    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   LIBRARY OF CONGRESS IT STRATEGIC PLANNING

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                     HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 29, 2009

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

                           Available on the Internet:
       http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    52-316                    WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    Zoe Lofgren, California              Daniel E. Lungren, California
      Vice-Chairwoman                      Ranking Minority Member
    Michael E. Capuano, Massachusetts    Kevin McCarthy, California
    Charles A. Gonzalez, Texas           Gregg Harper, Mississippi
    Susan A. Davis, California
    Artur Davis, Alabama
                     S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Staff Director
                   Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director

                   LIBRARY OF CONGRESS IT STRATEGIC PLANNING

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:08 a.m., in Room
    1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Gonzalez, Lungren,
    and Harper.
        Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Jamie Fleet,
    Deputy Staff Director; Khalil Abboud, Professional Staff;
    Michael Harrison, Professional Staff; Matt Pinkus, Professional
    Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson, Press Director; Kristin
    McCowan, Chief Legislative Clerk; Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority
    Staff Director; Katie Ryan, Minority Professional Staff; and
    Karin Moore, Minority Legislative Counsel.
        The Chairman. I would like to call the Committee on House
    Administration to order.
        Good morning, everyone. We are convening here this morning
    to continue our oversight of the Library of Congress. Today we
    will focus on the Library of Congress management of information
    technology and strategic planning. As we continue to operate an
    increasingly digital world, we must learn to adapt to the
    environment around us. Information technology must consistently
    evolve, often at a remarkable pace.
        The Library of Congress faces particular challenges due to
    the large amount of information the Library stores and manages.
    Meeting these challenges is no small task. Ten years ago, the
    Library of Congress commissioned the National Research Council
    to study their IT strategic planning. In 2000, as a result of
    the study, the LC21 report provided many recommendations for
    the Library to make their IT systems more efficient. While the
    Library has implemented some of the LC21 recommendations, some
    areas still need to be addressed.
        The Library's inspector general recently released a report
    on IT strategic planning at the Library. While the inspector
    general's findings were generally favorable, he also found room
    for improvement. The Library's IT system must be coordinated
    with the strategic plan, as recommended in the LC21 report, and
    the Library's chief information officer must take
    responsibility for overseeing the Library's IT functions in
    addition to participating in broader program planning.
        With each day, information technology occupies a larger
    role in our work environment. Every year, the Library of
    Congress undertakes ambitious efforts to continue its mission
    of spreading knowledge. And while the ever-present tool of
    technology has allowed the Library to further this mission, we
    must ensure that the tool is used in the most efficient way. We
    look forward to the testimony from witnesses on these issues.
        I would now like to recognize Mr. Harper, in place of Mr.
    Lungren, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to thank Chairman Brady for calling today's
    hearing.
        The Library of Congress is not only the world's largest
    library, charged with gathering and preserving an unsurpassed
    universal collection of documents, but also a global leader in
    digital initiatives to bring educational and historical
    resources to the fingertips of students and scholars around the
    globe.
        Since the National Research Council's 2000 report which
    assessed and outlined a digital strategy for the Library, we
    have seen the Library take major strides in technological
    advancement, including the migration from mainframe systems,
    standardization network infrastructure, the build-out of an
    alternate computing facility, and the establishment of
    international partnerships to develop digital collections.
        While such improvements have been made to the Library's IT
    infrastructure over the past decade, a recent review by A-Tech
    Systems on behalf of the Library's inspector general identified
    additional steps necessary to ensure that the Library has the
    technological and operational wherewithal to meet the ever-
    growing digital demands of the 21st century.
        According to the review, the IT strategic plan is currently
    misaligned with the Library's overarching mission, rendering
    digitization efforts inconsistent without clear direction. With
    digital initiatives and programs so vital to the Library's core
    mission, Library IT operations need to migrate to a more
    cohesive, centralized design without paralyzing the autonomy of
    the Library's various programs. The A-Tech report also
    indicates that a more comprehensive IT strategy would reduce
    duplicative IT costs of overlapping support systems.
        Another area of concern highlighted by the review is the
    lack of IT security policies and enforcement. The valuable
    services provided by the Library's legislative information and
    research services are essential to the House's legislative
    business and are the window through which the American people
    view the actions of the Congress. Therefore, it is imperative
    that the Library's information security group has the policy
    tools and authority needed to ensure that systems integrity and
    security is maintained.
