be overlapped to make up most of the two month
    delay.
        Today the risk is reduced to the delay in award of the Expansion
    space contract, the Exhibit construction contract, the House Connector
    tunnel and the Jefferson Building work. Had these contracts been
    awarded in February or March 2005, the risk would be minimal; however
    with the current delay in awarding those contracts, the impact is
    uncertain. The risk of differing site conditions remains for the House
    Connector tunnel and Jefferson Building.
                            organizational structure
        Question. What steps is AOC taking to address concerns raised by
    the Comptroller General regarding AOC's organizational structure, in
    response to a letter (2/8/05) from the Architect seeking the CG's
    comments? Will AOC enable the CVC Project Director to report directly
    to the Architect?
        Answer. We developed and submitted for your information a revised
    organizational structure incorporating most of GAO's recommendations
    after follow up discussions with the Comptroller General. The CVC
    director reports directly to the Architect.
                     capitol visitor center utility tunnel
        Question. According to GAO, over $1 million in additional costs was
    incurred due to AOC's indecision on how to construct the utility
    tunnel. Why did this happen?
        Answer. The utility tunnel work in the Sequence 1 contract did not
    include new requirements by WASA for the tie-in of utilities at Second
    Street that was estimated to cost approximately $1 million. In order to
    reduce the cost for this work, a Bulletin G was created by the
    Architect to use precast concrete sections in lieu of poured in place
    concrete. Pricing received for Bulletin G was not as good as expected
    so other alternatives such as drilling, use of utility trench or direct
    burial were investigated. Ultimately, the Bulletin G scope of work was
    determined to be the best value to the government for first cost and
    long term maintenance. Pricing was available from both Sequence 1 and
    Sequence 2 for the work, and since Sequence 1 was nearly finished with
    their work and Sequence 2 was slightly lower in cost, the decision was
    made to award work to Sequence 2. During the period of tunnel
    evaluation, the cost of steel pipe and other metals, which were always
    in Sequence 2, went up significantly in cost. The Sequence 2 contractor
    could not order this material until a decision was made on the tunnel
    configuration, since that could affect the pipe required. The added
    cost for Sequence 2 materials escalation is $1 million.
                      capitol visitor center construction
        Question. In November 2004, GAO recommended AOC use incentives to
    keep CVC contractors on schedule, and rigorously track, document, and
    analyze the reasons for delays. What specific steps have you taken to
    implement these recommendations? The fiscal year 2006 budget request
    includes $36 million to complete the CVC. Are you confident this will
    be sufficient? Does this leave you with sufficient contingency? What
    steps are you taking to ensure the project stays within this new budget
    of $517 million? You say that delays in the job were due in part to a
    record year of bad weather--Why wasn't weather listed as one of the
    reasons for delay when the change order was settled?
        Answer. The Sequence 2 contract has an award fee of $1.2 million
    available to the contractor that is used as a positive incentive for
    good contractor performance including timely completion. The first
    portion of that award for $150,000 is currently being evaluated. The
    Sequence 2 contractor's schedule is being evaluated monthly to resolve
    any delay issues and track their progress against the schedule. In
    addition, the construction manager has developed a more integrated
    Master Schedule for the project that includes all those activities in
    addition to construction that are required to complete the CVC facility
    for opening. To date, aside from the 10 month delay for Sequence 1 to
    complete their work and allow Sequence 2 to begin, there have been no
    delays in the Sequence 2 contract. We believe the $36.9 million
    requested in fiscal year 2006, together with the reprogramming request
    of $26.3 million in fiscal year 2005, provides sufficient funds and
    contingency to complete the project, providing those funds are forth
    coming to avoid delays in Sequence 2 for award of contracts such as
    Exhibit construction and House and Senate Expansion space. This also
    assumes our estimate of $15 million is adequate to cover the 10 month
    delay for Sequence 2 to commence work while awaiting the completion of
    Sequence 1 work, that there are no significant added costs for the
    House Connector tunnel and no significant owner changes to the current
    project including the Jefferson Building work, the Expansion spaces or
    the CVC.
        Unusually severe weather is excusable time, but not compensable.
    Total delay was 235 working days. The sequence 1 contractor was
    compensated for a maximum of 217 days. (Some subcontractors experienced
    a greater weather impact than others, and their settlements were based
    on a lower number of compensable days).
        Question. Has AOC formally evaluated the performance of its CVC
    construction management firm? If not, why not? If so, when and with
    what results? What incentives or penalties are provided in their
    contract for performance?
        Answer. We have evaluated the construction managers' performance
    twice to date, in August 2004 and February 2005. The result indicated
    improvement was needed in schedule management, dispute resolution, and
    the preparation of change order packages. Since their last evaluation
    significant improvements have been made in dispute resolution and
    change order preparation, with schedule management currently being
    addressed. Their contract does not provide for either incentives or
    penalties, which has been normal for this type contract.
                               project management
        Question. AOC does not maintain consistent baseline data in its
    Project Information Center to track changes to project costs and
    schedules. What progress have you made developing information systems
    that quickly collect and roll up information on all ongoing capital
    projects to senior management and congressional committees? What still
    needs to be done?
        Answer. One of the greatest challenges the AOC has faced is how to
    satisfy the many demands to report project status both internally and
    externally. Each entity wants to know basically the same things: is a
    project within budget, is it on time, and will it meet the customer's
    needs? The challenge in the past has been that the various entities
    have asked for project performance indicators in many different ways.
    In the attempt to satisfy the many different but similar questions, the
    AOC has not done as good a job as it could have.
        In September 2004, when the pilot organization was initiated,
    project reporting through PIC was suspended pursuant to senior
    management's interest in reporting on contract status in lieu of
    project status. A manually-produced report was developed that clearly
    indicated contract status, and the data could easily be verified by
    comparison to financial and procurement documents. These so-called COTR
    reports have been kept internally for six months.
        Over the past few months, the AOC has been working closely with the
    Government Accountability Office during the current cycle of its
    General Management Review. The GAO had asked that the AOC provide yet
    another series of project performance indicators. On a parallel path,
    the AOC project management team had been developing a report format
    that would answer recurring questions asked over the past several
    years, as well as satisfy a requirement to report project status on a
    quarterly basis. The report format uses project performance indicators
    based on verifiable contract and financial data, but also includes a
    text status. The format has been reviewed by some of the
    Superintendents, who have given it favorable comments related to its
    ability to accurately portray project status. Together, the AOC and the
    GAO are working to assure that this format, along with definitions,
    will satisfy project reporting requirements. The AOC's published a
    manually produced version of this report at the end of March 2005.
    Feedback will be gathered before any attempt is made to make changes in
    PIC to produce the report from an automated system.
        Question. How will the new (pilot) project management organization
    improve your ability to manage projects? How will you determine if this
    new organization is a success?
        Answer. The pilot organization has established clear performance
    expectations for delivering high quality design and construction
    projects on time and within budget. Now that the project and
    construction management functions reside, for the first time, within
    the same organization, these expectations can be managed by recognizing
    success and poor performance. Internally, the AOC has developed
    customer satisfaction surveys to measure performance as viewed by the
    jurisdictions. External customer satisfaction feedback will be sought
    in the future.
        In its transitional state, only a few projects funded in fiscal
    year 2005 have begun the construction phase with the benefits of better
    planning and scope development. As the organization matures and
    delivers more design and construction projects, performance results are
    anticipated to improve.
        Question. You recently released to employees a set of manuals
    containing project management best practices that are to be followed.
    How will you ensure that AOC employees actually follow those best
    practices?
        Answer. Key components of the best practices manual processes are
    summarized in checklists that accompany project development through its
    scope development, design, construction, and closeout phases. These
    checklists serve as quick references to assure adherence to critical
    processes. Projects without completed checklists are not permitted to
    proceed without a senior level exemption being granted. However, due to
    the significant competition for funding resources, project managers and
    their clients, the Superintendents, are increasingly rigorous in
    developing project data to satisfy justification requirements. Project
    managers who utilize the manuals will be successful in completing their
    checklists.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
                             organizational issues
        Question. In February, ``The Hill'' newspaper published an article
    entitled ``Fear and Loathing at AOC'', which reported on the results of
    a recent AOC employee feedback survey. According to the article, the
    survey showed that senior management at AOC is dysfunctional,
    inconsistent, and lacks leadership qualities. It also reiterated some
    long-standing issues at AOC, such as poor communications and very low
    morale. Why do these issues still persist? What actions are you taking
    to respond to employee concerns?
        Answer. The article stems from an initiative we took to solicit
    employee feedback to identify specific areas for improvement.
        In September we asked over 300 employees, from all organizations,
    divisions, levels, and shifts, to partake in 25 focus groups. The
    purpose of holding the focus groups was specifically to get employee
    feedback on areas for improvement. The participation and the outcome
    were beyond our expectations: 215 employees shared their opinions on
    our way of doing business. We also obtained very good feedback on
    opportunities for improvement.
        In addition to these focus groups, the Human Resources Management
    Division (HRMD) invited employees to share their opinions in a customer
    satisfaction survey in October. The questions focused on the services
    HRMD provides and how well they deliver those services. The findings
    from the HRMD survey were compiled and validated against the issues
    raised during the focus groups. This process took some time in that
    both electronic and paper copies of the survey had to be processed and
    analyzed. By coupling this information, the senior management team had
    a broader cross-section of employees' views, opinions, and suggestions
    to evaluate.
        Through our employees active participation in this feedback-
    gathering process we identified the following areas where we need to do
    a better job:
      --Communicating (provide clearer, easier-to-understand information,
            obtain more employee input, explain work processes, policies,
            procedures, publish an organizational chart);
      --Providing clearer direction (explain internal procedures and
            policies including job expectations, manage shifting
            priorities, coordinate assignments, set service standards);
      --Recognizing employee accomplishments (more acknowledgment of
            individual accomplishments by senior managers, use of awards);
      --Explaining our Mission and Vision;
      --Outlining customer service expectations (define the standards for
            excellence, hold internal organizations accountable for quality
            service, clearly communicate standards); and
      --Setting Agency standards that provide responsive customer support
            to meet AOC employee needs from HR, Procurement, EEO and other
            service organizations.
        Based on the information and feedback received, we have created
    eight cross-jurisdictional work teams that are taking each of the areas
    identified for improvement and they are developing action plans to
    address them as expeditiously as possible.
                             capitol visitor center
        Question. What do you expect the final cost of the CVC to be? What
    do you see as the major reasons for cost increases in this project and
    what are you doing to control costs during the remainder of the
    project?
        Answer. We expect the final cost for the construction of the CVC
    facility to be $517.6 million. The major reason for the cost increase
    to date is the addition of $141.8 million in budgeted added scope, and
    $29.1 million in delay costs due to the added scope and differing site
    conditions. Sequence 1 delay costs totaled $10.3 million, and $18.5
    million is expected to be required to fund Sequence 2 costs as a
    consequence of the 10 month delay while Sequence 2 waited for Sequence
    1 to complete their work. Controlling costs for the remainder of the
    project requires that there be no significant changes to the contract
    and Expansion space, no significant differing site conditions in the
    House Connector tunnel or Jefferson Building work, and timely release
    of the project funding so contracts can be awarded and change orders
    processed.
        Question. Without additional appropriations, when will the CVC
    project run out of money?
        Answer. The CVC project has 24 line items. We are already out of
    funding for the item to fund change orders for the Sequence 2 contract
    and will be out of authority for funding CVC Administration in mid May
    2005. Until we receive additional funding we cannot award the House and
    Senate Expansion space. We have funding available in other line items,
    but those funds are required for construction of the Exhibit area, $6.6
    million; security equipment, $4 million; perimeter security, $2
    million; House Connector tunnel, $2.5 million; and Jefferson Building
    work, $3.3 million.
        Question. GAO's risk-based cost and schedule estimates have been
    much more accurate that the AOC's or their construction management
    firm. What is AOC doing to integrate risk assessment in its future
    estimates?
        Answer. The risks remaining on the CVC project relate primarily to
    our complicated building systems, and those elements of work not yet
    under contract which includes the House Connector tunnel, the House and
    Senate Expansion space, and the Jefferson Building work. The systems
    include the filtration system since it involves a new technology, and a
    very complicated fire safety and smoke evacuation system. To minimize
    the above risk the entire team, including subcontractors, is working to
    ensure we understand all of the issues required to complete and turn
    over these systems.
        Question. According to GAO, over $1 million in additional costs was
    incurred due to AOC's indecision on how to construct the Utility
    tunnel. Why did this happen?
        Answer. The utility tunnel work in the Sequence 1 contract did not
    include new requirements by WASA for the tie-in of utilities at Second
    Street that was estimated to cost approximately $1 million. In order to
    reduce the cost for this work, a Bulletin G was created by the
    Architect to use precast concrete sections in lieu of poured in place
    concrete. Pricing received for Bulletin G was not as good as expected
    so other alternatives such as drilling, use of utility trench or direct
    burial were investigated. Ultimately, the Bulletin G scope of work was
    determined to be the best value to the government for first cost and
    long term maintenance. Pricing was available from both Sequence 1 and
    Sequence 2 for the work, and since Sequence 1 was nearly finished with
    their work and Sequence 2 was slightly lower in cost, the decision was
    made to award work to Sequence 2. During the period of tunnel
    evaluation, the cost of steel pipe and other metals, which were always
    in Sequence 2, went up significantly in cost. The Sequence 2 contractor
    could not order this material until a decision was made on the tunnel
    configuration, since that could affect the pipe required. The added
    cost for Sequence 2 materials escalation is $1 million.
        Question. When can we expect the CVC to be open to the public and
    will the Senate expansion space be ready for use at the same time? What
    are the liquidated damages for the CVC and are they the same for
    completion of the Senate expansion space?
        Answer. We expect the CVC portion of the project to be available
    for public use in September 2006. The Senate space will probably not be
    ready, especially since we still do not yet have the funding approved
    to make the award of the contract. The liquidated damages on the CVC
    are $16,000 a day and the liquidated damages for the House and Senate
    Expansion Space work is $4,750 per day.
        Question. Considering that the CVC will most likely not open until
    fiscal year 2007, why have you asked for so much in your fiscal year
    2006 operations budget for the CVC? Additionally, why have you
    requested so many FTE's?
        Answer. The operations and maintenance costs included in my fiscal
    year 2006 budget request were based on a June timeframe as opposed to
    September opening date. It is estimated that the costs for operations
    and maintenance will be $10.4 million rather than $15.3 million as
    originally requested. I have included these requirements in the AOC
    budget submission until a determination is made on who will have
    oversight of the facility. An additional $20 million was included for
    start-up and opening costs for gift shops, Visitor Center services,
    Capitol police furniture, fixtures and equipment, House recording
    studio, data network wiring and equipping of the House shell space.
    Since the House shell space estimate was also included in the fiscal
    year 2006 Budget request of the Chief Administrative Officer of the
    House, this request can be reduced to $9.1 million for this portion of
    the budget. As a result of the September opening date, the payroll
    estimate can be revised from $12 million to $7 million with an
    associated reduction in FTEs.
        Question. In November 2004, when GAO presented its most recent
    estimate of the cost to complete the project, it recommended that you
    immediately enhance the CVC project team's schedule management
    capacity, use incentives and other means to keep contractors on
    schedule, and rigorously track, document, and analyze the reasons for
    delays. What specific steps have you taken to implement these
    recommendations?
        Answer. The Construction Manager contracted with a scheduling
    consultant to help their field staff in schedule management. In
    addition, we have contracted with the firm that prepared the ``Cost to
    Complete'' in 2004 to review those efforts and offer recommendations.
    To date those efforts still require improvement and a senior official
    has assumed those responsibilities.
        We currently have a $1.2 million award fee that is used as an
    incentive for outstanding performance by the Sequence 2 construction
    contractor.
        Question. Who was responsible for ensuring that adequate contract
    and project summary schedules were developed, kept current, and adhered
    to and for documenting delays and their causes as they occurred? How
    well in your view, was this done over the course of the project?
        Answer. The construction manager has responsibility for ensuring
    that adequate contract and project summary schedules were developed,
    kept current, and adhered to as well as documenting delays and their
    causes as they occurred. That work has been marginal to date, and they
    are changing the personnel responsible for that effort to a senior
    official on site.
        Question. How much has AOC paid Gilbane to manage the CVC
    construction work and how well has Gilbane performed? Has AOC formally
    evaluated Gilbane's performance? If so, when and what were the results?
    If not, why not? What incentives or penalties are provided for in
    Gilbane's contract for performance?
        Answer. Gilbane's contract for construction management for the CVC
    portion totals $15.5 million. Payments to date total $12,772,847. We
    have evaluated the construction managers' performance twice to date, in
    August 2004 and February 2005. The results indicated improvement was
    needed in schedule management, dispute resolution, and the preparation
    of change order packages. Since their last evaluation significant
    improvements have been made in dispute resolution and change order
    preparation, with schedule management currently being addressed. Their
    contract does not provide for either incentives or penalties, which has
    been normal for this type contract.
        Question. In view of the cost and completion increases for this
    project, what incentives are there for your various consultants to
    control these items?
        Answer. The design and construction manager consultants' primarily
    incentive is the reputation they receive on projects such as this one.
    They are very concerned that this project be viewed in the end as a
    success, and that they personally are viewed as having successfully
    overcome huge scope additions and differing site conditions to complete
    the project in a timely and cost effective manner, in spite of the
    challenges imposed upon them.
        Question. What is the overall status of AOC's efforts to correct
    the internal control weaknesses reported from the fiscal year 2003
    audit?
        Answer. The AOC has approved a policy to establish an Internal
    Control program modeled after the program at the Library of Congress.
    It has been modified to comply with the intent of the Sarbanes Oxley
    Act of 2002 and OMB Circular A-123. Development of the policy is
    partially complete with a target implementation date of September 30,
    2005. The program's development is currently being handled by
    contractors. The program will require additional resources for its
    implementation.
        Question. When does the AOC expect the fiscal year 2004 audit to be
    completed?
        Answer. All field work has been completed. The final requirement to
    complete the audit is for AOC management to sign representation letters
    which we are in the process of accomplishing.
        Question. Could the AOC provide a copy of the fiscal year 2004
    audit report to this committee as soon as they receive it from their
    auditors?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Is the AOC expecting any new, significant internal
    control findings from the 2004 audit?
        Answer. The auditors have not yet provided us with a ranking of the
    audit findings as to significance. The answer though is clear, there
    are significant findings. The audit found 15 new findings not all of
    which were material. There were also 6 repeat findings from the
    previous year. Most of the significant internal controls findings were
    weaknesses in the Payroll, Personnel and Procurement areas.
        Question. The proposed AOC organization chart dated December 2004
    shows the Project Executive for the CVC directly reporting to the
    Architect of the Capitol. Has this reorganization taken place?
        Answer. Reorganization proposal has been submitted for Committee
    review and we propose to implement in May. CVC Project Executive
    reports to the Architect of the Capitol.
        Question. The proposed AOC organization chart dated December 2004
    shows a Chief of Staff reporting directly to the Architect of the
    Capitol. What are the duties of the person in this position? Will there
    be any overlap in the duties of the Chief of Staff and the Chief
    Operating Officer?
        Answer. The Chief of Staff assists both the Architect and COO in a
    variety of agency outreach communication and Congressional support
    needs. With the COO's extensive internal operational functions, on a
    strategic as well as day to day basis, the support of the Chief of
    Staff allows the COO to concentrate more fully on these
    responsibilities. Following are the duties of the COO and Chief of
    Staff.
        Duties of the Chief Operating Officer/Deputy:
      --Responsible for reviewing and directing the operational functions
            of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol including:
            facilities operation and maintenance; safety; design,
            construction and project management; administration and
            modernization of information technology systems employed by the
            Office; productivity and cost-savings measures; strategic human
            capital management, including performance management and
            training and development initiatives; financial management,
            including the integration of operational functions and
            financial management to ensure that budgets, financial
            information, and systems support the required strategic and
            annual plans.
      --Serves as senior advisor to and representative of the Architect.
            The individual will provide advice and assistance on all
            aspects of the management and operations of the AOC; provides
            advice on all operational aspects of AOC business functions
            including facilities operation and maintenance; safety; design,
            construction and project management; procurement and
            contracting; budget and financial management; information
            technology; human resources, and other administrative
            management matters.
      --Assists the Architect in promoting reform and measuring results,
            and is responsible to the Architect of the Capitol for the
            direction, operation, and management of the Office of the
            Architect of the Capitol. Additionally, the individual is
            responsible for implementing the Office's mission and goals;
            and providing organization management to improve the Office's
            performance.
      --Responsible for developing, implementing, annually updating, and
            maintaining a long-term strategic plan covering a period of not
            less that 5 years.
      --Responsible for developing and implementing an annual performance
            plan that includes annual performance goals covering each of
            the general goals and objectives in the strategic plan and
            including to the extent practicable quantifiable performance
            measures for the annual goals.
      --Responsible for proposing organizational changes and new positions
            needed to carry out the Office of the Architect of the
            Capitol's mission and strategic and annual performance goal and
            will ensure that the AOC's organizational structure promotes
            efficiency and effectiveness.
        Duties of the Chief of Staff:
      --Assist the Architect and the COO in exploring and developing
            program and management ideas, evaluating problems and
            developing suggested course of action in program and policy
            development and evaluation; conducts research and provides data
            to assist the Architect and COO in their review and evaluation
            or program and policy proposals from staff, incorporates the
            perspective of Members and or Congressional staff in the
            evaluation of AOC programs, operations and policy.
      --Assists the Architect and the COO in day-to-day information
            management, priority initiatives, meetings and meeting
            information, and may represent the Architect or the COO in
            meetings with staff and stakeholders.
      --Manages legislative affairs; develops and nurtures relations with
            Members and staff; tracks legislative mandates; facilitates
            Congressional meetings for the Architect and COO; assists in
            leading AOC outreach to Congressional staff to help ensure that
            the Agency is addressing Congressional support needs.
      --Manages and coordinates Agency communications; assesses agency
            internal and external communications processes and develops
            appropriate improvement initiatives; develop proposals for
            communications alternatives to address Agency communications
            gaps or focused initiatives to meet identified needs.
                           procurement irregularities
        Question. Mr. Hantman, we understand in part from The Hill article
    titled ``Fear and Loathing at the AOC'' that your Focus Group findings
    noted the following customer service concerns with your entire
    Procurement Department:
      --Your process, roles, and responsibilities are either ill defined or
            not defined at all;
      --There is a general lack of understanding of the businesses they are
            procuring for; and
      --Procurement procedures are not applied consistently.
        We also understand that your fiscal year 2003 financial audit
    uncovered procurement irregularities at the CVC and in fiscal year 2004
    the auditors have found these same irregularities throughout the AOC.
        What steps have you taken to correct this serious situation of work
    being performed before a contract is awarded?
        Answer. In January 2004, the Procurement Division began requiring
    more information when an unauthorized procurement was discovered. This
    information includes a description and quantity of the unauthorized
    procurement, why it was needed, the benefit acquired, why a requisition
    was not prepared and a Contracting Officer allowed to place the order/
    contract, the circumstances that led to the unauthorized procurement,
    the name of the vendor used, the vendor's invoice, how the vendor was
    selected, the basis for determining if the price was fair and
    reasonable, other vendors and prices considered, the date the service
    or supply was received and requested by the Government, documentation
    from the Budget Office that funds are available if the unauthorized
    procurement utilized prior year funds, actions taken to prevent future
    unauthorized procurements, and an explanation why the unauthorized
    procurement should be ratified rather than holding the individual who
    made it personally responsible. At the same time, a Standard Operating
    Procedure was established in the Procurement Division to provide policy
    and guidance to Procurement Division staff when they discover an
    unauthorized procurement. On June 21, 2004, the Deputy Chief of Staff,
    issued a memorandum to all Superintendents and Division Directors
    stating that the practice of unauthorized commitments was unacceptable.
    On March 14, 2005, the Deputy Chief of Staff issued a second memorandum
    requiring that the Superintendents and Division Directors who had
    issued unauthorized procurements since June 2004 meet with the Deputy
    Chief of Staff and the Director, Procurement Division regarding this
    issue. On March 22, 2005, Architect of the Capitol Order 34-01-01
    Ratifications of Unauthorized Procurements was signed by the Deputy
    Chief of Staff to establish AOC-wide policy and underscore the
    importance of complying with procurement regulations and the
    ratification process.
        Question. What processes does your Procurement Department have to
    detect and prevent these situations from recurring in the future?
        Answer. As previously stated, several processes were put in place
    to address and prevent unauthorized procurements. The implementation of
    these processes began January 2004 and culminated on March 22, 2005
    with the Architect of the Capitol Order 34-01-01 Ratifications of
    Unauthorized Procurements.
        The Procurement Division typically detects unauthorized
    procurements in three manners. First, an AOC employee may contact the
    Procurement Division directly to discuss a possible unauthorized
    procurement. Second, a contractor may contact the Procurement Division
    to inquire about recent and/or on-going work, at which time it becomes
    apparent that an unauthorized procurement has occurred. Third, the
    Procurement Division recently teamed with the Accounting Division to
    establish a notification process when an invoice is received that
    predates the contract or order. In all three instances, the Procurement
    Division responds by investigating to determine if the occurrence is
    actually an unauthorized procurement. If it is, then the appropriate
    Jurisdiction/Organization's official is required to submit the
    information required by the ratification process.
        Question. In the last year, how many times did your Procurement
    Department discover this situation where a contractor performed work
    prior to a valid contract being awarded?
        Answer. During the time frame of April 1, 2004-April 30, 2005, the
    Procurement Division discovered 28 situations where a contractor
    performed work prior to a valid contract being awarded.
        Question. How many times was the responsible AOC employee required
    to submit a statement for contract ratification?
        Answer. In all 28 situations that were discovered, the responsible
    AOC employee was requested to provide a sufficient explanation to
    determine if a ratification would be issued.
        Question. Who is the ratifying official if not you and what steps
    do they take to ensure these serious irregularities are prevented in
    the future?
        Answer. The March 22, 2005, Architect of the Capitol Order 34-01-04
    Ratifications of Unauthorized Procurements specifies that the ratifying
    official is the Architect of the Capitol, the Chief Operating Officer,
    the Deputy Chief of Staff, or their designee.
                               personnel controls
        Question. Mr. Hantman, your employees in the Focus Group findings,
    and your auditor, in the two audits (fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
    2004) have identified numerous findings in the Personnel Office. The
    findings of the Focus Group and the auditor are similar in many ways,
    for example:
      --Focus Group--Employee questions receive either incorrect
            information or no information at all, answers depend on who you
            ask since not all staff is knowledgeable.
      --Audits--Information is not properly maintained for an employee,
            official personnel files are not up-to-date, information is
            routinely entered incorrectly into the payroll/personnel
            system, and no checking and verification is performed.
        What are you doing to address the numerous serious Focus Group and
    Audit findings?
        Answer. As a result of preliminary findings from the financial
    audit, Human Resources requested an expert assessment of our Payroll
    and Personnel processing by the National Finance Center (NFC). The
    assessment was completed in March 2005, and we expect a final report at
    the beginning of May. Although checking and verification is performed,
    we have determined that it needs to be accomplished earlier in the
    process to prevent errors, rather than discovering errors and
    correcting them. Based on preliminary findings from both the Audit and
    NFC assessment, a number of internal controls have been instituted. In
    addition, Human Resources is considering a consolidation of personnel
    processing functions to provide greater internal controls, but we will
    review NFC's assessment report and recommendations before a final
    decision is made.
        As part of AOC's Human Capital Plan, Workforce Management and Human
    Resources are working jointly to review AOC's Human Resources
    competency model, management will assess employee's using the model,
    and developmental needs will be addressed.
        Question. When your Personnel Office's processes and systems lack
    fundamental internal controls, you open your agency to waste or worse,
    to fraud. Have any overpayments been made to AOC employees or has any
    fraud in the payroll area been brought to your attention? If so, what
    corrective action have you taken?
        Answer. Incorrect payments have been made to employees through both
    corrections to time and attendance records, and corrections to
    personnel records. In cases of underpayment, the corrected action
    properly pays the employee. In the case of overpayments, we follow a
    systematic process to collect monies due from employees. Only one case
    of potential fraud was identified, and we are currently investigating
    the specific case, which involves two employees. The investigation is
    complete for one employee, and appropriate disciplinary action is being
    initiated. We are still reviewing additional records for the second
    employee, and appropriate disciplinary action will be initiated if
    warranted.
                          financial management reforms
        Question. In the Senate Report on Legislative Branch
    Appropriations, 2002, I specifically sought the urgent need for a Chief
    Financial Officer at the AOC to begin essential financial management
    reforms. From every GAO General Management Review progress report, I
    have been pleased to learn that substantial progress has been made.
        Mr. Hantman, can I expect your commitment to continue in this most
    important area?
        Answer. Yes. We are examining the resource needs of the CFO's
    organization to ensure the people, tools and skills necessary to
    continue this process are in place. I am communicating to every
    employee especially our management employees that sound financial
    management is everyone's responsibility not just the CFO's.
        Agency Heads in the Executive Branch are now required (similar to
    the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) to lead by example and assert that
    their fiscal year 2006 financial controls will result in timely,
    accurate, and useful financial and management information.
        Question. Mr. Hantman, if you had the same requirement, when would
    you be able to make this same assertion?
        Answer. Our Internal Control Program is scheduled to be in place by
    September 30, 2005. The reality is that I would like the program to
    have been in place for one year, fiscal year 2006, before we
    implemented full assertion as I understand is required now by OMB
    Circular A-123 for executive branch agencies. I recognize that this may
    impact our Audit results, but request time to allow our internal
    control program to mature.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Allard. I want to thank you for your testimony.
    And, with that, we'll recess the subcommittee. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., Wednesday, April 13, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2005

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:27 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Allard and Johnson.

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

    STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BILLINGTON, Ph.D., THE LIBRARIAN
                OF CONGRESS
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            GENERAL DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
            MARY BETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
            DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. The Legislative Subcommittee on
    Appropriations will come to order. We meet today to take
    testimony from the Librarian of Congress and the Comptroller
    General on the fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Library
    of Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). We
    will also receive testimony for the record on the Open World
    Leadership Program.
        I welcome our witnesses this morning. We will hear from Dr.
    James Billington, the Librarian, who is accompanied by General
    Donald Scott, the Deputy. We will hear from Dan Mulhollan,
    Director of the Congressional Research Service, Mary Beth
    Peters, Register of Copyrights, and many others.
        The Library will be followed by Mr. David Walker,
    Comptroller General, who is accompanied by Gene Dodaro, GAO's
    Chief Operating Officer; Sallyann Harper, the Chief
    Administrative Officer; and Stan Czerwinski, the Controller.
        The Library is requesting a budget of $628 million, 7
    percent above the fiscal year 2005 level. The amount requested
    would support 4,365 employees and would accommodate all
    anticipated pay and price level increases, as well as continue
    some ongoing projects, such as the copyright reengineering
    effort and the completion of the National Audiovisual
    Conservation Center.
        While the areas for which the Library has requested
    additional resources are important, it will be very difficult
    for this subcommittee to approve large increases since it is
    very unlikely the overall level of discretionary spending will
    even keep up with the rate of inflation.
        Following the Library, we will hear from Mr. Walker on the
    Government Accountability Office's budget request, which totals
    $493.5 million over the current year, an increase of 4 percent.
    GAO's request is one of the more conservative ones we have seen
    in the legislative branch this year and we appreciate the fact
    that you have attempted to restrain programmatic increases.
        The budget would provide for 3,215 staff and would
    accommodate normal pay and inflation-related increases. GAO has
    been involved in a number of legislative branch assignments
    over the past few years, helping to oversee the Capitol Visitor
    Center construction project, making recommendations on
    management improvements within the Architect of the Capitol,
    and tracking Capitol Police administrative reforms to name a
    few. We appreciate these efforts and believe they are resulting
    in improvements to legislative branch operations.
        One of my interests will be to continue and even accelerate
    efforts to hold legislative branch agencies to the highest
    standards of performance and accountability.
        Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize
    Stan Czerwinski, GAO's Controller. I was fortunate enough to
    work with Stan in his previous capacity as a managing director
    overseeing housing matters and I also found his insight
    helpful. I am looking forward to the opportunity of working
    with him once again as the legislative branch chairman.
    However, I understand that Stan will be going back to program
    work. While this is unfortunate for our work on this
    subcommittee, I look forward to regaining his expertise on
    program matters.
        Stan, thank you for your outstanding service as Controller.
        I would ask the witnesses to stick with the 5-minute rule.
    Go ahead and make your presentations so we will have plenty of
    time to get into questions and ask you questions that I may
    have or any member here of the subcommittee may have.
        So we will start this morning with Dr. Billington with the
    Library of Congress.

                       OPENING STATEMENT OF THE LIBRARIAN

        Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
    and an honor to come before you today and first of all to thank
    the Congress for being for more than two centuries the greatest
    single patron of a library in the history in the world. The
    Library that Congress has created is the world's largest
    collection of human knowledge and the principal source of
    research support for the Congress itself.
        You know that the Library receives books and other works
    submitted for copyright registration to the Copyright Office,
    thus preserving the immense ongoing record of American
    creativity. We also collect and preserve materials in 486
    languages from abroad, thus adding to the wide scope of
    knowledge available to our citizens. The ways in which we
    perform these vital services are changing rapidly in response
    to digital technologies, which are also generating new kinds of
    resources. We collect films and recordings in addition to
    books, journals, manuscripts, maps; we must now collect digital
    audiovisual resources, digital documents, electronic databases,
    and even web sites.
        In 2004 our unique universal collection of 130 million
    items added 2.6 million new books and other artifacts and our
    richly stocked web site attracted more than 3.3 billion
    electronic hits. We are also leading a national program to
    archive materials that are unique, important, and dependable
    from the flood of digital material on the Internet, and we are
    moving our national service to the blind and physically
    handicapped into digital formats. We are now in fact in the
    advanced stages of converting almost all our processes from
    manual to digital and into electronic formats. At no other time
    has technology so directly affected how the Library performs
    its work.
        Beyond mandatory pay raises and unavoidable price
    increases, our request includes additional funds for the
    National Audiovisual Conservation Center, for copyright
    reengineering, for storage modules at Fort Meade, and for
    direct service to the Congress, a one-time adjustment to the
    Congressional Research Service's budget to sustain its staff
    capacity, and an adjustment to the CRS acquisition base, and
    funds to make accessible law library materials that are
    important for the Congress.

                                NAVCC--CULPEPER

        An unprecedentedly generous private donation from the
    Packard Humanities Institute is enabling us to create a
    facility that will provide state-of-the-art preservation at
    Culpeper, Virginia, for all of our massive and hitherto
    scattered audiovisual materials. We need 23 FTEs that will
    greatly increase production and meet the demands of this
    complex technical system.

                            COPYRIGHT REENGINEERING

        We are in the last year of the 7-year plan that Congress
    approved for copyright reengineering. We need one-time funds to
    keep our technical team united for the completion of this
    project, support for the move to an offsite location, and
    funding in the AOC budget for reconstructing space in the James
    Madison Building.

                               FORT MEADE PROJECT

        Congress has generously funded two modules at Fort Meade
    for storage of books and journals to address the long-delayed
    preservation needs of 26 million unique and often priceless
    special format materials. We request funds to begin building
    Modules 3 and 4.
        These and other requests illustrate the ways in which the
    Library must continue to change if we are to maintain in the
    electronic age our vital historic role as the preeminent
    steward of the world's knowledge and of America's creative
    heritage.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We are deeply grateful for what Congress has already
    created and admirably sustained in this time of transition. The
    appropriations we request for fiscal year 2006 will enable us
    to continue providing you with comprehensive nonpartisan
    research and will provide future generations of your
    constituents with the wonderful learning resources that digital
    technology is making possible. You will be supporting more than
    just a great cultural repository. Appropriations for today's
    Library will be investments in tomorrow's minds.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of James H. Billington
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
    the past accomplishments and future goals of the Library of Congress in
    the context of our fiscal year 2006 budget request. This Committee has
    always supported the Library's programs and I ask for your help again
    in securing the investments we need to keep the Library as useful to
    the Congress in the new millennium as we have been in the nineteenth
    and twentieth centuries.
        For 205 years, the Congress of the United States has sustained the
    Library of Congress in its efforts to acquire, preserve, and make
    accessible the mint record of American creativity and the world's
    largest collection of human knowledge. We share this knowledge with the
    Congress, principally through the Congressional Research Service and
    the Law Library, and we protect the artistic and literary legacies of
    our citizens through our Copyright Office. We also serve your
    constituencies through our National Library for the Blind and
    Physically Handicapped, through our cataloging and other services to
    your local libraries and by offering rich educational content to your
    teachers and students through our acclaimed Internet site.
                               the library today
        The Library of Congress contains more than 130 million items in
    more than 470 languages and in virtually every media. Every workday the
    Library adds more than 10,000 new items to its collections and provides
    numerous specialized services. In fiscal year 2004, the Congressional
    Research Service performed exclusive public policy research and
    analysis for Congressional Members and Committees, covering more than
    200 active legislative issues, preparing and updating nearly 1,000
    reports and delivering nearly 900,000 responses to inquiries. Of
    particular note in fiscal year 2004, CRS experts responded with
    immediate support on matters that suddenly were on the Congressional
    agenda, including a comprehensive interdisciplinary response to the 9/
    11 Commission Report that involved 70 written products; legal analysis
    related to the Abu Ghraib prison controversy; and an assessment of
    implementation issues of the new Medicare prescription drug benefits.
    The Copyright Office administered the U.S. copyright laws and acquired
    copyrighted works for the collections of the Library while registering
    more than 661,000 copyright claims in the past year. The Books for the
    Blind and Physically Handicapped program circulated more than 23
    million books and magazines free of charge, to the blind and disabled.
    The Library assisted the nation's local libraries by cataloging more
    than 300,000 books and serials, and providing the bibliographic records
    to libraries everywhere. Finally, the Library provided free internet
    access to more than 75 million records and recorded more than 3.3
    billion hits on its website in fiscal year 2004.
                                accomplishments
        Throughout fiscal year 2004 and into fiscal year 2005, the Library
    continued to reach important milestones. We moved forward with our
    massive film preservation facility in Culpeper, Virginia, slated to
    open in the Fall of 2006. Phase 1 of the project will be completed this
    year, allowing the initial transfer of the Motion Picture,
    Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division collections to Culpeper in
    August. Years of planning for off-site storage of other collections at
    Fort Meade, Maryland came to fruition when Module 1 opened in November
    2002. This facility represented the start of the Library's program to
    use custom-built offsite facilities to relieve overcrowding on Capitol
    Hill, and to ensure an excellent preservation environment. During
    fiscal year 2004, 567,000 items were transferred to the facility,
    bringing the total number of items transferred to Module 1 to 1.2
    million. This module is now completely full. Completion and commission
    of Module 2 is scheduled for Spring 2005.
        Under the mandate of the Congress's 2000 National Digital
    Information Infrastructure and Preservation (NDIIPP) Act, we continue
    to build a strong nationwide network of partners. We awarded nearly $14
    million to eight partner institutions who agreed to provide matching
    funds and to help collect and preserve a diverse range of important,
    at-risk digital material that could prove useful to current and future
    generations of researchers, scholars and lifelong learners. NDIIPP also
    partnered with the National Science Foundation to establish the first
    digital archiving grants program that will fund cutting-edge research
    to support the long-term management of digital information.
        In fiscal year 2004, the Library added approximately 2.6 million
    new items to its collections through all sources of acquisitions,
    including purchase, exchange, gift, federal transfer, and copyright
    deposit. Through the Federal Library and Information Network (FEDLINK),
    which makes available an array of print serials, books, electronic
    publications and preservation services, the Library contracted with
    more than 100 major vendors to provide services to approximately 1,200
    Federal offices participating in the program saving the offices an
    estimated $8.9 million in cost avoidance benefits and more than $11
    million in vendor volume discounts.
        The Copyright Office exceeded its 90-day target for processing of
    claims. The Office now processes claims on an average of 80 days; this
    is a 60 percent improvement since 2001. The Copyright Office also cut
    average recordation processing time in half, reaching 33 days at the
    end of 2004, an 85 percent improvement since 2001.
        The Library organized and sponsored, with the funds raised from the
    private sector, the third National Book Festival with 85,000
    attendees--the most ambitious National Book Festival to date. Through
    other fund raising activities this past year, the Library received a
    total of $11 million, representing 828 gifts from 713 donors. The
    Library awarded the first John W. Kluge Prize for Lifetime Achievement
    in the Human Sciences in fiscal year 2004. The $1 million prize--made
    possible by an endowment established by the Madison Council Chairman
    John W. Kluge--is given for lifetime achievement in the humanities and
    social sciences, areas of scholarship for which there are no Nobel
    Prizes. Finally, for the ninth consecutive year, the Library received
    an unqualified ``clean'' opinion on its fiscal year 2004 consolidated
    financial statements.
                        building a 21st century library
        Shifting media formats, the greatly increased flood of important
    material available only in perishable digital form, and increasingly
    complex data rights issues--have combined to create immense new
    challenges for the Library. At no other time has the emergence of
    technology so directly affected how the Library acquires, catalogs,
    preserves, serves and secures its vast collections and holdings.
        In order for the Library to continue fulfilling its historic
    mission, we must embrace the rapidly unfolding technology revolution,
    build and maintain an internal infrastructure and recruit, educate, and
    train a new staff of knowledge navigators able to sort out, prioritize,
    and help mediate to Congress and the Nation what is worth saving from
    the increasingly unfiltered information online.
                        library's fiscal year 2006 plan
        In preparing the fiscal year 2006 budget, the Library considered
    the areas that will be most changed by the transition from a largely
    print-on-paper collections to a hybrid collection that incorporates
    great numbers of digital materials. As we shape the Library of the
    future, we recognize the need to concentrate on three areas:
    technology, acquisition, and preservation. Specifically:
    Technology
        Develop an infrastructure to support the digital library.
        Build a stronger connection between the Library and the wider
    library community to create a national digital library to make widely
    useful material locally available through the Internet, even if not
    always physically housed at the Library of Congress.
        Redefine the Library's leadership role in describing and organizing
    information--adjusting cataloging methods and setting standards for the
    digital environment.
    Preservation
        Preserve at-risk ``born digital'' materials and work in partnership
    with educational and corporate partners to keep such materials
    available for subsequent generations.
    Acquisition
        Reconceptualize our special collections development policies to
    include the creations of writers, artists, cartographers,
    photographers, and musicians that are available only online (or born
    digital).
                        fiscal year 2006 budget request
        Our fiscal year 2006 budget represents in many ways, a transition
    to closure on several multi-year projects that are essential for
    building a 21st century library.
        The Library is requesting a total budget of $628 million for fiscal
    year 2006. This includes $591 million in net appropriations and $37
    million in authority to use receipts, a net increase of $43 million or
    7 percent above the fiscal year 2005 level. This total includes $24.3
    million for mandatory pay and price level increases needed to maintain
    current services and to prevent a reduction in staff, which would
    severely impact the Library's ability to manage its diverse and complex
    programs.
        The requested funding will support 4,365 full-time equivalent
    (FTEs), a net increase of 74 FTEs above the fiscal year 2005 level of
    4,291, but still 355 FTEs short of the fiscal year 1992 total--despite
    the fact that we are doing far more work now than in fiscal year 1992.
                               unfunded mandates
        A total of $2.5 million and 3 FTEs is requested for two new and
    unfunded mandates: $1.2 million for the Administration's Department of
    State Capital Security Cost Sharing program, and $1.3 million and 3
    FTEs for the new Copyright Royalty Judges Program.
        Two years ago, the Department of State launched a 14-year program
    to finance the construction of approximately 150 embassy compounds. The
    Library was assessed $2.4 million for fiscal year 2006 based on the
    number of staff we have in overseas acquisition field offices attached
    to an embassy. The Library has argued for a reduction in the
    assessment, based on the services provided to the Library by the
    Department of State in diplomatic facilities, but the matter has not
    been resolved. We hope the amount requested by the Department of State
    will be less, but until a decision is reached, the Library must request
    full funding. It is essential that we not risk losing our overseas
    offices, which collect vast amounts of important and otherwise
    unavailable material for many of the world's trouble spots.
        The Copyright Royalty Distribution Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law
    108-419), signed into law on November 30, 2004, created a new program
    in the Library to replace most of the current statutory
    responsibilities of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARP)
    program. The new Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJ) program will determine
    distributions of royalties that are disputed and will set or adjust
    royalty rates, terms and conditions, except satellite carriers'
    compulsory licenses. The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and
    Reauthorization Act, signed into law on December 8, 2004, extends
    satellite compulsory licenses and requires CARPs, rather than CRJs, to
    set new rates for satellite retransmission. The CARPs will be funded by
    participants in the proceedings and/or by royalties. Unlike CARP, the
    new Copyright Royalty Judges program will be funded by new permanent
    net appropriations and nominal filing fees. Funding supports the
    salaries and related expenses of the three royalty judges and three
    administrative staff required by law to support this program.
                                 major projects
        The Library is requesting $7.284 million and 45 FTEs for projects
    that are either in the last year of development or on a time-sensitive
    schedule that must be maintained if the entire project is to be
    successful. The projects support preservation, electronic delivery of
    services, acquisitions and access functions. The first of these
    projects is the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC) in
    Culpeper, Virginia.
        A gift of $120 million from the Packard Humanities Institute (PHI)
    three years ago launched the National AudioVisual Conservation Center,
    an unparalleled conservation facility for the special formats that are
    uniquely held by the Library of Congress. The construction project at
    Culpeper, Virginia is proceeding well, and the collections from five
    disparate storage collections will be moved to Culpeper during the
    summer, 2005. The staff will be relocated to Culpeper in 2006.
        During fiscal year 2006, the Library's ability to procure, deliver
    and install NAVCC furnishings, equipment and infrastructure must again
    be carefully managed in concert with PHI's schedule for finishing,
    testing and commissioning Phase 2 of the facility, slated for
    completion and move-in by April 2006. For this reason, no-year
    authority is again required to accommodate unforeseen fluctuations in
    the construction schedule. The Library is requesting a net decrease of
    $3 million and an increase of 23 new FTEs in fiscal year 2006. This
    request follows the original five-year plan submitted for Culpeper.
    Funding supports several components for which timing and funding
    flexibility will be especially desirable, including the bulk of the
    staff relocations, the completion of collections relocations (including
    nitrate film), and completing the design, procurement and integration
    of the complex digital preservation systems with the NAVCC's audio-
    visual laboratories. Of the total amount requested for fiscal year
    2006, approximately $11 million reflects one-time costs. After the
    staff and collections have been relocated, the Culpeper budget will
    only require funding for ongoing operations.
        Fiscal year 2006 is the final year of the Copyright Office's
    reengineering initiative that requires new funding. The reengineering
    program is an extensive multi-year effort to redesign the Office's
    business processes, including the development of a new information
    technology infrastructure, new work flows, new job roles, and new
    facilities design. The new environment will support electronic delivery
    of copyright services, including electronic submissions of copyright
    registrations and receipt of digital deposits. During fiscal year 2006,
    the Copyright Office will relocate staff to a temporary off-site leased
    space, reconfigure its main facilities, and install new furniture and
    equipment. Final implementation is scheduled the first half of fiscal
    year 2007, after relocation of the staff to the reconfigured space in
    the Madison Building. A total of $4 million in one-time funding is
    requested in the Copyright Office's budget to fund the temporary
    offsite relocation of the staff. Completion of the reengineering
    initiative is contingent upon the Architect of the Capitol's budget
    request of $5.5 million to pay for construction costs to reconfigure
    existing Madison Building space. These requests will permit the
    Copyright Office to move forward on the facilities work so critical to
    the final implementation of the reengineering project.
        The Library is requesting a total of $2 million for the GENPAC
    program and $1 million for CRS to recover lost purchasing power of
    critically needed research materials. This funding will support the
    purchase of serial subscriptions and/or electronic resources--ensuring
    that the CRS analysts and other Library staff have access to the highly
    specialized research materials and data needed to support the work of
    the Congress and other Library customers.
        The boundaries of the world become ever smaller as information
    production increases across the globe. There are great opportunities to
    acquire new materials from parts of the world we had little knowledge
    of up until now. The Library collects little known and hard-to-find
    materials because it is in the national interest to have the resources
    that document other cultures and nations. We are interested in
    acquiring the emerging electronic publications from all parts of the
    world, including the Web sites for advocacy as well as education. In
    selecting the most important electronic resources, the Library places
    special emphasis on those databases and scholarly journals containing
    information to support the work of Congress in the development of
    public policy.
        Preservation is a unique responsibility of the Library of
    Congress--a library that all other libraries expect to keep materials
    in perpetuity. The Library requests $3.375 million and the retention of
    22 NTE FTEs to continue the preservation efforts required to place 4.5
    million items (most of them audio-visual materials or special
    collections) in proper storage containers and through proper
    transshipment to Fort Meade, Culpeper, or other off-site repositories.
        Other projects are critical to the Library's acquisition and
    preservation programs. Specifically, funding of $52 million is
    requested by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) to support essential
    and long deferred projects specifically requested by the Library. This
    total includes $41 million for construction of Book Modules 3 and 4 at
    Fort Meade. These modules are already designed and will provide
    critically needed collections processing and storage space and cold
    vaults for unique and growing special format collections. This program
    is critical to providing relief to collections storage and resulting
    safety problems in the Library's Capitol Hill buildings. Of the
    remaining $11 million requested, $5.5 million supports the Copyright
    Re-engineering construction project and $5.5 million supports minor
    construction, design, and/or the operation and maintenance of the
    Library's Capitol Hill, Fort Meade, and Culpeper buildings.
                          major library-wide projects
        In addition to these major projects, the Library is requesting $5.5
    million and 7 FTEs for several Library-wide infrastructure projects
    that support all organizational entities within the Library and are key
    to performing the Library's mission efficiently and effectively. The
    first is in the all-important area of Information Technology (IT),
    where the Library is requesting a total of $3.3 million and 5 FTEs,
    needed to keep pace with rapid technological changes. Included in this
    total is $571,000 and 5 FTEs for the ITS Systems Engineering Group
    (SEG) to support a workload that has grown dramatically in recent
    years. The current staff of SEG operates with single individuals
    shouldering responsibilities without backup. This situation presents a
    high-level risk and places the Library in a serious and highly
    vulnerable position. The Library must mitigate this risk and protect
    itself against the potential loss of knowledge and breakdown of
    services in the event of illness or other unforeseen circumstances. The
    total also includes $1 million to support the increased costs
    associated with the IT service provider contract. Our IT staff is
    struggling with the vast increase in the Library's digital services and
    will have to either curtail services or decrease equipment purchases if
    funding is not provided. Finally, the total includes $720,000 for
    contract support for the certification and accreditation of the
    Library's IT systems as required by the Federal Information Security
    Management Act of 2002 and $1 million to implement the next phase of
    the Library's new financial management information system.
        The Library is requesting a total of $1.4 million and 2 FTEs to
    support space management of all the Library's buildings--the Madison
    Building alone is one of the largest in the Washington, DC area, with
    over 2 million square feet of space. With more shifts outside Capitol
    Hill to Fort Meade and Culpeper and resulting shifts on Capitol Hill as
    space utilization is redefined, the Library must have the ability to
    remap and maximize critical space needed for staff, collections and
    business operations and in a timely manner to ensure continuity of
    operations. The requested funding supports two additional in-house
    staff and the use of contracted staff support to supplement in-house
    resources with a full range of professional services, including project
    management, interior design, safety, engineering, construction
    administration and custodial support. Without the requested funding,
    valuable space will go unused or be used inefficiently, impacting the
    acquisition and preservation of the Library's collections, safety of
    its employees, and the operation of its programs.
        For those working on Capitol Hill, the value of emergency
    preparedness cannot be overstated. The Library is requesting $746,000
    to implement its Continuity of Operations and Shelter-in-Place plans,
    and to purchase medical supplies in the event of a large scale
    emergency that may affect Library personnel and visitors. We continue
    to work with our Capitol Hill counterparts to coordinate emergency
    planning efforts.
                           sustaining staff capacity
        Closely related to the mandatory and price level increases, the
    Library needs two critical payroll adjustments to maintain payroll
    purchasing power to sustain staff capacity. CRS is requesting a one-
    time permanent base adjustment of $2.9 million to align its funding
    with the current staffing mix, level, and benefits costs to achieve a
    total capacity of 729 FTEs. This request will enable CRS to continue to
    fulfill effectively its mission by rebuilding and sustaining a level of
    research capacity that meets the changing needs of the Congress--needs
    which are increasingly more demanding and highly complex. CRS has
    proven to be a solid, long-term investment for the Congress with a high
    return on the investment through its shared pool of highly skilled
    experts who serve ``around-the-clock'' as the research arm of the
    Congress by assisting every Member and Committee of Congress in every
    phase of the legislative process.
        Because of the fiscal year 2005 rescission, the Library reduced pay
    in all offices by a total of $3 million. The Library is requesting
    restoration of the $3 million in fiscal year 2006 to maintain its
    future payroll purchasing power needed to sustain staff capacity. Over
    time, the Library will be forced to reduce staff in all offices, in
    spite of growing workloads and new challenges and responsibilities if
    the payroll budget is not restored.
                                 other projects
        The Library is requesting $8 million and 52 FTEs for five other
    initiatives. Included in this amount is $493,000 and 7 FTEs to support
    the new Chinese acquisition strategy in which Chinese scholars identify
    unique materials to add to the Library's collections. The total also
    includes $445,000 to begin reclassifying one-third of the Law Library's
    legal collections from the obsolete ``Law'' shelving arrangements to
    the Library of Congress Class K international standard, to ensure
    retrievability of invaluable and unique legal materials.
        Of the $8 million total, $1.6 million in one-time funding is
    requested to procure and implement a comprehensive, new, web-based
    classification and staffing system that will track all human resources
    functions. Replacement of the current system is needed to add new
    functionalities and to allow the integration with the Library's
    emerging Human Resources Information System. Also included in the total
    is $1.5 million in no-year funding to continue the renovation and
    refurbishment work in the Thomas Jefferson and John Adams buildings.
    Maximizing available space on Capitol Hill is a priority for the
    Library and the restoration projects will provide much needed space for
    staff and programs. Finally, the total includes $4 million and 45 FTEs
    to continue addressing the police staffing shortfall of approximately
    77 FTEs.
                    proposed changes to legislative language
        The Library has proposed language under the National Digital
    Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP) Section,
    to set aside $25 million of the $75 million provided under the fiscal
    year 2001 appropriations act, and exempt the set-aside from the dollar-
    to-dollar match requirement. The set-aside is to provide competitive
    grant funding for state governmental entities, who meet NDIIPP
    preservation partnership network building and digital content
    preservation grant guidelines, to preserve significant, at-risk, and
    born digital state and local government information.
        The Library has also proposed new appropriation language to address
    the new Copyright Royalty Judges program, authorized by the Copyright
    Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004.
        The fiscal year 2005 administrative provision that limits the
    Library's assessment for embassy construction (to an amount equal to or
    less than the unreimbursed value of the services provided to the
    Library on State Department diplomatic facilities) is also maintained
    in fiscal year 2006.
                                   conclusion
        The Library must continue to sustain and perform its traditional
    core mission for the Congress, the Nation, and the world of acquiring,
    preserving and making accessible its knowledge. At the same time, we
    must develop new ways to perform this historic mission in light of the
    plethora of digital information that must be harvested and cataloged.
    The fiscal year 2006 budget request will enable the Library to complete
    crucial projects of modernization, while laying the foundation for our
    future.
        I thank the Committee for its continued support of the Library's
    programs, projects, and people. Together, we can accomplish much today
    and more tomorrow.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of James H. Billington
                          open world leadership center
        Chairman Allard, Senator Durbin, and Members of the Subcommittee:
    The United States Congress initiated the Open World Russian Leadership
    Program as a pilot exchange program at the Library of Congress in 1999
    (Public Law 106-31). Congress in December 2000 established an
    independent Legislative Branch entity, the Open World Leadership
    Center, to conduct the Open World Program. The Center is governed by a
    Board of Trustees.
        The Open World Program was crafted in 1999 to bring emerging
    federal and local Russian political and civic leaders to the United
    States to meet their American counterparts and gain firsthand knowledge
    of American civil society. Program participants experience American
    political and community life and see democracy in action, from the
    workings of the U.S. Congress to debates in local city councils.
        A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report \1\ on the Open
    World Program concluded that ``Open World has exposed a large, broad,
    and diverse group of Russians to U.S. economic and political systems''
    and stated that many of the alumni interviewed for the report said they
    have ``taken concrete actions to adapt what they learned from their
    U.S. visits to the Russian environment.'' GAO analysis indicates that
    Open World has achieved a remarkably high degree of proportional
    geographic representation, and that U.S. ambassadors and embassy
    officials consider Open World ``a valuable tool to complement U.S.
    mission activities and outreach efforts'' in Russia in part because of
    its unique place in the Legislative Branch.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ General Accounting Office, International Exchange Programs,
    Open World Achieves Broad Participation; Enhanced Planning and
    Accountability Could Strengthen Program, GAO-04-436, Washington, D.C.,
    March 2004.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since July 1999, Open World has brought 8,900 current and future
    decision makers from all 89 regions of the Russian Federation to more
    than 1,300 communities in all 50 states. In 2003, as testament to the
    success of the Open World model, Congress expanded Open World to
    include cultural leaders in Russia and political leaders in the 11
    remaining Freedom Support Act countries and the Baltic republics
    (Public Law 108-7). The Open World Leadership Center Board of Trustees
    in 2003 approved pilot programs in Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Lithuania
    and also approved a new cultural leaders program for Russia. From
    countries other than Russia, 370 young leaders have experienced the
    practice of American democracy and community life through Open World in
    the past two years. The Board has expressed concern that program
    expansion not jeopardize the strength of the Center's original and
    continuing commitment to the Russian Federation.
        In December 2004, Public Law 108-447 expanded Open World program
    eligibility to any other country that is designated by the Board of
    Trustees, provided that the Board notify the House and Senate
    Appropriations Committees of such a designation at least 90 days before
    it is to take effect. Over the life of the program, Congress has
    signaled its intention for Open World to function flexibly and
    strategically for U.S. interests around the globe. With key Members of
    Congress on its board, Open World has supported parliamentary
    relationships led by the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority
    Leader and remains a flexible and important tool for public diplomacy
    within the Legislative Branch.
                               board of trustees
        As Chairman of the Board of Trustees, I am honored to serve on the
    Board with several of your distinguished colleagues, as well as
    regional experts and private citizens. The Congressionally appointed
    members are Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN), Senator Carl Levin
    (MI), and Representative Robert E. (Bud) Cramer (AL). Senator Ted
    Stevens (AK) is honorary chairman. Former Ambassador to Russia James F.
    Collins and Walter J. Scott, Jr., Chairman of Level 3 Communications,
    are the current citizen members. We are awaiting an appointment by the
    Speaker of the House to replace the seat held by retired House member
    Amo Houghton.
        Since its inception in 1999 in the Legislative Branch, the Open
    World Program has gained from the active interest and direction of this
    Committee. In accordance with a recommendation made by our Board of
    Trustees last year, Congress has added the Chair of this Committee and
    the Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch to the
    Board. Your membership on the Board will greatly enhance our ability to
    provide effective direction for the future of the Open World Leadership
    Center.
                        fiscal year 2006 budget request
        The Center's fiscal year 2006 request of $14 million (Appendix A)
    will allow Open World to continue to operate the core Russian programs,
    including work with alumni and cultural leaders, and to continue
    funding for expansion programs in selected countries. The requested 4.5
    percent increase above fiscal year 2005 funding represents unavoidable
    price increases and the weakened purchasing power of the dollar abroad.
                               program objectives
        Open World was created by the Congress both to make a contribution
    to democratic developments in Russia and to combat negative and
    manipulated images of America fostered by long years of isolation from
    the West under Soviet power. Through Open World, emerging leaders in
    previously authoritarian countries experience short but intensive
    immersion in the reality of civil society and the rule of law in the
    United States. George F. Kennan summarized what an effective public-
    diplomacy effort like Open World is about when he suggested that our
    system is most persuasive not when we talk about it, but ``when we show
    other people what can be done in a democracy, and nothing is more
    useful than that.''
        Open World was created to allow participation by non-English
    speakers, and, as a result, the program has successfully engaged a very
    broad sector of young political leadership in each participating
    country. Programs are matched carefully to participants' professional
    interests and responsibilities, and almost all include the following
    elements:
      --Meeting U.S. government, business, and community leaders at the
            federal, regional and local levels;
      --Understanding the separation of powers, checks and balances,
            freedom of the press, and the transparency and accountability
            of democratic government;
      --Experiencing a free market economy;
      --Learning how U.S. citizens organize voluntary and nongovernmental
            initiatives to address social and civic needs;
      --Building a continuing relationship with the U.S. hosts;
      --Sharing approaches to common challenges;
      --Participating in American family and community activities.
                                strategic goals
        As the Open World Program has matured from its six-month Russian
    pilot in 1999 to its current scale in four countries, the Board and
    staff have been guided by strategic goals that shape the annual budget
    submission and our year-round operations.
        Goal I: Improving U.S.-Open World program-country relations and
    mutual understanding.
        The Open World Program is located in the Legislative Branch, housed
    in and administratively supported by the Library of Congress, but its
    work abroad is shaped and implemented in cooperation with the embassies
    in each Open World country. All elements of the program--its focus,
    candidate nomination and selection, parliamentary delegations--are
    closely coordinated with the U.S. Embassy and such organizations as the
    Helsinki Commission.
        Goal II: Provide the highest caliber program within the United
    States so that Open World participants return with a good understanding
    of America's democracy, market economy, and civil society.
        Open World has improved the quality of its programs by continuous
    monitoring of programs, site visits, post-visit evaluations, and annual
    participant surveys. There is an annual review and evaluations of all
    program elements. The program has increasingly focused on a few key
    themes central to building democracy and the rule of law.
        Goal III: To extend the catalytic effect of a 10-day U.S. stay by
    fostering continued, post-visit communication among Open World
    participants, with alumni of other USG-sponsored exchange programs, and
    with their American hosts and counterparts.
        Open World's multilingual website maintains communication among
    participants, American hosts, and other interested parties. The visit
    to the United States is just the beginning of a Russian delegate's
    association with the Open World Program. Open World encourages
    continued contact with U.S. hosts and among participants themselves. In
    2004, Russian alumni participated in more than 250 workshops,
    interregional conferences, meetings, and professional seminars. An
    alumni bulletin and web forums are available to all 8,900 Russian
    participants.
        Many of Russia's larger cities now also boast Open World alumni
    associations and clubs organized by the alumni themselves--supporting
    special projects, such as support for orphanages or environmental
    efforts and career development seminars. Alumni-led activities in 2004
    included a youth health fair in Tver and a seminar for Novgorod
    educators on how to encourage volunteerism among high school students.
                              strategic decisions
    Russian Federation
        The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator
    Richard G. Lugar, at a recent hearing on ``Democracy in Retreat in
    Russia'' said, ``The states of the former Soviet Union present a
    special challenge to the advancement of democracy . . . The biggest
    concern in the region for democracy advocates is . . . Russia. Despite
    elections and the experience of post-Soviet personal freedoms . . . the
    fate of democracy in Russia is perhaps more ambiguous now than at any
    time since the collapse of the Communist system.'' Noting the decline
    in State Department funding for democracy programs, Senator Lugar
    commented: ``With so much at stake in Russia, this is not the time to
    diminish our funding in this area.''
        Despite the authoritarian direction of much recent Russian policy,
    Russia remains a key ally for the United States in antiterrorism and
    nonproliferation efforts. Open World's 8,900 alumni in all 89 regions
    are a strategic asset in the continuing struggle to secure a
    constitutional democracy in Russia. Assessments of Russia's current
    political state by the International Republican Institute (IRI) point
    to the dichotomy of suppression of democratic voices at the national
    level, but ``re-invigoration at the regional level.'' [Testimony of
    Stephen B. Nix, Director, Eurasia Programs, IRI; appearance before the
    Senate Foreign Relations Committee; February 17, 2005.] Open World's
    base of participation in Russia spans the entire country and is not
    concentrated in Moscow at the federal level.
    Expansion Beyond Russia
        Meanwhile, Open World offers a unique and effective tool for
    Congress to respond to new realities and opportunities around the
    globe. The Open World Board's decision in 2003 to invest in a Ukraine
    pilot has yielded a broad-based program in operation before the Orange
    Revolution that brought the first delegations to the United States in
    the wake of the 2004 presidential elections. A pilot program in
    Lithuania focused on building regional government expertise and pointed
    the way toward important regional activity that Open World might
    undertake in Kaliningrad and Belarus. Similarly, Open World's prior
    experience in the largely Islamic regions of Russia helped shape a
    successful investment in Uzbekistan. Despite continuing and legitimate
    concerns about the repressive central government, Uzbekistan remains
    strategically important to the United States, and Open World delegates
    have returned to strengthen independent media and economic development
    and lead efforts to combat trafficking in the region.
        With a Congressional authorization to operate in any country in the
    world, Open World represents an asset that deserves continued
    investment to allow its continued development as an important tool of
    American public diplomacy, particularly in regions of the world that
    are not the principal focus of State Department efforts.
                        what the investment has yielded
    Russia
                Russia Civic and Cultural Program
        The Open World Russia Program completed its fifth year in 2004.
    Open World's core exchange program--with the Russian Federation--
    brought 1,567 young leaders in calendar year 2004, with wide regional
    representation (87 of the 89 Russian regions), diverse hosting
    experiences throughout the United States (44 states), a high percentage
    of women delegates (58 percent), and multiethnic representation. The
    selected themes for 2004--economic and social development, environment,
    health, rule of law, women as leaders, and youth issues--focus on key
    areas essential to democracy-building. The focus on rule of law,
    especially in the context of current evaluations of Russia's commitment
    to an independent judiciary and a constitutional democracy, deserves
    special mention.
        In 2004, Open World emphasized programs on the elections process
    and media coverage of the presidential and local elections process.
    Participants in all themes who traveled during the months leading up to
    the election came away with unique election-year experiences of
    watching the debates with their host families, seeing signs for
    presidential and local government candidates posted in front lawns, and
    observing volunteers of all ages as they supported their candidates at
    campaign headquarters.
        Eight delegations received an insider's view into Election Day in
    the United States. Three Russian delegations consisting of government
    officials and aides visited Baltimore, Maryland; Moorhead, Minnesota;
    and Saratoga Springs, New York. The delegations observed the activities
    of polling stations in their host communities, visited voter advocacy
    organizations, and witnessed firsthand the reactions of individual
    citizens as they watched television coverage of the voting results.
    Five delegations of print and television media professionals visited
    Atlanta, Georgia; Louisville, Kentucky; Portland, Oregon; Reno, Nevada;
    and Rochester, New York. These groups visited local news outlets to
    discuss and watch election coverage, interviewed election workers and
    voters, and even wrote on-the-spot news articles to be published in
    Russia.
        Additional examples of Open World's impact in Russia and elsewhere
    in our participants' own words are found in Appendix B.
    Open World in Colorado
        As I speak to you today, four women leaders from Russia--a
    businesswoman, a president of a regional NGO, an education
    administrator, and a legislative staff assistant--are visiting
    Longmont, Colorado to examine women's leadership roles. Highlights of
    the delegation's agenda include a meeting with an NGO director; a
    discussion with senior women bankers on banking relationships with
    women-owned businesses; talks with Colorado senators and
    representatives about elections, government and the role of women in
    politics; and a panel discussion with a district attorney and chief
    district judge. Their visit is being conducted by the Longmont Rotary
    Club, a five-time Open World host organization that has helped make it
    possible for Colorado to welcome 200 other Open World participants.
    Rule of Law Program
        Open World's specialized rule of law program is the largest U.S.-
    Russia judicial exchange. Working in close cooperation with federal
    judges associated with the International Judicial Relations Committee
    of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and with a network of
    state judges, Open World sponsors intensive, 10-day U.S. professional
    visits for Russian judges, judicial branch officials, prosecutors,
    defense attorneys, legal educators, and court staff. Since its
    inception in 2001, the program has enabled prominent jurists from all
    over Russia to observe and participate in the U.S. judicial system and
    to form lasting working relationships with their American judicial
    hosts and counterparts.
        Just last month, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy hosted a high-level
    Open World delegation at the U.S. Supreme Court for two days of
    intensive working sessions on U.S.-Russian judicial cooperation and the
    status of judicial reform in Russia. Our distinguished delegates were
    Russian Supreme Court Chief Justice Vyacheslav M. Lebedev, Justice
    Yuriy I. Sidorenko, who chairs Russia's Council of Judges, and a top
    regional judge. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John
    Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
    David Hackett Souter, and Stephen G. Breyer all participated in the
    Russians' Supreme Court visit, as did U.S. District Judge Michael M.
    Mihm of Peoria, Illinois, and other prominent U.S. judges. Not only did
    the Russians discuss jury trials, judicial independence, and the rule
    of law with the highest judges in the land, they also saw the U.S.
    judicial system in action by observing oral argument at the Supreme
    Court and attending proceedings at the federal courthouse in
    Alexandria, Virginia.
        As the Lebedev delegation visit illustrates, the Open World
    specialized rule of law program contributes to Russia's progress toward
    judicial reform by demonstrating the concepts and practices that
    underpin the United States' strong, independent judiciary. By observing
    and discussing the workings of the U.S. legal system with their
    American counterparts, participants have developed a better
    understanding of some of the new procedures that they are being
    required to adopt by Russia's judicial reform legislation, and they
    have demonstrated great enthusiasm for implementing many U.S. practices
    that are relevant to their own situations. Another important program
    outcome is the establishment and strengthening of a number of sister
    relationships between the courts of our U.S. host judges and those of
    their Open World participants. And American host judges have made
    return trips to Russia to participate in follow-up alumni work on the
    all-important issue of ethics.
        In 2004, 258 participants (43 delegations) visited 30 communities
    in 25 states and the District of Columbia on the specialized rule of
    law program. A total of 31 federal and state judges hosted for Open
    World in 2004. An illustrative example of Open World's work in this
    important area:
    Cultural Leaders Program
        The late Academician Dmitri Sergeevich Likhachev was co-chairman of
    the original Russia-focused Open World Program in 1999. Likhachev was a
    lifelong advocate of the need for Russia to learn about and have
    contact with Western culture. The expansion of Open World to Russian
    cultural leaders is based on this principle.
        In 2004, 44 young folklorists, writers, and jazz musicians
    participated in Open World exchanges designed to foster an
    understanding of American culture and how it is sustained. The goal is
    to forge better understanding between the United States and Russia by
    enabling Russian cultural leaders to experience American cultural and
    community life, and to share their talents with American artists and
    audiences. Performances and readings are an essential component of the
    visit.
        The jazz musicians, creative writers, managers of folk arts
    institutions, and arts administrators who took part in the 2004 program
    were hosted by prominent arts organizations and educational
    institutions in five states. Each host community selected by Open World
    boasts rich cultural institutions and is the center of a flourishing
    arts scene.
        The cultural leaders program has continued in 2005. Currently, the
    University of Mississippi is hosting four young Russian authors who
    specialize in poetry, fiction writing, literary criticism, and
    translation. The delegation participated in the twelfth annual Oxford
    Conference for the Book, and is taking part in translation workshops
    with students and faculty in the Ole Miss creative writing program and
    panel discussions on Russian and American culture. The National
    Endowment for the Arts provided financial support for this hosting.
    Pilot Programs
                Ukraine
        Ukraine was selected for an Open World pilot program in 2003
    because of its strategic position in Eurasia, its large and educated
    population, its mounting difficulties in democracy-building, and its
    important potential contribution to regional stability.
        Elections formed a central focus for the Open World Program's 2004
    Ukrainian exchange, which took place in August, when both the American
    and Ukrainian presidential campaigns were in full swing. The 50
    Ukrainian participants came from 19 of the country's 27 regions and
    represented a wide range of political views. Two delegations of
    Ukrainian party activists, NGO election monitors, and campaign experts
    participated in the ``electoral processes'' theme, and three
    delegations of print and broadcast journalists took part in the
    ``independent media'' theme, which included a concentration on
    political and election coverage. The five Ukrainian delegations that
    visited under the NGO development theme also had opportunities to learn
    about campaign practices and citizen engagement in politics in the
    United States.
        In March, Open World held the first major post-Orange Revolution
    exchange in the United States, hosting 45 Ukrainian judges,
    journalists, elections experts, NGO leaders, and researchers. Their
    U.S. community visits, which had been rescheduled from December 2004
    (when the presidential election was still unresolved by the courts),
    focused on the rule of law, elections, and the role of an independent
    media.
        This exchange was very much a two-way learning process, as everyone
    the Ukrainians met with was interested to hear about the Orange
    Revolution and the current political climate. The Ukrainian delegates
    were here to strengthen ties to the United States and their own
    professional understanding of their role in a democracy. On arriving in
    Washington, delegates had frank and future-oriented discussions with
    Representative Marcy Kaptur of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus,
    Supreme Court Justice David Souter, and two former U.S. ambassadors to
    Ukraine.
                Ukraine Program in Ohio
        The March exchange marked the debut of Open World's rule of law
    theme for the Ukraine program, and our highest-ranking judicial
    delegation was hosted in Columbus, Ohio, by state Supreme Court Chief
    Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Judge Robert Cupp of the Ohio Third
    District Court of Appeals. The visit began with a Ukrainian bread-and-
    salt welcoming ceremony at the Ohio Judicial Center and concluded with
    a live television broadcast of a symposium on Ukrainian democracy with
    the Ukrainians and Chief Justice Moyer. In between, the delegation--
    which included a Ukrainian Supreme Court justice--observed court
    proceedings, including a jury trial; took part in roundtables with Ohio
    judges; and met with Governor Bob Taft. Rule of law delegations
    simultaneously visiting Georgia, Minnesota, New York, and Pennsylvania
    had similar experiences.
                Lithuania
        Lithuania was selected for an Open World pilot because of its
    prospects for building a successful market economy and democracy and
    because of Congressional interest in including a Baltic country.
    Lithuania's independent parliament (Seimas) and historical ties with
    the United States made a legislative-based program very welcome.
        Open World launched its Lithuania pilot program in 2004, bringing
    mayors, journalists, business and NGO leaders, environmental experts,
    and youth activists from nine of the country's 10 administrative
    districts to the United States in February and September. Lithuanian
    Ambassador Vygaudas Usackas held receptions for both travel groups at
    his embassy during their Washington, D.C., orientations.
        Open World's newest program received high marks from the 100
    Lithuanians who participated. Higher education, lobbying, business
    associations, health care, Social Security, and citizen participation
    in local government were rated among the most useful topics studied. In
    a representative comment, a delegate on a Fort Collins, Colorado,
    program on youth issues stated, ``My best moments were when I realized
    that people in the United States work very hard in order to accomplish
    their goals, especially helping the youth. This motivates me to work
    harder in Lithuania.''
        Chicago, Illinois, hosted several of our inaugural Lithuanian
    delegations in 2004, with significant participation by the large
    Lithuanian-American community there. Among the highlights of the
    Chicago visits were a Q-and-A session for Lithuanian journalists at the
    Chicago Tribune, a fundraising workshop for NGO leaders at the Donors
    Forum, and, for a Lithuanian business-development delegation, a nuts-
    and-bolts overview of how U.S. business incubators work at the
    Industrial Council of Nearwest Chicago.
                Uzbekistan
        Uzbekistan was chosen for an Open World pilot on the basis of its
    large population, its cultural and intellectual prominence among the
    new independent states of the former Soviet Union that are principally
    Islamic, and its strategic position in Central Asia. The Open World
    Board believed that furthering democracy and a market economy in
    Uzbekistan would promote stability in the entire region.
        Open World hosted its second Uzbek exchange in October 2004. The
    50-person group included senior representatives from Uzbekistan's
    ministries of economics, finance, and public health; Central Bank
    officials; judges; prominent journalists; agricultural experts; women
    entrepreneurs; and health advocates. Delegates came from 10 of
    Uzbekistan's 14 political subdivisions.
        Open World has received numerous reports on how participants have
    used the knowledge they gained while in the United States. A business
    consultant running for the Nukus City Council campaigned on themes
    inspired by her U.S. visit: creating favorable conditions for private
    business through legislation and defending the rights of female
    entrepreneurs. The head of the Agro-Industrial Stock Exchange in
    Tashkent reports that, as a result of his visit to the Kansas City
    Board of Trade, his exchange has now introduced electronic trading.
        A doctor who practices in the populous Fergana Valley conducted a
    workshop on premature infant care for 45 of her colleagues to share the
    neonatal techniques she had seen at Tampa General Hospital. And a
    Tashkent newspaper reporter is publishing two long articles, ``Two-
    Story America'' and ``The White Stele [Monument] of Washington,'' that
    describe in detail how his impressions of America and Americans changed
    for the better as a result of his Open World visit to Chattanooga,
    Tennessee, and Washington, D.C. He writes, ``The one thing that really
    impressed me in the United States is the people. To tell the truth,
    having watched Hollywood films, I expected to see an undisciplined
    public where people did whatever they felt like. But already in
    Washington, I was sincerely surprised by the proper and polite
    Americans that I met. On the street, people were smiling . . . and no
    one looked at us with unfriendliness. At the end of my stay in the U.S.
    capital, I felt as though I were at home in Tashkent.''
                Future Directions
        In 2004 the Senate requested that Open World study the feasibility
    of expansion to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Open World model, with
    appropriate U.S. in-country support, has demonstrated its suitability
    in a variety of environments. The key question for the Open World
    Board, which includes the Chairman of this Subcommittee, as well as the
    Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is to decide the
    allocation of available resources among the countries in which Open
    World is authorized. Recent concerns have been raised by Members of
    Congress about Belarus, Moldova, and Georgia. Congressional interest in
    Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Lithuania have remained strong. Yet
    Open World's annual budget has been modest since its inception. In the
    current budget environment, significant expansion is unlikely;
    therefore, decisions will be influenced by available resources.
        A regional approach, centered in Russia, the western NIS, and
    Central Asia, would allow Open World to respond flexibly to U.S.
    strategic interests but avoid the upfront investment devoted to setting
    up a new country-focused program. Open World might offer a cost-
    effective means of delivering current exchange programs in a number of
    countries. If Congress so approves, the Board could request that a new
    regionally aimed model be developed for fiscal year 2007. The fiscal
    year 2006 budget request is based on the current country-specific
    model. The staff evaluation of the feasibility of pilot programs in
    Afghanistan and Pakistan is included as Appendix C.
                        fiscal year 2006 budget request
        The Center's budget request for fiscal year 2006 reflects an
    increase of $.612 million over fiscal year 2005, in order to continue
    the Center's proven mission of hosting young political and civic
    leaders from Russia and other countries of the region. The Board of
    Trustees believes that maintaining a robust Open World presence in
    Russia is necessary and important for future U.S.-Russia relations.
    Program capacity in fiscal year 2006 at the requested level remains far
    below the limitation of 3,000 set in the Center's authorizing
    legislation.
        The budget request maintains hosting and other programmatic
    activities at a level of approximately 1,400 participants total
    (continuing a decrease in hosting levels begun in fiscal year 2003),
    based on airfare and other travel increases above the overall inflation
    rate, and projected higher foreign exchange rates. The Department of
    State Capital Security Cost Sharing charge for the Center's two Foreign
    National Staff is also included. Actual participant allocations for
    individual countries will be based on Board of Trustees recommendations
    and on consultations with the Committee.
        Major categories of requested funding are:
      --Personnel Compensation and Benefits ($.883 mil/11 FTEs)
      --Contracts ($8.435 mil)
        --Management of delegate nomination and vetting process
        --Visa and other document processing
        --Travel arrangements, including international and domestic air
                travel
        --Management and coordination with grantees on delegate host
                placement
        --Database maintenance and development
        --Information services
      --Grants ($4.354 mil) (U.S. host organizations)
        --Professional program development
        --Food and (limited) lodging
        --Cultural activities
        --Local transportation
        --Interpretation
        The requested funding support is also needed for anticipated fiscal
    year 2006 pay increases. Overall administrative costs remain at a low 6
    percent of the Center's annual expenditures.
                          other program contributions
        Major financial support to the Open World Program is contributed by
    American citizens who host program participants in their homes and
    communities. Private American citizens freely provide cultural
    activities, community-wide activities, and housing for one week, which
    often reduces the program's per diem expenses--by a substantial amount
    when estimated over the life of the program. During 2004, Open World
    also received financial support from The Russell Family Foundation for
    support of environmentally focused programming and from TNK-BP for
    general support of Open World programming and alumni activity in Russia
    and Ukraine.
                                   conclusion
        The fiscal year 2006 budget request will enable the Open World
    Leadership Center to continue to make major contributions to an
    understanding of democracy, civil society, and free enterprise in a
    region of vital importance to the Congress and the Nation.
        I thank the Subcommittee for its continued support of the Open
    World Program.
                                   appendix a

              OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
                           Description                        2006 estimated
                                                                obligations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    11.1 Personnel Compensation.............................        $702,000
    12.1 Personnel Benefits.................................         181,000
    21.0 Travel.............................................          80,000
    22.0 Transportation.....................................           3,000
    23.0 Rent, Comm., Utilities.............................         204,000
    24.0 Printing...........................................          21,000
    25.1 Other Services/Contracts...........................       8,435,000
    26.0 Supplies...........................................           4,000
    31.0 Equipment..........................................          16,000
    41.0 Grants.............................................       4,354,000
                                                             ---------------
          Total, fiscal year 2006 budget request............      14,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   appendix b
                         open world delegate quotations
    Russia
        ``During my Open World visit to America I was struck by the well-
    functioning educational system, social programs, and the people
    themselves, full of life and purpose, wanting to help others. Our mayor
    Aleksandr Yermoshin and vice-mayor for legislative relations Yuriy
    Sukhoruchenkov have also had the opportunity to travel to the U.S. on
    Open World. I consider that all that we saw and experienced has
    definitely influenced our work in municipal development. Key to our
    social policy are current programs for children, improving their health
    (infant mortality has decreased between 2002 and 2004), finding
    placement for orphans, providing therapy to children in dysfunctional
    families and those with disabilities, creating employment and
    activities for youth, and working with gifted children.''

