    [Senate Hearing 111-156]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 111-156

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 2918/S. 1294

    AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR THE FISCAL
             YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    48-308                    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

                 Architect of the Capitol (except House items)
                        Government Accountability Office
                           Government Printing Office
                              Library of Congress
                              Office of Compliance
                          United States Capitol Police
                                  U.S. Senate

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

                                   __________

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska
    MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
    JON TESTER, Montana
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

                        Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
                      Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch

                         BEN NELSON, Nebraska, Chairman
    MARK PRYOR, Arkansas                 LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    JON TESTER, Montana                  THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii               (ex officio)
      (ex officio)
                               Professional Staff
                                 Nancy Olkewicz
                        Carolyn E. Apostolou (Minority)
                            Sarah Wilson (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                  Teri Curtin

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                            Thursday, April 23, 2009

    U.S. Senate:
        Office of the Secretary......................................     1
        Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper..............................    71
    United States Capitol Police.....................................   100

                             Thursday, May 7, 2009

    Architect of the Capitol.........................................   157
    Office of Compliance.............................................   170

                             Thursday, May 21, 2009

    Government Accountability Office.................................   227
    Government Printing Office.......................................   235
    Congressional Budget Office......................................   239

                             Thursday, June 4, 2009

    Library of Congress..............................................   261

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ben Nelson (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Nelson, Pryor, Tester, and Murkowski.

                                  U.S. SENATE

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY ERICKSON, SECRETARY OF THE
                SENATE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            SHEILA DWYER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
            CHRIS DOBY, FINANCIAL CLERK

                    opening statement of senator ben nelson

        Senator Nelson. The subcommittee will come to order.
        First of all, good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. We are
    glad to have you here. We meet this afternoon to take testimony
    on the fiscal year 2010 budget requests for the Secretary of
    the Senate, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the U.S. Capitol
    Police.
        This is my first hearing as chairman of this subcommittee,
    and I look forward to working closely with my ranking member,
    Senator Murkowski, and the other members of the subcommittee,
    Senator Pryor and Senator Tester, who we hope will be able to
    join us before we are concluded.
        And I must admit I was surprised having this be my first
    opportunity as the chairman to see an overall request for the
    legislative branch totaling $5 billion, or a 15 percent
    increase over the current year. So needless to say, I look
    forward to working with all of the legislative branch agencies
    on ways that we can help try to reduce these numbers.
        I understand that this subcommittee, for example, received
    an 11 percent increase in fiscal year 2009, but I hope that we
    don't expect double-digit increases this year.
        I also want to welcome our three witnesses today. Nancy
    Erickson, who is Secretary of the Senate. Nancy, we are glad to
    have you here. Terry Gainer, Senate Sergeant at Arms. Terry,
    thank you for being here. And Chief Phillip Morse of the
    Capitol Police. Chief, we are very happy to have you here, and
    Chief Nichols with you as well and Gloria Jarmon.
        I want to first acknowledge the dedication and hard work of
    all of your staff. The Senate isn't an easy place to work, and
    we take a lot for granted here. But we do owe a debt of
    gratitude to all of you for keeping the Senate running safely
    and smoothly on a daily basis. And to the extent that it
    doesn't, I assure you it is not your fault.
        And Chief Gainer, I note with sadness the passing of one of
    your valued staff, Steve Mosley, after a dedicated 32-year
    career with your agency. The entire Senate community joins you
    in mourning the loss of this outstanding individual and
    dedicated public official. We were grateful for his dedication
    and commitment to this institution. I know you may want to make
    a statement about that just a little bit later.
        But first, I want to welcome you, Nancy. We are pleased to
    have you here this afternoon. We are anxious to hear your
    testimony. Among many others on your staff, I want to
    especially acknowledge Chris Doby of the Disbursing Office for
    his fine work.
        Your office is requesting a budget of $27.8 million, which
    is an increase of roughly $1.7 million, or 7 percent above the
    current year. I look forward to hearing about the specifics of
    your request.
        Chief Gainer, the Sergeant at Arms request for 2010 totals
    $243.5 million, a 10 percent increase over fiscal year 2009. I
    realize that your request is laden with technology upgrades for
    the Senate community, which tend to be expensive, and I look
    forward to discussing those with you just a little later.
        And finally, Chief Morse, the fiscal year 2010 Capitol
    Police budget request totals $410 million, or 34 percent over
    the enacted fiscal year 2009 level, and I realize also that the
    bulk of your increase is related to the radio project and the
    Library of Congress police merger. But that is a fairly
    significant and perhaps even massive increase. So I want to
    discuss these and other issues with you today.
        And Chief Morse, in closing, I would like to congratulate
    you on the clean opinion your agency received on your 2008
    financial statements. Your agency has obviously come a long
    way, and we appreciate getting to this point. And we on this
    subcommittee appreciate your personal efforts and the efforts
    of your chief administrative officer, Gloria Jarmon.
        Now I would like to turn to the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, my good friend Senator Murkowski, for her opening
    remarks.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I look forward to working with you on the issues that
    face us as we deal with the legislative branch appropriations.
    We have not had an opportunity to do much work together. So I
    am sure that this is the beginning of a long and fine
    relationship and look forward to that.
        But I also appreciate hearing your comments this morning as
    we work to address the needs of the legislative branch. I think
    it is important that we exercise fiscal discipline and that we
    lead by example. And I think that that is very key for us all.
        I want to welcome our witnesses as well. The Secretary of
    the Senate Nancy Erickson, Sergeant at Arms Terry Gainer, Chief
    Phillip Morse, their deputies Sheila Dwyer, Drew Willison, Dan
    Nichols, the Senate financial clerk Chris Doby, and the Capitol
    Police chief administrative officer Gloria Jarmon.
        We had had some meetings scheduled earlier in the week that
    I had to cancel because I am still working on a little bit of a
    knee issue, but we will have plenty of opportunity to spend
    quality time together and I look forward to that.
        I do appreciate the very good work that you and your staffs
    do, the parliamentarians, the legislative professionals, many
    working very, very late nights here in the Senate, the police
    officers who protect the Capitol complex, the Sergeant at Arms
    employees that ensure that our mail is safe, the folks who
    develop the emergency plans, the doorkeepers, the phone
    operators, the technology specialists, and there are just so
    many that you can't even mention, all those who make this place
    operate smoothly.
        Your agencies contributed a great deal in the last year to
    many, many important events, including the Presidential
    Inauguration, the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC),
    and yet you did all this while still maintaining the day-to-day
    functions. And I think that speaks highly of you, and we
    appreciate all of your efforts there.
        Now the chairman has mentioned the legislative branch
    request for fiscal year 2010, a total of over $5 billion, an
    increase of nearly 15 percent over fiscal year 2009. And I,
    too, am looking forward to hearing about and understanding more
    the needs of the legislative branch agencies. But as I have
    just stated, I do believe that we here in the legislative
    branch should serve as a model for the rest of Government. I am
    not convinced that a 15 percent increase does set a good
    example.
        So I would like to look at those ways that we can, through
    prioritization and just working together, figure out how we set
    that better standard. I will be honest with you. I am one who
    questions the need for continued growth in the size of
    legislative branch agencies. I would like to explore some of
    these concerns today and through the process.
        But again, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the opportunity
    to work with you to meet the needs of these very, very
    important agencies. And while we do this, we will tighten our
    belts where possible.
        So thank you so much.
        Senator Nelson. Well, it seems like we are going from
    tight, tighter, to perhaps tightest.
        I turn now to my friend Senator Pryor and ask if he might
    have any opening remarks.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I will just submit my statement for the record because I am
    ready to go ahead and hear from the witnesses.
        Thank you for your leadership, as well as the ranking
    member. Thank you as always. You all do great work around here.
        Thank you.
        Senator Nelson. Appreciate it.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Senator Mark Pryor

        Thank you Chairman Nelson and Ranking Member Murkowski for holding
    this hearing concerning the budget requests for the Secretary of the
    Senate, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the United States Capitol
    Police.
        I look forward to having the opportunity to work with my colleagues
    on this subcommittee to consider the budget requests put forward by
    organizations within the Senate and the Legislative Branch of
    Government.
        As this subcommittee works toward producing the 2010 Legislative
    Branch Appropriations bill, I want to work to keep the Legislative
    Branch of government operating efficiently and as wise stewards of the
    taxpayers' money.
        I thank the Honorable Nancy Erickson, Secretary of the Senate; the
    Honorable Terrance W. Gainer, Senate Sergeant at Arms; and Phillip D.
    Morse, Sr., Chief of the United States Capitol Police, for testifying
    today before the subcommittee.
        I look forward to hearing your testimony and having the opportunity
    to ask questions.

        Senator Nelson. Now we will begin with the witnesses and,
    if we could, keep the opening statements perhaps to about 5
    minutes, and then that will give us more time for questions.
    So, Ms. Erickson, we will start with you. And then we will hear
    from Terry Gainer and then Chief Morse.
        Nancy.

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF NANCY ERICKSON

        Ms. Erickson. Chairman Nelson, Senator Murkowski, and
    Senator Pryor, I appreciate this opportunity to provide
    testimony. I ask that my statement, which includes our
    department reports, be submitted for the record.
        With me today is Sheila Dwyer, the assistant secretary, and
    Chris Doby, the Senate financial clerk, who is no stranger to
    your subcommittee staff.
        Our budget request for fiscal year 2010 is $27,790,000, of
    which $25,790,000 is salary costs and $2 million is operating
    costs, which is the same level of operating funds we received
    for the current fiscal year. Our department leaders have
    demonstrated wise stewardship of our financial resources in a
    way that has maximized the services we provide to the Senate.
        Since 1789, when the Senate first convened in Federal Hall
    in New York City, the Secretary of the Senate has been tasked
    with legislative, administrative, and financial
    responsibilities to support the Senate. For me, there is no
    more notable moment for our office this year than the tribute
    paid to Dave Tinsley, the chief legislative clerk and director
    of our legislative floor staff, who retired from the Senate
    after 32 years of public service.
        The moving statements of Majority Leader Reid and
    Republican Leader McConnell were followed by a standing ovation
    by the full Senate. I believe the well-earned tribute to Dave
    Tinsley was also recognition of the other public servants in my
    office who work effectively behind the scenes to support this
    institution, its members, and its staff. I am very proud of
    their work.
        I am confident that our legislative department with its
    cadre of veterans and eager new hires will continue to serve
    the Senate in an exemplary manner. During fiscal year 2010,
    they will continue to focus on cross-training, evacuation
    exercises, and continue discussions with the House clerk, the
    Government Printing Office, and the White House on the
    transmittal of legislation in an emergency to bring life to our
    continuity of operation plans (COOP) and ensure chamber support
    under any circumstance.
        Our administrative departments provide a variety of
    services to the Senate, ranging from the Senate library, which
    is now led by a woman for the first time in its 138-year
    history, to the Senate page school whose faculty provide an
    excellent education to our Senate pages, beginning at 6:15 a.m.
    each day.
        As the subcommittee knows, for 17 years, our stationery
    room has effectively managed the $1.5 million Metro subsidy
    program for the Senate. Metro's recent transition to electronic
    smart benefits has opened new opportunities to better serve the
    Senate community, and the stationery room hopes to meet the
    requests of our customers by investing in technology that will
    provide an e-commerce option for Senate offices.
        In fiscal year 2007, the Senate gift shop initiated a
    program to require certification by vendors to address
    potential instances of lead in children's products and jewelry.
    Following passage of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement
    Act of 2008, thanks to Senator Pryor, the gift shop has
    increased its program to evaluate its products and ensure
    compliance with the new heightened standards and bans of the
    act.
        Webster, the Senate's internal Web site, was launched in
    1995, and I am pleased to report that our goal to redesign the
    site to better serve Senate users has been accomplished with
    the site's other stakeholders.
        Collaborative planning began almost 2 years ago between our
    staff and the Architect of the Capitol's staff to commemorate
    the 100th anniversary of the Russell Senate Office Building,
    which was completed in 1909. Their efforts produced a wonderful
    publication, a Web site on Senate.gov, exhibits, informational
    kiosks, commemorative merchandise in the Senate gift shop, as
    well as the first-ever comprehensive survey of the Senate's
    inventory of historic Russell furniture.
        I know that transparency is important to this subcommittee,
    and I would like to bring attention to the Office of Public
    Records, which was given an enormous responsibility to
    implement the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, or
    HLOGA, resulting in substantial changes to the Lobbying
    Disclosure Act. The frequency of reporting doubled from semi-
    annually to quarterly, and HLOGA required mandatory electronic
    filing.
        This past year, the office implemented the bill's final
    filing requirement, known as section 203, which requires
    lobbyists to semi-annually report their political contributions
    to Members as well as contributions to any event that honors a
    covered official. Now the public has more sophisticated access
    to public lobbying records, as well as information on Member
    and staff travel and lobbying restrictions for Members and
    staff who have left the Senate.
        Finally, I am pleased to report that our Senate disbursing
    office, which works closely with your subcommittee in
    formulating the budget for the United States Senate, is moving
    forward in its efforts to institute a paperless voucher system.
    An initial prototype was implemented last year, and it was met
    with great success.
        Next, a pilot project will feature new technology,
    including imaging and electronic signatures. Not only will the
    system green the Senate by reducing paper usage, it will also
    enable the continuation of voucher processing operations from
    an alternate location should an emergency occur.

                              PREPARED STATEMENTS

        We appreciate your consideration of our budget request for
    fiscal year 2010. I believe it appropriately focuses on several
    of the Senate's priorities--continuity of operations, archival,
    education, implementation of HLOGA, and the paperless voucher
    pilot program. We are grateful for your support of our efforts
    to support this institution.
        Thank you.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        [The statements follow:]

                      Prepared Statement of Nancy Erickson

        Mister Chairman, Senator Murkowski, 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 2010.
        It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to draw attention to the
    accomplishments of the dedicated and outstanding employees of the
    Office of the Secretary. The annual reports which follow provide
    detailed information about the work of the 26 departments of the
    office, their recent achievements, and their plans for the upcoming
    fiscal year.
        My statement includes: Presenting the fiscal year 2010 budget
    request; implementing mandated systems, financial management
    information system (FMIS) and legislative information system (LIS);
    continuity of operations planning; and maintaining and improving
    current and historic legislative, financial and administrative
    services.

                 PRESENTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST

        I am requesting a total fiscal year 2010 budget of $27,790,000. The
    request includes $25,790,000 in salary costs and $2,000,000 for the
    operating budget of the Office of the Secretary. The salary budget
    represents an increase of $1,770,000 over the fiscal year 2009 budget
    as a result of the costs associated with the annual cost of living
    adjustment and targeted merit awards that are associated with our
    Employee Feedback and Development Plans. The expense operating budget
    remains the same as our request in fiscal year 2009.
        The net effect of my total budget request for 2010 is an increase
    of $1,770,000.
        Our request is consistent with the amounts requested and received
    in recent years through the Legislative Branch Appropriations process.
    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
                                  Items                                 fiscal year      estimates      Difference
                                                                       2009, Public     fiscal year
                                                                         Law 111-8         2010
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Departmental operating budget:
        Executive office \1\........................................        $550,000        $550,000  ..............
        Administrative services.....................................      $1,390,000      $1,390,000
        Legislative services........................................         $60,000         $60,000  ..............
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total operating budget....................................      $2,000,000      $2,000,000  ..............
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes the Executive, Information Systems, Page School, Security, and Web Technology offices.