        Although the IG's recent review highlights some of the
    Library's IT weaknesses, I would like to reiterate how valued
    the Library's services are, both here in Washington and across
    the globe. The core mission of the Library hasn't changed, but
    to achieve its mission the Library must adapt to today's ever-
    changing technological demands and challenges.
        There is no question that, under the direction of Dr.
    Billington, the Library has made progress in its technological
    evolution and has often been at the forefront of digital access
    to information in the Internet age. I think I speak for all of
    my colleagues here when I offer our support to ensure that the
    Library has the adequate infrastructure to meet its 21st-
    century mission requirements.
        With that, I would like to thank each of our witnesses for
    joining us today to discuss the current and future state of the
    Library's technological infrastructure. And I look forward to
    your testimony.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Harper.
        I also am being monitored here today by a few people that,
    if not anything, I want to make sure that they get in the
    Congressional Record: my wife, Debra; my granddaughter, Serena;
    and my granddaughter, Alexandra.
        They don't believe that we do any work, and I tell them how
    hard we work, so they had to come down and see it for
    themselves.
        And I thank you for your interest, and I know I have to buy
    lunch and I have to buy dinner.
        So, with that, Ms. Lofgren, anything?
        Ms. Lofgren. I will reserve until after the testimony.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Waive.
        The Chairman. Right now we welcome you, Ms. Laura Campbell,
    the chief information officer, Library of Congress; accompanied
    by Dr. James Billington, the Librarian of Congress; and Jo Ann
    Jenkins, chief operating officer, Library of Congress; and Karl
    Schornagel, the inspector general for the Library of Congress.
        And I guess we will start with Mr. Schornagel.

     STATEMENTS OF KARL SCHORNAGEL, INSPECTOR GENERAL, LIBRARY OF
    CONGRESS; DR. JAMES BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY
     OF CONGRESS, ACCOMPANIED BY LAURA CAMPBELL, CHIEF INFORMATION
        OFFICER, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, AND JO ANN JENKINS, CHIEF
                 OPERATING OFFICER, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                      STATEMENT OF KARL SCHORNAGEL

        Mr. Schornagel. Chairman Brady, Mr. Lungren, and members of
    the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.
        Although the Library has made substantial strides in
    information technology in recent years, more work needs to be
    done.
        First, the Library's strategic planning process is not
    inclusive. Including staff at all levels of the formulation of
    a strategic plan and holding them accountable for results is a
    best practice and is shown to help execute the organization's
    mission.
        Further, although individual Library components are
    required to participate in the AP3 planning process, they are
    not required to prepare a strategic plan. We also found that
    the Library's IT strategic plan does not align well with the
    Library's overall strategic plan. While the IT plan focuses on
    service functions and technical support, the Library focuses on
    higher-level IT concepts. And there seems to be no direct
    linkage between the two plans.
        One of the consequences of unclear guidance in the IT
    strategic plan is divided Library components. This has created
    divergent paths for digitization strategies and projects. For
    example, while OSI concentrates more on digitizing materials
    for education, Library Services is trying to digitize more
    public domain material. Although these two avenues are
    certainly not mutually exclusive, they are not coordinated so
    as to maximize the Library's digitization dollars and result in
    fragmented digital offerings.
        Second, IT investments are not linked to the strategic
    plan, resulting in the duplication of efforts and acquisitions.
    There is no consistent cost-benefit analysis of alternatives,
    and it is difficult to track total IT costs.
        There needs to be a planning and investment process where
    spending decisions are aligned with mission goals. This process
    needs to be driven by the priorities derived from the strategic
    plan. Cost-benefit analyses are needed to determine whether to
    buy or build IT systems and to evaluate alternative
    technologies. As an example, an in-house system developed at
    significant cost for the Library's new audio-visual center had
    to be replaced shortly after implementation with an off-the-
    shelf system because it did not meet the Library's needs. A
    well-developed planning process may have prevented this
    scenario.
        The lack of transparency in tracking IT costs has resulted
    in duplication of help desk support. For example, although the
    IT help desk is, or should be, the domain of ITS, there are, in
    fact, 131 additional employees sprinkled throughout the Library
    engaged in IT support, at an annual cost of over $12 million.