                                       Yuriy Kostev
                                       First Vice-Mayor of Aleksin, Tula
                                           Region
                                       San Diego, CA

        ``While visiting the United States on the Open World Program I
    became aware of the genuinely constructive interaction that can exist
    between government bodies and the community. Upon my return home, I
    decided to take action. I told the people of Voronezh how they can
    protect their right to adequate accommodations, and prevent unsuitable
    living conditions resulting from the inaction of local government. The
    `Citizen Inspection' project was born, providing information (letters)
    from local authorities on budgetary information and deadlines for the
    refurbishment of houses and buildings in the community. I received many
    letters and telephone calls informing me about what really goes on in
    housing and communal services. This information led to the creation of
    the Citizen Inspection television program. A second project called `My
    Rights' was also successful. This project provides information about
    property registration rights and opportunities. Our brochures describe
    the registration procedure, rates, and free services that the community
    can and must demand from the authorities.''

                                       Aleksandr Vladimirovich Sysoyev
                                       Deputy, Voronezh City Duma
                                       Milwaukee, WI

        ``A close working relationship exists between school and family in
    both Russia and the U.S. Parents and older classmates are actively
    recruited to work with children. Promoting a healthy lifestyle should
    begin with pre-schoolers.''

                                       Svetlana Safonova
                                       Psychologist/Nakhodka City
                                           Department of General
                                           Professional Education
                                           Information and Curriculum
                                           Development Center
                                       Denver, CO

        ``I became enamored with American crisis centers in Chicago where
    all resources--counselors, medical help, lawyers, etc.--are available
    in one place, unlike in Russia (where a child has to relive the horror
    of domestic abuse several times at several different agencies).''

                                       Sergey Vitalyevich Belashev
                                       Head/Children's Department Rostov-
                                           on-Don Psycho-Neurological
                                           Center
                                       Chicago, IL

        ``It is clear that Americans rigorously defend their rights that
    are guaranteed by the Constitution. This also raised a sense of
    patriotism in us for our country and our Constitution. Order can be
    established through a set of laws in which all people are truly equal.
    This is one of the fundamental principles of civil society that we need
    to strive for. That is good enough reason to study the American
    example.''

                                       Alyuset Mezhmedinovich Azizkhanov
                                       Freelance radio journalist and
                                           member of the Russian
                                           Journalists Association
                                       Durham, NC

        ``These organizations [U.S. NGOs] have just a few paid workers. The
    vast majority spends it own time and effort and work without pay. We
    asked: `For what?' And they answered: `I need this, my children need
    this, my country needs this.' For us, volunteer efforts are surprising,
    for them it is the norm. What also surprised us is the belief of
    ordinary Americans that much depends on them in their personal lives as
    in the life of the city, state, and nation.''

                                       Mariya Abramova
                                       Public and International Relations
                                           Specialist and Assistant to the
                                           Deputy Governor of the Tomsk
                                           Region Administration
                                       Baltimore, MD

        ``America showed me our different attitudes in our relations
    between man and government and man and society. I learned from my host
    that she believes that her participation in the life of her country,
    community, and government matters and that the future of America
    depends on the actions of every American. This lesson allowed me to
    take a fresh look at my work for the past ten years. I first met the
    parents of Down's Syndrome children in the early 1990s. The government
    considered these children unteachable. Parents united to deal with the
    situation themselves. This resulted in a decorative arts workshop where
    some of the adults and teens with Downs Syndrome now work, in a group
    that prepares athletes for Special Olympics, and another group that
    works with severely mentally retarded children. So we discovered that
    those with Down Syndrome are teachable and employable and that they
    should be taught and employed. I wanted to work with them, first as a
    volunteer and later as a professional art therapist. I now teach
    specialists how to teach the learning disabled. Never before was there
    such a demand for all my talents. Thank you, Fran Satina (OW host), I
    now know that I can change my country for the better.''

                                       Marina Rodkevich
                                       Moscow City Psychologist and Art
                                           Director, ``Same as You''
                                           organization
                                       Akron, OH

        ``I was very impressed with the plans of Vicksburg, Tupelo, and
    Oxford, Mississippi. Although the population of Nizhniy Novgorod is
    more than one million people, much of the planning of these small towns
    could be applicable to Nizhniy Novgorod's own development. Strategic
    community planning at the city level is a new trend in economic
    development in the Russian Federation. As a new trend, it seems likely
    that we can adapt American experiences with such planning and
    effectively apply these principles in the development of Russian
    cities.''

                                       Galina Yuryevna Topnikova
                                       Head/Social-Economic Development
                                           Projection Section, Nizhniy
                                           Novgorod City Administration,
                                           Economic Development and
                                           Planning Department
                                       Oxford, MS
    Ukraine
        ``I think it [his Open World visit] will expand all of my horizons,
    as well as everyone else's. I also have ambitions at some time in the
    future to help draft legislation for my country. I think these
    experiences will help that as well.''

                                       Judge Valentyn Paliy
                                       Judge/Kyiv Commercial Court
                                       Corvallis, OR

        ``We saw that Americans live in this democracy every day, but every
    day they create it. We realize more and more how difficult is the path
    ahead of us.''

                                       Maryna Bohdanova
                                       Deputy chief editor and columnist/
                                           Ria weekly newspaper
                                       Pittsburgh, PA

        ``The important thing about this program is that it will bring
    about change--change in the participants personally--and that it will
    serve as a stimulus for greater effort in Ukraine.''

                                       Olena Morhun
                                       Crises Prevention Program
                                           Coordinator/Woman for Woman
                                           Center
                                       Washington, DC

        ``I was impressed with the members of the group with which I worked
    over the past ten days because I realized their immense potential in
    Ukraine, thanks to the high level of their competence and experience.
    It is very important that we met in this group from Ukraine, and I
    expect that we will continue our work there together.''

                                       Valentyna Kyrylova
                                       Director/Osnovy Publishing House
                                       Washington, DC

        ``Especially useful for me was to see democracy in action,
    exercising its influence on the government, and the role of society in
    the decision-making process of government.''

                                       Lyudmyla Merlyan
                                       Head/Gender Committee of the Civil
                                           Parliament of Ukrainian Women
                                       Washington, DC
    Uzbekistan
        ``The one thing that really impressed me in the United States is
    the people. To tell the truth, having watched Hollywood films, I
    expected to see an undisciplined public where people did whatever they
    felt like. But already in Washington, I was sincerely surprised by the
    proper and polite Americans whom I met. On the street, people were
    smiling . . . and no one looked at us with unfriendliness. At the end
    of my stay in the U.S. capital, I felt as though I were at home in
    Tashkent.''

                                       Viktor Krymzalov
                                       Special Correspondent/Private
                                           Property newspaper
                                       Chattanooga, TN

        ``It wasn't just a trip to America; it was a trip to the future,
    the future that I thought would never see in my lifetime or in my
    country. Owing to this opportunity, I now know what it is, and I will
    try to bring something from the future that I saw back home to
    Uzbekistan.''

                                       Zhumanazar Melikulov
                                       Deputy Editor-in-Chief/Fidokor
                                           newspaper
                                       Chattanooga, TN

        ``I have unforgettable impressions of the Open World Program. My
    understanding of America as a country and Americans has completely
    changed. Before my trip, I had a very vague insight of what it is. My
    comprehension now: it is a great country, which is as it is owing to
    its free, honest and direct people. I was impressed by a high
    motivation and energy of American entrepreneurs and especially by the
    fact the legislation and the system as a whole support them. The
    significant result of my trip was elaboration of a new system for
    exchange trade--Internet--trading. I'm proud to say that we've
    implemented it successfully and today there is no analogy of it in CIS
    countries. I'd like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to
    the organizers of the Open World Program.''

                                       Temur Valitov
                                       Chair/Agro-Industrial Exchange
                                       Kansas City, KS
    Lithuania
        ``My best moments were when I realized that people in the United
    States work very hard in order to accomplish their goals, especially
    helping the youth. This motivates me to work harder in Lithuania.''

                                       Youth Issues program participant
                                       Fort Collins, CO

        ``Local grass-roots initiatives really left a big impression on me.
    I have both learned how to better communicate with city and village
    communities and realized the need to consult with them more regularly
    on policy issues.''

                                       Virgilijus Skulskis
                                       Head, Information and Analysis
                                           Department/Institute of Agrarian
                                           Economics
                                       Middlebury, VT

        ``In Vermont, much of your success depends on the trust you've
    built through working relationships. This is something that we need to
    improve among ourselves.''

                                       Linas Vainus
                                       Project Manager/Atgaja Green
                                           Movement
                                       Middlebury, VT

        ``While we did not even know each other as recently as last week,
    it now feels like we have known each other for a long time--like
    classmates, and I know that we will be friends for a long time to
    come.''

                                       Algirdas Ronkus
                                       District Administrator/Klaipeda
                                           District Municipality
                                       Omaha, NB

        ``I was surprised to find out that many NGOs in the United States
    work without any government support . . . Our NGOs should follow this
    example rather than expecting support from the government.''

                                       Women's Issues and NGOs program
                                           participant
                                       Portland, OR

        ``At the Shelburne town meeting we understood that this was a
    useful way for a small community to influence local government's
    decision-making process . . . We were able to make new contacts and an
    idea for a project in Lithuania emerged.''

                                       NGO development program participant
                                       Burlington, VT
                                   appendix c
       assessment of proposed open world expansion into afghanistan and
                                    pakistan
        Background.--In December 2004, Public Law 108-447 expanded Open
    World program eligibility to any other country that is designated by
    the Open World Leadership Center Board of Trustees, provided that the
    Board notify the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of such a
    designation at least 90 days before it is to take effect. During Senate
    floor consideration of the Open World legislation, Open World Board
    Chairman James Billington and Open World staff were requested explore
    the possibility of expanding the program to Afghanistan and Pakistan,
    two countries crucial to U.S. interests. (Congressional Record, Sept.
    21, 2004, S9425.)
        Summary of Assessment Efforts to Date.--Open World staff met with
    Congressional Research Service experts on the region, the Library of
    Congress Field Director at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad and his staff,
    and Open World grantees with hosting experience in both target
    countries. Open World contractors conducted logistical assessments and
    contacted key State Department, embassy and AID personnel.
        Overall Comment.--Each country has different, overarching obstacles
    to applying the Open World model successfully. Afghanistan's societal
    structure and civil society have very little in common with what is
    found in the United States. Pakistan's population is so large and
    diverse that it is questionable how much impact a program involving
    only a few hundred delegates would have (details below).
    Afghanistan
        Political Situation.--Afghanistan is stabilizing after more than 22
    years of warfare, and the successful presidential election appears to
    be accelerating political and economic reconstruction. The United
    States is committed to a secure and stable Afghanistan. Many observers
    are looking forward to the September 2005 parliamentary elections and
    the next major step toward stable governance.
        Viability of Open World Candidates/Themes.--Afghanistan currently
    has very few identifiable civic leaders because there are few
    identifiable elements of civil society, but small U.S. exchange
    programs have been implemented. (For example, in 2004, Meridian
    International, an Open World grantee, hosted 30 Afghans in themes such
    as civil society, local government, democracy building, cultural
    heritage, and civic education.) These exchanges do not have homestays,
    but do include visits to American homes. Women travel in all-female
    groups. Delegates do not have English-language capability.
        Embassy Support.--It would be very difficult for the U.S. Embassy
    to lend logistical support to an Open World program, both for security
    and workload reasons, but the embassy would need to handle the actual
    selection process and is willing to do so under the scenario given in
    the recommendation below.
        Visas.--All candidates must be flown to Islamabad for their visa
    interview. A minimum of six weeks is required from the time of the
    interview until a final decision is made on issuance or nonissuance of
    the visa. In 2004 there was a high incidence of nonissuance to Afghan
    exchange candidates.
        Costs.--The estimated cost is $18,000-$19,000 per person, almost
    150 percent above the cost for a Russia civic program delegate.
        Recommendation.--State Department officials have expressed support
    for an Open World pilot program for new Afghan parliamentarians that
    would bring them into direct contact with their American federal and
    state legislative counterparts. If Congress directs Open World to
    implement a pilot program, Open World staff would recommend hosting one
    pilot delegation of 8-10 parliamentarians and/or parliamentary staff
    following the September 2005 parliamentary elections.
    Pakistan
        Political Situation.--Hopes that the October 2002 national
    elections would reverse Pakistan's history of unstable governance and
    military interference in democratic institutions were eroded by the
    actions of the Musharraf government. The United States has continued to
    express concern over lack of progress on political rights and civil
    liberties, but Pakistan's stability and cooperation in the war against
    terrorism are of vital importance to the United States.
        Viability of Open World Candidates/Themes.--Exchange programs in
    Pakistan are well established and growing. Several Open World grantees
    have extensive experience hosting Pakistani participants. Certain
    segments of urban Pakistani society are very well educated, know
    English, and are enthusiastic about interacting with Americans. We
    continue to assess whether this segment of society would benefit from
    Open World programs, which usually reach into the far regions of
    participating countries. Because of the current security situation in
    Pakistan, travel by State Department employees from the embassy and
    consulates is restricted. This limits their ability to identify
    qualified candidates for exchange programs outside Islamabad.
        Visas.--The visa application process takes a minimum of six weeks
    and there is a high rate of rejection, especially for males. The
    Library of Congress Field Office will report to us in late March on
    their discussions with the consular section to identify more
    specifically the level of support for Open World available under
    current staffing and security conditions.
        Costs.--$12,000 per person (nearly twice the cost for most Open
    World Russia delegates)
        Recommendation.--If Congress directs Open World to implement a
    pilot program, Open World staff would recommend hosting one or two
    delegations of 8-10 delegates each on Open World's Federalism or Women
    as Leaders themes.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Marybeth Peters
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:Thank you for the
    opportunity to present the Copyright Office's fiscal year 2006 budget
    request.
        For fiscal year 2006, the Copyright Office is seeking the
    Committee's approval of one major request for the Office and support
    for two of the Architect of the Capitol's (AOC) requests on behalf of
    the Copyright Office. First, in the BASIC appropriation we are
    requesting a $4.161 million increase in new net appropriation authority
    and a $500,000 decrease in offsetting collections authority. Four
    million dollars of the requested funds will be used for offsite lease
    costs to temporarily relocate the Office while its existing space in
    the Madison Building is under construction. I am pleased to report that
    we have made great progress on our Reengineering Program and expect
    full implementation in the first half of fiscal year 2007. The
    remaining $161,000 is a request for restoration of the fiscal year 2005
    rescission. Additionally, in recognition of new legislation that
    terminated funding, we are requesting a $1.872 million decrease in the
    CARP offsetting collections authority.
        As part of AOC's budget, we request your support to provide $5.5
    million for reconstruction of existing Copyright Office space in the
    Madison Building to accommodate the reengineered processes and new
    organizational structure. Also, as part of the AOC's budget, we request
    $800,000 to do a design study for construction of a Copyright Deposit
    Facility at Fort Meade. This facility will provide environmental
    conditions for copyright deposits that allow us to meet our legal
    requirements to retain, and be able to produce copies of, these works.
        I will review these requests in more detail, but first will provide
    an overview of the Office's work.
              review of copyright office work and accomplishments
        The Copyright Office's mission is to promote creativity by
    sustaining an effective national copyright system. We do this by
    administering the copyright law; providing policy and legal assistance
    to the Congress, the administration, and the judiciary; and by
    informing and educating the public about our nation's copyright system.
    The demands in these areas are growing and becoming more complex with
    the evolution and increased use of digital technology.
        I will briefly highlight some of the Office's current and past work
    and our plans for fiscal year 2006.
    Policy and Legal Work
        We have continued to work closely with the Senate Committee on the
    Judiciary and its House counterpart. In July I testified on S. 2560,
    the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004, which would have
    created a new cause of action for intentionally inducing copyright
    infringement. After the hearing the bill's sponsors, Senators Hatch,
    Leahy, Frist, Daschle, Graham of S.C. and Boxer asked me to meet with
    the interested parties to discuss alternatives, evaluate whether these
    parties could reach consensus on an approach to this legislation, and
    to provide them with the Office's recommendations. The parties failed
    to reach consensus, and late in September I submitted our recommended
    approach which accommodated the legitimate concerns of all parties,
    provided a basis of moving forward, while at the same time meeting the
    goals of the bill's cosponsors. Unfortunately, there was not sufficient
    time to move this bill forward in the remaining days of the 108th
    Congress.
        The Office's general counsel testified on my behalf on the
    Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act of 2004, which was enacted as part
    of Public Law 108-447, and we assisted in reform of the Copyright
    Arbitration Royalty Panel System (the Copyright Royalty and
    Distribution Reform Act of 2004, enacted as Public Law 108-419).
        I testified in the House, and we worked closely and extensively
    with staff, on the proposed Family Movie Act, which is now part of S.
    167, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, passed by the Senate
    on February 1, 2005. H.R. 357, the House's companion bill, cleared the
    House Judiciary Committee on March 9, 2005. We have also worked
    extensively on issues concerning the existing compulsory license for
    the making and distribution of phonorecords of musical compositions,
    including digital phonorecord deliveries of music. Other issues
    included proposals to create criminal and civil penalties for
    camcording by individuals in theaters, providing statutory damages for
    ``pre-release works,'' and creating a system of pre-registration for
    certain classes of ``pre-release works,'' which are included in S.167
    and H.R. 357, mentioned above.
        On January 5, 2005 Senators Hatch and Leahy asked me to study the
    issue of ``orphan works,'' copyrighted works whose owners are difficult
    or impossible to locate, and to report our findings and recommendations
    to them by the end of the year. We are in the process of seeking
    initial comments on the scope of the problem and possible solutions.
    The Office also intends to hold hearings during the year.
        During fiscal year 2006, the Office will initiate and conduct most
    of the required work on its triennial rulemaking on exceptions from the
    section 1201 prohibition on circumvention of technological measures
    that control access to copyrighted works. The purpose is to determine
    whether there are any particular classes of works as to which users
    are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make
    noninfringing uses due to the prohibition. (In 2003, the Librarian of
    Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register, exempted four narrow
    classes until October 27, 2006.) Comments proposing exemptions will be
    solicited, comments on the proposals will be sought, and hearings will
    held.
        The Office has been extremely active in a number of important
    copyright cases, many of which challenged the constitutionality of
    various provisions of the Copyright Act. In these cases the Office
    assisted the Department of Justice in defending the law. The Office
    also assisted the Department of Justice in the government's Supreme
    Court amicus brief of the United States in MGM Studios v. Grokster,
    Ltd., on whether providers of ``file sharing'' network software can be
    held secondarily liable for copyright infringement when the vast
    majority of uses of the providers' network constitute copyright
    infringement. (Oral argument was heard on March 29, 2005.)
        As always, the Office continued to provide ongoing advice to
    executive branch agencies on international matters, particularly, the
    United States Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce and the
    Department of State, and participated in numerous multilateral,
    regional and bilateral negotiations.
    Registration including Renewals and Recordation
        Registration of authors' and other copyright owners' claims to
    copyright, including claims in renewals, and recordation of documents,
    such as assignments, security interests, and mergers are important
    parts of the U.S. copyright system. The Office has significantly
    improved its delivery times for registration and recordation services
    since 2001.
        During fiscal year 2004, the Copyright Office received 614,235
    claims to copyright covering more than a million works and registered
    661,469 claims received during fiscal year 2003 and 2004. Registration
    is now two and a half times speedier than in 2001, when the average
    time between receipt of a claim and the issuance of a registration
    certificate was 200 days. At the end of fiscal year 2004, the Office
    has shortened the average time to process a claim to 80 days.
        The Copyright Office records documents relating to copyrighted
    works, mask works, and vessel hull designs and creates records of those
    documents. These documents frequently concern popular and economically
    significant works. The Office recorded 14,979 documents covering more
    than 470,000 titles of works in fiscal year 2004. At the end of the
    fiscal year, the average time to record a document was 33 days, more
    than six times faster than the average of 210 days in fiscal year 2001.
        These achievements took place during a period of increased security
    concerns. In early February 2004, ricin-contaminated mail was delivered
    to a Senate Office. This incident stopped the Office's postal mail
    delivery for an entire month while enhanced screening processes were
    put in place. The disruption affected mail processing until early June,
    when the last of the delayed mail was delivered. The Office worked to
    restore normal processing levels, and the improvement in timeliness
    reflects efforts to overcome the disruption.
        However, processing time for the creation and making available of
    online cataloging records increased in fiscal year 2004 because of the
    Office's focus on improving the efficiency of registration processing.
    The result was an increase in the Cataloging Division's work on hand.
    For the remainder of fiscal year 2005, the Office will concentrate on
    improving processing time for these records.
        With respect to renewal registrations, the Office is facing the
    fact that the number of renewal registrations will decrease
    significantly in fiscal year 2007. Renewal registrations only apply to
    works that were copyrighted before January 1, 1978, the effective date
    of the current copyright law. Before 1978, if a work was published with
    the required notice of copyright or an unpublished work was registered
    with the Copyright Office, it received an initial term of copyright
    protection of 28 years, and a renewal term that initially was 28 years
    and today is 67 years. To receive the renewal term, a renewal
    registration had to be made in the last year of the initial term, i.e.,
    the 28th year. The last year for 28th year renewals is the end of this
    year, December 31, 2005.
        Additionally, the law was changed in 1992 to make renewal
    registration voluntary. There are certain benefits that are gained by
    renewing in the 28th year. However, if no renewal claim is registered
    in the 28th year of the term, renewal is automatically secured on the
    last day of that year. The 1992 law applies to works copyrighted
    between January 1, 1964 and December 31, 1977. However, even if renewal
    is automatically secured, i.e., no renewal application was submitted in
    the 28th year of the initial term of copyright, a renewal claim may be
    submitted after the 28th year and some benefits flow from such a
    registration. A number of such registrations are made each year.
        When renewal registration was required, the Office registered
    approximately 52,000 claims. Since the enactment of the automatic
    renewal provision in 1992, the number of renewal claims decreased each
    year. Last year the Office received approximately 17,000 renewal
    claims. We believe that between 1,500 and 2,000 renewal claims were
    post 28th year renewals. Our records show that approximately 5,500
    renewal claims were received in October, November and December, 2004.
    The renewals unit consists of a staff of five.
        The Office currently receives approximately $1 million a year for
    renewal services. We project that the Office will take in significantly
    less money in fiscal year 2006 for the 28th year renewals received in
    October, November, and December 2005 and for renewals submitted after
    the 28th year. During fiscal year 2006 we will assess the impact of
    this loss of revenue and the decreased workload. However, it is likely
    that in the fiscal year 2007 budget submission, the Office will request
    a permanent decrease in its offsetting collections authority and a
    reduction in FTEs.
    Public Information and Education
        The Copyright Office responded to 381,845 requests for direct
    reference services and electronically published thirty issues of its
    electronic newsletter NewsNet a source that alerts subscribers to
    Congressional hearings, new and proposed regulations, deadlines for
    comments, new publications, other copyright-related subjects, and news
    about the Copyright Office to 5,297 subscribers.
        The Office website continued to play a key role in disseminating
    information to the copyright community and the general public. The
    Office logged 20 million hits by the public in fiscal year 2004,
    representing a 25 percent increase over the previous year. The Spanish
    language pages on its website received approximately 130,000 hits
    during the fiscal year.
        The website received an updated look to coincide with the January
    1, 2004, introduction of the new office seal, logo, and wordmark. The
    website displayed the new symbols along with new colors derived from
    those used in the Office's printed materials. The pages' appearance was
    also standardized, streamlined, and designed for faster loading. The
    Department of Health and Human Services selected the Copyright Office
    website as an example of a government site that meets user expectations
    with regard to navigation, content, and organization.
        The Copyright Office, with the Library's Office of Strategic
    Initiatives, initiated the Copyright Records Project to determine the
    feasibility of digitizing millions of Copyright Office paper records
    covering 1790-1977. In 2004, the project team researched and documented
    the various types of paper records, developed a strategy, and issued a
    Request for Information seeking expressions of interest. In early
    fiscal year 2005 three potential vendors conducted a test of their
    capabilities to digitize and index sample records and we expect a
    report on the results by the end of April 2005.
    Licensing Activities
        The Copyright Office administers the copyright law's statutory
    licenses and obligations. The Licensing Division collects and
    distributes royalty fees from cable operators for retransmitting
    television and radio broadcasts, from satellite carriers for
    retransmitting ``superstation'' and network signals, and from importers
    and manufacturers of digital audio recording products for later
    distribution to copyright owners. In fiscal year 2004, the Office
    collected $212.9 million in royalty funds and distributed $154.1
    million to copyright owners.
        With the passage of the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform
    Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-419), a new program was established in the
    Library of Congress, the Copyright Royalty (CRJ) program, which assumed
    most of the functions of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels
    (CARPs). The interim Chief Copyright Royalty Judge is submitting a
    separate statement to request funding for the new CRJ Program.
                        fiscal year 2006 budget request
    Reengineering Program
        The Copyright Office's seven-year Reengineering Program initiative
    is to redesign delivery of its public services. This program is
    customer driven to prepare our Office for the future growth in
    electronic submissions. The Office had planned for the reengineering
    implementation to be fully funded and completed in fiscal year 2006, to
    include moving staff offsite so that its space in the Madison Building
    can be renovated in one phase. However, due to infrastructure and
    offsite lease requirements, the program cannot be completed until the
    first half of fiscal year 2007.
        The relocation of the Copyright Office staff and the Madison
    Building construction need to be done concurrently. Because of the
    complexity and integrated nature of the various steps in the
    registration and recordation processes, they must be located in one
    place. The Library of Congress does not have sufficient swing space to
    accommodate such a large group of staff and operations; therefore,
    there is no choice but to relocate most staff to leased offsite space.
        The $4 million request for new one time funding is to cover most of
    the fiscal year 2006 expenses associated with moving staff offsite,
    specifically lease and utilities, furniture rental, security guards,
    and voice and data line leases. With the committee's support for the
    new fiscal year 2006 funding, the Office will relocate staff to leased
    offsite space, reconfigure its main facilities, install new equipment
    and staff workstations, and bring the new IT systems infrastructure
    online. In late 2006, staff will move back from the leased offsite
    location to a new organizational structure to begin reengineered
    operations. This represents the fourth and last net appropriations
    increase to the Copyright Office BASIC appropriation base to complete
    the Reengineering Program. The project will be fully implemented in
    fiscal year 2007 with no new funding requested for fiscal year 2007.
    Rather, the Office plans to reduce its net appropriation base in fiscal
    year 2007 and return non-recurring Reengineering Program funds.
        The reengineering initiative is contingent upon the AOC receiving
    its fiscal year 2006 request for $5.5 million to undertake the
    construction of the current Copyright Office space in the Madison
    Building.
    Sustaining Staff Capacity
        Because of the fiscal year 2005 rescission, the Copyright Basic
    fund reduced pay by $161,000. The Library is requesting the restoration
    of the $161,000 in fiscal year 2006 to maintain payroll purchasing
    power needed to sustain staff capacity.
    Copyright Deposit Facility at Fort Meade
        The Copyright Office is required by law (title 17) to retain
    unpublished copyright deposits for the full-term of copyright, which is
    life of the author plus 70 years, and published deposits for the
    longest period considered practicable and desirable by the Register of
    Copyright. A retention period of 120 years has been established for the
    unpublished deposits and 20 years for the published deposits. A
    certified copy of a copyright deposit may be used in legal proceedings
    as evidence of the scope of copyright in a work.
        Currently, the Copyright Office archives more than 800,000
    copyright deposits annually in a variety of media as part of the
    registration process which results in an annual storage increase of
    approximately 3,500 cubic feet of published deposits and records and
    3,500 cubic feet of unpublished deposits. From fiscal year 2007 through
    2020, the storage requirement is projected to expand to a total of
    approximately 245,000 cubic feet.
        Copyright deposits are currently stored at two locations: leased
    space in Landover, Maryland, a GSA facility, and at a commercial
    records management facility in Sterling, Virginia, managed by Iron
    Mountain. Both facilities are subject to wide temperature variances and
    high humidity levels, and therefore fail to provide the appropriate
    environmental conditions necessary to ensure the longevity of the
    deposit materials. According to the Library of Congress Conservation
    Division, continued storage under present substandard environmental
    conditions will accelerate the aging of the deposit material and reduce
    the useful life span by 75 percent, placing these deposits at risk,
    especially after 25 years.
        In 1994, the U.S. Army transferred a 100-acre site at Fort Meade,
    Maryland, to the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) for use by the
    legislative branch for the construction of storage modules. The master
    plan envisioned 13 buildings for the Library of Congress of which one
    was dedicated to the storage of copyright deposits. Both the design and
    construction documents were completed in August 2003. In recognition of
    the tight budgetary environment, the Copyright Office is recommending
    that the Fort Meade facility be redesigned for modular construction so
    that the facility can be built in phases in order to spread out the
    costs over multiple funding cycles. The AOC is requesting $800,000 in
    fiscal year 2006 funds for this redesign effort with construction of
    the initial phase being deferred until fiscal year 2008. We ask your
    support for this request.
    CARP offsetting collections authority
        The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARP) system funded by
    royalty fees and by participants is being replaced by the Copyright
    Royalty Judges (CRJ) Program, created by the Copyright Royalty and
    Distribution Reform Act of 2004, signed into law on November 30, 2004.
    However, there are still some proceedings that will or may operate
    under the old CARP system during fiscal year 2006. In accordance with
    the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004,
    signed into law on December 7, 2004, the satellite carrier statutory
    license rate setting procedures will be conducted by CARPs. Therefore,
    the cost of the arbitrators for the CARP proceedings will be paid for
    by the participants, and staff and other expenses will be funded from
    the royalty pools. The Office is requesting a $1.872 million decrease
    in the CARP offsetting collections authority, leaving $300,000 to fund
    the fiscal year 2006 program.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, I ask that you support the fiscal year 2006 Copyright
    Basic budget request for a one time $4 million increase in net
    appropriations and a $500,000 decrease in offsetting collections for
    the BASIC appropriation to implement the Reengineering Program, and a
    $1.872 million decrease in offsetting collections authority in the CARP
    appropriation. Your support is also requested to approve the $5.5
    million in the AOC budget for reengineering costs to construct the
    redesigned facilities.
        Our fiscal year 2006 request permits us to move forward on the
    facilities work critical to the final implementation of our
    Reengineering Program. We appreciate the past support you have given us
    for this project. We are now at the point that we cannot turn back,
    and, with your continued support, we look forward to bringing the
    Office into the electronic environment that is so prevalent today.
        I thank the Committee for its past support of the Copyright Office
    requests and for your consideration of this request in this challenging
    time of transition and progress.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Bruce Forrest, Interim Chief Copyright Royalty
                                     Judge
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to present the Copyright Royalty Judge program fiscal year
    2006 budget request.
        The Copyright Royalty Judge (CRJ) system was created by the
    Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, Public Law 108-
    419, signed into law on November 30, 2004 (``Reform Act''). The
    Copyright Royalty Judges will assume the duties formerly carried out by
    the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels and the Librarian of Congress
    with respect to setting rates for the statutory copyright licenses
    (with the exception of certain rate-setting proceedings being conducted
    this year for the satellite television license under 17 U.S.C.
    Sec. 119, which remain under the CARP system) and distributing
    royalties from the royalty pools maintained by the Copyright Office.
    The CRJ program will provide an important improvement over the CARP
    system because it lowers the cost to the participants, requires
    decision makers to have certain subject matter expertise, and makes use
    of institutional knowledge to render consistent decisions.
        The Reform Act specifies that the new CRJ system, which will be
    part of the Library of Congress, will have three Copyright Royalty
    Judges (CRJs) and three staff employees. The three judges will be
    responsible for setting the rates and terms for the statutory licenses
    that allow for: (1) the retransmission of copyrighted broadcast
    programming by cable systems and satellite carriers; (2) the making and
    distribution of phonorecords; (3) the reproduction and performance of
    sound recordings by means of digital audio transmissions; and (4) the
    use of certain copyrighted works in connection with noncommercial
    broadcasting. In addition, the judges will conduct distribution
    proceedings for the cable and satellite royalty fees deposited with the
    Copyright Office and the fees collected for the making and distribution
    of digital audio recording devices and media. The CRJs will have
    authority, unlike the CARPs, to determine the status of a digital audio
    recording device or digital audio interface device under chapter 10 of
    the Copyright Act. The CRJ program also vests the judges with the
    continuing authority to correct any technical or clerical errors, or to
    modify any terms in response to unforeseen circumstances, and grants
    them authority to promulgate notice and recordkeeping requirements for
    use of certain licenses.
        Congress took care to insure that the Copyright Royalty Judges
    would have adequate qualifications to perform these highly technical
    and difficult tasks. Under the Reform Act, each Copyright Royalty Judge
    must be an attorney with at least 7 years of legal experience, and the
    Chief CRJ must have at least 5 years of experience in adjudications,
    arbitrations, or court trials. Of the other two Judges, one must have a
    significant knowledge of copyright law and the other must have a
    significant knowledge of economics.
              review of copyright office work and accomplishments
        In fiscal year 2005, you approved the Library's request to
    reprogram $540,000 and three FTEs from the Copyright Arbitration
    Royalty Panels (CARP) to the Copyright Royalty Judge program, since the
    Library's fiscal year 2005 budget did not include funds to cover the
    costs of the new program. This allowed the Library to use existing
    offsetting collections authority funded by royalties to cover the
    personal and nonpersonal costs of the new CRJ program during the
    transition phase of the program, as provided for under the Act. As
    required by the Act, one interim CRJ has been sworn in to draft new
    regulations to govern the rate setting and distribution proceedings
    under the new statutory guidelines and to initiate immediately a rate
    setting proceeding to establish rates for the statutory licenses that
    allow for the public performance of sound recordings by means of
    digital transmissions, e.g., webcasting.
                        fiscal year 2006 budget request
        This fiscal year 2006 budget, which is the first budget request for
    Copyright Royalty Judge (CRJ) operations and proceedings under the
    Reform Act, requests new permanent funding ($1.3 million) in
    appropriations with no-year authority. The level of funding is
    essentially ordained by the requirements of the Reform Act. The funding
    will support three full-time Copyright Royalty Judges and three staff
    positions, whose salary levels are specified in the Reform Act, and
    other non-personal expenses. The CRJs' primary task will be to set
    rates and terms for the various statutory licenses and to determine the
    distribution of royalty fees collected by the Copyright Office.
        In summary, I ask that you support the fiscal year 2006 Copyright
    Royalty Judge Program budget request for new permanent $1.3 million
    increase in total appropriations.
                                   conclusion
        I thank the Committee for its consideration of this request.

        Senator Allard. Thank you very much, Dr. Billington.
        General Scott, do you have any additional comments for the
    committee?
        General Scott. No, sir, I do not.
        Senator Allard. Okay, thank you.
        Now I will recognize Senator Johnson for his opening
    comments.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
    forego opening statements. I have a statement I can submit. I
    simply want to welcome Dr. Billington and Mr. Walker to the
    hearing today and thank them for their leadership. I look
    forward to working with you as well as ranking member Durbin as
    we wind our way through the appropriations process in a year
    that is going to be a difficult one for all of us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again to our panel
    today.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's hearing to
    examine the budget requests for the Library of Congress and the
    Government Accountability Office. I want to first welcome you,
    Mr. Chairman, to the Appropriations Committee and as the
    chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. I look forward
    to working with you and Ranking Member Durbin as we work on the
    Legislative Branch appropriations bill this year.
        I also want to welcome Dr. Billington and Mr. Walker to the
    hearing today. So much of what we do here in Congress is made
    easier and better because of the work done by the Library of
    Congress and Government Accountability Office. The Library,
    with such a unique array of collections, is truly a national
    treasure. I enjoyed visiting the Library to see the Lewis and
    Clark exhibit that was on display in the Jefferson Building. I
    had a particular interest since the Lewis and Clark expedition
    came through South Dakota and reportedly first saw the vast
    buffalo herds of the Great Plains from Spirit Mound near my
    hometown of Vermillion, South Dakota.
        The Library's Congressional Research Service continues to
    be one of the best sources of information and analysis provided
    to members and our staffs on even the most obscure subjects. I
    want to publicly thank the dedicated staff at CRS for their
    timely and thorough responses to inquiries from our offices.
        Mr. Walker, I also want to thank you and everyone at GAO
    for the professional work done under what can sometimes be
    extraordinary circumstances. Without GAO's investigative
    abilities, Congress would be hard pressed to fulfill its
    oversight role. My staff and I have relied upon GAO to look
    into matters ranging from country of origin meat labeling to No
    Child Left Behind Act implementation in rural states. Thank you
    for the work GAO does to assist us in Congress, especially
    GAO's ongoing assistance to this Subcommittee on the Capitol
    Visitor Center.
        I look forward to your testimony and to working with both
    of you in the coming months as we move through the
    appropriations process. Obviously, we find ourselves in a very
    difficult budget situation, so funding will be tight across the
    board. However, the roles the Library of Congress and GAO play
    are vital to helping Congress meet its constitutional
    responsibilities.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

                       FUNDING PRIORITIES AND CHALLENGES

        Senator Allard. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Just for your
    information, we are going to use the 5-minute rule and we will
    rotate around a little. If we have to have several rounds of
    questioning, we will do that. My hope is that we will get out
    this morning about 11:45 or so, when we have scheduled votes on
    the floor.
        Let me start with you, Dr. Billington. You talked a little
    bit about the budget priorities. The Library's budget request
    is an increase of $45 million or 7 percent over the current
    year budget. In the event we are unable to provide the full
    amount requested, please explain what your highest budget
    priorities will be?
        Dr. Billington. Well, our budget request basically supports
    every aspect of our basic historic mission and enables us to
    continue, hopefully, our transition to the new digital world.
    That mission is, as I have indicated, acquiring, preserving,
    making accessible this enormous collection.
        The business of acquisition and preservation cannot be
    deferred. Maintenance cannot be deferred for very long, and
    basic services I do not think should be curtailed, although
    that is ultimately for the Congress to determine. But to
    maintain our historic role in knowledge management, the
    traditional key to the investments we seek are to maintain our
    construction schedule, long delayed, for storage and
    preservation at Fort Meade and Culpeper, to regain some of our
    purchasing power for acquisitions, which has been seriously
    eroded over the last 10 years for acquisitions and for CRS
    research materials. Of course reengineering our business
    processes for outdated manual systems, particularly this last
    year of the copyright program, is important. And of course the
    whole question of revitalizing our human capital resources and
    infrastructure, particularly information technology, is of
    central importance.

                                NAVCC--CULPEPER

        Senator Allard. Thank you, Dr. Billington.
        I also want to just take a moment here and thank the
    Packard Foundation for their generous support of the National
    Audiovisual Conservation Center. Hopefully, later on in the
    year I would like to have an opportunity to go out there and
    take a look at that facility.
        The Library's budget requests $16 million and 47 FTEs, an
    increase of 23 new positions, for the National Audiovisual
    Conservation Center, which is scheduled to open next year. Why
    are these additional staff needed now and what will be the
    total annual operating cost for the NAVCC once it is fully
    operational?
        Dr. Billington. Well, the increase is 23 FTEs. First of
    all, the Packard donation is a capital donation that is almost
    unprecedented.
        Senator Allard. It is.
        Dr. Billington. It is somewhere between $120 and $130
    million. So the building is basically being built with private
    funds. The increase of FTEs, first of all, is consistent with
    the 5-year plan we submitted and was approved by the Congress 3
    years ago. But the point is that we are not simply relocating
    people and materials to a new facility. We are creating a
    national conservation center, which we have never really had,
    with a new digital preservation system for audiovisual
    materials that will allow the Library to preserve the
    collection for at least 100 years, the same standard that we
    have for paper.
        So this is a totally new achievement that will be made
    possible. The new technical system and the enhanced capacities
    of the conservation center require additional and more
    technically qualified staff. Even with the increase in
    staffing, total funding requested in the Federal budget for
    this year for the Culpeper center is $3 million less than the
    funding was last year.
        Our new restoration lab that we are setting up there will
    operate 24 hours a day and the new system will allow us to
    increase preservation productivity 10 times the current rate.
    So this is a fundamental revolutionary escalation of our
    capacity to exercise and realize the congressional mandate of
    1976 to create a real national archive for the preservation of
    radio and television, as well as recorded sound, film, and
    other audiovisual materials.
        So it is a major undertaking. I cannot give you today the
    exact projection figures for what the operating costs will be.
    I do not want to just guess at that. But a good deal of what we
    have been asking the last couple of years for the appropriation
    are one-time things to get us in there, to get us established.
    So I think we have to get over that bump. But that is a small
    bump compared to the mountain that the Packard Foundation is
    contributing.
        Senator Allard. Well, we would appreciate that response. We
    will be looking forward to getting those figures and showing
    some more detail on that.
        [The information follows:]

        The Library's five-year request to Congress to acquire the
    new equipment and staff resources necessary to operate the
    NAVCC concludes in fiscal year 2008. Full initial operations,
    using existing base funds and new resources will start in
    fiscal year 2009, with ongoing annual operating costs beginning
    that year of $22.5 million. This figure includes $6 million for
    preservation digitization, $3.5 million for storage, $1.5
    million for facilities management, and $11.5 million for staff.
    It includes existing base funds and staff from the Motion
    Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division. The
    operating capacities reflected in these costs were established
    based on our urgent need to preserve at-risk national heritage
    collections dating back nearly 120 years, as well as the need
    to begin ingesting significant new born-digital works.
    Fortunately, the proven technologies to achieve this have
    recently become available, and the Packard Humanities Institute
    gift of the state-of-the-art NAVCC facility will allow us to
    take advantage of these technologies for the first time.

        Senator Allard. Senator Johnson.
        Senator Johnson. I do not have any questions.

                               FORT MEADE STORAGE

        Senator Allard. Senator Johnson indicates he does not have
    any more questions, so I will move on to Fort Meade storage
    modules. The Architect's budget includes $40 million for
    additional storage modules at Fort Meade. I would like to have
    you explain the importance of these storage modules and what
    the future requirements the Library expects to have at the Fort
    Meade location. My understanding is that there will be a
    considerable number of modules that are being projected out
    over the years to bring into that Fort Meade location.
        Dr. Billington. Well, let me just say briefly, and I can
    let General Scott speak mainly to this, but the purpose of the
    two modules, Modules 3 and 4, is to house 26 million special
    format collections, including maps, prints, photographs,
    microfilm, manuscripts, things of a special nature, almost all
    of which are one of a kind.
        Senator Allard. Excuse me for interrupting you, Dr.
    Billington. Are they refrigerated or special humidity
    controlled?
        Dr. Billington. Modules 1 and 2 are for book storage. The
    beauty of these new modules is that they are really not simply
    storage, they are--for instance, from Module 1, we have had a
    100 percent retrieval rate on all things; it happens within 24
    hours. So they are very efficient for storing and retrieving.
    But most important of all the collections to be stored in
    Modules 3 and 4 are practically all one of a kind items of
    which there are no other copies. They will be in state-of-the-
    art preservation conditions, which is important, as with the
    Culpeper audiovisual collections. So the creation of these
    Modules is an investment simply prolonging the lifespan of
    priceless things, of which we are the custodian of so many, in
    this case 26 million items in the special format collections,
    which cannot be just stacked the way books are, but have to be
    handled in a special manner.
        So that is it. But I will let General Scott speak further
    to the whole project, except to say that we submitted a
    detailed plan for the various modules quite some time ago with
    the Congress. So we are on schedule, even though we were 5
    years behind getting construction started according to the
    original plans and are already 1 more year delayed beyond the 5
    years for these important modules for these special
    collections.
        Senator Allard. And you do not see any change on those
    plans that were submitted, any modifications or anything? The
    time line is the same; it is just the total time line has been
    moved back?
        Dr. Billington. That is right, that is right.
        Senator Allard. Okay. General?
        General Scott. Yes, sir. You had asked about future storage
    needs for the Library. We do have a complete plan that
    envisions having 13 buildings out at Fort Meade that would
    carry us up through the year 2027. Module 1, which was
    completed in 2002, is completely filled. It was at capacity in
    about 2\1/2\ years with some 1.5 million items.
        Module No. 2, which is slated to open very soon, has a
    capacity of 2 million items and similarly it too will house
    books. Our projection is that Module 2 will also be filled
    within 2 years once it opens.
        The 13 modules that are either in design or construction
    will hold books and special format collections as well as other
    treasures from the Library. To date, funding has been provided
    for Modules 1 and 2. We are requesting funding for Modules 3
    and 4.
        We would be happy to submit for the record a table that
    highlights our future storage and capital requirements.
        Senator Allard. I wonder if you would do that, General
    Scott. I think that would be helpful for the committee.
        [The information follows:]

                                                               LIBRARY OF CONGRESS FUTURE FORT MEADE CAMPUS STORAGE (CAPITAL) REQUIREMENTS
                                                                                          [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Fiscal Year Plans
            Storage Requirement         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Projected                   Materials To Be Stored
                                                     Design                       Construction                  Occupancy          Costs
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fort Meade Module 2................  Completed....................  Fiscal year 2005...............  Fiscal year 2005......         NA  General collections (2M items)
    Fort Meade Modules 3 & 4...........  Completed....................  Requested fiscal year 2006.....  ......................      $40.7  Special format collections: maps, prints, photographs,
                                                                                                                                             manuscripts, microfilm (26M items)
    Fort Meade Copyright Deposits \1\..  Requested fiscal year 2006     Requested fiscal year 2008.....  ......................        $45  $800,000 re-design funding requested fiscal year 2006
                                          ($800,000).                                                                                        will permit modular, phased construction. Will house
                                                                                                                                             Published and Un-Published Copyright Materials.
    Fort Meade Logistics Warehouse.....  Completed....................  Requested fiscal year 2007.....  ......................        $56  Preservation materials, Exhibit Cabinets, Office
                                                                                                                                             supplies, equipment, computers, business records,
                                                                                                                                             Library publications, and material staging
    Fort Meade Modules 5...............  Completed....................  Requested fiscal year 2007.....  ......................        $11  General collections (2M items)
    Fort Meade Modules 6-13............  Module.......................  ...............................  Through 2026..........    \2\ $88  General collections. Eight additional modules planned
                                                                                                                                             through 2027.
                                                                                                                                -----------
          Total........................  .............................  ...............................  ......................     $240.4  Through Year 2027
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Note: As a result of the fiscal year 2005 construction request of $59 million for the Copyright Deposit, the committee requested that the Library research other options. The options
      included an analysis of the second building at the Alternate Computer Facility in Massases, VA. The re-designed facility will introduce a modular approach with a goal of reducing the cost to
      $45 million.
    \2\ $11 million each.

        Dr. Billington. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I must just say
    that as far as Culpeper is concerned, the beauty of that
    facility is that it is very capacious and we will not need any
    supplementing of that for a very long period.

                                 POLICE MERGER

        Senator Allard. I want to talk a little bit about merging
    the Library police force with the Capitol Police Force. As I
    understand it, this effort was to try and streamline and unify
    the security for the Capitol complex. The Congress authorized
    in fiscal year 2004 any new Library police positions to be
    filled by the Capitol Police officers. Late last year the
    Library and Capitol Police entered into an memorandum of
    understanding (MOU) to enable 23 Capitol Police officers to be
    assigned to the Library.
        How would you assess the effectiveness of this merger to
    this point, Dr. Billington?
        Dr. Billington. I will let General Scott speak to that.
        Senator Allard. That would be fine. General.
        General Scott. As you indicated, the Congress did approve
    23 police FTEs for the Library back in the 2004 budget. To set
    that in context, the Library had indicated in the 2004 budget
    that we would need at least 100 FTEs spread over a 3-year
    period. In 2004, we received an appropriation for 23 of those
    FTEs with the directive that the Capitol Police hire those
    officers for the Library.
        To facilitate the hiring, the Library and Capitol Police
    entered into a memorandum of understanding. The MOU laid out
    the procedures through which we would receive the 23 officers
    who came on board in December 2004. The augmentation was
    seamless and it is working well.
        However, the Library still needs to continue building
    toward the 100 FTEs and is therefore asking for 45 new police
    officers in fiscal year 2006. The MOU does not provide the
    Capitol Police the authority to hire those 45. Additionally, we
    think that the MOU does not resolve our long-range police
    staffing requirements as we will still need to have 32 more to
    round out the 100 that we requested in 2004.
        Finally, the MOU does not address or protect the
    fundamental authority of the Librarian to protect the
    buildings, the staff, and the collections of the Library.
        Dr. Billington. Could I just add that if the hiring of the
    45 additional police officers, which we are requesting in this
    budget, continues to go through the U.S. Capitol Police, that
    what we are in fact seeing is a de facto police merger taking
    place without authorization from the appropriate congressional
    committees and without their knowledge of the full fundamental
    change that will be made in the Librarian's historic and
    statutory responsibilities.
        Senator Allard. Now, you have requested 45 police officers.
    Did you consult with the Capitol Police on this request?
        General Scott. Yes, sir, we did.
        Senator Allard. You did?
        General Scott. Right.
        Senator Allard. And this is a number that they felt they
    needed to have? Here is the issue and the reason I structure it
    this way. My understanding is that right now there is no
    authorization for more police officers as far as the Library is
    concerned, that has been passed over then. So I am a little
    perplexed why you make that request under this budget here and
    why we did not get the request through the Capitol Police
    budget. I wonder if you can respond to that.
        General Scott. Yes, sir. We have been consulting with the
    Chief of the Capitol Police over the staffing issues, as well
    as other police issues. The 45 that we are asking for is based
    on the staffing model and the guide that the Capitol Police
    have. We are asking for officers that would augment our current
    force, and make us consistent in our entrance and exit posts
    with the staffing of the Capitol Police.
        Senator Allard. I hope that we can have some uniformity.
    During my tour of the Capitol Visitor Center we had a good look
    at the tunnel and everything, which I am excited about, the
    direct access over to the Library. But not only do we increase
    access to the Library, but we also increase access back into
    the Capitol. I think if we have not given any thought to that,
    I think we have to think about that in the process, because we
    have a security issue coming back into the Capitol from the
    other side.
        So it is something that I just made note of here and I want
    to check out a little further. I appreciate your response on
    this. I understand that Roll Call had an article on this.
    Apparently they talked to Library employees and I think it was
    an anecdotal type of story. But anyhow, they viewed the Library
    as a possible weak link on the Hill, as far as security.
        Do you agree with that article? Do you think that is
    something to be concerned about?
        General Scott. I cannot comment about the article, Senator.
    I had not read the article. But I can say this, that we are in
    complete agreement that security on Capitol Hill is our highest
    priority and we are determined to meet all the security
    requirements. We want to mirror the Capitol Police augmentation
    on our posts.
        I would also add that the inspector, who is in charge of
    the Library's police and an employee of the Capitol Police, has
    made significant improvements in the liaison role that we now
    have with the Capitol Police.
        Senator Allard. I tell you what. I do have a copy of that
    article that staff has just handed me. What I thought I would
    do is I will give you a copy of it, I will make it a part of
    the record, and then you can maybe respond to any issues that
    are raised in this article if you will.
        General Scott. Yes, sir.
        Senator Allard. I think it would be helpful.
        General Scott. Okay.
        [The information follows:]

        The Library is not a weak link in the security of the
    Capitol complex, as depicted in the recent Roll Call article
    (April 5, 2005). We do agree that it is critical for the
    Library to maintain a level of security commensurate with the
    rest of Capitol Hill. The Library has been effectively
    addressing the protection of its employees, visitors, and
    assets for years, as well as contributing toward strengthening
    the security of the Capitol complex as a whole, with the goal
    of creating seamless security throughout the complex.
        Since the mid-1990s, the Library has aggressively
    implemented major security improvements consistent with the
    many security improvements that have been put in place
    throughout the Capitol complex. Examples of the Library's
    improvements include major perimeter security enhancements,
    implementation of full building entry screening, expanded
    emergency communications capabilities, and establishment of a
    robust emergency preparedness program.
        The Library Police are an integral component of the
    Library's steady progress toward strengthening Library security
    programs. Over the past several years, the Library Police have
    achieved major improvements in operations and personnel
    readiness. Although the Library Police force is comparatively
    small and does not have all the resources available to the
    Capitol Police, the Library Police work closely with the
    Capitol Police to maximize the level of support for daily
    operations and for emergency situations. There has been
    significant enhancement in the coordination efforts between the
    Library Police and the Capitol Police in those areas where the
    capabilities of the Library Police are limited because of
    resource considerations or to avoid costly duplication of
    effort. With the continued commitment and assistance of the
    Capitol Police, we see no discernable differences in response
    capabilities of either police force.
        The Library Police recently underwent an audit by the
    Library's Inspector General. The audit did not identify any
    significant systemic weaknesses or program vulnerabilities that
    would place any employee, visitor, facility, or any part of the
    collections at risk. The goal of the Library Police is to
    achieve cooperative parity with the Capitol Police. The Library
    Police have been working diligently for some time to ensure
    that the Library receives the same level of protection as the
    remainder of the Capitol complex.
        The unique security and enforcement requirements of the
    Library have developed a police culture having somewhat
    different responsibilities than most federal police agencies.
    The successful record of the Library Police in both detecting
    and deterring crimes against the facilities, personnel, or
    property of the Library demonstrates that the Library Police
    are fully capable of meeting their statutory requirements and,
    as demonstrated through the ongoing detail of Capitol Police
    officers, can work effectively with other agencies. There is no
    evidence that the Library Police constitute a weakness in
    meeting their law enforcement and security requirements, and
    the Library Police's aggressive implementation of the
    recommendations from the Inspector General's audit indicates
    their willingness to improve processes and procedures to
    enhance their capabilities and professionalism.
        In summary, Library management has confidence in the
    Library Police that they will continue to provide the required
    level of security and law enforcement to meet their statutory
    responsibilities in the ever-improving security climate on
    Capitol Hill.

                            COPYRIGHT REENGINEERING

        Senator Allard. The Library of Congress budget included $4
    million to complete the Copyright Office's reengineering
    initiative. It includes funds for the lease of temporary office
    space. Please explain how the copyright process will be
    improved through the reengineering effort, which I am pleased
    to see you doing, because if there is one criticism that I get
    it is the copyright procedure and how long it takes to get
    approval. My hope is that this will speed things up and it
    sounds like you are on that, and I want to compliment you on
    that.
        General Scott. Thank you, sir. Marybeth Peters, who is the
    Director, the Register of Copyrights, has had a visionary
    insight in recognizing that commerce and the digital network
    environment now demands that we meet customer expectations by
    electronically making it possible to receive copies of digital
    works, web sites, databases, and various filings, such as
    applications for registrations, and to process them
    electronically.
        Five years ago the Register of Copyrights announced a very
    well thought-out plan that would change the copyright processes
    to support our electronic environment. Fiscal year 2006 is the
    last year that new appropriated funds will be needed to
    complete this project.
        Deferring the project beyond 2006 will not only result in
    the loss of $19.7 million in past investments, but the Library
    will also lose the contract staff who built the new systems and
    the related expertise which is needed to complete this project.
    These resources, if we lost them, would not be available beyond
    2006 due to other commitments.
        The new system cannot be implemented without, of course, a
    reconfiguration of the Copyrights Office space since the
    current floor plans are not aligned with the flow of the new
    business processes. Without the 2006 funding, this project may
    never be implemented, that is why we are making this request.
        Dr. Billington. Don's basic point is that the registration
    will be much quicker, which has been a constant concern and
    complaint, and in the long run it will be much more economical
    because it can be done electronically.
        Senator Allard. Both of those are very worthy goals. I am
    just trying to think through the process. If you are an author,
    do you submit the book in written and electronic form? Your
    book then would go into storage and then you add the book to
    your electronic database?
        I would like you to clarify that for the subcommittee.
        General Scott. At this point I would really like to call
    upon Mary Beth because she is the expert in this, sir.
        Senator Allard. If you feel uncomfortable talking about
    that, we will be glad to put something in the record.
        Ms. Peters. No, I am not in the least bit uncomfortable
    talking about it.
        Dr. Billington. She has been dealing with this for 40
    years.
        Ms. Peters. That is right.
        Senator Allard. I notice I brought a smile to your face.
    You must enjoy it.
        Ms. Peters. The truth is I love it.

                         COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION PROCESS

        If you have authors today and they choose to register as
    soon as they write their books, before they send the manuscript
    to a publisher----
        Senator Allard. Then it gets a Library of Congress number,
    is that correct?
        Ms. Peters. Not if it is the submission of the author's
    manuscript and it is unpublished. If I write a book and I have
    not sent it to a publisher, I may want to get a registration
    before I send it out to publishers, I would send the copyright
    office a paper copy because today we are not equipped to take
    it in electronically.
        Starting this fall, we will be experimenting with taking in
    all types of material electronically and processing them
    electronically.
        Senator Allard. Would that not help your process if you
    expected the author to provide an electronic one when it goes
    to the publisher.
        Ms. Peters. Absolutely. When the publisher gets the
    author's manuscript, it is in electronic form. Then the
    publisher converts it to print form. The print copy is used to
    register the publisher's claim to copyright. The print copies
    usually go into the collections of the Library of Congress, and
    could end up at storage Module 1 or 2 at Fort Meade.
        Senator Allard. Depending on its perceived importance, is
    that right?
        Ms. Peters. Depending on the Library's acquisition
    policies.
        Senator Allard. I see, okay.
        Ms. Peters. So, we hope that we are able to provide all of
    our services within 2 weeks. Reengineering will totally
    revolutionize the way that we do business.
        Senator Allard. I was trying to visualize it. That is what
    I was visualizing, we are making it more efficient. We can also
    keep a hard copy in case something happens to the electronic
    one.
        Ms. Peters. Yes, a digital file will come in to the
    copyright office for registration. If the Library wants print
    copies of a literary work, the publisher will send two print
    copies for the use of the Library, but the copyright office
    will have a digital file of the work.
        Senator Allard. Very good, thank you.
        Ms. Peters. Thank you.

                             OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP

        Senator Allard. I have just one question on the Open World
    program and then we will hear from the CRS.
        Your statement indicates that Russia alone has nearly 9,000
    Open World alumni, Dr. Billington, each of whom has visited a
    U.S. community for a 10-day stay under the program. I am
    curious as to what continuing communication is needed and
    desirable beyond the original introduction to America, which is
    a 10-day stay here with a host family as I understand the
    program.
        Dr. Billington. Well, this has been an extraordinary
    program in a lot of ways. One of the ways is that it has
    created a lot of sister relationships. For instance, we have
    been emphasizing the rule of law. We have had 800 judges and
    prosecutors. Many of them have established sister court
    relationships. That is a very common thing. Or there are
    oftentimes return visits that are at the invitation of the
    Russian visitor.
        The alumni of this program have set up an internal web site
    to communicate, giving a sense of identity and community among
    these people exchanging their own perceptions and ideas once
    they are there. They have had alumni meetings all over Russia.
    As you know, they have come from all 89 political districts of
    Russia, all 50 States of the Union. So there is a very
    substantial continuity. Recently, we had the first major
    Ukrainian visit for the Ukrainian program since the so-called
    Orange Revolution there and they established a lot of contacts
    that I am sure are going to be useful. One of the participants
    was then subsequently elected to higher office. This is a
    frequent phenomenon.
        There are all kinds of linkages. There is an upcoming
    alumni event in the Russian Far East, but I would like to give
    you a full itemization of the program. I am just speaking off
    the cuff here. Overall, 44 percent of the participants have
    been women with an average age of about 37, which is something
    totally new in Russia. Not a single one of the Russian
    participants has stayed in this country. That is almost unheard
    of in relations between Russia and America. As you know, people
    often want to stay when they come to America. The open world
    participants are tremendously impressed by the time they have
    because it is a total immersion. It is not a series of lectures
    or dialogues where people just give speeches to each other.
        We just had a delegation of their version of the Supreme
    Court and the top jurists, and our Supreme Court met with them
    here for a couple of days and it was really quite exciting. I
    believe some of the U.S. Justices will be returning the visit.
    So this is really the opening up of contacts with a new
    generation of Russian leaders, which is very much the hope of
    that country if it is going to make it as a functioning
    democracy.
        The one thing they all take back, the most important thing
    is the excitement over nongovernmental organizations, the
    extent to which many social services, many problems are dealt
    with at the community level.
        This is the biggest exchange program of its kind since the
    Marshal Plan. It is something that has been done entirely
    within the legislative branch of Government and it is having an
    extraordinary effect, even though it is a short period of time.
    The participants stay in homes. They see the real America. They
    shadow people, and the cooperation is extraordinary--we have
    many more volunteers across the country to take these people in
    than we are able to accommodate. So it is a good sign that the
    American people everywhere in all communities are really
    interested in getting better informed about what is going on in
    Russia.
        Senator Allard. There is follow-up, then, so that at some
    point in time we would like to be able to measure results. I
    hope that we have follow-up on the program. The only way I see
    us being able to measure results is to see what happens to
    these folks 5 years or 10 years down the road.
        Dr. Billington. Absolutely. It is a long-term investment
    because these people have to work their way up through the
    system. We can give you a lot of information on this.
        Senator Allard. Good.
        Dr. Billington. But we do follow up and they do have a
    continuing existence both as alumni, on their web site, and in
    answering to the host organizations in America.

                         CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

        Senator Allard. Very good. Thank you.
        Now on the Congressional Research Service (CRS) increase,
    there is an increase of $9 million or 9 percent that is
    requested for CRS, for a total budget of $105 million. The
    budget request would provide for 729 staff compared to the 700
    staff you are now operating with. Now, why is that level not
    sufficient? I think Mr. Mulhollan is here to answer that
    question. Could you tell us why you think such an increase for
    CRS should be given preference over other legislative branch
    priorities? So you have got two questions there.