                         IMPLEMENTING MANDATED SYSTEMS

        Two systems critical to operations 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 Senate offices. The Disbursing Office continues to
    modernize processes and applications to meet the continued demand by
    Senate offices for efficiency, accountability and ease of use. The
    Disbursing Office remains committed to and continues working toward an
    integrated, paperless voucher system, improving the Web FMIS system,
    and making payroll and accounting system improvements.
        During fiscal year 2008 and the first half of fiscal year 2009,
    specific progress made on the FMIS project included:
      --Web FMIS was upgraded twice, once in June 2008 and again in
            September 2008. This system is used by office managers and
            committee clerks to create vouchers and manage their office
            funds, by the Disbursing Office to review vouchers and by the
            Committee on Rules and Administration to sanction vouchers. The
            two releases provided both technical and functional changes.
            The primary change in the June release was the conversion of
            all employee vendor numbers to use the 9-digit employee
            identification number assigned by the payroll system instead of
            an employee vendor number that included a partial Social
            Security Number. With this release, Disbursing also began three
            pilots: providing payroll reports online, prototype of an
            online review of imaged vouchers and supporting documentation,
            and use of electronic invoicing by which electronic credit card
            data was made available for importing into vouchers. In
            addition, a number of Web FMIS user-requested functionality was
            implemented in this release. Disbursing added display of office
            name to the master vendor file and the ability to search the
            master expense category list by words in the expense category
            description field. Finally, in preparation for the new fiscal
            year, Disbursing implemented a budget function that enables
            configuring the new budget based on a previous fiscal year.
      --The computing infrastructure for FMIS is provided by the Sergeant
            at Arms (SAA). Each year the SAA staff upgrades the
            infrastructure hardware and software. During 2008, the SAA
            implemented one major upgrade to the FMIS infrastructure:
            upgrading the Z/OS mainframe operating software from version
            1.7 to version 1.9. In addition, the SAA implemented quarterly
            micro-code updates and the application of maintenance releases
            on a more regular basis, both of which will keep the
            infrastructure more current. During 2008, maintenance was
            applied to Z/OS and DB2 in March and to DB2 in August. Because
            the Z/OS upgrade was accomplished as a stand-alone activity, IT
            tested all FMIS subsystems in a testing environment and
            validated all FMIS subsystems in the production environment
            after the implementation.
      --Disaster recovery operation services for FMIS are provided at the
            Alternate Computer Facility (ACF). During December 2008, at the
            Disbursing Office's request, the SAA conducted an FMIS-only
            disaster recovery test. This is the second year in which a
            FMIS-only test was conducted. The longer time allotted for this
            test enabled a more complete functional testing, allowed for
            the running of more reports than in previous tests, and
            permitted the testing of the critical payroll and FAMIS batch
            processes. While the Disbursing IT staff organized the
            functional test plan, the actual testers included Disbursing IT
            staff, payroll staff, contractor support staff, and SAA Finance
            staff. No major problems were encountered and because of the
            longer testing window any issues encountered were thoroughly
            investigated and resolved.
        During the remainder of fiscal year 2009 the following FMIS
    activities are anticipated:
      --Implementing a Web FMIS release with a re-writing of the FMIS
            checkwriter functionality and a new file upload format for the
            mainframe.
      --Testing credit card data file transfer and implementing
            ``electronic invoice'' functionality.
      --Transferring all SAVI-system users to the new Web FMIS ``staffer
            functionality'' for creating online expense summary reports
            (ESRs) and viewing payment information.
      --Completing analysis of the appropriate hardware/software
            acquisition strategy for electronic signatures, imaging of
            supporting documentation, and beginning acquisition.
      --Implementing online distribution of monthly ledger reports through
            Web FMIS.
      --Attending payroll system demonstrations and completing software
            acquisition strategy.
      --Implementing two mainframe micro-code and several system
            maintenance updates.
      --Participating in the yearly disaster recovery exercise at the ACF.
        During fiscal year 2010, the following FMIS activities are
    anticipated:
      --Conducting a pilot with chief clerks and office managers 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.
      --Continuing the implementation, performance tuning of tables and the
            required updates to the Hyperion financial management
            application to provide the Senate the ability to produce
            auditable financial statements.
      --Continue the implementation of online financial reports and Web
            FMIS reporting enhancements.
        A more detailed report on FMIS is included in the departmental
    report of the Disbursing Office.

                              LEGISLATIVE OFFICES

        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 any amendments
    that are agreed to into those measures. 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
    Legislative Information System (LIS) by the various offices of the
    Secretary.
        Additionally, the Legislative Clerk acts as a supervisor for the
    Legislative Department, providing a single line of communication to the
    Secretary and Assistant Secretary, and is responsible for overall
    coordination, supervision, scheduling, and cross training. 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.

    Summary of Activity
        The Senate completed its legislative business and adjourned sine
    die on January 3, 2009. During 2008, the Senate was in session 184 days
    and conducted 215 roll call votes. There were 452 measures reported
    from committees and 589 total measures passed. In addition, there were
    1,812 amendments processed.

    Cross-Training and Continuity of Operations (COOP) Planning
        Recognizing the importance of planning for the continuity of Senate
    business, under both normal and possibly extenuating circumstances,
    cross-training continues to be strongly emphasized among the
    Secretary's legislative staff. Approximately half of the legislative
    staff are currently involved or have recently been involved in cross-
    training to ensure that they are able to perform the basic floor
    responsibilities of the Legislative Clerk, as well as the various other
    floor-related responsibilities of the Secretary.
        Additionally, each office and staff person within the Legislative
    Department participated in numerous COOP discussions and exercises
    throughout the past year. These discussions and exercises have been
    conducted by a joint effort of the Office of the Secretary and the
    Office of the Sergeant at Arms.
    Online Congressional Record Corrections Program
        The Congressional Record currently appears in three formats: the
    daily print version, the online version and the permanent bound
    version. Both the daily and online versions of the Record reflect the
    previous day's session.
        In order to provide the Senate and the public with the most
    accurate, up-to-date version of the Record, procedures have been put
    into place to correct clerical/typographical errors in the online
    version of the Record. This program is specifically designed to address
    clerical errors that occur. The responsibility to correct the online
    Record is shared between the Secretary's legislative staff, who submit
    corrections of clerical errors as needed, and the GPO, which updates
    the online Record on a regular basis. Corrections to the online Record
    will appear on the page on which the error occurred, and will be listed
    after the History of Bills and Resolutions section of the printed
    version of the Congressional Record Index for print-only viewers of the
    Record.

    Succession Planning
        Among the Secretary's Legislative Department supervisors, the
    average length of Senate service is 18 years. This is a very good
    situation for the Senate. Due to the unique nature of the Senate as a
    legislative institution, it is critical to attract and keep talented
    employees, especially the second tier of employees just behind the
    current supervisors. The complex practices and voluminous precedents of
    the Senate make institutional experience and knowledge extremely
    valuable.

                                   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 staff 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 Senate offices through the Legislative Information System (LIS).
    With the exception of the Amendment Tracking System (ATS), such
    information is made available to the House as well. 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 of the information received in this office comes
    directly from the Senate floor in written form within moments of the
    action involved, so the Bill Clerk's Office is generally regarded as
    the most timely and most accurate source of legislative information.

    Legislative Activity
        The Bill Clerk's office processed into the database more than 1,000
    additional legislative items and more than 150 additional roll call
    votes than in the previous Congress, for an overall percentage increase
    of almost 9 percent. In fact, only three legislative categories (Senate
    Bills introduced, Senate Concurrent Resolutions submitted, and House
    Bills received) saw a decline in activity between the 109th Congress
    and the 110th Congress. For comparative purposes, below is a summary of
    the second sessions of the 109th and 110th Congresses, and then a
    summary of the entire 109th and 110th Congresses:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     109th           110th
                                                                 Congress, 2nd   Congress, 2nd     Percent     109th Congress  110th Congress     Percent
                                                                    Session         Session         change                                         change
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Bills..............................................           1,953           1,217        -37.686           4,122           3,741         -9.243
    Senate Joint Resolutions..................................              14              19        -35.714              41              46        +12.195
    Senate Concurrent Resolutions.............................              48              43        -10.417             123             107        +13.008
    Senate Resolutions........................................             287             311         +8.362             634             729        +14.984
    Amendments Submitted......................................           2,544           1,812        -28.774           5,239           5,704         +8.876
    House Bills...............................................             325             427        +31.385             611             940        +53.846
    House Joint Resolutions...................................               8               4        -50                  19              13        -31.579
    House Concurrent Resolutions..............................              77              93        +20.779             165             186        +12.727
    Measures Reported.........................................             233             452        +93.991             519             880        +69.557
    Written Reports...........................................             157             274        +74.522             369             528        +43.089
    Total Legislation.........................................           5,646           4,652        -17.605          11,842          12,874         +8.715
    Roll Call Votes...........................................             279             215        -22.939             645             657         +1.86
    House Messages \1\........................................             225             283        +25.778         ( \2\ )             546    ( \2\ )
    Cosponsor Requests \3\....................................           7,000           7,306         +4.371  ..............  ..............  .............
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This number reflects how many messages from the House are typed up by the Bill Clerks for inclusion in the Congressional Record. It excludes
      additional activity on these bills.
    \2\ The number of House Messages is not available prior to the 109th Congress, 2nd Session; therefore, this figure is not available.
    \3\ This number reflects how many cosponsors were input and subsequently appear in the ``Additional Cosponsors'' section of Morning Business in the
      Congressional Record. This number does not include the cosponsor requests for ``original'' cosponsors which are added on the same day of introduction
      and do not appear in the ``Additional Cosponsors'' section of the Record.

    Assistance from the Government Printing Office (GPO)
        The Bill Clerk's staff maintains a good working relationship with
    the Government Printing Office (GPO) and seeks to provide the best
    service possible to meet the needs of the Senate. GPO continues to
    respond in a timely manner to the Secretary's requests, through the
    Bill Clerk's office, for the printing of bills and reports, including
    the expedited printing of priority matters for the Senate chamber. To
    date, at the request of the Secretary through the Bill Clerk, GPO
    expedited the printing of 46 measures for floor consideration by the
    Senate during the second session of the 110th Congress, and 129
    measures during the entire Congress.

                              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 for
    Senate offices on Webster, the Senate intranet.

    General Overview
        Captioning Services strives to provide the highest quality closed
    captions. For the 15th year in a row, the office has achieved an
    overall accuracy average above 99 percent. Overall caption quality is
    monitored through daily translation data reports, monitoring of
    captions in realtime, and review of caption files on Webster.
        The realtime searchable closed caption log, available to Senate
    offices on Webster, continues to be an invaluable tool for the Senate
    community. In particular, legislative staff continue to depend upon its
    availability, reliability and content to aid in the performance of
    their duties. The Senate Recording Studio is in the process of
    upgrading the closed caption log software, which has not been updated
    since it was developed more than a decade ago. The new system should be
    in place during calendar year 2009.
        Continuity of operations (COOP) planning and preparation continues
    to be a top priority to ensure that the staff are prepared and
    confident about the ability to relocate and successfully function from
    a remote location in the event of an emergency. The staff participates
    with the Senate Recording Studio in an off-site location exercise at
    least once a year.

    Capitol Visitor Center Update
        Captioning Services relocated to new offices in the Capitol Visitor
    Center during the month of August 2008.

                                  DAILY DIGEST

        The Office of the Senate Daily Digest is pleased to transmit its
    annual report on Senate activities during the second session of the
    110th Congress. First, a brief summary of a compilation of Senate
    statistics:
    Chamber Activity
        The Senate was in session a total of 184 days, for a total of 988
    hours and 31 minutes. There were 3 quorum calls and 215 record votes.
    (See the following chart, ``20-Year Comparison of Senate Legislative
    Activity.'')

                                                                            20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1989          1990          1991          1992          1993          1994          1995          1996          1997          1998
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Convened.....................................           1/3          1/23           1/3           1/3           1/5          1/25           1/4           1/3           1/3          1/27
    Senate Adjourned....................................         11/21         10/28        1/3/92          10/9         11/26         12/01        1/3/96          10/4         11/13         10/21
    Days in Session.....................................           136           138           158           129           153           138           211           132           153           143
    Hours in Session....................................      1,00319"      1,25014"      1,20044"      1,09109"      1,26941"      1,24333"      1,83910"      1,03645"      1,09307"      1,09505"
    Average Hours per Day...............................           7.4           9.1           7.6           8.5           8.3           9.0           8.7           7.8           7.1           7.7
    Total Measures Passed...............................           605           716           626           651           473           465           346           476           386           506
    Roll Call Votes.....................................           312           326           280           270           395           329           613           306           298           314
    Quorum Calls........................................            11             3             3             5             2             6             3             2             6             4
    Public Laws.........................................           240           244           243           347           210           255            88           245           153           241
    Treaties Ratified...................................             9            15            15            32            20             8            10            28            15            53
    Nominations Confirmed...............................        45,585        42,493        45,369        30,619        38,676        37,446        40,535        33,176        25,576        20,302
    Average Voting Attendance...........................          98.0         97.47         97.16          95.4          97.6         97.02         98.07         98.22         98.68         97.47
    Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon....................            95           116           126           112           128           120           184           113           115           109
    Sessions Convened at 12 Noon........................            14             4             9  ............             6             9             2            15            12            31
    Sessions Convened after 12 Noon.....................            27            17            23            10            15            17            12             7             7             2
    Sessions Continued after 6 p.m......................            88           100           102            91           100           100           158            88            96            93
    Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight................             9            13             6             4             9             7             3             1  ............  ............
    Saturday Sessions...................................             1             3             2             2             2             3             5             1             1             1
    Sunday Sessions.....................................  ............             2  ............  ............  ............  ............             3  ............             1  ............
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY--Continued
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1999          2000          2001          2002          2003          2004          2005          2006          2007          2008
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Convened.....................................           1/6          1/24           1/3          1/23           1/7          1/20           1/4           1/3           1/4           1/3
    Senate Adjourned....................................         11/19         12/15         12/20         11/20          12/9          12/8         12/22          12/9         12/31           1/2
    Days in Session.....................................           162           141           173           149           167           133           159           138           189           184
    Hours in Session....................................      1,18357"      1,01751"      1,23615"      1,04223"      1,45405"      1,03131"      1,22226"      1,02748"      1,37554"        98831"
    Average Hours per Day...............................           7.3           7.2           7.1           7.0           8.7           7.7           7.7           7.4           7.2          5.37
    Total Measures Passed...............................           549           696           425           523           590           663           624           635           621           589
    Roll Call Votes.....................................           374           298           380           253           459           216           366           279           442           215
    Quorum Calls........................................             7             6             3             2             3             1             3             1             6             3
    Public Laws.........................................           170           410           136           241           198           300           169           248           142           318
    Treaties Ratified...................................            13            39             3            17            11            15             6            14             8            30
    Nominations Confirmed...............................        22,468        22,512        25,091        23,633        21,580        24,420        25,942        29,603        22,892        21,785
    Average Voting Attendance...........................         98.02         96.99         98.29         96.36         96.07         95.54         97.41         97.13         94.99         94.36
    Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon....................           118           107           140           119           133           104           121           110           156           147
    Sessions Convened at 12 Noon........................            17            25            10            12             4             9             1             4             4             4
    Sessions Convened after 12 Noon.....................            19            24            21            23            23            21            36            24            32            33
    Sessions Continued after 6 p.m......................           113            94           108           103           134           129           120           129           144           110
    Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight................  ............  ............             2             3             8             2             3             3             4             2
    Saturday Sessions...................................             3             1             3  ............             1             2             2             2             1             3
    Sunday Sessions.....................................  ............             1  ............  ............             1             1             2  ............             1             1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prepared by the Senate Daily Digest--Office of the Secretary.

    Committee Activity
        Senate committees held a total of 823 meetings during the second
    session, compared to 1,005 meetings during the first session of the
    110th Congress.
        All hearings and business meetings (including joint meetings and
    conferences) are scheduled through the Office of the Senate Daily
    Digest and are published in the Congressional Record, on the Digest's
    Web site (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/
    b_three_sections_with_teasers/committee_hearings.htm), 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 and continuously updated on the Web site.

    Computer Activities
        The Digest completed the installation of its Word-based system,
    which shortened the time it takes to create the Digest and send it to
    the Government Printing Office (GPO). Computer Center staff, working
    closely with Daily Digest staff, developed a Daily Digest Authoring
    System which is a Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) system
    designed to provide the Daily Digest with structured methods for
    creating, editing, and managing files.
        The Digest continues the practice of sending a disc along with a
    duplicate hard copy to GPO. GPO receives the Digest copy by electronic
    transfer long before hand delivery is completed, which promotes the
    timeliness of publishing the Congressional Record. The Digest staff
    continues to feel comfortable with this procedure, both to allow the
    Digest Editor to physically view what is being transmitted to GPO, and
    to allow GPO staff to have a comparable final product to cross
    reference.
        The Digest staff continues to work closely with the Sergeant at
    Arms computer staff to refine the LIS/document management system. The
    Digest is pleased to report that all refinements made to the Senate
    Committee Scheduling application have been successfully implemented.

    Government Printing Office
        The Daily Digest staff continues the practice of discussing with
    the Government Printing Office problems encountered with the printing
    of the Digest; with the onset of electronic transfer of the Digest
    copy, occurrences of editing corrections or transcript errors are
    infrequent. Discussions with GPO continue regarding page references
    inserted by GPO.