    Granted, some of these may be specialists in particular
    systems, but many also perform traditional help desk functions.
    There is no need to duplicate these infrastructures throughout
    the Library.
        Third, the organizational structure of ITS does not foster
    strategic planning and good IT governance, partly because,
    unlike most other organizations, the CIO at the Library
    combines both infrastructural support and major Library program
    functions. The CIO is ordinarily the head of the IT function
    and reports directly to the top. At the Library, the actual
    head of the IT function, the director of ITS, reports to the
    CIO, who then reports to the Librarian. As a consequence, the
    CIO is largely perceived as a CIO in name only due to her focus
    on the programmatic areas. The CIO has a track record of highly
    successful implementations, but organizational structure should
    be based on function and purpose, not on individuals.
        Also, the CIO is not endowed with the authority to make
    Library-wide decisions on IT governance. Other Library
    components make their own IT investment and acquisition
    decisions. The CIO has only limited authority to enforce
    Library-wide IT policy. A CIO cannot properly lead an IT
    organization without full authority for policy affecting IT
    issues, such as IT security and enterprise architecture.
        Fourth, the Library is just now developing an enterprise
    architecture, or EA, program. An EA framework provides a high-
    level picture of as-is and future systems and business
    processes to provide a framework for making sound IT investment
    decisions. The Library is now embarking on an EA program but
    nonetheless lags significantly behind most organizations.
    Without an EA program, it is difficult for the Library to adopt
    a global view, thus continuing the current fragmented condition
    of IT investment decisions.
        And, finally, there are significant customer service
    problems, partially because the Library does not use quality-
    assurance mechanisms, such as service-level agreements and
    performance metrics. Customers have created their own IT
    support organizations because their needs are not being met.
    Part of the problem is that ITS neither defines service
    expectations nor provides a yardstick for measuring quality.
    Customers work around ITS, and some good intentions are
    thwarted, such as the attempt to deploy network printer/copier/
    scanners. After 5 years, the Library will have paid $5.7
    million for multifunction machines it uses only as basic
    copiers instead of making full use of their capabilities.
        The Library spends hundreds of millions of dollars on IT,
    and collectively we are confident that our recommendations will
    improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the
    Library's IT function.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Schornagel follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.005

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        We, unfortunately, live by bells, and now this year we are
    living by buzzers, and the buzzer is going off. We have a vote
    on; we have three votes. And rather than hearing all the
    testimony and break it up, we will have to break it up sooner
    or later, so we might as well do it now. And we will be back
    hopefully in about 45 minutes.
        So we do apologize, but we have to run across and do our
    legislative business. And we will stand adjourned until about
    12 o'clock.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes?
        Ms. Lofgren. I have to chair a meeting at noon, so I will
    not be able to return. I am wondering if I could submit for the
    record the questions I have about the Law Library that were
    identified in the IG's report and ask for a written response to
    these questions from the Library.
        The Chairman. Yes, without objection.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.006

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        And we will stand adjourned until around 12 o'clock.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. I would like to resume the Committee on House
    Administration hearing. And I apologize again, but we do live
    by those bells and buzzers, and we got back as quickly as we
    can.
        We heard from Mr. Schornagel. Mr. Billington, do you have a
    statement? I recognize you.

                     STATEMENT OF JAMES BILLINGTON

        Mr. Billington. Thank you, Chairman Brady and members of
    the committee. I am very glad to be here with all of you to
    comment briefly on the occasion of the committee's first
    hearing on Library issues in the 111th Congress. I appreciate
    the opportunity specifically to talk about the role of
    information technology in supporting the Library's mission and
    its current future needs to serve Congress and the American
    public.
        I am joined by Laura Campbell, the Library's associate
    librarian for strategic initiatives and chief information
    officer, and Jo Ann Jenkins, our chief operating officer. She
    will shortly be providing you specific commentary on the
    Library's response to the recent outside review and report by
    the inspector general that is the subject of today's hearing.
        The Library has already produced impressive results in the
    course of addressing the frontier challenges of the information
    revolution. We have, in effect, superimposed new digital
    processes and services on top of our continuing traditional
    functions. We have undertaken an unprecedented range and volume
    of innovative services for Congress and the American people.