                        STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN

        Mr. Mulhollan. This is a question of why is CRS a priority
    for the Congress. I would argue that it is the fact that we are
    a cost-effective extension of congressional staff. In other
    words, we are a shared pool of experts that helps each Member
    and every committee. The Congress draws upon CRS to get
    thorough analysis, that are context-based, and provide a
    framework for considering and comprehending the issues and
    potential consequences of legislative options. CRS supports
    equally the majority, the minority, and each chamber. CRS is a
    shared resource, so each committee and office does not have to
    acquire such expertise because you have it available. CRS
    expertise and products are targeted to your needs. CRS
    guarantees the confidentiality of all our work for you.
        Given the need to sustain this shared pool of expertise,
    and recognizing the budget difficulty you face, half the
    request is for the mandatories and price level increases. The
    next $3.6 million is to keep us whole at the level of 729 FTEs.
    CRS is at a tipping point. Three major factors contribute to
    this request.
        One is that the level of expertise CRS must hire is greater
    than it has been in the past and costs more. Back in 1995 our
    average new hire was a GS-7 step 9. Today it is GS-13 step 9.
    You face more compelling, complex, and interrelated problems,
    such as terrorism and homeland security layered onto the
    massive domestic issues that the Nation faces. The nature of
    your work dictates that CRS hire individuals with high levels
    of formal education and specialized experience.
        Second is staff participation in the newer retirement
    system. The committee has been very supportive of CRS in our
    succession planning. To that end, we have been very thoughtful
    in identifying what kind of expertise the Congress needs and
    who we need to hire. As we lose our older employees, who for
    many years have participated in the older Federal retirement
    system where the employer-paid portion of the benefit is 13.5
    percent per employee. Virtually all those coming into CRS are
    under the newer Federal employee retirement system, FERS. Under
    FERS, the employer-paid benefit is 27 percent per employee,
    twice as much.
        The third element is that in the past 10 years, with one
    exception, 1998, we faced a gap between what we have
    anticipated and asked for with regard to the mandatory pay
    adjustments and what was enacted. For example, in fiscal year
    2004 the adjustment we anticipated was 3.7 percent. What the
    President signed into law was 4.42 percent. That caused a
    $400,000 shortfall in our budget and that is four FTEs.
        We are seeking a one-time catch-up to keep us whole on that
    staffing level.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you today to present the fiscal year 2006
    budget request for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). I also
    wish to express my gratitude to the Committee for its support of the
    Service's budget requests in years past, as I am well aware of the
    fiscal environment and the difficult funding decisions you face.
        The Service's request for fiscal year 2006 represents not a
    workload increase but instead reflects our need to replenish the levels
    of staffing and resources required to enable us to meet our statutory
    mission of serving all Members of Congress with comprehensive,
    accurate, and timely research and analysis. As such, CRS' fiscal year
    2006 budget request is composed of two parts: funding for our mandatory
    pay- and inflation-related costs and two increases necessary to sustain
    our staff and resource capacities.
        These are challenging times for lawmakers. The environment within
    which the Congress works is fluid and dynamic, with multiple pressures
    vying every day for your attention and for the resources each Member is
    charged to manage. The major policy issues facing Congress, such as the
    ongoing war efforts, Social Security reform, tax reform, immigration
    and border control, homeland security, and issues relating to
    terrorism, are more complex, are politically charged, and have global
    consequences. These and many other issues are complicated and multi-
    faceted. Congress is functioning under ever-increasing pressures and
    expectations to be conversant on all the issues and serve as an expert
    on virtually every topic as it deliberates these highly consequential
    issues.
        CRS assists every Member and committee. Our assistance responds to
    your full range of legislative needs, from identifying and evaluating
    authoritative, reliable sources of research and information to offering
    and analyzing legislative and policy options that might best address
    complex, high-stakes public policy problems. All of our work is
    confidential and focuses solely, directly, and specifically on the
    needs of the congressional community.
        Everyone at CRS takes seriously the trust that the Congress has in
    our work. I believe this trust is earned daily through the interactions
    CRS staff have with you and your staff. Each of us at CRS, no matter
    what role we play, strives to improve and excel in every aspect of the
    service that we provide.
                        fiscal year 2006 budget request
        Mr. Chairman, my fiscal year 2006 budget request presents to you
    only what CRS needs to achieve its statutory obligations. I am keenly
    aware of the budgetary pressures facing this Committee and the
    Congress. My responsibility as Director of CRS is to weigh these
    pressures against the basic needs of the Service and to offer you a
    fiscally responsible assessment of the condition of the Service.
        The 2006 request would fully fund our mandatory and price-level
    increases, our first and highest priority, along with two baseline
    adjustments that would enable us to recuperate from shortfalls that are
    straining our ability to acquire staff and research tools.
    Specifically, CRS is requesting a total of $105.289 million for fiscal
    year 2006, an increase of $9.171 million over fiscal year 2005. The
    increase is comprised of $5.097 million for mandatory and price-level
    increases and $4.619 million for increases to recover lost purchasing
    power. The request also includes a $544,000 reduction for the one-year
    funding provided last year to implement XML capacity.
                                 staff capacity
        CRS' strength is its people: 88 percent of our budget is devoted to
    staffing. The remaining 12 percent of the CRS budget covers the non-
    personals expenses, the day-to-day business operations of the Service,
    including the monthly phone bills, hardware and software maintenance
    agreements, technology refreshment, and permanently contracted
    operations. These non-personals costs offer little financial
    flexibility for adding to staff capacity. Because our work is dependent
    on the skills and abilities of the people, I am continually reviewing
    the composition of CRS' staff so that we have the right mix of
    individuals with the right expertise to assist the Congress as it
    frames and considers major policy problems. CRS staff are ready to meet
    today's needs and, at the same time, are anticipating and preparing for
    the major policy issues on the horizon.
        CRS is proposing a one-time budgetary adjustment of $3.6 million to
    sustain its staffing level of 729 full-time equivalents (FTEs). Without
    this additional funding the Service would have to reduce permanently
    down to about 700 FTEs. There are three factors contributing to the
    need for $3.6 million: CRS' need to sustain a higher level of staff
    expertise, the gap between the funding provided in the budget process
    and the federal pay raises enacted, and the impact of a workforce
    shifting from the old to the new federal retirement system.
        The first factor evolves from the change in CRS' workforce
    composition. The variety and range of expertise of CRS staff must match
    the expertise needed by the Congress as it develops and undertakes its
    legislative agendas, both current and anticipated. We routinely conduct
    two Service-wide examinations: to identify the major policy areas
    Congress is likely to address and to assess and forecast the
    availability of CRS experts to assist the Congress in those issue
    areas. The results of these assessments guide my decision-making in our
    annual staffing plan and subsequent staffing selections. The nature of
    your legislative work requires a higher level of CRS expertise. As we
    recruit and interview prospective employees, we are finding that the
    work competencies we need are best met by those seeking positions in
    the higher general schedule pay ranges. This is confirmed by CRS
    statistics on new hires: in the period from fiscal year 1995 to the
    present, the grade level of the average CRS hire has increased from a
    GS-7, Step 9 to a GS-13, Step 9. The complex and often technical nature
    of the policy problems you face requires us to ensure that we have the
    right expertise to correspond to the myriad sources having stakes in
    the policy outcomes of your work.
        The second factor contributing to the need for this baseline
    increase is the cumulative shortfall in funding that has resulted from
    pay raises enacted at a higher rate than provided for in the
    Legislative Branch annual appropriations, albeit you have provided what
    we asked for. Since 1995, with the exception of 1998, the Service's
    budget has been increased for staff salary and benefits costs in an
    amount less than what was ultimately required by law to be paid to the
    employees. For example, in fiscal year 2004, the budget process
    anticipated an annual rate increase of 3.7 percent; however, the actual
    enacted pay raise was 4.2 percent, costing CRS about $400,000 (or four
    FTEs) more to sustain the current staff. The cumulative impact over the
    past ten years contributes to the need for our current budget request
    for sustaining staff capacity.
        It is costing the Service more to subsidize retirement benefits. As
    of right now, about 42 percent of the CRS workforce participates in the
    Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Based on fiscal year 2004 data,
    a CSRS participant is costing the agency about 13.5 percent in
    employer-paid fringe benefits. This compares to the 27 percent in
    employer-paid benefits for a Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)
    employee. For the past few years, virtually all of the CRS retirements
    are staff participating in CSRS, while the majority of new hires are
    eligible to participate only in the more expensive FERS. As the
    proportion of the FERS workforce continues to grow, the fiscal impact
    has been, and will continue to be a dramatic rate of increase in agency
    costs.
        The budget I am requesting will allow CRS to rebuild and replenish
    to its authorized ceiling of 729 FTEs, the staffing level needed to
    sustain current services. A single example will allow me to illustrate
    the level of service that I am committed to providing to the Congress
    and that the Congress has come to expect from this agency. When the
    congressional leadership last July identified the newly released 9/11
    Commission report as its top priority, CRS acted. Within one week over
    70 CRS analysts and information professionals came together to provide
    Members with thorough analyses of the report. Those analyses were
    context-based, providing a framework for considering and comprehending
    the report's contents in view of other relevant factors and their
    potential impact. Most importantly, we provided real-time, round-the-
    clock analysis. We were ready when your deliberations began and
    remained at your side as you considered the Commission's
    recommendations and as you took steps to enact the policy changes
    deemed most appropriate.
        We were able to provide this kind of specialized and close support
    because our staff work collaboratively across disciplines, are experts
    in their fields, and are available on-demand to consult individually
    with Members and committees. Because of our proximity to the Congress,
    because of the close working relationship we enjoy with you and your
    staff, and because our experts prepare analyses that benefit the entire
    congressional audience, we were able to deliver the services Congress
    has mandated and come to expect. This is the kind of work the Congress
    has outlined for CRS in our organic statute. However, our ability to
    sustain this level of assistance, as you deliberate the wide range of
    policy problems facing the Nation, will be in jeopardy if our staffing
    capacity is reduced further.
        CRS is a cost-effective extension of congressional staff. As a
    shared pool of experts, CRS has the ability both to address high-
    priority issues from a multi-disciplinary perspective and to provide a
    wide range of high-level, specialized expertise. Individual committees
    and Members could not retain such a valuable resource for their own
    offices, but CRS, as a centralized, shared pool, proves to be very
    cost-effective when meeting total congressional demand.
                             crs research materials
        The third component of my request is a one-time, $1 million
    baseline adjustment for research materials. There are a number of
    critical electronic materials continually requested by our subject-
    matter experts that CRS is currently unable to procure.
        Annually, the Service carefully considers each subscription and
    database renewal to ensure that the available funding is used to
    acquire only the highest priority materials. Even with this close
    scrutiny and the elimination of lesser used items, CRS has barely been
    able to maintain a stable inventory of the resources most pertinent to
    our work, let alone add any newly requested resources. However, sound
    analysis depends on authoritative sources covering the full range of
    subject areas that the Congress may consider.
        CRS' work requires materials that are timely and authoritative,
    particularly in emerging public policy issue areas, such as homeland
    security and global terrorism. Your approval of our fiscal year 2006
    request would enable us to buy resources such as Oxford Analytica,
    Inside Washington publications, prescription-drug proprietary
    databases, and the PIERS database. These represent highly specialized
    and technical research resources and are not acquired by the Library of
    Congress for CRS use. These materials are, however, available to others
    who provide you information and who lobby for particular positions and
    policy outcomes. Without access to those resources, CRS experts'
    capacity to capture the range of knowledge available on an issue, to
    prepare you for challenges you may face in defending your position, and
    to provide you with the consequences of policy options is diminished.
                             management initiatives
        Congress holds me accountable for managing responsibly, and in the
    last 11 years I have gratefully undertaken that charge. I take
    seriously my responsibility to assure you that the budgetary support
    you give the Service results in a cost-effective organization that is
    dedicated to its statutory mission and that offers you the highest
    quality of service. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize
    briefly some actions I have and continue to take that reflect this
    commitment.
        We continually examine and adjust our organizational structure to
    maximize direct service to the Congress. We consolidated some CRS
    facilities in the House congressional buildings with the assistance of
    the Committee on House Administration. We made use of flexible hiring
    programs, such as the Presidential Management Fellows and Hispanic
    Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) programs. We have taken
    advantage of the cost savings that can be achieved through outsourcing
    by implementing contracting services for our messenger service, copy
    operations, and technology help-desk, and continually seek out new
    opportunities.
        Another initiative affecting personnel and improving efficiency is
    the reorganization of our information professionals into a single
    organizational unit. The thrust behind this major re-engineering effort
    is to increase collaboration between information professionals and
    analysts, which in turn will maximize efficiencies. Through
    collaboration each functional unit can ensure that the work is handled
    by the individual with the appropriate expertise to accomplish that
    work.
        Earlier I noted that 88 percent of CRS' budget is salaries and
    benefits. The remaining 12 percent also merits close attention in my
    efforts to streamline. Although this 12 percent of the CRS budget
    represents our relatively fixed costs, we look carefully at those costs
    to see if any component of that expenditure can be reduced or
    eliminated. To achieve this we conduct an annual ``zero scrub'' of the
    entire CRS budget. We look at every single cost category from the
    ground up; we do not simply roll over the budget for these categories
    from one year to the next. Also, we have initiated audits of every on-
    going activity within CRS. These comprehensive audits will help us to
    continue to secure a well-executed and cost-effective program, with the
    assurance that every dollar spent contributes to the Service's singular
    mission. I hope that you would contact me directly if you have any
    concerns about our management activities, processes, or direction.
                                   conclusion
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to inform
    the Committee about the state of CRS and the near-term challenges we
    face in our continuing ability to serve the Congress. As the first
    branch of government, the Congress must ensure that it maintains its
    independent capacity to analyze the complex challenges that the Nation
    confronts, especially during a time of war. I hope that you agree that
    CRS contributes significantly to this independent capacity and that we
    are fulfilling our mission in a way that warrants your ongoing support.
    I am, of course, always available to answer any questions that the
    Committee may have.

                  CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE RESPONSE TIME

        Senator Allard. Thank you for your explanation.
        Are you measuring the length of time it takes you, or do
    you have some idea about the length of time it takes you to
    respond to the average Congressional request?
        Mr. Mulhollan. The majority of information requests are
    answered in 24 hours. But a significant amount of time can be
    spent on more complex questions--for instance, a study for a
    committee dealing with, let us say, prescription drug pricing
    and what changes are being considered in medicare benefits. The
    use and manipulation of the drug pricing database can take
    several months--and that could be considered one request.
        Meanwhile, let us say an LA calls and says, ``I have a
    Member who is looking at this language; can you explain this
    language to me? We have just gotten it and the subcommittee
    meeting is in a half hour.'' So it is also this kind of rapid-
    response expertise that is drawn upon daily by the Congress.

                             PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

        Senator Allard. As you can tell, for those of you here at
    the table and in future testimony, I have a lot of interest in
    performance and measurement. We require that on executive
    branch agencies. We do not require it on the legislative
    branch. But I do think that we ought to set an example here in
    the legislative branch for the rest of the agencies. So I am
    going to request more and more definitive assessment through
    what we call GPRA, Government Performance and Results Act.
        I think it has been a good business tool. When I did my
    business, I set goals that were measurable, measured them, and
    then it helped me evaluate as a manager in my own business
    exactly whether we were meeting those goals or not.
        So some of my questions are being laid out to prepare you a
    little bit for when we get into the next year and then I will
    be asking questions about how you are doing setting down
    performance standards and then measuring the results. I think
    as administrators it helps us all understand what is going on
    and then we can focus on results and do not have to focus about
    the nitty-gritty of management, we will leave that to you, but
    we just look at results and then we have something that is
    measurable, hopefully.

                          CRS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

        Mr. Mulhollan. Mr. Chairman, may I add for the
    Congressional Research Service, we welcome that. We have been
    spending a significant amount of time on considering meaningful
    performance measurements. You can look at the workload measures
    that we have identified. I think there are significant success
    stories. For example, in fiscal year 2002 we responded to a
    total of 811,000 requests, and in fiscal year 2004 we responded
    to almost 900,000 requests.
        We break that down further, for example to track hits on
    the CRS web site, which is solely for use by the Congress. No
    one else has the depth of expertise covering roughly 170 major
    public policy areas, where you can have it targeted to meet the
    needs of each chamber, whether in committee or on the floor,
    and where the analysis anticipates the consequence of your
    decisions there. We have now, almost 5,000 reports, continually
    updated on more than 300 issues and available for the Congress.
    Two years ago we had 4,000. So it is an additional 1,000
    reports that we are keeping updated along this line.
        Another measure is e-mail exchanges. Following up with a
    Congressional request we now have an encrypted e-mail exchange
    between the Senate and the House and ourselves. As a
    consequence of that effort, last year we counted 77,000
    exchanges. As of the first quarter of the current fiscal year,
    we have seen a 13 percent increase from last year.
        So our measures I think on our focused assistance are good
    and solid, and we are working to improve them.
        Senator Allard. Very good. Thank you.

                  LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

        Dr. Billington. Mr. Chairman, let me just add----
        Senator Allard. Dr. Billington.
        Dr. Billington [continuing]. A point, that we are not
    actually required to use the Government Performance and Results
    Act, but we do use it as a guide.
        Senator Allard. I am glad to hear that.
        Dr. Billington. I would only say also that, as we were just
    saying with the Open World program, which actually is a
    separate line item but I happen to chair the board, so I am
    happy to answer for it and it is in the legislative branch as
    well, in that as in the Library as a whole performance has to
    be seen over a long period of time. One would have said that
    there was very little justification for keeping old German
    archaeological records. Every other library in the world
    discarded them. But when it came to verifying whether the tanks
    that did the flanking motion in southern Iraq would sink in the
    sand or be able to sustain them, it was that kind of material
    that enabled them to verify, because the Germans pedantically
    reported how much they dug and how long it took, with what kind
    of shovel, in Mesopotamia, which is where a lot of the
    archaeology was.
        So what I am saying is that having this extra margin, which
    is what we are talking about when we talk about the need for
    acquisitions and the use of our overseas offices--Islamabad,
    Cairo, all these places--where valuable information is gathered
    that really does not exist anywhere else, it is a long-term
    investment. You do not know when you are going to cash in the
    investment, but it is of incalculable value to have so much
    knowledge because you cannot possibly anticipate what kinds of
    questions are going to be essential for this country.
        Senator Allard. I recognize the complexities of getting
    measurable goals out there. It is not always easy. And I
    recognize the fact that you cannot look at it just on a short-
    term basis, but you do need to collect this data on an annual
    basis and see over a trend line over several years, and then
    that gives you some idea of how your programs are operating.
        Dr. Billington. Oh, absolutely, and we welcome it. And as I
    say, we try to follow these guidelines.
        Senator Allard. That is one of the issues I am going to
    take a little time exploring with all the legislative agencies.
        Thank you, Dr. Billington. Thank you, General Scott. Dan,
    thank you, and Mr. Mulhollan. I appreciate your testimony.
    Thank you.
        General Scott. Thank you, sir.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Allard. Also, we will be making your full statement
    a part of the record.
        If there are any additional questions, they will be
    submitted to you for your response.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Library for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
                              impact of technology
        Question. According to LOC's budget justification, ``To help
    researchers quickly find information that is relevant, authoritative
    and verifiable, the Library must adapt its traditional strengths of
    acquiring, describing, serving and preserving information to an
    environment that is not bound by time or physical space.'' How do you
    balance the Library's traditional mission with this new requirement?
    How does technology help streamline and make more cost-effective the
    Library's ability to meet its mission, and even reduce costs?
        Answer. The Library's traditional mission is being pushed by the
    expectations of users, who increasingly demand and rely on electronic
    resources in addition to the traditional reference, descriptive, and
    access services for physical collections that the Library provides.
    While the Library continues to make accessible and preserve its print
    and multimedia collections, it requires additional resources and new
    skill sets among staff to purchase and serve electronic resources such
    as subscription databases, which are the cornerstones of research in
    many academic disciplines today.
        Technology enables the Library to increase its services to the
    Congress and to its other constituencies in many ways:
      --Entire Library collections of primary source materials are
            available online via American Memory and Global Gateway to be
            shared in libraries and classrooms around the country and
            around the world.
      --Reference questions are asked and responded to via the Web.
      --Guides to Library manuscript and other special format collections
            are available online for researchers to peruse before they come
            to the reading rooms, making their time in the Library more
            productive.
      --Catalogers are pioneering Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
            applications to share bibliographic and authority control
            records with other national libraries and library services
            vendors.
      --Publishers share pre-publication galleys of books electronically
            with the Cataloging in Publication (CIP) program to streamline
            cataloging processes and shorten publication time.
        The Library offers direct services to Congress electronically as
    well. ``LCnet'' premiered this spring as an online portal devoted
    solely to Members of Congress and their staff to interact with the
    Library on a number of fronts--to reserve rooms and plan special
    events, to arrange tours for constituents, to receive customized
    calendars of Library events, and to fulfill other special services or
    information needs that arise.
                                   cvc tunnel
        Question. The Capitol Visitor Center will include a tunnel to the
    Library of Congress' Jefferson Building. Do you have any estimate of
    how much visitation will increase? Will you need additional staff for
    tours or security? Do you plan any new activities that will necessitate
    additional resources?
        Answer. The number of visitors to the Library could triple to more
    than three million annually with the opening of the Capitol Visitor
    Center tunnel. Should the number of visitors exceed building safety
    requirements, the entrance through the tunnel to the Thomas Jefferson
    Building will be limited on an hourly basis or through a ticketing
    system. At present, we are assuming that security screening will take
    place on the Capitol Visitor Center side and that visitors entering the
    Library through the tunnel will not be re-screened.
        The Library is studying the impact the Capitol Visitor Center
    tunnel will have on the level of visits to the Thomas Jefferson
    Building in particular and to the Library and its services for visitors
    as a whole. Planning is underway to enhance the visitor experience, and
    it is not yet clear whether the experience will be largely self-guided
    and enhanced by interactive kiosks and audio tours, or whether it will
    be more traditionally led by staff and volunteer docents. Internal and
    external planning expertise is being deployed on this front, and the
    results of these consultations will determine whether additional
    resources will be necessary.
                 books for the blind and physically handicapped
        Question. The Library has been working for several years to develop
    a design for a ``digital talking book'' to replace the current cassette
    tape system to make books available to the blind. When do you expect to
    need the funds necessary to begin the full conversion to the digital
    format? How much will be required in total?
        Answer. The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
    Handicapped projects that a total of approximately $76.5 million will
    be required to fund the transition from analog cassette to a digital
    format over a period of four years. An initial request of approximately
    $19 million will be submitted in fiscal year 2007.
      national digital information infrastructure and preservation program
        Question. Library has been spearheading a $100 million effort aimed
    at preserving ``born-digital'' materials. There are now 8 NDIIP
    grantees/partners, who were awarded $14.5 million. What has been
    accomplished to date and what do you expect to accomplish in the year
    ahead? Why is the Library requesting a waiver for state government
    entities of the dollar-for-dollar match requirement? Do you anticipate
    additional funds will be needed in the future for this effort? Are
    other federal agencies, such as the National Archives, providing
    resources for this effort?
        Answer. NDIIPP Accomplishments to date and expected accomplishments
    include the following:
      --The goal of the NDIIPP is to build a national preservation program
            for reliable digital content. The Library is following the plan
            approved by Congress in 2002, executing three areas of
            investment: building a network of partners to share in this
            responsibility; developing the technical architecture to
            support that network (standards and protocols); and creating
            the tools for digital preservation. Continuing investment in
            these three areas is expected in the coming years.
      --An 18-month test of 6 existing technical architectures was
            completed with 4 other large research libraries. This work
            advances the development of the architecture necessary support
            a network of partners.
      --NDIIPP launched its first partners in January 2004--8 consortiums
            with a total of 36 organizations to collect at risk digital
            content in excess of 60 terabytes. The content is diverse and
            consists of web sites, social science data sets, geo-spatial
            materials, business history, and digital television
            programming. These partners provided $15 million in pledged
            matching funds over the next 3 years.
      --A Copyright Working Group, made up of representatives of the
            content creator/distributor communities, libraries, and
            archives, was just launched to examine Section 108 of the
            copyright law dealing with libraries and archives. This work is
            sponsored by NDIIPP working with the U.S. Copyright Office. The
            working group will make recommendations to Congress about
            revisions to the law.
      --Working with NSF, the Library is funding 7 advanced research grants
            for developing tools and techniques for digital preservations.
      --The Library is working with E-Archives, the San Diego Super
            Computer Center and the Los Alamos National Laboratories to
            develop repository software for archiving different types of
            digital content.
        In 2005, we are developing a program to bring state and local
    organizations into the preservation network. The request for a waiver
    results from the Library's experience in building collaborative NDIIPP
    relationships in the last few years. The Library recognizes that there
    are limited discretionary funds available, especially from state
    governmental entities, to meet common digital preservation challenges
    faced by all preserving institutions. Building sustainable preservation
    network partnerships is a long-term process. By requesting the state
    waiver, the Library plans to encourage the active building of broad
    collaborative relationships within and among state entities. By not
    subjecting these entities immediately to the match provision, the
    Library hopes to catalyze states to seek out building sustainable long-
    term collaborative relationships during and after the grant period, and
    not before.
        The Library does not anticipate additional funds, beyond that which
    already has been authorized for NDIIPP, will be needed to execute the
    NDIIPP program by 2010.
        The Library works collaborative with other federal agencies through
    their participation in the National Digital Strategy Advisory Board
    (NDSAB), joint participation in developing technical digital
    preservation guidelines and best practices, and their work with the
    Library's collaborating partners in the NDIIPP program. Other federal
    agencies do not provide direct resources to the Library and its NDIIPP
    program.
                                  outsourcing
        Question. Is the Library seeking opportunities to outsource any
    activities, as a way to reduce costs? Please explain.
        Answer. The Library outsourced a significant number of activities
    and continually seeks to identify additional activities that are
    appropriate for outsourcing in order to improve service, reduce cost,
    increase responsiveness, and promote efficiency in the agency. Some
    examples of activities that are currently outsourced include:
      --Infrastructure support services (custodial services, food services,
            furniture and furnishings installations and maintenance, trash
            removal and recycling pick-up, vehicle leases, secure mail
            operations, messenger service, graphics and design services,
            etc.)
      --Human Resource Services (employee assistance program, retirement
            services, management of personnel records, job analysis,
            selected training, etc.);
      --Information technology (help desk and user support);
      --Security (security within reading rooms, exhibit areas, and
            outlying annexes, and ID card and finger printing functions);
      --Financial (payroll processing, travel services, implementation of
            new financial systems, etc.); and
      --Program support (translation services, receptionist support).
        In addition, several of the Library's major programs are either
    outsourcing some of their work or investing in outsourcing pilots. For
    example:
      --Library Services has issued a contract to an Italian bookseller for
            a pilot project in which Italian books bought for the
            collection will also be cataloged by the bookseller. If this
            pilot is successful, outsourcing the cataloging of some of the
            foreign language collections is a possibility--both to reduce
            costs and to gain language expertise that is not always
            available on staff.
      --The Copyright Office outsourced its registration certificate
            production (i.e., printing and quality checking for over half a
            million copyright registration certificates per year). In
            addition, data entry of titles from recorded copyright
            documents, totaling anywhere from 300,000 to 500,000 titles per
            year, and contracting for selected divisional IT technical
            support are partially outsourced.
      --The Law Library outsourced work related to its Global Legal
            Information Network (GLIN), including scanning of documents,
            data input, and quality control of laws, regulations and other
            legal sources that comprise the GLIN. The Law Library has also
            outsourced a number of core services related to collection
            management, such as processing new receipts, binding
            preparation, loose leaf filing and shelving.
      --In addition to actions taken and planned within the Library, the
            Congressional Research Service (CRS) has done a significant
            amount of outsourcing and continues its efforts to seek out
            additional opportunities. In response to the recent Legislative
            Branch Agency Self-Certification Survey, CRS described a number
            of activities that have been outsourced and for which the
            tangible benefits have already been factored into the Service's
            annual Operating Plan. Over the past eight to ten years, CRS
            has permanently outsourced a number of on-going business
            activities, including its messenger service; mail operations;
            copy centers; technology help-desk and user support; foreign
            language translations; receptionist positions; job analysis;
            graphics design work; and general laborers/movers. CRS utilizes
            contractors to produce specific deliverables within a limited
            timeframe where securing in-house capability is not warranted
            given the temporal nature of the need. Examples of this type of
            outsourcing include library support functions; professional
            librarians; on-site group training and staff development
            services; assistance with developing a performance management
            system; professional survey instruments; professional services
            to help develop new authoring policies and procedures as well
            as meeting federal archiving obligations under the Federal
            Records Act; and cataloguing services.
        Savings gained through these outsourcing measures has provided CRS
    with some interim financial flexibility to absorb cost increases in
    other aspects of the Service's budget, e.g., software maintenance,
    research materials, employer-paid benefits costs for staff, and staff
    performance awards. While the Service believes that it has reached a
    level of critical mass with paring down its expenses and defraying
    unavoidable cost increases, CRS continually evaluates its programs,
    activities, and projects to determine the feasibility of undertaking
    them through outsourcing mechanisms.
        Further, CRS conducts in-depth program/financial audits of each of
    its on-going business activities every two years to ensure that the
    level of service is both appropriate for and contributes directly to
    meeting the mission and strategic objectives and performance targets
    set forth by the Director. In addition to the on-going activity
    reviews/audits, CRS conducts other internal studies to assess
    organizational structure or performance in comparison to the Service's
    total program needs. The results of these studies inform business
    decisions about the proper skills levels and mix needed throughout the
    Service, the right distribution of those skills and capacities, and the
    most cost effective way to deliver the skills and capacities--
    specifically, via in-house staffing or by outsourcing. Using
    information gleaned from its quarterly/annual performance reviews and
    annual management control reviews, CRS is continually probing its own
    operation to ensure that every aspect of the day-to-day business is
    carried out in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible and
    contributes to the singular goal of meeting the analytic research and
    information needs of the Congress.
                        GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

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

        Senator Allard. Now we will call the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO), please. We are having Mr. David
    Walker, Comptroller General; Gene Dodaro, Chief Operating
    Officer; and Sallyanne Harper, Chief Administrative Officer;
    and then Stan Czerwinski, who is our Controller.
        Mr. Walker, when you are ready you may proceed. We will ask
    that you limit your testimony to 5 minutes or so, and we will
    go into question and answer. We will make your full statement
    part of the record.

                                OPENING REMARKS

        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
    back before this subcommittee to talk about our fiscal 2006
    budget request. As you mentioned, accompanying me on my
    immediate right, Sallyanne Harper, our Chief Administrative
    Officer and Chief Financial Officer; on her right, Stan
    Czerwinski, about whom you had very kind comments, our
    Controller; on my left, Gene Dodaro, our Chief Operating
    Officer. We appreciate your having us before you, because all
    of these individuals and others have played an important part
    in putting together this budget submission.
        I respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that my entire
    statement be included in the record. Therefore, I will
    summarize the highlights.
        Senator Allard. So ordered, without objection.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you very much.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, GAO is the third largest agency
    in the legislative branch based upon budget authority. Our job
    is to help the Congress discharge its constitutional
    responsibilities, basically geared toward helping to improve
    the performance of Government and assure the accountability of
    Government for the benefit of the American people. I was
    encouraged and had a very favorable reaction to your
    conversation before about performance and results.
        I would note that we voluntarily comply with the Government
    Performance and Results Act. Our objective is not just to
    comply with the Act; it is to lead by example and to be the
    best in Government in anything that we do. I would respectfully
    suggest that when you have a chance you may want to take a look
    at GAO's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Accountability
    Highlights Report, because I think you will be proud of what it
    has to say.
        We have an important philosophy of leading by example,
    because we are the agency that audits, investigates, and
    evaluates others. Therefore, I believe we have a responsibility
    to be as good or better than the agencies we audit, investigate
    or evaluate. This adds to our effectiveness as well as our
    credibility. In fact, one of our four goals under our strategic
    plan for serving the Congress is to be a model Federal agency
    and a world class professional services organization.

                               MEASURING SUCCESS

        We have four key success measures: results that are outcome
    based, not activity based; the feedback we get from clients;
    what our most valuable asset, our employees, say about us; and
    what our partners within and outside of Government, say about
    us, namely whether we are a good partner.
        For fiscal year 2004 we had record results, all-time record
    results for GAO. For example, we achieved $44 billion in
    financial benefits, a $95 return for every dollar spent by
    GAO--an all-time record. Number one in the world, nobody is
    even close. Second, with regard to clients, a 97 percent client
    satisfaction rate. Also, an all-time record. With regard to
    employees' views on our overall operations and work
    environment, GAO will probably receive one of the highest
    ratings in the federal government based upon past reported
    activity. With regard to our partners, we get very positive
    feedback.
        With regard to our budget, we are very well aware that the
    federal government faces a large deficit and a long-range
    fiscal imbalance. Therefore, for several years we have tried to
    lead by example in this regard as well. We have had very modest
    budget requests, as is the case this year.
        There is some risk, Mr. Chairman, in trying to lead by
    example in this regard, because it means that we count on you,
    your capable staff, and others to make sure that there is a
    level playing field in scrubbing these budget requests before
    you make final decisions. For example, if this subcommittee
    were to approve the request of every legislative branch
    agency--and I know you are unable to do that because of the
    fiscal pressures--and if you were to see how much of a budget
    increase would have been achieved in the last 3 years, from
    fiscal years 2004 to 2006, versus the average for the
    legislative branch, GAO's increase if we got everything that we
    asked for, which is based on need versus want, would be a total
    of 7.4 percent. That is basically inflation. The average for
    the legislative branch would be 18.4 percent.
        So I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is
    important not just to look at 1-year budget requests, but also
    to look, as you pointed out before, at the trendline of what
    has happened over the last several years, where do things stand
    on a relative basis as well as hopefully be able to look at
    return on investment. By having a modest budget request and a
    strong return on investment, we hope that puts us in a strong
    position to get our fair share.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The last thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is I appreciate
    this subcommittee's past support of GAO. I look forward to
    working with you. I congratulate you on your appointment to the
    chairmanship, and I know that it is going to be a tough year
    and series of years. But I think by focusing on minimizing
    budget requests, maximizing return on investment, and focusing
    on positive, outcome-based results, I hope that it will make
    your job a little bit easier.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of David M. Walker
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to
    appear before you today in support of the fiscal year 2006 budget
    request for the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). This
    request is necessary to help us continue to support the Congress in
    meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
    performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for
    the benefit of the American people.
        We are grateful to the Congress for providing us with the support
    and resources that have helped us in our quest to be a world-class
    professional services organization. I am proud of the work we
    accomplish as we continue to provide our congressional clients with
    professional, objective, fact-based, non-partisan, non-ideological,
    fair, balanced, and reliable information in a timely manner regarding
    how well government programs and policies are working and, when needed,
    recommendations to make government work better. We believe that
    investing in GAO produces a sound return and results in substantial
    benefits to the Congress and the American people. In the years ahead,
    our support to the Congress will likely prove even more critical
    because of the pressures created by our nation's current and projected
    budget deficit and long-term fiscal imbalance. These fiscal pressures
    will require the Congress to make tough choices regarding what the
    government should do, how it will do its work, who will help carry out
    its work in the future, and how government will be financed in the
    future.
        We summarized the larger challenges facing the federal government
    in our recently issued 21st Century Challenges report.\1\ In this
    report, we emphasize the critical need to bring the federal
    government's programs and policies into line with 21st century
    realities. Continuing on our current unsustainable fiscal path will
    gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of
    living, and ultimately our national security. We, therefore, must
    fundamentally reexamine major spending and tax policies and priorities
    in an effort to recapture our fiscal flexibility and ensure that our
    programs and priorities respond to emerging security, social, economic,
    and environmental changes and challenges in the years ahead. I believe
    that GAO can be of invaluable assistance in helping the Congress
    address these challenges.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the
    Federal Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My testimony today will focus on our (1) performance and results
    with the funding you provided us in fiscal year 2004, (2) streamlining
    and management improvement efforts under way, and (3) budget request
    for fiscal year 2006 to support the Congress and serve the American
    people.
                                    summary
        In summary:
      --The funding we received in fiscal year 2004 allowed us to audit and
            evaluate a number of major topics of concern to the nation and,
            in some cases, the world. For example, we reported on the
            reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq; important
            concerns about pay and other support for the National Guard and
            Reserve forces; numerous topics related to homeland and
            national security, including improving operations of the
            Departments of Homeland Security and Defense; curbing the use
            of counterfeit identity documents; and making the nation's
            transportation system safer from potential acts of terrorism.
            We also continued to raise concerns about the nation's long-
            term fiscal imbalance, summarized key health care statistics
            and published a proposed framework for related reforms, and
            provided staff support for the 9/11 Commission. In fiscal year
            2004, we exceeded or equaled our all-time record for six of our
            seven key performance indicators while continuing to improve
            our client and employee feedback results. I am especially
            pleased to report that we documented $44 billion in financial
            benefits--a return of $95 for every dollar spent, or $13.7
            million per employee. In fiscal year 2004, we also recorded
            1,197 other benefits that could not be measured in dollar terms
            including benefits that helped to change laws, to improve
            services to the public and to promote sound agency and
            governmentwide management. Also, experts from our staff
            testified at 217 congressional hearings covering a wide range
            of important public policy issues during fiscal year 2004.
      --Shortly after I was appointed Comptroller General, I determined
            that our agency would undertake a transformation effort. This
            effort is consistent with the elements of House Report (H.
            Rpt.) 108-577 that focus on improving the efficiency and
            effectiveness of operations at legislative branch agencies. Our
            transformation effort has enabled us to eliminate a management
            layer, streamline our organization, reduce our overall
            footprint, and centralize many of our support functions.
            Currently, over 50 percent of our support staff are
            contractors, allowing us to devote more of our staff resources
            to our mission work. We recently surveyed managers of agency
            support operations and identified additional activities that
            potentially could be filled through alternative sourcing
            strategies. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we will further
            assess the feasibility of using alternative sourcing for these
            activities. I would be pleased to brief you at a later date on
            our preliminary analyses.
      --In developing our fiscal year 2006 budget, we have taken into
            consideration the overall federal budget constraints and the
            committee's desire to lead by example. Accordingly, we are
            requesting $493.5 million which represents a modest increase of
            4 percent over fiscal year 2005. This increase is primarily for
            mandatory pay costs and price level changes. This budget
            request will allow us to continue to maximize productivity,
            operate more effectively and efficiently, and maintain the
            progress we have made in technology and other areas, but it
            does not allow us sufficient funding to support a staffing
            level of 3,269--the staffing level that we requested in
            previous years. Even as we are tempering our budget request, it
            needs to be acknowledged that there are increasing demands on
            GAO's resources. For example, the number of congressional
            mandates for GAO studies, such as GAO reviews of executive
            branch and legislative branch operations, has increased more
            than 15 percent since fiscal year 2000. While we have reduced
            our planned staffing level for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 in
            order to keep our request modest, we believe that the staffing
            level we requested in previous years is a more optimal staffing
            level for GAO and would allow us to better meet the needs of
            the Congress and provide the return on investment that both the
            Congress and the American people expect. We will be seeking
            your commitment and support to provide the funding needed to
            rebuild our staffing levels over the next few fiscal years,
            especially as we approach a point where we may be able to
            express an opinion on the federal government's consolidated
            financial statements.
                    fiscal year 2004 performance and results
        In fiscal year 2004, much of our work examined the effectiveness of
    the federal government's day-to-day operations, such as administering
    benefits to the elderly and other needy populations, providing grants
    and loans to college students, and collecting taxes from businesses and
    individuals. Yet, we remained alert to emerging problems that demanded
    the attention of lawmakers and the public. For example, we continued to
    closely monitor developments affecting the Iraq war, defense
    transformation, homeland security, social security, health care, the
    U.S. Postal Service, civil service reform, and the nation's private
    pension system. We also informed policymakers about long-term
    challenges facing the nation, such as the federal government's
    financial condition and fiscal outlook, new security threats in the
    post-cold war world, the aging of America and its impact on our health
    care and retirement systems, changing economic conditions, and the
    increasing demands on our infrastructure--from highways to water
    systems. We provided congressional committees, members, and staff with
    up-to-date information in the form of reports, recommendations,
    testimonies, briefings, and expert comments on bills, laws, and other
    legal matters affecting the federal government. We performed this work
    in accordance with the GAO Strategic Plan for serving the Congress,
    consistent with our professional standards, and guided by our core
    values. See appendix I for our Strategic Plan Framework for serving the
    Congress and the nation.
    Outcomes of Our Work
        In fiscal year 2004, our work generated $44 billion in financial
    benefits, primarily from recommendations we made to agencies and the
    Congress (see fig. 1). Of this amount, about $27 billion resulted from
    changes to laws or regulations, $11 billion resulted from agency
    actions based on our recommendations to improve services to the public,
    and $6 billion resulted from improvements to core business processes,
    both governmentwide and at specific agencies, resulting from our work
    (see fig. 2). Our findings and recommendations produce measurable
    financial benefits for the federal government when the Congress or
    agencies act on them. The funds that are saved can then be made
    available to reduce government expenditures or be reallocated to other
    areas. The monetary effect realized can be the result of changes in
    business operations and activities; the structure of federal programs;
    or entitlements, taxes, or user fees.

        For example, financial benefits could result if the Congress were
    able to reduce its annual cost of operating a federal program or lessen
    the cost of a multiyear program or entitlement. Financial benefits
    could also result from increases in federal revenues--due to changes in
    laws, user fees, or sales--that our work helped to produce. Financial
    benefits included in our performance measures are net benefits--that
    is, estimates of financial benefits that have been reduced by the costs
    associated with taking the action that we recommended. Figure 3 lists
    several of our major financial benefits for fiscal year 2004 and
    briefly describes some of our work contributing to financial benefits.

      FIGURE 3.--GAO'S SELECTED MAJOR FINANCIAL BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL
                                    YEAR 2004
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Description                             Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eliminated Medicaid's upper payment limit loophole. We           $10,073
     identified a weakness in Medicaid's upper payment limit
     methodology that allowed states to make excessive payments
     to local, government-owned nursing facilities and then
     have the facilities return the payments to the states,
     creating the illusion that they had made large Medicaid
     payments in order to generate federal matching payments.
     Closing the loophole prevented the federal government from
     making significant federal matching payments to states
     above those intended by Medicaid. The amount shown
     represents the net present value of estimated financial
     benefits for fiscal years 2005 and 2006--the final years
     for which benefits can be claimed.........................
    Updated the Consumer Price Index (CPI). We recommended that       $5,074
     the Bureau of Labor Statistics periodically update the
     expenditure weights of its market basket of goods and
     services used to calculate the CPI to make it more timely
     and representative of consumer expenditures. The bureau
     agreed to do this every 2 years, and the CPI for January
     2002 reflected the new weights. For federal programs that
     use the CPI as an index for determining benefits, the
     adjustments have resulted in decreased federal
     expenditures (e.g., reduced Social Security cost-of-living
     adjustments) and increased federal revenues, such as
     reductions in the growth of personal exemptions for
     federal income taxes. The amount shown represents
     projected financial benefits for fiscal year 2007, the
     fifth and final year for which we will allow benefits to
     be claimed for this action................................
    Reduced costs associated with Medicare spending on home           $4,661
     health care. We reported in 2002 that Medicare's payments
     for home health care episodes were, on average, about 35
     percent higher than the estimated costs of home health
     care provided in the first 6 months of 2001. Our report
     helped to ensure that the Congress did not delay or
     eliminate a scheduled reduction in Medicare home health
     payments that had risen rapidly from the late 1980s
     through the mid-1990s.....................................
    Reduced the cost of federal housing programs. We determined       $3,638
     that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
     did not have the information it needed to routinely
     calculate and track unexpended balances in its housing and
     community development programs. As a result of our work,
     the Congress required HUD to prepare quarterly reports on
     unexpended balances for each program, and HUD management
     committed to closely monitor these balances and identify
     amounts available for recapture...........................
    Improved the use of the Iraqi Freedom Fund. We reported           $3,490
     that the military services may not obligate all of the
     funds appropriated for the global war on terrorism in
     fiscal year 2003 as required. Thus, the Congress rescinded
     $3.49 billion from the September 2003 balance remaining in
     the Iraqi Freedom Fund as part of the fiscal year 2004
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act. These funds were
     made available for other purposes.........................
    Reduced costs associated with preparing the Department of         $2,057
     Defense's (DOD) financial statements. We determined that
     DOD's initial plans to obtain a favorable fiscal year 2004
     audit opinion were not feasible or cost-effective.
     Therefore, instead of moving $2.2 billion to fund the DOD
     components' efforts focused on a fiscal year 2004 audit
     opinion, the DOD Comptroller shifted $184 million to begin
     auditability assessments and audits, as applicable, as
     part of a long-term strategy to improve DOD's fiscal
     accountability. The Comptroller's decision not to
     reprogram the funds allowed DOD to use over $2 billion for
     other purposes during the fiscal year.....................
    Modified the focus of funding for DOD's V-22 Osprey               $1,618
     aircraft program. We highlighted for DOD officials--before
     full production of the aircraft was scheduled to begin--
     numerous risks and unknowns that existed in the V-22
     Osprey program because of inadequate testing and
     evaluation. We reported these concerns to a blue-ribbon
     investigative panel established after a second fatal crash
     of the V-22. As a result of our work, the blue-ribbon
     panel recommended that DOD temporarily reduce the
     production of the V-22 to a minimum level to free up funds
     to better address the research and development issues we
     raised. The Congress reduced the procurement funding for
     purchasing V-22 aircraft from the planned 37 to 11 for
     each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004. This action allowed
     some funds to be used for development testing of the V-22
     aircraft, but the remaining funds were made available for
     other purposes............................................
    Eliminated unnecessary military funding from the budget. We       $1,353
     recommended that requested fiscal year 2004 funds be
     eliminated for three terminated military operations
     involving Iraq's compliance with various United Nations
     resolutions, Operations Northern and Southern Watch and
     Operation Desert Spring. These funds were made available
     for other purposes........................................
    Improved DOD's contracting and acquisition practices. We            $868
     developed a strategic framework--based on the best
     practices of leading private-sector companies--to guide
     DOD's services contracting reforms and recommended changes
     in DOD's organizational structure and approach to
     acquiring goods and services, such as using cross-
     functional teams and spend analyses to coordinate key
     purchases and leverage buying power for the agency. As a
     result of work done by us and others, the Congress cut
     DOD's budget in its fiscal year 2003 appropriation in
     anticipation of expected savings. This accomplishment
     amends a financial benefit we claimed in fiscal year 2002
     and represents an additional benefit in fiscal year 2004--
     the final year for which a benefit can be claimed.........
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO.

        Many of the benefits that result from our work cannot be measured
    in dollar terms. During fiscal year 2004, we recorded a total of 1,197
    other benefits (see fig. 4). We documented 74 instances where
    information we provided to the Congress resulted in statutory or
    regulatory changes, 570 instances where federal agencies improved
    services to the public, and 553 instances where agencies improved core
    business processes or governmentwide reforms were advanced (see fig.
    5). These actions spanned the full spectrum of national issues, from
    ensuring the safety of commercial airline passengers to identifying
    abusive tax shelters. See figure 6 for examples of other benefits we
    claimed as accomplishments in fiscal year 2004.

                  FIGURE 6.--GAO'S SELECTED OTHER (NONFINANCIAL) BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2004
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Explanation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO CHANGE
                    LAWS

    Vision 100-Century of Aviation        We worked closely with the Congress to draft language that was included in
     Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-  this law related to curriculum and certification requirements for
     176.                                  aviation mechanics. The language, which was based on recommendations we
                                           had made, included a requirement that the Federal Aviation Administration
                                           update and revise curriculum standards for aviation mechanics.
    Medicare Prescription Drug,           Congress included six provisions in the law based on analyses and
     Improvement, and Modernization Act    recommendations we made. For example, our work found that Medicare's
     of 2003, Public Law 108-173.          method for establishing payment rates for drugs obtained under Medicare
                                           Part B--which covers doctors' services, outpatient hospital care, and
                                           some other nonhospital services--was flawed because it based payments on
                                           nonmarket-driven price estimates. The law addressed these issues by
                                           lowering payment rates in 2004 for drugs covered by Part B to more
                                           closely reflect acquisition costs and by changing the method for
                                           calculating these payment rates in 2005, basing these rates on a market-
                                           driven estimate. Also, partly on the basis of our work, the Congress
                                           modified the eligibility criteria for small rural hospitals to qualify as
                                           critical access hospitals under the Medicare program. This change
                                           provides flexibility for some additional hospitals to consider
                                           conversion. Because of Medicare's payment methodology, converting to a
                                           critical access hospital may help bolster a hospital's financial
                                           condition, allowing it to continue to provide services to patients.
    Consolidated Appropriations Act,      We found that HUD could make more accurate eligibility decisions for
     2004, Public Law 108-199.             individuals seeking housing assistance if it had access to more timely
                                           income information available from the Department of Health and Human
                                           Service's Office of Child Support Enforcement's National Directory of New
                                           Hires. We recommended that HUD match applicants and current recipients of
                                           its rental housing assistance programs with the new hires database. This
                                           law gives HUD access to information from the database that will better
                                           ensure that only eligible individuals receive housing assistance.
    National Defense Authorization Act    We testified that most existing federal performance appraisal systems,
     for Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law      including a vast majority of DOD's systems, are not designed to support a
     108-136.                              meaningful performance-based personnel system, and agencies should have
                                           to demonstrate that these systems are modern, effective, and valid in
                                           order to receive any additional performance-based flexibilities. We
                                           suggested that the Congress establish a governmentwide fund whereby
                                           agencies could apply for funds to modernize their performance management
                                           systems and ensure that those systems have adequate safeguards to prevent
                                           abuse. This law established the Human Capital Performance Fund to support
                                           all executive agencies as they plan for and carry out performance-based
                                           rewards for their civilian employees.

        OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO
       IMPROVE SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC

    Helped to Ensure the Safety of        In July 2001, we reported that the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)
     Shellfish.                            oversight of states' shellfish safety programs was not risk-based and
                                           thus FDA was not using its limited resources wisely. To better ensure
                                           shellfish safety, we recommended that FDA identify risk factors for each
                                           of its program elements (growing area classification, processing and
                                           shipping, and control of harvest). FDA developed a scoring system for
                                           these factors. FDA shellfish specialists compute a total risk score of
                                           high, medium, or low that determines the frequency of the evaluation of
                                           that program element. High-risk elements were to be evaluated every year
                                           beginning in fiscal year 2003, medium-risk elements every second year
                                           beginning in fiscal year 2004, and low-risk elements every third year
                                           beginning in fiscal year 2005.
    Identified the Need for Better        Our report found that states did not have the information needed to
     Criteria to Determine Highly          determine whether teachers had met criteria to be considered highly
     Qualified Teachers.                   qualified, as required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Specifically,
                                           states did not have the information they needed to develop methods to
                                           evaluate the subject area knowledge of teachers. To help states determine
                                           the number of highly qualified teachers they have and the actions they
                                           need to take to meet the requirements for highly qualified teachers by
                                           the end of the 2005-2006 school year, we recommended that the Secretary
                                           of Education provide more information to states about methods to evaluate
                                           subject area knowledge of current teachers. In January 2004, Education
                                           issued a revised version of the guidance ``Improving Teacher Quality,''
                                           which contains more information on how to evaluate subject area knowledge
                                           to meet the federal definition of a highly qualified teacher.
                                           Specifically, the guidance includes a new section that, among other
                                           things, defines evaluation standards and factors to consider when
                                           developing them.
    Encouraged VA to Clarify the Array    We recommended that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) specify in
     of Home Health Care Services          policy whether three home health services--home-based primary care,
     Available to Veterans.                homemaker/home health aide, and skilled home health care--are to be
                                           available to all enrolled veterans. In response, VA published an
                                           information letter on October 1, 2003, clarifying that, according to VA
                                           policy, the three home health services are to be available for all
                                           enrolled, eligible veterans in need of such services. The information
                                           letter was distributed to all facilities through e-mail and is available
                                           on the VA Web site.

        OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO
          PROMOTE SOUND AGENCY AND
          GOVERNMENTWIDE MANAGEMENT

    Identified the Need for More          We found that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is investing more in
     Specific Criteria to Select for       audits of large corporations and getting less in return. To improve the
     Audit Tax Returns from Large          audits of tax returns filed by large corporations, we recommended that
     Corporations.                         IRS provide more specific objective criteria and procedures to guide the
                                           selection of large corporate tax returns and classification of tax issues
                                           with high audit potential across the districts. In March 2002, IRS
                                           implemented a process for scoring returns in order to fully implement a
                                           plan to place these returns in the field for audit. IRS has begun to
                                           identify high-risk returns from corporate and partnership tax returns
                                           using the Discriminant Analysis System.
    Helped to Centralize the Oversight    We examined various DOD initiatives underway that are intended to better
     of Major DOD Contracts.               manage acquisition of services, including drafting policy to provide
                                           better oversight on purchases of high-dollar value services. In response
                                           to our work, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
                                           and Logistics and each of the military departments now have a management
                                           structure in place and a process for reviewing major (i.e., large-dollar
                                           or program-critical) service acquisitions for adherence to performance
                                           and other contracting requirements. The new policy establishes a
                                           threshold of $500 million or more for selecting service purchases for
                                           review and approval by the military department and possibly DOD
                                           headquarters, allowing DOD to adequately plan major purchases before
                                           committing the government to major expenditures.
    Helped to Reduce Fraud, Waste, and    In a series of reports and testimonies beginning in 2001, we highlighted
     Abuse of Agencies' Purchase Cards.    pervasive weaknesses in the government's $16 billion purchase card
                                           program. Our work identified numerous cases of fraud, waste, and abuse at
                                           DOD, HUD, and the Federal Aviation Administration. These agencies have
                                           taken significant steps to implement the hundreds of recommendations we
                                           made to upgrade their controls. Major improvement areas include enhanced
                                           controls over card issuance and cancellation, reduced span of control for
                                           approving officials, increased human capital resources and training, new
                                           performance measures and goals, required advance approval of purchases,
                                           and independent receiving and acceptance of goods and services. These
                                           efforts will substantially reduce the government's vulnerability to
                                           fraud, waste, and abuse in agencies' purchase card programs.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO.

    Recommendation Acceptance Rate
        At the end of fiscal year 2004, 83 percent of the recommendations
    we made in fiscal year 2000 had been implemented (see fig. 7),
    primarily by executive branch agencies. Putting these recommendations
    into practice is generating tangible benefits for the American people.
    As figure 8 indicates, agencies need time to act on our
    recommendations. Therefore, we assess recommendations implemented after
    4 years, the point at which experience has shown that, if a
    recommendation has not been implemented, it is not likely to be.

    Testimonies That Serve the Congress
        During fiscal year 2004, experts from our staff testified at 217
    congressional hearings (see fig. 9) covering a wide range of complex
    issues. For example, our senior executives testified on the financial
    condition of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's single-employer
    program, the effects of various proposals to reform Social Security's
    benefit distributions, and enhancing federal accountability through
    inspectors general. Nearly half of our testimonies were related to
    high-risk areas and programs. See figure 10 for a summary of issues we
    testified on, by strategic goal, in fiscal year 2004.

       Figure 10.--Topics on Which GAO Testified During Fiscal Year 2004
    Goal 1: Well-being and financial security of the American people
    Student loan programs
    Child welfare
    Pension plan insurance programs
    Energy Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation Program
    Social Security reform's effect on benefits and taxes
    Medicare spending
    Intergovernmental Medicaid transfers
    Private health insurance
    Defense and veterans' health care
    U.S. gasoline markets
    Farm program payments
    Security challenges at chemical facilities
    Oil and gas activities on federal lands
    Postal Service transformation
    Rail security
    Federal real property
    Federal aviation management and modernization
    Pipeline safety
    Telecommunications
    Goal 2: Changing security threats and challenges of globalization
    Gulf War illnesses
    International broadcasting
    Border security
    Terrorist financing
    United Nations Oil-for-Food program
    Oversight of government-sponsored enterprises
    Securities and Exchange Commission operations
    Mutual funds
    Use of Reserve forces
    Destruction of chemical weapons
    Mail delivery to deployed troops
    Defense personnel clearances
    Unmanned aerial vehicles
    Military base closures
    Operations in Iraq
    Challenges in inspecting oceangoing cargo containers
    Homeland security advisory system
    Security at nuclear facilities
    Counterfeit identities
    Information security
    Critical infrastructure protection
    International defense sales
    U.S. Army combat systems
    Military aircraft
    Defense's space systems
    National strategy for homeland security
    Goal 3: Transforming the Federal Government's role
    Army Reserve and Army National Guard pay
    Defense contractor tax system abuses
    Fraudulent diplomas
    Illicit Internet pharmacies
    Information technology management
    Information technology continuity of operations
    Electronic government
    Border and transportation security
    Electronic voting
    Abusive tax shelters
    Diversity among senior federal executives
    Transformation of the federal government
    Long-term federal budget issues
    Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool
    The impact of the Government Performance and Results Act
    District of Columbia government
    Federal financial management and fiscal challenges
    Federal purchase and travel cards
    Excess Defense property
    Space shuttle program
    Defense contract management
    GAO's High-Risk Program
        Issued to coincide with the start of each new Congress, our high-
    risk update lists government programs and functions in need of special
    attention or transformation to ensure that the federal government
    functions in the most economical, efficient, and effective manner
    possible. Our latest report, released in January 2005, presents the
    status of high-risk areas identified in 2003 and lists new high-risk
    areas warranting attention by the Congress and the administration.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.:
    January 2005).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In January 2003, we identified 25 high-risk areas; in July 2003, a
    twenty-sixth high-risk area was added to the list (see table 1). Since
    then, progress has been made in all areas, although the nature and
    significance of progress varies by area. Federal departments and
    agencies, as well as the Congress, have shown a continuing commitment
    to addressing these high-risk challenges and have taken various steps
    to help correct several of their root causes. GAO has determined that
    sufficient progress has been made to remove the high-risk designation
    from the following three areas: student financial aid programs, FAA
    financial management, and Forest Service financial management.
        Also, four areas related to IRS have been consolidated into two
    areas.
        This year, we designated four new high-risk areas. The first new
    area is establishing appropriate and effective information-sharing
    mechanisms to improve homeland security. Federal policy creates
    specific requirements for information-sharing efforts, including the
    development of processes and procedures for collaboration between
    federal, state, and local governments and the private sector. This area
    has received increased attention, but the federal government still
    faces formidable challenges sharing information among stakeholders in
    an appropriate and timely manner to minimize risk.
        The second and third new high-risk areas are, respectively, DOD's
    approach to business transformation and its personnel security
    clearance program. GAO has reported on inefficiencies and inadequate
    transparency and accountability across DOD's major business areas,
    resulting in billions of dollars of wasted resources. Senior leaders
    have shown commitment to business transformation through individual
    initiatives in acquisition reform, business modernization, and
    financial management, among others, but little tangible evidence of
    actual improvement has been seen to date in DOD's business operations.
    DOD needs to take stronger steps to achieve and sustain business reform
    on a departmentwide basis. Further, delays by DOD in completing
    background investigations and adjudications can affect the entire
    government because DOD performs this function for hundreds of thousands
    of industry personnel from 22 federal agencies, as well as its own
    service members, federal civilian employees, and industry personnel.
    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is to assume DOD's personnel
    security investigative function, but this change alone will not reduce
    the shortages of investigative personnel.
        The fourth high-risk area is management of interagency contracting.
    Interagency contracts can leverage the government's buying power and
    provide a simplified and expedited method of procurement. But several
    factors can pose risks, including the rapid growth of dollars involved
    combined with the limited expertise of some agencies in using these
    contracts as well as recent problems related to their management.
    Various improvement efforts have been initiated to address interagency
    contracting, but improved policies and processes, and their effective
    implementation, are needed to ensure that interagency contracting
    achieves its full potential in the most effective and efficient manner.
        Lasting solutions to high-risk problems offer the potential to save
    billions of dollars, dramatically improve service to the American
    public, strengthen public confidence and trust in the performance and
    accountability of our national government, and ensure the ability of
    government to deliver on its promises.

         TABLE 1.--THE YEAR THAT AREAS ON GAO'S 2005 HIGH-RISK LIST WERE
                             DESIGNATED AS HIGH RISK
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Year
                              Area                              designated
                                                                 high risk
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Medicare Program........................................            1990
    DOD Supply Chain Management.............................        \1\ 1990
    DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition..........................            1990
    DOE Contract Management.................................            1990
    NASA Contract Management................................            1990
    Enforcement of Tax Laws.................................        \2\ 1990
    DOD Contract Management.................................            1992
    HUD Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and Rental Housing             1994
     Assistance Programs....................................
    DOD Financial Management................................            1995
    DOD Business Systems Modernization......................            1995
    IRS Business Systems Modernization......................        \3\ 1995
    FAA Air Traffic Control Modernization...................            1995
    Protecting the Federal Government's Information Systems             1997
     and the Nation's Critical Infrastructures..............
    DOD Support Infrastructure Management...................            1997
    Strategic Human Capital Management......................            2001
    U.S. Postal Service Transformation Efforts and Long-Term            2001
     Outlook................................................
    Medicaid Program........................................            2003
    Managing Federal Real Property..........................            2003
    Modernizing Federal Disability Programs.................            2003
    Implementing and Transforming the Department of Homeland            2003
     Security...............................................
    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer                2003
     Insurance Program......................................
    Establishing Appropriate and Effective Information-                 2005
     Sharing Mechanisms to Improve Homeland Security........
    DOD Approach to Business Transformation.................            2005
    DOD Personnel Security Clearance Program................            2005
    Management of Interagency Contracting...................            2005
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This area was formerly entitled DOD Inventory Management.
    \2\ One of the two high-risk areas that were consolidated to make this
      area--Collection of Unpaid Taxes--was designated high risk in 1990.
      The other area--Earned Income Credit Noncompliance--was designated
      high risk in 1995.
    \3\ IRS Financial Management has been incorporated into the IRS Business
      Systems Modernization high-risk area. Both areas were initially
      designated as high risk in 1995.

    Source: GAO.

        In fiscal year 2004, we issued 218 reports and delivered 96
    testimonies related to our high-risk areas and programs, and our work
    involving these areas resulted in financial benefits totaling over $20
    billion. This work, for example, included 13 reports and 10 testimonies
    examining problems with DOD's financial management practices, such as
    weak internal controls over travel cards, inadequate management of
    payments to the Navy's telecommunications vendors, and abuses of the
    federal tax system by DOD contractors, resulting in $2.7 billion in
    financial benefits. In addition, we documented $700 million in
    financial benefits based on previous work and produced 7 reports and 4
    testimonies focusing on, for example, improving Social Security
    Administration and Department of Energy processes that result in
    inconsistent disability decisions and inconsistent benefit outcomes.
                streamlining and management improvement efforts
        Shortly after I was appointed in November 1998, I determined that
    GAO should undertake a major transformation effort to better enable it
    to ``lead by example'' and better support the Congress in the 21st
    century. This effort is consistent with the House Report 108-577 on the
    fiscal year 2005 legislative branch appropriation that focuses on
    improving the efficiency and effectiveness of operations at legislative
    branch agencies.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

    The Mandate:
        H. Rpt. 108-577 directed GAO to work closely with the head of each
    legislative branch agency to identify opportunities for streamlining,
    cross-servicing and outsourcing, leveraging existing technology, and
    applying management principles identified as ``best practices'' in
    comparable public and private sector enterprises. H. Rpt. 108-577 also
    directed the legislative branch agencies to be prepared to discuss
    recommended changes during the fiscal year 2006 appropriations hearing
    cycle.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        Our agency transformation effort has enabled GAO to become more
    results-oriented, partnerial, client-focused, and externally aware, and
    less hierarchical, process-oriented, ``siloed,'' and internally
    focused. The transformation resulted in reduced organizational layers,
    fewer field offices, the elimination of duplication in several areas,
    and improved our overall resource allocation. We began our
    transformation effort by using the GAO Strategic Plan as a framework to
    align our organization and its resources. On the basis of the strategic
    plan, we streamlined and realigned the agency to eliminate a management
    layer, consolidated 35 issue areas into 13 teams, and reduced our field
    offices from 16 to 11. We also eliminated the position of Regional
    Manager--a Senior Executive Service level position--in the individual
    field offices and consolidated the remaining field offices into three
    regions--the eastern region, the central region, and the western
    region, each headed by a single senior executive. Following the
    realignment of our mission organization and field offices, GAO's
    support organizations were restructured and centralized to eliminate
    duplication and to provide human capital, report production and
    processing, information systems desk-side support, budget and financial
    management, and other services more efficiently to agency staff. This
    has resulted in a 14 percent reduction in our support staff since 1998.
    As shown in figure 11, these and subsequent measures improved the
    ``shape'' of the agency by decreasing the number of mid-level managers
    and by increasing the number of entry level and other staff with the
    skills and abilities to accomplish our work.

        During my tenure, GAO has outsourced and cross-serviced many
    administrative support activities, which has allowed GAO to devote more
    of its resources to mission work. In fiscal year 2004, about two-thirds
    of our nonhuman capital costs were spent to obtain critical mission
    support services for about 165 activities from the private and public
    sectors through outsourcing. Outsourcing contracts include a wide range
    of mission support activities, including information technology systems
    development, maintenance, and support; printing and dissemination of
    GAO products; operation and maintenance of the GAO Headquarters
    building; information, personnel, and industrial security activities;
    records management; operational support; and audit service support. GAO
    also meets many of its requirements through cross-servicing
    arrangements with other federal agencies. For example, GAO uses the
    Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center to process its
    personnel/payroll transactions. Also, GAO uses the legislative branch's
    long-distance telephone contract, which has resulted in continual
    reductions in long-distance rates. GAO also uses a wide range of
    contracting arrangements available in the executive branch for
    procuring major information technology (IT) services. GAO also uses the
    Library of Congress' Federal Library and Information Network to procure
    all of its commercial online databases.
        Currently, as shown in figure 12, over 50 percent of our staff
    resources in the support area are contractors, allowing us to devote
    more of our staff resources to our mission work. We recently surveyed
    managers of agency mission support operations and identified additional
    activities that potentially could be filled through alternative
    sourcing strategies. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we will assess the
    feasibility of alternative sourcing for these activities using an
    acquisition sourcing maturity model and cost-benefit analyses.

        Utilizing IT effectively is critical to our productivity, success,
    and viability. We have applied IT best management practices to take
    advantage of a wide range of available technologies such as Web-based
    applications and Web-enabled information access, as well as modern,
    mobile computing devices such as notebook computers to facilitate our
    ability to carry out our work for the Congress more effectively. We
    make wide use of third-party reviews of our practices and have scored
    well in measurement efforts such as total cost of ownership, customer
    service, and application development. In fiscal year 2002, an
    independent study of GAO's IT processes and related costs revealed
    that, ``GAO is delivering superb IT application support and development
    services to the business units at 29 percent less than the cost it
    would take the Government peer group to deliver.'' In confirmation of
    these findings, in fiscal year 2003, GAO was one of only three federal
    agencies to receive the CIO Magazine 100 Award for excellence in
    effectively managing IT resources to obtain the most value for every IT
    dollar. We were named to the CIO Magazine's ``CIO 100'' for our
    excellence in managing IT resources in both 2003 and 2004.
        Because one of our strategic goals is to maximize our value by
    serving as a model agency for the federal government, we adopt best
    practices that we have suggested for other agencies, and we hold
    ourselves to the spirit of many laws that are applicable only to the
    executive branch. For example, we adhere to the best practices for
    results-oriented management outlined in the Government Performance and
    Results Act (GPRA). We have strengthened our financial management by
    centralizing authority in a Chief Financial Officer with functional
    responsibilities for financial management, long-range planning,
    accountability reporting, and the preparation of audited financial
    statements, as directed in the Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO Act).
    Also, for the eighteenth consecutive year, independent auditors gave
    GAO's financial statements an unqualified opinion with no material
    weaknesses and no major compliance problems.
        In the human capital area, we are clearly leading by example in
    modernizing our policies and procedures. For example, we have adopted a
    range of strategic workforce policies and practices as a result of a
    comprehensive workforce planning effort. Among other things, this
    effort has resulted in greatly upgrading our workforce capacity in both
    IT and health care policy. We also have updated our performance
    management and compensation systems and our training to maximize staff
    effectiveness and to fully develop the potential of our staff within
    both current and expected resource levels.
             gao's fiscal year 2006 request to support the congress
        We are requesting budget authority of $493.5 million for fiscal
    year 2006. This budget request will allow us to continue to maximize
    productivity, operate more effectively and efficiently, and maintain
    the progress we have made in technology and other areas. However, it
    does not allow us sufficient funding to support a staffing level of
    3,269--the staffing level that we requested in previous years. In
    preparing this request, we conducted a baseline review of our operating
    requirements and reduced them as much as we felt would be prudent.
    However, with about 80 percent of our budget composed of human capital
    costs, we needed to constrain hiring to keep our fiscal year 2006
    budget request modest. We plan to use recently enacted human capital
    flexibility from the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 as a
    framework to consider such cost savings options as conducting one or
    more voluntary early retirement programs and we also plan to review our
    total compensation policies and approaches.
        There are increasingly greater demands on GAO's resources. Since
    fiscal year 2000, we have experienced a 30 percent increase in the
    number of bid protest filings. We expect this workload to increase over
    the coming months because of a recent change in the law that expands
    the number of parties who are eligible to file protests. In addition,
    the number of congressional mandates for GAO studies, such as our
    reviews of executive branch and legislative branch operations, has
    increased more than 15 percent since fiscal year 2000. While we have
    reduced our planned staffing level for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we
    believe that the staffing level we requested in previous years is a
    more optimal staffing level for GAO and would allow us to successfully
    meet the future needs of the Congress and provide the return on
    investment that the Congress and the American people expect. We will be
    seeking your commitment and support to provide the funding needed to
    rebuild our staffing levels over the next few fiscal years, especially
    as we approach a point where we may be able to express an opinion on
    the federal government's consolidated financial statements. Given
    current and projected deficits and the demands associated with managing
    a growing national debt, as well as challenges facing the Congress to
    restructure federal programs, reevaluate the role of government, and
    ensure accountability of federal agencies, a strong GAO will result in
    substantially greater benefits to the Congress and the American people.
        Table 2 summarizes the changes we are requesting in our fiscal year
    2006 budget.

                         TABLE 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST, SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CHANGES
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Cumulative
                            Budget category                              FTEs            Amount         percentage
                                                                                                          change
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2005 budget authority to support GAO operations...           3,215        $474,565   ...............
    Fiscal year 2006 requested changes:
        Nonrecurring fiscal year 2005 costs.......................  ..............          (4,122)            (0.9)
        Mandatory pay costs.......................................  ..............          20,778              3.5
        Price level changes.......................................  ..............           1,428              3.8
        Relatively controllable costs.............................  ..............             899   ...............
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal--requested changes.............................  ..............         $18,983              4.0
                                                                   =================================================
          Total fiscal year 2006 budget authority required to                3,215        $493,548             4.0
           support GAO operations.................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO.

        Our budget request supports three broad program areas: Human
    Capital, Mission Operations, and Mission Support.
        In our Human Capital program, to ensure our ability to attract,
    retain, and reward high-quality staff and compete with other employers,
    we provide competitive salaries and benefits, student loan repayments,
    and transit subsidy benefits. We have undertaken reviews of our
    classification and compensation systems to consider ways to make them
    more market-based and performance-oriented and to take into
    consideration market data for comparable positions in organizations
    with which we compete for talent. Our rewards and recognition program
    recognizes significant contributions by GAO staff to the agency's
    accomplishments. As a knowledge-based, world-class, professional
    services organization in an environment of increasingly complex work
    and accelerating change, we maintain a strong commitment to staff
    training and development. We promote a workforce that continually
    improves its skills and knowledge.
        We plan to allocate funds to our Mission Operations program to
    conduct travel and contract for expert advice and assistance.
        Travel is critical to accomplishing our mission. Our work covers a
    wide range of subjects of congressional interest, plays a key role in
    congressional decision making, and can have profound implications and
    ramifications for national policy decisions. Our analyses and
    recommendations are based on original research, rather than reliance on
    third-party source materials. In addition, GAO is subject to
    professional standards and core values that uniquely position the
    agency to support the Congress in discharging its oversight and other
    responsibilities under the Constitution.
        We use contracts to obtain expert advice and or assistance not
    readily available within GAO, or when expertise is needed within
    compressed time frames for a particular project, audit, or engagement.
    Examples of contract services include obtaining consultant services,
    conducting broad-based studies in support of audit efforts, gathering
    key data on specific areas of audit interest, and obtaining technical
    assistance and expertise in highly specialized areas.
        Mission Support programs provide the critical infrastructure we
    need to conduct our work. Mission support activities include the
    following programs:
      --Information Technology.--Our IT plan provides a road map for
            ensuring that IT activities are fully aligned with and enable
            achievement of our strategic and business goals. The plan
            focuses on improved client service, IT reliability, and
            security; it promotes effectiveness, efficiency and cost
            benefit concepts. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we plan to
            continue to modernize outdated management information systems
            to eliminate redundant tasks, automate repetitive tasks, and
            increase staff productivity. We also will continue to modernize
            or develop systems focusing on how analysts do their work. For
            example, we enhanced the Weapons Systems Database that we
            created to provide the Congress information to support budget
            deliberations.
      --Building Management.--The Building Management program provides
            operating funds for the GAO Headquarters building and field
            office locations, safety and security programs, and asset
            management. We periodically assess building management
            components to ensure program economy, efficiency and
            effectiveness. We are currently 8 percent below the General
            Services Administration's (GSA) median costs for facilities
            management. We continue to look for cost-reducing efficiencies
            in our utility usage. Our electrical costs are currently 25
            percent below GSA's median cost. With the pending completion of
            our perimeter security enhancements and an automated agency
            wide access control system, all major security enhancements
            will have been completed.
      --Knowledge Services.--As a knowledge-based organization, it is
            essential for GAO to gather, analyze, disseminate, and archive
            information. Our Knowledge Services program provides the
            information assets and services needed to support these
            efforts. In recent years, we have expanded our use of
            electronic media for publications and dissemination; enhanced
            our external Web site, resulting in increased public access to
            GAO products; and closed our internal print plant and increased
            the use of external contractors to print GAO products,
            increasing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of our
            printing operation. Due to recent budget constraints, we have
            curtailed some efforts related to archiving paper records. We
            currently are implementing an electronic records management
            system that will facilitate knowledge transfer, as well as
            document retrieval and archival requirements.
      --Human Capital Operations.--In addition, funds will be allocated to
            Human Capital Operations and support services to cover
            outplacement assistance, employee health and counseling,
            position management and classification, administrative support,
            and transcription and translation services.
                               concluding remarks
        We appreciate your consideration of our budget request for fiscal
    year 2006 to support the Congress. GAO is uniquely positioned to help
    provide the Congress the timely, objective information it needs to
    discharge its constitutional responsibilities, especially in connection
    with oversight matters. GAO's work covers virtually every area in which
    the federal government is or may become involved anywhere in the world.
    In the years ahead, GAO's support will prove even more critical because
    of the pressures created by our nation's large and growing long-term
    fiscal imbalance.
        This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
    questions the Members of the Subcommittee may have.
        appendix i: serving the congress--gao's strategic plan framework

                              SOURCES OF GAO WORK

        Senator Allard. Well, thank you for your testimony.
        You talked quite a bit about your staffing levels. You have
    requested fewer staff for 2006, FTEs is 3,215 employees, than
    you had in 2005, which is also down from 2004. At the same
    time, you report that the number of congressional mandates for
    GAO studies has increased by more than 15 percent. How do you
    plan to meet the Congress' increased expectations with fewer
    staff?
        Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, first, if you look at the trend
    line over the last 3 years you will see that the number of
    mandates we received and the percentage of staff time spent on
    them has gone up. What this means is that we will have to
    respond more and more to requests from committee and
    subcommittee chairs, such as yourself, and committee and
    subcommittee ranking members. We will have less ability to
    respond to requests from Members who may be on a relevant
    committee of jurisdiction but not in a leadership capacity.
        Basically what happens is that when we have more mandates,
    when we have constrained resources, it limits our ability to be
    able to deal with non-leadership requests. It also can have an
    effect on how long it might take us to get to a particular
    issue. That is the fallout.
        I did say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that we also are
    trying to lead by example on what we are requesting. Since 80
    to 81 percent of our total costs are people costs, to the
    extent that we have funding constraints it very quickly affects
    our people, and our head count, because we do not have a whole
    lot of flexibility in other areas.

                              BACKLOG OF REQUESTS

        Senator Allard. Do you have a backlog in some areas on work
    that is requested from the Congress? Are there some areas where
    you do not have enough flexibility to permit you to initiate
    work on your own? Could you comment on that?
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, 90
    percent of the work that GAO did in fiscal 2004 was either a
    mandate from the Congress or a written request from the
    Congress, typically a chair or ranking member of a committee or
    subcommittee of jurisdiction. The other 10 percent includes
    about 5 percent that represents events of broad interest to the
    Congress that I do under my own authority as Comptroller
    General because many committees are interested and it is not
    appropriate for one committee to capture it. For example, the
    work that we are doing on Iraq contracting, and the work that
    we are doing with regard to a variety of other issues of broad
    interest to the Congress.
        About 5 percent has to do with items where we may not get a
    request, but relate to significant issues in our strategic plan
    that we know are of interest to the Congress, but they may not
    be an immediate concern. For example, we did work on Social
    Security reform starting several years ago, when Congress was
    not focused on it, so we are well ahead of the curve. We have
    done work on health care reform before Congress was focused on
    it, to be well ahead of the curve. We did work on
    counterterrorism before 9/11 to be ahead of the curve.
        We do have varying backlogs. Our biggest backlog is in
    health care, as you can imagine, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Allard. Not a surprise.