                                ENROLLING CLERK

        The Enrolling Clerk prepares, proofreads, corrects, and prints all
    Senate-passed legislation prior to its transmittal to the White House,
    the House of Representatives, the National Archives, the Secretary of
    State, and the United States Court of Claims. The Enrolling Clerk
    transmits in person all Senate messages to the House of
    Representatives.
        During the 110th Congress, the Enrolling Clerk's office prepared
    the enrollment of 135 bills (transmitted to the President), 8 enrolled
    joint resolutions (transmitted to the President), 14 concurrent
    resolutions (transmitted to the National Archives) and 95 appointments
    (transmitted to the House of Representatives). In addition,
    approximately 462 bills from the House of Representatives (including 12
    appropriations bills and the budget concurrent resolution) were either
    amended or acted on in the Senate, thus requiring action on the part of
    the staff of the Enrolling Clerk's office.
        A total of 852 pieces of legislation were passed or agreed to
    during the 110th Congress. Many other Senate bills, including over 350
    resolutions and 229 engrossed Senate bills, were placed in the calendar
    by the Senate and were processed in the Enrolling Clerk's office. The
    office is also responsible for keeping the original official copies of
    bills, resolutions and appointments from the Senate floor through the
    end of each Congress. At the end of the second session of each
    Congress, the Enrolling Clerk's staff carefully prepares all official
    papers for storage at the National Archives.
        During the 110th Congress, the Enrolling Clerk delivered 210
    messages to the House Chamber and 58 messages to the House Clerk's
    office. The Enrolling Clerk also prepared and transmitted 95
    appointments to the House of Representatives, informing the House of
    Senate actions on legislation passed or amended.
        The Senate Enrolling Clerk is also responsible for electronically
    transmitting the files of engrossed and enrolled legislation to GPO for
    overnight printing. The office also followed up on all specific
    requests and special orders for printing from the Senate floor.

                                EXECUTIVE CLERK

        The Executive Clerk prepares an accurate record of actions taken by
    the Senate during executive sessions (proceedings on nominations and
    treaties), which is published as the Journal of the Executive
    Proceedings of the Senate at the end of each session of Congress. The
    Executive Clerk also prepares the Executive Calendar daily, as well as
    all nomination and treaty resolutions for transmittal to the President.
    Additionally, the office processes all executive communications,
    presidential messages, and petitions and memorials.

    Nominations
        During the second session of the 110th Congress, there were 1,008
    nomination messages sent to the Senate by the President, which
    transmitted 22,090 nominations to positions requiring Senate
    confirmation and 43 messages withdrawing nominations sent to the
    Senate. Of the total nominations transmitted, there were 3,124 nominees
    in the following ``civilian list'' categories: Foreign Service, Coast
    Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Public
    Health Service. An additional 508 nominees were for other civilian
    positions. Military nominations received this session totaled 18,674
    (5,931 Air Force; 6,425 Army; 4,752 Navy; and 1,566 Marine Corps). The
    Senate confirmed 21,785 nominations this session. Pursuant to the
    provisions of paragraph six of Senate Rule XXXI, 478 nominations were
    returned to the President during the second session of the 110th
    Congress.

    Treaties
        During the second session of the 110th Congress, there were 13
    treaties transmitted by the President to the Senate for its advice and
    consent to ratification. These were ordered printed as treaty documents
    for the use of the Senate (Treaty Doc. 110-11 through 110-23).
        The Senate gave its advice and consent to 30 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 19 executive reports relating to treaties ordered
    printed for the use of the Senate during the second session of the
    110th Congress (Executive Report 110-10 through 110-28). The Senate
    conducted seven rollcall votes in executive session, all on or in
    relation to nominations and treaties.

    Executive Communications
        For the second session of the 110th Congress, 4,608 executive
    communications, 202 petitions and memorials and 31 Presidential
    messages were received and processed.

    Paper Reduction
        In an effort to save money and eliminate unnecessary paper, the
    Executive Clerk reduced the printed copies of the Executive Calendar
    each day from over 1,000 to 685. Additionally, the office reduced the
    copies of nominations printed for the committees by 75 percent and some
    committees have requested electronic copies of the appropriate
    paperwork, rather than paper copies.

    Legislative Information System (LIS) Update (Projects)
        The Executive Clerk consulted with the Sergeant at Arms throughout
    the year concerning ongoing improvements to the LIS pertaining to the
    processing of nominations, treaties, executive communications,
    presidential messages and petitions and memorials.

                                 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 content of the Senate Journal is governed by Senate
    Rule IV. The Senate Journal is published each calendar year. The 2008
    Senate Journal is expected to be sent to the Government Printing Office
    at the end of 2009.
        The Journal staff take 90-minute turns at the rostrum in the Senate
    chamber, noting the following 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 rollcall votes taken), (v)
    amendments submitted and proposed for consideration, (vi) bills and
    joint resolutions introduced, and (vii) concurrent and Senate
    resolutions as submitted. These notes of the proceedings are then
    compiled in electronic form for eventual publication of the Senate
    Journal at the end of each calendar year. Compilation is accomplished
    through utilization of the LIS Senate Journal Authoring System.
        In keeping with the Office of the Secretary's commitment to
    continuity of operations programs, the Journal Clerk undertook an
    effort to digitally scan the Minute Book pages, dating from 2004 to the
    present, into a secure directory. Although the Minute Books for each
    session of a Congress are sent to the National Archives one year after
    the end of a Congress, having easily-retrievable files will ensure
    timely reconstitution of the Minute Book data in the event of damage
    to, or destruction of, the physical Minute Book.

                         OFFICIAL REPORTERS OF DEBATES

        The Office of the Official Reporters of Debates is responsible for
    the stenographic reporting, transcribing, and editing of the Senate
    floor proceedings for publication in the Congressional Record. The
    Chief Reporter acts as the editor-in-chief and the Coordinator
    functions as the technical production manager of the Senate portion of
    the Record. The office interacts with Senate personnel regarding
    additional materials to be included in the Record.
        On a continuing basis, all materials to be printed in the next
    day's edition of the Record are transmitted electronically and on paper
    to the Government Printing Office (GPO).
        Each day, roughly 90 percent of transcript production for GPO is
    done electronically, thus significantly reducing the time required by
    GPO to retype materials for presentation in the Congressional Record by
    the next day. In 2008, there were no delays in the overnight production
    of the Congressional Record
        The project to provide online Congressional Record corrections,
    which was launched in 2007, ended its pilot phase and was brought
    online in early 2008. When a significant error, caused by this or any
    other office under the Secretary of the Senate, is identified in the
    Congressional Record, GPO is notified of such mistake and a correction
    in the online Record is made shortly thereafter. This error is
    automatically corrected in the printing of the permanent Record.

                                PARLIAMENTARIAN

        The parliamentarian's office continues to perform its essential
    institutional responsibilities to act as a neutral arbiter among all
    parties with an interest in the legislative process. These
    responsibilities include advising the chair, Senators and their staffs,
    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 that affect the proceedings of the Senate.
        The parliamentarians work in close cooperation with the Senate
    leadership and their floor staffs in coordinating all of the business
    on the Senate floor. The parliamentarian or one of his assistants is
    always present on the Senate floor when the Senate is in session,
    standing ready to assist the Presiding Officer in his or her official
    duties, as well as to assist any other Senator on procedural matters.
    The parliamentarians work closely with the Vice President of the United
    States and the staff of the Vice President whenever he performs his
    duties as President of the Senate.
        The parliamentarians serve as the agents of the Senate in
    coordinating the flow of legislation with the House of Representatives
    and with the President, and ensure that enrolled bills are signed in a
    timely manner by duly authorized officers of the Senate for
    presentation to the President. 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 time on the floor of the Senate when time is limited or
    controlled under the provisions of time agreements, statutes or
    standing orders. 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 800 amendments during 2008 in order to determine
    whether 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 is responsible for the referral to the appropriate
    committees of all legislation introduced in the Senate, all legislation
    received from the House, and 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 2008, the Parliamentarian and
    his assistants referred 1,496 measures and 4,842 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. In 2008 as
    in the past, the parliamentarians conducted several briefings on Senate
    procedure to various groups of Senate staff, on a non-partisan basis.
        During all of 2008, the parliamentarians were deeply involved in
    interpreting the ethics reform proposals adopted in 2007, especially
    the language dealing with earmark accountability and scope of
    conference.
        Since the election in 2008, all of the parliamentarians
    participated in the orientation sessions for the newly elected and
    appointed Senators and have assisted each of them in their initial
    hours as Presiding Officers. The parliamentarians also participated in
    an orientation session on the Senate floor for Senate staff.
        In 2008 and early 2009, as is the case following each general
    election, the parliamentarians received all of the certificates of
    election of Senators elected or re-elected to the Senate, as well as
    those Senators appointed to fill vacancies, and reviewed them for
    sufficiency and accuracy, returning those that were defective and
    reviewing their replacements. In addition, as is the case in all
    Presidential election years, the parliamentarians reviewed all
    certificates of ascertainment and certificates of votes submitted by
    the states and counseled the Vice President on his responsibilities in
    presiding over the joint session of Congress to count the electoral
    ballots.

                              FINANCIAL OPERATIONS
                               DISBURSING OFFICE

        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 offices of the United States Senate and
    to members and employees of the Senate. The Senate Disbursing Office
    manages the collection of information from the distributed accounting
    locations within 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 and provides responsive, personal attention to
    members and employees on an unbiased and confidential basis. The Senate
    Disbursing Office also manages the distribution of central financial
    and human resource information to the individual member offices,
    committees, administrative and leadership offices in the Senate while
    maintaining the confidentiality of information for members and Senate
    employees.
        The organization is structured to enhance its ability to provide
    quality work, maintain a high level of customer service, promote good
    internal controls, efficiency and teamwork, and provide for the
    appropriate levels of supervision and management. The long-term
    financial needs of the Senate are best served by an organization
    staffed with highly trained professionals who possess a high degree of
    institutional knowledge, sound judgment, and interpersonal skills that
    reflect the unique nature of the United States Senate.

    Executive Office
        The primary responsibilities, among others, of the Executive Office
    are to:
      --oversee the day to day operations of the Disbursing Office (DO);
      --respond to any inquiries or questions that are presented;
      --maintain fully and properly trained staff;
      --ensure that the office is prepared to respond quickly and
            efficiently to any disaster or unique situation that may arise;
      --provide excellent customer service;
      --assist the Secretary of the Senate in the implementation of new
            legislation affecting any of her departments; and
      --handle all information requests from the Committee on
            Appropriations and Committee on Rules and Administration.
        This year the Executive Office assisted in the coordination of the
    closing of all suspense accounts as mandated by Treasury. Since
    Automated Clearing House (ACH) and check advances were charged to this
    account, it was necessary to perform an in-depth review and implement
    required system changes in the way the Disbursing Office accounts for
    travel advances in a short period of time.
        As a result of the November elections, the Executive Office issued
    more than 300 letters to staff explaining the requirements of displaced
    staff as authorized by applicable Senate resolutions.
        The Executive Office coordinated a meeting with several Treasury
    Department representatives to discuss required reporting changes for
    non-Treasury disbursing offices (NTDOs) under the Government-wide
    Accounting and Reporting (GWA) modernization project. The agenda
    included a discussion of Treasury's requirements, as well as the
    challenges these new reporting requirements will present to the
    Disbursing Office and any NTDO agency.
        On a monthly basis, the Financial Clerk and the Assistant Financial
    Clerk continue to attend Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council
    (LBFMC) meetings to share issues that affect other Congressional
    managers. In addition, the Financial Clerk and the Assistant Financial
    Clerk, along with Disbursing Office staff and the Sergeant at Arms
    (SAA) technical support staff, participated in meetings for the
    procurement of a new payroll system. The meetings resulted in the
    development of current system requirements and parameters, which will
    be used to help determine requirements for the new system.
        The Disbursing Office was also involved in transitioning the
    Capitol Guide staff from the Senate payroll to the Architect of the
    Capitol's (AOC), as well as transitioning the Special Services staff to
    the newly created Office of Congressional Accessibility Services.
    Disbursing staff continues to work with both groups to transfer fiscal
    year 2009 funds and complete the transfer of all the personnel benefits
    files.
        Disbursing representatives also attended several meetings with
    staff from the Majority Leader's office, the Committee on Rules and
    Administration, the Select Committee on Ethics and other interested
    parties to finalize the procedures and requirements needed to get the
    Congressional Oversight Panel up and running. The Congressional
    Oversight Panel was established by the Emergency Economic Stabilization
    Act of 2008, Public Law 110-343.

    Deputy for Benefits and Financial Services
        The principal responsibility of this position is to provide
    expertise and oversight on federal retirement, benefits, payroll, and
    financial services processes. The deputy also coordinates the
    interaction between the Front Office, Employee Benefits, and Payroll
    Sections, and is responsible for the planning and project management of
    new computer systems and programs. The deputy ensures that job
    processes are efficient and up-to-date, modifies computer support
    systems as necessary, implements regulatory and legislated changes, and
    designs and produces up-to-date forms and information for use in all
    three sections.
                General Activities
        After year-end processing of payroll for calendar year 2007, cost
    of living adjustments (COLAs) for 2008 were processed in a timely
    manner. The Disbursing Office issued W-2 forms promptly and made them
    immediately available on the Document Imaging System (DIS). During the
    year, other minor changes were made to the Human Resources Management
    System (HRMS) as a result of changes in regulations and policy.
        A major initiative during 2007 and 2008 was to eliminate the use of
    employee Social Security Numbers (SSN) wherever possible, thereby
    increasing the security of personal information for members and
    employees of the Senate. This ``Social Security Number Migration''
    project was successfully completed in June of 2008. The ``key field''
    within the payroll system was changed from the SSN to a randomly
    generated employee identification number (EID). This limits use of the
    SSN only to those entities who have a legitimate need to receive it.
    After extensive research and coordination, the deputy, the Payroll
    Department and SAA technical support developed requirements and
    established guidelines and strategies for the payroll system migration.
    Because the payroll system provides data to so many internal and
    external entities, great care and planning were devoted to the
    coordination with users. This project required significant research,
    programming changes and modifications, testing and feedback. Post
    migration, anticipated minimal fine-tuning and trouble-shooting
    occurred. Successful transmissions and extracts to other entities
    occurred without interruption or incident.
        In continuing efforts to comply with continuity of operations
    (COOP) initiatives, reduce unnecessary use of paper and lessen physical
    storage needs, the Disbursing Office undertook a project to provide
    payroll reports to Senate offices electronically rather than on paper.
    The deputy and Payroll Department worked with Disbursing's Information
    Technology group and several SAA technical support groups to proceed
    with development and implementation of this project. After the
    completion of requirements and development, extensive testing and
    feedback were required. The electronic Payroll Reports were rolled out
    to a pilot group during the summer and full implementation throughout
    the Senate was achieved in October 2008. Feedback on this new resource
    has been very positive.
        As part of continuing efforts to achieve full COOP compliance, the
    office identified a need to accomplish complete document imaging for
    all Senate employee personnel folders. Document Imaging System (DIS)
    programming modifications and upgrades were determined and implemented
    in preparation for this project. Necessary hardware was obtained and
    imaging procedures were drafted and finalized. In August of 2008 a new,
    temporary staffer was hired specifically for this task, which is
    anticipated to be a 2-year project. The document imaging is proceeding
    on schedule. Approximately 15 percent of the employee documents have
    been imaged to the DIS. As an added benefit, this project provides the
    opportunity to conduct an audit and reconciliation of hard-copy
    personnel folders.
        The Disbursing Office, in tandem with SAA Technical Support, began
    initial research into the procurement of a new payroll system. In
    addition to determining current system requirements and parameters,
    Disbursing Office staff and SAA technical support drafted, edited and
    ranked future system requirements. They also attended initial vendor
    demonstrations and drafted and edited demonstration scripts for future
    software vendor demonstrations. Because of the specific laws and
    regulations governing the services and programs administered by the
    payroll system, particular attention was paid to those areas where
    systems will need to be tailored to the Senate. Vendor demonstrations
    are anticipated in 2009, which should be followed by a software
    selection. Following that, the next phase will be to determine the
    requirements and criteria that will further tailor the product to meet
    the needs of the system's users, as well as aid in the selection of an
    implementation vendor. The Disbursing Office will work with
    representatives of member and committee offices to define user
    requirements.
        This office assisted with technical guidance on the impact of
    legislation drafted in support of the new Capitol Visitor Center on pay
    and benefits. As a result of the legislation, the Capitol Guides were
    transferred en masse from the Senate payroll to the payroll of the
    Architect of the Capitol (AOC) in November. This required coordination
    with the Guide Service and AOC personnel in order to prepare for the
    data transfer and ensure a smooth transition for the affected
    employees. The preparation and compilation of employee records, which
    will be transmitted to the AOC, will continue into the new year.