    Let me just mention a few of the Library's leading-edge efforts
    that we have launched in our various divisions, bearing in mind
    that all of this has been accomplished with 1,000 less FTEs
    than we had in our peak pre-digital year of 1992.
        American Memory is the heart of our national digital
    library. Primary documents of American history and culture are
    online, archived, and freely available, with more than 15.3
    million important primary-source documents available, with
    clear territorial explanation and proven value in classrooms,
    libraries, and homes throughout America.
        Public spaces of the Jefferson Building we have transformed
    into an interactive learning center, providing digital
    enhancement to the great original documents of the American
    experience. The National Digital Information Infrastructure and
    Preservation Program was developed under the Library's
    leadership, under instructions from the Congress. It is a
    national network of partners to save at-risk content that
    exists only in highly impermanent digital form, material that
    if we do not save will be likely lost forever. This program has
    so far preserved 300 terabytes of stored digital information,
    which is the equivalent of 300 million volumes in analog form.
        Last week, we launched a path-breaking World Digital
    Library with material from all 192 countries of UNESCO that
    attracted 20 million page views in its first 4 days. The
    National Digital Newspaper Program, which is a joint project of
    the Library and the National Endowment for Humanities, will
    soon put online its 1 millionth newspaper page.
        The Copyright Office has developed an online system for
    copyright registration, and more than half of registrations are
    already being submitted electronically. The National Library of
    Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped is in full-
    scheduled transition to new digital machines and flashcards to
    serve 800,000 Americans.
        Since the mid-1990s, we have provided Congress with unique
    legislative information through our Congressional Research
    Service's Legislative Information System and serve the public
    with THOMAS, an online source of legislative documents and
    information on the work of Congress.
        I will be presenting testimony just a little bit later
    today to the House Appropriations Committee on the Legislative
    Branch concerning our fiscal 2010 budget request that focuses
    on moving to an enterprise architecture for the Library's
    technical infrastructure based upon the unique knowledge and
    experience of the last decade in what is a one-of-a-kind
    institution.
        So let me now introduce Laura Campbell, who has been at the
    Library since 1992, coming as a managing consultant from Arthur
    Young & Company, a CPA firm. She brought with her significant
    experience and expertise in strategic planning and systems
    integration. She has been a leader in our digitization projects
    and our chief information officer since 2002.
        Let me just say, in conclusion, that I will be happy to
    answer any and all questions and look forward to continuing our
    regular sessions with committee staff and to keeping you and
    the Members and the committee informed about our technological
    issues and progress.
        So I now turn it over to Laura Campbell.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Campbell.

                      STATEMENT OF LAURA CAMPBELL

        Ms. Campbell. Thank you. Chairman Brady, Ranking Member
    Lungren, and members of the committee, I would like to thank
    you for this opportunity to talk about the inspector general's
    April 22, 2009, report, ``Information Technology Strategic
    Planning.''
        While the vision that has driven our Library-wide strategic
    plan has helped us achieve worldwide recognition, the Library
    faces extraordinary challenges posed by technological change.
    The complex, dynamic environment within which the Library must
    acquire, preserve, and make information available to its
    customers requires managing many types of fast-changing digital
    formats across, not one, but multiple missions and their
    customers.
        During the last decade, by doing away with legacy
    equipment, we have transferred the cost savings and systems
    into an industry best practices organization for IT, as we have
    tried to keep current with the ever-changing computer
    technologies. We have not had an increase to our technology
    infrastructure since 2000.
        The most challenging aspect of this work has been to
    address how to handle the new digital object that formerly was
    a physical object, such as a book, sheet music, or even a map
    that you could touch. A digital object created on a Web site,
    maps created on the fly from databases, or documents from word
    processors require a whole new way of managing information, now
    in ones and zeros.
        Traditionally structured IT operations isolated from
    strategic management do not lend themselves to this new
    frontier. The role of the chief information officer, in too
    many organizations, just focuses internally. They are insular;
    they look inside, rather than externally. IT (information
    technology) is isolated from the strategic planning process and
    the management of the overall organization. In the Library's
    case, we have made a concerted effort to focus on the needs of
    the Library customers and on changing technologies as we
    deliver our mission.