                              HEALTH CARE BACKLOG

        Mr. Walker. Probably our single biggest domestic policy
    challenge is health care. That has been and continues to be our
    biggest backlog. We are continuing to do the best that we can
    to recruit as many people as possible in the health care area
    to staff up. There is a tremendous amount of demand from other
    organizations. It is a highly competitive marketplace. As a
    result, we continue to work with the relevant committees of
    jurisdiction to try to rebalance the portfolio and reset
    priorities.
        There are some areas where we do not have as large a
    backlog, but that can be explained in part because many times
    committees want us to do work, but they do not necessarily want
    to put their name on it. For example, we do a lot of work in
    the defense area. I can assure you that the work that we do in
    the defense area is highly valued and sought after. At the same
    point in time, from time to time Members do not necessarily
    want to put their name on a request to look at a particular
    weapons system because of the potential implications that that
    might have for employment levels or other issues.
        So we would be happy to provide for the record if you like
    a detail of exactly where our backlogs are and how they are
    trending. But I think we are very actively managing these
    backlogs. As I said, we would not have 96 percent client
    satisfaction unless we were doing a decent job. But it is a
    constant challenge.

                            PERFORMANCE RECOGNITION

        Senator Allard. Well, I do agree that there is a lot of
    good work coming out of the Government Accountability Office.
    You have changed your name a little bit. I have to think about
    it, the Government Accountability Office. And I like your
    approach. I like your pay for performance effort that you are
    implementing.
        Do you think that it has improved the overall performance
    of employees throughout GAO, your results-driven management
    style?
        Mr. Walker. I think the numbers speak loudly, Mr. Chairman.
    If you look at GAO today, we actually have slightly fewer
    people today than we had 5 years ago. But our outcome-based
    results--financial benefits, nonfinancial benefits, client
    feedback, employee feedback, client satisfaction, et cetera--
    have gone up dramatically. In fact, with regard to our
    financial results, they have more than doubled during that 5-
    year period of time.
        Now, that is for a lot of reasons. Strategic planning. We
    did our first strategic plan in Spring 2000. GAO never had one
    before that. We realigned our organization based on that plan.
    We eliminated a layer of management, reduced the number of
    field offices, reduced the number of units from 35 to 13,
    redeployed resources horizontally and externally. We redefined
    success for GAO as outcomes and developed results-based
    measures. We linked institutional, unit, and individual
    performance measurement and reward systems.
        We did a number of things and the combination of all these
    initiatives, which were done in partnership with my colleagues
    here with me today as well as others, has had a dramatic and
    profound effect, not only on the results but I think, quite
    frankly, on the culture and the reputation of our agency.
        Senator Allard. Well, I think you bring a good news story
    here to the subcommittee and I am delighted to hear what you
    have to say.

                       MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN GOVERNMENT

        Mr. Walker. Gene Dodaro has been with GAO, we like to say,
    since the beginning, since he graduated from college. He might
    be able to give you a little perspective.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We track why people come to
    GAO to work and then why they stay with us. The basic reason is
    they want to make a difference. They want to make Government
    better, they want to improve the situation. To the extent to
    which we say, we are going to reward you for bringing about
    positive change in Government, either saving money or improving
    programs, public safety, et cetera, they are energized by that.
    They are not here just to produce reports, although at times,
    as you know, for policy issues we give information without
    recommendations to the Congress to help you make decisions.
        We are making more recommendations in our reports, and our
    recommendation implementation rate is at an all-time high--83
    percent of the recommendations we made in fiscal year 2000 got
    implemented within a 4-year timeframe. So it is very important
    to the employees.

                               PERFORMANCE AWARDS

        Senator Allard. Well, thank you. I would suspect an
    important part of your employee motivation is your rewards and
    bonuses. I see where your budget request increases rewards and
    recognition by 8 percent, for a total of $2.6 million. Maybe
    you can explain that.
        Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, part of our philosophy is we want
    to be able to have as many people as our budget will allow. But
    it is very, very important that, however many employees we
    have, they be reasonably compensated and rewarded based upon
    results. Consequently, our whole philosophy is that we want a
    market-based and performance-oriented compensation system. We
    want to recognize both team and individual outcome-based
    performance geared toward our strategic plan for serving the
    Congress and the country.
        That means by definition that we need to make sure we have
    adequate funding to be able to recognize and reward people when
    they generate positive results. That is what that budget
    request is.
        Sallyanne, I do not know if you have anything else you want
    to add to that.
        Ms. Harper. We are also implementing this year, Mr.
    Chairman, for the first time pay-for-performance for the
    administrative staff of the agency. They previously were under
    the General Schedule (GS) system and only got the within-grade
    increases based on length of service and, perhaps, a special
    recognition award.
        Mr. Walker. In fact, Mr. Chairman, now virtually all of
    GAO's employees are not only in broadbanding, but also pay-for-
    performance systems. So we are a window to the future, I think,
    with regard to the Federal Government.
        Senator Allard. Well, I think you are doing a great job and
    I think you set a good example for the legislative branch. As
    you heard in my previous comments, I think that is important
    when we are setting policy throughout the Government. I think
    it is incumbent on this subcommittee to hold each of the
    agencies accountable so that Members of the Senate and House do
    not get embarrassed because somehow we have a different
    standard here than you have for the rest of the government.
        I know in my own personal office I make an effort to set an
    example so that when you are asking other agencies to be frugal
    that you can show in your own office you are frugal. I think
    the same thing applies here.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        I compliment you on the way you are running your agency and
    your office. I think that you reflect in a positive way what is
    happening here in the legislative branch and I think that is
    something that all the Members need to appreciate in the
    Senate. So I am going to carry a very positive message as to
    what you are doing to my colleagues, and I thank you for your
    testimony and I thank you for your good work.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
        Question. Your report on 21st Century Challenges emphasizes a need
    for dramatic change to federal government programs and policies if we
    are to avoid serious damage to our economy, our standard of living and
    our national security. You say that we need to fundamentally reexamine
    major spending and tax policies and priorities if we are to meet the
    challenges that lie ahead. What role do you believe GAO, and you as the
    Comptroller General of the United States, should play in addressing
    these challenges?
        Answer. In our report and testimony on 21st Century Challenges, we
    stated that nothing less than a fundamental review, reexamination, and
    reprioritization of all major spending and tax policies and programs is
    needed. Given our role in supporting the Congress, we believe that GAO
    has an obligation to provide policymakers in Congress with the support
    they need in identifying issues and options that could help to address
    these fiscal pressures. Of course, while answers to these questions may
    draw on the work of GAO and others, only elected officials can and
    should decide which questions to address and how and when to address
    them.
        GAO and I stand ready to assist the Congress as it develops its
    agenda and to help collect facts, develop options, conduct analyses and
    perform other work in connection with the questions the Congress wishes
    to pursue. The challenges identified in the report are based upon our
    past and pending work, a vast majority of which was performed at the
    direction or request of the Congress. In addition, the reexamination
    questions are based heavily on GAO's issued work, our strategic plan,
    and the institutional knowledge of our staff. However, the size of the
    problem is so large and the programs and issues covered span such a
    wide range that the process of rethinking government programs and
    activities will in all likelihood rely on multiple approaches and
    sources of analysis (e.g., GAO, your staff, other Congressional support
    agencies and OMB) over a period of years.
        GAO and I may also be useful to the Congress by helping to raise
    public awareness of issues and problems thereby preparing the way for
    the Congress to take related actions. Our past and pending work has
    addressed and will continue to address such items, including federal
    spending and tax programs, existing budget processes and financial,
    fiscal, and performance management activities. Inevitably, given the
    breadth of our work, some of our past and current engagements touch on
    many of the reexamination issues and questions, but it is up to the
    Congress to determine the issues and questions that merit GAO's
    resources.
        Question. Is GAO currently structured properly with adequate
    resources in the right places to address the complexities of the issues
    you raise?
        Answer. Yes. We believe we are well positioned to help the Congress
    address these issues. We are currently organized to align our work in
    support of our strategic plan for serving the Congress. This plan
    reflects the same emerging themes discussed in our 21st Century
    Challenges report. Importantly, we can both cover broad cross-cutting
    government-wide issues while providing support to Congressional
    Committees on their specific areas of interest.
        We have worked very hard over the past several years to build and
    modernize the structure that will best address our client's needs and
    make GAO a model for other federal agencies. We believe it is working
    very well. In particular, we are greatly encouraging a risk-based and
    matrix management oriented approach to our work that facilitates and
    motivates staff in different areas to work together to produce analyses
    of very complicated issues. Accordingly, we are not planning to change
    our basic structure at this time. Of course, we will continue to
    monitor our services to the Congress for the benefit of the American
    people and make changes as needed.
        Question. Will the role you envision for GAO require additional
    resources in future years?
        Answer. Yes, but not to any significant extent. We will work with
    our congressional clients to prioritize our work so that we are most
    beneficial to them while assisting them in this reexamination. Also, as
    mentioned above, we envision this to take place over several years and
    involve numerous organizations in addition to the GAO. The most
    challenging issue we may face in accomplishing this is to harness the
    great potential of our new staff, a very sizable portion of our agency,
    and give them the experience they will need. We are working very hard
    to help develop them so that they can make meaningful contributions to
    the Congress for years to come. We do, however, expect that additional
    staff and resources will be necessary when the federal government comes
    closer to being able to receive a qualified opinion on the consolidated
    financial statements.
        Question. Your budget submission shows very little change in the
    distribution of FTE resources among your teams between fiscal year 2005
    and fiscal year 2006. Do you expect that to continue or do you think
    you will need to redistribute to better help the Congress meet the
    challenges you say we are facing?
        Answer. Although small, our fiscal year 2006 request does reflect
    some adjustment to our team FTEs to better meet the Congress' needs.
    Each year we adjust our FTE distribution based on a systematic
    assessment of the workforce that we will need to carry out our work in
    support of the Congress, the American public, and our strategic
    priorities. Our total FTE request, as well as our internal allocation
    of FTEs, is based on a number of factors including: Congressional
    requests and interests, strategic priorities, emerging issues, current
    staffing data, identified skill shortages, succession and knowledge
    retention issues, results achieved with staff resources, and budgetary
    considerations. Based on our analysis of this data, GAO's leadership
    team makes fact-based decisions about our FTE needs and the optimal
    deployment of our staff resources to most efficiently accomplish our
    work. Since 2002, we have used this process to make refinements to our
    unit-specific staffing allocations to reflect shifting strategic
    priorities. For example, as tax policy issues rise to the forefront of
    federal budget and deficit issues, we combined our tax group with other
    areas that address cross-cutting, broad-based fiscal issues. We also
    reallocated existing resources to create the Homeland Security and
    Justice team to focus on these areas after a major realignment of
    executive branch departments and agencies. While we have not finalized
    our fiscal year 2006 workforce plan, we do expect some changes to the
    team allocations, but not of a significant nature.
        In addition to our workforce planning process, we also foster a
    spirit of cooperation throughout GAO whereby staff on several teams
    will work together under a matrix management approach to produce the
    most efficient product. Much of our workforce is now working in this
    manner. This provides flexibility and helps minimize the need for major
    realignments of resources. Of course, we will continue to monitor the
    need for organization structure changes and will notify the Congress of
    any major realignment.
        Question. You mention in your budget materials that over 50 percent
    of your mission support staff resources are contractors and that during
    your tenure you have outsourced many administrative tasks allowing you
    to devote more resources to mission work. Have you found that
    contractors actually cost less than performing the same functions with
    GAO employees or are you adding contract money and moving FTE's and
    salary money to mission units? If you have an analysis of cost
    comparison between in-house and contractor operations could you share
    that analysis with the Subcommittee? What factors other than cost
    savings led you to decide to turn so much of your administrative
    operations over to contractors?
        Answer. In an environment of increasing fiscal restraint, we have
    in recent years reduced our overall FTE staff usage from 3,275 in
    fiscal year 1999 to 3,215 FTEs planned for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
    Through a number of targeted initiatives, including reengineering,
    technology applications, and contracting out, we have also reduced the
    number of administrative, professional and support (APSS) staff from 21
    percent at the beginning of fiscal year 1999 to less than 18.9 percent.
    Some of this reduction in APSS staff has allowed GAO to devote more
    FTEs and salary funds to core mission operations. Since fiscal year
    1999, we have also leveraged more contractor resources, increasing the
    level of contract funds from $45.7 million to $69.7 million.
        GAO contracts out for many reasons, such as improving service
    delivery, obtaining specialized expertise not readily available within
    GAO or when needed within compressed timeframes, providing technology,
    and minimizing demands on the agency's resources. Contracts provide an
    efficient, flexible vehicle to obtain technical assistance and
    expertise in highly specialized areas, and allow us to better respond
    to fluctuating demands. When GAO contracts-out for cost-effectiveness
    reasons, it is to take advantage of firms with lower cost structures
    than GAO. While direct salary and benefit costs for GAO staff and
    contractor staff in many instances are comparable, contractors do not
    always have lower costs. Contractor costs include management time and
    other fees that make up corporate overhead, equivalent to indirect
    costs an agency would pay to provide supervision, staff development,
    equipment, and other overhead costs. In addition, contractor costs also
    include profit not found in the federal environment. In other
    instances, the federal sector cannot compete with salaries paid by the
    private sector to staff in highly specialized disciplines, such as
    information technology (IT).
        Independent of cost, technical factors specific to the service area
    are identified and assessed to ensure quality services or products are
    obtained. A technical evaluation of contract proposals would assess
    such items as, qualifications and skill levels of the proposed staff,
    contractor's approach to providing services, ability to integrate
    services in GAO's environment, and customer impact. Use of contract
    staff provides the agency the flexibility to maintain operational
    capabilities and obtain specific expertise for a limited duration--
    expanding or shrinking the workforce as demands change for specific
    skills--without the constraints of the federal recruitment and
    retention processes. It also allows an agency to focus its own staff on
    core functions, inherently governmental functions, and critical or
    sensitive issues, while managing and overseeing contractor functions to
    ensure accountability. For example, we found that we are able to reduce
    the number of staff working in our financial management area. Vendor
    invoice processing could be performed more cost effectively through a
    cross-servicing arrangement with the Department of Interior's National
    Business Center. In addition, as a result of travel management system
    improvements made in fiscal year 2004, we are able to further reduce
    our staffing requirements in this area. Our new travel management
    system streamlines and expedites transaction processing, reduces
    administrative processing requirements, and reduces the number of
    manual external processes needed by GAO to manage this function.
        A cost benefit analysis is conducted for each situation where GAO
    considers utilizing contract resources. For example, in fiscal year
    2003, GAO conducted a study of its mail operations center. GAO decided
    to retain its in-house operation managed by GAO staff, and supplemented
    by contract services for selected functions, after comparing GAO's
    operation with other federal mail operations and assessing the cost to
    outsource the operations. This decision resulted in a cost-avoidance of
    about $250,000. Nine years ago, the mail center had 19 staff. Through a
    series of changes, the mail operation has been reduced to a small, but
    efficient operation with six staff.
        In the area of library services and records management support,
    however GAO has been able to obtain contract staff at less cost than
    GAO staff. For example, the contract costs of a contract supervisory
    library technician is about $61,000 compared to a salaried employee
    whose fully-loaded cost is about $76,000. As current staff retire or
    separate, we plan to increase our reliance on contract resources,
    especially in the area of interlibrary loan services.
        In the IT area, the costs for contract labor is higher than that of
    salaried GAO staff and reflect the marketplace. Current fully-loaded
    contract costs for an entry-level IT employee are about $30,000 above
    that of an entry level IT salaried GAO employee. Most of our IT
    contracts are GSA schedule contracts. In addition, we further negotiate
    with vendors to obtain best value services and rates. Given the rapidly
    changing IT environment, our contracts are structured to provide GAO
    maximum flexibility to quickly obtain staff with the appropriate skill
    mix to meet both short and long-term needs.
        Question. The Subcommittee applauds GAO's efforts to transform the
    agency to become more results-oriented and to devote more of its
    resources to the agency's core mission. However, we also note that GAO
    is asking for an increase in resources for mission support in fiscal
    year 2006. Why?
        Answer. In developing our fiscal year 2006 budget, we have taken
    into consideration the overall federal budget constraints and the
    committee's desire to lead by example. We have continued to streamline
    our agency, modernize our policies and practices, and leverage
    technology in manners that help us achieve our mission more effectively
    and efficiently. These efficiencies have allowed us to maintain our
    support of the Congress and enhance our overall performance without the
    need for large budgetary increases. In addition, we conducted a
    baseline review of our operating requirements and allocated our
    resources to achieve the greatest return on investment. These actions
    led us to request a modest increase of 4 percent over fiscal year 2005.
    However, in order to keep our request modest, we needed to constrain
    our staffing levels. We will be seeking your commitment and support to
    provide the funding needed to rebuild our staffing levels over the next
    few years. This will be essential when we get closer to the time when
    GAO may be able to render our opinion on the consolidated financial
    statements of the U.S. Government.
        GAO is requesting a 3 percent increase in mission support
    operations costs to support our infrastructure and cover the cost of
    mandatory price-level increases and targeted investments, such as
    information security and building management improvements. This
    increase is less than the total requested increase in our budget
    authority of 4 percent. We have been able to minimize the requested
    increase by conducting base reviews of our support costs and through
    offsets of non-recurring requirements. For example, our facilities
    management program cost estimates assume that a GAO staff person will
    retire and can be replaced by a more junior contract staff person.
        Question. What is the percentage of staff allocated to mission
    support activities?
        Answer. The administrative and professional staff responsible for
    GAO's mission support activities currently comprise less than 18.9
    percent of total staff, down from 21 percent at the beginning of fiscal
    year 1999. We expect this percent to decline to 18.5 percent by the end
    of fiscal year 2006. The staff provides essential services for IT,
    building management, knowledge services, human capital operations and
    other support services. These services are vital to ensuring
    consistency in the delivery of quality products to our clients and
    customers.
        Question. What is the percentage of costs allocated to mission
    support activities? Where do you see these percentages going in the
    next few years? What do you believe is the appropriate level of
    investment in mission support?
        Answer. Administrative and professional support staff and mission
    support operational costs represent about 26 percent of GAO's total
    budget authority. We believe that we have achieved a core level of
    administrative and professional support staff and operating costs
    necessary to provide the appropriate infrastructure for staff to
    conduct their work. While we continue to seek opportunities to
    streamline operations and leverage outsourcing mechanisms for
    efficiency and economy purposes, we believe our investment is the
    appropriate level without sacrificing quality in our administrative and
    professional support services.
        Question. GAO has established a strategic goal of being a model
    agency. Your fiscal year 2004 Performance and Accountability Report
    indicates three major management challenges, human capital, physical
    security, and information security. Why were these areas identified as
    management challenges? What actions have been taken to address these
    challenges? What additional actions and funding are required to address
    current weaknesses in these areas? Are there other areas that you
    consider to be challenged?
        Answer. At GAO, the Comptroller General and the agency's senior
    executives through the agency's strategic planning, management, and
    budgeting processes identify key management challenges. The three
    challenges identified are all areas in which we have, and will continue
    to experience substantial and continual change and challenges. They are
    also areas that significantly impact our ability to support our
    mission. We must focus our efforts and resources on maintaining our
    flexibility to adapt to changing technology and world events, while
    ensuring the security of our information assets and systems, and
    ensuring that our human capital resources are best suited to meet the
    needs of our congressional client. These are all internal challenges.
    Our key external challenge is to assure that Congress adequately funds
    GAO for the benefit of itself and the country.
    Human Capital Management
        In the area of human capital management, during the last few years,
    we developed our first formal and comprehensive strategic plan for
    human capital which communicates GAO's strategy for becoming a model
    professional services organization, including how we plan to attract,
    retain, motivate, and reward a high-performing and top-quality
    workforce. We also fully implemented our workforce planning processes,
    addressing the size, deployment, and profile of our staff to ensure we
    have the appropriate resources strategically placed to pursue our goals
    and objectives now and in the future. We continue to build on our
    accomplishments in attracting and retaining a diverse workforce with
    the knowledge, skills, and abilities to meet the new century's
    challenges through succession planning activities and training and
    development. For example, we implemented revised policies to expand the
    use of flexi-place to provide employees additional options. Such
    initiatives are particularly important given our employee profile where
    about 50 percent of our staff are recent hires.
        During fiscal year 2004 we completed establishment of market-based
    and performance-oriented compensation systems and competency-based
    appraisal systems for all our staff, and we began monitoring,
    reviewing, and assessing these systems to identify enhancements that
    may be needed. In fiscal year 2005, a consulting firm assisted us in
    establishing pay rates that are competitive with comparable
    organizations and these rates were used for certain purposes in our
    annual pay for performance process for analysts, specialists, and
    attorneys. We also began implementing policies and processes to
    implement the human capital flexibilities authorized by Congress under
    GAO's Human Capital Flexibilities Act of 2004. Other actions we have
    taken include initiating strategy formulation for the annual adjustment
    of GAO employees' salaries; revising and issuing our regulations on pay
    administration to implement the satisfactory performance requirement
    for GAO analysts and related specialists and attorneys; drafting and
    issuing for review a regulation applicable to employees placed in lower
    grades or bands as a result of workforce restructuring or
    reclassification; revising and issuing for comment our leave policies
    and procedures regulation, which includes the provision permitting
    designated key employees with less than 3 years of federal service to
    earn 6 hours of annual leave; and drafting and issuing for comment our
    regulation implementing the Executive Exchange Program.
        We anticipate that we will implement a number of the human capital
    flexibilities authorized by Congress and for which we are drafting,
    revising, and issuing for comment a number of regulations in fiscal
    year 2005. In addition, we will implement a streamlined, user-friendly
    guide to government and non-government professional development
    opportunities; develop and implement an expedited and coordinated new
    hire process; determine the feasibility of implementing a development
    program for new hires with previous experience; and enhance our
    competency-based performance systems. No additional funding will be
    needed for these actions.
    Physical Security
        The challenge to provide a safe and secure work environment for
    employees remains a government-wide issue in light of changing security
    threats, which can have a profound impact on the way GAO conducts
    business in the United States and around the world. Protecting our
    people and our assets is paramount to agency operations. We continue to
    devote time and resources to the assessment of security operations as
    we further enhance GAO's security posture. Within the next few months,
    our perimeter security enhancements will be complete. These
    enhancements include protective barriers, such as installation of walls
    and bollards around the building, vehicle restraints at the garage
    ramps, ballistic-rated security guard booths, and vehicle surveillance
    equipment at the garage entrances. We also plan to install a state-of-
    the-art electronic security system during fiscal year 2005.
        During fiscal year 2004, we developed a continuity of operations
    plan and held communications drills to test our plan this fiscal year.
    As part of our plan to ensure our continuity of operations should we
    have to vacate our headquarters because of an emergency, we identified
    an alternative facility to house our continuity-of-operations team. We
    have also updated our Shelter in Place plan and Emergency Response
    Handbook for headquarters and prepared similar plans for the field
    offices. We continue to hold annual security fair seminars to
    disseminate information on security and emergency preparedness at the
    workplace and at home. We have no additional funding requirements at
    this time.
    Information Security
        Following the events of September 11, 2001, expanded internet
    access, and global technology, information security remains a
    government wide issue. In the area of information security we
    implemented a centralized reporting system to track audit findings
    through a Plans of Action and Milestones tool; established monthly
    remediation meetings for regular remediation effort tracking; completed
    updates to our security awareness training presentation; began
    performing weekly vulnerability assessments of our information systems
    to ensure our scheduled patching process and configuration management
    practices are working; and installed a firewall and spyware on our
    workstations.
        New initiatives for fiscal year 2006 include establishing annual
    specialized training for various levels of management and IT staff with
    elevated system privileges; and combining the IT Disaster Recovery and
    the Continuity of Operations Plan into an integrated security plan, and
    completing training for these plans. In addition, activities that will
    be completed during fiscal year 2006 include completion of the
    integration of a Web caching proxy and a firewall for Web-based traffic
    into the GAO network architecture to provide additional information
    security protection at the network level; continuing efforts to harden
    our network and desktops with upgraded authentication devices,
    exploring intrusion protection devices and external monitoring services
    for after hours network security monitoring of our intrusion detection
    devices; and completing the information sensitivity program to provide
    system data sensitivity in accordance with FIPS Pub 199 and NIST SP
    800-60. We anticipate additional funding of $487,000 will be needed to
    complete these actions.
        Question. Have you assessed the costs and benefits associated with
    being a ``model'' agency?
        Answer. No. While we have not conducted a formal cost/benefit
    analysis, there is little question that our actions result in enhanced
    value and better cost management. They also serve to enhance GAO's
    image externally and our credibility within the government and the
    accountability profession, both domestically and internationally.
        Question. Your fiscal year 2006 budget request indicates that the
    two main focal points for increased funding and new initiatives in IT
    for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 will be in the areas of IT security and
    business systems development. Please provide the Subcommittee an update
    on your efforts to date in these areas. Please elaborate on the
    opportunities that you have identified to affect economies and
    efficiencies?
        Answer. GAO has redesigned and automated numerous business and work
    processes, as well as taken advantage of numerous electronic tools, to
    foster productivity, improve cost savings and enhance timeliness. As
    reliance on technology has grown, our technology efforts have and will
    continue to directly affect the quality of our mission work and the
    service GAO staff provide to the Congress through audits and analyses.
    Our GAO fiscal year 2004 Performance and Accountability Report
    highlights a number of efforts that have directly affected economies
    and efficiencies while improving the quality, responsiveness, and
    timeliness of GAO services. Several of these initiatives best
    illustrate our efforts.
    Acquisition Systems Management (ASM) Weapons Systems Database
        This system has enabled GAO to become Congress' primary source of
    annual evaluations of DOD acquisitions. The system expanded staff's
    ability to query and view information across weapons systems programs,
    perform micro and macro trend analysis, and shortened turnaround times.
    Major benefits of this system include more comprehensive and
    sophisticated analyses and improved multi-year reporting on weapons
    acquisitions practices. The tool has significantly increased staff
    productivity while contributing to recommendations that resulted in
    $1.6 billion in programmatic savings in fiscal year 2004.
    Financial Management and Assurance (FMA) Consolidated Financial
            Statement Audit Database
        This system, whose development is currently underway, documents the
    planning, internal control and testing, and reporting phases of GAO's
    annual audit of the U.S. Government's Consolidated Financial Statements
    (CFS). Major efficiency benefits will include (1) shortened audit cycle
    and ability to perform increased audit work; (2) increased
    functionality and accessibility of audit tool to project users; (3)
    improved reliability of the financial data collected and analyzed; (4)
    improved security and backup capability; (5) increased potential for
    data analysis as needed to improve the reliability of information of
    the U.S. Government; (6) ability to conduct in-depth analyses to
    support rendering opinions on CFS; and (7) ability to document audit
    work performed to support auditor's reports on the CFS. In addition, by
    reducing the staff days required for database maintenance, staff would
    be able to devote more time to analyses and improved service to
    clients. Plans are to also make this system available to the Inspector
    General community for their individual department and/or agency audits.
    Staffing Information System
        This subsystem of the Engagement Management System will support
    team decision-making and facilitate matrixing, multitasking, and
    sharing of staff. It will support team decision making by balancing
    staff preferences/development needs and provide real time access to
    staffing data. By integrating data from all related systems, it will
    eliminate staffing cuff systems and reduce the administrative burden on
    teams.
    Electronic Records Management System
        This system automates management of GAO's records to leverage
    institutional knowledge within and across agency functions. It
    establishes a foundation for knowledge management in GAO, while
    providing the ability to manage and dispose of records electronically.
    It will also afford a seamless records system for GAO's move to
    electronic business processes. Several significant benefits include:
    Reduced in time spent by mission and administrative staff managing and
    locating records; ready access to and retrieval of GAO records; reduced
    costs for offsite storage, secure destruction, and courier services to
    records centers; and more efficient and effective records management
    processes.
        Question. What savings will you be able to achieve by fiscal year
    2006?
        Answer. IT initiatives enable GAO to increase productivity and
    ensure economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in performing GAO's work.
    Many of the initiatives cited in the previous response are good
    examples of these efforts. In many of our IT projects a residual
    benefit is enabling staff to redirect time once spent on redundant,
    time-consuming, and unproductive activities to more productive,
    mission-related work. For example, the ASM Weapons Systems Database
    enabled staff to shift time once spent on data collection and entry to
    more analyses of greater breath and depth. Prior to this database, ASM
    reviewed about 10 weapon systems programs per year with estimated costs
    of $78.9 billion. In fiscal year 2004, ASM was able to review 60
    programs and report on 51, covering estimated costs of $672 billion. As
    a result, GAO was able to identify for the Congress a total potential
    reduction in funding of $1.5 billion in these programs.
        There are also IT efforts that provide opportunities for cost
    savings in IT and non-IT areas. Remote access improvements are an
    effort that resulted in a reduction in IT operational costs. The
    movement to AT&T remote access services provided local access points
    and eliminated reliance on costly ``800#'' dial-up services. It also
    increased efficiencies by giving staff the ability to access the GAO
    network using a wider range of devices such as DSL and cable modems.
        The videoconferencing expansion project was an IT effort that
    reduced non-IT costs. We provided a second videoconferencing system in
    most field offices and expanded the number of units in headquarters.
    This has resulted in increased communications and matrixing across
    geographic locations and increased staff productivity. It also created
    the potential for reductions in travel time and costs.
        Question. What is the status of your efforts to upgrade your
    financial management system?
        Answer. This year we initiated efforts to replace our financial
    management system by obtaining these services through cross-servicing
    with another government agency. To date we have:
      --Assembled a project team consisting of staff from our Financial
            Management and Information Systems and Technology Services
            organizations which has developed a steering committee charter
            and identified steering committee members and a management team
            that will oversee requirements definition, system selection,
            procurement activities and system deployment.
      --Conducted initial rounds of interviews to identify user-specific
            requirements and major pain points with the current financial
            management.
      --Developed a Government-off-the-shelf (GOTS) evaluation process
            methodology.
      --Identified potential cross-service agencies.
        We plan to select a system early in fiscal year 2006 and implement
    the system for operational use in fiscal year 2007.
        Question. Your focus in recent years has been on implementing
    technology improvements and tools that enhance business practices, as
    well as improve staff productivity. Which of these improvements has the
    ability to create efficiencies throughout the legislative branch?
        Answer. Two improvements that could create efficiencies throughout
    the legislative branch for those agencies that utilize the Department
    of Agriculture's National Finance Center (NFC) computer services are
    WebTA and I*CAMS. Both GAO and the Library of Congress are using these
    systems.
        In 2004, GAO deployed WebTA, a user-friendly Web-based time and
    attendance (T&A) system that replaced a costly and inefficient T&A
    process. Benefits of this system include: Elimination of duplicate
    entry of T&A data; an automated interface with NFC; on-line supervisory
    approval; reduced time to process T&As; and decrease of T&A errors.
        The second initiative that could benefit other legislative branch
    agencies is the utilization of a Web-based human capital front-end to
    the NFC personnel/payroll system, I*CAMS (Agriculture's Internet-based
    Combined Administrative Management System). To date GAO has implemented
    the transaction processing system that supports and integrates
    transaction processing, position management, and awards processing.
    There are a variety of benefits agencies may realize: Improved data
    accuracy and timeliness; customized and real-time reports; elimination
    of paper driven and standalone, automated ad hoc systems for tracking
    and supporting transactions; reduced duplicate data entry; and human
    capital portal capability for role-based and personalized access to
    human capital information.
                               healthcare backlog
        Question. Are there some areas in GAO where there is a backlog of
    work requested by Congress and other areas where there is enough
    flexibility to permit you to initiate work on your own? Explain to the
    Subcommittee the process you use to prioritize and address
    congressionally requested work.
        Answer. Yes. GAO has a backlog of congressionally-requested work,
    but it is not uniformly spread across all of our teams. The backlog in
    a few areas like health care and natural resources and the environment
    is particularly large. At any point in time, the backlog may not
    reflect all of the work that our clients would like us to do, as some
    of them prefer not to send requests when they know that we do not have
    the resources to begin the work.
        To ensure adherence to GAO's core values, effective management
    practices, and efficient use of available resources, GAO generally
    initiates work according to the following priorities: Congressional
    mandates; Senior congressional leader and committee leader requests for
    issues within a committee's jurisdiction; and Individual Member
    requests, with additional consideration given to requests from Members
    who are on a committee of jurisdiction.
        After receiving a mandate or a request, GAO will initiate a meeting
    with the committees of jurisdiction staff to gain a better
    understanding of the need for information, the nature of the research
    questions and related timing issues.
        Question. Do you routinely move resources from areas where backlogs
    are small or non-existent to areas where they are significant?
        Answer. Yes, we do move resources, but only to the extent that we
    believe it can be done efficiently and without harming our long-term
    responsibility to serve the entire Congress. We have also reassigned
    work from overbooked areas to others that may be able to address the
    work more quickly. For example, six requesters asked us to do a review
    of the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program. One
    of our teams--Natural Resources and Environment--was unable to do it
    because of their backlog, so we assigned the work to our Financial
    Management and Assurance team. In another case, our Homeland Security
    and Justice team had difficulty staffing a review of reprogramming of
    air marshal program funds, so it was assigned to our Strategic Issues
    team.
        We also work hard to foster matrix management in our work, wherein
    we have staff from one team work with other teams without making a
    permanent reassignment. This allows us to work more efficiently.
    Nonetheless, in some cases, a specific expertise is needed that cannot
    be met through matrixing or by using staff from another area. In those
    cases, we may need to wait for the staff with the proper expertise to
    be available before we can start the work. We also work periodically
    with some committees to have them help prioritize the backlog of work
    attributable to their committees.
        Question. The organization chart in your budget submission shows 13
    teams that perform the substance of GAO's work. Would you please
    provide the Subcommittee with a breakout by team of the number of
    congressionally mandated jobs in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005,
    the average amount of time that elapsed from receipt of a Congressional
    mandate to when data gathering actually began on the job, and the
    number and age of requests currently on hand for each team?
        Answer.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal Year    Median Age in
                                        Fiscal Year    2005 Ongoing     Months from      Number of
                                      2004 Completed   and Completed      Request        Requests      Median Age in
                  Team                   Mandates/       Mandates/      Receipt to     Pending as of      Months
                                         Requests     Requests as of    Engagement     3/31/2005 \1\
                                                         3/31/2005    Initiation \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GAO.............................           1,061             894             1.1             278             3.7

       Goal 1--Address Current and
    Emerging Challenges to the Well-
     Being and Financial Security of
           the American People

    Education, Workforce, and Income              79              79             1.3              16             1.5
     Security.......................
    Financial Markets and Community               50              46             1.0              11             3.7
     Investment.....................
    Health Care.....................              75              79             2.1          \2\ 48            13.2
    Homeland Security and Justice...              83              70             2.3              29             1.9
    Natural Resources and                        105             106             3.1          \3\ 55             7.2
     Environment....................
    Physical Infrastructure.........              79              64              .5              15             5.4

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

    Acquisition and Sourcing                      54              46             1.8              28             1.1
     Management.....................
    Defense Capabilities and                      92              57              .1              10             2.9
     Management.....................
    International Affairs and Trade.              75              46              .5              19             1.6

       Goal 3--Help Transform the
      Federal Government's Role and
      How it Does Business to Meet
         21st Century Challenges

    Applied Research and Methods....               8              12              .2  ..............  ..............
    Financial Management and                     181             168              .2               5             3.6
     Assurance......................
    Information Technology..........              95              58              .4              25             1.0
    Strategic Issues................              85              63              .6              17             1.4
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ These figures exclude legislative mandates and those requests that are dependent on (1) a triggering event
      (e.g. an agency action), (2) a distant future due date that does not require GAO to start too early, and (3)
      sequencing situations where other GAO work must be performed before work can logically be started.
    \2\ Ten of these jobs have been started, but the engagement initiation paperwork is pending.
    \3\ The team has made steady progress in reducing its backlog. Some requests await staff with appropriate
      clearances; others have been sequenced by requesters. Ten requests are from individual members and are,
      therefore lower in priority and have been in the backlog for some time.

        Question. How much work do you initiate each year that is not
    requested by Congress? How many FTE's and how much money do you spend
    on that work?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2004, about ninety percent of our audit
    resources were spent on congressional requests and legislative
    mandates, and about 10 percent on work performed under the CG's legal
    authority. Importantly, a significant majority of the CG initiated
    requests relate to areas of broad interest to the Congress. Under our
    Congressional protocols, such items, especially when they are
    precipitated by a significant event, can be done under the CG's
    authority in order to facilitate broad sharing of related information
    with the applicable congressional committees, e.g., election reform,
    Iraq contracting. Many requests under the CG's authority represent
    items of interest to Committees and/or Members, but they would prefer
    not to be identified as the requester, e.g., defense related work.
        We have further categorized the ten percent of our audit resources
    initiated under the Comptroller General's authority (CGA). They include
      --Engagements initiated by GAO that provide an opportunity for us to
            do work on a wide range of issues we believe have particular
            value but have not been requested (5.5 percent).
      --GAO's High-Risk program, which focuses on selected federal programs
            that are more vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and
            mismanagement than other programs or have major challenges with
            their economy, efficiency, or effectiveness (1.6 percent).
      --Our budget justification reviews that are of considerable help to
            the Congress in authorizing and appropriating funds for federal
            programs every year (1.6 percent).
      --Work that addresses the broad interests of the Congress on longer-
            range, crosscutting, and transformational issues; the topics
            may be heavily requested by numerous Congressional clients, as
            was the case on some of our most recent work on elections and
            Iraq (0.6 percent).
      --Presentations and guidance given on GAO's key responsibilities such
            as the recently revised Government Auditing Standards or
            accounting issues (0.5 percent).
        The amount of work done under the CGA also varies from team to team
    in GAO as shown in the following table for fiscal year 2004:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Percent of Fiscal Year 2004
                                                   Audit Resources Spent
                      Team                   -------------------------------
                                               Requests and     Engagements
                                                 Mandates      Under the CGA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Goal 1--Address Current and Emerging
        Challenges to the Well-Being and
       Financial Security of the American
                     People

    Education, Workforce, and Income                      85              15
     Security...............................
    Financial Markets and Community                       93               7
     Investment.............................
    Health Care.............................              99               1
    Homeland Security and Justice...........              99               1
    Natural Resources and Environment.......              97               3
    Physical Infrastructure.................              97               3

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

    Acquisition and Sourcing Management.....              75              25
    Defense Capabilities and Management.....              68              32
    International Affairs and Trade.........              97               3

       Goal 3--Help Transform the Federal
        Government's Role and How it Does
    Business to Meet 21st Century Challenges

    Applied Research and Methods............              74              26
    Financial Management and Assurance......              98               2
    Information Technology..................              99               1
    Strategic Issues........................              90              10
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Do you believe that there is a need to maintain a certain
    level of work that is not requested by Congress?
        Answer. Absolutely. This allows the GAO to address significant
    current or emerging issues having broad-based Congressional interest
    that may have a significant effect on the nation's future. Indeed, a
    very significant portion of our financial \1\ and other non-
    quantifiable benefits are attributable to work initiated by us and
    eventually used by the Congress. In fact, every engagement initiated by
    us under our CGA relates to our strategic plan and is expected to be of
    significant value to the Congress and the American people.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ In fiscal year 2004, $16.4 billion of the $44 billion in GAO's
    financial benefits (37 percent) flowed directly from our work performed
    under GAO's CGA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Examples of this work include work assessing: major DOD weapon
    programs, funding for the global war on terrorism, offshoring of
    American jobs, reporting of uncollectible debt to IRS, SBA's
    disposition of disaster assistance applications, the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention, factors influencing gasoline prices,
    and issues associated with the future of intercity passenger rail
    transportation.
        Question. How do you decide what that work should cover?
        Answer. The GAO has a comprehensive strategic planning effort that
    lays the foundation for all of the work we do. This effort, which draws
    heavily upon our staff's knowledge of federal programs and issues, is
    also heavily dependent on the views of Congress and others in the
    government and elsewhere who are interested in the work of the GAO. We
    would be pleased to provide additional copies of this plan if needed.
    Our Web site (www.gao.gov) also features this plan.
        Our most senior executives, including the Comptroller General and
    Chief Operating Officer, must approve engagements initiated by the GAO.
    Our senior executives meet every week to discuss new engagements,
    routinely consider each job and the likelihood that it will be of
    significant use to our Congressional clients and produce results such
    as financial benefits to the American people and improvements in the
    management of the nation's government.
        Question. You have been using a pay for performance system for some
    years now. Have you done any analysis to determine whether your system
    costs more than what the rest of the Government is doing? Also, please
    describe your efforts to establish a market-based compensation system.
    Do you have benchmark data available on GAO salaries?
        Answer. No, GAO has not analyzed the cost of the agency's pay for
    performance system in relation to other federal government agencies.
    There are a variety of pay for performance systems operating throughout
    the federal government, so there is no single model which can be used
    for cost comparison. Importantly, in our view, given the operational
    flexibility provided to GAO in 2004, it would be more appropriate to
    consider conducting any such analyses after our pending changes have
    been in effect for several years.
        In July 2004, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a leading compensation
    consulting firm, assisted us in establishing pay ranges that are
    competitive with comparable organizations including selected
    government, not-for-profit, and professional services entities in the
    labor markets where GAO staff are located. Watson Wyatt worked closely
    with GAO executives and representatives of our Employees' Advisory
    Council to assure that the GAO positions were appropriately matched to
    positions in the numerous published compensation surveys from which
    compensation data were extracted. Watson Wyatt presented their
    recommendations for compensation ranges to GAO's Executive Committee in
    November 2004. After consideration of the unique aspects of the roles
    and responsibilities of some GAO positions in relation to the
    applicable markets, as well as the need to assure internal equity among
    positions doing similar work, the Executive Committee made some minor
    adjustments to the compensation ranges recommended by Watson Wyatt. The
    proposed compensation ranges were presented to all GAO employees in a
    Comptroller General Chat in December 2004. These proposed ranges were
    used for certain purposes in making individualized performance-based
    compensation decisions for fiscal year 2004 performance, but our new
    overall compensation ranges will not be formally adopted and fully
    implemented until January 2006. Initially, we focused on establishing
    competitive pay rates for the analysts, specialists, and attorneys, who
    make up about 77 percent of our workforce, but we will also establish
    competitive pay rates for our administrative and professional support
    staff by the end of 2005.
        The establishment of competitive pay ranges, along with the
    development of a new methodology for making individualized performance-
    based compensation decisions, was undertaken as part of a comprehensive
    classification and compensation review that is guided by seven
    principles:
      --Enable GAO to attract, retain, motivate, and reward top talent.
      --Result in equal pay for work of equal value over time.
      --Be reflective of the roles and responsibilities that we expect GAO
            staff to perform.
      --Be reasonable, competitive, performance-oriented, and based on
            skills, knowledge, and role.
      --Be affordable and sustainable based on current and expected
            resource levels.
      --Be in conformity with applicable statutory limits.
      --Try to assure a reasonable consistency in ratings and related
            compensation results within and between teams.
        Watson Wyatt was able to benchmark 34 of the 36 positions for which
    GAO requested assistance in developing competitive pay rates. We were
    very pleased with this result, which greatly exceeded the 40-60 percent
    of positions that Watson Wyatt indicated would normally be benchmarked
    to the market and gave us increased confidence in the reliability of
    the market matches. GAO's proposed compensation ranges set the
    ``competitive rate'' at the 50th percentile relative to our comparable
    organizations. The most robust data was found for positions in the
    Washington, DC market. GAO's 12 field locations are grouped into five
    zones. The salaries for each zone are adjusted using a geographic
    differential that contemplates the cost of labor for that geographic
    location against the market data collected for positions in Washington,
    DC.
        One of the significant findings of the compensation study was that
    the cap for our Band I analysts and specialists should be lowered from
    $81,986 to $74,000. When GAO validated its new competency-based
    performance management system, we found that there were two different
    roles for analysts and specialists at the Band II or ``Senior'' level--
    that of an ``individual contributor'' and that of an ``engagement
    leadership.'' In doing the compensation study, we asked Watson Wyatt to
    see if the market made a distinction in how the two roles are
    compensated. They found the market did distinguish between the two
    roles. In fact, the distinction led them to recommend that we increase
    our current pay range for Band IIs from $114,987 to $125,000, but only
    for individuals who are in a leadership role. For individual
    contributors, the market data indicated that the current pay range
    should be lowered from $114,987 to $99,000. Over the next few months,
    as we prepare for the full implementation of these market-based
    compensation ranges, we will be developing the final pay ranges, as
    well as the criteria and a process we will use to make pay range
    placement decisions for our current Band II staff. We recognize the
    importance of assuring that both the criteria and the process are
    objective, transparent and non-discriminatory. We will also assure that
    staff have an opportunity to appeal their placement.
        At the Band III level, the current statutory cap of $135,136 limits
    our ability to fully implement the compensation ranges the market
    indicates would be competitive, especially for attorneys and PhD
    economists, and to a lesser extent, for analysts and specialists with
    management or senior leadership responsibilities. For example, the true
    competitive rate for attorneys is $143,000, which would put the pay
    range maximum at $178,750. That is 32 percent higher than the current
    cap. Even attorneys at the current cap will be below the market rate by
    about 5.4 percent.
        Question. Will changes in your compensation system improve your
    ability to retain staff?
        Answer. Yes, we expect that it will and believe that it will not
    have an adverse effect. As I mentioned earlier, one of the principle
    objectives in undertaking the development of our market-based
    compensation system was to enhance GAO's ability to attract, retain,
    motivate, and reward top talent within current and expected resource
    levels. Individuals generally cite the nature of the work, the
    opportunity to make a difference, and the reputation of the agency as
    primary reasons they choose to work for GAO. While it is true that for
    individuals who choose public service, salary is not the primary
    motivator, it is nonetheless an important factor. Except as I discussed
    above with respect to the limitations the current statutory cap places
    on our ability to adopt market-based pay ranges reflective of the true
    competitive rate for Band IIIs, I am confident that we will be
    competitive with entities that we regularly compete with for talent. I
    believe that our competitive position will over time be enhanced by our
    approach to individualized performance-based compensation that assures
    that top performing staff are identified and well rewarded. I also
    believe that it is important in adopting a market-based compensation
    philosophy that we have reasonable flexibility to implement the
    competitive pay ranges that are applicable to our workforce. As a
    result, I am planning to request legislative authority to exceed the
    GS-15/10 statutory cap when the market-based data indicates a higher
    cap is reasonable and appropriate given the relevant facts and
    circumstances. This will help us to more effectively compete with the
    SEC, banks, regulatory agencies, and other federal entities.
        Question. How will planned changes impact your average annual
    salary?
        Answer. I have made a commitment to our staff that no GAO
    employee's current salary, including accumulated locality pay, will be
    reduced irrespective of their current position, pay, performance, or
    location. I also have made a commitment that they will receive annual
    adjustments that will at least maintain their purchasing power, if they
    are performing at the ``Meets Expectation'' level or above on all of
    the competencies relevant to their band level and if their current
    salary is not in excess of their applicable pay range limit. While
    annually we will review and adjust, as appropriate, our pay ranges to
    reflect changes in labor market rates, the salaries for individuals
    being paid in excess of their pay range limit will be frozen. That
    means that they will not receive an annual salary adjustment until
    their salary falls within the expected pay range. However, they will
    still have an opportunity to earn an annual performance bonus if their
    rating places them in the top 20 percent of their band level within
    their team. This ``floor guarantee'' will be paid as a cash bonus. In
    addition, they will still be eligible for various other incentive
    awards, e.g. spot awards.
        Over time, an employee's average annual salary will be based more
    on the competitive rate for their position and band level, with only
    top performing staff receiving salaries that are above a certain point
    in the pay range (e.g., the 75th percentile) that is referred to as a
    ``speed bump''. This is a key aspect of a performance-oriented and
    market-based compensation philosophy and is markedly different from the
    pay philosophy under which GAO and most federal agencies have been
    operating. When GAO went to pay banding in 1989, we adopted pay ranges
    that followed the GS schedule, and we assumed that staff were correctly
    classified. In retrospect, that may not have been the case. However,
    the underlying pay philosophy was that everyone had the right to
    advance to the pay cap in the absence of performance issues--it was not
    a matter of ``if'', but only ``when''. As we transition to a
    performance-oriented and market-based compensation philosophy where pay
    ranges are set to be competitive with entities that compete with GAO
    for talent, everyone has the opportunity to advance to the pay cap--but
    individuals must have performance in excess of a certain level to
    advance beyond ``speed bumps''. That will limit the number of staff who
    will advance to the pay cap. It will also help to assure that the only
    individuals who are paid in excess of the minimum pay rate for the next
    higher level of responsibility are strong performers.
        Within a few years after implementing the market-based compensation
    ranges, I expect that the combined effect of managing salaries around
    the competitive rate and implementing a performance ``speed bump'' will
    result in a lower average annual salary (in today's dollars) as
    compared to what would otherwise occur under our current system.
    However, that won't necessarily translate to a lower average total cash
    compensation because of the impact of our new individualized
    performance-based compensation system, which allocates pay earned on
    the basis of performance between a salary increase and a one-time cash
    bonus payment. Individuals whose current salaries are below the
    competitive rate receive more of their performance pay as a salary
    increase, while individuals whose current salaries are above the
    competitive rate receive more of their performance pay as a one-time
    cash bonus. For 2005 pay adjustments, all Washington, DC-based
    employees received across-the-board and locality increases of 3.71
    percent. In addition, analysts, specialists, attorneys, and economists
    received an average performance-based compensation increase of 1.65
    percent, allocated between salary increase and cash bonus.
        With the flexibilities provided by the GAO Human Capital Reform Act
    of 2004, more of individuals' annual pay adjustments in future years
    will be determined by their performance. The allocation process is a
    key element in managing salaries around the competitive rate, but it is
    also justifiably a source of concern for GAO staff because the portion
    received as cash is not a component of the calculation of an
    individual's ``high-3'' for retirement or of the salary base upon which
    Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) contributions are computed. Therefore, in
    order to address these concerns, I am planning to request legislation
    that would permit calculation of ``high-3'' and TSP contributions on an
    individual's total cash compensation, rather than on base salary plus
    accumulated locality pay as required by current law. I believe such
    authority could significantly facilitate more widespread use of more
    market-based and performance-oriented compensation systems that
    allocate annual performance pay between salary increases and bonus
    payments.
        Question. Please elaborate on the cost savings options that you are
    considering as part of your revised human capital framework.
        Answer. By implementing a more market-based and performance-
    oriented compensation system, GAO is continuing to work towards our
    strategic goal of maximizing the agency's value under current and
    expected resource levels. Our compensation initiatives have involved
    the assessment of positions to ensure appropriate classification of
    various career streams and levels of responsibility along with a
    market-based determination of the appropriate salary range for
    positions. Each year as part of the annual performance-based
    compensation process, GAO provides employees with pay adjustments that
    reward performance, are reflective of the market value of positions,
    consider changes in purchasing power, and are financially sustainable.
    For increases effective October 1, 2005, GAO will develop and apply its
    own methodology for annual cost-of-living and locality pay adjustments.
    For example, pay ranges in Washington, DC, and in other cities in which
    GAO employees reside, will be based on the results of an independent,
    market-based compensation study conducted for GAO.
        While cost savings are not the impetus for our market-based,
    performance-oriented compensation system and other human capital
    initiatives, the Congress will likely place increasing emphasis on
    fiscal restraint given large budget deficits and the nation's long-
    range fiscal imbalance. GAO is planning for the possibility of
    significant and recurring constraints on the available agency
    resources. Since 80 percent of our budget is composed of people-related
    costs, any serious budget situation will have an impact on our human
    capital policies and practices. Using our recent human capital
    flexibility as a framework, GAO would consider such options as
    conducting early out offers, reviewing our policies and approaches to
    total compensation, delaying or reducing investments in discretionary
    programs that support the workforce, rethinking our current approach to
    hiring, and considering workforce restructuring actions on the basis of
    organizational need and budgetary considerations.
        Question. Can you tell us what the average cost per FTE is for your
    Band II and Band III employees and how that compares to the average
    cost per FTE for GS-13 through GS-15 employees in agencies like OMB and
    OPM? How does the percentage of Band II and Band III employees in GAO
    compare to the percentage of GS-13 through GS-15 in OMB and OPM?
        Answer. The average salary for GAO Band II and Band III employees
    at September 30, 2003, the most recent year when comparable data is
    available, was $98,426. The average salary for GS-13 to GS-15 staff was
    $98,333 for OMB and $112,174 for the SEC. We do not consider OPM
    comparable to GAO since over 72 percent of OPM staff perform clerical,
    administrative and compliance related work which is typically
    compensated at lower salary levels than staff performing work of an
    analytical nature. We believe that work performed by the SEC is more
    comparable to that performed by GAO. The average salary for GS-13
    through GS-15 employees at OPM at September 30, 2003, was $89,099.
        As of September 30, 2003, Band II and III employees accounted for
    51 percent of GAO's staff. OMB and SEC GS-13 through GS-15 employees
    accounted for 54 percent and 55 percent, respectively. At the OPM, the
    percentage of GS-13 through GS-15 employees was 25 percent.
        Question. Does your pay for performance and broad banding system
    cover all GAO employees?
        Answer. No. We have 5 Wage System employees who will not be
    converted to a broad banded pay for performance system and 20 criminal
    investigators who we are in the process of converting to a broad-banded
    system. All GAO employees who are covered by a pay-banding system will
    be eligible for pay for performance.
        Question. Do you believe there is a need to further refine your
    system to make it more effective? If so, what changes do you plan to
    make and how much will they cost? Do you expect these refinements, once
    implemented, to reduce overall compensation costs? If compensation
    costs are reduced, can the savings help you to restore your FTE levels?
        Answer. Yes. After the completion of each performance appraisal
    cycle and performance based compensation process, GAO conducts an
    evaluation by reviewing data and by soliciting feedback from managers
    and employees. As part of our continuous improvement process, we have
    made modifications to the performance appraisal and pay process every
    year based on this evaluation. We are currently analyzing the results
    of our evaluation of the fiscal year 2004 process to determine what, if
    any, modifications will be recommended for next year. Continuous
    improvement costs are minimal, as the majority of changes require minor
    adjustments to the existing system. We do anticipate a review of the
    analyst band structure and the competencies associated with the band
    levels in connection with the implementation of market-based
    compensation ranges. We anticipate the cost of this effort to be
    minimal because the compensation work has already been completed and
    the majority of the work on the competencies was completed when GAO
    initially undertook revising its performance appraisal system.
        While cost savings are not the impetus for our competency-based
    performance management and compensation systems, by implementing a more
    market-based and performance-oriented compensation system, GAO is
    continuing to work towards our strategic goal of maximizing the
    agency's value while managing its costs. Our compensation initiatives
    have involved the assessment of positions to ensure appropriate
    classification of various career streams and levels of responsibility,
    along with a market-based determination of the appropriate salary range
    for positions. Each year as part of the annual performance-based
    compensation process, GAO will provide employees with pay adjustments
    that reward performance, are reflective of the market value of
    positions, consider changes in purchasing power, and are financially
    sustainable. For increases effective on or after October 1, 2005, GAO
    will develop and apply its own methodology for annual cost-of-living
    and locality pay adjustments. For example, pay ranges in Washington,
    DC, and in other cities in which GAO employees reside, will be based on
    the results of an independent market-based compensation study conducted
    for GAO.
        Within a few years after implementing the market-based compensation
    ranges, I expect that the combined effect of managing salaries around
    the competitive rate and implementing a performance ``speed bump'' will
    result in a lower average annual salary (in today's dollars) as
    compared to what otherwise would occur under the current system.
    However, that won't necessarily translate to lower average total cash
    compensation because of the impact of our new individualized
    performance-based compensation system, which allocates pay earned on
    the basis of performance between a salary increase and a one-time cash
    bonus payment. Individuals whose current salaries are below the
    competitive rate, set at the 50th percentile of the compensation ranges
    compared to comparable organizations, will receive more of their
    performance pay as a salary increase, while individuals whose current
    salaries are above the competitive rate will receive more of their
    performance pay as a one-time cash bonus. For 2005 pay adjustments, all
    Washington, DC-based employees received an across-the-board and
    locality increase of 3.71 percent. In addition, analysts, specialists,
    attorneys, and economists received an average performance-based
    compensation increase of 1.65 percent, allocated between salary
    increase and cash bonus. Finally, benefits costs also need to be
    considered when determining total compensation and average compensation
    amounts.
        Question. Could you also explain the process you use to determine
    who gets monetary awards, how many GAO employees received them last
    year and what the amount of the award was for each?
        Answer. GAO employees receiving performance-based compensation are
    eligible for an increase to base pay, a bonus or a combination of the
    two. A summary of the performance-based compensation is as follows:
        Each year, the Comptroller General determines the budgetary
    parameters for performance-based compensation, the methodology by which
    amounts will be calculated and awarded to employees and the effective
    date on which it will be paid. The methodology used to award
    performance based compensation for fiscal year 2004 considered an
    employee's appraisal, current salary and the applicable competitive
    compensation range. Employees' appraisal averages were converted to
    statistically standardized rating scores in order to minimize the
    impact of any variability in raters' applications of the standards.
    Performance based compensation amounts were calculated as a percentage
    of the midpoint of the employee's band. The distribution of the
    compensation amount between a permanent salary increase and a lump sum
    was based on the employee's salary with employees at the lower portion
    of the salary range receiving their awards primarily as base increases
    and those employees at or near the top of the pay range receiving their
    awards as lump sum payments. Performance based compensation is prorated
    for those employees who have less than a full year of service during
    the performance cycle.
        In addition to performance-based compensation, GAO employees are
    eligible for incentive awards. Agency regulations describe the
    categories of incentive awards, the forms the award may take, e.g.,
    plaque, money, time off, etc., and the recommendation and approval
    process associated with each category of award.
        GAO-wide honor awards, GAO's highest awards, recognize individuals
    and teams for their noteworthy achievements and extra effort through
    the performance-based compensation system and provide incentives for
    employees to strive for greater achievements. These awards consist of
    plaques and may include monetary recognition for individual recipients
    (not teams) based on annual guidance. Each year, a request for
    nominations is issued agency-wide and a screening committee reviews the
    resulting nominations. The screening committee, which is selected by
    the Executive Committee, comprised of the agency's top management team,
    makes recommendations to the Executive Committee. Two SES level
    employees lead the committee which is comprised of nine other members
    representing mission teams, mission support and field operations. GAO
    provides the following agency-wide honor awards: Comptroller General's
    Award, Distinguished Service Award, Meritorious Service Award, Equal
    Employment Opportunity Award, Customer Service Award, Client Service
    Award, Community Service Award, Integrity Award, Grand Finale Award,
    Big Picture Award and Human Capital Management Award.
        GAO also provides Results through Teamwork Awards, which recognize
    the accomplishment of teams working collaboratively across
    organizational lines beyond what is normally expected and recognized
    through the performance based compensation system. Awards may be
    provided in the form of a monetary, time off, or a certificate award.
    Managing Directors submit team nominations for the Executive
    Committee's review and approval.
        Employees are also eligible for unit awards, which are designed to
    reward deserving individuals or teams for extra effort above and beyond
    what is normally expected and recognized through the performance-based
    compensation system. Rewards may include cash, paid time off, and
    written expressions of appreciation, or combinations thereof. Unit
    awards must be approved by the SES-level unit head and each unit is
    responsible for developing a process to make award decisions that
    ensures that all staff are fairly considered, and that awards are based
    on performance, contributions, and extra effort above and beyond what
    is normally expected and recognized through the performance-based
    compensation system.
        In fiscal year 2004, cash incentive awards were provided as
    follows:
      --Number of Awards: 2,293
      --Average Amount: $471
      --Median Amount: $300
      --Total Cost: $1,080,000.
        Question. The GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 provided you
    with a number of flexibilities in the human capital arena, including
    the ability for the GAO to decouple itself from annual executive branch
    pay adjustments. Please provide the Subcommittee an update on each of
    the provisions of the Act, including expected implementation timeframes
    and outstanding issues.
        Answer. Public Law 108-271 contained various human capital
    flexibilities. As required by section 10 of the act and consistent with
    GAO's long standing practice, the human capital flexibilities
    authorized by sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 are being implemented in
    continuing consultation with GAO's employees and executives. The status
    of each of these flexibilities is as follows:
      --Section 2 amended Public Law 106-303, the GAO Personnel
            Flexibilities Act of 2000, to permit the Comptroller General to
            offer voluntary early retirement and voluntary separation
            incentive payments on a permanent basis. GAO's regulations for
            offering voluntary early retirement were issued on November 15,
            2004. Since fiscal year 2002, GAO has held several early
            retirement opportunities. To give the fullest consideration to
            all interested employees, any employee may apply for
            consideration when an early retirement opportunity is
            announced, even if he or she does not meet the stated criteria.
            The Comptroller General may also authorize early retirements
            for applicants on the basis of the institutional needs of GAO
            subject to certain statutory limits. The following table
            summarizes data on the voluntary early retirement program.

                                       SUMMARY DATA ON VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENTS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal
                    Applications/Status of applications                    year     year     year     year    Total
                                                                           2002     2003     2004     2005
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Applicants separated by voluntary early retirement.................       54       28       21        9      112
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          The amendment in section 2 also removed the December 31, 2003
            sunset date on the CGA to offer voluntary separation incentive
            payments. The voluntary separation incentive provision, which
            is now permanent, has not yet been implemented by regulation.
            The costs associated with voluntary separation incentives can
            be considerable. GAO anticipates little, if any, use of this
            authority because of the associated costs. For this reason, as
            well as to avoid creating unrealistic employee expectations,
            GAO has not developed and issued agency regulations to
            implement this section of the act.
      --Section 3 of the act amended 31 U.S.C. 732(c), which required GAO
            employees' pay to be adjusted at the same time and to the same
            extent as the General Schedule and instead authorizes the
            Comptroller General to determine the amount of annual pay
            adjustments subject to the factors enumerated in section 3.
            Additionally, section 3 establishes a requirement that an
            employee must be performing at a satisfactory level in order to
            receive an annual pay adjustment.
          The CGA under section 3 is effective for increases on or after
            October 1, 2005. We are formulating strategies for determining
            the appropriate methodology for establishing alternatives to
            the annual adjustment and anticipate the issuance of
            regulations prior to January 2006--the first opportunity for
            the Comptroller General to exercise this authority. GAO Order
            2500.1, Pay Administration in the GAO Regulations, was issued
            January 4, 2005 and implemented the satisfactory performance
            requirement for GAO's analysts and related specialist and
            attorneys. These groups of employees have been covered by
            validated competency-based appraisal systems for at least one
            full appraisal cycle. The regulations provided for withholding
            annual increases from any employee whose performance on any
            competency was rated as below expectations. Our regulations
            will be revised to make this requirement applicable to the
            analysts and related specialists and attorneys prior to the
            January 2006 annual adjustment. The administrative,
            professional and support (APSS) staff were recently converted
            to a pay for performance system. We are continuing to implement
            components of the APSS system and have not yet determined the
            methodology for establishing annual adjustments.
      --Section 4 authorizes the Comptroller General to establish pay
            retention regulations applicable to employees who are placed in
            lower grades or bands as a result of workforce restructuring,
            reclassification or other appropriate circumstances. Draft
            regulations are currently under review. It is our intention to
            complete the review and consultation process and implement this
            section prior to January 2006.
      --Section 6 authorizes GAO to provide increased annual leave to key
            employees. After consultation, GAO Order 2630.1, Leave Policies
            and Procedures, was issued for employee comment on December 29,
            2004. These regulations contain a provision permitting
            designated key employees with less than 3 years of federal
            service to earn 6 hours of annual leave. The 45-day comment
            period closed on February 14, 2005 and employees' comments are
            being analyzed and will be considered by GAO's Executive
            Committee before finalizing the regulations. We anticipate
            finalization of the regulations and implementation of this
            provision on or before June 1, 2005. In addition, in January
            2005, we updated GAO Order 2317.1, GAO's Senior Executive
            Service and Senior Level Positions, to allow senior executives
            and senior level staff to accrue annual leave at the rate of 1
            day for each full biweekly pay period without regard to the
            length of their service with the federal government.
      --Section 7 authorized GAO to establish an Executive Exchange
            Program. Draft regulations implementing the Executive Exchange
            Program were provided to employees for comment on January 31,
            2005. The comment period closed on March 4, 2005 and review and
            analysis of the comments is in process. We anticipate issuing
            final regulations on or before June 1, 2005, and are
            concurrently working on the operational implementation of the
            program.
      --Section 9 amended 31 U.S.C. 732(d) and incorporated additional
            requirements for GAO's competency-based performance management
            system. GAO's competency-based performance management system,
            including its competency-based appraisal systems, addresses all
            of these factors. However, we conduct an annual review and
            assessment of our performance appraisal policies and processes
            as part of ongoing continuous improvement of the system.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Allard. The subcommittee stands in recess until
    Wednesday, April 27, when we will take testimony from the
    Senate Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police Board. Thank you
    very much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., Tuesday, April 19, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 11 a.m., Wednesday,
    April 27.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2005

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 11:02 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Allard and Durbin.

                                  U.S. SENATE

                 Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

    STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. PICKLE, SERGEANT AT ARMS
                AND DOORKEEPER
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            LYNNE HALBROOKS, DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS
            J. GREG HANSON, ASSISTANT SERGEANT AT ARMS AND CHIEF
                INFORMATION OFFICER
            CHUCK KAYLOR, ASSISTANT SERGEANT AT ARMS FOR SECURITY AND
                EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
            AL CONCORDIA, ASSISTANT SERGEANT AT ARMS FOR POLICE OPERATIONS
            ESTHER GORDON, ASSISTANT SERGEANT AT ARMS FOR OPERATIONS
            RICK EDWARDS, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT AND ASSISTANT SERGEANT
                AT ARMS
            NANCY ERICKSON, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order.
        This morning we will be taking testimony on the fiscal year
    2006 budget request for the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of
    the Senate, the U.S. Capitol Police, and the Capitol Guide
    Service.
        We welcome our witnesses this morning. First we will hear
    from the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, Bill
    Pickle. Welcome.
        Mr. Pickle. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Allard. Fellow Coloradan, I might add. Mr. Pickle
    is accompanied by his deputy, Lynne Halbrooks, and his Chief
    Financial Officer, Chris Dey.
        The Sergeant at Arms budget request totals $220 million, an
    increase of $42 million, or 24 percent over the current year.
    The Sergeant at Arms takes care of a wide assortment of needs
    here in the Senate, ranging from ensuring our security;
    processing our mail and ensuring its safety; providing us with
    computers, Blackberries, and telephones; and carrying out
    protocol responsibilities for visiting dignitaries.
        The Sergeant at Arms' role has grown significantly since
    September 11 to include many new security and emergency
    preparedness activities. The Sergeant at Arms has accomplished
    a great deal this year, from implementing better mail
    processing protocols following the ricin attack last February,
    to preparing for the Reagan state funeral.
        Thank you for all your hard work and that of your staff,
    Mr. Pickle.
        Mr. Pickle. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. For fiscal year 2006, a large part of the
    increase SAA requests is associated with the need to replace
    our 20-year-old telephone system here in the Senate. I
    understand security needs also account for a significant
    portion of the increase, as well as information technology
    requirements.
        Following the Sergeant at Arms, Mr. Pickle will put on his
    hat as Chairman of the Capitol Police Board and he will be
    joined by fellow board members, House Sergeant at Arms Bill
    Livingood, and Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman, and the
    Capitol Police Chief, Terry Gainer. So we are going to have
    three panels. You will be the first panel, Mr. Pickle. You will
    be one panel and then we are going to have the Police Board as
    the second panel, and then the Guide Board will be the third
    panel.
        Mr. Pickle. Yes, sir.
        Senator Allard. All right. Now in reference to the Capitol
    Police Board, the Board is requesting $290 million for the
    Capitol Police, an increase of $59.7 million, or 26 percent
    over the current year, excluding any supplemental funds which
    may be provided in the bill which is pending in conference, of
    course. The amount requested would enable the Capitol Police to
    increase sworn officers by 122, for a total of 1,714.
        Also, additional funds are needed to support new security
    equipment and systems installed in recent years.
        The Capitol Police are to be commended for all their hard
    work recently in ensuring that the Presidential inauguration
    went forward without incident.
        Finally, we will again hear from Mr. Pickle, this time as
    Chairman of the Capitol Guide Board, along with Mr. Livingood
    and Mr. Hantman. Also present is Tom Stevens, the very capable
    head of the Capitol Guide Service and a 20-year veteran of the
    Guide Service.
        The Board is requesting $4.1 million for the Guide service.
    This is an increase of $254,000 over the current budget.
        Before turning to my ranking member for his opening
    statement let me say, as I have at the other legislative branch
    hearings, that the increases being sought will be very tough to
    accommodate, as you are probably well aware of. While they may
    be meritorious, we may be left with no choice but to make
    reductions to comply with the budget resolution.
        So I ask each of you to consider carefully what your
    highest priorities might be, and which projects might be
    deferred, and whether you have looked at how to operate most
    efficiently.
        Having made those opening comments, we will now turn to
    you, Mr. Pickle, and we will hear your testimony.