    Front Office--Administrative and Financial Services
        The Front Office is the main service area for all general Senate
    business and financial activity. The Front Office staff maintains the
    Senate's internal accountability of funds used in daily operations. The
    reconciliation of such funds is executed on a daily basis. The Front
    Office staff also 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 Office is the first
    line of service provided to Senators, 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. Staff is also provided verbal and written detailed
    information regarding pay and benefits. Advances are issued to Senate
    staff authorized for official Senate travel. Cash and check advances
    are entered and reconciled in Web FMIS. After the processing of
    certified expenses is complete, cash travel advances are repaid.
    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
    Office and become part of the Senate's accountability of federally
    appropriated funds and are then processed through the Senate's general
    ledger system. The Front Office maintains the Official Office
    Information Authorization Forms that authorize individuals to conduct
    various types of business with the Disbursing Office.
                General Activities
        Processed approximately 900 cash advances, totaling approximately
    $700,000 and initialized 1,200 check/direct deposit advances, totaling
    approximately $900,000.
        Received and processed more than 24,700 checks, totaling over
    $1,900,000.
        Administered oath and personnel affidavits to more than 2,800 new
    Senate staff and advised them of their benefits.
        Maintained brochures for 15 federal health insurance carriers and
    distributed approximately 4,300 brochures to new and existing staff
    during the annual Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Open Season.
        Provided 33 training sessions to new administrative managers.
        The Front Office continues its daily reconciliation of operations
    and strengthening of internal office controls. Security was further
    enhanced this year by the use of pens that help identify counterfeit
    currency presented to Disbursing during cash transactions. Training and
    guidance to new administrative managers and business contacts continued
    and was enhanced by the revamping of training materials provided to
    newly authorized business contacts. Disbursing staff received many
    positive comments regarding the use of the Document Imaging System,
    which immediately reproduces W-2 and other forms for employees who
    request duplicates. The staff continued to place a major emphasis on
    assisting employees in maximizing their Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
    contributions and making them aware of the TSP catch-up program. The
    Front Office continued to provide the Senate community with prompt,
    courteous, and informative advice regarding Disbursing Office
    operations.

    Payroll Section
        The Payroll Section maintains the human resources management system
    (HRMS) and is responsible for processing, verifying, and warehousing
    all payroll information submitted to the Disbursing Office by Senators,
    committees and other appointing officials for their staffs, including
    appointments of employees, salary changes, title changes, transfers and
    terminations. It is also responsible for input of all enrollments and
    elections submitted by members and employees that affect their pay
    (e.g. retirement and benefits elections, tax withholding, TSP
    participation, allotments from pay, address changes, direct deposit
    elections, levies and garnishments) and for the issuance of accurate
    salary payments to members and employees. The Payroll Section is
    responsible for the administration of the Senate Student Loan Repayment
    Program (SLP). It is also responsible for the audit and reconciliation
    of the FSA and FEDVIP Bill Files received each pay period. The Payroll
    Section jointly maintains the Automated Clearing House (ACH) FedLine
    facilities with the Accounts Payable Section for the normal transmittal
    of payroll deposits to the Federal Reserve. Payroll expenditure,
    projection and allowance reports are distributed to all Senate offices.
    The Payroll Section issues the proper withholding and agency
    contribution reports to the Accounting Department and transmits the
    proper TSP information to the National Finance Center. In addition, the
    Payroll Section maintains earnings records, which are distributed to
    the Social Security Administration, and employees' taxable earnings
    records, which are used for W-2 statements. The Payroll Section is also
    responsible for the payroll expenditure data portion of the Report of
    the Secretary of the Senate. The Payroll Section calculates, reconciles
    and bills the Senate Employees Child Care Center (SECCC) for their
    staff employee contributions and forwards payment of those
    contributions to the Accounting Section. The Payroll Section provides
    guidance and counseling to staff and administrative managers on issues
    of pay, salaries, allowances and projections.
                General Activities
        In January 2008, the Payroll Section conducted all year-end
    processing and reconciliation of pay records and produced W-2 forms for
    employees and state tax agencies, which are also maintained in the
    Document Imaging System (DIS). In addition, an employee cost of living
    adjustment (COLA) of 4.49 percent was administered. Statutory rates and
    program caps were updated in the HRMS. The Payroll Section maintained
    the normal schedule of processing TSP election forms.
        Payroll allowance, expenditure and projection reports are provided
    to all Senate offices on a monthly basis. In 2007, guidelines and
    requirements for the provision of electronic payroll reports were
    developed. The Payroll Section participated with the deputy,
    Disbursing's IT section, and SAA technical support staff to implement,
    test and trouble-shoot the electronic payroll reports project.
    Following the participation of a pilot group, the payroll reports were
    first distributed electronically in October 2008. Payroll now maintains
    responsibility for the review and release of these reports on a semi-
    monthly basis. All feedback to this new process has been positive.
        The Payroll Section participated in the testing and implementation
    of the Social Security Number Migration project that took place in
    2008. It was instrumental in the follow-up testing and trouble-shooting
    that occurred after the implementation. The Payroll Section
    participated in the development of procedural changes required to
    accommodate the change to the ``key field'' within the payroll system.
        The Payroll staff participated in the initial research regarding
    the procurement of a new payroll system. They provided job and task
    summaries, records of reports and system output, and attended numerous
    strategy sessions to determine both current system requirements and
    parameters and future system requirements. They attended and reviewed
    vendor demonstrations and participated in the drafting of demo scripts
    for future software vendor demonstrations.
        The Payroll Section administers the Student Loan Repayment Program,
    which includes initiation, tracking and transmission of the payments,
    determination of eligibility and coordination and reconciliation with
    office administrators and program participants. The program is very
    popular and participation remains high. The SLP Administrator continues
    to improve processes for administration of the program and document
    procedures.
        In 2008, the Payroll Section staff continued to work diligently
    with the SAA technical support staff and external entities in order to
    eliminate the use of paper and tape-driven correspondence. In August,
    the Payroll Section began electronically transmitting all Treasury
    tapes to the Federal Reserve in Kansas City. With regards to its
    correspondence and transmissions with the TSP and the Federal Reserve,
    Disbursing now operates completely paper-free and tape-free.
        As a result of the elections, the Disbursing Office staff looked
    into the specifics of applicable Senate resolutions to determine their
    impact, if any, on outgoing and potentially outgoing staff in order to
    ensure that current procedures allowed for the proper administration of
    the resolutions. The Payroll staff provided guidance to staff on those
    resolutions. In addition, the Payroll Section administered the transfer
    of all Capitol Guides to the AOC.
        The Payroll Section continues to participate in disaster recovery
    testing. This year, testing was conducted in December. The Alternate
    Computing Facility (ACF) processing equipment operated the payroll
    system from the Hart Building while SAA programmers ran trial payrolls
    from remote sites. As part of the test, members of SAA Production
    Services had to produce the payroll output from printers located at the
    ACF. The payroll system test proved very successful.

    Employee Benefits Section (EBS)
        The primary responsibility of the Employee Benefits Section is the
    administration of health insurance, life insurance, TSP, and all
    retirement programs for members and employees of the Senate. This
    includes counseling, processing paperwork, researching, disseminating
    information and interpreting retirement and benefits laws and
    regulations. EBS staff is also expected to have a working knowledge of
    the Federal Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Program, the Federal Long
    Term Care (LTC) Insurance Program and Federal Employees Dental and
    Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP). In addition, the sectional work
    includes research and verification of all prior federal service and
    prior Senate service for new and returning employees. EBS provides this
    information for payroll input. Staff also verify the accuracy of the
    information provided and reconcile, as necessary, when official
    personnel folders and transcripts of service from other federal
    agencies are received. Senate transcripts of service, including all
    official retirement and benefits documentation, are provided to other
    federal agencies when Senate members and staff are hired elsewhere in
    the government. EBS is responsible for the administration and tracking
    of employees who are placed in Leave Without Pay (LWOP) as a result of
    leaving to perform military service or being appointed to an
    international organization. EBS participates fully in the Centralized
    Enrollment Clearinghouse System (CLER) Program, which is sponsored by
    OPM and is used to reconcile all FEHB enrollments with carriers through
    the National Finance Center on a quarterly basis. EBS is also
    responsible for ordering inventory and maintaining forms and brochures
    for TSP, retirement, and all other benefits. EBS processes employment
    verifications for loans, bar exams, and entities such as the FBI,
    Office of Personnel Management, and Department of Defense, among
    others. Employees may complete unemployment claim forms and receive
    counseling as to their eligibility. EBS reviews billings for
    unemployment compensation paid to Senate employees by the Department of
    Labor, as well as employee fees associated with FSAs, and submits
    vouchers to the Accounting Section for payment EBS staff processes and
    checks designations of beneficiary for life insurance, retirement, and
    unpaid compensation.
                General Activities
        Many employees changed health plans during the annual Federal
    Benefits Open Season. These changes were processed and reported to
    carriers very quickly. The Disbursing Office continues to provide
    Senate employees with access to the online ``Checkbook Guide to Health
    Plans'' in order to research and compare FEHB plans. This tool will
    remain available to staff throughout the year. The Disbursing Office
    also hosted an Open Season Federal Benefits Fair, which was well-
    attended. The Benefits Fair included representatives from most of the
    local and national FEHB plans, as well as representatives from LTC,
    FSA, FEDVIP, and The Consumers Checkbook Guide. OPM announced a
    ``belated enrollment opportunity,'' which extended through January 31,
    2009.
        Many retirement, death, and disability cases were also processed
    throughout the year. There was a great deal of employee turnover in
    2008, including the transition of the Capitol Guides to the payroll of
    the AOC, which resulted in appointments to be researched and processed,
    retirement records to be closed-out, termination packages of benefits
    information to be compiled and mailed out, and health insurance
    enrollments to be processed. Transcripts of service for employees going
    to other federal agencies, and other tasks associated with employees
    changing jobs, were at a high level this year. These required prior
    employment research and verification, new FEHB, FEGLI, FSA, FEDVIP,
    Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), Federal Employees Retirement
    System (FERS) and TSP enrollments, and the associated requests for
    backup verification.
        EBS conducted agency-wide seminars on CSRS and FERS and, as a
    result of the many ongoing changes to the TSP Program, attended
    interagency meetings. EBS participated in a number of meetings with
    other Disbursing staff and the SAA technical staff to help assess the
    needs and parameters for selecting a new payroll system.

    Disbursing Office Financial Management
        Headed by the deputy for Financial Management, the mission of
    Disbursing Office Financial Management is to coordinate all central
    financial policies, procedures, and activities; to process and pay
    expense vouchers within reasonable timeframes; 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, and 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. Disbursing
    Office Financial Management is segmented into three functional
    departments: Accounting, Accounts Payable, and Budget. The Accounts
    Payable Department is subdivided into three sections: Vendor/SAVI,
    Disbursements and Audit. The deputy coordinates the activities of the
    three functional departments, establishes central financial policies
    and procedures, and carries out the directives of the Financial Clerk
    and the Secretary of the Senate.

    Accounting Department
        During 2008, the Accounting Department approved 51,215 expense
    reimbursement vouchers and 27,700 certification and vendor uploads, and
    processed 1,350 deposits for items ranging from receipts received by
    the Senate operations, such as the Senate's revolving funds, to
    cancelled subscription refunds from member offices. General ledger
    maintenance also prompted the entry of thousands of adjustment entries,
    which 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 budget uploads, stop payment requests, travel advances and
    repayments, and limited payability reimbursements. The department
    continues to scan all documentation for journal vouchers, deposits,
    accounting memos, and letters of certification to facilitate both
    storage concerns and COOP backup.
        This year the Accounting Department assisted in the validation of
    various system upgrades and modifications, including two Web FMIS
    releases. Web release number 2008-2 introduced an imaging prototype for
    the submission and approval of paperless vouchers. Development
    continues so that imaging may be tested and become functional. Web
    release 2008-3 concentrated on reporting and budget upgrades, as well
    as implementation of the employee identification number conversion. For
    expense purposes, employees are no longer identified by Social Security
    number (SSN). They are now identified by a system generated number
    which contains no part of their SSN.
        During January 2008, the Accounting Department completed the 2007
    year-end process to close and reset revenue, expense, and budgetary
    general ledger accounts to zero. The Treasury passed a new requirement
    that all suspense accounts be zeroed out and closed. This required
    significant changes to accounting methodology, as suspense accounts
    were used to clear checks from Front Office accountability, credits,
    and stop payment requests, which resulted in replacement checks, check
    and ACH advances, and payroll adjustments. This change required a
    revamping of the travel advance accounting process, which was tested
    and implemented in a very short period of time.
        The Department of the Treasury's monthly financial reporting
    requirements include 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, the ``Statement of
    Transactions According to Appropriations, Fund and Receipt Accounts,''
    a summary of all monies disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate
    through the Financial Clerk of the Senate, is reported to the
    Department of the Treasury on a monthly basis. 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 reported 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
    Services (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. System
    modifications installed in the previous year to allow electronic (ACH)
    payment of quarterly state taxes has resulted in a 50 percent
    participation rate by taxing jurisdictions. Numerically, 21 of 42 tax
    jurisdictions are receiving their quarterly state tax payments via ACH.
    Monthly reconciliations regarding the employee withholdings and agency
    matching contributions for the TSP were performed with the National
    Finance Center.
        There are also 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. It is
    the responsibility of the Accounting Department to review and verify
    the accuracy of the statements before Senate-wide distribution. The
    Accounting Department is working closely with the IT group to set up
    these reports for electronic distribution.
        The Accounting Department, in conjunction with the deputy for
    Financial Management and the Assistant Financial Clerk, continues to
    work closely with the SAA Finance Department to complete a new draft of
    the Senate-wide financial statements for past fiscal years, in
    accordance with OMB Bulletin 01-09, ``Form and Content of Agency
    Financial Statements'' and any updates required by OMB Circular A-136,
    ``Form and Content of the Performance and Accountability Reports''.
    Work to finalize the implementation of the fixed asset system
    continues. The financial management software has been upgraded and the
    license renewed for 2009. Statements and other issues and priorities
    are discussed in monthly accounting meetings.
        Accounting also has a budget division whose primary responsibility
    is compiling the annual operating budget of the United States Senate
    for presentation to the Committee on Appropriations. The budget
    division is responsible for the preparation, issuance and distribution
    of the budget justification worksheets. Despite working under a
    continuing resolution in fiscal year 2008, the budget justification
    worksheets were mailed to the Senate accounting locations and were
    processed in November. The budget baseline estimates for fiscal year
    2009 were reported to OMB in mid-January. The budget analyst is also
    responsible for the preparation of 1099's and the prompt submission of
    forms to the IRS before the end of the January.