        Dr. Billington just mentioned some of the Library's
    leading-edge initiatives. He just scratched the surface. All of
    these efforts have required state-of-the-art technology, have
    met mission goals of providing access to knowledge and
    information, and have helped us learn how to manage diverse and
    fast-changing technical formats for the many types of digital
    content.
        With regard to specific areas of the IG report, let me
    start with strategic planning process. We share the inspector
    general's recognition of the importance of information
    technology, and the need to ensure strategic planning for IT is
    a unifying force at the Library. This does include alignment of
    service unit plans with the libraries and ensuring technology
    initiatives and IT planning specifically are linked and
    understood throughout the Library. We, in OSI, the Office of
    Strategic Initiatives, have done some of the most forward-
    thinking future-scenario planning for handling digital content
    in an IT environment then has been done anywhere, anywhere in
    the world.
        The Library is in the process of updating now its 2008 to
    2013 strategic plan to make sure that the Library priorities
    address the needs of its customers and that the synergies
    across programs are identified and coordinated. Strategic
    planning, for us, is an ongoing process.
        With regard to the IT investment process, the Library is
    currently managing IT investments in two ways. The Library
    Operations Committee, chaired by Jo Ann Jenkins, our chief
    operating officer, is made up of service unit deputies and
    infrastructure directors. That includes personnel, finance and
    facilities. They review and approve central IT investments.
        Examples over the past few years include investments that
    we have made by cost savings. Again, we haven't received an
    increase in our technology infrastructure budget. But through
    cost savings, we have invested through this Operating Committee
    in data and voice wireless systems, central management of the
    Library's workstations, the PCs on the desk, e-mail, and now
    enterprise architecture planning.
        The other service units and the other infrastructure units
    have smaller IT budgets, and their investments have been
    reviewed in the second way we make investments: through the
    budget request process, where, ultimately, decisions are made
    by the Librarian and the Executive Committee about what will go
    forward in the budget or what we will invest in.
        The Library will move to unify and formalize the process of
    investments, to ensure that all IT investments are under
    central oversight. But we do currently have two methods of
    investing.
        The chief financial officer will develop a plan to track
    all Library IT expenses across appropriations to identify any
    duplicative information technology costs. Centralization will
    continue to occur where appropriate. We note that some
    functions are more appropriately decentralized, to meet the
    immediate information management needs of the individual
    business units within the Library. Today, increasingly so--I
    know many of you may feel this yourself--IT skills become part
    of many people's jobs even though they weren't trained to be in
    the IT business.
        With regard to organizational structure, the Librarian
    reviewed the full report of the inspector general (IG) and has
    concluded--and we agree--that this limited report does not
    provide enough analysis by which fundamental decisions can be
    made about the Library's internal structure. A decision to
    conduct such a restructuring will require a broader and deeper
    analysis.
        With regard to enterprise architecture (EA)--that would be
    planning for the change in the way we handle our information
    environment across the institution--enterprise architecture, as
    noted in the report, the Library began the development of an
    enterprise architecture 2 years ago. It was suspended last year
    over funding availability but was restarted this past fall. We
    agree with the IG on the need for an enterprise architecture
    program, and we have contracted with what is one of the
    foremost authorities in this area to guide the Library in
    standing up such a program.
        This initiative is being overseen directly by the Library's
    Operations Committee and myself and involves all service and
    support units and business systems owners in the institution.
    The Library is committed to a useable and informed enterprise
    architecture. It is not our intention to reinvent the wheel,
    and we recognize the benefit of learning from the experience of
    other Federal agencies that are developing or have developed
    such architectures. Our EA team has visited several like-sized
    agencies, including the Government Printing Office (GPO) and
    this Friday they are going to be going to the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO).
        Finally, there is customer service. The Library will
    continue to move forward in a number of areas to improve
    information technology customer services. We agree that project
    management, systems development lifecycle, and help desk
    processes need constant updating. In fact, our systems
    development lifecycle has been significantly revised twice
    since issuance of this methodology in 2003. The security policy
    has also been revised twice, and security directives are under
    constant revision.
        The Library will re-evaluate our help desk contract once
    our chief financial officer has completed a review of help desk
    costs and any appropriate centralization areas that might be
    identified.