                      OPENING STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PICKLE

        Mr. Pickle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
    the opportunity to be here today. It is an honor to serve the
    Senate along with the almost 900 people that we have on the
    Sergeant at Arms staff. I have my senior staff with me today
    and I would like to take just a moment to introduce them to
    you, if I may.
        Lynne Halbrooks is the Deputy Sergeant at Arms. Mr. Greg
    Hanson is the Chief Information Officer and Assistant Sergeant
    at Arms as well. Chuck Kaylor is the Assistant Sergeant at Arms
    for Security and Emergency Preparedness. Al Concordia is the
    Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Police Operations. Esther Gordon
    is our newest Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Operations. Our
    third statutory officer, Mr. Rick Edwards, is the
    Administrative Assistant and Assistant Sergeant at Arms. And
    finally and not least is Nancy Erickson, the Executive
    Assistant, and she represents the Democratic leader.
        We have made significant progress this year, and you
    touched on some of that during your opening remarks. We have
    many established plans to make this place continue to work
    better. As you know, 9/11 changed much of what we do here. It
    has changed dramatically, as many of you who have been here
    much longer than I have realize.
        As you indicated, in 2006 we are asking for $219,968,000.
    This is a substantial increase, Mr. Chairman. It is 23 percent
    more than our 2005 budget. I know it is a large increase. And I
    know how you demand fiscal responsibility, and I know how this
    subcommittee desires to keep spending down. But I think as we
    go into the testimony, and especially our written testimony, if
    we do not get into it in the questions, you will see that our
    budget request is meritorious and will enable us to meet Senate
    requirements. This request is not driven by me or my staff. It
    is driven by the needs of the Senate.
        The request will help us institutionalize many of the
    changes that we have made since 9/11, since the anthrax attack
    in 2001 and since the ricin attack last year. It will help us
    to incorporate many of these changes into our normal business
    practices.
        We are a much more agile and flexible agency since 9/11. We
    have been forced to become so. The leadership has been very
    clear that security is its number one priority for my office,
    and technology is right up there with it. It is demanded that
    we provide state-of-the-art technology to the Senate. And that
    is what we are working to do.
        The changes that we have implemented in both regards really
    ripple across the entire Sergeant at Arms organization. But
    more importantly, they ripple across the entire Senate. Before
    9/11, I would say less than 20 percent of the time spent by the
    Office of the Sergeant at Arms was dedicated to security. Today
    it is probably 50 percent. The large increase that you have
    seen in FTEs since 2001 are almost all dedicated to technology
    or security.
        We do all we can to make this institution safe. And I think
    your office, the subcommittees, and other offices realize that
    and see it. We train. We train. We train. We equip. We equip.
    We equip. And we try to make sure that people know what to do
    in an emergency.
        I am not talking about anything that is classified when I
    say that we are a target. We realize we are a target. It is
    arguable which is the number one target, the White House or the
    Capitol. But we plan for the worst and we certainly hope for
    the best. And that is our goal here, and that is why we have
    such a large budget increase.
        The other part of this budget increase, the
    telecommunications systems which you alluded to, or the
    telephone system, is a very important part of our budget. It is
    one of these expenses that we pay now or we pay later.
        As you know we have a 20-year-old telephone system. This
    system technically could go on, I guess, for many years to
    come. But it does not allow us the flexibility of using the
    voice-over Internet protocol. It does not allow us to have more
    flexibility with voice, data and video.
        There is even a bigger part of this, which I am just going
    to touch on, and that is security. The new telecommunications
    system will provide a very important security benefit to the
    Senate. It will provide redundancy, and in today's environment,
    that is critical.
        Now, can we implement this system in incremental steps?
    Yes, we can. I know that funding is going to be tough to get,
    and we will certainly work with Carrie Apostolou and do the
    best we can to meet your needs and the subcommittee's needs,
    but this project is important.
        Mr. Chairman, I am not going to belabor the point. I would
    be happy to take questions. I have some more testimony I would
    like to introduce for the record.
        Senator Allard. Without objection, we will make your full
    testimony a part of the record.
        Mr. Pickle. Thank you. I would like to end my remarks,
    however, by simply saying that I am so honored to represent the
    almost 900 people who work for the Sergeant at Arms office.
    When you look at the many hundreds of different types of
    services we perform, some people say as many as a hundred
    businesses. When you look at the job that these people do, it
    is truly remarkable. They are dedicated. They are talented.
    Many of them are with me here today. And I am so proud of them.
    And I truly think that the taxpayers get their dollar's worth
    out of these people who work for you here today. Thank you.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Senator Allard. Thank you for your comments. We appreciate
    your testimony.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Honorable William H. Pickle
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
    inviting me to testify before you today. I am pleased to report on the
    progress the Office of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA) has made over the
    past year and our plans to enhance our contributions to the Senate in
    the coming year.
        For fiscal year 2006, the Sergeant at Arms respectfully requests a
    total budget of $219,968,000, an increase of $42,151,000 (or 23.7
    percent) over the fiscal year 2005 budget. This request will allow us
    to maintain the significant improvements and level of service we
    provided the Senate community over the past year. It will also fund
    several important initiatives including replacement of the Senate
    telephone system, state-office security enhancements, and outfitting
    the Senate space in the Capitol Visitor Center with furniture and
    equipment. Appendix A, accompanying this testimony, elaborates the
    specific components of our fiscal year 2006 budget request.
        Last year I testified before this Committee and reported on our
    progress in accomplishing two priorities: (1) ensuring the United
    States Senate is as secure and prepared for any emergency as possible;
    and (2) providing the Senate outstanding service and support, including
    the enhanced use of technology. These priorities continue to guide my
    office and we are moving forward in a number of crucial areas.
        An outstanding senior management team leads the efforts of the
    dedicated Sergeant at Arms staff. Until recently this team included
    Deputy Sergeant at Arms J. Keith Kennedy, who chose to move to the
    position of Chief of Staff of this esteemed Committee. We miss him, but
    know that his skills already have served this Committee well. I have
    tapped the very capable Lynne Halbrooks to take over as the Deputy
    Sergeant at Arms in his stead. I look forward to a great tenure with
    her. Lynne and I are joined by Administrative Assistant Rick Edwards,
    Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and Emergency Preparedness
    Chuck Kaylor, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Police Operations Al
    Concordia, Assistant Sergeant at Arms and Chief Information Officer J.
    Greg Hanson, and the newly appointed Assistant Sergeant at Arms for
    Operations, Esther Gordon. The many accomplishments set forth in this
    testimony would not have been possible without this team's leadership
    and commitment.
                         major events of the past year
        The Office of the Sergeant at Arms faced several challenges this
    past year; some were planned, some were not. In particular, in 2004 we
    faced the ricin attack in February, the Reagan funeral in June, the
    transition to the 109th Congress beginning with the November elections,
    and the recent Inauguration. I am pleased to report that the staff
    performed capably and enabled the Senate to function effectively
    throughout these events.
        Ricin Attack.--The discovery of ricin in the Dirksen Senate Office
    Building on February 2, 2004, tested the emergency planning we had
    undertaken over the past several years. In response to the attack, SAA
    staff coordinated our efforts with those of the United States Capitol
    Police, the Committee on Rules and Administration, the Office of the
    Secretary of the Senate, the Office of the Attending Physician, and
    numerous other agencies and organizations to support Senate operations
    while all three Senate Office Buildings were closed.
        The incident prompted significant revisions to our mail testing
    protocols and modifications to our mail processing facility. The SAA
    Post Office staff adapted to working within a controlled environment
    while wearing personal protective equipment. Over the past year, they
    have opened, tested, and delivered over 12,500,000 articles of United
    States Postal Service mail and over 68,500 packages. To accommodate
    time-sensitive items addressed to Senate offices while maintaining the
    Senate's safety, the Congressional Acceptance Site processed and
    delivered over 98,000 items within our community from 3,200 couriers.
        Reagan Funeral.--During the week beginning June 6, 2004, the United
    States Capitol was the site of the first State Funeral since 1973. On
    Wednesday, June 9, the remains of former President Ronald Wilson Reagan
    arrived on the West Front of the Capitol by a horse-drawn caisson in a
    formal military procession. I had the distinguished, yet somber, honor
    of greeting Mrs. Reagan upon her arrival at the Capitol for the State
    Funeral in the Rotunda.
        The SAA staff played a key role in the preparations for this
    national event and demonstrated tireless dedication to meeting the
    Senate community's needs. The Capitol Facilities staff cleaned and set
    up holding rooms, the Photography and Recording Studios captured the
    event for historical purposes, and others provided behind-the-scenes
    support. We also focused on protocol and security throughout the week.
    The Executive Office staff coordinated attendance at the service in the
    Capitol Rotunda with Senate offices, assisted the Senators and Officers
    who participated in the program, and were responsible for the official
    Senate delegation's attendance at the National Funeral Service that was
    held at the Washington National Cathedral. The SAA security team had a
    continuous presence in the Capitol Police Command Center, and helped
    the Capitol Police, U.S. Secret Service, and other federal agencies
    ensure that Washington, DC was safe. As a result, almost 105,000
    mourners were able to pay their respects to the former President while
    complying with the enhanced security measures added since the last
    State Funeral.
        Transition.--The SAA staff facilitated the transition to the new
    Congress by equipping, staffing, and running the Transition Office for
    newly elected Senators, and by moving and setting up equipment for
    temporary and permanent office suites. They installed equipment in the
    transition office space, and provided administrative and mail services,
    as well as Web sites, documents, and placement services to facilitate
    new Senators' entry to the Senate. The Office of Education and Training
    assisted with in-depth training for new Senators, and provided training
    to their Chiefs of Staff and to Administrative Managers.
        Inauguration.--SAA staff also provided guidance on protocol,
    created the Web site, recorded the video feeds, photographed the
    events, produced documents and posters, helped set up the Capitol, and
    developed and implemented the infrastructure, computers, telephones,
    and applications to support the Inauguration. In addition, as part of
    the Inaugural security team, which also included the Capitol Police,
    the Metropolitan Police Department, the U.S. Secret Service, and the
    Armed Forces, we put effective security measures into place that
    enabled people to participate in Inaugural events, but also ensured
    that the events were safe.
        These examples are representative of how the staff of the SAA
    serves the Senate. This dedication is often unnoticed, but I wanted to
    let you know that it happens, even when there is no emergency.
                continuing emphasis on security and preparedness
        The Senate was in a heightened security posture for much of the
    past year, starting with the increased threat levels of the 2003/2004
    winter holiday season. In addition, the ricin attack in February,
    President Reagan's funeral in June, the 2004 conventions, Senators'
    campaigns, and the Inauguration all increased the demand on the SAA's
    security team and the Capitol Police. These challenges reflect the new
    reality of our security environment; we cannot and have not become
    complacent in our approach to the security of the Senate. The Senate's
    layered security strategy provides a framework that we use to address
    security challenges. In implementing the strategy, we integrate good
    intelligence, threat-driven protective measures, response capabilities,
    comprehensive emergency plans, and an aggressive training and exercise
    program to create comprehensive, Senate-wide security and preparedness.
    I would like to highlight some of our security efforts for you.
    The Senate Security Team
        The Senate's security team includes the SAA Offices of Security and
    Emergency Preparedness and of Police Operations, along with the U.S.
    Capitol Police, the Secretary of the Senate, the Architect of the
    Capitol, and other supporting agencies. Together, these groups provide
    the Senate with a security team that is strong and well coordinated.
    Senate Leadership, this Committee, and the Committee on Rules and
    Administration are also strong and supportive members of this team.
    Prevent and Protect
        Threat Intelligence Sharing.--The Capitol Police exchange threat
    intelligence information with the law enforcement and intelligence
    communities. Along with the Capitol Police, SAA security experts
    evaluate threats against Senators and certain visitors to the Capitol
    area, and take appropriate measures to eliminate or mitigate those
    threats.
                Personal Safety
        Security for Senators Who Participate in Foreign Congressional
    Delegation (CODEL) Visits.--The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
    authorized Capitol Police officers to travel outside the United States
    in a liaison capacity to coordinate security arrangements for Senators
    traveling individually or as part of a CODEL. SAA staff, the Capitol
    Police, and the Department of State are developing policies and
    procedures to implement this new authority.
        Security for Senators at Special Events.--With the Capitol Police,
    we have created a standard for assigning security resources to Senators
    when they attend special events, whether the events occur on the
    Capitol campus or out of town. Special events include public
    appearances by Members in and out of Washington, DC, off-site
    conferences and policy retreats that Members attend, and offsite
    Committee hearings. This initiative allows us to align our efforts with
    those of other law enforcement agencies and allocate resources to
    ensure Members' safety and security.
                Safety on the Capitol Campus
        Mail, Packages, and Freight.--All mail and packages coming into the
    Senate are tested, whether they come through the U.S. Postal Service or
    from other delivery services. Last year, with guidance from our science
    advisors and Senate Leadership, we improved our mail- and package-
    testing and security procedures. With over a year of experience with
    the improved procedures, I can report to you that they are working.
        An outside contractor currently provides the Senate's testing and
    processing service for mail and packages coming into the Senate, but
    this year we will move this service in house and to a larger, less
    costly (per square foot) facility. We expect this change to save the
    Senate $250,000 annually.
        In addition to mail testing and security procedures, we support the
    efforts of the Capitol Police to screen vehicles and freight by using
    technology, K-9 units, and officers. The Capitol Police will implement
    new security measures when they construct and move into a new screening
    facility.
        Perimeter Security.--Significant progress has been made in our
    perimeter security over this past year as we neared completion of
    Capitol Square perimeter security measures and of the bollard line
    along Constitution Avenue next to the Senate Office Buildings. In the
    coming year, this work will continue on Capitol Square and around the
    remainder of the Senate perimeter.
        Vehicle Security.--The Capitol Police implemented vehicle-screening
    checkpoints around the Capitol grounds last summer to counter the
    threat of vehicle-borne explosives. In addition, Senate Leadership
    closed First Street NE between D Street NE and Constitution Avenue,
    based on the strong recommendation of the Capitol Police. Since then,
    the Capitol Police periodically have modified the vehicle-screening
    procedures in response to intelligence and threat information with the
    goal of preventing vehicular attacks.
        Other Initiatives.--The SAA is involved in a number of additional
    ongoing projects that improve security, emergency response, and law
    enforcement across the Capitol campus. We support the efforts of the
    Capitol Police to enhance the physical security of the Senate Chamber,
    improve their response to incidents reported in Senate buildings and on
    the Capitol grounds, revise access control procedures for personnel and
    vehicles, and activate a program of anti-terrorism measures.
                Beyond Capitol Hill
        State Office Security Enhancements.--Over two years ago, the SAA
    began a security enhancement program for Member state offices. Since
    the program started in late 2002, we have completed security
    assessments of over 450 state offices and security enhancements for 60
    offices. We are in the process of delivering enhancements to 150 more
    offices. This accounts for all existing state offices, and we implement
    procedures for assessing new offices as they open. We place the highest
    priority on offices located in commercial properties, but we also have
    strong relationships with the General Services Administration, the
    Federal Protective Service, and the U.S. Marshals Service to support
    offices in federal buildings.
    Prepare
        Our emergency preparedness plans and programs encompass emergency
    procedures, office emergency planning, emergency equipment fielded
    throughout the Senate, education and training programs, regular drills,
    and exercises. Combined, these plans and programs provide the Senate
    with the guidelines, equipment, and confidence to react effectively in
    an emergency.
        Evacuation Procedures.--The Senate's security team devoted much of
    this past year to improving the Senate's emergency procedures, its
    emergency procedures training, and its ability to notify staff. One
    item of note is the implementation of evacuation procedures for
    mobility-impaired staff and visitors. We implemented these procedures
    during evacuation drills and worked with offices to provide equipment
    and personal training to all mobility-impaired staff members and their
    supporting buddy teams.
        Emergency Equipment.--Over the past few years, the SAA fielded
    emergency items, such as escape hoods and wireless annunciators,
    throughout the Senate. This year we provided every Senate Member and
    Committee Office with emergency supply kits that contain a variety of
    emergency items. Over 18,000 items of emergency equipment were
    distributed to Senate offices and throughout the Senate Office
    Buildings. Last fall, an inventory of the Senate's emergency equipment
    was conducted to account for all items and to ensure that they function
    properly. I am pleased to report that Senate Offices have kept their
    equipment current and accounted for; we believe this reflects the
    importance offices place on their emergency equipment.
        Planning Support.--To enhance support to Senate offices, we
    recently published a guide for office security planning, the Roadmap to
    Readiness. This document provides concise guidelines, tips, and
    templates, and it directs offices to resources that can help them in
    their security planning. We also established a presence for continuity
    of operations, security, and emergency preparedness on Webster, the
    Senate's intranet, and published a number of brochures on emergency
    equipment and procedures.
        We are working with a small number of state offices on training in
    emergency preparedness and on exercising continuity of operations plans
    to determine how best to support their needs. Our Web-based continuity
    of operations planning tool is available to state offices, and we are
    extending training resources and planning tools to help state office
    staff improve their security awareness and emergency plans.
    Practice
        Training and Education.--In the past year, SAA staff conducted over
    300 security-related training sessions for Senate offices and staff. We
    delivered 53 training sessions, including general training courses on
    escape hoods and Office Emergency Coordinator training, and seminars on
    personal preparedness and the District of Columbia's evacuation plans.
    These courses and seminars are part of the regular Office of Education
    and Training curriculum. Over 250 additional training sessions to
    smaller groups on specialized security topics were also delivered.
    Additionally, we offer in-office training on sensitive or office-
    specific topics and consulting to office staff on preparing emergency
    action plans and continuity of operations plans. These training and
    education efforts complement the training offered by the Office of the
    Attending Physician on First Aid and CPR and that offered by the
    Capitol Police on security awareness.
        Exercise Program.--Together with the Secretary of the Senate and
    other legislative branch agencies, we have established an aggressive
    plan to rehearse our emergency plans and procedures throughout the
    year. Our exercises range from quarterly evacuation drills and monthly
    communications tests to full-scale exercises of relocation sites
    involving transportation, special communications equipment, and staff.
    An aggressive exercise agenda for the coming year includes joint
    exercises with the House of Representatives.
        Our training and exercise program has enabled the Senate to respond
    effectively to emergencies twice in the past four years. The exercise
    program ensures that we continue to rehearse, evaluate, and improve our
    plans and procedures.
        The SAA's Office of Police Liaison and Office of Security and
    Emergency Preparedness focus on improving our security environment and
    the readiness of the Senate every day. With the support of Senate
    Leadership, this Committee, and the Committee on Rules and
    Administration, we continue to improve the Senate's security
    capabilities.
                             information technology
        The Office of the Sergeant at Arms places special emphasis on using
    technologies to deliver security, emergency preparedness, service, and
    support to the United States Senate. The SAA's CIO organization
    executes our strategic information technology plan to accomplish these
    goals.
        I want to take a minute to thank Assistant Sergeant at Arms and
    Chief Information Officer J. Greg Hanson for the vision and dedication
    with which, over the past two years, he has transformed our already
    fine Information Technology group into a group that offers best-in-
    class service and support. Greg ensures that we consistently provide
    the Senate with state-of-the-art technology and service, and he has
    taken a personal interest in his customers. Because of this, Greg was
    named to this year's Federal 100, the one hundred top executives from
    government, industry, and academia who had the greatest impact on the
    government information systems community in 2004. Congratulations,
    Greg.
        Over the past year, our most significant accomplishments in the
    information technology area include:
      --Completion of a state-of-the-art alternate computing facility for
            continuity of operations and continuity of government;
      --A 13 percent improvement in customer satisfaction, exceeding our
            internal goal of 10 percent;
      --Implementation of a robust information security awareness program
            that includes enterprise technology tools, enhanced
            communication, and technical training;
      --Cost avoidance of at least $2 million by developing an information
            technology strategic plan, a comprehensive technology level
            matrix, and a state-of-the-art application for tracking
            information technology projects and issues; and,
      --An enhanced ability to evaluate and deliver technology solutions to
            the Senate through teamwork and collaboration with Member
            Offices, Committees, and steering groups.
    Information Technology--The Road Ahead
        Last year's testimony stated, ``Information technology is crucial
    to security in the Senate and to the Senate's ability to accomplish its
    day-to-day activities. With a strong emphasis on providing advanced
    technology capabilities and outstanding customer support to the Senate,
    the SAA is adopting a comprehensive approach to delivering technology
    solutions and services.'' This year we are delivering on these goals
    with a strategic information technology plan that aligns with the
    Senate's business requirements. The plan, titled An IT Vision for
    Security, Customer Service, and Teamwork at the United States Senate
    (or Senate IT Vision) is found in Appendix B of this testimony. The
    Senate IT Vision sets forth: Our strategic technology vision; our
    strategic technology mission; our core values and guiding principles;
    and, five broad information technology strategic goals for the next two
    years.
        The strategic information technology vision is to deliver state-of-
    the-art information technology that directly supports efficient,
    effective, secure legislative action, communication, and constituent
    service through our infrastructure, processes, and talented workforce.
    This vision stresses the importance of collaboration and teamwork in
    delivering information technology services and solutions.
        The strategic mission, which supports the vision, is to leverage
    technology so the Senate can function efficiently and effectively to
    serve the American people under any circumstance. We are developing a
    technology team composed of staff members from my office, Member and
    Committee offices, and other Senate offices to work together to provide
    technology options, solutions, and world-class customer service so the
    Senate can accomplish its mission.
        The core values and guiding principles in the strategic plan define
    the CIO organization's culture and ensure that it aligns with the
    Senate's business priorities. The values and principles emphasize
    people, teamwork, leadership, and a relentless pursuit of
    organizational excellence so we can deliver information technology that
    meets the Senate's requirements quickly and effectively.
        The five strategic information technology goals and their
    supporting objectives drive all our information technology programmatic
    and budgetary decisions. The five strategic goals are:
      --1. Secure. A secure Senate information infrastructure.
      --2. Customer Service Focused. A customer-service culture top-to-
            bottom.
      --3. Effective. Information technology solutions driven by business
            requirements.
      --4. Accessible, Flexible & Reliable. Access to mission-critical
            information anywhere, anytime, under any circumstance.
      --5. Modern. A state-of-the-art information infrastructure built on
            modern, proven technologies.
        The five objectives encompass broad-based security, customer
    service, and emerging technology initiatives. The objectives complement
    the vision and mission, which directly tie all information technology
    activities to the business of the Senate. Our accomplishments this past
    year reflect the notable progress we have already made in achieving the
    five objectives.
    Security and Continuity Communications
        Alternate Sites.--This year, the SAA technology staff completed the
    information infrastructure that will enable us to replicate all the
    systems housed at the Senate's Washington, DC primary computing
    facility to the alternate computing facility (ACF). Together with the
    Architect of the Capitol, we upgraded the physical infrastructure of
    the ACF by adding a fully redundant backup power system and increasing
    the ACF's primary power capacity. We have also completed and tested all
    mission-critical information systems, and they can be live within a
    matter of hours. During the upcoming year, we will add a satellite-
    communications ground station to the ACF, and we plan to offer expanded
    replication and backup capabilities if the Architect of the Capitol
    purchases the facility.
        We will expand the storage area network this year to accommodate
    increased traffic from the enterprise Active Directory and Messaging
    Architecture (ADMA) systems and from new replication options that we
    are offering to Senate Committee and Leadership Offices. We completed
    fiber connectivity to the primary alternate chamber site, systems to
    support the Sergeant at Arms and Secretary of the Senate Emergency
    Operations Centers and Briefing Centers, and the extension of the
    communications infrastructure to backup locations.
        Contingency Communications.--A comprehensive array of
    communications systems and options enable us to communicate under any
    circumstance. This year, we tested new communications technology for
    connectivity between the Senate's primary computing facility and a
    Briefing Center at another location. In addition, both of the state-of-
    the-art communications vehicles mentioned in last year's testimony have
    passed initial acceptance testing and have moved into the final
    acceptance testing phases.
        This year, we will complete the in-building wireless
    infrastructure, which will improve signal strength for the major
    cellular telephone and BlackBerry service carriers. With this
    infrastructure, the Senate will have coverage in areas where it was
    previously poor or nonexistent and Senate staff can connect to their
    offices via wireless remote computing. The system will substantially
    pay for itself because the carriers are paying us for the right to use
    it.
        The technology and security groups collaborated during the past
    year to improve the Senate's overall security. The two groups created a
    specialized emergency communications unit with personnel from both
    offices who gather requirements and translate them into integrated,
    highly reliable systems. One result of this partnership is a system for
    Office Emergency Coordinators that we are now moving from prototype to
    production. In an emergency, the system provides the ability to account
    for Senate staff using wireless tablet computers.
        Securing Our Information Infrastructure.--This year, we witnessed
    new, more sophisticated methods of attack with more severe
    consequences. In response, we enhanced and strengthened our defense-in-
    depth approach to network and computer security over the past year. We
    continue to see great success in the enterprise-wide anti-virus
    program, with almost 10,000 desktop anti-virus suites installed. We
    perform intrusion detection in house, and we have executed a contract
    to augment our capabilities. The contract helped us contain a
    particularly insidious Randex virus attack. Our information security
    group coordinates with other outside federal agencies to ensure we have
    the most up-to-date information and techniques for combating threats to
    our information infrastructure. These efforts are part of the defense-
    in-depth strategy that protects the Senate's infrastructure and reaches
    from the software running on Senate desktops to the edge of our
    networks.
        In the first three months of 2005, nearly 4 million viral events
    have been detected, and nearly 99 percent of them were automatically
    blocked from infecting Senate machines. Our security processes are
    reducing the number of infections per computer per day. In spite of the
    fact that the threat environment is getting worse with more malevolent
    viruses and worms, it is rare that a Senate computer is infected.
        In addition, we introduced a software update services program to
    help offices protect themselves from virus and worm attacks. In
    participating offices, the program automatically installs patches on
    the offices' computers, once we have certified that the patches will
    not adversely affect Senate systems.
        Next year, we will build and begin operating a comprehensive
    security operations center that will monitor the security of Senate
    information systems and detect and combat viruses and other computer-
    based attacks. We will continue to coordinate with Leadership
    Organizations, Committees, and groups such as the Joint Security Best
    Policies and Practices Working Group to develop security training,
    policy, and information security processes.
    Customer Service
        The SAA continues to measure how well we meet the Senate's
    technology needs. Our second annual CIO Customer Satisfaction survey
    revealed a 13 percent overall improvement against a goal of 10 percent.
    In addition, we saw improvements in every category, with some
    categories up by as much as 26 percent. Our customer satisfaction
    action plan stresses strong communication and relationships,
    introducing modern technology faster, and providing offices options and
    choices of products, solutions, and services.
        Customer Service, Satisfaction, and Communications.--We maintain a
    comprehensive outreach and communication program with information
    technology newsletters, quarterly project status reviews, participation
    in the Majority Leader's Information Technology Working Group, and
    joint monthly project and policy meetings with the Committee on Rules
    and Administration, the Senate System Administrators Association, and
    the Administrative Managers' Working Group.
        In addition to conducting an annual comprehensive survey, we
    monitor our service every day. After service calls, we send customers
    satisfaction surveys. We track survey results and evaluate them for
    service-level-agreement trends. We discuss the results in weekly
    business process and technology review meetings that staff, support
    contractors, and customers all attend. This past year our help desk
    contractor consistently posted customer satisfaction results at or
    above 95 percent and the telecommunications support staff posted
    customer satisfaction results at 98 percent.
        Business Applications.--This past year, we renewed Senate contracts
    that provide research services and resources for Senate offices. We
    also replaced the old Senate News Wire with a state-of-the-art, real-
    time, NewsWatch service; outfitted the financial management system
    supporting the Secretary of the Senate's Disbursing Office with a Web-
    based interface; and completed new SAA Human Resources and Senate
    Employee Assistance Program Web sites.
        Later this year we will complete a prototype services portal that
    we are developing in conjunction with Senate Leadership and the
    Committee on Rules and Administration. The prototype will serve as a
    modern platform for launching many new Web-based applications Senate-
    wide.
        In preparation for modernizing and expanding our constituent
    correspondence management systems, we started gathering formal
    requirements from offices last summer. We will complete the
    requirements analysis this year, and anticipate recompeting the
    correspondence management system contracts in fiscal year 2006.
        Enhanced Communications and Infrastructure.--Several information
    technology projects enhance communications within and between Senate
    offices. An improved network infrastructure features 100 Mbps of
    connectivity for desktop and 1 Gbps connectivity between servers. The
    enterprise fax program replaces stand-alone fax machines with an
    integrated, server-based fax system that eliminates paper.
        Increased frame relay bandwidth to the state offices supports video
    teleconferencing and data replication. The Senate video
    teleconferencing program, with nearly 300 installed endpoints Senate-
    wide, allows staffs in Washington, DC offices to conduct video
    conferences with state offices and other remote locations.
        The Senate Telecommunications Modernization Program is a
    comprehensive, multi-year project to replace the Senate telephone
    system with a state-of-the-art telecommunications system that will take
    advantage of the convergence of voice, data, and video traffic on a
    single network. The convergence will provide new services, reduce the
    cost of existing services, and eliminate single-points-of-failure in
    the telephone system. We expect to start implementation in fiscal year
    2006.
        We also anticipate completion of the enterprise tape backup system
    this fiscal year. The system runs over our storage area network, and it
    already automatically backs up over fifty servers located in our
    primary computing facility.
        In addition, the Senate is now the employer of all Capitol Exchange
    Operators. The staff of the Capitol Exchange serves both the Senate and
    the House of Representatives, but as of March 1, 2005, they are all
    employees of the Senate. This change will increase efficiency and
    establish a unified team with common management, benefits, policies,
    and practices.
    Modern Technology Aligned With Business Processes
        Process Management & Innovation.--This year, we established a
    Process Management & Innovation organization that aligns our
    information technology, strategies, and solutions with Senate business
    processes. This staff is responsible for technology infusion and for
    tracking relevant emerging technologies against the Senate's
    information technology requirements. Part of this effort is the Senate
    Emerging Technology Conference and Exhibition Program that shows new
    technologies and concepts to Senate staff. The two conferences held
    last year featured knowledge management, communications, and
    information technology best practices. The first-ever emerging
    technologies exposition displayed new, inexpensive products for
    consideration by Senate offices. We held the latest Senate Emerging
    Technology Conference and Exposition on April 14, 2005, and it featured
    new information security technologies and products.
        Modern Information Technology Processes and Performance Metrics.--
    In order to deliver new technologies quickly and efficiently, we
    created system development processes tailored to the Senate's needs.
    These processes form the foundation of a state-of-the-art project and
    issue management tracking system called the Dashboard. The Dashboard is
    a Web-based tool that we use to monitor and maintain the status of all
    information technology projects. The tool is useful for both management
    and communications. Next year, we will give our customers access to
    parts of the Dashboard so they can track projects and issues. The next
    phase of the Dashboard, which we will implement later this year, will
    track performance of key infrastructure components and mission-critical
    systems. Completion of the next phase will enable us to track all
    information technology initiatives.
                              operational support
        The commitment to exceptional customer service is a hallmark of the
    Sergeant at Arms organization and the cornerstone of our operational
    support. The groups that make up our Operations team continue to
    provide exceptional customer service and support to the Senate
    community.
    Capitol Facilities
        Capitol Facilities staff works around the clock to ensure that the
    furniture and furnishings are of the highest quality, cabinetry and
    framing are outstanding, and the environment within the Capitol is
    clean and professional. This past year, we improved our customer
    service by implementing three major initiatives:
      --Performance Management Process.--We implemented a performance
            management process that helps Capitol Facilities management and
            staff improve their job performance each year. Using this
            process, we have been able to improve communication within
            Capitol Facilities and increase the quality of service we
            deliver to our customers.
      --Work Order System.--We implemented a Work Order System that tracks
            requests and automatically sends them to supervisors for
            immediate scheduling and completion. The system enables
            Facilities staff to respond to requests promptly, and provides
            management better information on the resources required to
            fulfill requests.
      --Computer-Aided Design.--In our Furniture and Furnishings shop, we
            invested in a Computer-Aided Design, or CAD system. The system
            serves as a database of construction drawings of historical
            furniture. This information enables us to reduce the amount of
            time needed to create custom-built furniture for Capitol
            offices.
        We undertook these three initiatives because we will soon have a
    significantly larger area to maintain, and we need a more efficient way
    to manage the workload of the Capitol Facilities staff. Specifically,
    the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center will add 66,500 square feet
    of Senate space to the responsibilities of the Capitol Facilities
    group: 41,000 square feet of office space, 8,000 square feet of meeting
    space, and 17,500 square feet of other space. Compared to their current
    obligations, the Environmental Services Division will clean and
    maintain almost one-third more office space and three times more
    meeting space, and the Furnishings Division will need to furnish over
    50 percent more office and meeting space.
    Employee Assistance Program
        Over the past year we have enhanced and expanded our Employee
    Assistance Program. The program supports staff across the Senate. It
    improves supervisors' ability to manage troubled employees, enhance the
    work environment, and improve employee job performance. It helps
    employees find the resources they need to address some of the personal
    challenges they face every day. It also coordinates with Security staff
    to train people on reacting to emergencies and to ensure that processes
    are in place to deal with emergencies.
    Photo Studio
        We completed the Photo Studio's transition to an entirely digital
    operation. With the new photo browser database, Senate staff can use
    their desktop computers to place orders, download high-resolution
    images, e-mail images, and track the progress of their orders online.
    Staff members from more than 110 Senate offices use the new system,
    which can make digital images available within hours, when necessary.
    This system has improved our service to our customers and increased
    their satisfaction.
    Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail
        During the past five years in Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail,
    our capital investments and process improvements have enabled us to
    increase production by over 54 percent with 12 percent fewer staff.
    During fiscal year 2004, we provided guidance to Members' staffs on
    addressing outgoing mail in a format that took full advantage of
    postage discounts. As a result, offices saved over $2.2 million in
    postage expenses.
        We also implemented a Web-based system that archives and manages
    documents for Senate offices. The system enables Senate staff members
    to search, view, and print documents from their desktops. In its first
    eight months of operation, we used the system to scan nearly one
    million documents for offices.
        Finally, we are moving forward on a new warehouse facility. SAA
    staff identified a site and they are working with the Architect's
    office to create an effective space for the Senate. The building's
    shell is complete, and we are planning the interior. The lease was
    approved and signed, and we expect the build-out to be completed by
    September of this year. The new facility will provide considerable
    security and operating benefits to the Senate.
    Recording Studio
        The Recording Studio records the activity on the Senate floor and
    Committee hearings, and it provides a production studio and rental
    equipment. Last year, it recorded all 1,034 hours and 31 minutes of
    Senate Floor proceedings, and 593 Committee hearings.
        Committee Hearing Room Upgrade.--In 2003, we started a project to
    upgrade and install multimedia equipment in Committee hearing rooms.
    The project included digital signal processing, audio systems, and
    broadcast-quality robotic camera systems.
        To date, we have implemented audio upgrades in three hearing rooms,
    SR-332, SR-301, and SD-106. Three more are scheduled for this calendar
    year. The enhancements include improved speech intelligibility and
    software-based systems that we can configure based on individual
    Committee needs. The system's backup will take over within minutes if
    the main electronics fail, and because the system is networked, staff
    can automatically route audio from one hearing room to other hearing
    rooms to accommodate overflow crowds.
        The project also includes system diagnostic monitoring and
    redundancy that enable Recording Studio staff to detect and resolve
    problems. For example, if a Member is speaking at a relatively low
    volume, the system can automatically raise the volume of that
    microphone; if a Member forgets to turn on a microphone before
    speaking, the Committee clerk can turn it on remotely.
        The project's video upgrades add broadcast-quality television
    cameras on robotic systems to Committee Rooms, and cabinetry to conceal
    the cameras when they are not in use. The cameras can be remotely
    controlled from the Recording Studio. Once this project is completed,
    the Recording Studio will be able to broadcast more Committee hearings
    while simultaneously maintaining production capabilities in the
    television studios.
        Chamber Proceedings and News Programming Browsing System.--For
    years, the Senate has had the ability to search Chamber proceedings by
    text and listen to audio playback from desktop computers; in fact, we
    were a pioneer in this area, and accomplished it in the early years of
    computer browsers. As a major advance, we will replace our audio and
    text browsing systems with a state-of-the-art audio/text/video browsing
    system that will enable Senate staff to search and play back Chamber
    proceedings and news programming from any computer on the Senate LAN.
        This browsing system is the result of a modernization of our
    technical plan for the Senate Recording Studio that incorporates
    technology so new that it is operational in only a handful of
    facilities in the country. This new technology will enable the
    Recording Studio to record, edit, and play proceedings and programming
    without ever using tape machines. It will make the information
    available for simultaneous online searching and streaming.
    Education and Training
        The Office of Education and Training provides employee training and
    development opportunities for all Senate staff in Washington, DC and in
    the states. The Technical Training group provides technical training
    support for approved software packages through instructor-led classes,
    one-on-one coaching sessions, specialized vendor-provided training,
    computer-based training, and informal training and support services.
    The Professional Training group delivers courses on management and
    leadership development, human resources issues and staff benefits,
    legislative and staff information, and new staff and intern
    information. The Health Promotion group offers seminars, classes, and
    screening on health-related and wellness issues, and it coordinates one
    annual Health Fair for all Senate employees and four annual blood
    drives.
        This year, we will be undertaking an outside assessment of our
    training program to ensure we are meeting the needs of the Senate
    community.
        Training Classes.--The Education and Training group offered 581
    classes in 2004, with 5,252 Senate employees taking advantage of these
    classes and the registration desk handling 20,467 requests for training
    and documentation.
        Of the above total, the technical training group offered 265
    classes to 1,093 staff members, and provided coaching on various
    software packages and other computer-related subjects to 702 staff
    members. The professional development area offered 316 classes to 4,159
    students, and delivered 40 special training and team building sessions
    to Members and Committees. The professional development group addresses
    team performance, communication, and conflict resolution, and we
    encourage managers and supervisors to request customized training for
    their offices. During the last quarter of the year, staff from the
    professional development group offered training via video
    teleconferencing to two state offices; we plan to continue this
    practice. In the Health promotion area, 1,310 staff members
    participated in the Annual Health Fair held in September, and 708
    participated in Health Promotion activities throughout the year,
    including cancer screening, bone density screening, and seminars on
    health-related topics.
        Together, the Office of Education and Training and the Office of
    Security and Emergency Preparedness provide security training for
    Senate staff. They delivered 53 sessions of Escape Hood and other
    security related training to 1,683 Senate staff in 2004.
        State Training.--Most of the classes we offer are practical only
    for Washington, DC-based staff, but we are expanding our offerings to
    state office staff through the State Training Fair, which began in
    March 2000. In 2004, we offered two sessions of this program to state
    staff, and conducted our annual State Directors Forum for the second
    year. The ``Virtual Classroom,'' an internet-based training library of
    over 300 courses, also enables state office staff to take advantage of
    the Senate's training resources; 396 staff members from state offices
    and Washington, DC have taken advantage of this training option.
                                   conclusion
        The SAA staff provides consistent service, and their dedication is
    evident in the number of years people stay with the organization. Last
    year, we had 5 people celebrate 30 years with the SAA, 10 people
    celebrate 25 years, and 23 people celebrate 20 years. These are
    talented people who have devoted their skills to the Senate.
        The Office of the Sergeant at Arms is like dozens of small
    businesses, each with its own primary mission, each with its own
    measures of success, and each with its own culture. It has a fleet of
    vehicles that serves Senate leadership, delivers goods, and provides
    emergency transportation. Our photo studio records historic events,
    takes official Senate portraits, provides the whole range of Capitol
    photography services, and delivered thousands of pictures last year
    alone. The SAA's printing shop provides layout and design, graphics
    development, and production of everything from newsletters to floor
    charts; last year, it printed 13,067,071 sheets of color printing (a
    300 percent increase over the 2003 volume), and it produced 8,521 floor
    charts. The Office of the Sergeant at Arms also operates a page
    dormitory, a hair salon, and parking lots. It provides many other
    services to support the Senate community, including framing, flag
    packaging and mailing, and intranet services. Each of these businesses
    requires personnel with different skills and different abilities. One
    thing that they all have in common, though, is their commitment to
    making the Senate work smoothly.
        Over the past year, the staff of the SAA has kept the Senate safe,
    secure, and operating efficiently. This Committee and the Committee on
    Rules and Administration have provided active, ongoing support to help
    us achieve our goals. We thank you for your support and for the
    opportunity to present this testimony and answer questions.
               attachment i.--financial plan for fiscal year 2006
              office of the sergeant at arms--united states senate

                                                    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal      Fiscal                   Percent
                                                                      Year 2005   Year 2006     Amount     Increase/
                                                                       Budget      Request                 Decrease
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries...................................................     $50,635     $57,743      $7,108         14.0
        Expenses...................................................     $55,725     $67,423     $11,698         21.0
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance...................    $106,360    $125,166     $18,806         17.7
                                                                    ================================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments...............................     $53,714     $56,452      $2,738          5.1
    Capital Investment.............................................     $13,453     $34,399     $20,946        155.7
    Nondiscretionary Items.........................................      $4,290      $3,951       ($339)        -7.9
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL....................................................    $177,817    $219,968     $42,151         23.7
                                                                    ================================================
    Staffing.......................................................         875         893          18          2.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To ensure that we provide the highest levels and quality of
    security, support services and equipment, we submit a fiscal year 2006
    budget request of $219,968,000, an increase of $42,151,000 or 23.7
    percent compared to fiscal year 2005. The salary budget request is
    $57,743,000, an increase of $7,108,000 or 14.0 percent, and the expense
    budget request is $162,225,000, an increase of $35,043,000 or 27.6
    percent. The staffing request is 893, an increase of 18 FTEs.
        We present our budget in four categories: General Operations and
    Maintenance (Salaries and Expenses), Mandated Allowances and
    Allotments, Capital Investment, and Nondiscretionary Items.
        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $57,743,000, an increase of $7,108,000 or 14.0 percent compared to
    fiscal year 2005. The salary budget increase is due to the addition of
    18 FTEs, a 3.9 percent COLA, and merit funding. The additional staff
    will augment our security team, improve operations, expand services,
    and meet new requirements for the Senate community.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request for
    existing and new services is $67,423,000, an increase of $11,698,000 or
    21.0 percent compared to fiscal year 2005. Major factors contributing
    to the expense budget increase are emergency preparedness in security
    operations and planning, $4,572,000; price adjustments and annual
    escalations in the IT support contract, $3,281,000; increased cost of
    expanded intrusion detection monitoring services and software,
    $1,075,000; contract renewal expenses of Senate Information Services
    (SIS) contracts, $303,000; and upgrade of data center equipment in
    Postal Square, $177,000.
        The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
    $56,452,000, an increase of $2,738,000 or 5.1 percent compared to
    fiscal year 2005. This variance is primarily due to an increase in
    state office security enhancements of $3,600,000, offset by decreases
    in telecommunications and state office lease costs.
        The capital investment budget request is $34,399,000, an increase
    of $20,946,000 or 155.7 percent compared to fiscal year 2005. The
    fiscal year 2006 budget request includes funds for equipment purchases
    and implementation of the replacement of the telephone system,
    $20,950,000; the multimedia equipment for the CVC, $3,700,000;
    replacement of printing production equipment, $2,712,000; CVC Senate
    Expansion Space furniture and equipment, $2,500,000; data network
    engineering, $1,346,000; CMS redesign, $1,000,000; and the Network
    Upgrade project, $971,000.
        The nondiscretionary items budget request is $3,951,000, a decrease
    of $339,000 or 7.9 percent compared to fiscal year 2005. The request
    funds three projects that support the Secretary of the Senate: contract
    maintenance for the Financial Management Information System (FMIS),
    $2,996,000; maintenance and necessary enhancements to the Legislative
    Information System (LIS), $865,000; and maintenance and enhancements to
    the Senate Payroll System, $90,000.
         attachment ii.--fiscal year 2006 budget request by department
        The following is a summary of the SAA fiscal year 2006 budget
    request on an organizational basis.

                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal      Fiscal                  Percent
                                                                       Year 2005   Year 2006    Amount     Increase/
                                                                        Budget      Request                Decrease
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Capitol Division................................................     $18,636     $31,898     $13,262        71.2
    Operations......................................................     $56,269     $56,507        $238         0.4
    Technology Development..........................................     $37,137     $41,370      $4,233        11.4
    IT Support Services.............................................     $55,343     $77,507     $22,164        40.0
    Staff Offices...................................................     $10,432     $12,686      $2,254        21.6
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.....................................................    $177,817    $219,968     $42,151        23.7
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                                    CAPITOL DIVISION
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal      Fiscal                  Percent
                                                                       Year 2005   Year 2006    Amount     Increase/
                                                                        Budget      Request                Decrease
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries....................................................     $12,816     $14,797      $1,981        15.5
        Expenses....................................................      $5,820      $9,801      $3,981        68.4
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance....................     $18,636     $24,598      $5,962        32.0
                                                                     ===============================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments................................          $0      $3,600      $3,600       100.0
    Capital Investment..............................................          $0      $3,700      $3,700       100.0
    Nondiscretionary Items..........................................          $0          $0          $0  ..........
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.....................................................     $18,636     $31,898     $13,262        71.2
                                                                     ===============================================
    Staffing........................................................         271         273           2         0.7
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Capitol Division consists of the Executive Office, the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness, the
      U.S. Capitol Police Operations Liaison, Post Office, Recording Studio and Media Galleries.

        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $14,797,000, an increase of $1,981,000 or 15.5 percent. The salary
    budget increase is due to the addition of two FTEs, COLA and merit
    increases and other adjustments. The Office of Security and Emergency
    Preparedness requires an additional emergency preparedness planner, and
    the Recording Studio will add a broadcast production assistant.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
    $9,801,000, an increase of $3,981,000 or 68.4 percent, and will
    primarily will fund security consultants and services required by the
    Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness and the United States
    Capitol Police Liaison.
        The mandated allowances and allotments budget request for state
    office security initiatives is $3,600,000.
        The capital investment budget request is $3,700,000, for the
    Recording Studio purchase of multimedia equipment for the CVC.

                                                       OPERATIONS
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal      Fiscal                   Percent
                                                                      Year 2005   Year 2006     Amount     Increase/
                                                                       Budget      Request                 Decrease
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries...................................................     $14,901     $16,897      $1,996         13.4
        Expenses...................................................      $5,717      $6,026        $309          5.4
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance...................     $20,618     $22,923      $2,305         11.2
                                                                    ================================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments...............................     $28,251     $28,002       ($249)        -0.9
    Capital Investment.............................................      $7,400      $5,582     ($1,818)       -24.6
    Nondiscretionary Items.........................................          $0          $0          $0   ..........
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL....................................................     $56,269     $56,507        $238          0.4
                                                                    ================================================
    Staffing.......................................................         294         302           8          2.7
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Operations Division consists of the Central Operations Group (Director/Management, Parking & ID Office,
      Printing, Graphics and Direct Mail, Photo Studio, and Hair Care Services), Facilities, and the Office Support
      Services Group (Director, Customer Support, State Office Liaison, IT Request Processing and Administrative
      Services).

        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $16,897,000, an increase of $1,996,000 or 13.4 percent. The salary
    budget increase is due to the addition of 8 FTEs. These increases will
    fund three Parking & ID Office FTEs: administrative support and two
    additional parking attendants due to the increased demands to address
    security and enforcement. Printing, Graphics & Direct Mail will add
    four FTEs: two archival technicians to prepare documents for scanning,
    one production data specialist to scan documents, and an Operations
    Manager for our primary printing facility. The Photo Studio expects to
    add one photographer.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
    $6,026,000, an increase of $309,000 or 5.4 percent.
        The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
    $28,002,000, a decrease of $249,000 or 0.9 percent. This decrease is
    due to projected decreases in commercial and federal office rents.
        The capital investment budget request is $5,582,000, a decrease of
    $1,818,000 or 24.6 percent. Funding is provided to replace printing and
    production equipment in $2,712,000 and furnish and equip the Senate
    Expansion Space, $2,500,000, as well as several smaller initiatives.

                                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal      Fiscal                   Percent
                                                                      Year 2005   Year 2006     Amount     Increase/
                                                                       Budget      Request                 Decrease
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries...................................................     $10,470     $12,004      $1,534         14.7
        Expenses...................................................     $19,649     $22,948      $3,299         16.8
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance...................     $30,119     $34,952      $4,833         16.0
                                                                    ================================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments...............................          $0          $0          $0   ..........
    Capital Investment.............................................      $2,728      $2,467       ($261)        -9.6
    Nondiscretionary Items.........................................      $4,290      $3,951       ($339)        -7.9
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL....................................................     $37,137     $41,370      $4,233         11.4
                                                                    ================================================
    Staffing.......................................................         127         134           7          5.5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Technology Development Services includes the Technology Development Director, Network Engineering and
      Management, Enterprise IT Operations, Systems Development Services, Information Systems Security and Internet/
      Intranet Services.

        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $12,004,000, an increase of $1,534,000 or 14.7 percent. The salary
    budget increase is due to the addition of seven FTEs, an expected COLA,
    and merit funding for fiscal year 2006. Technology Development Services
    requires seven FTEs to replace more costly contract personnel and to
    eliminate a growing backlog of development projects.
        The general operations and maintenance expense budget request is
    $22,948,000, an increase of $3,299,000 or 16.8 percent. Major factors
    contributing to this increase are increased costs of expanded intrusion
    detection services and software, $1,075,000; increased costs of
    applications supporting the Office of Security and Emergency
    Preparedness, $715,000; and enhancements to the Asset Management
    System, $700,000.
        The capital investment budget request is $2,467,000, a decrease of
    $261,000 or 9.6 percent. Major on-going projects include the Data
    Network Engineering, $1,346,000, and Network Upgrade Project, $971,000.
        The nondiscretionary items budget request is $3,951,000, a decrease
    of $339,000 or 7.9 percent. The request consists of three projects that
    support the Secretary of the Senate: contract maintenance for the
    Financial Management Information System (FMIS), maintenance and
    necessary enhancements to the Legislative Information System (LIS), and
    maintenance and enhancements to the Senate Payroll System.

                                                   IT SUPPORT SERVICES
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal      Fiscal                   Percent
                                                                      Year 2005   Year 2006     Amount     Increase/
                                                                       Budget      Request                 Decrease
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries...................................................      $5,198      $5,819        $621         11.9
        Expenses...................................................     $21,607     $24,663      $3,056         14.1
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance...................     $26,805     $30,482      $3,677         13.7
                                                                    ================================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments...............................     $25,463     $24,850       ($613)        -2.4
    Capital Investment.............................................      $3,075     $22,175     $19,100        621.1
    Nondiscretionary Items.........................................  ..........  ..........  ...........  ..........
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL....................................................     $55,343     $77,507     $22,164         40.0
                                                                    ================================================
    Staffing.......................................................          89          89  ...........  ..........
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The IT Support Services Department consists of the Director, Office Equipment Services, Telecom Services and
      Desktop/LAN Support branches.

        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $5,819,000, an increase of $621,000 or 11.9 percent. The salary budget
    increase is due to an expected 3.9 percent COLA and merit funding for
    fiscal year 2006.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
    $24,663,000, an increase of $3,056,000 or 14.1 percent. The most
    significant factors contributing to this increase are expanded services
    and annual escalations in the IT Support Contract.
        The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
    $24,850,000, a decrease of $613,000 or 2.4 percent. Major factors
    contributing to this budget request are voice and data communications
    for Washington D.C. and state offices, $17,937,000; procurement and
    maintenance of Members' constituent mail systems, $4,255,000;
    procurement and maintenance of office equipment for Washington D.C. and
    state offices, $2,857,000; and Appropriations Analysis and Reporting
    System, $100,000.
        The capital investment budget request is $22,175,000, an increase
    of $19,064,000 or 315.0 percent consisting primarily of equipment
    purchases for the replacement of the Capitol Hill telephone system,
    $20,950,000. This major project will fund procurement, implementation
    and documentation, and support the replacement or upgrade of systems as
    identified in the Telecom Modernization study conducted in fiscal year
    2004 and fiscal year 2005.

                                                      STAFF OFFICES
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal Year 2006 vs. Fiscal Year 2005
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal      Fiscal                  Percent
                                                                       Year 2005   Year 2006    Amount     Increase/
                                                                        Budget      Request                Decrease
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries....................................................      $7,250      $8,226        $976        13.5
        Expenses....................................................      $2,932      $3,985      $1,053        35.9
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance....................     $10,182     $12,211      $2,029        19.9
                                                                     ===============================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    Capital Investment..............................................        $250        $475        $225        90.0
    Nondiscretionary Items..........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........       100.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.....................................................     $10,432     $12,686      $2,254        21.6
                                                                     ===============================================
    Staffing........................................................          94          95           1         1.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Staff Offices Division consists of Education and Training, Financial Management, Human Resources, Employee
      Assistance Program, Process Management & Innovation, and Special Projects.

        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $8,226,000, an increase of $976,000 or 13.5 percent. The salary budget
    increase is due to the addition of one FTE, an expected 3.9 percent
    COLA, and merit funding for fiscal year 2006. Financial Management in
    Staff Offices will add one FTE to operate and maintain the document
    management and archive system for the department.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
    $3,985,000, an increase of $1,053,000 or 35.9 percent. This increase in
    funding results from Financial Management's funding for consultant
    expenses in support of developing, documenting and maintaining adequate
    procedures and controls, and PMI's professional services and
    consultants in order to support information technology prototypes and
    innovation research and development.
        The capital investment budget request is $475,000, an increase of
    $225,000 or 90.0 percent. This increase is due to two projects: the Web
    Infrastructure Expansion and Video Conferencing Enhancements.
     united states senate information technology strategic plan 2005-2007:
    an it vision for security, customer service and teamwork at the united
                                 states senate
    united states senate sergeant at arms, office of the chief information
                                    officer
        A state-of-the-art United States Senate information technology
    organization that directly supports efficient, effective, secure
    legislative action, communication, and constituent service through its
    infrastructure, processes, and talented workforce
                                  introduction
        Developing a strategic information technology plan for a
    decentralized organization such as the United States Senate poses
    interesting challenges. The Senate consists of one hundred Senators
    (Members), twenty-four committees, and fourteen officers, leadership
    and support organizations, each with unique needs. Yet, the Senate must
    function as a legislative body under any circumstances. Political
    aspects also provide a unique environment for developing systems,
    solutions, and infrastructure.
        Unique Challenges and Opportunities.--Membership changes and the
    decentralized nature of the Senate result in a great variety of
    requirements. Within the context of satisfying the Members' individual
    business needs and ensuring efficient, effective, and enduring
    operation of the institutional Senate, the challenges include:
      --Developing coherent requirements and managing customer
            expectations;
      --Providing an information infrastructure for continuity of
            operations (COOP) and continuity of government (COG);
      --Protecting the information infrastructure from internal and
            external threats;
      --Providing an agile, customer-focused, information technology
            organization that is aligned with Senate business requirements;
      --Realizing economies of scale associated with ``enterprise''
            solutions while respecting the unique posture of each office
            and being responsible stewards of American taxpayers' dollars;
      --Keeping the Senate ``on top'' of the rapidly-evolving ``technology
            curve'';
      --Dealing with issues of information and data privacy and
            confidentiality; and
      --Effective strategic planning--gaining consensus from all the
            stakeholders.
        Though the institution is decentralized there are common business
    requirements that drive high-level functional requirements.
        A Common Business Model.--Senate offices share basic business
    goals: (1) Efficient, effective conduct of legislative business, (2)
    Representing constituents' interests, and (3) Being accessible and
    responsive to constituents. The following functional requirements
    spring from the business goals:
      --A need to be informed--ability to track (in near-real-time) current
            events that affect constituents, the United States, and the
            world;
      --A secure environment--ability to perform their duties in any
            circumstances;
      --Ability to communicate among themselves;
      --Ability to communicate externally with the public and other
            government entities;
      --Ability to operate and communicate among offices and staffs
            (Washington D.C. and state offices) efficiently and
            effectively; and
      --Ability to collect, organize, analyze, and present information.
        This United States Senate Information Technology Strategic Plan
    outlines strategic goals to satisfy these functional requirements and
    address challenges presented by the environment. The Office of the
    Assistant Sergeant at Arms and Chief Information Officer (CIO) is
    committed to providing world-class services and solutions and we are
    committed to pursuing innovative solutions and providing our Senate
    customers with technology choices. We are committed to working with
    other groups to erase barriers between organizations and provide
    seamless support. Finally, we are committed to working as team members
    within the larger Senate community whose stakeholders include every
    Member and Officer of the Senate as represented by their administrative
    managers, chief clerks and system administrators, with guidance from
    the Rules Committee on policies and priorities, and the Appropriations
    Committee on funding.
                                     vision
        A state-of-the-art United States Senate information technology
    organization that directly supports efficient, effective, secure
    legislative action, communication, and constituent service through its
    infrastructure, processes, and talented workforce.
                                    mission
        Leverage technology so the United States Senate can function
    efficiently and effectively under any circumstances to serve the
    American people. Develop a technology team consisting of SAA, Member/
    Committee office staffs, and other Senate Officers' staffs to provide
    technology options, solutions, and world-class customer service
    enabling the United States Senate to accomplish its mission.
                                  core values
        Personal attributes expected of every CIO employee:
        Integrity.--``Service Before Self.'' Each of us serves something
    far greater than ourselves. To our nation, we represent the Senate. We
    will faithfully execute the duties and responsibilities entrusted to us
    and we will maintain the highest ethical and professional standards.
        Customer Relationship Focus.--``Customer Care, Top-to-Bottom.''
    Each of us, regardless of our job title or function in the CIO
    organization, is a customer care specialist first. To best serve our
    customers, when they call for help, we will: Own the problem; work the
    problem; and follow up to ensure their complete satisfaction.
        Organizational Excellence.--``Relentless Pursuit.'' In everything
    we do, we will relentlessly pursue excellence: Every task--respecting
    our customers; building our team--respecting one another; delivering
    solutions; and representing the Senate.
                               guiding principles
        People First.--We will take care of our people. We will strive to
    recruit, retain, and develop top talent. Mutual respect and teamwork
    will be the norm in a friendly workplace where everyone is valued as an
    individual.
        One Team.--We will develop solutions, introduce technologies, and
    attack problems leveraging the best talent from across our
    organization. We will work in concert with the larger Senate
    information technology community including every Member and Officer of
    the Senate as represented by their administrative managers, chief
    clerks and system administrators, with guidance from the Rules
    Committee and the Appropriations Committee.
        Accountable.--We will measure our performance and solicit feedback
    from our customers. We will analyze results, compile lessons learned,
    and incorporate industry and government best-practices to enhance
    performance. We will communicate progress to our customers, operate as
    transparently as possible, and routinely measure our effectiveness.
        Relationships with Customers.--We will know our customers through
    meaningful relationships. We will strive to know and act on their needs
    even before they call on us. We will develop these relationships by
    continual, varied communication and by building bridges to each of
    them.
        Right Tools for the Job.--We will never seek to apply technology
    for technology's sake. Systems we build, solutions we deliver, and
    vendors we select will be directly tied to the business needs of the
    Members, Committees, and Officers of the United States Senate.
        ``Always-On'' Senate.--We will provide technologies, solutions, and
    infrastructures that will enable continuous Senate operations wherever
    and whenever needed.
        Innovate.--We will introduce and apply new concepts and creative
    approaches to meet the challenges of the present and anticipate the
    needs of the future. We will support innovation, agility, and a culture
    of rapid prototyping to identify and deliver viable solutions quickly.
    Above all, we will always strive for improvement.
                              goals and objectives
    Secure
        Strategic Goal 1: A secure Senate information infrastructure.--
    Provide a secure information infrastructure that protects Members,
    Committees, and Officers' data, respects their privacy, enables
    continuous Senate operations, and supports continuity of operations
    (COOP) and continuity of government (COG). Identify and understand
    threats, assess vulnerabilities, identify failure points and
    bottlenecks and determine potential impacts and remedy them before they
    adversely impact operations. Work as a team with system administrators,
    information technology staffs, security staffs, and training
    organizations to increase vigilance and awareness and be proactive in
    thwarting threats to the Senate information infrastructure.
                Supporting Objectives:
        Objective 1.1: Vigilance, awareness, education--know our systems'
    vulnerabilities and potential threats and work to educate and inform
    Senate system administration and information technology staffs on how
    to avoid them.
        Objective 1.2: Emergency preparedness--be prepared to support any
    and all Senate continuity of operations plans (COOP) and continuity of
    government (COG) plans. Deploy an information infrastructure that is
    flexible and agile enough to respond to adverse events.
        Objective 1.3: Detect threats, defend (defense-in-depth), preempt
    when possible.
    Customer Service Focused
        Strategic Goal 2: ``Customer Service Culture'' top-to-bottom.--
    Everyone on the CIO team is focused on providing excellent service and
    achieving customer satisfaction in everything we do: introducing new
    technologies, providing support, developing systems, streamlining
    processes, and day-to-day interactions.
                Supporting Objectives:
        Objective 2.1: Develop and nurture an agile CIO team with the
    skills, capabilities, and drive to provide excellent customer service.
        Objective 2.2: Develop and execute a customer care process
    including communications processes, goals, an annual customer
    satisfaction survey, CIO staff training, and a customer satisfaction
    action plan.
        Objective 2.3: Implement systems and solutions focused on
    supporting Senate Members', Committees', and Officers' ability to serve
    their constituents.
    Effective
        Strategic Goal 3: Information technology solutions driven by
    business requirement.--In addition to always striving to be more
    efficient (streamlining processes, more output per unit time) and
    continuously searching for ways to be more effective (discovering new
    ways to satisfy requirements, leveraging technology to enable Members,
    Committees, and Officers to expand or enhance their missions and
    capability), the CIO organization will establish information technology
    solutions to enable legislative processes: collaboration,
    communications, and information access.
                Supporting Objectives:
        Objective 3.1: Move business to the web.
        Objective 3.2: A prototyping culture throughout the CIO
    organization.
        Objective 3.3: Modern business processes driven by Senate business
    requirements.
    Accessible, Flexible & Reliable
        Strategic Goal 4: Access to mission-critical information anywhere,
    anytime, under any circumstances.--Eliminate bottlenecks and potential
    failure points. Monitor, track, insure system performance and quality
    of service.
                Supporting Objectives:
        Objective 4.1: Reliable state-of-the-art, high-bandwidth wired
    infrastructure supporting Washington D.C. campus, alternate and
    relocation sites, and state offices.
        Objective 4.2: Develop, implement, and operate a comprehensive
    Senate wireless infrastructure.
        Objective 4.3: Telecommunications modernization--a new
    telecommunications infrastructure built on convergence technologies.
        Objective 4.4: All critical data and processing facilities
    replicated and backed up at alternate computing facilities.
        Objective 4.5: Secure remote access capabilities to allow Members,
    Committees, and Officers access to their information resources from any
    location through a variety of secure and reliable devices.
    Modern
        Strategic Goal 5: A state-of-the-art information infrastructure
    built on modern, proven technologies.--Keep the Senate on top of the
    ``technology curve'' by seeking, testing, and employing leading-edge
    technologies and solutions to help the Senate accomplish its mission.
    On-going investigation and evaluation of new and emerging technologies
    and innovation to provide Members, Committees, and Officers solution
    choices and flexibility within a framework based on Senate business
    requirements and industry best practices.
                Supporting Objectives:
        Objective 5.1: Tie capabilities and solutions to Senate business
    requirements. Through effective two-way communication with Member,
    Committee, and Officer Staffs, identify Senate business needs
    (requirements) that can be met better with technology.
        Objective 5.2: Capabilities, solutions, choices within standards
    coordinated with the Rules and Appropriations Committees.
        Objective 5.3: Architecture, technology roadmap with focus on
    emerging technologies.
        Objective 5.4: An effective new technology infusion process that
    gets modern solutions in the hands of our customers quickly.
                                cio organization
        The CIO is an Assistant Sergeant at Arms (ASAA) charged with
    providing technology vision and leadership for the United States
    Senate. The CIO organization, with approximately 250 full-time Senate
    employees and supplemented by about the same number of contractors
    builds, operates, and supports the Senate's information infrastructure.
    The CIO is also responsible for information security, technology
    infusion, and information technology and office equipment help desk
    functions.

        CIO Organizational Structure.--The CIO organization consists of
    three departments--Process Management & Innovation, Technology
    Development Services, and Information Technology Support Services.
    Autonomous from the CIO organization, but critical to its success, are
    the Customer Support Analyst and Technical Training organizations. The
    customer support analysts (CSA) serve as the interface between the
    Sergeant at Arms (SAA) and the Senate (customer) community. CSAs
    translate office requirements to the CIO organization for
    implementation and they ``market'' the CIO organizations' products and
    solutions to the offices. Technical trainers support every CIO
    initiative with focused customer training. They also provide technical
    training and resources to enhance the skills and competencies of the
    CIO organization.
        CIO Functional Structure.--The CIO organization functions as three
    centers of excellence--Innovation, Integration, and Development and
    Support. Systems and solutions pass through a virtual pipeline of these
    functions taking them from concept/idea/proposal to fielded, fully-
    supported, operational system. A key component is constant customer
    input and feedback at every stage of the pipeline.

        This functional organization approximates the classic system
    development life cycle (SDLC) approach for fielding solutions.
    Technology exploration (rapid prototyping, rapid application
    development, product testing) and new technology infusion occur in the
    Innovation and Integration centers and system development, operation,
    and maintenance (full-scale development) occur in the Development/
    Support Centers.
        Agility and Teamwork.--The CIO organization has immense and varied
    talents. To foster innovation and respond to our customers faster we
    will apply those talents and capabilities whenever, and wherever,
    needed. Simply put--the CIO organization will be flexible and agile and
    we will deploy cross-functional teams to address customer requirements.
    Our planning, technology infusion and testing processes, development
    approaches, and responses to unforeseen events will feature teams of
    individuals from some or all our departments working in concert with
    our customers. We will be visible and accessible to our customers. This
    plan features strategic goals and objectives to these ends.
                                 implementation
        Aligned With Sergeant at Arms' Priorities.--This two-year, rolling
    United States Senate Information Technology Strategic Plan focuses on
    systems and solutions to directly support the SAA's priorities--
    leveraging modern technology to: Ensure the Senate is as secure as
    possible and prepared for an emergency; and provide outstanding
    customer service and support.

        Why a Two-Year Rolling Plan.--A prime objective is to field and
    operate a modern, state-of-the-art, information infrastructure. To keep
    pace with technology change and innovation, the plan will be reviewed
    and rewritten annually. Subordinate to this plan are the tactical plans
    and activities that accomplish the goals and objectives set forth here.
        Developing the Plan is a Team Effort.--No strategy for the United
    States Senate can be developed in a vacuum. The entire Senate
    technology team including the Rules Committee, Assistant Sergeants at
    Arms, Appropriations Committee, Secretary of the Senate, and office
    information technology staffs must be actively involved. The initial
    draft of the United States Senate Information Technology Strategic Plan
    will be prepared by the CIO organization in concert with the Rules
    Committee. The completed working draft will then be coordinated and
    validated with the other Assistant Sergeants at Arms and then with the
    office information technology staffs (Chiefs of Staff, Administrative
    Managers, System Administrators) and the Majority Leader's Information
    Technology Working Group. In keeping with a spirit of innovation, this
    activity will be accomplished on-line in a strategic planning
    collaboration area. The final plan will be approved by the Sergeant at
    Arms and will serve as the basis for budget construction and testimony
    before the Appropriations Committee.
        Relationship to Other Plans.--The United States Senate Information
    Technology Strategic Plan reflects the priorities, guidance, and
    directives of the Sergeant at Arms, the Rules Committee, and other
    Senate leadership entities. The strategic goals and objectives herein
    must directly reflect the priorities and business requirements of the
    United States Senate. Similarly, subordinate plans must reflect these
    strategic priorities. All tactical plans, budget requests, enterprise
    architectures, and technology roadmaps must be directly attributable to
    the strategies and objectives laid out here.
                             measuring performance
        The only way to know if we are satisfying our customers is to ask
    them. Accordingly, the CIO organization has a multi-level approach to
    evaluation. We constantly measure performance, assess effectiveness,
    and check to ensure our efforts are aligned with business needs and
    requirements of our customers. We also validate the Senate's technology
    base against industry and government best practices and standards. The
    most frequent and important opportunities to gauge perceptions occur in
    the countless daily service calls, requirements meetings, and casual
    conversations. We view each of these as an opportunity for constructive
    feedback and will aggressively solicit such feedback.
        We Will Fight for Feedback.--Service calls are followed by a
    customer satisfaction survey. These results are tracked and service
    level agreement (SLA) trends evaluated. We discuss results in weekly
    business process and technology review meetings attended by CIO staff,
    CIO support contractors, and customers. Performance against SLAs is one
    method to determine effectiveness of CIO contractors and staff. We also
    solicit customer feedback through an ongoing regular series of
    quarterly project review meetings and daily, weekly, and monthly system
    status reporting. Strategic goals, set forth in this plan, include
    leveraging technologies such as web-based performance reporting to make
    our operations transparent to our customers and provide them
    opportunities for feedback.
        We Will Continuously Self-Evaluate.-- . . . against industry and
    government benchmarks and best practices. We will continue to document
    the Senate's technology position, relative to the state-of-the-art, in
    the United States Senate Technology Level Matrix and validate it with
    leading industry consultants.
        The Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey.--The CIO organization was
    created in June 2003. One of the first actions of the CIO was to
    develop and administer a customer satisfaction survey to baseline the
    organization's performance for future evaluation. The first CIO Annual
    Customer Satisfaction Survey was administered by the CSA organization
    during the fall of 2003 and culminated in the development of a customer
    satisfaction action plan for 2004. The action plan featured the
    following initiatives:
      --Developing and projecting a culture of excellence;
      --One team
        --Everybody in the CIO organization puts customer service first
        --Everybody in the CIO organization accountable for customer
                service
        --Cooperation and collaboration with the larger Senate information
                technology community (Rules Committee, Appropriations
                Committee, Member and Committee office staffs, Secretary of
                the Senate)
        --Outreach--establishing enduring relationships (``building
                bridges'');
      --Renewed focus on emerging technologies and innovation; and
      --Developing an agile CIO organization.
        The customer service action plan was executed and the 2004 survey
    completed in October 2004 with the results indicated in the chart
    below:
        Evaluation and Accountability.--Everyone in the organization,
    starting with the CIO, is first and foremost a customer service
    provider. The organization exists solely to deliver excellent products
    and services to the United States Senate to allow the Members to serve
    their customers--American citizens. Accordingly, every member of the
    CIO organization has a common customer service metric written into
    their performance objectives. The fact that there is a common
    organizational metric drives everyone toward the same goal and fosters
    teamwork. The common metric is decided annually by the CIO management
    team based on the results of the previous Annual Customer Satisfaction
    Survey and the desired improvements for the upcoming year.
        Working the Plan.--All of the evaluation tools described here will
    provide input and direction during the annual re-write of this plan.
    Through continuous program assessment and evaluation we will identify
    gaps formed by developing issues and changing circumstances. We will
    refine performance goals based on measures of effectiveness.

                                 communication
        Communication is the single most important aspect of our success.
    Effective communication forms the bedrock of all the central themes
    presented here--security, customer service, and teamwork. This
    strategic plan is the result of months of intense two-way communication
    with Senate stakeholders, industry leaders, and technology and business
    leaders in other federal government organizations.
        Through credible and effective communication across the Senate
    community, we will seek to understand and address important issues and
    evolving requirements to satisfy their information technology needs.
    With testimony, reports, briefings, newsletters, working groups,
    notices, and information sessions we will inform the Senate community
    of our progress in fulfilling their requirements.

        Senator Allard. My thought is we will go ahead and I will
    ask you some questions pertinent to your testimony, and we will
    follow this after each panel. After the panel has made its
    presentation, we will open it up for questions from the
    subcommittee.

                           TELEPHONE SYSTEMS UPGRADE

        You wrapped up your discussion on the telephone system, and
    I want to start off with some questions on the telephone
    system, because that is where your budget request is most
    costly.
        Mr. Pickle. Sure.
        Senator Allard. I understand we have had it for 20 years.
    There have been a lot of technological changes since then. But
    in view of a tight budget year like we could be facing this
    year, do you think that this is a project that could be
    deferred for another 2 years and still provide the same level
    of service that we are receiving right now?
        Mr. Pickle. I think you would continue to get the same
    service. It would not be state of the art. The longer we wait,
    the greater will be the cost to implement this new system. It
    is compounded by the fact that our contract with the carrier
    that we use expires in 2006.
        Now currently we have some leverage, because we have been
    involved in a very lengthy contract. We would like to leverage
    our position when we negotiate a new contract for services and
    equipment.
        I have talked to our CIO. We can perhaps do some of this
    incrementally, and we could put some of the costs off over the
    years. But we will suffer somewhat and we will fall behind
    technology.
        Senator Allard. Can this be phased in in a way that we
    gradually upgrade the system over time, so that we do not have
    the impact all in the 2006 budget?
        Mr. Pickle. Yes. I think the project will last more than 1
    year. And from that standpoint, the funding could be spread
    out. It just depends upon how we obligate the money and what
    the requirements are from the contractual arrangements we have
    with the vendors.

                          VOICE-OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL

        Senator Allard. I know that some businesses have looked at
    voice-over Internet protocol----
        Mr. Pickle. Yes.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. And are very pleased about the
    way it has operated in the business. Now these are small
    businesses.
        Mr. Pickle. That is true.
        Senator Allard. The report I am getting back, they are
    pleased with the system. But it is resisted by the telephone
    companies, and as a result of that, they have had directory
    problems with the telephone companies, and it put them in an
    adversarial relationship with the telephone company.
        Have you taken a look at this new technology? With what I
    see happening in small businesses, is that something that we
    should consider here, considering the huge cost savings, the
    potential that is there?
        Mr. Pickle. Yes.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Does it need some more proving
    before we wade into that? Maybe if we wait 1 or 2 years it will
    begin to prove itself a little more.
        Mr. Pickle. Sure. We are looking at it. And we realize it
    is new. And it is going to be part of the architecture for our
    new telecommunications system. I do not know, the degree or the
    extent that it plays in our ability to integrate into our
    communication systems. I know there are some obvious
    advantages.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Pickle. We think it is going to be less expensive for
    us. It gives the Senate offices and the staff here a
    flexibility that they currently do not have. And what I mean by
    that is it takes away the need to contact the SAA folks in many
    cases to transfer calls and to transfer services.
        It has a lot of advantages. I think you are right. I do not
    think anyone knows what the final outcome will be, but we want
    to use this, or have this as an alternative. Certainly,
    initially, we want to take some very measured steps, and baby
    steps, if you will.
        Senator Allard. Well, I am pleased that you are looking at
    it, because that is the new technology out there.
        Mr. Pickle. Oh, it is.
        Senator Allard. And I think it has some potential for us.
    So I am pleased to hear that you have looked at that.

                   STAFFING INCREASE FOR THE SERGEANT AT ARMS

        I want to talk a little bit about your staffing increase.
    You have requested 18 additional staff. Now your staffing has
    been increasing, I understand, rather steadily for the last 5
    years, 138 FTEs or 18 percent since around 9/11. Why do you
    need those increases?
        Mr. Pickle. The 18 positions, most of these positions are
    tied to security or technology. A couple of them are tied to
    replacing more costly contract employees that we have. Can we
    re-prioritize and revisit these? Absolutely, we can. Perhaps we
    can re-juggle some of what we are doing.
        But in regard to security and technology, those are pretty
    tough not to replace right now because our role, as you know,
    is going to expand considerably, not only with the alternate
    computing facility, which we have, but also the Capitol Visitor
    Center (CVC), when it comes on line. So those positions are in
    anticipation of supporting in great part, what is going to take
    place over the next year or so.

                  CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER EQUIPMENT FURNISHING

        Senator Allard. Okay. Now on the CVC equipment furnishing,
    your budget includes $6.2 million for equipping the Capitol
    Visitor Center, and then providing the furnishings. Now given
    the continued schedule slippage with this project, and a
    probable opening date of fiscal year 2007, I know that they
    wanted to have the construction part by September of next year,
    which hopefully we can make that. But from a practical
    standpoint, it does not look to me like we are going to be in
    the building and operating until 2007. Is this something that
    can be deferred if that slippage continues?
        Mr. Pickle. I think if the slippage continues into the
    latter part of fiscal year 2007, we have some flexibility with
    the $3.7 million or $3.6 million for the Senate Recording
    Studio. There also may be some flexibility, if it goes that
    far, in regard to the furnishings and the equipment for
    facilities and environmental folks.
        I believe the measurement tool they use here is we need 9
    month's leeway. We have to have obligated the funds and start
    down the road 9 months before we open. And that is probably
    the----
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Pickle. I know the date keeps slipping. So if we open
    in the summer of 2007, we would need the funds----
        Senator Allard. This year.
        Mr. Pickle. If we open in the summer or fall of 2007, we
    would need the funds in the very early part of the year.

       DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CURRENT TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATE
                               COMPUTING FACILITY

        Now the increase in the use of technology in the Senate has
    had a significant impact on your budget over the years. Do you
    expect this will level off or continue to trend upward in the
    future?
        Mr. Pickle. I think that technology is changing so quickly.
    And we can never----
        Senator Allard. It is.
        Mr. Pickle. It is difficult to stay current. We realize
    that. But we make the best investment we can, given the most
    proven technology out there.
        Our technology costs will continue to grow somewhat because
    of the alternate computing facility (ACF). As you know, that is
    a first-rate facility.
        There will be some increased expenditures in the future
    years there for a number of reasons. Also, the CVC will add
    some costs because you have the communications costs, with
    wiring and other installations that are required, and you have
    the support personnel who will be needed to support these two
    functions or these two sites. With the CVC adding about 38
    percent more square footage to the Senate space, the need to
    support that 38 percent more square footage is going to cause
    some additional increases on our part.

                            UPGRADING PRINTING PRESS

        Senator Allard. Okay. I want to go to your printing press.
    How old is your current press and what improvements will a new
    press bring with that?
        Mr. Pickle. The press that we are requesting to replace in
    this budget is 17 years old. It is an outdated press. It is one
    that only prints in two colors, and the Senate demands more
    than red and black or black and blue. So we will have a
    combination of four colors with the new one if we buy it.
        But more importantly, the current press, I understand it is
    a very labor-intensive process. And when you look at the number
    of copies that this particular press and office print, it is
    pretty phenomenal. In 2004, I believe the number was somewhere
    around 19 million color copies that this office printed. This
    was about a 166 percent increase from the prior year, and we
    anticipate a very large increase this year. The demand for
    color print is certainly going up. So it is a good investment.
        Senator Allard. A lot of technology has changed in 17
    years. I would think that you could find some printing systems
    out there where it would be less labor-intensive.
        Mr. Pickle. Absolutely. And I think this is one that we are
    looking at that would accomplish that.