    Accounts Payable: Vendor/Senate Automated Vendor Inquiry Section
        The Vendor/Senate Automated Vendor Inquiry (SAVI) Section maintains
    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 Disbursing Office's Web-based payment tracking
    system, which is known as SAVI. This section also assists the
    information technology (IT) department by performing periodic testing
    and by monitoring the performance of the SAVI system, including the
    conversion from SAVI to Staffer Functionality. Currently, more than
    16,300 vendor records are stored in the vendor file, in addition to
    approximately 10,000 employee records. Daily requests for new vendor
    addresses or updates to existing vendor information are processed
    within 24 hours of receipt. Besides updating mailing addresses, the
    Vendor/SAVI section facilitates the use of ACH by switching the method
    of payment requested by the vendor from check to direct deposit.
    Whenever a new remittance address is added to the vendor file, a
    standard letter is mailed to vendors requesting tax and banking
    information, as well as contact and e-mail information. If a vendor
    responds indicating they would like to receive ACH payments in the
    future, the method of payment is changed.
        SAVI is a Web-based payment tracking system, but it has been
    replaced by a Web FMIS based system referred to as Staffer
    Functionality. This conversion was necessary so that employees did not
    need to sign on to multiple systems to create and track their payments.
    All Web FMIS users have been moved into the Staffer Functionality and
    new offices are automatically established with it. Senate employees can
    electronically create, save, and file expense reimbursement forms,
    track their progress, and get detailed information on payments. The
    most common service requests are for system user identification and
    passwords and for the reactivation of accounts. Employees may also
    request an alternative expense payment method. Employees can choose to
    have their payroll set up for direct deposit or paper check, but can
    have their expenses reimbursed by a method that differs from their
    salary payment method. Approximately 1,800 employees needed to have new

    Staffer Functionality ID's and passwords assigned.
        The Vendor/SAVI section works closely with the A/P Disbursements
    group to resolve returned ACH payments. ACH payments are returned
    periodically for a variety of reasons, including incorrect account
    numbers, incorrect routing numbers, and, in rare instances, a
    nonparticipating financial institution.
        The Vendor/SAVI section electronically scans and stores all
    supporting documentation of existing vendor records and new vendor file
    requests. When this section receives replies asking for ACH
    participation, Vendor/SAVI staff ask whether the vendors wish to be
    notified by e-mail when payments are sent. Currently, over 2,000 of the
    2,600 ACH participants also receive e-mail notification of payment.
        During 2008, the Vendor/SAVI section processed over 2,300 vendor
    file additions, completed more than 2,200 SAVI service requests, mailed
    over 1,100 vendor information letters, and converted more than 500
    vendors from check payment to direct deposit.

    Accounts Payable: Disbursements Department
        The Disbursements Department is the entry and exit point for
    voucher payments. The department physically and electronically receives
    all vouchers submitted for payment. It also pays all of these vouchers,
    as well as the items submitted by upload and the various certifications
    and adjustments that are submitted periodically. The department
    received 156,900 vouchers and paid an additional 27,700 uploaded
    expenses. All of these items were paid by the department via Treasury
    check or ACH. Multiple payments to the same payee are often combined.
    As a result, 22,355 checks were issued, while 60,785 ACH payments were
    required. The decreased check volume and increased ACH volume is a
    desired result as the department continues its efforts to substantially
    reduce reliance on paper checks.
        After vouchers are paid, they are sorted and filed by document
    number. Vouchers are grouped in 6-month ``clusters'' to accommodate
    their retrieval for the semi-annual Report of the Secretary of the
    Senate. Files are maintained in-house for the current period and two
    prior periods, as space is limited. Older documents are stored in the
    Senate Support Facility (SSF). The inventoried items are sorted and
    recorded in a database for easy document retrieval. Several document
    retrieval missions were successfully conducted, and the department
    continues to work closely with warehouse personnel.
        A major function of the department is to prepare adjustment
    documents. Adjustments are varied, and include re-issuance of items
    held as accounts receivable collections, re-issuance of payments for
    which non-receipt is claimed, and various supplemental adjustments
    received from the Payroll Department. Such adjustments are usually
    disbursed by check, but an increasing number are now handled
    electronically through ACH. Paper payroll check registers were replaced
    by an electronic version in 2006. The department maintains a
    spreadsheet that tracks cases of non-receipt of salary checks,
    including stop payment requests and re-issuance.
        While experiencing an increase in ACH payments, Disbursing also
    experienced an increase, though small, in the number of ACH returns.
    Returns are usually the result of receiving incorrect account or
    routing information and are easily corrected with payee contact. Some
    returns result from account closings or non-participating financial
    institutions and, while a bit more difficult, these items are resolved
    either by receiving updated information or simply converting the
    payment to a check. All rejected items are logged into an ACH reports
    folder. They are classified as either Payroll or Accounts Payable, and
    the actual daily reports are also scanned into the folder. Once logged
    in, the payroll items are forwarded to the Payroll Department, and the
    non-payroll items are forwarded to Vendor/SAVI to determine appropriate
    corrective action. The department prepares accounting memos outlining
    the actions to be taken, and makes adjustments as warranted.
        The department also prepares the stop payments forms as required by
    the Department of Treasury. 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)
    online stop pay and check retrieval process known as PACER. The PACER
    system allows the department to electronically submit stop-payment
    requests and provides online access to digital images of negotiated
    checks for viewing and printing. Once a check is viewed, it is printed
    and may be scanned. Scanned images are then forwarded to the
    appropriate accounting locations via e-mail. During 2007, over 500
    requests were received for check copies. PACER saves the Disbursing
    Office a $7.50 processing fee for each request. PACER is now Web-based
    and accessible from multiple workstations in Disbursing, enabling staff
    to conduct research using the internet rather than the previously-used,
    slower mainframe system.
        Treasury created a new streamlined application called the Treasury
    Check Information System (TCIS) to aid PACER. All Disbursement staff
    and designated staff from the Payroll section are authorized to use
    TCIS to retrieve copies of cancelled checks. Since implementation in
    July of 2008, there have had more than 500 requests for copies of
    checks.
        Disbursements performed the initial scanning for the imaging
    prototype. Two Senate offices participated in the project, and in
    coordination with the Committee on Rules and Administration,
    Disbursements was able to determine what was needed for the effort.
    Also, Disbursements continues to play an active role in processing
    upload certifications and vendor payments as well as providing frequent
    assistance to the Front Office.

    Accounts Payable: Audit Department
        The Accounts Payable Audit Section is responsible for auditing
    vouchers and answering questions regarding voucher preparation and the
    permissibility of expenses and advances. This section provides advice
    and recommendations on the discretionary use of funds to the various
    accounting locations; identifies duplicate payments submitted by
    offices; monitors payments related to contracts; trains new
    administrative managers and chief clerks about Senate financial
    practices and the Senate's Financial Management Information System; and
    assists in the production of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
        A major function of the section is monitoring the fund advances for
    travel and petty cash. Late in 2006, phase 1 of a new advance module
    for issuing and tracking advances was placed into service. The module
    is now completely operational and all phases have been completed. The
    system accommodates the issuance, tracking, and repayment of advances.
    It also facilitates the entry and editing of election dates and
    vouchers for Senators-elect. In addition to other functionality, an
    advance type of petty cash was created and is being tested. Regular
    petty cash audits are performed by the department; all petty cash
    accounts were successfully audited in 2008.
        The Accounts Payable Audit Section processed more than 156,900
    expense vouchers in 2008, as well as 27,700 uploaded items. Audit
    sanctioned more than 89,000 vouchers under authority delegated by the
    Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. This translates to
    roughly 16,800 vouchers processed per auditor, and 30,000 vouchers
    posted per certifier. The voucher processing consisted of providing
    interpretation of Senate rules, regulations and statutes and applying
    the same to expense claims, monitoring of contracts, and direct
    involvement with the Senate's central vendor file. On average, vouchers
    greater than $100 that do not have any issues or questions are
    received, audited, sanctioned electronically by the Senate Committee on
    Rules and Administration using Web FMIS, and paid within 8 to 10
    business days.
        Uploaded items are of two varieties: certified expenses and vendor
    payments. Certified expenses have been around since the 1980's, and
    include items such as stationery, telecommunications, postage, and
    equipment. Currently, the certifications include mass mail, franked
    mail, excess copy charges, Photography Studio, and Recording Studio
    charges. Expenses incurred by the various Senate offices are certified
    to the Disbursing Office on a monthly basis. The expenses are detailed
    on a spreadsheet which is also electronically uploaded. The physical
    voucher is audited and appropriate revisions are made. Concentrated
    effort is put forth to ensure certified items appear as paid in the
    same month they are incurred.
        Vendor uploads are used to pay vendors for the Stationery Room,
    Senate Gift Shop and state office rentals, and refund security deposits
    for the Senate Page School. The methodology is roughly the same as that
    for certifications, but the payments rendered are for the individual
    vendors. Although these items are generally processed and paid quickly,
    the state office rents are generally paid a few days prior to the month
    of the rental, which is consistent with the general policy of paying
    rent in advance.
        The Disbursing Office has sanctioning authority for vouchers of
    $100 or less, subject to post-payment audit by the Committee on Rules
    and Administration. These vouchers comprised approximately 57 percent
    of all vouchers processed and are usually paid within 5 business days.
    As in the previous year, Disbursing passed two post-payment audits
    performed by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
        Additionally, advance documents and non-Contingent Fund vouchers
    are now posted in Audit. Currently, there are three certifying accounts
    payable specialists who handle the bulk of the sanctioning
    responsibilities within the group.
        The Accounts Payable Audit Group provided training sessions in the
    use of new systems, the process for generation of expense claims, and
    the permissibility of an expense; and participated in seminars
    sponsored by the Secretary of the Senate, the SAA, and the Library of
    Congress. The section trained 16 new administrative managers and chief
    clerks and conducted four informational sessions for Senate staff
    through seminars sponsored by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
    The Accounts Payable group also routinely assists the IT department and
    other groups as necessary in the testing and implementation of new
    hardware, software, and system applications. Web FMIS 2008-2 and 2008-3
    were implemented, a prototype for imaging of expense vouchers was
    tested and used for two Senate offices, and the employee number
    conversion was successfully accomplished. Advances and previously
    submitted vouchers needed to be closely monitored so that employees
    were properly paid for expenses submitted prior to and after the
    conversion.
        In 2008, the cancellation process for advances was upgraded and
    streamlined again, and collection times for outstanding advances have
    decreased significantly.