        And, very importantly, I think most importantly, we will
    expand on communications and feedback with our customers,
    including customer surveys, talking to our users, and we have
    started open quarterly information meetings across the Library.
        In closing, like every dynamic organization, the Library of
    Congress continues to look at how we can improve our business
    processes as we accomplish our mission-critical work. We are
    transitioning from isolated, content-specific applications to
    an information systems architecture that will allow us to be
    resilient, flexible, and scalable, so we can easily adapt to
    future technological advances as they come along and as we take
    in new and changing, complex content.
        I am confident that we can develop the framework that is
    needed to support our current and future information technology
    needs. Our work will be informed by this report, and I thank
    you very much for listening.
        [The statement of Ms. Campbell follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.011

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Jenkins, anything?
        Ms. Jenkins. No.
        The Chairman. Okay. Now I would open up for questions.
        I have a few questions, Mr. Schornagel. If these
    recommendations would be implemented by the Library, how much
    time and how much money would you be saving?
        Mr. Schornagel. That is really hard to say. We point out in
    the report that the vast majority of these recommendations can
    be implemented at no cost. It is hard to say at this point how
    much savings would be possible, but we think that a very
    substantial amount over time.
        The Chairman. I guess the real question is, would it cost
    more money?
        Mr. Schornagel. No, I don't believe so. In fact, I think
    any additional cost would be more than offset by the savings.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Ms. Campbell, you are the CIO. Does everybody with all the
    departments, do they all report to you, the IT planning? Are
    you the central person people report to?
        Ms. Campbell. Yes, I have the information technology
    operation under me and a staff that is working on our digital
    strategic initiatives.
        The Chairman. But you are accountable for all of them and
    they all report to you?
        Ms. Campbell. Yes.
        The Chairman. If any reorganization would take place, would
    it be with outside contractors? It wouldn't hurt any employees
    that would be there now? There wouldn't be any outsourcing or--
    if there would be outsourcing, it wouldn't be taking jobs away
    from anybody that is there now?
        Ms. Campbell. If we were to reorganize?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Ms. Campbell. Probably not
        The Chairman. That is a tough word, that ``probably.''
        Ms. Campbell. I mean, without knowing how you would
    reorganize, it is hard for me to----
        The Chairman. As soon as people start losing their jobs,
    then you have to come back in front of us and we have to figure
    out how or what we can do about that. We don't want to see any
    of that happen.
        Ms. Campbell. I understand.
        Ms. Jenkins. I don't think that is the expectation--the
    recommendations from the IG is about restructuring existing
    organizations. As we move forward, we have asked Congress, for
    increasingly more contracting dollars, but the intent is not to
    do away with any of the employees that we currently have in
    these functions. So, no, we would not.
        The Chairman. If that happens, I am telling your brother-
    in-law, who is from Philadelphia, by the way, who we know.
        Thank you.
        Any other questions? Mr. Lungren?
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And I think we ought to recognize the tremendous work that
    has been done by the Librarian as we move more and more into
    this technological age and the requirements that places on the
    institution that we call the Library of Congress.
        Mr. Inspector General, I just wondered, you sat here
    through the testimony of the others, anything that you didn't
    hear that we need to hear?
        Mr. Schornagel. I don't think so. I think you can tell from
    the report that the Library was pretty responsive to our
    recommendations. I believe we made 28 recommendations and the
    Library agreed with three-quarters of those.
        Mr. Lungren. Well, you can agree with them, and you can act
    on them.
        Mr. Schornagel. Yes, exactly. And that is why----
        Mr. Lungren. Is there anything here that bothers you about
    action or inaction?
        Mr. Schornagel. I am always skeptical because, like you
    say, we make recommendations and a lot of people may agree with
    them then maybe they never intend to do anything about it. I
    think my office has a very strong record of following up on our
    recommendations, especially the most important recommendations.
    And I fully intend to do that within the next year, or perhaps
    even sooner on some of these.
        Mr. Lungren. Okay. One area that is a real concern to me--
    and I address this to both you and Ms. Campbell--and that is
    the area of cybersecurity throughout government but also in the
    private sector.