                 UPGRADING MAIL PROCESSING FACILITY AND PACKING

        Senator Allard. On your mail processing facility, you are
    looking for a new processing facility, I understand.
        Mr. Pickle. Yes.
        Senator Allard. And this would enable you to process your
    packages as well as your regular mail. According to your
    testimony, you anticipate that will save us about $250,000
    annually, is that correct?
        Mr. Pickle. I think it will. Yes.
        Senator Allard. And how will those savings be achieved?
        Mr. Pickle. Let me take a step back, if I can, for a
    second.
        Senator Allard. Sure.
        Mr. Pickle. Mail processing at the Senate postal facility
    where we open, screen, and examine mail, is done by Senate
    employees. And we estimate that we can do it for $3 million
    less than our counterparts in the House. This is because we use
    Senate employees, and it is just a better way to do business.
        We currently use a contractor to process the packages, as
    does the House. We have found that the quality of their
    service, while good, many times is not the best. There have
    been some pretty serious failures. We believe that by using
    current Senate employees, about two or three of whom we can
    shift over to the package processing function, we will save
    that huge contract price that we pay out to this vendor.
        Now we do a lot of outsourcing, as you know. And we are all
    for outsourcing. But this is one outsourcing, because of its
    nature both in cost and in security, where we can do better.
        Senator Allard. I am aware that in our ports of entries and
    our major shipping points, lots of times you use gamma and X
    radiation to determine what is in the package. And usually we
    are talking about large shipments that come in. Do we have
    anything like that that we are using here that would move
    things along quicker and maybe reduce labor retention?
        Mr. Pickle. Yes.
        Senator Allard. We do not want to get too much into
    technology where we would tip off people what we are doing.
        Mr. Pickle. Absolutely, sir.
        Senator Allard. My question is: Are we up to standard on
    that?
        Mr. Pickle. We are up to standard. And I would say in
    regards to both packaging and mail that we are state of the art
    in the Senate.

                             WAREHOUSE CONSTRUCTION

        Senator Allard. Okay. Thank you. Just to follow-up here on
    the warehouse, we had extra money in there in fiscal year 2004,
    I understand, and then also in 2005, which is this year. How is
    that coming along and what is the status on that now?
        Mr. Pickle. It is coming along well. We should complete the
    construction of the warehouse by the fall of this year. And we
    hope to be in there shortly thereafter. It is a good investment
    for the Senate.
        As you know, it replaces about five different warehouses,
    which are dispersed throughout this area. And this is a first-
    rate, climate controlled warehouse, which is going to be a cost
    savings to us in the out-years.
        Senator Allard. Okay. All right. Let us go ahead and we
    will call this panel's discussion to a close and we will go
    into the next panel.
                              CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

    STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. PICKLE, CHAIRMAN
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            TERRANCE W. GAINER, CHIEF OF POLICE, UNITED STATES CAPITOL
                POLICE
            HON. W. WILSON LIVINGOOD, HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS
            ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                      OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALLARD

        Senator Allard. And on the next panel we are going to have
    the Capitol Police Board. And so we will have Mr. Pickle, Mr.
    Hantman, Mr. Livingood, and Mr. Gainer. Who is going to give us
    the testimony on this particular panel? Mr. Pickle again?
        Mr. Pickle. I have just a few remarks and then the Chief is
    taking it, sir.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Very good. Proceed, Mr. Pickle.

                         STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. PICKLE

        Mr. Pickle. Mr. Chairman, as you indicated, I am joined by
    the Capitol Police Board and Chief of Police, Terrance Gainer.
    The other Board members are Mr. Bill Livingood, the House
    Sergeant at Arms, to my left, and Mr. Alan Hantman, the
    Architect of the Capitol, to my right. And I know you know
    these gentlemen.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Pickle. We, the Board, are very pleased to be here with
    the Chief today and support him on his budget request. I think
    as you step back and look at what this department has
    accomplished, we all find it to be a very remarkable
    department. It is a department that, because of this
    subcommittee in particular, and I mean this subcommittee, it
    has grown and become one of the most professional and one of
    the best departments in this country.
        When you look where this department was 5 years ago, or
    even 4 years ago, and you look where it is today in terms of
    recruitment, retention, training, and the ability to do a very,
    very difficult job in a very complex period of time, they have
    done a great job.
        What makes their job so difficult here on the Hill is this
    department is unlike any other police department in the
    country. We demand that they provide security and protect the
    30,000 people who work here each day on the Hill. We demand
    that they protect the hundreds of thousands of visitors and
    tourists who come here daily; and at the same time, we demand
    that they keep this campus open so that the people's House can
    be enjoyed by all. Nowhere is there such a contradiction in
    this country, and they do such a great job.
        Now many people look at this department and say, ``My gosh,
    it is one of the largest departments in the country.'' Well,
    there is a reason for it. This is also the number one or number
    two target in this country for terrorists. And it is also one
    of the most visited spots in this country.
        We demand so much of them and they do so much for us. As
    you know, the anthrax and ricin attacks and more recently, when
    we were orange alert for the Nation last August, through the
    election, we worked this department 7 days a week, 24 hours a
    day. Many officers had no days off. It cost an awful lot of
    money. And we wish we could find a way to bridge the gap
    between too much and too little security here.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        But we have a great deal of confidence in this Chief. We
    support his budget request, and we hope that we can answer some
    of your questions today that will give you and the subcommittee
    confidence that we are spending your dollars wisely. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. Well, very good.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of William H. Pickle

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are honored
    to appear before you to discuss the fiscal year 2006 budget
    request for the United States Capitol Police. With me today are
    the other members of the U.S. Capitol Police Board, Mr. Bill
    Livingood, House Sergeant at Arms, Mr. Alan Hantman, Architect
    of the Capitol, and Terrance Gainer, Chief of Police.
        We appreciate this opportunity to present and discuss the
    issues and challenges behind the Capitol Police fiscal year
    2006 budget request. I would like to share, by way of topical
    introduction, some of my observations regarding police overtime
    and staffing levels, and current campus security needs and
    concerns.
        But before I move on to this background information, I
    would like to thank the men and women of the Capitol Police for
    their leadership in coordinating the many organizations, people
    and resources necessary to effect a very successful 2005
    Presidential Inauguration. The Capitol Police, and I say this
    with a depth of gratitude, has a deep bench of seasoned
    Inaugural veterans, skillful crowd managers, and experienced
    officers degreed in patience and diplomacy, who gave this
    Nation a very successful and noteworthy Inauguration. Without
    exaggeration, it is fair to say, the world was watching and
    wondering, with some modicum of anxiety, if some attempted
    disruption might befall the United States' first Presidential
    Inauguration since the September 11 attack. The Capitol Police
    executed well their responsibilities and, without drawing
    attention from the event, allowed the Nation's most celebrated
    tradition of peaceful, democratic government to go off without
    a hitch. Congratulations to the Capitol Police for a job well
    done!
        I have a great respect and admiration for the men and women
    of the Capitol Police. As opportunity permits, I engage the
    officers in conversation and listen to their thoughts. I gladly
    report to you that they have an unmistakable dedication and
    love of country; they are devoted, proud, and dedicated to the
    business of protecting Congress. Many acknowledge it an honor
    to protect, serve, and welcome the Nation's citizenry, who come
    to participate in legislative business, witness the workings of
    democracy, and partake in the history that is this Nation's
    Capitol. These officers are enthusiastic owners of their
    responsibilities, even with the weight of a challenging work
    environment requiring rotating schedules, long hours, and a
    steeled endurance to brave the elements.
        As Chief Gainer's testimony outlines, the Capitol Police
    have assumed, and will continue to be asked to shoulder,
    additional responsibilities. Overtime will continue to be
    needed to meet general campus security and protection
    responsibilities, including the 1st Street NE closure and
    random vehicle inspections, and will be further impacted by the
    CVC opening. And, while the dedicated members of the Capitol
    Police have responded in the past by working overtime when
    needed, we need to ensure we do not overextend these officers.
        Additionally, long duty tours can reduce officer training
    opportunities. Abbreviated training creates a position, where
    officer skills atrophy, endangering the lives of the officers,
    congressional community, and visitors. Hiring sufficient
    numbers of officers, commensurate with the responsibilities
    charged to the Capitol Police, will help us retain a robust,
    healthful, vigorous, and well-trained police force, and avoid
    the risks of atrophied skills.
        The security levels of the Capitol campus are necessary;
    they must be sustained; we must remain vigilant; and we cannot
    let our guard down. Managing the unexpected by preparing and
    guarding against vehicle improvised explosives and suicide
    bombers is a valid mission. There is enough concern to warrant
    our high level of vigilance, and we should not take luxury with
    human life by waiting and reacting to an event. CIA Director,
    Porter J. Goss in February told the Senate Select Committee on
    Intelligence, ``It may be only a matter of time before al Qaeda
    or another group attempts to use chemical, biological,
    radiological and nuclear weapons.'' In the same session, FBI
    Director, Robert S. Mueller III raised concerns about ``al
    Qaeda sleeper cells'' and ``directed efforts this year to
    infiltrate covert operatives into the United States'' as well
    as a ``clear intention to obtain and ultimately use some form
    of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear or high-
    energy explosives material in its attacks against America.''
        The choice we have today is whether Congress is better
    served with officers stretched thin using overtime or by hiring
    additional officers to meet security, protection, vigilance,
    and deterrence levels needed to keep the campus from harm. I
    must strongly recommend, and the Capitol Police Board supports,
    the hiring of additional officers. We have a duty to protect
    human life on this campus, and we have a moral and ethical
    responsibility, in light of current threat levels, to maintain
    a high posture of security.
        The Capitol Police Board has reviewed the fiscal year 2006
    budget and we ask your support for full funding, which will
    provide for the maintenance and operation of all the
    improvements and capabilities funded in recent years. The
    Capitol Police force has been transformed in recent years. It
    is stronger, more responsive, capable, accountable, and
    reliable and better able to serve Congress. We ask your support
    to sustain these improvements throughout the next year and help
    ensure that we do not ask our officers to work unreasonable
    overtime or be denied leave or training opportunities.
        Chief Gainer will address more specific operations and
    plans for the coming fiscal year. I thank you for your time and
    your consideration and am happy to answer any questions.

        Senator Allard. Go ahead, Mr. Gainer.

                     STATEMENT OF CHIEF TERRANCE W. GAINER

        Chief Gainer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    subcommittee. We appreciate the support that you have given the
    United States Capitol Police. Really, on behalf of all the
    members of this department I would like to acknowledge that
    support.
        We do understand our responsibilities and we do understand
    the limited dollars available. I would like to submit my
    written testimony for the record and just share a few thoughts
    with you now before we answer any questions.
        Senator Allard. We will put in the record the full
    testimony from both you and Mr. Pickle.
        Chief Gainer. Thank you, sir. Mr. Pickle mentioned a couple
    of things we have done. I would just like to put into context
    what has happened in the past 12 months since we sat before
    this subcommittee.
        We did have the ricin attack and we handled it quite
    nicely, and opened the buildings very quickly after that. We
    handled the Reagan state funeral and screened 100,000 visitors
    in 24 hours. We instantly set up a system to inventory people's
    property as they came in, because they were not permitted to
    bring it in the Capitol. This was done on the spur of the
    moment by a group of very dedicated civilian and sworn
    officers.
        We have supported the State of the Union address. We lent
    our support to the two political conventions, where we had
    significant personnel up there, as well as the 2005
    Inauguration. And as Mr. Pickle said, we stood at code orange
    alert through August, September, October, November, and
    December. And over the past year we have screened some 9.5
    million people, a 30 percent increase over what we did the year
    before.
        Since January, for instance, we have now gone to our Tiger
    Teams, and unlike what we were doing earlier in the summer,
    where we were out there every single day at every single
    intersection--14 intersections. We now hit a couple of
    different intersections or places.
        We have screened some 233,000 vehicles; 7,000 of those,
    interestingly enough, are vehicles that we thought needed
    further investigation. We conducted further investigation of
    those 7,000 vehicles resulting in 224 vehicles being denied
    access and 224 vehicles that potentially could have brought
    some harm to us.
        Our officers have conducted 2,700 bomb searches. We have
    called out our HAZMAT Material Response Team some 300 times. We
    have conducted 3,000 special events and dignitary visits. We
    presented to the U.S. attorney 600 cases for their prosecution,
    with nearly a 98 percent approval rating by the U.S. attorney's
    office.
        And this is what we know: we know that terror attacks have
    tripled across the globe, as it is reported this morning. We
    know that terrorists are patient and Americans are not. We know
    terrorists use surveillance techniques. We know that terrorists
    plan ahead and come back to places they have not gotten before.
        We are very, very well aware of what goes on in the area of
    improvised explosive devices, vehicle-borne improvised
    explosive devices and combinations of attacks, and we have
    tried to position our forces to prevent these attacks. And as
    Mr. Pickle indicated, at the same time, we have a very open
    campus for these approximately 9.5 million people.
        The thing that we do not know, and this has been testified
    to numerous times up on the Hill by the head of all the Federal
    agencies, and the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, is where or when
    an attack might occur, or if, in fact, there are terrorist
    cells in the United States.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We have a mission. We understand our mission. We have a
    vision. We understand our vision. And we have a strategy to get
    there. I would be very happy to try to answer any of your
    questions, sir.
        Senator Allard. Well, thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Terrance W. Gainer
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
    Appropriations Committee today.
        I would like to first put some context into our budget request,
    which we recognize is a substantial increase over last year's budget.
    The fight against terrorism led by the United States and its coalition
    partners continues. We know through intelligence reports that
    terrorists have stated their intent to strike another blow on America,
    and we also know that the Capitol and all it stands for is clearly one
    of their targets. We must not let that fact slip from our minds as we
    continue further--albeit safely--away from September 11, 2001. As the
    foremost symbol of democracy, the Congress, its Members, employees,
    visitors, as well as public buildings and operations are a highly
    visible target for individuals and organizations intent on causing harm
    to the United States and disrupting the legislative operations of our
    government. Law enforcement genuinely believes it really is not a
    question of if--rather a question of when we could expect a strike. We
    are the first line of defense and we take our jobs seriously as we put
    our lives on the line each day that we come to work.
        The United States Capitol Police request a fiscal year 2006
    appropriation of $290.1 million, which is $59.7 million greater than
    the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. The Salaries portion of the request
    is $230.2 million to support 2,125 employees including 1,714 police
    officers (122 new officers) and 411 civilian positions supporting
    security, emergency response, technical, professional, and
    administrative functions. The total salaries increase is $28.4 million
    and is a result of three areas: mandatory increases of $15.9 million
    for cost-of-living allowances, health benefits, within-grades,
    promotions, and other benefits, an additional overtime requirement of
    $8.5 million for operational responsibilities, and new salaries of $4
    million to support 122 new police officers.
        The General Expense portion of the request is $59.9 million, which
    is a $31.3 million increase. This increase is explained in three
    spending areas: replacement of the legislative branch escape hoods for
    $8.2 million, hiring and outfitting costs for 122 new officers at $1.9
    million, and finally $20.7 million to support and maintain previously
    provided and implemented equipment, assets, systems, infrastructure,
    more than half of the $20 million slated for physical security and our
    information and communication systems, which cannot be absorbed at
    current funding levels.
        We expect this request with its increase will no doubt invite
    serious discussion, and we are prepared to address any of your
    questions and concerns. While I spoke earlier of the post-9/11 era, it
    is important to step back and take into account the last nearly seven
    years of change. This organization's considerable transformation began
    with the fatal shooting of our two officers in 1998. In response to
    that shooting we received funding to hire more officers, improve
    infrastructure, and implement security technologies. The 9/11 Terrorist
    and Anthrax attacks of 2001 again highlighted the need to further
    ``harden the target'' or in other words reduce the campus exposure to
    threats through prevention, detection, vigilance, and deterrence.
    Because of these events and the support of the Appropriations
    Committees, we received funding to improve and add new capabilities to
    the organization. These previously acquired capabilities are detailed
    in our budget request, and it will cost $20.7 million in additional
    funding over current baseline funding to sustain their use,
    effectiveness, performance and reliability. The demands on our
    equipment and technology capabilities will continue for the foreseeable
    future.
        The Ricin Incident, the War in Iraq, six Department of Homeland
    Security code orange alerts, and the constant intelligence assessments
    have given us additional concern and have prompted operational
    adjustments. The top to bottom change of the Capitol Police, set in
    motion in 1998 and accelerated by attacks, events, intelligence, and
    world events, has resulted in a dramatic change in the Department and
    its support. Many of these changes have just recently come to fruition.
    In the same vein, the associated operations and maintenance costs are
    now impacting our General Expense request. The maintenance of these
    systems is the principal driver to the increase in our request--not new
    programs. Our request is to maintain the structure that we have set
    into place, and not to step backwards at the expense of congressional
    community safety or interruption of government. The changes and the
    design of the changes to the Capitol Police were created to sustain
    Congress, within the purview of the mission of the Capitol Police, and
    the result is an extraordinary law enforcement organization, unlike
    other police organizations. In fact, I would like to take just a moment
    to mention some of our accomplishments in the past fiscal year when the
    Department was challenged and successfully conducted several National
    Special Security Events such as the Inauguration; the Democratic and
    Republican conventions, the Ricin incident, the State of the Union and
    the Reagan State Funeral in which the Department screened more than
    100,000 visitors within a 24-hour period.
        In 2004, the USCP greeted and screened more than 9.5 million staff
    and visitors throughout the Capitol Complex as compared to 7 million in
    2003. Our officers screened more than 61,000 visitors to major
    Congressional Concert events; conducted more than 2,700 bomb searches;
    responded to more than 300 hazardous material calls; coordinated more
    than 3,000 Special Events and Dignitary visits; processed nearly 1,000
    illegal demonstrators and violators within our jurisdiction and
    presented nearly 600 cases to the U.S. Attorney's Office. We hired 145
    sworn officers and 154 civilians in our Department in fiscal year 2004.
    Additionally, the Department has implemented a health program as we
    work towards creating and nurturing a fit workforce. The Department
    also has provided educational benefits that work toward providing an
    educated team. One hundred and seven employees are participating in our
    Student Loan Repayment Program.
        The specific needs of Congress, current threat assessments, and
    professional leadership has combined to create a hybrid police agency,
    integrating capabilities for law enforcement, security technologies,
    dignitary protection, intelligence analysis and threat assessment
    specific to the Capitol, crowd management, hazardous materials and
    device response, and physical security barriers, building access
    screening, prevention of vehicles bearing improvised explosive devices
    and the detection and prevention of covert surveillance. These Capitol
    Police capabilities work together to protect 535 Members of Congress,
    congressional leaders, congressional staff of more than 20,000, and the
    historical and political symbols of the Capitol campus.
        The direction that the changes have taken has been influenced by
    best practice matching for law enforcement, professionalization and
    modernization of our administrative and technical support functions.
    This is where we have transitioned from sworn administrative roles to
    professional officer roles by hiring civilian professionals for
    information systems, human resources and financial management and other
    administrative functions. We have also moved to a self-sufficient role
    in the legislative branch no more solely reliable on the House and
    Senate for infrastructure and support. The Department assumed
    responsibilities for all human resource functions requiring systems and
    people to assume these responsibilities. This included building a new
    time and attendance system and hiring professional human resource and
    support staff. The Capitol Police assumed responsibility for a major
    component of information system functions, which were previously
    supported by the Senate Sergeant at Arms. As the personnel growth of
    the Department and the responsibilities of the Department increased it
    became evident that we needed to control, adjust, and build the
    enterprise architecture to meet the specific needs of the Department.
        These changes are significant and are the result of strategic
    leadership choices, events befallen the Capitol campus, congressional
    demands for improvement, rigorous GAO reviews, self-analysis, strategic
    planning, best practice matching, and current threat environments
    through numerous surveys, reviews, audits, and investigations. Through
    these external and internal analyses, we have rebuilt this organization
    into a more qualified, capable, responsible, responsive, agile,
    effective, and efficient organization to serve the legislative branch.
        The entire Capitol campus has undergone an infusion of
    technological improvements, enhancements and new implementations of
    state-of-the-art security to deter, detect, and delay unlawful acts
    using a risk-analysis to determine appropriate application. These
    technologies, workforce multipliers, allow us to monitor the campus,
    and control access to facilities with greater efficiency and
    effectiveness. Other technologies provide greater safety and assurance
    for the Capitol campus through the use of improved x-ray machines,
    magnetometers, itemizer sampling, technologies to scan all incoming
    material shipments in an off-site location, as well as cameras and
    recording systems, monitors, sensors, panic button alarms in Member
    offices, intrusion alarm systems, emergency notification systems,
    emergency call boxes, and measures to detect covert listening devices.
    Responsibilities for security systems and law enforcement have also
    grown with additional building spaces created by the Capitol Visitor
    Center construction, the Alternate Computer Facility, the Botanic
    Garden, and the Fairchild building.
        In the area of command, control and intelligence capabilities we
    have expanded our command center and instituted an Incident Command
    System which is a universally adopted command structure used by first
    responders. The Office of Plans, Operations and Homeland Security is
    now operational. Intelligence gathering, analysis and dissemination has
    been expanded and we have worked diligently to build relationships with
    other federal, state and local entities to improve response
    coordination and capabilities.
        Operational and response capabilities have increased by developing
    a dedicated full time specialized hazardous substance response team to
    develop and manage response capabilities dealing with chemical or
    biological events. Canine capabilities primarily used for bomb
    detection have been increased.
        The Capitol Police is shouldering additional workforce
    responsibilities for the new CVC facility, street closures, various
    technical security implementations, and the truck interdiction program.
    These responsibilities fall upon our officers as additional duty hours;
    and so, we propose an additional 122 new officers, which is a part of
    the total 254 officers required to normalize work schedules. Hiring
    these new officers will allow officers to work 48-hour weeks as opposed
    to much higher levels.
        Despite advances in technology and installation of systems, this
    Department is successful because of its people. Our greatest asset and
    investment is our current professional staff of 1,592 police officers
    and 411 civilian employees responsible for Capitol complex security,
    law enforcement, emergency response, safety, and professional support
    services, which are a 24/7/365 day a year responsibility. To maintain
    the Capitol Police high state of readiness, response, agility, alert
    and vigor, we request these new officers. A request of $1.9 million is
    necessary to recruit, test, hire, and outfit 122 new police officers.
    Given the existing and future staffing requirements, the leadership of
    the Department must continually balance mission needs with training
    needs, leave requests and overtime.
        While the well being of our officers is crucial to good operations,
    we are also recommending for the protection of the congressional
    community and visitors that we replace the aging escape hoods, due to
    expire in 2006. The Capitol Police manage this legislative branch
    program and the life-cycle replacement costs are estimated at $8.2
    million. However, as I indicated earlier the largest portion of our
    requested increase will go toward the operation and maintenance of
    equipment and systems that were installed in recent years.
        As Chief of the Capitol Police, I take great pride in the many
    years of service this Department has provided to the Congress. Building
    on that legacy, we at the USCP look forward to continuing to safeguard
    the Congress, staff, and visitors to the Capitol complex during these
    challenging times. And we look forward to working with the Congress and
    particularly this Committee.
        I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and am ready
    to address any questions you may have.

        Senator Allard. We have now been joined by Senator Durbin
    and I will ask him if he has any comments that he would like to
    make.
        We are into the second panel, Senator Durbin.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

        Senator Durbin. No, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I was in the
    Rules Committee with the markup and could not come earlier. But
    I ask that my opening statement be made part of the record, and
    I will ask a few questions as the hearing progresses.
        Senator Allard. Without objection, we will make your full
    statement a part of the record.
        [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling today's fiscal year
    2006 budget oversight hearing on the Senate Sergeant at Arms
    and the U.S. Capitol Police Board.
        First of all, I want to thank our witnesses, Mr. Pickle,
    Mr. Livingood, and Chief Gainer for joining us today to review
    your fiscal year 2006 budget requests.
        Mr. Pickle, welcome. I commend you on the job your office
    is doing in providing security resources and technology to the
    Senate Community. Your staff does an excellent job in a
    difficult and challenging environment and we appreciate it. I
    had the opportunity of working pretty closely with your staff
    earlier this year when I moved into the Assistant Democratic
    Leader's office in the Capitol. Skip Rouse of your staff
    coordinated the move and everyone involved did an absolutely
    superb job. My staff and I are extremely grateful.
        You are here today to testify on behalf of the Office of
    the Sergeant of Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, the Capitol
    Police Board, and the Capitol Guide Board. It sounds like you
    have been pretty busy.
        The Senate Sergeant at Arms' budget request for fiscal year
    2006 is $219.9 million or an increase of 23.7 percent over the
    fiscal year 2005 enacted level. As you know, this year promises
    to be a tough year budget-wise, so I hope you will help us out
    by prioritizing your request.
        I noticed you have requested $21 million for a new
    telephone system. I hope you will provide us with some details
    about this new system.
        You have also requested funding for several items, such as
    furniture and equipment for the Capitol Visitor Center. The
    Architect of the Capitol, who testified before this
    subcommittee two weeks ago, predicted a September, 2006,
    opening for the CVC. I'd like to know if your fiscal year 2006
    request is based on this timeframe.
        I hope you will address the current status of the perimeter
    security upgrades. I'm interested to know if this project is on
    schedule and on budget.
        I hope you will update us on the status of the state office
    security upgrades.
        I'd also like to know the current status of the Mail
    Processing Facility. I understand you will soon be moving into
    a new, larger facility.
        You have requested 18 new FTE's in your fiscal year 2006
    request. I hope you will tell us what these new employees will
    be doing.
        Finally, I have noticed an increasing number of staff-led
    tours in the Capitol. I understand that during peak season,
    around 6,000 visitors are taken on staff-led tours each day. I
    am curious if the staff-led tours will be reduced or eliminated
    after the Capitol Visitor Center opens.
        Chief Gainer, it is good to see you again. I want to thank
    the men and women of the Capitol Police who put their lives on
    the line every day for us here in the Capitol. This has been a
    busy year for the Capitol Police and I congratulate you and
    your staff on a job well done.
        I see that your fiscal year 2006 budget request is $290
    million, an increase of 26 percent over fiscal year 2005. I
    hope you can prioritize some of the items in your request for
    the subcommittee.
        I note that you are requesting $23 million in the
    Architect's budget this year to construct an off-site delivery
    facility. I hope you will update us on the need for this
    facility and where you plan on locating it.
        You are requesting funding to replace the emergency escape
    hoods in the fiscal year 2006 budget, as you did in fiscal year
    2005. I hope you will update us on the need for these
    replacement hoods.
        In your testimony, you stated that the Department needs a
    total of 254 new officers to normalize work schedules. I hope
    you can tell us why you need so many additional officers at
    this time. I'd also like to hear about how much overtime your
    officers are currently working.
        I notice that you are requesting 62 FTE's for the Capitol
    Visitor Center. As I said to Mr. Pickle, I'd like to know if
    this request is assumes a September, 2006, opening of the CVC.
        Finally, I'd like to know how the merger between the
    Capitol Police and the Library of Congress Police is going
    since the Memorandum of Understanding was signed.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.

                          ADDITIONAL STAFFING REQUEST

        Senator Allard. And there is no doubt that the Capitol
    Police have been under some unusual situations since 9/11, and
    last year was an unusual year in that time period. And I know
    you had a lot of challenges with the many things that you
    mentioned in your testimony. It was truly unique.
        Now, what is so unique about this next year that has you
    requesting a total of 254 additional officers?
        Chief Gainer. Well, our 2006 budget is actually requesting
    122 officers, and there are some other officers that are part
    of the supplemental----
        Senator Allard. Oh, okay. So it is an additional 254, with
    the supplemental.
        Chief Gainer. The request in the regular budget plus
    supplemental comes up to that, that is correct, Senator.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Chief Gainer. Yes.
        And in general, 122 are needed because of the expanded
    mission of the police. So, for instance, with the Capitol
    Visitor Center scheduled to open in 2006, we need to get the
    officers into the pipeline that will augment the security that
    goes there.
        Now that Capitol Visitor Center I think needs some 142
    officers. Some of those will be offset by taking officers who
    are now involved in the construction projects or screening
    elsewhere and put them in there, but ultimately we will need 62
    more people to man the various portals in the CVC.
        We have expanded our dignitary protection and the level of
    protection that we give to the leadership of both the House and
    Senate. And we would need 26 extra personnel there.
        The Senate leadership has directed and the Board approved
    the closure of First Street between Constitution Avenue and D
    Street, and that requires an additional 24 people. Now we have
    been doing that since early August, but we have been doing that
    out of hide and overtime.
        Also, we are still in the midst of the support of the
    Library of Congress. So 10 of those individuals in our 122
    would be dedicated to the attrition we anticipate there. But I
    am also aware that the Library of Congress in their own budget
    has come in and asked for some of their own people. So I think
    we are kind of caught, and the decision has not been made about
    whether our departments are going to merge and who is going to
    get the personnel to fulfill those needs. But that is where the
    122 come from.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Your request then will cover all the
    posts around the Capitol, plus what would be planned for the
    new Capitol Visitor Center, is that correct?
        Chief Gainer. If we receive the full supplemental number of
    132, and these 122, we would be able to cover our posts with 80
    percent of the sworn officers department working on average 8
    hours overtime per week.
        So this request lets us do a couple of things. If we had
    these 254--I will mix both of them.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Chief Gainer. If we have the 254, plus 80 percent of the
    department working nearly 16 hours overtime a pay period, that
    would permit the officers an opportunity to take their
    vacations that they have earned; it would let the officers have
    80 hours of training per year, which is really the gold
    standard and what we have been trying to shoot for, and just
    not wear the officers out. That is under the current threat
    environment.

                         SWORN OFFICERS TRAINING NEEDS

        Senator Allard. Okay. How much time do officers now have
    for meeting their individual training needs?
        Chief Gainer. Well, we have provided your staff with some
    of that information. Right now it is getting closer to the 80
    hours. It is somewhere in between the 70 and 80 hours. With the
    lieutenants and above, they are running up an awful lot of
    compensatory time. We are now getting the officers into a
    position where they can take their vacation time and time off.
    But I can say we have done that right now because we have cut
    back in a lot of areas. There are a lot of posts now that we
    would prefer under best practices to cover that we are not
    covering.

                      STAFFING THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

        Senator Allard. Now I bring up the same point that we did
    at a previous panel on the completion date of the visitor
    center. It looks like it will be finally into 2007 before we
    actually have occupancy of that. Are you assuming that we are
    going to be moved in in September 2006?
        Chief Gainer. We did not think we would all be in there in
    September, but we knew that some of the process would begin in
    getting the officers selected, trained, and mentored, and ready
    to take their position; this process takes some time. So
    whether that can slide a month, or two, or three in fiscal year
    2006, it would probably be an ideal situation to have the money
    for the hiring, so that we would not delay the hiring as long
    in order to have the proper amount of officers at their
    portals.

                              FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

        Senator Allard. Now if we are not able to provide your full
    increase or funds in the supplemental, what requirements would
    not be met at all, and what requirements would you only be able
    to partially meet?
        Chief Gainer. Well, there is a whole series of those,
    Senator, and we will be happy to submit our prioritization
    listing.
        Senator Allard. If you could, get that to us.
        [Clerk's Note.--A detailed prioritization listing has been
    provided to the subcommittee.]
        Chief Gainer. But again, we have tightened our belts like
    good military and uniform people do, but we always increase the
    risk if we do not give this full coverage.
        Senator Allard. We understand.
        Chief Gainer. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. Senator Durbin, do you have a question?
        Senator Durbin. Thank you.
        Chief Gainer, thanks for the work that you and your men and
    women do for the Capitol Police, and thank you for the fine
    service. We at least take this opportunity once every year to
    remind all of us who work here and visit here how important
    your job is and how our safety depends on you. And I thank you
    for the fine men and women that you are commanding.
        At this moment, as I understand it, the 1,714 officers, or
    police officers, would include the 122 new officers, is that
    correct?
        Chief Gainer. It would, sir.

                             DISCUSSION OF OVERTIME

        Senator Durbin. It would. And let me ask you this: You
    mentioned earlier that you anticipate that each of the Capitol
    policemen will incur in any given pay period 16 hours'
    overtime?
        Chief Gainer. Eighty percent of the department.
        Senator Durbin. Eighty percent. Explain that to me, if you
    will. If I knew as a manager that I had to have that much
    overtime built into the regular payroll, it would suggest I
    need more employees.
        Chief Gainer. That is correct. In fact, as we did calculate
    this as to how many more employees we would need in order to
    bring the overtime down, and it is a business decision. And at
    first blush, sometimes it seems easier to hire someone in low
    overtime or pay more overtime and have fewer FTEs.
        As I recall, I think the number to bring the overtime down
    closer to zero--441 officers would be that number. The down
    side of even asking for that number, I mean the obvious cost of
    that is your inability to handle peaks and valleys. I mean it
    is still our dream that one day we will not be in as bad a
    situation as we are, and perhaps we will be able to scale back
    some of the security issues in 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 years from now.
        So I think if we grow by this combined total of 254, given
    the current threat environment, the department will be in a
    position to handle its needs. And I also want to suggest that
    we use that target number of 16 hours overtime per pay period
    because it is very consistent in the Federal law enforcement
    environment. Whether it is the Secret Service, or the FBI, or
    ATF, they as a rule are given a fixed amount of money that
    really equates to them working about 14 or 15 hours extra a pay
    period.
        Senator Durbin. What is the difference in pay between
    regular time and overtime?
        Chief Gainer. I would have to get back to you on that, sir.
        Senator Durbin. Is it time-and-a-half? Is it a 50 percent--
    --
        Chief Gainer. It is time-and-a-half.
        Senator Durbin. So if I understand this correctly, 80
    percent of your officers will be, in effect, be paid for 20
    percent of their time in overtime, 20 percent, if I did that
    calculation----
        Chief Gainer. Yes, sir.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. In my head correctly.
        Chief Gainer. Yes, sir.
        Senator Durbin. And we are paying, through your
    appropriation, a premium, this 50 percent add-on, for these
    extra hours, is that correct?
        Chief Gainer. Yes, sir.
        Senator Durbin. Okay. So let me ask you first: What is the
    reaction of your officers to this overtime? Is this something
    they look forward to, that gives them a little extra money, and
    they bank it and are willing to make the sacrifice?
        I know at one point here when they were working 12-hour
    shifts day after day after day, I really felt for them, because
    I thought that the money just was not worth it to some of them,
    but they knew they had to do it. So what impact does that
    overtime have on morale?
        Chief Gainer. Excellent point. And given the amount of
    hours that they work, way beyond 16 a pay period, is indicative
    of the regard with which they hold their job. But we were
    burning them up.
        In my conversations with the union and the officers, we
    think this is within a ballpark of what they can handle. And
    yes, the officers do look forward to having the option of
    working overtime When we actually started scaling back after
    December, there was an interesting little bit of, ``Hey, Chief,
    Christmastime is coming, and we were going to do ``x'' and
    ``y'', and I was putting carpeting down, and now you are
    cutting back overtime on us.'' So I think 16 hours is a
    reasonable amount.
        From a cost comparison, and I do not have those numbers in
    front of me, the cost of hiring an officer, training them,
    versus that time-and-a-half overtime pay is really pretty
    close.

                     HIRING AND RETENTION OF SWORN OFFICERS

        Senator Durbin. I remember asking either you or a
    predecessor how many applicants you had to take to actually
    hire one Capitol policeman, and I think the number was 10, or
    something. Or at least interview 10 to find 1 officer. Is that
    still the norm? Is that still the case?
        Chief Gainer. That is close, but I can say that because of
    what Congress has done for this department in the way of
    salary, equipment, overtime, uniforms, training, and I think
    the patriotism of job seekers, we actually have people beating
    down our door. We are in a very good position to keep hiring,
    and the men and women we are hiring now are just very, very
    good.
        Senator Durbin. There was also a time when you were losing
    officers to TSA and other agencies that offered a different
    benefit package, different opportunities, different promotions,
    and such. Is that still the case?
        Chief Gainer. It is not. There is a slight attrition, and
    some of the officers leave to go to other agencies, and we, in
    fact, encourage them to do that if that is good for them and
    their family. But I think by and large we stemmed that tide of
    people walking out of here about 2 years ago. And I think many
    of the officers ascribe to the theory that you neither take nor
    leave a job just for the money.
        Senator Durbin. And what about diversity goals? Do you set
    those for your department?
        Chief Gainer. We do, and we have worked very hard on that.
    Just as an aside, I think we are just under--37 percent of our
    department right now is a minority. And at the last Federal
    analysis I believe we were ranked number two in Federal
    agencies as to the strength of our diversity.
        But probably as important as the diversity ratio are the
    career opportunities we offer. We have built on what previous
    chiefs have done. But what we have been able to do in these
    past 3 years is increase the number of minority officers who
    get into specialty positions, and especially who have been
    promoted to sergeant and lieutenant, and to captain, and now to
    inspector and to deputy chief. And so now we are seeing the
    fruits of the benefits, and that will continue to increase.
        Senator Durbin. I know about one of those personally
    because one of the officers that we have come to know quite
    well from his singing ability, Officer David Nelson, who I
    believe is now a sergeant.
        Chief Gainer. Yes.
        Senator Durbin. I congratulate him on that.
        If I could ask one last question, Mr. Chairman----
        Senator Allard. Yes. Go ahead.

                            MERGER OF POLICE FORCES

        Senator Durbin. I became concerned several years ago about
    the number of different police forces on Capitol Hill. The
    Supreme Court has their own. The Library of Congress had their
    own. Capitol Police had their own. And there are probably some
    of them missing; maybe the Government Printing Office. I am not
    sure.
        So we tried to integrate the Library of Congress into the
    Capitol Police, and it really was not welcomed by the Library
    of Congress. They were not looking for this change, but we were
    trying to move in that direction.
        Are we achieving that goal? I mean are we creating two
    forces where there used to be one? What can you tell me about
    the progress of moving toward an integrated force at the
    Library of Congress to meet their special needs for security,
    which are different than some other places, but also to kind of
    bring them into the Capitol Police family?
        Chief Gainer. Well, there is yin and yang in that, Senator.
    I do think that we have shared a lot of training with each
    other. Some of their sergeants and lieutenants have been in our
    class. We understand communication a bit more. But it has been
    a struggle.
        We now have an inspector who is supervising the Library of
    Congress police officers as well as 23 of our officers serving
    the LOC, and finally, after months of wrangling, the LOC
    permitted us to send a sergeant or lieutenant to help them.
        I still do not think it is widely well regarded by the
    Librarian and his Deputy. I will not try to speak for them. The
    very fact that in their budget that they ask for some 45
    officers and there was no consultation with this department or
    our inspector about the why or the how, again indicates to me
    that it is not their number one priority.
        As I have said before, if we were building law enforcement
    agencies up here, we would not do it as it was done. And I even
    suggested recently to the Librarian, there is an memorandum of
    understanding (MOU) that the committees literally forced
    everybody to sign to try to move this thing along and that MOU
    will expire.
        I would respectfully request that Congress take action on
    the very, very detailed merger plan that we submitted 2 years
    ago, or kill this thing, because it creates more work and
    energy for us than it is turning out to be worth.
        Senator Durbin. I agree with you. It has to be fish or
    fowl. We have to decide where we are going on this. And I just
    have to tell you that the idea and object here was not to
    dramatically increase the number of people guarding the Library
    of Congress, but rather to try to reach some sort of regularity
    here and consistency so that the Capitol Police could be
    involved in this.
        I know there were some different standards on retirement
    and hiring that had to be resolved. Maybe some grandfathers
    that had to be accommodated in the process. But I will, I
    promise you I will look at that, and I will talk to the
    chairman about it. I do not know if this is a new issue for
    him. It might be. But it is something that we need to show some
    leadership on. Thank you.
        Chief Gainer. But, Senator, if I may say, it is not all
    bad. Even if we walked away from the merger they kept our own
    department and we brought our people back, we are both better
    agencies for it, because, again, we are sharing training and
    information. They come each week, by our invitation into our
    intel meetings and our staff meetings, so there is some good
    that has come out of it.
        Senator Durbin. Well, I hope we can have even more good.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Allard. Senator Durbin, I look to continue to visit
    with you on this particular issue. I just got a look at a
    letter to the editor here in Roll Call, and the issue that was
    brought out is that the Library is viewed by security as a weak
    link. And my question is: How much of a weak link are they? How
    vulnerable do they make the rest of the security system here on
    the Capitol?
        Chief Gainer. Well, there is that corner of the campus, I
    think, that is not doing as well as it could do. And again, I
    think the concept of the merger was to strengthen that. As the
    CVC opens and the tunnel is connected, it could exacerbate
    things. So it is not ideal, Senator.
        Senator Allard. And the testimony we got from this in the
    last hearing is that the head of the Library of Congress had
    not communicated with you on this request.
        Chief Gainer. That is correct.
        Senator Allard. Was there any communication at all, and do
    you feel that he should have had some discussion with you?
        Chief Gainer. Well, I do know this: When we put together
    our budget for both 2006 or the supplemental request, there
    were strong conversations with each Sergeant at Arms in their
    capacity as Sergeants at Arms even aside from the Board. So I
    think there needs to be a very good dialogue with the
    stakeholders so that we understand what the clients want and
    expect in order to determine what is the best way. And I have
    not seen that yet.
        Senator Allard. I think that that is our responsibility, to
    help make sure you get some clear guidance as to where to go in
    that order. So we will be working on that for you.

                   FISCAL YEAR 2005 SALARY BUDGET DISCUSSION

        The other issue I wanted to bring up is, again, the
    changing figures that we have seen here lately. Originally, you
    showed a deficit of $10 million or so. Then it was considerably
    less than that. Now I see that you are looking to anticipate
    somewhere around a $25,000 surplus. Do you want to explain why
    those figures have changed?
        Chief Gainer. I sure do, Senator. In the late fall, early
    winter, November, December, the conference committee report was
    very clear to the Capitol Police to live within our budget and
    do not anticipate any supplementals and, obviously, not be in
    violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act. And there was not much
    support for the fact that how much work we were doing and how
    much overtime we had, and the fact that we knew we were going
    to run short of funding.
        So we were doing competing things, trying to work with the
    committees as to what we might need in order to keep up the
    security level at best practice standards, while at the same
    time ensuring no anti-deficiency sometime during this fiscal
    year.
        So I sat down with Jim Rohan, who is the Assistant Chief of
    Police, and Tony Stamilio, who is our Chief Administrative
    Officer, to look at where we could tighten our belt and try to
    provide security and ensure that we have the money to get
    through the year? And by doing that, we forced the operational
    commanders to be much more miserly in the use of overtime and
    to stop doing some things. Since then the amount of overtime
    has declined.
        We also had money in the budget that we are saving to use
    if we had to go to a full-time vehicle interdiction again like
    we did in August, September, October, November, where the
    officers would be out there 24/7 at these intersections, and
    the belt tightening eliminated a significant amount of that
    money.
        But it has been through belt tightening, eliminating
    projects, and stopping some security needs that we have driven
    down the money that we needed. And also during this time there
    were the ongoing conversations about whether we could use what
    had been designated emergency response funds or not, and
    finally the determinations and the directions came to use some
    of that, so that also took away some of the budget projection
    red balances.

                 COMPETENCY PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

        Senator Allard. If you have been following some of the
    previous hearings, I am a strong believer in measuring
    performance, the intent of the Government Performance and
    Results Act. And from what I understand has happened, you have
    implemented two new competency performance-based management
    systems, one for senior executives and then another for
    civilian and sworn employees. And then the implementation of
    these systems was put on hold due to your operational demands
    placed on staff, such as preparing for the Presidential
    inauguration.
        Have you reinitiated the implementation of these
    competency-based performance management systems, and if so,
    what progress have you made in that regard?
        Chief Gainer. We have restarted them. The one for the
    executive team at the inspector and civilian director level
    have been implemented, and those personnel do now know their
    goals and objectives, and what is expected of them.
        The system implementation was delayed because of all the
    other operational requirements; we issued the order just in the
    past couple of weeks to start the program. The training is
    going on through the middle of May. So by June and July, people
    will have the renewed job performance appraisal system in
    place.
        Many of the leaders here were as disappointed as any to
    find that some people had not been rated or given any
    evaluations in 6, and 8, and 9 years. We now know that we have
    to concentrate not only on the operational business in
    emergencies, but we also have to keep the administrative and
    infrastructure business running.
        That has improved, because, again, Congress granted,
    especially the administrative side of the House, some
    significant civilian personnel. And our fiscal management, our
    human resources, our IT shops were terribly understaffed. And
    while we grew the sworn numbers by some 333, we just did not
    keep up with the administrative side.
        I am happy to say, with the guidance of the GAO, and they
    have been very helpful in the direction they have given us, and
    with the addition of the civilian staff that I believe we will
    be positioned to do well on our performance system. We have a
    very comprehensive strategic plan, and we are operating from a
    business perspective in the direction we should.

                            OFFSITE DELIVERY CENTER

        Senator Allard. Okay. Now talk a little bit about your
    offsite delivery center. In the pending supplemental you have
    $23 million for that offsite delivery center to replace the
    current facility on P Street.
        Chief Gainer. Yes, sir.
        Senator Allard. I guess I direct this to Mr. Hantman. What
    is the status of moving this project forward, and do you
    believe this amount will be sufficient?
        Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, there have been a series of
    meetings over the last several weeks. What we have tried to do
    is take a look at alternative sites and work with the House and
    the Senate, to find out what sites they find took good
    candidates for it, and then try to lay out the different type
    of operating procedures that might be used at such an offsite.
        One of them would be a transfer type concept, where trucks
    would be brought in and offloaded, and then other in-house vans
    would be loaded, as the White House model does, to bring
    deliveries actually to the Senate side or other locations.
        The other concept is screening trucks as they exist and
    allowing them to make their designated runs throughout the
    campus.
        So those types of studies are being done right now, and the
    amount of money that would be necessary to accommodate either
    one of those profiles would really be determined by the
    individual site that the House and the Senate find best and
    most appropriate, in terms of travel distance to the Capitol.
    And those kinds of evaluations are still being done right now.
        The $23 million that is in the supplemental at this point
    in time and also in the budget of the Architect of the Capitol
    is based on a study that was done several years ago for a
    potential site on New York Avenue, using the cost of land over
    there and the potential construction. So that study needs to be
    updated relative to the particular site that essentially is
    determined as the most appropriate by the House and the Senate,
    and what type of facility goes on it.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Pickle, in regard to the operational
    model for the offsite facility, are we on the right track?
        Mr. Pickle. Mr. Chairman, the Board has unanimously
    approved a particular process that should be utilized for good
    offsite delivery security. We, the Senate, are much better
    prepared because of staffing and other support that we have. We
    are much better prepared to immediately begin that process once
    the offsite is completed.
        The House, for some other reasons, they have many more
    deliveries, they are not equipped either in staffing or other
    equipment resources to begin immediately.
        Senator Allard. They have almost twice as many deliveries
    than we do.
        Mr. Pickle. Yes, they do. We are prepared to move ahead
    immediately. The dilemma is the funding, as I understand it,
    may not be sufficient to build a site that would accommodate
    the correct procedures that the Capitol Police Board have
    approved. The dilemma is pretty much this way.
        We need the flexibility to do what we need to do for the
    Senate, and the House will eventually catch up with us and they
    will also adopt those protocols; this is my understanding. But
    there is no disagreement among Mr. Livingood, or myself, or the
    Chief on that. We know the process that needs to be
    implemented, but we need the funding to make sure that the
    flexibility is there for both the House and Senate to adopt the
    same process.
        Again, the Senate is ready to proceed. The House has some
    more resource issues that they have to focus on with the
    Architect.
        Senator Allard. And your funding request includes that?
        Mr. Pickle. The $23 million funding in the supplemental was
    put in there because that is what, based on the study Mr.
    Hantman just referred to, that would be sufficient to
    accommodate what we both need.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Pickle. We find now that that $23 million may or may
    not do it, simply because the price of real estate has gone up,
    especially since the Washington Nationals baseball team has
    moved into Washington, DC causing real estate prices in the
    area the House would use as an offsite delivery location to go
    up quite a bit.
        I would also like to say that the Senate does not really
    care where this site is, and we have been very clear about
    that. We are prepared to immediately start the process once the
    site is picked. We are just waiting for the funding to match up
    with the results of his study, so we can get moving.

                               MOUNTED HORSE UNIT

        Senator Allard. Okay. I want to bring up the mounted horse
    unit with you, Chief Gainer. Now it has been in place just a
    short period of time.
        Chief Gainer. Just about 1 year.
        Senator Allard. Can you tell me whether you feel it has
    been effective or not, and what specific improvements has it
    brought, and how high a priority do you place in continuing
    this unit?
        Chief Gainer. Through my police career I have seen what
    mounted units have done, and that goes back to the late
    sixties, where I spent the first 20 years of my career on the
    Chicago Police Department. Mounted units are unbelievably
    effective in crowd management, whether that is from a positive
    point of view in just managing a crowd, or disruptive crowds in
    calming them. That was one of the reasons that I first
    approached the Board and then the committees to do that, to
    have a mounted unit.
        The training is rigorous, and we have some great personnel
    riding the horses. And we have used them in crowd control
    exercises up here as recently as yesterday. The officers on
    those horses have also issued tickets. They have found a lost
    child. They have responded to any number of hazardous device
    incidents, where they have helped manage the crowd.
        They are a wonderful PR asset, too. I daresay they are
    probably the most often photographed thing in addition to the
    Capitol Dome, or if you can juxtaposition them against the
    Dome, that would be the most taken picture by visitors.
        And there is something very positive about that----
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Chief Gainer [continuing]. For people to feel they can
    approach a police officer. Because, again, over my 27 years,
    what we did, we got in squad cars, we rolled the windows up,
    turned the air-conditioners on, and put personal radios on, and
    you did not communicate with the outside.
        The officers are out there. They are visible. They are
    interacting. They can see above the crowd. They can move in
    areas around this campus, where neither cars, nor bikes, nor
    motorcycles can go. So I think they are value added, and I hope
    that we have another year or two out of this to convince the
    Congress that they are value added.
        Senator Allard. And you do not see any increased
    vulnerability to the officer on the horse. In fact, you see
    just the opposite, is that right?
        Chief Gainer. They very much have a calming effect. And
    clearly, what the studies and experience indicate is that a
    mounted rider is equivalent to 10 foot officers. So it is a
    force multiplier, if you will, and when you see them wade into
    a crowd, especially a hostile crowd, you can very easily bring
    peace and tranquility.
        Senator Allard. Now if you are recruiting in the State of
    Colorado, it probably would not be as difficult to find
    somebody who knows how to ride a horse. Are you able to find
    officers who have riding skills that can qualify for the job?
        Chief Gainer. Well, we are finding them. And interestingly
    enough, even again, I will go back to my Chicago days. The
    Chicago Police Department sent their personnel out to the
    United States Park Police, who is considered one of the model
    agencies in training, which is where, when we restarted the
    Metropolitan Police Department's unit I sent the officers and I
    sent our Capitol Police officers there. And you will get most
    trainers to say they would prefer to have someone who does not
    have a lot of riding experience, so you do not have to break
    them of bad habits.
        I can say this: One of our sergeants that went through this
    training, I think he is the oldest individual who has ever
    completed the Park Police training. And we have good men and
    women out there riding horses. That is not a problem.

                    CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER SPACE FOR POLICE

        Senator Allard. Good. Thank you. Now how about your space
    in the visitor center? Are there sufficient funds in the budget
    to complete the fit out of the space for the Capitol Police in
    the visitor center?
        Chief Gainer. The Senate, I believe, is allocated funds
    that would take care of what is designated the Senate portion,
    and their share of the police portion. And I think that is in
    the Architect's budget. I think the House is still working on
    their share, if I am not mistaken, to fully fund that. But,
    again, that is part of the interesting issue with the Capitol
    Police department up here, and how, we have an artificial line
    that goes down some offices, and where half belongs to one body
    and half the other, and to figure out how we buy the desk, and
    the paper, and the furniture. It is being worked on, sir.
        Senator Allard. So you are having to kind of divide out
    half furniture, House, half furniture, Senate. Is that where
    you are at right now?
        Chief Gainer. Yes. But we are working with everybody to do
    that.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        So you will have more to report on that later.
        Chief Gainer. Yes, sir.

                               FAIRCHILD BUILDING

        Senator Allard [continuing]. Okay. Now on the Fairchild
    building, the Architect of the Capitol is leasing and fitting
    out several floors of the Fairchild building for the Capitol
    Police. Can you brief the subcommittee on the status of that
    effort? And when do you feel it will be ready to be occupied,
    and what needs we may have in that facility?
        Chief Gainer. Sure. We think our first--we hope our first--
    well, we have some people in there now in swing space, because
    we are moving them out of our headquarters, and there are some
    people in old space in the Fairchild. We think the new
    remodeled space will probably be ready. The target is sometime
    June. I am going to suspect late June, maybe early July, where
    we finally have a finished space where we can move people in
    there.
        The Architect and his staff have been very, very helpful in
    support of--given all the things everybody asks the Architect
    to do. It has been a costly operation. We are seeking funding
    for some of the security mechanisms that would be needed there,
    because we are taking over a large portion of the building, and
    it does not--with some very important units and documents for
    which we have asked for just under $1 million-ish to fund some
    of those security needs. So there are still some needs and
    there some time.
        But again, the whole issue about being in that building
    really revolves, again--Congress was very good in growing the
    department by some 333 sworn since 9/11. But the space that we
    occupy continues to shrink up until these recent moves.
        The Fairchild building was always meant to satisfy a
    temporary issue. And again, we would implore both the House and
    the Senate to consider our requests for a new Capitol Police
    headquarters, ultimately, that we might move into in 5, or 6,
    or 7 years.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Gentlemen, that takes care of my
    questions. And so we will go ahead and call this part of the
    hearing--we will dismiss this panel and then we will call on
    the next panel, which would be the Capitol Guide Board.
        I want to thank you all for your hard work and dedication,
    and all the fine people that you have underneath you, and all
    their fine work. I know they put in long, hard hours, and we
    appreciate that.
        Chief Gainer. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Allard. Thank you.
                              CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD

    STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. PICKLE, CHAIRMAN
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            BILL LIVINGOOD, HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS
            ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
        Mr. Pickle. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, you get to look at
    us a little longer.
        Senator Allard. We now have the Capitol Guide Board, which
    is Mr. Hantman, Mr. Pickle, and Mr. Livingood.
        Mr. Pickle. I think this is kind of unusual. This is the
    first time in a number of years that the Capitol Guide Board
    has testified.
        Senator Allard. New leadership on the subcommittee.

                      OPENING TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM PICKLE

        Mr. Pickle. But the Capitol Guide Service does a wonderful
    job, and by any measure, they are one of the best tour services
    in the world. So far this year they have accommodated more than
    200,000 visitors, and we believe that by October we may
    approach up to 1.5 million.
        The role of the Guide Service has changed quite
    dramatically since 9/11, like so much here. Prior to 9/11, it
    was more for tours and informational services. Since 9/11 they
    have become a very integral part of security. They help the
    police department in such things as emergency evacuation of
    tourists. Most of these visitors have never been in this
    building, and it is absolutely critical, as you have seen
    during some of the evacuations, that we have people who are
    trained to get people out of the building without hurting them
    and without causing more harm.
        We, today, have about 70 guides. And they handle roughly
    1,900 to 2,000 public visitors a day. The numbers are
    compounded by the fact that staff-led tours now total almost
    6,000 people a day. So we keep our tour guides busy not only
    with their own tours, but helping the staff as well.
        Tours are going to become a little more complicated as we
    get into the CVC, because, obviously, the jurisdiction or the
    role of the tour guide service will expand dramatically. To
    what degree, we do not know. That is still up to the governance
    board, and the House and Senate leadership who, as you know,
    are trying to decide just how this is going to be structured.
        But for 2006, we are pretty stable. We are asking for
    $254,000 more in the budget. It is a small 6.6 percent
    increase, and essentially covers COLAs and other minor
    expenses. We are not asking for any more positions this year.
    We believe additional positions for the CVC will be requested
    in next year's budget request.
        To show you the magnitude of what the Capitol Visitor
    Center is going to mean to the Guide Board, a consulting
    company that has been helping for the last several years and
    working with the Architect and that specializes in museums and
    large institutions, has indicated to us that their analysis
    shows we will need 161 guides to manage the CVC and the
    Capitol. This is because there are so many more
    responsibilities that the Guide Service will be required to
    take on in the visitor center. It is going to be a challenging
    year for us as we prepare for the CVC to open.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I have nothing more, but we are here to answer any
    questions you may have, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of William H. Pickle

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for
    this opportunity for the Capitol Guide Board to appear before
    the Committee. I am pleased to come before you today to report
    on the operations of the Capitol Guide Service and the
    Congressional Special Services Office (CGS/CSSO). With me today
    are Mr. Wilson Livingood, the House Sergeant at Arms and Mr.
    Alan Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol, who join me as
    Members of the Capitol Guide Board. Mr. Tom Stevens, Director
    of the Capitol Guide Service, is also with me today.
        The primary function of the Capitol Guide Service is to
    provide an enjoyable and accessible visit to the United States
    Capitol for over 1.5 million visitors annually. So far this
    fiscal year, the Guide Service has accommodated more than
    200,000 visitors on public tours alone. Also this year, the
    Guide Service has led approximately 55,000 visitors on Member
    Reserved Group tours, 7,500 on Congressional member tours
    (early-morning tours), 2,500 on Dome tours and more than 1,000
    visitors on adaptive tours for visitors with disabilities.
    Additionally, the Guide Service through its Congressional
    Special Services Office, has provided over 500 hours of sign
    language interpreting services for Congressional business.
    These numbers represent the non-peak season. If current levels
    are an indicator, we may reach 1.5 million visitors to the
    Capitol before October. The Guide Service has also trained over
    1,500 Congressional staff to give tours so far this year.
    During the peak season staff bring approximately 6,000 visitors
    to the Capitol each day.
        The Capitol Guide Service has been in existence since 1876,
    employing five guides when it was established for the
    centennial celebration. The Capitol Guide board--similar in
    composition to the Capitol Police Board (House and Senate
    Sergeants at Arms and Architect of the Capitol)--was
    established in 1970 to formalize the Guide Service as a
    professional entity within the Congress and to supervise and
    direct its operation.\1\ The authorizing legislation in 1970
    called upon the Guide Service, which employed twenty-four
    guides at the time, to ``assist the Capitol Police by providing
    ushering and informational services, and other services not
    directly involving law enforcement, in connection with
    ceremonial occasions in the Capitol or on Capitol Grounds,''
    among other duties.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Effective January 3, 1971, Public Law 91-510 made the tour
    guides legislative employees under the jurisdiction of the Capitol
    Guide Board. The first free guided tour was conducted on January 3,
    1971.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The role of the Guide Service in those days--pre 9/11--was
    to provide guided tours and informational guidance to visitors
    to the Capitol. Since then, the role of the Guide Service has
    expanded to include a quasi-security function. Following the
    events of 9/11, we called upon the Guide Service to assist the
    Capitol Police with emergency preparedness. Guide Service
    management is now equipped with emergency radios, providing a
    communications bridge to the Guide Service's own radio system.
    All Guide Service personnel have been trained in evacuation
    procedures. It falls to the Guide Service staff to assist the
    Capitol Police in the evacuation of those on public tours, who
    for the most part, have never been inside the Capitol Building
    before.
        Today, we have seventy guides to perform these services. We
    welcome the opportunity to increase the duties of the Guide
    Service to meet the needs of the Congressional community as we
    transition to the Capitol Visitor Center.
        For fiscal year 2006, the Guide Service is requesting a
    total budget of $4,098,000, which is an increase of $254,000 or
    6.6 percent over the fiscal year 2005 budget. Of that amount,
    $228,000 (90 percent) of this increase over fiscal year 2005
    includes the estimated fiscal year 2006 COLA and increases in
    personnel benefits. The requested increase will enable the
    Guide Service to maintain the level of service currently being
    provided to Members of Congress and their guests based on
    current visitation volume and services provided. While the
    Board anticipates hiring additional staff to operate in the
    CVC, funding for those additional FTE's is included in the CVC
    startup budget, therefore, these positions are not requested in
    this fiscal year 2006 submission.
        The staff of the Capitol Guide Service and its
    Congressional Special Services office has done a tremendous job
    in providing the utmost in visitor services to all who come to
    experience the Capitol. The accomplishments of this office
    would not be possible without the support of this Committee. We
    thank you for your support and the opportunity to present this
    testimony and answer your questions.

        Senator Allard. I wanted to have an opportunity to see what
    the makeup of the Board is and have a chance to visit with you
    a little bit about it. And I realize that it has not been on
    anybody's radar screen, but I also think that this is a unique
    time, with us moving into the new Capitol Visitor Center, and
    would like to have some assurance from you that some thought
    was being given about what I foresaw as some changing dynamics
    in the way those tours may be handled----
        Mr. Pickle. Absolutely.

                                STAFF LED TOURS

        Senator Allard [continuing]. As we move into the new
    Capitol Visitor Center, and perhaps some jurisdictional
    concerns, which you alluded to, as far as the House and the
    Senate are concerned.
        We have 6,000 people led in daily, what we call staff-led
    tours, and then you have 2,000 visitors that come through your
    regular Guide Service. And the staff-led tours, these are staff
    from the individual congressional offices. That is a pretty
    sizeable number that we have our staff doing.
        Do you see a problem with the staff-led tours?
        Mr. Pickle. There is a real problem with staff-led tours,
    and it is that we want the tours to be worthwhile for visitors.
    They should be enjoyable and a learning experience. And quite
    honestly, we do not think we are getting the bang for the buck
    on these tours.
        The Guide Service works hard to train staff members in each
    office and on each committee to give a good tour. But the
    situation is more difficult when you have thousands of people
    in the Capitol.
        As you know, it is tough to walk from one end of the
    Capitol to the other during the middle of the day. Both the
    House and the Senate are working with the Guide Service Board
    now to come up with an alternative plan, or something that will
    make the tours a more enjoyable experience.
        We are sending a letter out on the Senate side today to all
    of the committees and all the offices reminding them of the
    rules for staff-led tours. We are also reminding them that the
    building will only hold so many people, then it becomes unsafe,
    and when we reach that limit, we will be canceling or stopping
    tours for a period of time. Mr. Livingood has been doing that
    for the last several weeks on the House side.
        Senator Allard. I would guess that you have a lot more
    staff-led tours on that side.
        Mr. Pickle. It is considerably more.
        Senator Allard. Do we have an idea of how many of these are
    Senate-led staff tours and how many are House-led staff tours?
    Any idea on that?
        Mr. Pickle. Two-thirds are House--4,000 House, 2,000
    Senate.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        I think that is all. I just wanted to let you know we are
    looking at and thinking about the tours, and we need to have a
    little public discussion about it. But I think that as a new
    member of this subcommittee and also as its chairman that I
    need to do everything I possibly can to inform myself on the
    workings of the Capitol and the surrounding facilities that we
    have.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        So, again, I want to thank you for all your hard work. And
    the subcommittee stands in recess until May 11, when we will
    take testimony from the Government Printing Office and the
    Congressional Budget Office.
        And thank you, gentlemen, for your hard work.
        Mr. Pickle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Allard. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., Wednesday, April 27, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, May 11.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005

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

                           GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF BRUCE R. JAMES, PUBLIC PRINTER

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order.
        This morning, we meet to take testimony from three
    legislative branch agencies, the Government Printing Office
    (GPO), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Office of
    Compliance. I want to welcome all of our witnesses.
        We will first hear from Mr. Bruce James, Public Printer,
    who will be presenting GPO's budget request for $131 million.
    GPO's budget request is an increase of $11 million over the
    current year, or a 9 percent increase.
        Mr. James, you've made great strides in the past few years
    in improving GPO's operations, including closing the retail
    stores which had been in the red for some time, downsizing the
    workforce to better meet GPO's needs, developing a strategic
    plan, reorganizing the agency to better meet customer needs,
    and seeking opportunities for relocating GPO's facility.
        I would also note that GPO's financial situation has
    improved considerably, generating net income in 2004 for the
    first time since 1999. We look forward to reviewing the status
    of your efforts to make further improvements to modernize the
    Government Printing Office.
        Following GPO, we will hear from Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
    who is accompanied by his Deputy, Dr. Elizabeth Robinson. The
    CBO's budget request of $36 million is a modest 3.5 percent
    increase over the current year to maintain current operations.
        And then, finally, we will take testimony from the
    Executive Director of the Office of Compliance, Bill Thompson,
    and the Chair of the Board of the Office of Compliance, Susan
    Robfogel. The office is requesting a budget of $2.6 million for
    fiscal year 2006. While this is a 9 percent increase, we
    understand you believe additional funds over the requested
    level may be needed to fully meet your mandate.
        I will turn to my ranking member when he arrives, and in
    the meantime, we will go ahead and take testimony from our
    witnesses. We're going to start with Mr. James, Government
    Printing Office. I appreciate everybody's timeliness this
    morning, because I do like to get started on time, so Mr.
    James, you're up.

                        OPENING STATEMENT OF BRUCE JAMES

        Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
    address you this morning, I have a prepared statement for the
    record, if you'll accept that.
        Senator Allard. We will make that a part of the record.
        Mr. James. Thank you. I'd like to make a few comments.
    First of all, you may observe the room is filled with people, I
    think GPO has more people here this morning than you do, and
    you might assume that I have all these wonderful people here in
    case you ask any tough questions and I need answers, but that's
    not really the reason. This is an opportunity that I think is
    important for our people to see first hand what is on your
    mind, and what it is that we need to be addressing.
        Second, I have with me this morning a couple of our younger
    staff. We put a great deal of effort on recruiting from college
    campuses the best and brightest graduates to come in and join
    our organization, and with me this morning I have one of them,
    Ron Selby, who is a graduate of Cal Poly, and who's working in
    our digital media group, establishing new standards for
    Government information.
        And I also have with me one of our interns, an intern from
    Howard, here in town, Lonnie Stibey, and it's our hope that we
    can attract her when she graduates from school into the
    organization, too.
        I realize, Mr. Chairman, that you're new in this position,
    and we've not had a chance to talk about some of the background
    of the GPO, and if I may, I'd like to use my time here to talk
    about the big picture here for a minute, because I think you'll
    find this useful.
        We're in an interesting situation. We've had a disruptive
    technology thrust upon us, and that disruptive technology is
    the Internet, which is changing forever the way people will do
    business in this country. It's changing the way information's
    going to be handled, and it's changing the ability of Americans
    to access the work of their Government. As you know, the
    Government Printing Office goes back many years. When I was
    sworn into office, I was fortunate to have Justice Kennedy
    swear me in, and he gave me a little 15 minute talk. And during
    that period of time, he didn't talk once about making printing
    presses run faster. What he talked about was my responsibility
    in helping to preserve our democracy, by making certain that
    all Americans have access to information about the work of
    their Government.
        And so, in the past 2 years--and I've been there a little
    over 2 years--what we've been looking at is what are the true
    core requirements of the GPO, not just today, but what are
    those requirements going to be into the future. And we've done
    this by talking with all of the groups involved with the GPO,
    from Congress to librarians to printers, to our customers in
    the executive branch, to get a feeling from them about how
    their requirements are changing and what they're going to need
    in the future.
        And we also talked with universities to see what they were
    working on in their research laboratories, we talked with our
    sister agencies that are involved with information, like the
    Library of Congress, and the Archives of the United States. We
    visited with the major technology companies to see what they're
    working on in the future, and from all of this a pattern
    emerged. And we took last year to come together, and I took
    about 200 people at GPO working in small groups on the
    development of a strategic vision for the agency, published
    that vision in December of last year, and as I say to our
    folks, this is not the final blueprint, this is the music, and
    it's up to them to now fill in the words, but now we've got
    everybody on the same page and I'm pleased to say that we've
    gotten wide acceptance of the strategic plan, or our strategic
    vision, from the various groups, again, that we do business
    with.
        The next thing that we've looked at doing here is to try to
    decide where the funds are going to come from that are going to
    be required to transform the GPO from an analog, print-centric
    organization to a digital information organization, which is
    what's needed in the future. And there will be, literally,
    hundreds of millions of dollars involved in the cost of doing
    this, and so we've looked at this and thought about this as if
    it was business--how would we look at it? Well, we would have
    two choices--perhaps more than two--but we'd have two distinct
    choices.
        One is to turn to the capital markets to raise the money,
    and the other would be doing this from internally generated
    funds. And, in the case of a Government agency, of course,
    Congress is the capital market, we'd have to come to Congress
    for the funds that are necessary to make the investment, and
    continue to refresh the investment, and it's been very clear to
    me in the year, year and a half that I've looked at this, that
    Congress has priorities that are probably higher than the GPO,
    and let me just put it that way, and so I just don't think it's
    realistic to come to you and ask you for hundreds of millions
    of dollars.
        Instead we've looked at this and tried to determine how we
    could do this using our own assets, and I think we've come up
    with a very ingenious plan. It revolves around the facilities
    that we have on North Capitol Street, which are historic, they
    go back to the 1860's. We've acquired in that period of time
    about 80 parcels of land that we've accumulated and built four
    buildings altogether on that land. However, those buildings are
    now obsolete for the purpose that we have today, they're
    totally obsolete. They're very expensive to maintain; we
    estimate that we're spending as much as $35 million a year to
    maintain these obsolete buildings that we wouldn't have to
    spend if we were in proper facilities, properly located, and
    properly equipped.
        So, what we've done is, because we're five blocks from the
    U.S. Capitol, we realize that this land, these facilities could
    be very valuable to the Government in the future. So, we've
    looked at the possibility of doing a deal with the private
    development community wherein we would lease the land in
    exchange for payment coming from them. The payment, in turn,
    would be used to build and equip a new facility, and it also
    would be a continuing cash stream to us to be able to refresh
    our technology without having to make a burden on taxpayers.
        We've been at this for some time. We've engaged one of the
    preeminent real estate advisory firms in the country to help us
    with this, and we've been consulting with Members and staffs in
    both the Senate and the House, and I think we are coming right
    down the road. I hope to be able to institute that this year.
    It is the single-most important thing in front of us.
        The second thing that we're doing that is absolutely
    critical to the future of Government information is the
    development of what we're calling the ``Future Digital
    System,'' sometimes it's referred to as the ``Digital Content
    Management System''. It is a single system that is based on
    what's going to be required to ingest Government documents that
    are created in digital form, and to manage that information
    through a life cycle, and the life cycle in the case of the
    United States of America is in perpetuity. And in trying to get
    our minds around what that is, we realize that's a long time.
    And I guess you, philosophically, can argue whether it's
    forever or not, but in perpetuity's a long time.
        We've had that charge since 1813, of making certain that
    the documents created by the United States Government are not
    only available to the public, but that we keep them for future
    generations. So, we're developing a large system. Again, we're
    looking how to do this with internally generated funds. I
    realize I can't just come to you and ask you to again put tens
    of millions of dollars into this, and we think we have a way of
    doing this and will be coming back to you in the next week or
    two to talk about it. And that is, that we have a revolving
    fund, and as the appropriations come each year--the two major
    appropriations we get, one is for congressional printing and
    binding, the other is for dissemination through the Federal
    depository library program and through the Internet--we have
    accumulated some surpluses from past years. I say they became
    surpluses only because we've become more efficient. That money
    was set aside to do work in the future, going back and taking
    care of documents that were created by Congress and agencies
    that would only be printed in future years, and we've just
    gotten more efficient. And so, we see an opportunity to use
    those funds to support the building of a future digital system.
    And, again, I think it's an ingenious way of using that money,
    it's a terrific investment. And so we'll be coming back to you,
    Mr. Chairman, to talk about that in the next week or 2.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So, those are the major issues that we have here, I think
    that we have proven that we can get our arms around this large
    agency and sort of tame it, and bring it under control. We
    introduced, as you pointed out, a number of practices in the
    agency that now allow us to be able to predict what will
    happen, and measure what we do, and make adjustments as
    necessary to be prudent managers of the enterprise.
        Mr. Chairman, those are my opening remarks, and I will be
    pleased to answer any questions you may have.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Bruce R. James
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee Legislative Branch
    Appropriations: It is an honor to be here today to present the
    appropriations request of the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) for
    fiscal year 2006.
                                  2004 results
        I'm pleased to report that the GPO made significant progress during
    fiscal year 2004--the first full year of our efforts to transform this
    venerable agency from a 19th century printing factory into a 21st
    century digital information factory.
        We restored the GPO's finances to a positive basis for the first
    time in 5 years, broadened the application of best practices throughout
    our operations, prepared for the release of new product and service
    options, and set in motion our plan to relocate to a modern facility.
    With the release of our Strategic Vision for the 21st Century in
    December, we set the GPO on a new course for the future.
        Underscoring our progress are the results of the GAO's widely
    anticipated study of Federal printing and information dissemination
    activities, Government Printing Office: Actions to Strengthen and
    Sustain GPO's Transformation, which was requested originally by this
    committee in 2002 and released in June, 2004. The study validates our
    efforts to redirect the GPO's focus toward information dissemination in
    the digital era.
        We generated consolidated net income in 2004 for the first time
    since fiscal year 1999, reversing a trend that had depleted our
    financial reserves and jeopardized our ability to finance needed
    technological modernization. We also recorded a significant positive
    adjustment to our long-term worker's compensation liability under FECA,
    which further strengthened our finances.
        We implemented plans to achieve savings and improve service
    provision by outsourcing financial and IT support operations. We closed
    our final ailing regional printing plant. A second retirement incentive
    program, authorized by the Joint Committee on Printing, resulted in an
    additional workforce reduction of 250 positions, yielding a cumulative
    workforce reduction of approximately 550 positions, or nearly 20
    percent, since January 2003.
        We established an office to devise new product and service options
    for Congress and Federal agencies. Security documents are gaining
    increased attention throughout the Government--from biometric passports
    to requirements for new security document standards contained in the
    Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004--and we view
    this as a major new opportunity for the application of the GPO's expert
    capabilities. We began reviewing options for developing GPO facilities
    outside of Washington, DC, to enhance security and continuity of
    operations.
        During 2004 we began planning for the development of a Digital
    Content Management System that will allow us to obtain, preserve, and
    provide access to information produced by all three branches of
    Government, and to material currently in the custody of the GPO and
    Federal depository libraries nationwide. The Digital Content Management
    System will enable the GPO's customers to electronically access the
    content they want and allow us to deliver it in the formats they
    desire.
        As we reported to this Committee last year, a key to the GPO's
    future will be relocating from our aging, oversized quarters to modern,
    efficient facilities scaled and equipped to meet our needs in the 21st
    century. Rather than burden the taxpayers with this project, we're
    investigating opportunities to finance it through the redevelopment of
    our current structures. In September 2004, following approval from the
    Joint Committee on Printing, we selected an expert real estate advisory
    firm to help guide us in this process, which we expect to culminate by
    late 2007. We will seek legislative authority for this project and are
    working on this with our oversight committees.
        Because of the relentless scope and pace of changes in information
    technology, the way the Government keeps America informed has been
    forever altered. The GPO's historic mission places us at the very
    epicenter of this change. We can no longer afford simply to react to
    change in information dissemination. Instead, we have to lead it. Late
    in the year we released our Strategic Vision of the 21st Century, which
    positions us to transform the GPO into a 21st century digital
    information service provider.
        The time has come for the GPO to fully assume its responsibilities
    as the Government's primary resource for gathering, cataloging,
    producing, providing, and preserving its published information in all
    forms. This is the GPO's historic mission, tracing its beginning to
    1813, when the antecedents of Federal Depository Library Program was
    first enacted. But to fully assume it, we must embrace our historic
    mission using the technology of the 21st century. Relying on the
    creative energy of our dedicated workforce, and based on the
    achievements we've logged over the past two years, we're well-
    positioned to begin making our strategic vision of the GPO a reality.
                            fiscal year 2006 request
        Our fiscal year 2006 request is designed to provide for the:
    continuation of our congressional printing and binding operations at
    required levels; continuation of our information dissemination services
    at required levels; and investment in retraining our workforce to meet
    the demands of technology.
        Our fiscal year 2006 request is consistent with the financial goal
    included in our Strategic Vision, which is to provide the resources
    required to accomplish our vision using the GPO's own operations and
    assets as well as normal appropriations, with the exception of a
    onetime infusion of workforce development and training funds.
                            continuation of services
        For the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation, which
    covers printing and information product services for Congress, we are
    requesting $92.3 million. This is a modest rise over the level approved
    by Congress for fiscal year 2005, based on anticipated direct cost
    increases resulting primarily from contractual wage agreements and
    projected changes in congressional workload consistent with second
    session requirements.
        For the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent
    of Documents, we are requesting $33.8 million, also a modest rise over
    the fiscal year 2005 approved level. This appropriation provides for
    the distribution of Government publications in both tangible and online
    formats to Federal depository and international exchange libraries and
    other recipients authorized by law, as well as the cataloging and
    indexing of Government publications. Today, our online information
    service, GPO Access (www.gpoaccess.gov), makes available free of charge
    more than a quarter of a million titles from all three branches of the
    Federal Government, and is used by the public to retrieve more than 37
    million documents every month.
        Since 1996, consistent with directions from Congress, the GPO has
    been transitioning the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) to a
    predominately electronic basis in full cooperation and consultation
    with the library community. This initiative has resulted in an
    exponential expansion of effective public access to Government
    information without substantial increases in funding. At the same time,
    we have continued to provide public access to information in tangible
    formats in accordance with policy established by the Superintendent of
    Documents.
        We value our partnership with Federal depository libraries and
    share their commitment to providing no-fee permanent public access to a
    comprehensive body of official Federal Government information, in print
    and electronic form. We will continue to expand electronic information
    offerings through the FDLP and will continue to provide for
    dissemination of tangible products to depository libraries in
    accordance with existing policy, in full consultation with the library
    community and our oversight committees in Congress.
                         investment in the gpo's future
        For our revolving fund, we are requesting $5 million for
    transitioning the GPO's workforce from traditional manufacturing and
    distribution skills to the capabilities required for managing the life-
    cycle of Government information products. These funds will be used to
    define the workforce needed in the immediate future, assess the skills
    of current employees, identify the gaps, and then design and deliver
    targeted, just-in-time training to close those gaps.
        Our Strategic Vision identifies unexpended balances of prior year
    appropriations that have not yet expired as a potential source of funds
    for investment in our signature initiative, the Digital Content
    Management System. This system will serve both the FDLP as well as
    ingest information products produced by Congress for public
    dissemination. Under the language of our appropriations accounts,
    unobligated or unexpended balances in these accounts or accounts for
    similar purposes for preceding fiscal years may be transferred to the
    GPO revolving fund for carrying out the purposes of these
    appropriations subject to the approval of the House and Senate
    Appropriations Committees. The GPO used this legislative provision once
    before, in 2001, with the Committees' approval. For this appropriations
    cycle, and with the approval of the Joint Committee on Printing, we
    will seek the Committees' approval to transfer currently available
    funds to the revolving fund where they would remain available until
    expended in the development of the Digital Content Management System.
    This funding would also be available to liquidate any shortfalls in
    these appropriated accounts that may occur through fiscal year 2006.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Appropriations Committee, thank you
    for all the support you have shown for our efforts to bring
    transformation to the GPO. This past year has been one of unparalleled
    accomplishment at the GPO. With your support we can continue that
    record of achievement. I look forward to working with you in your
    review and consideration of our request.

            REDEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE HEADQUARTERS

        Senator Allard. Mr. James, you have made tremendous strides
    in your efforts to modernize GPO. One of the biggest obstacles
    you face is your current facility on North Capitol Street--4
    buildings and 8.5 acres--far more than GPO needs and costing
    $35 million in operations and maintenance each year. What are
    the options you are exploring to finance a new GPO facility?
        Mr. James. The land that we have at North Capitol and H
    Streets is one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in
    the United States for potential development, and it's because
    of its location, one block from Union Station, and five blocks
    from the Capitol. It's clear that the District government would
    be opposed to tearing down the historic buildings that we have,
    and so we're going to have to preserve those historic
    buildings, however we end up doing this, but we have vacant
    land to go with these historic buildings, and my guess is that
    we'll end up with a mix of offices, retail, residential and
    perhaps, even, a hotel. And from our conversations with the
    District government, they're quite excited about this, because
    this fits into their general development scheme for the area
    quite well. This can be the lynchpin for them in really helping
    to develop that part of the city.
        So, what we've been doing with The Staubach Company, our
    real estate advisory firm, is looking at what would be the
    highest and best use of that land, not just for us, but for the
    city too, what are we going to end up with? Because what we
    want to do is go out to developers and we want to do this on a
    competitive process. We'll probably go through two stages--a
    request for information and a request for proposal. But I don't
    want to go out blind. I want to go out knowing what to expect
    back, so I have an ability to evaluate what we're hearing.
        Now, we've also been working with two other organizations
    that have more real estate experience than we do, and that's
    the General Services Administration, and the Architect of the
    Capitol, both of whom have been very generous in sharing their
    people with us as we set this process up. So, at the end of the
    day, we would expect, through a competitive process, to get the
    highest and best use of the property, and do it on a basis
    where we, the Government, retain the ownership, at least of the
    contiguous parcels on the west side of North Capitol, and at
    some period in the future it reverts back to the Government, so
    that we have a second bite at the apple.
        Senator Allard. According to your strategic plan, GPO
    ``expects the terms of any redevelopment to be settled by mid-
    2005.'' Are you on schedule?
        Mr. James. Yes, sir. We are. We have been working
    diligently in the last year on this, the final presentation
    from Staubach is due to be made to me next Monday, we have
    identified the issues that we need to work with Congress on,
    we've had preliminary discussions with Congress on this, and
    we'll be back in the next week or 2 asking permission to move
    forward.
        Senator Allard. Is legislation required to implement your
    plan?
        Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, we've looked very carefully at
    this, and under the law, I can probably do quite a bit on my
    own, obviously we wouldn't move without the concurrence of
    Congress, but it looks like we are going to need legislation in
    terms of the ability to keep the proceeds in redevelopment, but
    if we don't have that it looks to us like the proceeds would go
    back to the General Treasury.
        Senator Allard. Have you shared the plan with the
    appropriate committees of Congress?
        Mr. James. We have shared the development of that plan,
    we're getting ready to present the entire plan.
        Senator Allard. When will the Congress be presented with a
    plan?
        Mr. James. Within a week or 2.
        Senator Allard. Is your assumption that a new GPO building
    will be operational in fiscal year 2007 realistic?
        Mr. James. Well, my target is to be in a new facility--
    which is separate and distinct from the redevelopment of the
    existing facilities, they can't begin to redevelop the existing
    facilities until we get out--so our goal is to be out and into
    a new facility by December 2007. Now, I caution, that's a very
    aggressive schedule, but I'm used to setting aggressive
    schedules, and trying to get there. It is an aggressive
    schedule.
        Senator Allard. Will any appropriations be required for
    this venture?
        Mr. James. Well, we've had some discussions with your staff
    about the future of appropriations, because we realize this
    isn't just a 1-year deal here, and the economics look to us
    like, quite frankly, we will be able to reduce our
    appropriations requests in the future, not ask for more money,
    and the reason I say that is, so much of what you appropriate
    to use, particularly for congressional printing and binding,
    encompasses the overhead that we have for maintaining this
    ancient facility. And when that overhead is reduced, we should
    be able to produce each page of a document for less money,
    therefore reducing, overall, the costs to the Government.

                              FUTURE COST SAVINGS

        Senator Allard. GPO's budget justification indicates that
    once you have a new plant and equipment, you expect to be able
    to reduce the congressional printing and binding appropriation
    by 30 percent. What is the basis of this projection?
        Mr. James. We estimate that we will be able, on the
    congressional printing and binding portion of the
    appropriation, we think by 2009, our request will be about 30
    percent less than it would be if we maintained ourselves in the
    same building.
        Senator Allard. Where will the savings come from?
        Mr. James. You know, I could probably best answer that
    question by taking you for a 10 minute walk through our
    facility. It was designed and built in the late 19th century
    and early 20th century, and we're maintaining nearly 100
    elevators that are in some cases 100 years old. We're
    maintaining an ancient facility that, at one time, housed 8,500
    people, and today we have less than 2,500 people in the
    facility. As we embrace technology, and do things more
    efficiently, we need fewer people. So, just by reducing those
    costs, we will save about $35 million a year, just from that
    alone.

                           SCHEDULE FOR NEW BUILDING

        Senator Allard. Is your assumption that a new GPO building
    will be operational in 2007 realistic?
        Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, I'm a novice at this, I've only
    been in Washington for 2 years, and of course, everybody tells
    me how slowly things move, and I realize that I don't have the
    same control on the project that I would if this were in the
    private sector, but I see no obstacles at this point that would
    keep us from meeting that aggressive schedule. There may be
    something that comes up, certainly Congress could slow us down
    and there would be other things that could slow us down, too,
    but I think this is a doable schedule, and I think it's
    realistic. It's very important that we have dates like that in
    mind for my planners, the folks that are planning what the new
    operation will look like, because as you might imagine, when we
    move to a new facility, this will be the start of a new
    culture. We will move from being print-centric with large--what
    I call, heavy metal--printing presses, and instead we'll move
    into digital production lines that are very efficient.
        I had a conversation the other day with the Clerk of the
    House about this, about the Congressional Record. I was talking
    to Mr. Trandahl about it, and I said, ``For instance, we no
    longer would have to think about giving each Member a complete
    Record each day. We could, instead, do a customized Record
    based on what their interests are, what their committees are,
    and just custom-make exactly what they need, because the entire
    Record's on the Internet, you can look it up on GPO Access or
    Thomas, so instead, we could save paper, we could save time, we
    could save energy, and make it much more efficient.'' So, we're
    looking at building a platform that will be far more flexible
    for our customers in the future.

                       DIGITAL CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

        Senator Allard. According to your statement, GPO will be
    seeking congressional approval this year to reprogram $20
    million from previously appropriated funds to develop a new
    integrated digital content management system. Could you explain
    what this is and why it is necessary?
        Mr. James. Well, it's necessary because technology has
    changed. Twelve years ago, the Government didn't have any
    documents on the Internet. Last month, we estimate that 50
    percent of all Government documents were born digital, to never
    be printed by the Government. This doesn't relieve the
    Government of the responsibility of having that information
    available to citizens, and our web portal, GPO Access, is the
    Government's principle point for citizens to enter and look at
    the documents of Government. We have about 256,000 documents
    available for citizens on GPO Access, we have about 1 million
    downloads a day of Government documents. This didn't exist 10
    years ago. So, we need to have a system that's robust enough to
    handle that--and if I may add, if I may just extend that remark
    slightly--there are profound changes coming down the road.
        The Internet that we have today is nothing like what the
    Internet 5 years from now is going to look like. The Internet 5
    years from now will be running at 20,000 times the speed of
    today's Internet. The way the Government gathers information
    and the way we present information is going to change. We're
    going to make far heavier use of video and audio, and what we
    need to do is prepare the way, so that when you're ready to
    introduce new ways of doing things, we have the support
    mechanism in place.

                           LEASE OF CURRENT FACILITY

        Senator Allard. If you're planning to lease the current
    facility, are you counting on whoever leases it to maintain the
    buildings, or will GPO need to do that, and is GPO going to
    have a surplus out of this lease arrangement in order to pay
    for the other building?
        Mr. James. We won't be doing the maintenance, Mr. Chairman.
    The developer that we pick together will be doing this.
        Senator Allard. And the Government will continue to own
    those buildings?
        Mr. James. Yes, sir.
        Senator Allard. And the land, too?
        Mr. James. Yes, sir.
        Senator Allard. And, have you got some figures on what it's
    going to cost to maintain and operate the lease site?
        Mr. James. We're not going to know that until we go out for
    proposals from developers. And again, this is not our money,
    this is not taxpayer's money that we're putting into this
    development project. This will be capital the developer raises
    and brings to the project. The developer's the one who will be
    responsible for building anything, changing anything, with his
    own funds, and for paying the cost of maintaining it, paying
    the costs of leasing it, collecting the rents, doing all the
    things that would normally be done. We simply sit there with a
    lease that is guaranteed, of course, by the fact that we own
    the land, and the buildings, we own those, so that's our
    guarantee, and we will get then, each year, or each month or
    however the arrangement is made, we will get a sum of money
    paid to us.
        Senator Allard. You had a number of developers who were
    interested in this project, is that right?
        Mr. James. I believe we have gone through the steps of
    making certain that the world's premier developers are aware of
    this. We believe that we will have great interest in this
    project, from the best developers in the world.
        Senator Allard. At this point in time, how would you
    characterize the interest in this venture? High, medium or low?
        Mr. James. Very high.

                              DIGITIZATION EFFORT

        Senator Allard. Okay. One of the efforts you had was to
    digitize and authenticate all known Federal documents. How far
    along are you in that goal?
        Mr. James. Today any document that is possible to digitize,
    we're digitizing, every new document coming along, and we've
    been doing that for some time. But, of course, we have a lot of
    documents that have been issued over the years, going back to
    1789 and even before that that are considered Federal
    documents, that are available only in paper, and therefore
    they're in just a few locations around the country. Scholars
    have access to those documents but the general public doesn't
    have access to that information. And so we think to have a
    truly usable database of Federal information, that it's going
    to be important to go back and digitize those documents, to
    find them and digitize them. The good news is that we already
    own those documents, we the Government own those documents, and
    they're maintained at Federal depository libraries in
    partnership with the Government. Fifty-three of those
    libraries, called regional depositories, have very extensive
    collections, and we've talked with several of them that would
    be interested in participating with us in this project in
    furnishing those documents back to us.
        We are looking right now at building a new business unit at
    the GPO that we'll call the digital media group, and we're
    setting the standards, we're getting our arms around that
    project right now. And this is going to become a very important
    part of retraining our workforce. We have a lot of people with
    skills in platemaking, printing, and binding that won't be
    needed in the future. Instead, it will be people with digital
    skills, and so what we'll be doing is transforming those jobs
    from the old world into the new world as we establish the
    digital media group.
        We've talked with our customers, and we have roughly 500
    agencies in the Government who are our customers, many of whom
    have requirements to digitize documents. We've discussed with
    them the possibility of building this enterprise of digitizing
    Federal documents in the depository library system, and also
    offering services to other Government agencies, and we've
    received a lot of interest in that.
        Senator Allard. Are you far enough along to have an idea as
    to how long it will take to do this and what the cost might be?
        Mr. James. If we do this smartly, there isn't going to be
    any additional burden of cost, and I say that because we're
    taking people that are already on our payroll that we're
    already paying, and we're going to move them from the job
    they're doing today into this new area. So, it's not going to
    be additional cost. My goal is to have 70 percent of all the
    retrospective documents into a digital system by the end of
    2007. We think that's a realistic and practical goal.

                          TRANSITIONING THE WORKFORCE

        Senator Allard. Okay, now along with this transition that
    you're talking about, going into the digital age, you've
    requested in your budget $5 million that has been defined as
    ``transitioning the GPO workforce.'' What will be the impact if
    we're unable to provide this appropriation?
        Mr. James. Well, it would probably cost the jobs of 400 or
    500 Government workers, and we'd probably get back to you,
    talking about the fact that we're going to have to terminate
    those workers, because they wouldn't have the skills that we
    need for the new world. We think this $5 million is a really
    modest investment in taking people who have proven their
    ability to be good employees, and who have been dedicated and
    loyal to the Government, many of them for more than 30 years,
    and give them the benefit of acquiring new skills, and this is
    the right thing to do.

                                 SMART PASSPORT

        Senator Allard. Let me move over to your working with the
    State Department on what's been referred to as a ``Smart
    Passport.'' What's the status of that effort, and what impact
    will this activity have on GPO's future?
        Mr. James. As we've looked at the future, it's very clear,
    Mr. Chairman, that security and intelligent documents are going
    to become more and more important to the GPO. It's going to
    comprise a significant portion of our business 5 years down the
    road. The start of it is the putting of an electronic chip and
    antenna into the new U.S. passport.
        We've been at work on this project with our customer, the
    State Department, for nearly 1\1/2\ years. We've been looking
    at the various possibilities, how we're going to do this, how
    this chip is going to be included in the passport. We
    manufactured the very first electronic passport about 3 months
    ago as a test, and my understanding is that the State
    Department is going to be rolling out the electronic passport,
    which we produce, later this summer in an official version--the
    version that you would carry or diplomats would carry--to test
    it. We know what happens with a traditional passport when it
    goes through a washing machine, we know what happens to the old
    passports. What we don't know is what happens with the new
    electronic passport if you leave it in the trunk of your car.
    So, we'd like to get some information, the State Department
    would, before they begin to issue those to general citizens,
    but they expect that early next calendar year they'll be
    rolling out those passports.

                          FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES

        Senator Allard. On the Federal depository library system,
    is the depository library community satisfied with your
    approach, going to the electronic dissemination of information?
        Mr. James. Well, there are thousands of people involved in
    the Federal depository library community. As my opening remarks
    indicated, we have experienced a very disruptive technology.
    It's not only disrupted our lives and your lives, but it
    certainly is having a profound effect on libraries. I think we
    have general concurrence throughout the community of the
    importance of building the digital database of all U.S.
    Government documents from the beginning of time until now, and
    keeping that current. We're 100 percent on the same page.
        Our instructions from the Appropriations Committees over
    the years have been to transform the depository library system
    from a paper system to an electronic delivery system. And we've
    been doing that and today, most of the documents we deliver are
    in electronic form, we no longer print them.
        But there's certainly documents left that we are printing,
    and there are certain communities within the Federal depository
    library system that still have a need for paper documents, and
    we're going to have to find a way to continue to provide those
    paper documents as long as they need them. And every day we
    work on this issue with the depository libraries.

                    GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE FIELD OFFICES

        Senator Allard. GPO has 20 field offices for print
    procurement. What is the status of any effort to realign any of
    those offices?
        Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, they are more than just offices
    that purchase printing. As I'm sure you know, the GPO doesn't
    print only in our own plant. Most of the Government's
    requirements are placed into private sector. Last year we sent
    work to 2,568 printers around the country. We buy printing very
    efficiently. Now our regional offices help us in buying
    printing efficiently, and in making certain that printing is
    widely distributed throughout the United States.
        However, they also work with our customers, our customers
    being the agencies of Government, and there are very few people
    who run programs in other Government agencies that have skills
    and knowledge about information, how it's created, how it's
    processed, and how it's used. Today, of course, it's always
    digital as well as printing, so our people have those skills,
    and we work with our agency customers in helping them to
    accomplish their mission.
        Now, whether or not we need 20 offices is the question, and
    we are continuing to examine that and look at whether there is
    a more efficient way of providing a high level of service to
    our customers.

                               INTERNAL CONTROLS

        Senator Allard. One final question, the Inspector General
    has suggested that perhaps there needed to be improvement in
    the contracting processes, particularly on your internal
    controls. His concern was it would help prevent the potential
    for waste, fraud and abuse. What steps are you taking to meet
    those concerns?
        Mr. James. I could not agree more with them. We did not
    have, when I arrived, the proper methods, the proper
    techniques, the proper technology to efficiently and
    effectively manage this contracting. And we've taken very
    aggressive steps to make the investments necessary to get this
    under control, and I can report to you that I completely agree
    with the Inspector General, and we are moving on this as
    promptly as we possibly can.
        Senator Allard. That's all the questions I have, Mr. James,
    and we need to move forward because I think we've got a vote
    scheduled for 11:30.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        There will perhaps be some other questions from the
    subcommittee and I think perhaps Senator Durbin might have some
    questions from that side of the aisle, and I ask that you could
    respond promptly when you get those questions. Is 10 days a
    reasonable time period?
        Mr. James. Absolutely.
        Senator Allard. We thank you for your testimony, and then
    we'll move on to the next panel. Thank you, Mr. James.
        Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
        Question.. Mr. James, what changes does GPO plan on making with
    regard to the production of U. S. passports?
        Answer. In cooperation with the State Department and other Federal
    agencies, a major effort is underway at the GPO that will lead to the
    introduction of an electronic passport in 2005.
        The new electronic passport will enhance the security of millions
    of Americans traveling around the world and facilitate the movement of
    travelers at ports of entry. The electronic passport will contain an
    embedded computer chip that complies with the recommendations of the
    International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and will be consistent
    with the provisions of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry
    Reform Act of 2002. The electronic passport is a significant step
    forward in the utilization of advanced information technology to meet
    the requirements of one of our most important customers, the State
    Department.
        The development and production of the electronic passport will be a
    three-phase project:
      --The GPO will produce test passports using chip solutions provided
            by commercial vendors that manufacture this technology. The
            National Institute of Standards and Technology will then test
            the electronic passports for their ability to meet durability,
            security, and electronic requirements.
      --Once testing results are completed and the final vendor(s)
            selected, the State Department will conduct an operational
            field test, and then begin issuing electronic passports to
            Federal employees. The current timeline for these activities is
            in the summer and fall of 2005.
      --The first electronic passports are currently expected to be issued
            to the general public later this year, with full deployment at
            all Department of State passport agencies in 2006.
        Question. Where are you considering locating your GPO continuity of
    operations facilities outside of the Washington, DC, area?
        Answer. As provided for in the GPO's Strategic Vision for the 21st
    Century, submitted to Congress in December 2004, we are reviewing
    options to establish an ancillary facility outside of Washington, DC,
    for the production of U.S. passports and other security and intelligent
    documents. In view of the events of September 11, 2001, and the
    subsequent anthrax and ricin attacks on U.S. Capitol buildings, we
    believe it is essential that a geographically separate facility be
    established to produce these essential products in the event that
    current capabilities at the GPO become unavailable.
        We are currently discussing location options and capabilities with
    officials of the State Department. Optimally, this facility would be
    located at the Nevada Test Site, which can provide a maximum level of
    security for these important documents. However, we are prepared to
    work with the State Department and our oversight committees to fully
    review the cost and benefits of alternative location options.
        Question. You have conducted two buyouts since 2003, both of which
    substantially reduced your workforce. Do you have the staffing to
    ensure that GPO is able to carry out its mission successfully?
        Answer. The buyouts we conducted in 2003 and 2004, with the
    approval of the Joint Committee on Printing as required by our
    retirement incentive legislation, reduced our workforce by
    approximately 550 positions, or 20 percent, yielding annual savings of
    about $38 million. The buyouts were conducted at a time when nearly
    half of GPO's workforce was retirement-eligible. Also, many of the
    positions that were reduced came from our publication sales program
    area, which was unable to continue supporting a personnel
    infrastructure of its previous size. With reorganization of our
    functions, over the past year we were able to meet our mission
    requirements while continuing to carry out transformation activities to
    prepare GPO to meet the requirements of the 21st century. We are
    closely monitoring our mission performance and taking all necessary
    actions to manage customer expectations from Congress, Federal
    agencies, and the public.
        Question. Your Strategic Vision document outlines a new
    organization for the GPO. Can you please explain it for us?
        Answer. To better address the many challenges and opportunities
    posed by the 21st century publishing environment, GPO will reconfigure
    its organizational structure around six business lines. These new
    Business Units will be phased in over the next two years in the
    following order:
      --Security and Intelligent Documents.--This line of business will
            work with Federal agencies to assist in the safe and secure
            design, production, and distribution of security and
            intelligent documents, many of which will incorporate
            electronic and other fraud and counterfeit protection features.
      --Digital Media Services.--This unit will develop and maintain the
            resources necessary to provide services to Federal agencies and
            the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), to allow them to
            both add content to GPO's Digital Content Management System,
            and to withdraw or receive content to produce specific products
            and services. It will also house GPO's creative capabilities
            for customers.
      --Customer Services.--This is an existing GPO business unit that will
            be organized around its customers, with a team of GPO employees
            assigned to each principal agency customer. Each team will have
            a manager whose responsibility it is to become an authority on
            the mission of their customer agency and will be supported by a
            national account manager whose responsibility it is to develop
            new business from the agency and to visit the agency's
            principal locations on a regular basis to consult with program
            managers.
      --Library Services and Content Management.--This unit will continue
            to manage the FDLP under the direction of Congress to ensure
            equitable, secure, convenient, and permanent public access to
            Government information in tangible and digital forms. It will
            oversee the development of processes and standards to ensure
            the timely inclusion of all past, present and future Government
            publications, whether born digital or created through
            digitization of print material, into the GPO Digital Content
            Management System to create a complete FDLP digital information
            collection that can be authenticated and preserved for future
            generations.
      --Publication and Information Sales Program.--This unit will develop
            a capability to fulfill customer orders through other
            booksellers. GPO will continue to provide subscription services
            for Government periodical publications that can be fulfilled
            directly from the printer or its mail house, and that are
            economically viable. Back copies will be provided by a contract
            vendor employing on-demand printing technology to back a modest
            inventory. It will also focus on developing unique collections
            of digital information, which will be ``pushed'' over the
            Internet to primarily business customers on a subscription
            basis.
      --Official Journals of Government.--This business line will continue
            to meet congressional and agency needs for these types of
            traditional products while at the same time ensuring the proper
            coordination of their digital versions with other GPO business
            operations and meeting GPO's electronic information
            dissemination mandate.
        Question. Tell us what you see as the future of the Federal
    Depository Library Program.
        Answer. As stated in our Strategic Vision, it is clear that all
    future Government information, including text and graphics, still and
    moving images, and sound, will either be born digital or transformed
    into digital structure for manipulation, storage and delivery to end
    users. It is the convergence of text, still and moving images, and
    sound, into a single electronic content database that will
    revolutionize future communications.
        The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) will determine the
    content of GPO's new Digital Content System, set standards for Federal
    documents, authenticate documents, catalog and manage the content, and
    determine the standards for preservation of the content for future
    generations. This will be done in context with the development of our
    proposed the Digital Content Management System.
        The FDLP will also set the standards for digitizing retrospective
    tangible documents, acquire both the tangible documents and digitizing
    services and provide quality assurance for the content. The goal is to
    digitize all retrospective documents that can be authenticated back to
    the Federalist Papers. We expect to complete 70 percent of this task by
    December 2007.
        Our proposed Digital Content Management System is under development
    by GPO's Office of Innovation and New Technology, in collaboration with
    other business units, and is scheduled for full implementation by
    December 2007. The hardware and software associated with the system
    will be managed by GPO's Office of Information Technology and Systems.
        Question. What actions have you taken in fiscal year 2005 to
    provide incentives for depository libraries to remain in the Federal
    Depository Library Program?
        Answer. GPO has been in continuous communication with the
    depository library community about the incentives to remain in the
    FDLP. Many of the incentives suggested by the community have been
    documented in a report available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/
    fdlp/pubs/proceedings/incentives_progress_
    oct2004.pdf. A number of these suggestions have been or are being
    implemented:
      --GPO is launching the first phase of its new integrated library
            system (ILS) later this month. This system allows GPO to share
            cataloging information about Government publications with all
            members of the depository library program and reduces the need
            for individual libraries to invest local resources to create
            cataloging information or pay fees to obtain this information
            from others. The ILS will also allow the GPO to deliver
            customized information to each of the member libraries based on
            their individual library profile and generate electronic
            shipping lists and other useful reports that the libraries have
            requested.
      --GPO plans to expand its ability to connect citizens who are
            searching the Internet for Government documents to depository
            libraries who hold the documents by using the OCLC world
            catalog of electronic library records, called WorldCat.
            Currently, this access is available through the GPO Access web
            site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/libraries.html and access is
            based on the current depository library item selections.
      --The GPO staff responsible for FDLP planning recently completed
            research and prepared a white paper on the special needs and
            concerns of public libraries as members of the FDLP. This
            paper, which will be issued later this summer, was prepared in
            response to concerns voiced in a breakout session for public
            libraries during the recent Federal Depository Library Council
            Meeting in Albuquerque, NM. The study helps GPO to understand
            the issues public libraries currently face, so it can better
            meet the needs of these FDLP partners. GPO will work through
            regional depository libraries to develop strategies to support
            public libraries that participate in the FDLP.
      --Federal agencies are producing over 90 percent of their new
            publications in electronic format. Many of these publications
            are posted on agency web sites and never sent to GPO, or
            elsewhere, for printing. The depository community has asked GPO
            to takes steps to ensure that this born digital content is
            captured as part of the FDLP. Harvesting such electronic
            documents is part of our proposed Digital Content Management
            System. Additional information about the Digital Content
            Management System can be found at http://www.gpo.gov/projects/
            fdsys.htm.
      --In accordance with our Strategic Vision, and with the approval of
            the Joint Committee on Printing, our new Library Services and
            Content Management business unit will support the Federal
            depository library community in its efforts to create a
            reasonable number of comprehensive collections of tangible
            Government publications in view of changing library resources
            and technology. GPO will also develop two complete collections,
            as last resorts, that will store both tangible and digital
            versions of all publications.
      --GPO is developing an electronic depository library manual in a
            collaborative effort with volunteers from the depository
            library community http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/
            im_volunteer_reg.html. This manual consolidates and updates
            existing policies and allows for best practices and lessons
            learned to be shared across the FDLP. It is intended to
            simplify and clarify the instructions, policies and procedures
            to make it easier to administer the FDLP.
      --At the 2005 Spring Federal Depository Library Council meeting, GPO
            offered training to support new and experienced depository
            librarians in learning more about the FDLP. Specifically
            designed to respond to community requests, GPO offered
            educational sessions aimed to introduce novice depository
            librarians to the FDLP. In response to requests from the
            attendees at these sessions, the educational programs will be
            repeated at the 2005 Fall Federal Depository Library Conference
            to ensure this basic training is made widely available to the
            community.
      --Beginning with the 2003 Spring Federal Depository Library Council
            meeting, GPO has hosted a series of breakout sessions for the
            segments of the FDLP community. The breakout sessions are
            organized by the type of library to make sure that the unique
            concerns of each type and size of library are identified. These
            listening sessions are informal gatherings that allow community
            members to raise concerns and issues confronting their
            community and library. FDLP members can communicate directly
            with GPO staff about their particular concerns. A number of GPO
            staff attend each session and compile lists of community
            concerns so GPO can develop policies and strategies which
            present viable solutions to these problems.
      --Beginning in February 1, 2005, GPO added information to the records
            in OCLC's world catalog of library documents, known as
            WorldCat. The goal of the project is to allow Government
            documents in 30 regional depository libraries to be more easily
            found by citizens. GPO created an automated loading process for
            OCLC to improve the visibility of documents that may be found
            in depository libraries. This service will enable citizens to
            more easily locate Government documents and increase the
            circulation and interlibrary loans of Government publications.
            It was discussed in the February 15, 2005 issue of GPO's
            Federal Depository Library Program newsletter, ``Administrative
            Notes'', at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/
            adnotes/ad02_031505.html#8.
      --In 2004, GPO established a special web site called ``Resources for
            Federal Depository Library Directors''. Because many directors
            have unique challenges balancing local needs and national
            responsibilities as depositories, a web site that offers
            consolidated depository resources was viewed as beneficial to
            that specific part of the community. The web site home page is
            linked from the FDLP Desktop, specifically at http://
            www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/directors/index.html.
      --GPO recognizes the contributions individual libraries make to the
            FDLP by the annual awarding of the Federal Depository Library
            of the Year. The award, made by the Public Printer, provides
            special recognition for a depository library that furthers the
            goals of the FDLP by ensuring that the American public has free
            access to its Government's information. Criteria for the award
            includes outstanding public services, such as significant
            promotion of the Government documents and services in the
            library and in the community, substantial cooperative efforts
            with other depository and non-depository libraries to share
            knowledge and Government information resources with a larger
            community, access to a well-defined collection of depository
            tangible and electronic resources to meet the needs of the
            library's service area; and exceptional care and preservation
            of the depository collection. Nominations for the 2005 Federal
            Depository Library of the Year Award can be submitted at http:/
            /www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/fdlofyear/application05.html.
            Nominations for the award are solicited every summer and the
            award is presented at the Fall Conference by the Public
            Printer. The Representatives and Senators who represent the
            state and district from which the winning library is located
            are invited to attend the awards ceremony to also recognize the
            depository.
      --GPO promotes the FDLP and individual libraries in other ways. GPO
            creates mass marketing literature, CD-ROM's, bookmarks, logos,
            graphics, posters, and print/radio public service announcements
            about libraries in the FDLP are received by public radio and
            newspapers in their local communities. On a daily basis, the
            support staff at GPO create educational and promotional
            materials for the FDLP to enhance the visibility of the
            depository library community and the services they provide.
        Question. Can you update the subcommittee on your efforts to
    relocate the GPO?
        Answer. Since arriving at the GPO a little more than two years ago,
    I have made the future of the GPO's buildings and productive assets my
    highest priority. In view of my longstanding experience in the printing
    and publishing industries, as well as my discussions about the matter
    with officials from the Office of Management and Budget, the General
    Services Administration, and the Office of the Architect of the
    Capitol, it is clear to me that the GPO's current structures are too
    large, too antiquated, and too inefficient to serve our needs or those
    of our customers in Congress, Federal agencies, and the public.
        Other Public Printers over the past half-century reached similar
    conclusions and tried without success to obtain right-sized, modern
    facilities. Over the past generation, as the GPO's workforce has
    declined from a high of nearly 8,500 to about 2,400 today and new
    technology has become available, the problems posed by our current
    structures have only grown more acute. Our buildings now present an
    economic and functional impediment to our future, especially as we move
    to transform this venerable agency into a digital processing facility
    for the 21st century.
        Our central office complex comprises approximately 1.5 million
    square feet of office and industrial space distributed among four
    multistory buildings constructed between 65 and 100 years ago. Other
    than infrequent direct appropriations for large scale building
    projects, the operating, maintenance, and repair (OMR) costs of our
    facilities must be recovered through the prices we charge Congress,
    Federal agencies, and the public for the printing and information
    dissemination work we are required to perform.
        Because of the age and inefficiency of our buildings, the OMR
    component of our prices has become enormously burdensome, today
    totaling approximately $35 million annually, or about 12 percent of our
    costs, without taking into account any capital expenditures for new
    equipment or for the upgrading or replacement of our buildings or their
    systems. These costs will only increase if we stay here. Over the next
    5 to 10 years, we estimate that the GPO will need to spend between $275
    million and $350 million to maintain, repair, and secure our current
    facilities. These are costs that can and should be avoided. Spending at
    this rate will drain our reserves of funds needed for essential
    investment in information technologies and drive the GPO into
    functional obsolescence in the not-too-distant future. I truly believe
    that our historic mission to provide for the information needs of
    Congress, Federal agencies, and the American people is much too
    important to have our future sacrificed to the upkeep of facilities
    that are no longer suited to our needs.
        As a solution, we propose the adoption of an innovative public-
    private partnership approach under which we would relocate to a modern,
    in-line facility in the Washington, DC, area that would be equipped
    with technologies appropriate to our current and future mission.
    Instead of taxpayer-supported appropriations, we propose to use the
    value of the GPO's current real estate assets to underwrite this
    project. Under our proposal, we would leverage the aggregate net
    present values of the reduced OMR costs available in a new facility,
    currently estimated at approximately $148 million, and the
    redevelopment value of the GPO's current real estate holdings,
    currently estimated at approximately $236 million, through lease or
    other arrangements with one or more private developers. As a result,
    this approach will have direct impacts that will satisfy the
    requirements of our Strategic Vision for the 21st Century:
      --The proceeds from the transactions will be sufficient to pay all
            costs associated with the new structure and equipment and
            moving expenses;
      --The new operating environment will permit us to avoid having to
            incur OMR costs at the currently wasteful rate, resulting in a
            savings stream over each year of our occupancy of our new
            building that will directly lower our future requests from
            Congress for the Congressional Printing and Binding
            Appropriation and the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of
            the Superintendent of Documents; and
      --A sufficient cash flow will be generated by the lease (or similar)
            arrangement on our existing site to meet capital requirements
            for investment in and replenishment of evolving information
            technologies to support the needs of congressional and agency
            customers as well as the information dissemination programs
            covered by the Superintendent of Documents' Salaries and
            Expenses Appropriation.
        On May 24, 2005, I transmitted a plan to the GPO's oversight
    committees on how these goals can be attained. It was developed by The
    Staubach Company, one of the foremost real estate advisory firms in the
    Nation, selected competitively for this purpose by the GPO with the
    participation and assistance of the General Services Administration and
    the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, and working under a
    contract approved by the Joint Committee on Printing in September 2004.
    At its core, the plan relies on making a strategic, innovative use of
    the ``lazy asset'' that the GPO's current structures have become to
    underwrite our relocation and reduce the future costs of our products
    and services.
        The plan supplements draft legislative language that would
    authorize us to carry out our relocation/redevelopment partnerships,
    which has been supplied to the Senate Rules and Administration
    Committee and the House Administration Committee for review. We are
    preparing to provide our oversight committees with briefings on the
    Staubach plan as well as any additional information they need in their
    consideration of our draft legislative language.
        Question. Are you consulting closely with the all members of the
    depository library community about the new directions for the GPO?
        Answer. GPO has been in continuous communication and consultation
    with the depository library community about our Strategic Vision,
    important planning documents, and various policy statements in numerous
    ways:
      --Regular meetings with the Depository Library Council and a
            significant population of the FDLP librarians at the Federal
            Depository Conference/Fall Council Meeting and Spring Council
            Meeting.
      --Hosting biweekly conference and telephone calls and maintaining
            routine e-mail communication with the Depository Library
            Council members throughout the year.
      --Routinely posting important announcements and issue updates to
            FDLP-L, GPO's broadcast email announcement service http://
            www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/tools/fdlplist.html.
      --Routinely posting proposed policy changes and planning documents to
            the GPO web sites in order to gather public comments. Postings
            are typically made to the FDLP Desktop in such places as News
            and Updates http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/. Comments
            are always solicited through FDLP-L and other discussion lists.
      --Monitoring and responding to postings on the Government documents
            discussion list and other related Government information
            discussion lists.
      --Regularly briefing and soliciting input at major professional
            library conferences (American Library Association, Special
            Libraries Association, American Association of Law Libraries,
            Association of College and Research Libraries, various state
            library association meetings).
      --Regularly briefing and collaborating at special events and on
            special projects (Federal CIO Council working groups, Library
            of Congress, Federal Library and Information Center, and the
            Center for Networked Information).
        Question. Does your Salaries and Expenses request for fiscal year
    2006 ensure that important Government materials will continue to be
    distributed in print, as determined by the depository library
    community?
        Answer. At the level we have requested, and in combination with
    adjustments we are currently making to spending under this account, our
    fiscal year 2006 Salaries and Expenses Appropriation submission will
    cover the distribution of tangible products required by the depository
    library community.
        Question. It is my understanding that GPO is facing a shortfall in
    fiscal year 2005 in the Salaries and Expenses account. What is the
    magnitude of the shortfall and when did GPO first become aware of the
    shortfall? What has GPO done to date to mitigate this shortfall?
        Answer. Earlier this year, following consultation with our
    oversight committees, the Superintendent of Documents issued a
    statement pledging to continue the distribution of tangible products to
    Federal depository libraries consistent with the needs of the
    depository library community. Accordingly, we are making necessary
    adjustments to spending under the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation
    to cover the anticipated volume of tangible product distribution work,
    which at this point in time is projected to require an estimated $2.6
    million more than was originally budgeted for this purpose. As a result
    of these adjustments, staffing changes, and adjustments to overhead
    cost allocations, we project that spending for fiscal year 2005
    Salaries and Expenses requirements will be completely within the amount
    appropriated.
                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, DIRECTOR
        Senator Allard. The next panel is the Congressional Budget
    office. Dr. Holtz-Eakin, it's good to see you again.
        Mr. Holtz-Eakin. It's good to see you, sir.
        Senator Allard. I get to hear from you from time to time
    since I serve on the Budget Committee. Proceed with your
    testimony when you're ready.
        Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Mr. Chairman, the CBO's pleased to be here
    today and we do have a written statement which we've submitted
    for the record, I will be brief.
        I want to begin by thanking this subcommittee for its
    support in the past, most recently in our fiscal year 2005
    appropriation and some reprogramming we did with the 2004
    funds, and going forward, we have what we believe is a fairly
    plain, vanilla request. As you noted at the outset, it's a
    request for a bit under $36 million, a rise of $1.2 million
    over last year, or 3.5 percent. The strategy in putting that
    together was to fully fund the personnel costs in the CBO
    budget, that's about 90 percent of our budget. They will rise,
    between paying benefits, a bit over 5 percent per year, and
    we'll hit the top line 3.5 percent rise by cutting back, most
    notably, in IT expenditures where things will fall by another
    19 percent, and a bit in other areas as well.
        We are able to do this by taking advantage of past efforts
    in cost-saving technologies, our budget analysis data system,
    moving that from a mainframe to a server platform, online
    application techniques, extensive use of our website for
    distributing documents to the public instead of printing and
    mailing them out. We also benefit from partnering with other
    congressional agencies. Our new financial management system, in
    partnership with the Library of Congress is in the National
    Finance Center for payroll, so we don't have to use the capital
    for facilities, so we have the ability to do this, and the
    bottom line, of course, is performance. And as we put in our
    written testimony and traditionally included in our budget
    submission operating plans, the CBO is providing the Congress
    good service for this money, and it represents a good buy,
    that's been true in the past, we hope to continue that in the
    future.
        I thank you for the chance to be here today.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Douglas Holtz-Eakin
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    present the fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Congressional
    Budget Office (CBO).
        CBO is a small legislative support agency. Its mission is to
    provide the Congress with timely, objective, nonpartisan analyses of
    the budget and the economy and to furnish the information and cost
    estimates required for the Congressional budget process. That mission
    is its single ``program.'' Approximately 90 percent of CBO's
    appropriation is devoted to personnel, and the remaining 10 percent, to
    information technology, equipment, supplies, and other small purchases.
        Appreciating the need for fiscal restraint, CBO has attempted to
    maintain its existing level of personnel by saving money in, and
    through, information technology and through other measures. CBO's
    proposed budget for fiscal year 2006 represents slightly less than a
    ``current services'' request, in which the increases from 2005 are
    solely to cover estimated increases in pay, benefits, and general
    inflation. The request totals $35,853,000--a $1.2 million, or 3.5
    percent, increase over the appropriation for fiscal year 2005 (after
    the 0.8 percent rescission).
        The requested increase is dominated by $1.6 million for increases
    in staff salaries and benefits, which are estimated to grow by 5.2
    percent in 2006. CBO's information technology accounts will decrease by
    $354,000, or 19 percent, which has been made possible by an adjustment
    to the replacement cycle for equipment and savings from converting the
    Budget Analysis Data System from a mainframe platform to 21st century
    technology. The remainder of CBO's nonpersonnel budget will decrease by
    1.1 percent. CBO will generate savings in printing, storage, and
    postage costs by increasingly relying on online distribution of its
    publications.
        With the requested funds for 2006, CBO plans to continue to support
    the Congress in exercising its responsibilities for the budget of the
    U.S. government. CBO supports the Congressional budget process by
    providing analyses required by law or requested by the Committees on
    the Budget, the Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on
    Finance, the House Committee on Ways and Means, other committees, and
    individual Members. Contributing in various forms, CBO:
      --Reports on the outlook for the budget and the economy to help the
            Congress prepare for the legislative year;
      --Analyzes the likely effects of the President's budgetary proposals
            on federal spending and revenues;
      --Estimates the costs of legislative proposals, including formal cost
            estimates for all bills reported by committees of the House and
            Senate and statements about federal mandates on states,
            localities, and the private sector;
      --Prepares Monthly Budget Reviews, annual reviews of unauthorized
            appropriations and expiring authorizations, and the biannual
            volume Budget Options;
      --Conducts policy studies of governmental activities having major
            economic and budgetary impacts; and
      --Constructs analytic models to project short- and long-term costs
            and receipts of government programs.
        In fiscal year 2006, CBO's request will allow the agency to build
    on current efforts--specifically, to do the following:
      --Increase the number and reduce the preparation time of reports and
            in-depth analyses for the Congress. The request will support a
            workload of approximately 2,000 formal legislative and mandate
            cost estimates as well as more than 100 analytical reports,
            about 70 other publications and products, and a robust schedule
            of Congressional testimony.
      --Support 235 FTEs (full-time-equivalent positions), the same number
            as in 2005, including an across-the-board pay adjustment of 3.1
            percent for staff earning a salary of $100,000 or less. That
            adjustment is consistent with the ones requested by other
            legislative branch agencies. The budget also reflects a
            projected increase of 7 percent for benefits, and funds a
            combination of promotions and merit increases for all staff,
            including those whose salary exceeds $100,000 and who therefore
            do not receive an automatic annual increase;
      --Provide for CBO's share of the Federal Accounting Standards
            Advisory Board's budget ($430,000);
      --Continue support for telecommunications services to the Alternate
            Computing Facility ($75,000);
      --Maintain and expand CBO's disaster recovery capabilities ($60,000);
      --Maintain and enhance the Budget Analysis Data System, the agency's
            mission critical system for developing and maintaining
            scorekeeping data and budget projections for use by the
            appropriations and budget committees ($20,000); and
      --Sustain and develop CBO's financial management system, Momentum
            ($100,000).
        Before I close, I would like to point out a few ways in which CBO
    has streamlined some operations, as well as mention cross-servicing
    arrangements and management improvements that CBO has undertaken or
    expanded upon over the past several years.
        First, in terms of streamlining, CBO: Reduced the footprint and
    staff of its library by 50 percent by increasingly relying on the print
    and online services provided by the Library of Congress; and eliminated
    storage services and reduced printing and mailing costs, as the
    agency's Web site has become the primary vehicle for disseminating CBO
    publications.
        Second, pursuing cross servicing, CBO does the following:
      --Coordinates with the Library of Congress for financial management,
            reporting, travel, and other related financial and accounting
            services--including using the same contractor that the Library
            does for audit services. (CBO received a clean opinion on its
            first audit of its financial statements this year.)
      --Partners with the Library for implementation and maintenance of an
            integrated financial management and procurement system
            (Momentum) that provides accurate, relevant, and timely
            information to management for decisionmaking.
      --Utilizes the National Finance Center for payroll processing.
      --Receives support from the House Information Resources office for
            CBO's computer data center.
      --Receives maintenance services from the Architect of the Capitol for
            CBO's work space.
      --Contracts with the Government Printing Office for printing
            services.
        Last, CBO's management improvements include these:
      --Expanding the use of information technology to develop an improved
            report production system, an electronic distribution system for
            publications and cost estimates (relying on the Web), an online
            job announcement system, an online job application system, a
            resume tracking system, and a property management inventory
            system.
      --Discontinuing contracting for mainframe computing services by
            reprogramming the Budget Analysis Data System to run on CBO-
            maintained servers. That conversion alone will save CBO
            approximately $200,000 a year in its future budget submissions.
        As reflected in CBO's fiscal year 2006 budget request, those
    ongoing efforts have allowed CBO to keep cost increases to a minimum.
        Finally, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for its support of
    CBO's 2005 budget request. The funding provided this year will allow
    CBO to continue providing the Congress with vital analyses as well as
    enable the agency to make smart investments in core areas, which will
    enhance productivity and reduce costs.

        Senator Allard. Well, thank you. You're accompanied by Dr.
    Robinson at the table. I appreciate the modesty of your budget.
    It's important that CBO set an example. I try to set an example
    in my office, returning unspent dollars, and I'm glad to see
    that you have put together a modest budget here to meet your
    needs.

                             RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

        Some of the questions that might come up--is it enough? You
    do have some big issues that you're working on--Social
    Security, Medicare, health insurance, prescription drugs--these
    are not easy programs to work with, and do you have the
    resources you need to meet your core mission?
        Mr. Holtz-Eakin. For this submission, we believe we do.
    Further cuts would jeopardize the core mission, because it
    would have to come from pay and personnel--we don't have the
    flexibility to put it somewhere else, and in the end, those are
    the resources that are most central for addressing those
    issues.
        Going forward, I echo your views that we must be cognizant
    of the need for spending discipline. Our ability to replicate
    3.5 percent per year on an ongoing basis is really limited,
    benefits are going up faster than that, and we are 90 percent
    personnel, and we cannot continually go back to the other small
    pieces of our budget and find the savings necessary to keep it
    that low, but for the moment, this submission will do the job.

                               BUDGET FORECASTING

        Senator Allard. Two years ago, CBO requested and received
    two additional staff.
        Mr. Holtz-Eakin. We did, and we thank you, for the support
    there, it helped us to undertake the dynamic scoring of the
    President's budget which was a new initiative when I arrived.
    We, at the moment, believe we have the right FTEs to do the job
    we're being asked.
        Senator Allard. I'm one of the members pushing for dynamic
    scoring.
        What has been your accuracy, your track record for coming
    up with the right figures that over time, proved out? Can you
    show a record of improvement in forecasting?
        Mr. Holtz-Eakin. We believe it's important for the Congress
    to know exactly what they're getting, and we have, on the
    website, and we can provide to you in great detail, the track
    record of our accuracy both in economic forecasting, and most
    importantly, budget forecasting, from the perspective both of
    spending, and revenues. I believe that most people would like
    us to do better, that includes us as well, but we have a track
    record that's comparable to any agency in the Government and
    any company in the private sector that attempts to do this.
        Senator Allard. Well, it's not easy.
        Mr. Holtz-Eakin. I'm glad you said that.
        Senator Allard. It's so unpredictable, and there's no way
    you have of knowing what those incidents might be that might
    have an impact on budget projections.
        Mr. Holtz-Eakin. The most important part of the budget
    projection has traditionally been forecasting receipts, and
    there the central issue is having accurate, up to date
    information about the structure of income tax returns, what--in
    particular--the high income individuals who pay the vast
    majority of individual income taxes are doing, and the fact
    that we receive--as does everyone else--income tax information
    about 2 years after it's actually filed, is one of the real big
    problems. We first have to actually forecast where we are, and
    then make a forecast for the future, and that is the one area
    where we have mentioned to all the departments in the fiscal
    agencies, that getting that data out more quickly would be
    helpful.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Allard. That's all the questions I have. Again, I
    would ask you the same as I did the previous panel, we'd like
    to have a prompt response to any questions we may submit to you
    from this subcommittee. Would 10 days be a reasonable time to
    expect you to be able to get back to us?
        Mr. Holtz-Eakin. That would be fine, we look forward to any
    questions you might have.
        Senator Allard. That's all we have, and thank you very much
    for your testimony, and I think you're doing a good job.
        Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Well, thank you, and I appreciate the
    chance to be here.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                    Questions Submitted by Senator J. Durbin
          coordinating efforts with other legislative branch agencies
        Question. How do you coordinate with other Legislative Branch
    agencies including GAO and CRS to ensure that there is not duplication
    in the work that each agency does?
        Answer. There are a number of actions undertaken by CBO and other
    legislative branch agencies to ensure there is not duplication in the
    work that we each do. On a continuing basis, the heads of each agency
    meet to discuss mutual challenges, share experiences, share information
    on key areas of work, and identify opportunities for collaboration as
    well as ensure there is no duplication of work between the agencies.
    Additionally, senior executives from each of our agencies meet through
    various forums to discuss work and collaborative efforts. The Chief
    Administrative Officers (CAO) Council currently is meeting monthly to
    better integrate and collaborate efforts on emergency preparedness and
    continuity of operations planning; the Chief Financial Officers (CFO)
    Council meets at least quarterly to share information on internal
    budget and financial management matters; a Chief Information Officers
    (CIO) Council has just been formed for the legislative branch agency IT
    employees to share information; and, for several years now,
    representatives from GAO, CRS and CBO have been meeting quarterly to
    discuss work efforts and ensure there is appropriate communication
    between the agencies on pending assignments.
        It should also be emphasized that several actions have already
    taken place to coordinate major activities between CBO and other
    legislative branch agencies. For example, we have had a long-standing
    agreement with the Library of Congress for the Library to provide
    support to CBO on a finance and accounting system. Together with the
    Library, we recently completed a transition to a new finance and
    accounting system (Momentum) and the Library and CBO have worked very
    closely together to ensure a successful transition to the new system.
    CBO also shares an IT data center with the House of Representatives,
    and we receive building support from the Architect of the Capitol in
    the Ford House Office Building.
                     elimination of certain staff positions
        Question. CBO reported that it has eliminated the need for certain
    staff positions (e.g., library services, publications) by adopting best
    practices in document distribution and information services. What are
    these best practices and how can other agencies use them to achieve
    savings? What additional opportunities exist across the agency to
    streamline positions?
        Answer. CBO eliminated a position in its library by increasingly
    relying on the print and online services provided by the Library of
    Congress. CBO also eliminated the position of printing assistant and
    transferred the person occupying that position to the agency's IT
    (information technology) group to help meet responsibilities there. The
    change was made possible by decreasing CBO's printing and distribution
    of hard copies of publications and relying even more than in the past
    on e-mail dissemination and the agency's Web site to provide access to
    publications and cost estimates. To bolster that approach, CBO improved
    its new-document notification system by adding an option for
    subscribers to receive instantaneous notification as each document in a
    selected area of interest is released. (Previously, the only option was
    to receive a next-day summary.) Those changes met the need of
    interested parties on the Hill and in the press for quick and reliable
    access (at no marginal cost to CBO). The Agency will continue to review
    library and publication distribution services to identify other areas
    of possible streamlining.
                          document distribution system
        Question. CBO is currently reviewing its document distribution
    system, with an aim toward streamlining. Has CBO undertaken any efforts
    to coordinate the streamlining of document distribution with other
    legislative branch agencies? What actions are being considered and how
    significant are the expected results, including cost savings?
        Answer. CBO contracts with the Government Printing Office (GPO) for
    printing and periodically coordinates with that agency to ensure that
    GPO's distribution of CBO's publications to the depository libraries is
    appropriate. Otherwise, CBO has not coordinated its document
    distribution with other legislative branch agencies, primarily because
    its distribution of hard copies is modest and time-sensitive.
        CBO is printing and mailing fewer publications. First, it has cut
    the numbers generally. It has also eliminated any automatic
    distribution to members of the public. Whereas CBO used to send copies
    of a few of its publications automatically to members of the public who
    expressed a general interest, it now awaits their specific requests.
    Moreover, the agency's reliance on electronic distribution is allowing
    it to dispense with its outside storage facility and, instead, maintain
    a small inventory in its basement storage room in the Ford House Office
    Building. The savings from reduced printing and mailing have not yet
    been realized, so precise figures are not available, but CBO is aiming
    for savings of up to 30 percent, or in the tens of thousands of
    dollars. The recurring annual savings from eliminating the outside
    storage facility is about $20,000.
                            library staff reductions
        Question. CBO reported that in recent years, it has successfully
    reduced the footprint and staff of its library by one-half by
    increasingly relying on the print and on-line services provided by the
    Library of Congress (LOC). What additional opportunities exist to rely
    on the services provided by LOC or other agencies?
        Answer. We believe that opportunities exist to better coordinate
    our needs for journals and books with the Library of Congress and/or
    other agencies' libraries. At CBO, we are increasingly relying on the
    availability of on-line journals, periodicals, subscriptions, etc.
    Either through our own contacts with vendors or through collaborative
    efforts with the Library, we have been able to meet most of our needs
    for journals and periodicals through on-line services. However, we've
    discovered that a number of scholarly and academic books needed by CBO
    employees are not yet available on-line. In these instances, we rely on
    the availability of these publications in the Library, or we purchase
    them directly for CBO. We are currently reviewing how we obtain
    journals and books for CBO employees, and are looking at options for
    agreements with the Library of Congress or other agencies' libraries to
    better meet our needs. Although we have not yet identified specific
    ways to rely on these services of other organizations, we expect that
    our review will help us in this effort.
                      property management inventory system
        Question. CBO reported that it had recently implemented a new
    property management inventory system. How is the new property
    management system being used to strengthen internal control and improve
    the safeguarding of assets? Can you describe the benefits, in both
    qualitative and quantitative terms, what CBO expects from the new
    property management system?
        Answer. The new property management system has strengthened
    internal control and improved the safeguarding of assets by providing a
    documented, standardized process for asset control and the tools
    necessary to track our inventory from cradle to grave. The software
    uses a common database for both Inventory Control and Asset Management
    to eliminate the possibility of equipment appearing in one database but
    not the other. However, for control purposes, employees responsible for
    inventory control do not have access to the asset management interface
    or vice-versa.
        All assets are bar coded and entered into the system upon receipt.
    They are tracked through their life. At disposal, all equipment is
    documented on a property disposal form, cross-checked by individuals in
    different units, and approved for excessing by the Assistant Director
    for Management, Business, and Information Systems. All capital assets
    are inventoried on an annual basis. As an additional safeguard, an
    independent auditor physically sees each piece of capital equipment and
    also verifies its financial data.
        Since CBO is a small agency with less than 5,000 physical assets we
    were able to select a low-cost, off-the-shelf, commercial property
    management system. The total cost for this new system was $17,000.
    Annual maintenance and support is approximately $4,000. If CBO
    developed a custom product in-house or contracted out development, the
    cost would have been ten to twenty times more. The new system is
    significantly easier to use than the prior one, both for inventory
    control and for asset management. This has reduced training costs as
    well as staff time in entering and maintaining asset data. It has
    proven extremely helpful in planning computer and monitor buys and in
    better managing equipment replacement cycles. In the old system, CBO
    largely used spreadsheets and an extremely manual process for asset
    management, particularly depreciation calculations. Since the new
    system combines inventory and asset management in one application, we
    are very near our goal of eliminating separate record keeping and
    reporting for asset management. This will reduce the likelihood of
    errors and result in a substantial time savings.
                       audit of cbo financial statements
        Question. CBO reported that it is working towards an independent
    audit of all CBO financial statements. Only a balance sheet audit was
    performed in fiscal year 2003. What is the expected timeline for having
    an audit of all CBO financial statements? In requesting proposals for
    audit work, what efforts have been made to minimize costs by
    coordinating with other Legislative Branch agencies regarding lessons
    learned from their first audits?
        Answer. CBO is under contract with Kearney and Company (auditing
    firm) to have all fiscal year 2004 financial statements audited by
    August 31, 2005. In order to streamline costs, CBO made a conscious
    decision to contract with the same auditing firm as the Library of
    Congress (LOC), since LOC provides CBO with financial management
    support. Given this fact, CBO was able to incorporate lessons learned
    from LOC's previous audits as well as reduce costs of the contract
    because audit work performed on LOC's financial management processes
    and systems are the same or very similar in nature to that of CBO.
                     automated financial management system
        Question. CBO reported the recent implementation of a new automated
    financial management system ``in cooperation with the Library of
    Congress.'' How is CBO using the new financial management system to
    improve performance and streamline operations? Can you describe the
    benefits, in both qualitative and quantitative terms, which CBO expects
    from the new financial management system?
        Answer. CBO is using its new automated financial management system
    to provide end-to-end acquisition and financial management. This system
    has eliminated redundancies in fiscal and acquisition operations. For
    example, CBO has been able to eliminate manually maintained
    spreadsheets as well as eliminate manual hard copy certification
    functions. These actions have streamlined the coordination processing
    time and reduced the error rate because information is not duplicated
    in various systems. This timesaving will provide acquisition and
    financial managers with more time to analyze and interpret resource
    data in order to further reduce costs though enhanced acquisition
    planning and resource management. Also, this new system will strengthen
    internal management control procedures, since the system is designed to
    provide electronic authentication of system users throughout the
    approval and certification process. The checks and balances maintained
    in this system will ensure clean auditable financial statements. In
    addition, CBO plans to provide management with real-time and near real-
    time reporting capability to aid CBO decision makers in making sound
    short and long- term investment decisions.
                              OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, II, EXECUTIVE
                DIRECTOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY SUSAN S. ROBFOGEL, ESQUIRE, CHAIR, BOARD OF DIRECTORS

        Senator Allard. I'm going to call on the next panel now,
    which is the Office of Compliance. Here is Mr. Bill Thompson,
    and you have with you, Chair of the Board, Susan Robfogel.
        Proceed to your testimony when you're ready, Mr. Thompson.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we're pleased to be
    here this morning, and we both prepared statements that we
    would like submitted for the record.
        I'm going to cut to the chase here because of the time. The
    office has, essentially, three functions, the first of which is
    operating a dispute resolution program that handles everything
    from sexual harassment to disputes about paying overtime. That
    program proceeds very quietly and efficiently; we are not here
    today about any issue with the funding there.
        Secondarily, we're doing education. We're doing a lot with
    a little; we've revamped our website recently, and I think it's
    been considered by people we've talked to as one of the better
    websites they've seen from a regulatory agency.
        The third area that we're responsible for is occupational
    safety, public accommodation and access, and there we are not
    faring so well. As you may recall, about 1 year ago there was a
    report that recommended that we needed additional funds in
    order to be able to satisfy our mandatory requirement of
    complete inspections of the entire campus every 2 years. The
    GAO report also recommended that we change our methodology to
    be more complete in both our inspections and our interactions
    with the agencies which we are inspecting. We have done that,
    and the result of the experience that we've had is that the
    process is much more time consuming than we thought previously.
        At the time we made our initial request for the fiscal year
    2006 budget--which has a 9 percent increase--most of that,
    other than the COLA, was for one full-time position for an
    inspector of Occupational Safety and Health. In the months that
    have passed since then, as we got further into this new
    inspection process, it's become clear to us that we need
    additional funding. As a consequence, we are in the process of
    submitting an amended budget request. With that, I'll turn it
    over to Susan Robfogel.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of William W. Thompson, II
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for the
    opportunity to appear before you today in support of the fiscal year
    2006 budget request of the Office of Compliance.
        With me today are Susan S. Robfogel, Esq., Chair of the Board of
    Directors of the Office, General Counsel Peter Ames Eveleth, Deputy
    Executive Director Alma Candelaria, and Administrative and Budget
    Officer Beth Hughes Brown.
        We present you for the second time a completely zero based budget.
    The accuracy of this year's largest budget cost allocation--staff
    time--has significantly improved because we have conducted periodic
    sampling to account for staff time needed to carry out each of our
    major function categories.
        This calendar year also marks the 10th anniversary of the passage
    of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. As we end the agency's
    first decade, we can look back at much progress, and some rough patches
    along the way. In February, 2004, the Government Accountability Office
    issued its major Report ``Office of Compliance: Status of Management
    Control Efforts to Improve Effectiveness'' GAO-04-400. At approximately
    the same time, the Office issued its first comprehensive Strategic Plan
    for fiscal years 2004-2006. Both of these documents reflect the
    continuing improvement in the Office's focus on its core missions, and
    its growing engagement with Congress and Legislative Branch agencies in
    collaborative initiatives to enhance our services in the mandated areas
    of dispute resolution, safety and health enforcement, and education and
    outreach to our regulated community.
        As recommended in the 2004 GAO Report, we are continuing to shift
    our focus in providing these services to a more interactive approach,
    enabling regulated employers to achieve greater voluntary compliance
    with the requirements of the Congressional Accountability Act. In light
    of the employment, security and safety challenges Legislative Branch
    agencies and employees face, one of our primary goals is to enable the
    regulated community to achieve substantial compliance with all
    requirements of the Act. And, we are doing all of this with a current
    budget of less than $2.5 million.
                               dispute resolution
        The Office's day-to-day employment dispute resolution function
    involving controversies under ten different laws, everything from
    alleged discrimination to the failure to pay required overtime,
    proceeds efficiently--although largely unnoticed--because of the
    confidential nature of the vast bulk of these cases. Hundreds of
    disputes in nearly all Legislative Branch agencies, as well as in
    offices of Members and committees of both chambers have quietly moved
    through the administrative dispute resolution system. The assistance to
    employing offices and employees provided by this discreet service is
    perhaps one of the great untold success stories of the past decade
    regarding the quality of Congress's internal operations.
                         safety and health enforcement
        However, the current situation regarding the Office's ability to
    carry out the Accountability Act's mandate in the areas of Occupational
    Safety and Health and public accommodation for the disabled is
    substantially more challenging. The Office has successfully encouraged
    major strides by the Office of the Architect and the other responsible
    agencies in improving conditions across the campus. However, GAO's 2004
    Report ``Office of Compliance: Status of Management Control Efforts to
    Improve Effectiveness'' GAO-04-400 confirmed the necessity of the
    Office's repeated budget requests for additional OSH staff and
    resources. GAO found that ``In contrast to most other CAA requirements,
    OOC is not fully in compliance with the CAA requirement that it
    `conduct periodic inspections of all facilities' of the agencies
    covered by the provision.'' GAO also found a ``dramatic increase'' in
    the number of health and safety inspections requested by employing
    offices and covered employees, and observed that the Office's resources
    ``have not kept pace with this growth.''
        We have pointed out this structural shortfall in several past
    several budget requests, but we do not have resources at the level
    necessary to enable us to biennially assess the health, safety, and
    emergency response situation across the entire campus in a complete or
    timely manner. Under the Office's current General Counsel, the care and
    quality of our inspections has improved dramatically. However, doing a
    more interactive and thorough job of inspecting requires substantially
    more resources and more time.
        In response to the requirements of the CAA and GAO's
    recommendation, the Office is now in the midst of a definitive effort
    to establish the required authoritative and comprehensive OSH base line
    for all 17 million square feet of covered space in the D.C. metro area.
    Our General Counsel, who was appointed late in fiscal year 2003, has
    determined that the completion of the much more thorough, comprehensive
    and consultative biennial base line inspection mandated by the CAA and
    underscored in GAO's report will be substantially more time consuming
    and resource intensive than we had anticipated even as late as our
    fiscal year 2006 budget request. Even with the additional inspector FTE
    we have requested for fiscal year 2006, the General Counsel will not be
    able to complete a timely, comprehensive picture of the current safety,
    health and emergency response dangers across the entire campus.
    Hazards, some of which may be serious, remain unidentified.
                           educating our constituency
        The Office is also mandated by Congress to ``carry out a program of
    education for Members of Congress and other employing authorities of
    the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government respecting the laws
    made applicable to them and a program to inform individuals of their
    rights under laws made applicable to the Legislative Branch of the
    Federal Government. . . .'' 2 U.S.C. 1381(h)(1). While the Office
    continues to carry out this core mandate of the Act through various
    educational and outreach activities, we have been testing the limits of
    our capacity to become more pro-active in this area. Various additional
    outreach initiatives, such as further upgrading of educational products
    and a planned mediation workshop are occurring this year, but our long
    term ability to build on the momentum expected from these and previous
    enhancements will ultimately be dependent upon additional resources and
    information infrastructure access.
                                   conclusion
        On behalf of the Board of Directors the appointees and the entire
    staff of the Office of Compliance, I respectfully request that the
    Committee respond favorably to the Office's fiscal year 2006 budget
    request. We will be happy to respond to any further questions which you
    may have.
                      appendix--the congressional mandate
        The Office of Compliance was established to administer and enforce
    the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1301, et seq.
    The Congressional Accountability Act applies 12 workplace, employment,
    and safety laws to Congress and other agencies and Instrumentalities of
    the Legislative Branch. These laws include: the Occupational Safety and
    Health Act of 1970; the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Act;
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Americans with
    Disabilities Act; the Rehabilitation Act of 1970; the Family Medical
    Leave Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Age Discrimination in
    Employment Act; the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act;
    the Employee Polygraph Protection Act; and veteran's employment and
    reemployment rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code. The Act
    was amended in 1998 to apply the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act.
        Currently, the Office has regulatory responsibility for employers
    in the Legislative Branch employing approximately 30,500 employees. The
    Office is also charged by the Act to make recommendations to Congress
    as to whether additional employment and public services and
    accommodations laws should be made applicable to the employing offices
    within the Legislative Branch.
        Under the direction of the Executive Director, the Office
    administers a dispute resolution system to resolve disputes and
    complaints arising under the Act, and carries out an education and
    training program for the regulated community on the rights and
    responsibilities under the Act.
        The General Counsel has independent investigatory and enforcement
    authority with respect to certain of the laws administered under the
    Act and represents the Office in all judicial proceedings under the
    Act.
                        the board of directors and staff
        The Office has a five-member, non-partisan Board of Directors
    appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of both houses of
    Congress. The Board members, who serve five-year terms, come from
    across the United States, and are chosen for their expertise in the
    laws administered under the Act. In a major vote of confidence in the
    current leadership of the Office, Congress enacted legislation in 2004
    granting authority to appoint the current chair and members of the
    Board to a second 5 year term in office. The Board acts as an
    adjudicative body in reviewing appeals by parties aggrieved by
    decisions of Hearing Officers on complaints filed with the Office and
    advises Congress on needed changes and amendments to the Act.
        The Office of Compliance currently has 16 full-time employees and
    pays the part-time Board members on a ``when-actually-employed'' basis.
    Our employee complement performs a multiplicity of functions,
    including: administrative dispute resolution, occupational safety and
    health and disability access enforcement, labor relations regulatory
    activity, education, Congressional relations, professional support for
    the Board of Directors, and general administrative and fiscal
    functions. The Office performs the functions of multiple agencies in
    and for the Executive Branch, including but not limited to, the Equal
    Employment Opportunity Commission, Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and
    the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The Office regularly contracts
    for the part-time, as-needed services of approximately 25 other
    individuals as mediators, Hearing Officers, and safety and health
    investigators. The Office's senior full-time safety and health
    investigator is on permanent detail from the Department of Labor's
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
                     incomplete biennial osh-ada inspection
        During fiscal year 2004, our Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
    was able to inspect only about 4 million square feet within 25
    Legislative Branch facilities (some with multiple buildings). The
    General Counsel was unable despite best efforts to examine all
    Legislative Branch facilities during the 108th Congress biennial cycle
    of inspections, including large areas within the House and Senate
    Office Buildings and the U.S. Capitol Building space used for Member
    offices, Committee staff offices, and other non-AOC spaces as required
    by the Congressional Accountability Act. Therefore, it is certain that
    many hazards remain unidentified at this time.
        The total amount of covered premises in the metropolitan Washington
    region is in excess of 17 million square feet. Because of the
    comprehensive thoroughness with which the fiscal year 2004 inspections
    were carried out, as was encouraged by GAO's February 2004 Report, over
    2,300 serious hazards were identified in the 25 facilities inspected,
    as compared to 360 violations discovered in the same facilities and
    areas during the 107th Congress biennial inspection.
        As part of the revamped inspection regimen, the Office is now
    utilizing a widely recognized risk assessment code (RAC) to classify
    all hazards found to exist in the ongoing inspections. The time and
    costs required to conduct more interactive and comprehensive
    inspections, and the nearly seven-fold increase in the number of
    violations identified just during 2004 has made manifest that the
    Office's current level of resources are completely inadequate to
    complete the ongoing inspection of all covered facilities in the D.C.
    metro area in the foreseeable future or to timely respond to requests
    for inspections by employing offices and employees.
                       more consultation and collegiality
        GAO also recommended that ``OOC should establish congressional and
    agency protocols . . . between the Congress, legislative branch
    agencies, and OOC on what can be expected as OOC carries out its
    work.'' (GAO Report, Introduction) The Office of Compliance is
    developing new approaches to OSH regulatory activities which involve
    greater consultation, coordination, and transparency in both the
    investigatory and enforcement phases. This effort requires partnerships
    with employing offices and employees and a concomitant educational and
    training initiative to improve management and employee understanding of
    best practices. These activities are focused on fostering more
    cooperative efforts at achieving compliance with standards but they do
    not negate the statutory mandate to enforce the law.
        As we have mentioned, the fiscal year 2004 OSH inspection regimen
    was undertaken with much greater consultation with stakeholders. More
    interactive methods are more resource and labor intensive, and have
    further contributed to the Office's inability timely to complete the
    biennial inspection of the entire campus.
                          strains on agency resources
        During the past two fiscal years, the Office has reallocated
    significant resources toward OSH investigations at the expense of other
    mandates. For example, 0.5 FTE has been temporarily reallocated within
    the Office of General Counsel from legal support to contract
    investigation just to maintain the current level of inspections. In
    addition, one FTE has also been moved from the administrative dispute
    resolution support staff to provide administrative assistance to the
    Office of General Counsel. Contractor funds have been reprogrammed to
    provide additional resources for increasing the use of contracted OSH
    inspectors. Further withdrawal of resources from the other dispute
    resolution and educational mandates of the Act will substantially
    impact the Office's ability to maintain a dispute resolution program
    which ensures that employees and employing offices in the House of
    Representatives, Senate and other Legislative Branch Instrumentalities
    receive the quality of mediation and hearing services which the
    Congress expects.
        Since I was appointed in fiscal year 2002, the Office has
    consistently asked for an additional FTE and other funding for safety
    and health inspections and enforcement, as well as major increases for
    other underfunded mandates. The Office's responsibility in this area
    has assumed even more critical importance in the wake of 9/11. While
    appropriations have increased, the underlying structural shortcomings
    in our funding base make our ability to fully and timely implement the
    Congressional inspection and enforcement mandate impossible. The Office
    has been criticized by appropriators for the size of its requested
    budget increases over the past several years. However, as the Office
    still operates with a smaller budget than it had in fiscal year 1997,
    we respectfully submit that the requested increases have been made in
    large part in order to regain lost resources necessary for this agency
    adequately to respond to the Congressional mandate in the Act.