    Disbursing Office Information Technology
                Financial Management Information System
        The Disbursing Office Information Technology (DO IT) department
    provides both functional and technical assistance for all Senate
    financial management activities. Activities revolve around support of
    the Senate's Financial Management Information System (FMIS) which is
    used by staff in 140 Senate accounting locations (i.e., 100 Senate
    personal offices, 20 committees, 20 leadership and support offices, the
    Office of the Secretary of the Senate, the SAA, the Senate Committee on
    Rules and Administration Audit section, and the Disbursing Office).
        Responsibilities of the department 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 Disbursing Office is the ``business owner'' of FMIS and is
    responsible for making the functional decisions about FMIS. The SAA
    Technology Services staff is responsible for providing the technical
    infrastructure, including hardware (e.g., mainframe and servers),
    operating system software, database software, and telecommunications;
    technical assistance for these components, including migration
    management and database administration; and regular batch processing.
    The office's contract support team, along with the SAA, is responsible
    for operational support and is also under contract with the Secretary
    for application development. The three organizations work
    cooperatively.
        Highlights of the year include:
      --implemented two releases of FMIS;
      --eliminated the use of Social Security Numbers in employee vendor
            numbers by converting all employee vendor numbers to the number
            assigned by the payroll system;
      --conducted a prototype pilot of online review of imaged vouchers and
            supporting documentation;
      --made payroll reports available online through Web FMIS;
      --transferred almost all SAVI-system users to Web FMIS ``Staffer
            Functionality'' for creating online expense summary reports
            (ESRs) and viewing payment information;
      --conducted a pilot of Web FMIS ``Electronic Invoice'' functionality
            by which office managers and chief clerks were able to import
            credit card charges to create vouchers for payment;
      --implemented revised travel advance accounting that eliminates the
            use of suspense accounts;
      --supported the Disbursing Office staff in remitting quarterly state
            tax payments via direct deposit;
      --prepared for re-writing the FMIS checkwriter functionality;
      --tested infrastructure changes that included upgrades to the
            mainframe operating system (Z/OS), the database (DB2), and Web
            Sphere;
      --coordinated and participated in a FMIS-only disaster recovery
            exercise at the ACF;
      --supported the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration's post
            payment audit of a statistically valid sample of vouchers of
            $100 or less;
      --installed new Disbursing Office local area network servers;
      --upgraded PC software (MS Office 2007 and Adobe) throughout the
            Disbursing Office;
      --installed new wide PC monitors throughout the Disbursing Office;
            and
      --conducted monthly classes and seminars on Web FMIS.
                Supporting Current Systems
        The DO IT department supports FMIS users in all 140 accounting
    locations, Disbursing's Accounts Payable (A/P), Accounting,
    Disbursements, Vendor/SAVI and Front Office sections, and the Senate
    Committee on Rules and Administration 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 questions; 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 such as those for database access
            optimization;
      --Security--maintain user rights for all ADPICS, FAMIS, and Web FMIS
            users;
      --System administration--design, test and make entries to tables that
            are at the core of the system;
      --Support of accounting activities--perform functional testing and
            production validation of the cyclic accounting system
            activities. This includes rollover, the process by which tables
            for the new fiscal year are created, and archive/purge, the
            process by which data for the just lapsed fiscal year is
            archived for reporting purposes and removed from the current
            year tables;
      --Support the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration post
            payment voucher audit process--provide the data from which the
            Rules Committee audit staff selects a statistically valid
            sample of vouchers for $100 or less. In this way, the Committee
            on Rules and Administration audit staff review vouchers
            sanctioned under authority delegated to the Financial Clerk;
      --Upload bulk financial transactions directly to FAMIS--upload
            documents, such as certifications and vouchers from the Keeper
            of Stationery, directly into FAMIS. These documents, submitted
            via spreadsheets, are reviewed by the DO A/P and/or Accounting
            sections prior to upload; and
      --Training--provide functional training to all Senate FMIS users.
                Continuing Projects
        As part of its normal tasks to support current systems, Disbursing
    created 95 new Web FMIS user accounts and an additional 55 new ADPICS/
    FAMIS user accounts. Additionally, the office staff created new
    organization, department and location codes for the Senator-elect
    accounts and the new Senators in the 111th Congress. Through the
    ``rollover'' process, Disbursing created the tables necessary for two
    new fiscal periods--fiscal year 2009 (for all FMIS users), and
    Resolution 89D (for Committees), which began October 1, 2008. The two
    queries for the Committee on Rules and Administrations's post-payment
    audit of documents $100 and less identified 24,864 records for the
    period October 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 and 25,383 for the period
    April 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008. The office uploaded over 325 files
    of multiple documents such as certifications, vouchers from the Keeper
    of Stationery, SAA budget entries, and journal entries. Finally, the
    Disbursing Office IT staff offered Web FMIS classes once a month.
                New Projects
        IT completed a number of new tasks to support current systems this
    year:
      --organized quarterly user group meetings for the Disbursing Office's
            A/P staff in order to hear concerns and feedback regarding
            their Web FMIS system use;
      --added materials to the online documentation available via Web FMIS,
            including 20 administrative forms and 10 documents related to
            creating vouchers;
      --implemented procedures to create documents for infrequently-used
            (i.e., Reception of Foreign Dignitaries and Senators-elect) in
            Web FMIS instead of ADPICS, which simplified the processing of
            these documents by the A/P and Accounting staff;
      --managed the election moratoria dates for Senators running for
            reelection. When the expenses are being submitted, this alerts
            the voucher preparer that the expenses cannot be paid because
            they were incurred during the 60 day period before an election
            in which the Senator is a candidate is held;
      --updated the voucher preparation documentation for Senators-elect;
            and
      --participated in the selection of a new credit card vendor for the
            Senate and worked with that vendor to obtain a nightly data
            file of posted charges in a format usable by the Web FMIS
            ``Electronic Invoicing'' function.
                Testing Infrastructure Changes
        The SAA provides the infrastructure on which FMIS operates,
    including the mainframe, the database, security hardware and software,
    and the telecommunications network. During 2008, the SAA implemented
    one major upgrade to the FMIS infrastructure by upgrading the mainframe
    operating software. In addition, the SAA implemented quarterly micro-
    code updates and applied ``maintenance'' releases on a more regular
    basis, both of which will keep the infrastructure current.
                Managing and Testing New System Development
        During 2008, the DO IT department supervised development, performed
    extensive integration system testing, and implemented changes to FMIS
    subsystems. Each implementation and production verification was
    completed over a weekend in order to minimize system down time to
    users. Since 2006, multiple sub-system upgrades have been consolidated
    into two releases each year. This reduced the amount of regression
    testing required. In order to accurately reflect the variety of changes
    in each release, the releases are now numbered by fiscal year. During
    2008, Disbursing implemented two major releases and two problem
    correction releases. The two major releases were: FMIS r2008-2,
    implemented in June 2008; and FMIS r2008-3, implemented in September
    2008.
        The items were selected for development and implementation in
    response to Treasury mandates, and were based on user requests and
    suggestions from the SAA technical staff and the IT department. The
    planned schedule was substantially rearranged this year in order to
    respond to the needs of the DO Accounting staff upon learning that the
    Treasury Department was requiring the Senate to eliminate the use of
    suspense accounts, which were used substantially in the Senate's travel
    advance process. In order to have the new behind-the-scenes accounting
    in place by October 1, 2008, the implementation of FMIS r2008-3 was
    moved from November to September.
        The DO IT Department staff meet regularly with users through
    scheduled user group meetings. The department continued to meet with
    the ADPICS/FAMIS users group (primarily SAA users) almost every month
    and met monthly with the DO Accounting Section in order to address
    their concerns in a user group format. In addition, the department
    initiated a quarterly meeting with the DO A/P Section.
                    FMIS 2008-2
        Web FMIS 2008-2 was implemented in June 2008. The primary change in
    this release was the conversion of all employee vendor numbers to use
    the 9-digit employee identification number (EID), which is assigned by
    the payroll system, instead of an employee vendor number that included
    a partial Social Security Number (SSN). The old SSN-based employee
    vendor numbers were deactivated and the new employee vendor numbers
    were made available. In addition, old SSN-based employee vendor numbers
    used on already-created vouchers were masked so that the SSN portion
    was not visible.
        The most popular change in this release was enlarging the itinerary
    field, which previously had been limited to 254 characters. The larger
    itinerary field was made available in both Web FMIS ``Staffer
    Functionality'' (the SAVI replacement) and in Web FMIS Document/Create,
    so that a long itinerary could be created on an ESR and either imported
    into a voucher or created directly on the voucher.
        Three pilots began with this release: online payroll reports,
    prototype of online review of imaged vouchers and supporting
    documentation, and electronic invoicing (making electronic credit card
    data available for importing into vouchers). Access to online payroll
    reports was granted to specifically-authorized Web FMIS users. The
    pilot allowed Disbursing to provide these reports twice a month instead
    of once a month, and eliminated tasks associated with manual
    distribution of paper reports. The first reports for fiscal year 2009
    (i.e., reports for the end of October 2008) were distributed to
    Senators' offices, committees, the Secretary's office, and the Sergeant
    at Arms' office. The second pilot was a prototype of online review of
    imaged vouchers and supporting documentation for vouchers from several
    offices. The goal of this prototype was to provide DO A/P and
    Accounting staff with hands-on experience in reviewing and marking-up
    documents entirely online. As such, Disbursing did not request that the
    offices do anything differently. Instead, Disbursing staff imaged the
    voucher and supporting documentation, which was then filed so as to be
    available for review if needed. This was intended to encourage online
    review, and the documents were reviewed by DO A/P, Rules Audit, and
    Disbursing Accounting online. The prototype ran from June until the
    middle of October; and feedback from the Disbursing Office staff who
    participate in the pilot will be useful as the project proceeds. The
    third pilot enabled offices to see credit card charges from the credit
    card vendor and select some or all to be imported into a voucher. This
    reduces the possibility of paying a credit card charge more than once
    and reduces the work required to create a voucher for these charges.
    The pilot ran from the summer of 2008 to the winter of 2008 and has
    stopped temporarily due to the change in the new Senate credit card
    vendor in November 2008. Disbursing has been working with the new
    credit card vendor to obtain the same kind of electronic data and make
    it available to Web FMIS users. Once successful, there will be a short
    pilot before the functionality is made available to all Senate offices.
                    FMIS 2008-3
        This release was originally titled FMIS 2009-1 and was scheduled
    for implementation in November 2008, but the date was moved up to the
    beginning of September 2008, and therefore the release name was
    changed. The timing and priorities for this release were shifted in
    order to accommodate the changes necessary to eliminate use of a
    suspense account in the travel advance accounting, as required by
    Treasury by October 1, 2008 (fiscal year 2009). The Senate received
    notification of this requirement at the end of March 2008. Other NTDOs
    were notified in June 2007.
        A number of Web FMIS user-requested features were also implemented
    in this release. These included a new ``analysis by traveler'' report
    that displays detailed information by vendor (or employee) for only
    travel-related expenses. The display of office name to the master
    vendor file was also added. This enabled users to pick the John Smith
    who works for Senator Jones instead of accidentally picking the John
    Smith who works for Senator Walker. Additionally, users now have the
    ability to search the master expense category list by words in the
    expense category description field. Finally, in preparation for the new
    fiscal year, Disbursing also implemented a budget function that enables
    configuring the new budget based on a previous fiscal year.
                Planning
        The Disbursing IT department performs two main planning activities:
      --Schedule coordination--planning and coordinating a rolling 12-month
            schedule; and
      --Strategic planning--setting the priorities for further system
            enhancements.
                    Schedule Coordination
        In 2008, this department continued to hold two types of meetings
    between Disbursing and the SAA to coordinate schedules and activities.
    These were:
      --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., archive/purge meetings
            and Web FMIS budget function meetings); and
      --technical meetings--a weekly meeting to discuss the active
            projects, including scheduling activities and resolving issues.
        As part of planning activities for fiscal year 2009, Disbursing
    decided to increase the planning timeframe from 12 months to 8-24
    months in order to adequately include both FMIS functional releases and
    the infrastructure changes (i.e., software upgrades, maintenance, and
    micro-code updates).
                    Strategic Planning
        The FMIS strategic plan has a longer time horizon than the rolling
    12-month timeframe of the technical meeting schedule. It is designed to
    set the direction and priorities for further enhancements. In 2002 a
    strategic plan was written by the Disbursing IT and Accounting staff
    for Disbursing Office Strategic Initiatives. This detailed description
    of five strategic initiatives formed the base for the Secretary of the
    Senate's request in 2002 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, this will implement new technology, including imaging
            and electronic signatures, in order to reduce the Senate's
            dependence on paper vouchers. This will enable the continuation
            of voucher processing operations from an alternate location
            should an emergency occur;
      --Web FMIS.--Respond to requests from the Senate's accounting
            locations for additional functionality in Web FMIS;
      --Payroll system.--Respond to requests from the Senate's accounting
            locations for online real time access to payroll data;
      --Accounting Subsystem Integration.--Integrate Senate-specific
            accounting systems, improve internal controls, and eliminate
            errors caused by re-keying of data; and
      --CFO Financial Statement Development.--Provide the Senate with the
            capacity to produce auditable financial statements that will
            obtain an unqualified opinion.
                Managing the FMIS Project
        The responsibility for managing the FMIS project was transferred to
    the Disbursing IT department during the summer of 2003, and includes
    developing the task orders with contractors, overseeing their work and
    reviewing invoices. In 2008, one new task order was executed--Service
    Year 2008 extended operational support, which covers activities from
    September 2008 to August 2009.
        In addition, work continued under four task orders executed in
    prior years:
      --Imaging and signature design and electronic invoicing enhancement
            continuation;
      --Web FMIS Reporting enhancements;
      --Funds Advance Tracking System; and
      --Service year 2008 extended operational support (covered activities
            from September 2007 to August 2008).
                Administering the Disbursing Office's Local Area Network
                        (LAN)
        Disbursing continued to administer its own local area network
    (LAN), which is separate from the network used by the rest of the
    Secretary's Office. Upkeep of the LAN infrastructure, including
    performing routine daily tasks and replacing equipment regularly, is
    critical to providing services. During 2008, LAN administration
    activities included: maintaining and upgrading the Disbursing Office's
    LAN; installing specialized software; and maintaining projects for the
    payroll and benefits section.
                    Maintaining and Upgrading the Disbursing Office LAN
        Disbursing maintained the existing workstations with appropriate
    upgrades including: installing new DO LAN servers; upgrading PC
    software (MS Office 2007 and Adobe) throughout the Disbursing Office;
    installing new wide PC monitors throughout the Disbursing Office; and
    managing blackberry devices, including upgrading three devices and
    installing four more.
                Installing Specialized Software
        Disbursing uses a variety of specialized software that is critical
    to workflow processes. In 2008, Disbursing:
      --installed Treasury Check Information System (TCIS) to replace
            PACER. This system enables Disbursing staff to obtain an imaged
            copy of negotiated checks; and
      --upgraded the Fixed Asset System (FAS), used by the office to obtain
            the depreciated value of the Senate's fixed asset records
            maintained by the SAA.
                    Maintaining Projects for Payroll and Employee Benefits
                        Sections
        Disbursing continued to support the Payroll/Benefits Imaging system
    developed by SAA staff. This system electronically captures and indexes
    payroll documents submitted at the front counter, and is critical for
    the Payroll and Employee Benefits sections. During 2008, a new digital
    sender was installed on the Disbursing network for use on this project.
                Coordinating the Disbursing Office's Disaster Recovery
                        Activities
        At the request of the Disbursing Office, the SAA conducted a FMIS-
    only disaster recovery test in December. This is the second year in
    which a FMIS-only test was conducted. The longer time allotted to this
    test enabled more complete functional testing, (including following
    single documents from data entry in ADPICS and Web FMIS through payment
    in FAMIS), running more reports than during other tests, and testing
    the critical payroll and FAMIS batch processes. While the Disbursing IT
    staff organized the functional test plan, the actual testers included
    Disbursing IT staff, payroll staff, contractor support staff and SAA
    Finance staff. No major problems were encountered, and because of the
    longer time allotted for this test, the problems that were encountered
    were investigated.

                             ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
                          CHIEF COUNSEL FOR EMPLOYMENT

        The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (SCCE) is a
    non-partisan office established in 1993 at the direction of the Joint
    Leadership 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), as amended, Senate
    offices became subject to the requirements, responsibilities and
    obligations of 12 employment laws. The CAA also established the Office
    of Compliance (OC). Among other things, the OC accepts and processes
    legislative employees' complaints that their employer has violated the
    CAA.
        The SCCE is charged with the 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 SCCE provides legal advice to Senate offices
    about their obligations under employment laws. Accordingly, each Senate
    office 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 courts and at
            administrative hearings);
      --Mediations to resolve lawsuits;
      --Court-ordered alternative dispute resolutions;
      --Union drives, negotiations, and unfair labor practice charges;
      --Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) compliance;
      --Americans With Disability Act (ADA) compliance;
      --Layoffs and office closings in compliance with the law;
      --Management training regarding legal responsibilities; and
      --Preventive legal advice.

    Litigation; Mediations; Alternative Dispute Resolutions
        The SCCE defends each of the employing offices of the Senate in
    court actions, 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.

    Compliance with the OSHA and the ADA
        The CAA mandates that, at least once each Congress, the OC shall
    inspect each Senate office to determine whether each office is in
    compliance with the OSHA and the public accommodation portion of the
    ADA. The CAA authorizes the OC to issue a public citation to any office
    that is not in compliance.
        The SCCE provides legal assistance and advice to every Senate
    office to ensure that they are complying with the OSHA and the ADA. The
    SCCE also represents each Senate office during the OC inspections,
    advises them on the preparation of the OC's home state OSHA/ADA
    inspection questionnaires, assists offices in the preparation of
    emergency action plans, and advises and represents each Senate office
    when a complaint of an OSHA or ADA violation has been filed against the
    office with the OC or when a citation has been issued.
        In 2008, the SCCE pre-inspected 224 Senate offices to ensure
    compliance with the ADA and the OSHA. Inspections included 82 member
    offices and 43 committee and leadership offices in the Hart, Dirksen
    and Russell buildings; 67 SAA offices in the Capitol and Hart, Dirksen,
    Russell and Postal Square buildings; and 36 Secretary of the Senate
    offices in the Capitol and Hart, Dirksen and Russell buildings. Senate
    offices had no significant OSHA or ADA problems and no citations.

    Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities
        The SCCE regularly conducts legal seminars for the managers of
    Senate offices to assist them in complying with employment laws,
    thereby reducing their liability.
        In 2008, the SCCE gave 90 legal seminars to Senate offices. The
    seminars included, among others:
      --The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995: Management's Rights
            and Obligations;
      --Laws You Must Follow when Setting Up and Managing Your Office;
      --Understanding Sexual Harassment in the Workplace;
      --Dealing with Harassment Complaints and Avoiding a Hostile Work
            Environment;
      --A Manager's Guide to Complying with the Family and Medical Leave
            Act;
      --Amendments to the Family and Medical Leave Act Related to Military
            Service;
      --Avoiding Legal Landmines in Your Office 2008;
      --Labor-Management Overview; and
      --An Office's Legal Obligation to Ensure that All New Hires are
            Qualified to Work in the Senate: Complying with I-9 and E-
            Verify laws.
        The SCCE also developed and conducted a series of 11 monthly
    seminars covering all major employment laws that govern Senate offices.
    The purpose of the seminars was to educate all Senate management staff
    about their responsibility to ensure that their respective offices
    comply with the CAA. The series was open to all chiefs of staff, staff
    directors, administrative directors, chief clerks and office managers.
    Individuals who completed the series received a certificate of
    completion signed by the Secretary of the Senate. The following topics
    were covered:
      --An Overview of the Congressional Accountability Act;
      --Are You Meeting Your Legal Requirements under the I-9 and E-Verify
            Laws?;
      --Overtime Pay: Who is Owed It, and How is It Calculated?;
      --The Equal Pay Act;
      --How to Interview, Check References, Give References and Check
            Backgrounds;
      --The Family and Medical Leave Act: When Do Employees Get It, and How
            Much Do They Get?;
      --Evaluating, Disciplining and Firing Employees without Violating the
            Law;
      --The Americans with Disabilities Act: What Managers Must Know about
            Complying with the Law;
      --Dealing with Harassment Complaints and Avoiding a Hostile Work
            Environment; and
      --Common Employment Law Mistakes Managers Make.

    Legal Advice
        The SCCE meets daily with Members, chiefs of staff, administrative
    directors, office managers, staff directors, chief clerks and counsel
    at their request to provide legal advice. For example, on a daily
    basis, the SCCE advises Senate staff on matters such as interviewing,
    hiring, counseling, disciplining and 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; management's rights and obligations under union laws and the OSHA;
    management's obligation to give leave to employees for military service
    and to reinstate them at the conclusion of that service; and
    management's obligation to verify with Department of Homeland Security
    and Social Security Administration that each new hire is legally
    eligible to work in the United States. In 2008, the SCCE had over 2,558
    such meetings.
        Also, the SCCE provides legal assistance to Senate offices to
    ensure that their employee handbooks and office policies, supervisors'
    manuals, intern policies, job descriptions, interviewing guidelines and
    performance evaluation forms comply with the law. In 2008, the SCCE
    prepared or significantly revised 204 employee handbooks, supervisors'
    manuals, and intern manuals for member offices.
    Union Drives, Negotiations and Unfair Labor Practice Charges
        In 2008, the SCCE trained managers and supervisors regarding their
    new legal and contractual obligations under union contracts that were
    ratified in 2007.

    SCCE Web Site
        Working with the Office of Web Technology, the SCCE designed and
    launched an SCCE Web site. The site informs Senate offices of their
    legal obligations under the CAA, provides Senate offices access to
    legal forms and documents, and alerts Senate offices of upcoming SCCE
    seminars. To assist the offices of new members, the SCCE, working with
    chiefs of staff and administrative directors, added a section to the
    site that provides legal advice, legal forms and practical information
    to new Senate offices to assist them in setting up their offices.

    Environmental Concerns
        In 2001, the SCCE became the first Senate office to convert to a
    ``paperless'' office, which greatly reduced paper usage by minimizing
    the need for copying documents and storing hard copies. The SCCE
    accomplished the conversion by installing a document management system
    and scanning all documents the office receives. In 2008, the SCCE began
    upgrading its systems to stay current with technological advances and
    to allow its staff to utilize the document management system and to
    access all office documents from COOP computers and BlackBerry devices.

                         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. Initiatives include the
    deacidification of paper and prints, phased conservation for books and
    documents, and completion of collection surveys, exhibits, and matting
    and framing for Senate leadership.
        For more than 25 years this office has bound a copy of Washington's
    Farewell Address for the annual Washington's Farewell Address ceremony.
    In 2008, a volume was bound for Senator Mark L. Pryor who was selected
    to deliver the address before the Senate.

    Senate Library
        As mandated in the 1990 Senate Library Collection Condition Survey,
    the staff continued to conduct an annual treatment of books identified
    by the survey as needing conservation or repair. In 2008, the staff
    completed conservation treatments for 41 volumes of a 7,000 volume
    collection of House hearings. Specifically, treatment involved recasing
    each volume as required, using alkaline end sheets, replacing acidic
    tab sheets with alkaline paper, cleaning the cloth cases, and replacing
    black spine title labels of each volume as necessary. The Office of
    Conservation and Preservation will continue preservation of the
    remaining 3,653 volumes.
        The office assisted the Senate Library with books sent to the
    Government Printing Office (GPO) for binding. The GPO has been
    returning books to the Senate Library on schedule. Additionally, the
    conservators assisted the Senate Library with two exhibits located in
    the Senate Russell building basement corridor.