        It is no secret that we are playing catch-up in
    cybersecurity throughout the government and also in the private
    sector. Those that would do us damage or those who are just
    intent on mischief in some ways have gotten the upper hand,
    because, frankly, we have created systems without anticipation
    that people would just, for the heck of it, want to interfere
    with those systems, destroy those systems, alter those systems.
        You made some recommendations with respect to security.
        Mr. Schornagel. Correct.
        Mr. Lungren. Where are we in terms of security in our IT?
        Mr. Schornagel. I think we have come an awful long way.
    During our financial audits over the past 10 years, we have
    noted a lot of weaknesses in policy and applications in IT
    security. But since Jim Gallagher, the head of ITS, was brought
    in by Laura Campbell several years ago, I think we have made
    tremendous strides.
        And my office actually did a review, conducting penetration
    testing of our networks about 5 years ago. And I think a lot of
    the holes and a lot of the patches that needed to be made then
    were made. But perhaps that is an area that we can follow up
    on.
        But overall, I think the Library's IT security program is
    tremendously better than it was a few years ago and, by
    benchmarking against other Federal agencies, in pretty good
    shape.
        Mr. Lungren. Okay.
        Ms. Campbell, we know from public disclosure the number of
    attacks that take place at the Pentagon. Here, in this place,
    it has been noted that in this place there are attacks on the
    IT system here.
        Are you satisfied that the systems you have in place are
    detecting those attacks that may be directed at the Library of
    Congress in its various functions? Secondly, if you are
    satisfied now, how do you ensure that we continue that level of
    satisfaction in the future?
        Ms. Campbell. I am satisfied that we now have the right
    detection and firewalls and security up around access to the
    Library's data. In the future, I think that requires constant
    monitoring and outside tests that you would routinely do
    instead of monitoring--it is the checks and balances.
        Mr. Lungren. How often do you do those tests?
        Ms. Campbell. We had the National Security Agency come in
    and set up--their white team, I believe it is--come in and help
    us set up our program. And we go through an annual audit, as
    Karl has mentioned, on our security program.
        Mr. Lungren. Okay, let me switch to another subject. And
    that is, in a hearing, I don't know if it was a year or 2 years
    ago, that we had talking about an article that had appeared in
    the newspaper about lost parts of your overall inventory, and
    then we realized that it wasn't all lost, some of them hadn't
    been cataloged or they were in the process of being cataloged,
    and the statement was made--and I will just paraphrase it--that
    you were moving to a different cataloging system because you
    were digitizing the cataloging system.
        Can you tell us where we are on that? How much of the
    inventory has been converted to that format?
        Ms. Campbell. I can't answer that. I am not the right
    person to answer that. But I can get an answer for you, or
    perhaps Dr. Billington can comment.
        How much of the inventory has been cataloged?
        Mr. Billington. I can't give you an exact figure, but we
    have made progress, and we are working on that. In fact, that
    is something which I am going to get into in the next hearing I
    have shortly. But we will get you the exact figures.
        Mr. Lungren. Okay. And let me ask this, because one of the
    things I have found as we have looked at--I happen to be the
    ranking member on the Cybersecurity Subcommittee in Homeland
    Security. And one of the concerns that we have had--or one of
    the ways in which we see the level of importance given towards
    cybersecurity is whether or not there is an individual chief
    information officer for whom that is the only job that they
    have and that they report directly to the CEO. At least that is
    one indication that they take it seriously.
        Ms. Campbell, I am still a little uncertain what strategic
    initiatives means as opposed to chief information officer,
    whether that is entirely divorced from that, whether that
    divides you up, and, frankly, if it does, whether that means
    you can give enough attention to the responsibilities of the
    CIO.
        Ms. Campbell. Let me try to respond to that. We have an IT
    security group that consists of seven staff and seven
    contractors. They have a budget of $1.34 million per year. The
    IT operation has been a traditional IT shop. We have moved,
    over the years, from traditional business systems of finance
    and personnel and MIS systems and facility systems and the
    cataloging system to now embrace managing full digital content
    and all these various complex digital types of data.
        The Strategic Initiatives Program was put together to
    tackle one of our biggest strategic challenges, and that is
    building a network environment within which we have many
    partners to help us collect important born-digital content
    that, if we don't get it now, it is going to be lost for future
    generations.