        Senator Allard. Ms. Robfogel.
        Ms. Robfogel. Mr. Chairman, my purpose in being here today
    is to speak on behalf of the Board, and to let you know that
    the Board fully endorses the request as it's been articulated
    by our Executive Director. Although we are a part-time Board--
    we all have other occupations--we take our responsibility for
    health and safety very, very seriously. It's an awesome
    responsibility that we have, and we've spent a great deal of
    time discussing this issue with our executive staff and we are
    fully convinced that every possible dollar has been reallocated
    to the safety and health inspection area that can possible be
    reallocated. That means if we cut expenditures for any other
    part of the Office any more than we already have, the Office
    would not be able to function. And I thought it was important
    that you hear that from us, as well. We think this is the only
    way that we will be able to accomplish the mandate for safety
    that falls to us.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Susan S. Robfogel, Esq.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for the
    opportunity to appear with Executive Director Thompson before you today
    in support of the fiscal year 2006 budget request of the Office of
    Compliance.
        The Board is acutely aware of its awesome responsibility for the
    health and safety of those who work on or visit the Capitol Hill
    campus.
        To protect the men and women who come to the Capitol, we must have
    enough inspectors to inspect the buildings, help to remediate noted
    deficiencies and reinspect to ensure compliance.
        Currently we are functioning with only one staff inspector who is
    on assignment from the Department of Labor. In addition, we employ
    contract inspectors, as funds permit. Simply put, it is not enough
    manpower to inspect the entire Capitol Hill campus in a two year
    period.
        As a Board, we have questioned our executive staff and we are fully
    satisfied that they are doing everything they can do to support the
    inspection mandate, including reassigning staff and resources from
    other functions to meet the need for inspectors.
        We need more people either through direct hiring or by assigning
    additional inspectors to us from DOL.
        We need your help to keep us all safe.
        We will be happy to respond to any questions which you may have.

        Senator Allard. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
    was one of those that promoted the idea that Congress live
    under the same laws as everybody else, and pushed the idea that
    we needed to get those provisions that traditionally Congress
    has been exempted from, and bring them into the operation of
    our own legislative branch. Then members will gain a greater
    appreciation of the total impact. If you live under the laws
    that you pass, it makes a better person out of you, and I think
    it makes a better legislator out of you. I think that's what
    James Madison had in mind when he got up and talked about a
    citizen legislator, somebody who lived under the laws that they
    passed.

                         HEALTH AND SAFETY INSPECTIONS

        One of the areas that is a little bit troublesome is in the
    health and safety inspection area, you alluded to that in your
    statement. We've got an article here from by The Hill newspaper
    on April 19 of this year, which discussed the hazards of the
    Capitol. It says we had 2,666 citations, and this is much
    higher than what we had in the 2002 inspection. Was that the
    last inspection before you had this inspection?
        Mr. Thompson. That was the last comprehensive inspection.
    The 107th Congress was done in 2002, and this is the same
    square footage that we had in 2004.
        Most of the violations that we had in 2002, a lot of
    progress is being made on. The new violations spread across the
    spectrum of very serious to the not so serious, but the
    inspection experience was that there are still more serious
    violations that we are trying to get after.
        Senator Allard. Now, on these violations, what kind of
    follow up is there? Is the follow up fairly immediate after you
    discovered the violations? How are they abated, and how are we
    doing on correcting health and safety violations?
        Mr. Thompson. Under our new regimen, Mr. Chairman, we make
    every effort to have the agency actually accompany our
    inspectors, so they see what our inspectors see at the same
    time. To the extent that there are clear and simple fixes, we
    actually have had experiences where the changes were made as we
    went.
        For those things that are not being fixed immediately, they
    need to be thought about before we can decide exactly what
    we've got. We follow up as quickly as possible with the agency,
    both orally and in writing, listing the violations and a
    description of what we found.
        With regard to follow up inspections, that's a very
    significant part of what we've been doing since the 2004
    inspection. Our inspectors go out and the agencies' inspectors
    fix the things that they can fix, and we also are having a lot
    of interaction with the agencies.
        Senator Allard. In the 108th Congress, you were not able to
    complete your inspection, is that correct?
        Mr. Thompson. We were not able to complete the inspection,
    I'm sad to say, Senator. For the inspections going forward,
    that is something we are absolutely bound and determined not to
    happen this time around, which is the reason for our increased
    request.
        Senator Allard. Okay, and the additional resources that you
    need to finish and complete your final inspection for this
    Congress is how much?
        Mr. Thompson. We have given your staff two options, the FTE
    option with cost over a 2 year period--fiscal year 2006 and
    fiscal year 2007--approximately $570,000. In the contractor
    version of the same, we use contractors to do the inspection.
    The cost is approximately $475,000, so there's a savings by
    using the contractors.
        Senator Allard. Do you have to bring on new people?
        Mr. Thompson. We have a stable of contractors that we've
    been using, I don't know that we'd be able to use them for that
    many hours, but the community out there has a very good
    selection.

    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT ON THE STATUS OF MANAGEMENT IN
                            THE OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

        Senator Allard. The GAO issued a report and recommendations
    regarding the status of management in your agency. How are you
    doing in responding to their recommendations, and developing
    quantifiable measures to record progress toward goals? I would
    think that it would be easy for you to set goals and objectives
    that are measurable.
        Mr. Thompson. Yes, thank you for asking that question,
    because that's a core effort we're making right now.
        We see the GAO engagement as more than simply oversight. We
    have embraced the GAO as a consultant. They made 15
    recommendations in their report last year. Of those 15
    recommendations, we've been able to accomplish about half thus
    far, and are working on all of them. There are a few that we
    are sort of stymied on with regard to the lack of funds, but I
    can report to you that as late as last month, we met with the
    GAO for two purposes: one, to report to them on how we're doing
    with regard to all of their recommendations, and two, to
    develop with them some preliminary measures, some quantifiable
    measures that we are working on as the first step toward our
    next strategic plan.

                                RISING CASELOAD

        Senator Allard. You had a rising caseload in alternative
    dispute resolutions, is that right and if so, why?
        Mr. Thompson. The caseload at the office is increasing. If
    you correct the figures as the GAO suggested that we do for two
    large files that go back to 2000, there are about 300 people
    involved in the two cases. If you back those numbers out,
    essentially I'm just going to run five numbers here, for each
    step of our process, counseling, mediation, complaints, appeals
    to the Board of Directors, Appeals to the Federal circuit. If
    you take the average over the 10 years we've been in the system
    versus the average over the last few years, what you get is
    numbers like this: 82 for the old average, 88 for the new
    average, 65 versus 73, 9 versus 11, 4 versus 6 and for appeals
    to the Federal circuit, the old average is 2, now we're running
    at 7, so we have a significant increase in the caseload.
        I think the reasons for that--but there's no way to
    scientifically confirm this--our best educated guess is that it
    is a combination of things. One is people knowing more about
    the office, since as time goes by we're doing a much better job
    of educating the community. Number two, I think the workforce
    is becoming more sophisticated in general. And number three,
    frankly, I think there was a period of time when I first got
    here where you would hear stories that, ``Well, that Office of
    Compliance is just for show,'' and I think over time the
    quality of what we've been doing, the quality of the Board's
    decisionmaking have demonstrated our worth.
        Senator Allard. Now, the 200 and 300 complaints that you
    had come in, can you explain in more detail what that was all
    about?
        Mr. Thompson. Yes, there were two large cases, one was a
    group of female cleaning people who were sponsored, I believe,
    if my recollection is correct, by their collective bargaining
    representative, and they were claiming sex discrimination.
        The second group was the Black Capitol Police Officer's
    Association which came into the office about 4 days after I got
    there as the new Executive Director. Their claim was racial
    discrimination through the hiring and promotion of Capitol
    Police, that case is now a case in the Federal court, it's
    still at the trial level, and the Architect's cases were also
    in court.

                CHANGES IN THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

        Senator Allard. Based on your experience, your staff's
    experience, how would you assess the effectiveness of the
    Congressional Accountability Act, and are there any changes to
    the law that you'd recommend to improve its effectiveness?
        Mr. Thompson. I would say the law is quite effective in
    that there is a place for all employees to go with regard to 12
    different statutes. I think we educate people on their rights
    and responsibilities under the laws, and with regard to the
    improvements, the Board of Directors has submitted, as required
    by the statute last year, 2004, a formal report and
    recommendation which includes a number of changes to the Act
    itself and some additional laws. There was inconclusive
    evidence to determine whether other agencies needed that, and
    we will make available that formal report to you and your
    staff.
        Senator Allard. We'd appreciate that. Thank you very much.
    I don't have anything else. Go ahead.
        Ms. Robfogel. Mr. Chairman, there's one other change to our
    statute that our Board has recommended and that was recommended
    in the GAO analysis that I think it's important you be aware
    of. When our statute was passed, it was passed with term
    limits, the Board would be appointed for a single, 5-year term,
    and our executive staff would be appointed for a single 5-year
    term. The GAO has recognized that it is very difficult to
    accomplish continuity, and to accomplish the purposes for which
    the statute is established if the whole office turns over that
    frequently. Congress last year amended the statute to permit
    the Board members to be reappointed for an additional term. We
    are hoping very much that the legislation will be amended to
    also permit the reappointment of the executive staff so that
    all of the work that is currently in process will be able to
    continue.
        Senator Allard. So, we have term limits on the executive
    staff?
        Ms. Robfogel. Currently that is the situation.
        The term limits with respect to the Board have essentially
    been eliminated, at least to the extent of permitting three
    members of the Board whose terms expired to be reappointed, and
    we have been told that the other two members of the Board,
    whose terms will be over in the next month, that they will also
    have their term limits lifted.
        Senator Allard. So, we have staggered terms now for the
    Board members?
        Ms. Robfogel. By just several months, yes.
        Senator Allard. I think we may need to look at that closer,
    we should stagger Board member terms out over several years.
        Ms. Robfogel. That would be a massive improvement, and we
    also think there needs to be some relief on the executive staff
    side.
        Senator Allard. But they serve at your pleasure, you have
    oversight on the executive board, you hire----
        Ms. Robfogel. They serve at my pleasure, actually.
        Senator Allard. As Chairman of the Board.
        Ms. Robfogel. Yes.
        Senator Allard. So, even though they've performed well over
    a certain period of time, you cannot reappoint them?
        Ms. Robfogel. I can not reappoint them, and I can not move
    people from one position in the office to another position in
    the office. Once someone has served on the executive staff,
    he's got to leave at the end of the 5 years.
        Senator Allard. We're going to take a close look at why
    that provision is there, see if we can figure out congressional
    intent, apparently Government Affairs has oversight on that.
        Ms. Robfogel. They do.
        Senator Allard. So, maybe we'll communicate with them a
    little bit and see what their views are on this issue.
        Ms. Robfogel. I would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Allard. I will now put this subcommittee in recess
    until May 17 when we take testimony regarding the Capitol
    Visitor Center. Thank you for your testimony, this has been a
    good, helpful morning with testimony from all panels, and we
    thank you all.
        [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 11, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    at 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 17.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY AGENCIES NOT APPEARING FOR FORMAL HEARINGS

        [Clerk's Note.--The following agencies of the Subcommittee
    on the Legislative Branch did not appear before the
    subcommittee this year. Chairman Allard requested these
    agencies to submit testimony in support of their fiscal year
    2006 budget request. Those statements submitted by the chairman
    follow:]
                          JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
               Prepared Statement of William M. Thomas, Chairman
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is my honor to
    submit the written testimony of the Joint Committee on Taxation
    (``Joint Committee'') with respect to the fiscal year 2006
    appropriation request for the Joint Committee.
        Mr. Chairman, the request of the Joint Committee represents the
    minimum amount necessary to fund the operations of the Joint Committee
    during fiscal year 2006. The following summarizes the main components
    of the Joint Committee's request.
      --The Joint Committee is requesting an increase of $330,000 for
            fiscal year 2006 to cover cost-of-living adjustments and a 1-
            percent meritorious increase in personnel compensation
            expenses.
      --The Joint Committee is requesting an increase of $3,000 for fiscal
            year 2006 to cover increased utilization of the MetroChek
            program of transit benefits.
      --The Joint Committee is requesting an increase of $67,464 for fiscal
            year 2006 for equipment purchases. This amount represents the
            amount rescinded from the Joint Committee fiscal year 2005
            appropriation request.
      --The Joint Committee is requesting an increase in nonpersonnel
            expenses of $15,000 for fiscal year 2006 to cover cost-of-
            living adjustments.
        The following discussion provides (1) detailed information on the
    Joint Committee appropriation request for fiscal year 2006, (2) a
    review of Joint Committee operations during calendar year 2004, and (3)
    a description of the anticipated workload of the Joint Committee during
    calendar year 2005.
               summary of fiscal year 2006 appropriation request
        The following table summarizes the Joint Committee's appropriation
    request for fiscal year 2006 relative to the fiscal year 2005
    appropriation.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                   2005            2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Personnel Costs:
        Personnel compensation..............      $7,653,000      $7,983,000
        Transit benefits....................          20,000          23,000
    Nonpersonnel Funding:
        Travel..............................          12,000          12,000
        Rent, communications, and utilities.          35,000          36,000
        Printing............................           6,000           6,000
        Other services......................         125,000         127,000
        Supplies and materials..............         185,000         189,000
        Equipment...........................         329,536         405,000
                                             -------------------------------
          Total fiscal year 2005               \1\ 8,365,536  ..............
           appropriation....................
          Total fiscal year 2006 request....       8,781,000  ..............
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ After reduction for rescission amount of $67,464.

               details of fiscal year 2006 appropriation request
    Personnel expenses
                Details of appropriation request
        The Joint Committee's appropriation for fiscal year 2006 relative
    to fiscal year 2005 requests $333,000 for increased personnel costs
    which includes personnel compensation and transit benefits. This
    increase is attributable to the following amounts, which have been
    calculated pursuant to information supplied by the House Office of
    Finance:
        Fiscal year 2005 cost-of-living adjustment annualized.--The Joint
    Committee requests $72,000 to fund 3 months of the 3.7 percent cost-of-
    living adjustment for calendar year 2005.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The $72,000 amount reflects an increase of $5,000 over the
    amount included in the original JCT budget request of November 15, 2004
    and supporting schedules. The increase reflects an updated COLA for
    calendar year 2005 which affects the first quarter of the fiscal year
    2006 request (i.e., Oct. 1, 2005-Dec. 31, 2005). This COLA postdated
    the original JCT budget submission and was unilaterally added to the
    original JCT budget request by the House Finance Office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fiscal year 2006 cost-of-living adjustment annualized.--The Joint
    Committee requests $179,000 to fund 9 months of the projected 3.1
    percent cost-of-living adjustment for calendar year 2006.
        Meritorious increases.--The Joint Committee requests $79,000 for 1-
    percent meritorious increases for fiscal year 2006.
        Transit benefits.--The Joint Committee requests $3,000 for
    additional Metro benefits.
                Need for adequate funding for personnel expenses
        The funding of adequate amounts for personnel costs is critical to
    the continued ability of the Joint Committee to attract and retain
    qualified professional staff.
        Joint Committee professional staff include tax lawyers, certified
    public accountants, Ph.D. economists, and highly trained computer
    specialists. In order to provide the highly technical services required
    by Joint Committee lawyers and certified public accountants, the Joint
    Committee generally requires such professionals to have a minimum of 3-
    4 years of private practice or comparable experience. It is becoming
    increasingly difficult to attract such individuals to public service
    and retain them for significant periods given the disparity between
    private sector salaries and the salaries the Joint Committee can pay.
        A similar problem arises with Joint Committee staff economists. The
    Joint Committee typically hires economists who are just completing
    their Ph.D. programs. It generally takes an entry-level economist 2-3
    years of training to become proficient in the unique skills required to
    prepare revenue estimates for proposed tax legislation. Once this
    training period is complete, these economists have highly marketable
    skills and the private sector firms that attempt to duplicate the work
    of the Joint Committee offer significant salary increases to attract
    Joint Committee economists.
        At this time, the Joint Committee is actively recruiting to fill
    open staff positions that have resulted from staff attrition during the
    last Congress. However, unless adequate amounts are funded for
    personnel expenses for fiscal year 2006, the Joint Committee will not
    be able to fill all of its open positions. Failure to fill open
    positions may result in a reduced level of service to the Congress.
    Nonpersonnel expenses
                In general
        The Joint Committee is requesting $15,000 to cover cost-of-living
    adjustments in nonpersonnel expenses for fiscal year 2006. In addition,
    the Joint Committee is requesting an additional $67,464 for equipment
    for fiscal year 2006. The additional money for equipment, which
    represents the amount rescinded from the fiscal year 2005 request, is
    requested for the combination of ongoing computer upgrades and the
    additional cost of equipment to provide for necessary alternative
    computing capabilities.
                Travel
        The Joint Committee requests $12,000 for travel during fiscal year
    2006. This amount will be used to pay travel expenses of Joint
    Committee consultants and Joint Committee staff attending educational
    conferences.
                Rent, communications, and utilities
        The Joint Committee requests $36,000 for fiscal year 2006 to cover
    anticipated expenses for communications and utilities.
                Printing
        The Joint Committee requests $6,000 to cover anticipated printing
    expenses for fiscal year 2006.
                Other services
        The Joint Committee requests $127,000 for other services for fiscal
    year 2006. The Joint Committee utilizes consultants and other service
    providers to perform functions that the Joint Committee staff does not
    have the time or expertise to perform. Most of these services relate to
    the revenue estimating work of the Joint Committee, including the
    preparation of macroeconomic analysis. As the graph in Attachment C to
    this statement demonstrates, the number of revenue estimating requests
    received by the Joint Committee continues to increase. The needs of the
    Members for immediate responses to requests for revenue estimates and
    the substantial volume of requests that the Joint Committee staff
    receives each year places limitations on the ability of the Joint
    Committee staff to perform certain work, such as the manipulation of
    new data sets, that improves the quality of Joint Committee revenue
    estimates. The Joint Committee staff has found that it is more cost
    efficient to contract some of this work to outside consultants.
                Supplies and materials
        The Joint Committee requests $189,000 for supplies and materials
    for fiscal year 2006. The largest expense in this category is a
    projected $150,000 for subscriptions and publications to keep up with
    current developments in tax law.
                Equipment
        The Joint Committee requests $405,000 for equipment for fiscal year
    2006. The Joint Committee staff anticipates expending approximately
    $230,000 for replacement of servers and for storage upgrades for the
    Joint Committee's computing needs, which include large-scale economic
    modeling, macroeconomic modeling and simulation, case tracking,
    statistical analysis, and general functions such as word processing,
    spreadsheets and graphing. In addition, Xerox maintenance and usage
    costs are projected to be approximately $50,000, and hardware and
    software maintenance are estimated to be $125,000.
     review of joint committee on taxation operations during calendar year
                                      2004
    In general
        Attachments A through E provide a summary of the activity of the
    Joint Committee staff for calendar year 2004. The attachments include
    the following information:
        Attachment A--information relating to the legislative tax reports
    (Committee and Conference Reports) drafted by Joint Committee staff for
    the revenue-related legislation considered by the House Committee on
    Ways and Means and/or the Senate Committee on Finance and public laws
    involving the Joint Committee staff during 2004.
        Attachment B--a listing of all documents published by the Joint
    Committee staff during 2004.
        Attachment C--a graph showing the number of requests received by
    the Joint Committee from revenue estimates and other assistance during
    the period 1986 through 2004.
        Attachment D--a table providing information on revenue estimate
    requests and Joint Committee staff responses to various categories of
    requesting Members for 2004.
        (5) Attachment E--information relating to the Joint Committee
    staff's statutorily mandated duty to review large income tax refunds.
    Tax legislative reports
        The Joint Committee staff assisted in the preparation of 10
    Committee and Conference reports relating to tax legislation considered
    by the Congress in 2004 and provided assistance on two income tax
    treaty Committee reports. A complete listing of these reports is
    included at Attachment A. In addition the Joint Committee staff worked
    on 17 bills signed into law during 2004.
    Joint Committee staff publications
        In addition to its work on committee and conference reports, the
    Joint Committee staff published 74 documents during 2004, including
    pamphlets and other documents prepared for committee hearings and
    markups and conference action (see Attachment B). All Joint Committee
    staff publications are accessible from the Joint Committee's web page
    (http://www.house.gov/jct).
    Revenue estimates and related analysis
        Attachments C and D show data relating to the Joint Committee
    staff's revenue estimating activity. Attachment C shows the number of
    revenue estimate requests received by the Joint Committee staff each
    year from 1986 through 2004.
        Attachment D also shows information on revenue estimate requests
    and Joint Committee staff responses to various categories of Members
    requesting revenue estimates for 2004. The Joint Committee staff is
    cognizant of its responsibility to provide service to all Members who
    request it and attempts to be as responsive to non-tax-writing
    Committee Members as it is to the tax-writing Committee Members.
        The Joint Committee staff has been developing a capacity to analyze
    the effects of major tax legislation on the economy. Several
    macroeconomic simulation models are used in this analysis, including
    the staff's Macroeconomic Equilibrium Growth model, and commercially
    available econometric and overlapping generation models requiring
    outside contracts. In addition, the staff is working on an in-house
    neoclassical growth model that can incorporate people's expectations
    about future policy to provide additional perspective on proposals
    involving phase-ins, phase-outs, and sunsets of tax policy.
    Developmental work is being done in connection with anticipated
    analyses of tax reform and social security reform.
    JCT staff studies, investigations, and refund review
                Refund review
        An ongoing, statutorily mandated function of the Joint Committee is
    the review of IRS refunds or credits of income tax, estate and gift
    tax, or any tax on public charities, foundations, pension plans, or
    real estate investment trusts in excess of $2 million. The Joint
    Committee staff reviews and reports on such refund cases and makes
    comments or recommendations with respect to the proposed refund case to
    the IRS. Attachment E contains information concerning the Joint
    Committee staff refund review work. During fiscal year 2004, the Joint
    Committee refund staff reviewed 1,163 cases involving $22.97 billion in
    proposed refunds and 64 large deficiency cases. The Joint Committee
    staff raised concerns in 56 refund cases. Errors identified by the
    Joint Committee staff produced a net reduction in refunds of $61
    million in fiscal year 2004. The average annual reduction in refunds
    for the last 10 years is $38.8 million.
     anticipated workload of the joint committee on taxation for calendar
                                   year 2005
        During 2005, the Joint Committee expects an increase in workload
    over 2004. The Joint Committee staff will provide support to the
    Congress and the tax-writing committees as broad-based and other tax
    relief proposals, including President Bush's fiscal year 2006 budget
    proposals, are considered by the Congress. The Joint Committee staff is
    preparing for legislative action as a result of the President's
    Commission on broad based tax reform as well as the President's
    initiative to reform the Social Security system. In addition, the Joint
    Committee is preparing for Congressional consideration of legislation
    to extend various expiring tax provisions and to reform the laws
    relating to employer-provided retirement plans. As part of the
    legislative process, the Joint Committee staff will (1) develop
    legislative proposals, (2) assist in the drafting of such proposals,
    (3) provide revenue estimates for numerous legislative options and
    amendments, (4) prepare markup documents and committee reports, and (5)
    provide additional economic analysis to the Members.
        In addition to this anticipated legislative activity, the Joint
    Committee staff will continue to satisfy its responsibilities under the
    IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. Thus, the Joint Committee
    staff will prepare a complexity analysis for inclusion in Committee and
    Conference reports for all revenue legislation. In addition, the Joint
    Committee staff has also organized the joint review in 2005 relating to
    the operations of the Internal Revenue Service and prepared materials
    for the use of the Congress in connection with that review.
        The Joint Committee will continue to satisfy its statutory
    responsibility to review large refund cases submitted to it by the IRS.
        The Joint Committee staff expects to assist the Senate Committee on
    Foreign Relations with respect to its work to review proposed tax
    treaties.
        The Joint Committee staff anticipates that requests from Members
    for revenue estimates for proposed legislation will increase in 2005,
    relative to 2004. In addition, the Joint Committee staff will continue
    to work to develop a macroeconomic model that will provide information
    on the possible effects on the economy of major tax legislation.
                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman, the Joint Committee has a reputation for providing
    timely, high quality service to the Congress with respect to proposed
    revenue legislation. However, the highly technical nature of the Joint
    Committee's work makes it imperative that the Joint Committee be able
    to hire and retain qualified tax professionals. If the Joint
    Committee's appropriation request is not approved, the Joint Committee
    will not have adequate resources to fill all of its open staff
    positions.
        I respectfully request that the Subcommittee approve the
    appropriation request of the Joint Committee on Taxation for fiscal
    year 2006. This request is the minimum amount necessary to fund the
    operations of the Joint Committee during fiscal year 2006. If the
    requested funding is not provided, difficult decisions will be required
    concerning what staff activities can and should be funded.
      Attachment A.--Committee and Conference Reports on Which the Joint
       Committee on Taxation Staff Provided Assistance, and Public Laws
                Involving the Joint Committee Staff During 2004
    House Committee on Ways and Means
        108-444--Highway Reauthorization Tax Act of 2004, March 23, 2004
        108-548--American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, June 16, 2004
        108-472--The Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act of
    2003, July 6, 2004
        108-473--John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act, July 6, 2004
        108-474--Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act,
    July 6, 2004
    Senate Committee on Finance
        108-257--Tax Administration Good Government Act, May 4, 2004
        108-266--National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Guarantee Act,
    May 14, 2004
    Conference Committee Reports
        108-457--Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, April 1, 2004
        108-696--Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, September 23,
    2004
        108-755--American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, October 7, 2004
    Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
        108-9--Tax Convention with the Government of Japan
        108-11--Tax Convention and Protocol with the Government of Sri
    Lanka
    Public Laws Involving Joint Committee on Taxation
        108-202--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, February 29,
    2004
        108-203--Social Security Protection Act of 2004, March 2, 2004
        108-218--Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, April 10, 2004
        108-224--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part II,
    April 30, 2004
        108-263--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part III,
    June 30, 2004
        108-280--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part IV,
    July 30, 2004
        108-289--Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act of
    2004, August 6, 2004
        108-290--John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act, August 6, 2004
        108-291--Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act,
    August 6, 2004
        108-310--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V,
    September 30, 2004
        108-311--Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, October 4, 2004
        108-357--American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, October 22, 2004
        108-375--Ronald W. Reagan Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2005, October 28, 2004
        108-429--Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act,
    December 3, 2004
        108-447--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, December 8, 2004
        108-476--YMCA Retirement Fund, December 21, 2004
        108-493--Modification to the Taxation of Arrow Components, December
    23, 2004
                   Attachment B.--Joint Committee on Taxation
                                jcs-04 documents
        JCS-1-04--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The
    United States And Japan Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Committee on
    Foreign Relations United States Senate on February 25, 2004. February
    19, 2004
        JCS-2-04--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The
    United States And The Democratic Socialist Republic Of Sri Lanka
    Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations
    United States Senate on February 25, 2004. February 19, 2004
        JCS-3-04--Description Of Revenue Provisions Contained In The
    President's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Proposal. February 2004
                                jcx-04 documents
        JCX-1-04--List Of Expired And Expiring Federal Tax Provisions.
    January 21, 2004
        JCX-2-04--Description Of The Chairman's Mark Of The ``Tax
    Administration Good Government Act Of 2004'' Scheduled for Markup by
    the Senate Committee on Finance on February 2, 2004. January 29, 2004
        JCX-3-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Mark Of The
    ``Tax Administration Good Government Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For
    Markup By The Committee On Finance On February 2, 2004. January 29,
    2004
        JCX-4-04--Description Of Chairman's Modification To The ``National
    Employee Savings And Trust Equity Guarantee Act Of 2003'' As Marked Up
    September 17, 2003, As Scheduled For Markup By The Senate Committee On
    Finance On February 2, 2004. January 29, 2004
        JCX-5-04--Description Of The ``Highway Reauthorization And Excise
    Tax Simplification Act Of 2004'' Scheduled for Markup by the Senate
    Committee on Finance on February 2, 2004. January 29, 2004
        JCX-6-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The ``Highway
    Reauthorization And Excise Tax Simplification Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled
    For Markup By The Committee On Finance On February 2, 2004. January 30,
    2004
        JCX-7-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Tax And Pension Provisions
    Of H.R. 3108, The ``Pension Stability Act,'' As Passed By The Senate On
    January 28, 2004. January 30, 2004
        JCX-8-04--Description Of Additional Chairman's Modifications To The
    ``National Employee Savings And Trust Equity Guarantee Act Of 2003'' As
    Marked Up September 17, 2003, Scheduled For Markup By The Senate
    Committee On Finance On February 2, 2004. February 2, 2004
        JCX-9-04--Estimated Budget Effects Of The ``National Employee
    Savings And Trust Equity Guarantee Act,'' As Ordered Reported By The
    Committee On Finance On September 17, 2003, And As Proposed To Be
    Modified On February 2, 2004. February 2, 2004
        JCX-10-04--Modification Of The Chairman's Mark On The ``Highway
    Reauthorization And Excise Tax Simplification Act Of 2004'' Scheduled
    for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on February 2, 2004.
    February 2, 2004
        JCX-11-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's
    Modifications To The ``Highway Reauthorization And Excise Tax
    Simplification Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On
    Finance On February 2, 2004. February 2, 2004
        JCX-12-04--Technical Explanation Of The Tax And Pension Provisions
    Of H.R. 3108, The ``Pension Stability Act,'' As Passed By The Senate On
    January 28, 2004. February 9, 2004
        JCX-13-04--Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
    Taxation Before The Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Hearing On
    The Proposed Tax Treaties With Japan And Sri Lanka. February 23, 2004
        JCX-14-04--Estimated Budget Effects Of Revenue Provisions Contained
    In The President's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Proposal. February 27, 2004
        JCX-15-04--Updated Estimated Budget Effects Of S. 1637, The
    ``Jumpstart Our Business Strength (`JOBS') Act,'' As Reported By The
    Committee On Finance. March 3, 2004
        JCX-16-04--Present Law And Background Relating To Individual
    Taxpayer Identification Numbers (``ITNS'') Scheduled for a Joint
    Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and the Subcommittee on
    Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means on March 10,
    2004. March 5, 2004
        JCX-17-04--Comparison Of The Tax And Pension Provisions Of H.R.
    3108, As Passed By The House And The Senate. March 5, 2004
        JCX-18-04--Comparison Of The Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Tax
    And Pension Provisions Of H.R. 3108, The ``Pension Funding Equity Act
    Of 2003,'' As Passed By The House Of Representatives And H.R. 3108, The
    ``Pension Stability Act,'' As Passed By The Senate. March 5, 2004
        JCX-19-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Certain Tax Provisions
    Contained In S. 1072, The ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, And Efficient
    Transportation Equity Act Of 2004,'' As Passed By The Senate. March 12,
    2004
        JCX-20-04--Description Of ``The Highway Reauthorization Tax Act Of
    2004'' Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means on
    March 17, 2004. March 15, 2004
        JCX-21-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 3971, The ``Highway
    Reauthorization Tax Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The
    Committee On Ways And Means On March 17, 2004. March 17, 2004
        JCX-22-04--Estimated Trust Fund And General Fund Effects Of Certain
    Tax Provisions Contained In H.R. 3971, The ``Highway Reauthorization
    Tax Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways And
    Means On March 17, 2004. March 17, 2004
        JCX-23-04--Description Of Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of A
    Substitute To H.R. 3971 The ``Highway Reauthorization Tax Act Of
    2004''. March 17, 2004
        JCX-24-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Amendment In
    The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 3971, The ``Highway Reauthorization
    Tax Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways And
    Means On March 17, 2004. March 17, 2004
        JCX-25-04--Estimated Trust Fund And General Fund Effects Of Certain
    Tax Provisions Contained In The Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of A
    Substitute To H.R. 3971, The ``Highway Reauthorization Tax Act Of
    2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways And Means On
    March 17, 2004. March 17, 2004
        JCX-26-04--Estimated Trust Fund And General Fund Effects Of Certain
    Provisions In The ``Highway Reauthorization And Excise Tax
    Simplification Act Of 2004,'' As Passed By The Senate. March 26, 2004
        JCX-27-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Title IX Of H.R. 3550, The
    ``Highway Reauthorization Tax Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For
    Consideration On The House Floor. April 1, 2004
        JCX-28-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Tax And Pension
    Provisions Contained In The Conference Agreement For H.R. 3108, The
    ``Pension Funding Equity Act Of 2004''. April 2, 2004
        JCX-29-04--Revised Disclosure Report For Public Inspection Pursuant
    To Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(3)(C) For Calendar Year 2002.
    April 6, 2004
        JCX-30-04--Disclosure Report For Public Inspection Pursuant To
    Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(3)(C) For Calendar Year 2003.
    April 6, 2004
        JCX-31-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4181, Scheduled For
    Consideration On The House Floor. April 28, 2004
        JCX-32-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4227, For
    Consideration By The House Committee On Rules. May 5, 2004
        JCX-33-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Revenue Provisions
    Contained In H.R. 4279, As Passed By The House Of Representatives. May
    14, 2004
        JCX-34-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4275, As Passed By The
    House Of Representatives. May 14, 2004
        JCX-35-04--Estimated Budget Effects Of H.R. 1528, The ``Tax
    Administration Good Government Act,'' As Passed By The Senate On May
    19, 2004. May 20, 2004
        JCX-36-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of S. 1637, The ``Jumpstart
    Our Business Strength (`JOBS') Act,'' As Passed By The Senate. May 20,
    2004
        JCX-37-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4359, The ``Child
    Credit Preservation And Expansion Act Of 2004,'' As Passed By The House
    Of Representatives. May 21, 2004
        JCX-38-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4520, The ``American
    Jobs Creation Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On
    Ways And Means On June 10, 2004. June 8, 2004
        JCX-39-04--Comparison Of The Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Tax
    Provisions Contained In H.R. 3550, The ``Transportation Equity Act: A
    Legacy For Users,'' As Passed By The House Of Representatives, And H.R.
    3550, The ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, And Efficient Transportation
    Equity Act Of 2004,'' As Amended By The Senate. June 9, 2004
        JCX-40-04--Comparison Of The Estimated Trust Fund And General Fund
    Effects Of Certain Tax Provisions Contained In H.R. 3550, The
    ``Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users,'' As Passed By The
    House Of Representatives, And H.R. 3550, The ``Safe, Accountable,
    Flexible, And Efficient Transportation Equity Act Of 2004,'' As Amended
    By The Senate. June 9, 2004
        JCX-41-04--Description Of H.R. 4520, The ``American Jobs Creation
    Act Of 2004'' Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and
    Means on June 14, 2004. June 10, 2004
        JCX-42-04--Description Of The Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of
    A Substitute To The Provisions Of H.R. 4520, The ``American Jobs
    Creation Act Of 2004''. June 10, 2004
        JCX-43-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Amendment In
    The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 4520, The ``American Jobs Creation
    Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways & Means On
    June 14, 2004. June 10, 2004
        JCX-44-04--Description Of Present Law Relating To Charitable And
    Other Exempt Organizations And Statistical Information Regarding Growth
    And Oversight Of The Tax-Exempt Sector Scheduled for a Public Hearing
    Before the Senate Committee on Finance on June 22, 2004. June 22, 2004
        JCX-45-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4520, The ``American
    Jobs Creation Act Of 2004,'' As Passed By The House Of Representatives.
    June 22, 2004
        JCX-46-04--Description Of The Chairman's Amendment To H.R. 1914,
    The ``Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Of 2003,''
    H.R. 2768, The ``John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act,'' And H.R. 3277,
    The ``Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act''. June 22,
    2004
        JCX-47-04--Comparison Of The Tax Provisions Contained In H.R. 3550,
    The ``Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users,'' As Passed By The
    House Of Representatives, And H.R. 3550, The ``Safe, Accountable,
    Flexible, And Efficient Transportation Equity Act Of 2004,'' As Amended
    By The Senate. June 25, 2004
        JCX-48-04--Present Law And Background Relating To The Tax Treatment
    Of Tip Income. July 13, 2004
        JCX-49-04--Description Of H.R. 982, A Bill ``To Clarify The Tax
    Treatment Of Bonds And Other Obligations Issued By The Government Of
    American Samoa''. July 16, 2004
        JCX-50-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4841, The ``Tax
    Simplification For Americans Act Of 2004,'' As Amended, And Scheduled
    For Consideration By The House Of Representatives. July 21, 2004
        JCX-51-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4840, The ``Tax
    Simplification For America's Job Creators Act Of 2004,'' Scheduled For
    Consideration By The House Of Representatives. July 21, 2004
        JCX-52-04--Present Law And Analysis Relating To Tax Benefits For
    Higher Education Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Senate
    Committee on Finance on July 22, 2004. July 21, 2004
        JCX-53-04--Comparison Of The Estimated Budget Effects Of H.R. 4520,
    The ``American Jobs Creation Act Of 2004,'' As Passed By The House Of
    Representatives, And H.R. 4520, The ``Jumpstart Our Business Strength
    (`JOBS') Act, As Amended By The Senate. July 23, 2004
        JCX-54-04--Explanation Of Proposed Protocol To The Income Tax
    Treaty Between The United States And The Netherlands Scheduled for a
    Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate
    on September 24, 2004. September 16, 2004
        JCX-55-04--Explanation Of Proposed Protocol To The Income Tax
    Treaty Between The United States And Barbados Scheduled for a Hearing
    Before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate on
    September 24, 2004. September 16, 2004
        JCX-56-04--Present Law And Background Relating To Tax-Exempt
    Financing Of Indian Tribal Prisons Scheduled for a Public Hearing
    Before the Senate Committee on Finance on September 21, 2004. September
    20, 2004
        JCX-57-04--Comparison Of Provisions Contained In H.R. 1308, The
    ``All-American Tax Relief Act Of 2003,'' As Passed By The House Of
    Representatives On June 12, 2003, And H.R. 1308, The ``Relief For
    Working Families Tax Act Of 2003,'' As Passed By The Senate On June 5,
    2003. September 21, 2004
        JCX-58-04--Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
    Taxation Before The Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Hearing On
    The Proposed Tax Protocols With Barbados And The Netherlands. September
    22, 2004
        JCX-59-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 1057, The ``Adoption
    Tax Relief Guarantee Act,'' Scheduled For Consideration By The House Of
    Representatives. September 22, 2004
        JCX-60-04--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Conference Agreement
    For H.R. 1308, The ``Working Families Tax Relief Act Of 2004''.
    September 23, 2004
        JCX-61-04--Comparison Of Certain Provisions Of H.R. 4520 As Passed
    By The House Of Representatives And As Amended By The Senate:
    Provisions Relating To The Repeal Of The Exclusion For Extraterritorial
    Income, Domestic Production, And The Corporate Income Tax Rates
    Applicable To Small Corporations. September 29, 2004
        JCX-62-04--Comparison Of Certain Provisions Of H.R. 4520 As Passed
    By The House Of Representatives And As Amended By The Senate: Job
    Creation Tax Incentives For Manufacturing, Small Business, And Farming.
    September 29, 2004
        JCX-63-04--Comparison Of Certain Provisions Of H.R. 4520 As Passed
    By The House Of Representatives And As Amended By The Senate:
    Provisions Relating To International Tax Reform And Simplification For
    United States Businesses. September 29, 2004
        JCX-64-04--Comparison Of Certain Provisions Of H.R. 4520 As Passed
    By The House Of Representatives And As Amended By The Senate: Revenue
    Provisions. September 29, 2004
        JCX-65-04--Comparison Of Certain Provisions Of H.R. 4520 As Passed
    By The House Of Representatives And As Amended By The Senate: Alcohol
    Fuels And Fuel Fraud Provisions. September 29, 2004
        JCX-66-04--Comparison Of Certain Provisions Of H.R. 4520 As Passed
    By The House Of Representatives And As Amended By The Senate: Expiring
    Provisions. September 29, 2004
        JCX-67-04--Budget Impact Of The Proposed Protocols To The Income
    Tax Treaties Between The United States And The Netherlands And Between
    The United States And Barbados. September 30, 2004
        JCX-68-04R--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Chairman's Mark
    Relating To H.R. 4520, The ``American Jobs Creation Act Of 2004,''
    Scheduled For Consideration By The House And Senate Conferees
    Continuing On October 5, 2004. October 5, 2004
        JCX-69-04--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement For
    H.R. 4520, The ``American Jobs Creation Act Of 2004''. October 7, 2004
        JCX-70-04--Description Of The Tax Technical Corrections Act Of
    2004. November 19, 2004
        JCX-71-04--List Of Expiring Federal Tax Provisions 2004-2014.
    December 23, 2004

      ATTACHMENT C.--JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION REVENUE ESTIMATE REQUESTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     No. of
                            Calendar year                           requests
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1986.........................................................        474
    1987.........................................................        420
    1988.........................................................        900
    1989.........................................................      1,290
    1990.........................................................      1,286
    1991.........................................................      1,461
    1992.........................................................      2,350
    1993.........................................................      2,380
    1994.........................................................      1,259
    1995.........................................................      2,278
    1996.........................................................      1,792
    1997.........................................................      2,079
    1998.........................................................      2,729
    1999.........................................................      4,150
    2000.........................................................      2,807
    2001.........................................................      4,491
    2002.........................................................      3,583
    2003.........................................................      4,839
    2004.........................................................      3,580
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      ATTACHMENT D.--REQUEST DATA RELATING TO THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 108TH
                                  CONGRESS \1\
                              [Calendar Year 2004]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Requests   Requests   Requests   Percent
             Requestors            Received   Pending     Closed     Closed
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ways and Means Committee:
        Republicans.............        842         66        776       92.2
        Democrats...............        188         19        169       89.9
    Senate Finance Committee:
        Republicans.............        933         91        842       90.2
        Democrats...............      1,162         97      1,065       91.7
    Non-Ways and Means
     Committee:
        Republicans.............         71          7         64       90.1
        Democrats/Independent...         78         10         68       87.2
    Non-Senate Finance
     Committee:
        Republicans.............         81         10         71       87.7
        Democrats...............        131         10        121       92.4
    Others......................         94          9         85       90.4
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Total.................      3,580        319      3,261       91.1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Totals include both revenue and non-revenue requests.

                           Attachment E.--Memorandum
                                                      December 8, 2004.
    TO: Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation
    FROM: Senior Refund Counsel
    SUBJECT: Refund Section--Operations Report October 1, 2003 through
    September 30, 2004

        This is a report on the more significant developments in this
    Office during this period.
                                    summary
        Volume--Refund Cases.--1,163 reports were received during this
    period. The total dollar amount of refunds was $22,977,809,443.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Reports Received                             2000     2001     2002     2003     2004
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Examination Division...............................................      550      406      487      555    1,058
    Appeals Division...................................................       99       76       95       82       92
    Department of Justice..............................................       10       14        4        7        9
    Chief Counsel......................................................        5        6        2        5        4
                                                                        --------------------------------------------
          Total........................................................      664      502      588      649    1,163
                                                                        ============================================
    Concerns \1\.......................................................       49       51       41       39       56
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes 0 post review deficiency cases for 2000, 4 for 2001, 0 for 2002, 1 for 2003 and 2 for 2004.

        Post Review.--The Service reports 64 large deficiency cases to us
    on an annual basis.
        Other Action.--We made recommendations that the Service publish
    guidance in certain areas we also made five legislative
    recommendations.
        Exhibits and Appendices provide detailed information on most of the
    foregoing.
        Errors identified by us in fiscal year 2004 and prior years, and
    settled in fiscal year 2004 produced a net reduction in refunds or an
    increase in deficiencies of $61 million. The average annual reduction
    for the last ten years is $38.8 million. Such corrections also reduced
    NOLs by $9.8 million; reduced credits by $133,000 reduced AMT NOLs by
    $103.2 million and decreased basis and amortization by $31 million.
        We hope that we are satisfactorily accomplishing our assigned
    portion of the Committee's mission and meeting your expectations. We
    look forward to a productive, challenging year.
      Appendix A.--Proposals for Statutory, Ruling, Manual and Regulatory
                                    Changes
        Raised the possibility of legislation to amend section 305(c) to
    reference section 1272(d). (NB)
        Suggested the IRS review procedures for reporting section 835(d)
    credits to Joint Committee in view of recent failure to timely report
    credit. (RG)
        Raised for future reference the issue of longer carryback periods
    from certain years, and the problem that arises when taxpayers file for
    a change in period to obtain more than one tax year ending in the
    relevant year. (NB)
        Raised the issue of the characterization issue of licenses in the
    section 367/351 contexts. (NB)
        Raised the fact that section 172(h) has never been amended to
    conform to the 5-year periods contained in 172(b)(1)(H). (RG)
        Amend section 1033 to clarify that merger termination fees do not
    qualify. (NB & RG)
        Suggested the IRS review two compensation rulings. (CS & NF)

                    EXHIBIT I.--REPORTS TO JC AS REQUIRED BY IRS CODE SECTION 6405--FISCAL YEAR 2004
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              No. of                  Cumulative
                    Month                     Cases      Cumulative    Monthly     Dollar Receipts     Cumulative
                                             Received      Total       Average                       Dollar Receipts
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    October..............................           73           73           73    $2,004,276,357    $2,004,276,357
    November.............................           43          116           58       488,511,179     2,492,787,536
    December.............................           52          168           56     1,290,914,965     3,783,702,501
    January..............................           65          233           58     1,010,727,485     4,794,429,986
    February.............................          119          352           70     4,214,438,769     9,008,868,755
    March................................          109          461           77     1,114,379,529    10,123,248,284
    April................................          109          570           81     1,395,622,914    11,518,871,198
    May..................................          168          738           92     5,487,895,592    17,006,766,790
    June.................................          105          843           94     1,278,596,373    18,285,363,163
    July.................................          109          952           95     2,007,877,685    20,293,240,848
    August...............................          121        1,073           98     1,696,776,685    21,990,017,533
    September............................           90        1,163           97       987,791,779    22,977,809,312
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              EXHIBIT II.--JOINT COMMITTEE CASES RECEIVED BY TYPES OF TAXPAYER AND SOURCE--FISCAL YEAR 2004
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Amount    Percent                                  Amount    Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                TYPES OF TAXPAYERS                                        SOURCE OF REPORTS
    Individuals..............................        40       3.4   Compliance..................     1,058      91.0
    Estates..................................         5        .4   Appeals.....................        92       7.9
    Trusts...................................         4        .3   Justice.....................         9        .8
    Corporations.............................     1,114      95.9   Tax Court...................         4        .3
                                              ---------------------                              -------------------
          Total..............................     1,163     100.0         Total.................     1,163     100.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      EXHIBIT III.--JOINT COMMITTEE MONTHLY RECEIPTS--REFUND REPORTS FROM COMPLIANCE AND APPEALS--FISCAL YEAR 2004
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Month                         Compliance      Cumulative        Appeals       Cumulative
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    October.........................................              69              69               3               3
    November........................................              39             108               4               7
    December........................................              48             156               3              10
    January.........................................              57             213               8              18
    February........................................             105             318              11              29
    March...........................................             102             420               5              34
    April...........................................             105             525               4              38
    May.............................................             153             678              13              51
    June............................................              91             769              13              64
    July............................................              98             867              10              74
    August..........................................             109             976              10              84
    September.......................................              82           1,058               8              92
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      EXHIBIT IV.--JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION CONCERNS ON REFUND REPORTS--
                                FISCAL YEAR 2004
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of     Percentage of
                                                 Concerns     Total Concerns
                                                  Issued          Issued
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Compliance..............................              48              85
    Appeals.................................               7              13
    Tax Court...............................               1               2
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................              56             100
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    No.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CMP.....................................................           1,058
    AP......................................................              92
    TC......................................................               4
    J.......................................................               9
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................           1,163
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                            JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
                   Prepared Statement of Jim Saxton, Chairman
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to
    express my strong support for the fiscal year 2006 budget request of
    the Joint Economic Committee (JEC).
        This budget request will support the JEC's focus on quality
    research and economic analysis needed by Congress and the public. The
    Committee's research and activities are substantive and credible, and
    have been cited in the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes,
    Time, Washington Post, New York Times, Institutional Investor, and many
    other publications.
        As you know, the Committee's research covers a broad array of issue
    areas including both domestic and international economic policies. In
    addition, the Committee closely monitors and analyzes current economic,
    financial, and employment conditions. The Committee has several ongoing
    research programs including fiscal and monetary policy, tax policy,
    insurance reform, and reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
    and the World Bank.
        One of our research programs, for example, focuses on recent
    Federal Reserve monetary policy. A series of JEC research papers and
    hearings continues to explore the specific features of the most
    successful monetary policy in U.S. history. Our research in this area
    indicates that the Federal Reserve has essentially been conducting
    informal inflation targeting for a number of years.
        Since this monetary policy has proved so effective and beneficial
    to the economy, it is important to provide Congress with an explanation
    of inflation targeting and how it works. Inflation targets are usually
    ranges setting permissible changes in some broad price index. For
    example, one might choose to set a formal inflation target of 1 to 3
    percent in such an index. Monetary policy is then geared to achieve
    this inflation target over a designated timeframe.
        A number of JEC research papers also have documented that many
    other nations have successfully implemented inflation targeting, with
    very positive effects. I continue to believe that it would be
    beneficial for the United States to set more formal inflation targets
    and to institutionalize this approach to monetary policy.
        In the area of taxation, a number of JEC studies have analyzed
    various tax provisions in light of their impact on capital formation.
    These studies examine how various features of the income tax can
    undermine incentives for saving and investment. Other JEC related
    research reviews U.S. tax policy and compares it to the tax policies of
    other nations. Another research project demonstrates the deficiencies
    in commonly used tax distribution tables.
        An additional research program involves reform of the International
    Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Some of this JEC research has
    resulted in legislation changing IMF lending policies, producing
    taxpayer savings of many millions of dollars. More recent JEC research
    has exposed hundreds of millions in hidden taxpayer subsidies that
    could result from new IMF proposals currently under consideration.
        In recent weeks, the JEC has expanded its international research
    program to include a review of allegations concerning accounting
    irregularities at the World Bank. The Committee has verified that
    accounting errors of tens of millions of dollars did in fact occur and
    were not effectively addressed by World Bank management in a timely
    manner. While many of these accounting problems occurred several years
    ago, some of the problems are much more recent. We will continue to
    explore these World Bank accounting issues in coming months.
        Insurance reform is another ongoing research program of the
    Committee. A number of Committee studies examine policy issues related
    to terrorism insurance, medical liability reform, and tort reform.
        In closing, I would like to emphasize that the quality and
    productivity of Committee research products will continue in the 109th
    Congress as we execute an aggressive research agenda. I would also like
    to thank the Members of this Committee as well as other Members of
    Congress for their support of the work of the Joint Economic Committee.
                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
    hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements of those
    submitting written testimony are as follows:]

      Prepared Statement of the Association of Research Libraries and the
                  Council on Library and Information Resources

        This statement is submitted on behalf of the Association of
    Research Libraries (ARL) and the Council on Library and
    Information Resources (CLIR) in support of the fiscal year 2006
    budget request of $627,802,000 for the Library of Congress
    (LC).
        The funding request for fiscal year 2006 will allow the
    Library to fund ongoing operational activities while at the
    same time, support a number of key activities of interest to
    the library community and the Nation. Importantly, several of
    these initiatives focus on enhancing preservation of and access
    to the Library's collections. These projects include the
    National Audio-Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC), the National
    Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program
    (NDIIPP), digitization and deacidification initiatives.
        The National Audio-Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC) in
    Culpeper, Virginia will serve as the central storage and
    conservation facility for the Library's audiovisual collections
    and will also be home to specialized preservation laboratories
    for audiovisual media. This project was put on a five-year plan
    three years ago and progress is moving according to schedule.
    The fiscal year 2006 funding request for this project is $16.17
    million. This facility will provide sufficient capacities and
    capabilities for the Library to store, preserve and provide
    access to its collections of moving images and recorded sound
    for well over the next 25 years. ARL and CLIR support the
    Library's fiscal year 2006 request of $16.17 million for
    collections relocation, digital preservation activities, and
    more relating to the NAVCC.
        To preserve our past, libraries have established
    collaborative programs to protect millions of books and other
    materials, much of which is becoming unreadable due to the
    acidic paper on which they are printed. This is a national
    crisis and our response must be sustained over many years. ARL
    and CLIR thank the Congress for your continuing support of the
    Library's deacidification and related preservation efforts. We
    support the request for $3.375 million to preserve an
    additional 4.5 million items.
        The library community supports many preservation
    initiatives. ARL recently released a paper, ``Recognizing
    Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method,'' (http://
    www.arl.org/preserv/digit_final.html) that supports
    digitization as a viable preservation reformatting strategy.
    CLIR and the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) endorsed
    this paper and approach. This paper is but a first step in
    building community support and facilitating the development of
    policies, standards, guidelines, and best practices. It is
    recognized that there are many methods available to preserve
    paper-based materials with digitization becoming more widely
    accepted by many communities.
        ARL and CLIR support the mission of the National Digital
    Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP) to
    develop a national strategy to collect, archive, catalog, and
    preserve the rapidly increasing amount of digital content for
    current and future generations, especially materials that are
    created only in digital formats. Libraries throughout the
    United States are investing in comparable initiatives, thus
    cooperation among institutions will be fundamental to the
    success of these endeavors. ARL and CLIR support the request to
    extend by five years, the securing of commitments by other
    organizations and entities to partner in the NDIIPP. In 2004,
    the Library awarded more than $13.9 million to eight U.S.
    institutions to collect and preserve digital materials under
    the NDIIPP.
        The Library created the National Film Preservation
    Foundation (NFPF) in 1996 to preserve American films, such as
    documentaries, silent-era films, avant-garde works, ethnic
    films, newsreels, home movies and independent works. In
    addition to protecting films from disintegration, NFPF
    organizes, obtains funding, and manages collaborative projects
    that enable film archives to work together on national
    preservation initiatives. These are important activities and
    merit Congress' full support. Indeed, ARL supported legislation
    before Congress to reauthorize these important activities.
        Funding to assist the Library in its long-term preservation
    and access initiatives is critical to ensuring that the
    American public benefits from our Nation's cultural resources
    as well as from the Library's global resources. We look forward
    to working with members of the Subcommittee on Legislative
    Branch and very much appreciate the Subcommittee's continued
    support for the Library of Congress and its programs.
                                    ------

      Prepared Statement of the Association of Research Libraries and the
                  Council on Library and Information Resources

        On behalf of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
    and the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), we
    write in support of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations request
    for the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). We request your
    support for GPO's fiscal year 2006 budget request of
    $131,120,000 and in particular the request of $33,837,000 for
    the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) Appropriation of the
    Superintendent of Documents. This appropriation supports the
    Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), the cataloging and
    indexing of government publications, the distribution of
    government publications to the International Exchange Program
    and more. We commend GPO for investing in technologies and
    systems to support enhanced access to electronic government
    information and in programs to ensure the authenticity and
    preservation of this information.
        The FDLP is a long-standing partnership between the Federal
    Government, the library community and the public. The FDLP
    provides the American public with access to a wide array of
    Federal information. GPO Access provides the public with access
    to information in an increasingly electronic environment. In
    addition to Congress, the White House, approximately 130
    Federal departments and agencies, and the courts rely on GPO's
    services to create and disseminate government information
    through the World Wide Web.
        The GPO and the participating Federal Depository Libraries
    (FDLs) are undergoing an exciting transformation. This
    transformation is a result of the new capabilities and
    opportunities that are possible with the adoption of digital
    technologies and the explosive growth of the Internet.
    Researchers, students and members of the public can engage in
    sophisticated searching and manipulation of information and
    data including ready access to data, image files and more.
    Increasingly, the data and information available is both
    current and historical as many libraries and others digitize
    special collections that are rich in the cultural and political
    history of our Nation.
        As noted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project,
    ``the Internet has reached into, and in some cases, reshaped
    just about every realm of modern life.'' This shift to the
    adoption and use of electronic information resources reflects
    the interests and activities of the public. According to a
    recent Nielsen/NR survey (March 2005), there are 200,933,147
    Internet users in the United States or 67.8 percent of the
    population. This represents an increase in usage of the
    Internet of 104.9 percent between 2000-2005. These statistics
    demonstrate how the American public is now engaging in online
    activities--education, e-commerce, politics and a wide range of
    other activities. The findings of the Electronic Publishing
    Initiative (EPIC) at Columbia University are illustrative of
    this change. EPIC found that electronic resources have become
    the most used tool for information gathering by students. In
    particular, undergraduate students rely upon the World Wide Web
    and graduate students are more dependent upon library
    electronic services. The GPO Strategic Vision for the 21st
    Century clearly recognizes how the American public depends upon
    E-services and how they use information.
        Research libraries, indeed all libraries, are experiencing
    an explosive growth in the acquisition and use of electronic
    resources. As a result, there is a dramatic rise in digital
    services in libraries and in teaching, learning and research
    applications. The acceleration to electronic services is due in
    large part to the new opportunities to provide access to
    information more effectively. Data collected by ARL members
    over the past decade indicate that the portion of the library
    materials budget that is spent on electronic resources is
    growing rapidly. The percentage of the average library budget
    that is spent on electronic materials has increased more than
    eightfold, from an estimated 3.6 percent in 1992-93 to 25
    percent in 2002-03.
        Since the early 1990's, the library community has actively
    advocated for the inclusion of electronic government
    information in the FDLP. Congress, with guidance from this
    Committee, has supported this move to an increasingly
    electronic FDLP. This direction recognized the enhanced
    capabilities that electronic services provide to users of
    government information.
        Most recently, the move to electronic delivery of
    information in the FDLP has increased at a fast pace. By
    October-November 2004, 95 percent of the titles in the FDLP
    were available electronically (even if tangible forms were also
    available) and only 5 percent had no electronic counterpart.
        The shift to a predominantly electronic FDLP signals a
    change in nature of the Program. The FDLP is moving from a
    collection-based program to a service-based program and from
    print-based to electronic. The focus of the program is on
    expertise and access to the information resources, not on the
    physical collection. In addition, the future of the FDLP will
    be in building shared collections where resources are managed
    and interoperated. These may also include print collections
    that are digitized. It is expected that different models of
    shared repositories are likely to emerge and diversity is
    desirable and encouraged.
        Participating libraries make significant local
    contributions to ensure effective public access to government
    information. For example, as a participating regional federal
    depository library (since 1879), the University of Colorado-
    Boulder Library spends approximately $675,000 for staff,
    material purchases, equipment and a variety of projects that
    enhance public access to government information. In addition,
    the Colorado State University selects approximately 60 percent
    of materials available via the FDLP and spends $200,000 on
    staff. The average yearly cost for 6 academic FDL's in Illinois
    is $348,107 and all select over 78 percent of the government
    information available via the program.
        One hundred and eight ARL members are federal depository
    libraries located in congressional districts throughout the
    United States. Of the 108 participating ARL libraries, 22 are
    regional depositories that collect and maintain all information
    available via the FDLP. As of the fall of 2003, the average
    annual investment in the program by ARL selective FDLs was
    $352,680 and was $386,251 for ARL regional FDLs. Moreover, a
    recent survey of ARL FDLs and non-ARL regional libraries
    reports a jump in the reliance upon no-fee government E-
    resources as well as an increase in the licensing of commercial
    E-resources. Finally, 99 percent of ARL selective FDLs report
    links to electronic government information in their online
    catalogs and 100 percent of all regional FDLs link to
    government E-resources. Clearly, many participating FDLs have
    embraced the use of electronic products and services.
        The GPO fiscal year 2006 funding request, including that
    for Salaries and Expenses, includes key initiatives that focus
    on ensuring that GPO is well positioned to provide needed
    information services in the evolving networked environment. GPO
    is investing in new strategic initiatives that define its and
    the FDLP's future. For example, GPO is supporting the
    development of authentication services, preservation planning
    and implementation, improvements to GPO Access, web harvesting,
    and reallocation of resources to manage the electronic
    collection. The Salaries and Expenses request of $33,837,000
    supports several critically important programs such as the
    FDLP, the Cataloging and Indexing Program, and the
    International Exchange Program. This amount includes necessary
    increases to support the continued operation of the FDLP, and
    the increased demands upon GPO Access. In particular, we
    strongly support the request of $1 million in support of
    digitization of government information. We urge you to approve
    the full Salaries and Expenses appropriations request for
    fiscal year 2006.
        ARL recently released a paper, ``Recognizing Digitization
    as a Preservation Reformatting Method,'' (http://www.arl.org/
    preserv/digit_final.html) that supports digitization as a
    viable preservation reformatting strategy. CLIR and the
    Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) endorsed this paper
    and approach. This paper is but a first step in building
    community support and facilitating the development of policies,
    standards, guidelines, and best practices. It is recognized
    that there are many methods available to preserve paper-based
    materials with digitization becoming more widely accepted by
    many communities.
        In closing Mr. Chairman, we very much appreciate your and
    the Subcommittee's support of GPO and the FDLP over the course
    of many years. The continuing investment in systems and
    services to provide the public with effective access to
    government information will ensure that valuable electronic
    government information will be available and preserved for
    future generations. We respectfully ask for your continued
    support by approving the Government Printing Office's fiscal
    year 2006 appropriations request in its entirety. We also ask
    that this statement be included as part of the hearing record.
        Thank you very much for your consideration of this request.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado:
        Opening Statements of.........................1, 121, 209, 241, 265
        Questions Submitted by...........................101, 103, 164, 191
    Association of Research Libraries and the Council on Library and
      Information Resources, Prepared Statements of................317, 318

    Billington, James H., Ph.D., The Librarian of Congress, Library
      of Congress....................................................   121
        Prepared Statements of.....................................124, 129

    Concordia, Al, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Police Operations,
      Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate.....   209
    Czerwinski, Stan, Controller, Government Accountability Office...   169

    Dodaro, Gene, Chief Operating Officer, Government Accountability
      Office.........................................................   169
    Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois:
        Opening Statement of.........................................   247
        Prepared Statements of......................................78, 247
        Questions Submitted by................................114, 278, 289
         Statement of................................................    78

    Edwards, Rick, Administrative Assistant and Assistant Sergeant at
      Arms, Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S.
      Senate.........................................................   209
    Erickson, Nancy, Executive Assistant, Office of the Sergeant at
      Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate...............................   209

    Forrest, Bruce, Interim Chief Copyright Royalty Judge, Library of
      Congress, Prepared Statement of................................   145

    Gainer, Terrance W., Chief of Police, United States Capitol
      Police, Capitol Police Board...................................   241
        Prepared Statement of........................................   244
        Statement of.................................................   243
    Gordon, Esther, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Operations, Office
      of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............   209

    Halbrooks, Lynne, Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Office of the Sergeant
      at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............................   209
    Hanson, J. Greg, Assistant Sergeant at Arms and Chief Information
      Officer, Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S.
      Senate.........................................................   209
    Hantman, Alan, FAIA, Architect of the Capitol..............71, 241, 261
        Prepared Statement of........................................    73
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   103
    Harper, Sallyanne, Chief Administrative Officer, Government
      Accountability Office..........................................   169
    Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, Director, Congressional Budget Office......   285
        Prepared Statement of........................................   285

    James, Bruce R., Public Printer, Government Printing Office......   265
        Opening Statement of.........................................   266
        Prepared Statement of........................................   269
    Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   147
        Statement of.................................................   147
    Jones, Mary Suit, Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Office of
      the Secretary, U.S. Senate.....................................     1

    Kaylor, Chuck, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and
      Emergency Preparedness, Office of the Sergeant at Arms and
      Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate........................................   209

    Livingood, Hon. W. Wilson, House Sergeant at Arms..............241, 261

    Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service,
      Library of Congress............................................   121
        Prepared Statement of........................................   158
        Statement of.................................................   157

    Peters, Mary Beth, Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress...   121
        Prepared Statement of........................................   141
    Pickle, Hon. William H., Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, Office
      of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate.....209, 241, 261
        Opening Statement of.........................................   211
        Opening Testimony of.........................................   261
        Prepared Statements of................................213, 242, 262
        Statement of.................................................   241

    Reynolds, Emily, Secretary of the Senate, Office of the
      Secretary, U.S. Sen-
      ate............................................................     1
        Opening Statement of.........................................     3
        Prepared Statement of........................................     6
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   101

    Robfogel, Susan S., Esquire, Chair, Board of Directors, Office of
      Compliance.....................................................   293
        Prepared Statement of........................................   297

    Saxton, Jim, Chairman, Joint Economic Committee, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   314
    Scott, General Donald L., Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library
      of Con-
      gress..........................................................   121

    Thomas, William M., Chairman, Joint Committee on Taxation,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................   303
    Thompson, William W., II, Executive Director, Office of
      Compliance.....................................................   293
        Prepared Statement of........................................   293

    Walker, David M., Comptroller General of the United States,
      Government Accountability Office...............................   169
         Prepared Statement of.......................................   171
    Wineman, Tim, Financial Clerk of the Senate, Office of the
      Secretary, U.S. Senate.........................................     1

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   101
    Annual Projects Budget...........................................    73
    Architect of the Capitol:
        Management...................................................    97
        Strategic Plan...............................................    71
    Budget...........................................................   103
        And Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) Process..................    86
    Capital Projects Budget..........................................    74
    Capitol:
        Building.....................................................    75
        Police Off-site Delivery Facility............................   109
        Power Plant.................................................75, 108
        Visitor Center.........................................85, 111, 114
            Budget...................................................    74
            Completion and Operations................................    92
            Construction.............................................   112
                Management...........................................    94
            Cost Changes.............................................    90
            Exhibition Space.........................................    96
            FTEs.....................................................    91
            Government Accountability Office Report..................    98
            Schedule.................................................    95
            Utility Tunnel...........................................   112
    Chief Operating Officer Position.................................   104
    Employee:
        Feedback Program.............................................    72
        Safety.......................................................    76
    Financial Management Reforms.....................................   119
    Fire and Life Safety Projects....................................   108
    Fiscal Year 2006 Major Projects..................................    71
    Fort Meade Storage Modules.......................................   109
    GAO Management Review............................................   110
    Human Capital/Organizational Excellence..........................    76
    Master Plan and Facility Condition Assessment....................   107
    Operating Budget.................................................    73
    Organizational:
        Issues.......................................................   114
        Structure....................................................   112
    Overview of Budget Request.......................................    73
    Perimeter Security..............................................76, 107
    Personnel Controls...............................................   119
    Privatization....................................................   109
    Procurement Irregularities.......................................   117
    Project:
        Delivery.....................................................    76
        Management.................................................105, 113
    Senate Office Building Improvements..............................    75
    Strategic Plan...................................................   103
        Needed.......................................................    92
    Strategic Planning...............................................    73

                              CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD

    Staff Led Tours..................................................   263

                              CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

    Additional Staffing Request......................................   248
    Capitol Visitor Center Space for Police..........................   258
    Competency Performance-Based Management System...................   255
    Discussion of Overtime...........................................   250
    Fairchild Building...............................................   259
    Fiscal Year 2005 Salary Budget Discussion........................   254
    Funding Requirements.............................................   250
    Hiring and Retention of Sworn Officers...........................   251
    Merger of Police Forces..........................................   252
    Mounted Horse Unit...............................................   257
    Offsite Delivery Center..........................................   255
    Staffing the Capitol Visitor Center..............................   249
    Sworn Officers Training Needs....................................   249

                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   288
    Audit of CBO Financial Statements................................   290
    Automated Financial Management System............................   291
    Budget Forecasting...............................................   287
    Coordinating Efforts With Other Legislative Branch Agencies......   289
    Document Distribution System.....................................   289
    Elimination of Certain Staff Positions...........................   289
    Library Staff Reductions.........................................   290
    Property Management Inventory System.............................   290
    Resource Requirements............................................   287

                        GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   191
    Backlog of Requests..............................................   188
    Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Results.........................   172
    GAO's Fiscal Year 2006 Request to Support the Congress...........   184
    Health Care Backlog............................................188, 198
    Making a Difference in Government................................   190
    Measuring Success................................................   170
    Performance:
        Awards.......................................................   190
        Recognition..................................................   189
    Sources of GAO Work..............................................   187
    Streamlining and Management Improvement Efforts..................   182

                           GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   277
    Continuation of Services.........................................   270
    Digital Content Management System................................   273
    Digitization Effort..............................................   274
    Federal Depository Libraries.....................................   276
    Fiscal Year 2006 Request.........................................   270
    Future Cost Savings..............................................   272
    Government Printing Office Field Offices.........................   277
    Internal Controls................................................   277
    Investment in the GPO's Future...................................   270
    Lease of Current Facility........................................   274
    Redevelopment of Government Printing Office Headquarters.........   271
    Schedule for New Building........................................   273
    Smart Passport...................................................   276
    Transitioning the Workforce......................................   275
    2004 Results.....................................................   269

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

    Accomplishments..................................................   124
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   163
    Assessment of Proposed Open World Expansion Into Afghanistan and
      Pakistan.......................................................   140
    Board of Trustees................................................   130
    Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped...................   165
    Building a 21st Century Library..................................   125
    CVC Tunnel.......................................................   164
    Congressional Research Service...................................   157
        Performance Measurement......................................   162
        Research Materials...........................................   160
        Response Time................................................   161
    Copyright:
        Reengineering..............................................123, 154
        Registration Process.........................................   155
    Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request............126, 130, 135, 144, 146, 159
    Fort Meade:
        Project......................................................   123
        Storage......................................................   149
    Funding Priorities and Challenges................................   147
    Impact of Technology.............................................   164
    Library of Congress Performance Measurement......................   163
    Library's Fiscal Year 2006 Plan..................................   125
    Major:
        Library-wide Projects........................................   127
        Projects.....................................................   126
    Management Initiatives...........................................   161
    NAVCC--Culpeper................................................123, 148
    National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation
      Program........................................................   165
    Open World Leadership Center...................................129, 156
        Delegate Quotations..........................................   136
    Opening Statement of the Librarian...............................   122
    Other Program Contributions......................................   136
    Other Projects...................................................   128
    Outsourcing......................................................   166
    Performance Management...........................................   162
    Police Merger....................................................   152
    Program Objectives...............................................   130
    Proposed Changes to Legislative Language.........................   129
    Review of Copyright Office Work and Accomplishments............141, 146
    Staff Capacity...................................................   159
    Strategic:
        Decisions....................................................   131
        Goals........................................................   131
    Sustaining Staff Capacity........................................   128
    The Library Today................................................   124
    Unfunded Mandates................................................   126
    What the Investment Has Yielded..................................   132

                              OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

    Changes in the Congressional Accountability Act..................   300
    Dispute Resolution...............................................   294
    Educating our Constituency.......................................   295
    Government Accountability Office Report on the Status of
      Management in the Office of Compliance.........................   299
    Health and Safety Inspections....................................   298
    Rising Caseload..................................................   299
    Safety and Health Enforcement....................................   294

                                  U.S. SENATE

                            Office of the Secretary

    Administrative Offices...........................................    34
    Capitol Visitor Center...........................................     9
    Changing Technologies............................................    80
    Continuity of Operations and Emergency Preparedness Planning.....     9
    Curatorial Advisory Board and Preservation Board of Trustees.....    80
    Disbursing Office Information Technology.........................    27
    Financial Operations: Disbursing Office..........................    18
    Implementing Mandated Systems....................................     7
    Inaugural Address Efforts........................................    79
    Legislative Information System (LIS) Project.....................    67
    Legislative Offices..............................................    10
    Maintaining and Improving Current and Historic Legislative,
      Financial and Administrative Services..........................    10
    Presenting the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request...................     6
    Retention and Recruitment........................................    82
    Senate Clerks....................................................    81
    Student Loan Repayment Program...................................    82
    The Senate Disbursing Office, ``The Front Counter''..............    83
    Capitol Visitor Center Exhibition Space..........................    96

                 Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

    Capitol Visitor Center Equipment Furnishing......................   237
    Continuing Emphasis on Security and Preparedness.................   214
    Discussion on Additional Funding for Current Technology Alternate
      Computing Facility.............................................   238
    Information Technology...........................................   216
    Major Events of the Past Year....................................   213
    Operational Support..............................................   220
    Staffing Increase for the Sergeant at Arms.......................   237
    Telephone Systems Upgrade........................................   235
    Upgrading:
        Mail Processing Facility and Packing.........................   238
        Printing Press...............................................   238
    Voice-over Internet Protocol.....................................   236
    Warehouse Construction...........................................   239

                                       -