    Preservation
        The Office of Conservation and Preservation staff rebound 166
    volumes of House and Senate hearings for the Senate Library. These
    books were rebound with new end sheets and new covers using the old
    spines when possible.

    Objectives for 2009
        The Office of Conservation and Preservation staff continues to
    assist Senate offices with conservation and preservation of documents,
    books, and various other items. For example, the office staff continues
    to monitor the temperature and humidity in the Senate Library storage
    areas, including the vault and Senate Support Facility, for
    preservation and conservation purposes. Furthermore, staff will
    continue to train Senate Library staff in conservation and repair
    techniques.

                                    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 Curator collects, preserves,
    and interprets the Senate's fine and decorative arts, historic objects,
    and specific architectural features; and the Curator exercises
    supervisory responsibility for the historic chambers in the Capitol
    under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Through exhibitions,
    publications, and other programs, the Curator educates the public about
    the Senate and its collections.

    Collections: Commissions, Acquisitions, and Management
        A painting of Senator Thomas A. Daschle was presented in the Old
    Senate Chamber on April 22, 2008, as part of the Senate Leadership
    Portrait Collection. Additionally, work continued on the painting of
    Senator Trent Lott, and a portrait of Senator Bill Frist was
    commissioned.
        Sixty-seven objects were accessioned into the Senate collection,
    including: an 1868 ticket to the Andrew Johnson Impeachment Trial;
    seven stereographs depicting interior views of the Capitol; six
    historic prints; nine Senate Chamber gallery passes; four tickets to
    either joint sessions or joint meetings of Congress; several study
    sketches related to the oil on canvas portrait of Senator Robert C.
    Byrd; and seven historic furnishings built for the Russell Senate
    Office Building.
        Throughout the year, the office worked in close cooperation with
    the Sergeant at Arms's (SAA) Cabinet Shop to replicate one of the most
    historic pieces in the Senate collection: the 19th century Senate
    Chamber desk once occupied by Daniel Webster. The reproduction,
    requested for display in the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) Exhibition
    Hall, afforded the Curator's Office a unique opportunity to create an
    exact replica using original 1819 construction and finishing
    techniques. The project was launched in February when design software
    was used to create drawings from exacting measurements taken of the
    desk on the Senate Chamber floor. During the construction, Senate
    Curatorial Advisory Board member Donald Williams gave presentations to
    the Cabinet Shop on historic practices of hide glue and shellac finish.
    Mr. Williams also provided invaluable expertise throughout the project
    and later returned to apply the finish to the desk himself, using
    traditional materials and techniques. Once it has properly cured, the
    replica will be displayed in the CVC Exhibition Hall. A short
    documentary film on the desk's construction will be developed by the
    Curator's Office.
        Forty-four new foreign gifts were reported in 2008 to the Select
    Committee on Ethics and transferred to the Curator's Office. In
    accordance with statute, the Office of Senate Curator received the
    gifts for deposit on behalf of the Secretary of the Senate. They were
    catalogued and are maintained by the office in accordance with the
    Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act. Following established procedures,
    the office effected appropriate disposition of 36 foreign gifts.
        The office conducted an extensive physical inventory of original
    Russell Senate Office Building furniture located in Senate spaces of
    the Capitol, Russell, Dirksen, Hart, and five other office buildings.
    The goal of the survey was to systematically document the number of
    remaining furnishings purchased (approximately 3,082 were made) for the
    Senate's first office building. The survey was conducted by a contract
    conservator, and the 1,133 pieces found during the survey were placed
    on the Historic Furnishings Inventory. Additionally, 38 Russell
    furnishings were identified in private collections, museums, and
    libraries.
        During the summer, a professional photographer took pictures of
    various historic furniture, several small objects, and a portrait to be
    loaned to the CVC for exhibition.
        Work continued on the two new curatorial spaces located in the CVC,
    which were designed to provide customized preservation storage for the
    Senate collection. Museum quality storage equipment was installed in
    the two rooms, as well as an electronic monitoring system that tracks
    and records temperature and relative humidity and checks for the
    presence of water. The Curator's staff worked with the Architect of the
    Capitol's (AOC) transition team to adjust the HVAC units in each room
    in order to maintain a consistent preservation environment. The units
    are functioning, and need to be fine-tuned.
        In preparation for the collection move into the new CVC storage
    spaces, staff identified the Senate's collection of 1,400 historic
    prints as a first priority for archival re-housing. A storage system
    was developed and archival materials identified for implementing the
    new storage system. The historic prints will be moved once the CVC HVAC
    units have been properly adjusted and the environments are stable.
        The office expanded its comprehensive maintenance program for
    collections and historic spaces to include a monthly inspection
    component, and initiated the distribution of ``art cards'' to provide
    staff with information on monitoring and reporting problems. Along with
    the established daily and weekly inspections, the monthly inspections
    and the ``art cards'' help to avert potential damage by monitoring
    conditions of Senate art and historic spaces and educating Senate staff
    on their care.
        A detailed assessment of the Senate's historic timepieces was
    conducted by a clock conservator. Based upon the results, a two-part
    plan was developed to provide regular reports and related maintenance
    for the clocks and to address any condition identified as high
    priority. This work will proceed in 2009. Much valuable information was
    gained through the assessment, and training was provided to in-house
    staff to improve clock winding practices.
        The discovery of mercury beads on one of the Senate's historic
    overmantel mirrors prompted the Curator's Office to undertake extensive
    research and develop treatment guidelines for mirrors with mercury
    amalgam glass. With the objective of preserving in place any mercury
    amalgam mirrors, the office outlined safe methods for identification,
    tracking, handling, prevention, and containment. The guidelines were
    reviewed by the AOC's Safety Office and conservators, and have been
    used successfully.
        Keeping with scheduled procedures, all Senate collection objects on
    display were inventoried, noting any changes in location. In addition,
    as directed by S. Res. 178 (108th Congress, 1st Session), the office
    submitted inventories of the art and historic furnishings in the Senate
    to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The inventories,
    which are submitted every 6 months, are compiled by the Curator's
    Office with assistance from the SAA and AOC's Senate Superintendent.

    Conservation and Restoration
        Conservation cleaning treatment was completed on the monumental
    sculpture, Mountains and Clouds, by Alexander Calder, located in the
    atrium of the Hart Senate Office Building. A facility cleaning company,
    under contract with the AOC, carried out the treatment, and a sculpture
    conservator hired by the Curator's Office supervised the treatment.
    Specialized equipment was used to access all surfaces of the nine story
    sculpture for cleaning. The Curator's Office worked with a National
    Gallery of Art designer to create new protective measures in the form
    of metal strips installed on the ground around the perimeter of the
    sculpture. These strips provide an unobtrusive boundary for visitors.
    In collaboration with the Superintendent of the Senate Office
    Buildings, an ongoing care and maintenance program for the piece is
    under development.
        Conservation treatment continued for the painting, Henry Clay in
    the U.S. Senate, by Phineas Staunton. Due to the painting's size (11
    feet by 7 feet, unframed) and many complicated condition problems,
    painstaking treatment procedures were necessary for both the painting
    and the frame. The results have been dramatic. As coordinated with the
    Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the painting will be
    installed in the East Brumidi Stairwell in 2009. Lighting has been
    designed specifically for the stairwell, which will enhance viewers'
    appreciation of the painting.
        An objects conservator was hired to evaluate the exhibition mounts
    and display conditions for seven Senate objects scheduled for display
    in the CVC Exhibition Hall. This step was taken to ensure the objects
    were safely displayed while on long-term loan.
        During the Russell furniture survey, the Curator's Office
    identified a mahogany flat top desk, swivel arm chair, easy chair,
    davenport, side chair, and arm chair for conservation. The conservator
    is applying original refinishing and re-upholstery protocols for the
    pieces as developed by the manufacturer. Including the three chairs
    restored in 2003, the Senate will have preserved ten of the fourteen
    pieces made in 1909 for a Senator's suite. The restored furnishings
    will be preserved in the Senate collection and temporarily displayed in
    the Russell basement rotunda for the building's centennial anniversary
    from March 2009 through September 2009.
        The office completed conservation treatment on five mirrors as part
    of the ongoing program to address the most critical conditions in the
    Senate mirror collection. Two were restored off-site, while the other
    three were treated on-site. The on-site treatments addressed localized
    damage, thus preventing further loss of original fabric. The frames
    restored off-site required comprehensive conservation: poor quality
    repairs and bronze powder paint were removed; losses were replaced; and
    the frames were cleaned, consolidated, and gilded. Additionally, the
    Curator's staff formally incorporated the mirrors into the maintenance
    program, and eight frames were cleaned on-site by staff. The office
    also worked with the AOC to investigate and address six cases of
    installation hardware issues.
        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
        The Curator's staff worked with the AOC and the SAA to review,
    comment, plan, and document Senate-side construction projects (many of
    which are long-term initiatives) that involve or affect historic
    resources. Construction and conservation efforts that required
    considerable review and assistance included: exit sign installations;
    Brumidi corridor mural conservation; egress modifications; scagliola
    conservation; and press gallery upgrades. Through this work, the
    Curator's staff was able to ensure that the highest preservation
    standards were applied to all Capitol projects.
        The staff worked with the Office of the Republican Whip to create
    and install the state seal for the incoming leader. The placement of
    the seal on the historic ceiling in S-210, filling framed spaces left
    blank by the ceiling's original artist, dates to 1987 and continues to
    be a responsibility of the Senate Curator.
        The challenging Senate Reception Room restoration and
    rehabilitation project, developed by the Senate Curator and the Curator
    for the AOC, has successfully moved forward. A significant
    accomplishment was the completion of a paint analysis report. While
    some additional analysis and exposures will be necessary before
    specifications can be developed, the major work is completed. In
    addition to the paint analysis, the Curator's staff developed a project
    goal and preservation philosophy to apply to the elements in the room,
    and undertook a room and furniture use survey along with occupant
    interviews.

    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. The office worked closely with the U.S. Capitol
    Police to continue the procedures developed last year to record after-
    hours access to the historic chambers by current members of Congress.
    Fifty-six requests were received by current members of Congress for
    admittance to the Old Supreme Court Chamber after-hours.
        By order of the U.S. Capitol Police, the Old Senate Chamber was
    closed to visitors after September 11, 2001. Eighty-six requests were
    received from members of Congress requesting admittance to the chamber
    during the day; 62 requests were received from members for after-hours
    access. During seven Senate recesses the historic room was opened to
    Capitol Guide and staff-led tours.
        During the fall of 2008, the Curator's staff conducted a survey of
    traffic flow in and around the Old Supreme Court Chamber. Data
    generated by this survey will assist the Curator in determining whether
    any changes to furniture or interpretive signs could help alleviate
    congestion in the area.
        As a final, yet critical, component to the documentation of the Old
    Senate Chamber and Old Supreme Court Chamber, the Curator's staff
    supplemented detailed room drawings produced in 2007 with large-format
    photographs that meet the Secretary of the Interior and the Historic
    American Building Survey's standards. These photographs were accepted
    by the Historic American Building Survey for its collection and will be
    available online and at the Library of Congress. Together with the
    drawings, the photographs provide a baseline for planning and research
    and help facilitate interpretation, especially when public access is
    limited.
        Electronic monitoring systems, similar to those in the curatorial
    storage spaces in the CVC, were installed in the Old Senate and Old
    Supreme Court Chambers. Because the rooms are open to the public for
    tours, it is more difficult to maintain stable environments. The new
    systems will document the temperature and humidity fluctuations in the
    rooms, which will allow the staff to better monitor the condition of
    historic objects in order to aid in their preservation.

    Loans To and From the Collection
        A total of 50 historic objects and paintings are currently on loan
    to the Curator's office on behalf of Senate leadership and officers in
    the Senate wing of the Capitol. The staff returned four loans,
    coordinated three new loans, and renewed loan agreements for 31 other
    objects. Over 30 loans are projected to be renewed next year, including
    coordination of the loan of the painting, eagle podium, and Lincoln
    table for use at the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Luncheon.
        The official Senate chinaware was inventoried and used at 26
    receptions for distinguished guests, both foreign and domestic.

    Publications and Exhibitions
        The Curator's staff continued to coordinate and participate in
    projects and planning for the 100th anniversary of the Richard B.
    Russell Senate Office Building, which opened its doors in March 1909.
    Work proceeded on the design and construction of a series of exhibition
    pylons to be placed in various locations in the Russell Building to
    educate members, staff, and visitors about the architecture and history
    of the building. Additionally, Curator's staff, Historical Office
    staff, and the Senate Webmaster developed a Web site highlighting some
    250 photographic images of the building and selections from the graphic
    art collections of the Senate and the Library of Congress. Other
    centennial projects include a furniture exhibit in the Russell rotunda
    basement, and an accompanying brochure and poster.
        Another Web site under construction will highlight the rediscovery,
    history, and conservation of the monumental painting, Henry Clay in the
    U.S. Senate, by Phineas Staunton. The site will include short video
    segments on the conservation effort. A 15-minute documentary on the
    painting will also be produced.
        An exhibition on the history of presidential inaugurations, I Do
    Solemnly Swear: A Half Century of Inaugural Images, was designed and
    installed on the first floor of the Senate wing in celebration of the
    2009 inaugural ceremonies. The exhibit features graphic art images from
    the Senate's collection of 19th century news magazine illustrations.
        In continuing support of the training for staff-led tours, the
    office updated and expanded its presence on the congressional intranet
    that began with the 2007 posting of the online Guide to Staff-Led
    Tours. Working with the Senate Historical Office, AOC, and House
    Curator, the staff updated and restructured this site to provide
    concise up-to-date information for participants in the CVC's
    Congressional Historical Interpretive Training Program (CHIP).
        As part of an ongoing program to provide more information about the
    Capitol and its spaces, the office completed the production and
    distribution of a brochure for the Democratic Leader's suite. In
    addition, all of the Commission on Art brochures were updated and added
    to the Senate.gov Web site. The Curator's staff continued to be a
    significant contributor to Unum, the Secretary of the Senate's
    newsletter.

    Collaborations, Educational Programs, and Events
        The Curator's Office assisted the National Archives with two small
    exhibits for display in the vault at the Center for Legislative
    Archives. In February, objects related to Isaac Bassett, a 64-year
    employee of the Senate, were on view. In December, objects from the
    Senate's inaugural collection were installed. Also this year, the staff
    installed 17 objects from the Senate collection in the new CVC
    exhibition space.
        The Curator and staff assisted with numerous CVC-related projects
    throughout the year. At the request of the CVC oversight committees
    (the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on Senate
    Rules and Administration), the Curator worked closely with the House
    Curator and AOC Curator to review products and publications for the CVC
    gift shop. A total of 1,100 products were reviewed in a 3 month period.
    Additionally, the Curator and Associate Curator assisted with CHIP by
    attending planning meetings and developing a lecture to present to
    congressional staff at the 1-day and 2-day programs. The Curator's
    staff participated in ten programs in a 3 month period. The Curator
    continued to assist the AOC Curator and staff of the Joint Committee on
    the Library to finalize the plan for the National Statuary Hall statues
    in the CVC.
        The staff worked closely with the staff of the Senate Gift Shop to
    develop a series of magnets, note cards, and other gifts commemorating
    the Russell centennial.
        Other joint congressional projects included the following: planning
    and reviewing for the Rosa Parks statue; participating in the Slave
    Labor Task Force Working Group, which was assigned to develop an
    implementation plan for Congress's recommendations to honor slave labor
    in the Capitol; and assisting the Joint Congressional Committee on
    Inaugural Ceremonies with the 2009 inauguration. Joint projects with
    outside organizations included work with the Smithsonian Institution's
    Department of Entomology to research the insects depicted in the
    Brumidi Corridors.
        The Senate Curator and staff gave lectures on the Senate's art and
    historical collections to various historical groups and art museums.
    The staff also assisted the Secretary with the Senate staff lecture/
    tour series.