        So the historical decision to put strategic initiatives
    with the previously isolated IT department was to ``row in the
    same direction,'' so that you had an ``engine'' that was out
    there doing state-of-the-art work, pulling the regular
    ``steady-state'' train.
        Mr. Lungren. I appreciate that. And that is an unbelievable
    opportunity to get three analogies into one sentence. You have
    a train, we are rolling together, and I forget the third one,
    but it conjures up all sorts of ideas in my mind. But that is
    what the digital age is all about.
        Ms. Campbell. Exactly. We are just trying to stay abreast
    as best we can and make certain everybody in the IT operation
    has a part in that future.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Mr. Schornagel, it looked like you were maybe
    reaching for the button. Did you have a response to that, too?
        Mr. Schornagel. Yes, I would just like to point out that,
    in our report, we did mention that the IT security program at
    the Library is very well-structured and managed, but we feel
    that the function needs some teeth. One of the problems is that
    the IT security head is not able to enforce policy, and, in
    some cases, that creates a problem and sets a precedent.
        Mr. Harper. Okay.
        Ms. Campbell, when I look at the organizational chart,
    which are always fun to look at in any agency, but when I see
    the information technology services down here under your side
    of that, are you saying that this is the best approach for IT
    within the Library of Congress? Or is it something that we
    should consider moving up, like Mr. Lungren had indicated, to
    possibly have that report directly to the CEO?
        Ms. Campbell. I have a strong bias, so I don't know that I
    can give you the most objective response to this. I think that
    is a decision that Dr. Billington will take under advisement.
    But I do believe strongly that you can't isolate IT.
        I, as the CIO, do have responsibility for our digital
    strategic transformation, along with my colleagues because we
    are all in this business together. Someone needs to lead the IT
    shop. If it isn't me, somebody else needs to do it. And I
    report directly to Dr. Billington and sit on our executive
    committee. So I try to represent the IT.
        Jim Gallagher, sitting behind me, sits with Jo Ann Jenkins
    on the Operations Committee.
        Mr. Harper. If I could see, Mr. Schornagel, your view on
    that question that I asked Ms. Campbell about that
    organizational chart and what your preference would be. And are
    you familiar with any other agencies that combine an IT
    function with a programmatic function?
        Mr. Schornagel. No, I am not. As a matter of fact, that was
    one of the important points in our report, is that we think
    that the IT function needs to report directly to the agency
    head. And I think Laura Campbell has her hands more than full
    with the programmatic side.
        Mr. Harper. And when you said that three-fourths of the 28,
    I believe, proposals you had they agreed with, would this have
    been one of the one-fourth that was not agreed with? Or was
    this even one of your recommendations?
        Mr. Schornagel. Well, that was one that the Library
    deferred making a decision on until--I think the Librarian has
    established a separate committee, during the course of our
    conducting this audit, to look at strategic planning. And so,
    they are deferring the decision based on that.
        But we have pretty strong feelings that this is very much
    an anomaly in not only public but in private organizations, as
    well, having these two functions combined.
        Mr. Harper. And I am certainly sensitive to the fact that
    you all have to run very soon to get to another meeting. If I
    could ask Ms. Campbell another question on security issues,
    following up on that.
        If there is some type of security violation, is that going
    to be reported to you or Mr. Gallagher? Or how does that work,
    when you have some type of perceived security violation in the
    IT system?
        Ms. Campbell. It is reported to the IT director and to the
    deputy and to me.
        Mr. Harper. Okay. And then what action is taken from that
    point? Just whatever may require----
        Ms. Campbell. Right. It depends on the type of violation it
    is.
        And we do, in fact, have the authority to shut down
    people's PCs at the Library. I think there was some confusion
    about that. We have exercised that authority
        Mr. Harper. Well, then I will just say what a treasure the
    Library of Congress is, and I appreciate you all's efforts.
        And no more questions, Mr. Brady.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Harper.
        And thank all of you. I had my little mini tour Mr.
    Billington gave to me, but I want to get a major tour next time
    I come over. And you do do a great service for this institution
    and for the general public. And so, for that, I thank you. And
    we are here to aid in any way that we can to make sure that
    that service continues.
        So, thank all of you.
        Mr. Billington. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. The hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
        [Information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2316A.070