    Office Administration and Automation
        The Curator's Office Records Task Force completed work on a master
    records disposition matrix and began its implementation. The new matrix
    allows for standardization and more consistent records collation. As
    part of the matrix, the Task Force created a fully-searchable digital
    record of each file in the office, as well as a protocol for project
    close-out procedures to ensure that each concluded project will
    generate a thorough and consistent set of records. The File Task Force
    also developed detailed document life-cycle and disposition
    recommendations for the most critical and fastest-growing record types.
        The Curator's continuity of operations (COOP) plan was tested with
    an extensive in-house tabletop exercise conducted in August. The office
    was also asked to participate in the Secretary of the Senate's Living
    Data Recovery Planning System pilot COOP program, and two staff members
    participated in the initial trial run. Training on the full system was
    completed in the first quarter of 2009.
        All objects stored in the Senate Curator's non-museum space at the
    Senate Support Facility were added to a new inventory system called
    Asset Management. Implementation of the system allows the Curator's
    staff to track all objects, confirm locations, and verify quantities.
        All current loan agreements were digitized in portable document
    format and stored on flash drives for easy retrieval in the event of an
    emergency. A list of all working fireplaces was also completed. This
    information is now added to loan agreements in order to provide full
    disclosure on environmental conditions for lenders. The office's
    collection database was reviewed to assess the stability and efficiency
    of the system, and a plan was developed for updating and reorganizing
    specific information.
        Based on periodic requests to reproduce the Senate Chamber desks
    for educational purposes, procedures were developed and implemented for
    approving all future requests. Since 1979, ten institutions have been
    granted permission to replicate Senate Chamber desks.
        In conjunction with the staff of the Office of Web Technology, the
    staff continued work on implementing a major redesign of the Senate art
    Web site. Extensive redesign and programming has yielded a new site
    that, when launched in 2009, will provide visitors with more intuitive
    access to the Senate's art, historical collections, and online exhibits
    and publications. A major accomplishment of this initiative is the
    successful development of a new programming paradigm which facilitates
    the automatic generation of a wide variety of subject-related
    collection lists using information imported directly from the Curator's
    automated collections management database. This method ensures that all
    information displayed on the Web site is current and accurate,
    eliminates the redundancy of information, and safeguards against
    inaccuracies that might occur as a result of such redundancy. The first
    list completed is a comprehensive roster of all individuals depicted in
    every portrait and group portrait in the Senate collection, spanning
    the mediums of paintings, sculpture, and graphic art. Additionally, the
    graphic designs and textual elements of the new navigation interface
    pages have been completed and will be published in 2009.

    Objectives for 2009
        Now that the Curator storage rooms in the CVC are available, staff
    will work with representatives from the CVC, AOC, the Office of Senate
    Security and the SAA to establish and test the environmental, security,
    access, and fire suppression systems. Additional equipment and supplies
    needed to prepare collection objects for storage will be assembled, and
    plans for transferring objects to the new storage rooms will be
    finalized. Once all facility systems are operating as intended to
    provide secure preservation conditions for the collections, objects
    will be moved to the spaces. Highlights of the new storage include
    specialized racks for hanging paintings and custom cabinets for storing
    paper-based collections, such as historic prints and ephemera.
        Conservation and preservation concerns continue to be a top
    priority. Following conservation priorities identified through a
    historic clock assessment, the Curator will seek proposals for
    treatment reports and related treatment of four clocks. In addition, an
    ongoing program will be developed to provide routine reports and
    related maintenance for the historic clock collection.
        The office will move forward with critical mirror conservation
    priorities, pursuing both on-site and off-site projects that will treat
    at least two mirrors. In addition, the staff will continue to improve
    monitoring and maintenance of the mirrors. This work will include the
    placement of more identification signs on mantels, the installation of
    mantel clock cord clips, on-site cleaning by staff, and the
    establishment of a plinth program.
        Following the completion of conservation treatment for the
    monumental painting, Henry Clay in the U.S. Senate, the painting will
    be installed in the East Brumidi stairwell. The office will work with a
    fine art services company to carry out this complicated installation in
    2009.
        Professional photography is scheduled for numerous objects in the
    Senate collection, including Henry Clay in the U.S. Senate, the
    restored Russell furniture, historic prints, and upcoming Senate
    leadership portraits.
        Regarding historic preservation activities, the office will
    continue to confer with the AOC regarding preservation issues related
    to Senate restoration and remodeling projects, disseminate project
    information to the Senate, develop preservation projects at the request
    of the Senate, conduct condition inspections, and arrange necessary
    maintenance. The bulk of the office's project management will involve
    advancing the restoration and rehabilitation of the Senate Reception
    Room. Specific efforts to be addressed in 2009 include updating the
    advisory board on progress, studying the condition of the historic
    benches in the room, and initiating treatment of the Greek key borders
    on the walls.
        The office will establish an ornamental fragment collection related
    to the documentation of architectural features and historic spaces.
    This new collecting initiative will acquire significant objects removed
    from the Capitol, as well as samples documenting the appearance of
    important rooms. These items will provide valuable information for the
    future about the architectural and decorative history of the Capitol.
        The office will publish its redesign of the Senate art Web site in
    2009. The new site will organize art works by subject, rather than by
    medium, as currently arranged. In addition to the reorganization, the
    newly launched site will include images from the Senate's graphic art
    collection.
        A variety of new Web sites will be posted, including: information
    on the 2009 inaugural luncheon painting; a myth site addressing and
    dispelling frequently heard myths about Senate art and history; an
    extensive site illustrating the history and conservation of the Henry
    Clay painting by Phineas Staunton; and a site on the Senate Leadership
    Portrait Collection, with specific information on the new portrait of
    Senator Trent Lott. The office will begin development of a historic
    spaces component to the Web site and highlight several special
    collections. Of particular note are the nearly 100 mirrors in the
    Senate's collection. Finally, the office will begin creating new
    artifact pages as part of a program to make the Senate's collection
    more publically accessible.
        The Senate leadership portrait of Senator Trent Lott will be
    unveiled in 2009.
        The office will install a comprehensive series of exhibit signs in
    the Hart Building Atrium to interpret Alexander Calder's Mountains and
    Clouds.
        The staff will update its database to better document and store
    information on Senate objects. The office will also review collection
    data for consistency in preparation for the 2010 inventory publication.
        The Curator's staff has completed the numerous projects for the
    March 2009 celebration of the Russell Senate Office Building
    centennial. Work included: installation of informational panels at
    various locations throughout the building; a publication and poster on
    the furniture; an exhibition showcasing nine restored original
    furnishings; an extensive Web site; various merchandise for sale at the
    Senate Gift Shop; and lectures and tours. In addition, the staff will
    continue investigating and documenting Russell furnishings located in
    other collections. The Curator hopes that the centennial celebration
    will bring a new awareness of these historic furnishings and result in
    the return of some of these ``lost'' pieces to the Senate.

                             EDUCATION AND TRAINING

        The Joint Office of Education and Training provides employee
    training and development opportunities for all Senate staff in
    Washington, DC and the states. There are three branches within the
    office: Technical Training, Professional Training and Health Promotion.
    Technical Training staff are responsible for providing technical
    training support for approved software packages and equipment used in
    either Washington, DC or the state offices. This branch provides
    instructor-led classes, one-on-one coaching sessions, specialized
    vendor-provided training, computer-based training, and informal
    training and support services. Professional Training provides courses
    for all Senate staff in areas such as management and leadership
    development, human resources issues and staff benefits, legislative and
    staff information, and new staff and intern information. Health
    Promotion provides seminars, classes and screenings on health and
    wellness issues. This branch also coordinates an annual health fair for
    all Senate employees and plans blood drives every year.

    Training Classes
        The Joint Office of Education and Training offered 838 classes and
    events in 2008, drawing 11,366 participants. The registration desk
    staff handled over 25,000 e-mail and phone requests for training and
    documentation.
        The Technical Training area conducted 270 classes with a total
    attendance of 1,074 students. An additional 707 staff received coaching
    in 247 sessions on various software packages and other computer-related
    issues. Professional Development held 381 classes with a total
    attendance of 3,795 students. The staff managed or assisted the staffs
    of the Employee Assistance Program, the Sergeant at Arms Office of
    Police Operations, Security and Emergency Preparedness, Disbursing
    Office, and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics with 157 training
    classes for 3,395 students.
        The Joint Office of Education and Training works with teams on
    issues related to team performance, communication, and conflict
    resolution. During 2008, Professional Development fulfilled over 150
    requests for special training and team building for 1,500 staff.
        In the Health Promotion area, 2,865 staff participated in 25 health
    promotion activities throughout the year. These activities included
    lung function and kidney screenings, eight blood drives, the Health and
    Fitness Day, seminars on health-related topics, and the annual Senate
    Health Fair.
        On an annual basis, the Joint Office of Education and Training
    provides a Senate Service Expo for Senate office staff. Thirty-five
    presenters from the offices of the Secretary of the Senate, the
    Sergeant at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Police and
    the Library of Congress participated in this year's program.

    State Training
        Since most of the classes that are offered are only practical for
    staff based in Washington, DC, the Joint Office of Education and
    Training continues to offer the ``State Training Fair,'' which began in
    March 2000. In 2008, two sessions of this program were attended by 79
    state staff. In addition, 38 state administrative managers and
    directors attended the State Directors Forum, and 60 state staff
    participated in a Constituent Services Forum.
        Education and Training has also implemented the ``Virtual
    Classroom,'' an internet-based training library with more than 3,000
    courses. To date, 412 state office and D.C. staff have registered and
    accessed a total of 1,300 different lessons and publications using this
    training option. Additionally, the office offered 37 video
    teleconferencing classes, which were attended by over 500 state staff.
    The Joint Office of Education and Training also provides 25 Senate-
    specific self-paced lessons which have been accessed by approximately
    1,000 staff.

                                   GIFT SHOP

        Since its establishment in October 1992 (2 U.S.C. 121d), the Senate
    Gift Shop has continued to provide service and products that maintain
    the integrity of the Senate while increasing the public's awareness of
    its history. The Gift Shop serves Senators, their spouses, staffs,
    constituents, and the many visitors to the U.S. Capitol complex.
        The products available include a wide range of fine gift items,
    collectibles, and souvenirs created exclusively for the U.S. Senate.
    The services available include special ordering of personalized
    products and hard-to-find items, custom framing including red-lines and
    shadow boxes, gold embossing on leather, etching on glass and crystal,
    engraving on a variety of materials, and shipping nationally and
    abroad.

    Facilities
        In addition to three physical locations, the Gift Shop has an
    online presence within Webster, the Senate's Intranet. The Web site
    currently offers an increasing selection of products that can be
    purchased by phone, e-mail, or by printing and faxing the order form
    provided on the site. In addition to offering over-the-counter, walk-in
    sales and limited Intranet services, the Gift Shop administrative
    office provides mail order service via phone or fax, and special order
    and catalogue sales via e-mail, phone, fax, and in person.
        The Gift Shop maintains two warehouse facilities. The bulk of the
    Gift Shop's stock is held in the Senate Storage Facility (SSF), an
    offsite storage facility. While the Sergeant at Arms (SAA) of the
    Senate is in charge of the overall management of the SSF, the Director
    of the Gift Shop has responsibility for the operation and oversight of
    the interior spaces assigned for Gift Shop use. Storing inventory in
    this centralized, climate-controlled facility provides protection for
    the Gift Shop's valuable inventory in terms of physical security as
    well as improved shelf life for perishable and non-perishable items
    alike.
        The second Gift Shop warehouse is maintained in the Hart Building.
    This facility serves as the point of distribution to the Gift Shop
    store and the Capitol Gift Shop counter, both of which have limited
    storage space. The Hart warehouse accommodates the Gift Shop's
    receiving, shipping, and engraving departments, and also supplies the
    inventory sold through the administrative and special order office.

    Sales Activities
        Sales recorded for fiscal year 2008 were $1,444,511.15. Cost of
    goods sold during this same period was $1,006,176.13, accounting for a
    gross profit on sales of $438,335.02.
        In addition to tracking gross profit from sales, the Senate Gift
    Shop maintains a revolving fund and a record of inventory purchased for
    resale. As of October 1, 2008, the balance in the revolving fund was
    $2,549,720.48. The inventory purchased for resale was valued at
    $2,880,597.31.

    Additional Activity
        The Gift Shop performed major upgrades to both its back office and
    point of sale computer systems during the 2008 fiscal year.
        Last year, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement
    Act of 2008 (CPSIA). Additionally, in interpreting the law, the
    Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) promulgated guidelines
    concerning the CPSIA's limits on lead and ban on phthalates in
    children's products, and certifications as required by law. The Gift
    Shop continues its vigilance of this important issue by maintaining its
    certification program in order to evaluate and monitor all products
    sold in its stores. This will continue to be a part of its regular
    business practice, especially as the Gift Shop considers the addition
    of new product lines.

    Selected Accomplishments in fiscal year 2008
                Official Congressional Holiday Ornaments
        2008 marked the 15th year of the Congressional Holiday ornament.
    Each ornament in the 2006-2009 series of unique collectables depicts an
    image celebrating the day-to-day activities taking place on the Capitol
    grounds. The four images of the series are based on original oil
    paintings commissioned by the Gift Shop.
        Sales of the 2008 holiday ornament exceeded 29,000 ornaments, of
    which more than 6,400 were personalized with engravings designed,
    proofed, and etched by Gift Shop staff. This highly successful effort
    was made possible by the combined efforts of the administrative,
    engraving, and store staffs. Additional sales of this ornament and
    ornaments from previous years are expected to continue for years to
    come.
                Capitol Bookend
        The Capitol Bronze Doors Bookend is a remarkably detailed
    recreation of the doors that were designed by Thomas Crawford and
    William H. Rinehart and cast as a single piece by James T. Ames in
    Chicopee, Massachusetts. The doors were installed in 1868. Marble
    recovered during the renovations to the east front of the Capitol was
    added to the building materials, making the piece truly unique.
                Capitol Wooden Box
        These new boxes were designed and created using the wood of trees
    felled from the Capitol complex during the construction of the Capitol
    Visitor Center. A selection of three different images, reproduced on
    porcelain stone tiles and inlayed into the lids of the boxes is
    available. Varieties of wooden pens were also created from the rescued
    trees and have been made available as a regular product in the store.
    Both the wooden boxes and the wooden pens include an insert card,
    printed on recycled paper and in a soy-based ink, describing the
    history of the recovered wood.

    Projects Recently Produced/New Initiatives for 2009
                Senate Photography Studio
        In partnership with the Senate Photography Studio, the Gift Shop
    will offer prints of original photos taken by Senate photographers.
    These images will be made available for sale in the Gift Shop and be
    offered in several sizes and formats. Professional matting and framing
    will be available.
                Senate Staff China
        In late 2008 the Gift Shop received its first shipment of fine
    china designed for Senators and Senate staff. This product,
    manufactured by Pickard China, a manufacturer of fine china in
    Illinois, depicts a pattern based on a Brumidi ceiling fresco. The
    china pattern, ``Brumidi Rinceau,'' is available by special order and
    may be personalized with the staffer's name or respective office on the
    reverse. Cups and saucers, dinner plates, salad plates and assorted
    serving pieces are available.
                Wilton Armetale
        As a complement to the Senate staff china, the Gift Shop has also
    designed and produced a collection of metal service pieces with Wilton
    Armetale Company of Columbia, Pennsylvania. The border design depicted
    on these pieces is ``Brumidi Rinceau'' and, as with the china,
    replicates the borders of a series of vignettes decorating the ceiling
    of the Capitol's North Brumidi Corridor.
                Senate Scarves
        The Gift Shop has recently received new scarf designs depicting
    various elements of Constantino Brumidi art. The ceiling of the Lyndon
    Baines Johnson Room and other Brumidi corridor frescos are the
    inspiration for this product. The Echo Design Group of New York is
    providing the product.
                United States Senate Shawls
        Through an agreement with LR Paris Company in Washington, DC, the
    Gift Shop has produced shawls in red, charcoal, brown and tan. These
    shawls, a silk and wool blend, depict an artistic design element found
    in the encaustic Minton tiles located in the Capitol just outside the
    third floor entrance to the Senate gallery.
                Senate Ties
        New Senate ties have also been designed by LR Paris and are
    available for sale. This product contains design elements found within
    the Capitol and is produced in two styles and three color variations.
                Musical Jewel Box
        The Gift Shop, working with the Splendid Music Box Company of New
    York, has completed the development of a Senate music box. The box,
    which depicts a highly detailed image of the Capitol West Laylight,
    recently became available for sale in the store. The laylight was
    designed by the Philadelphia architect Thomas U. Walter and is located
    in the ceilings of both of the grand staircases.
                Brumidi Stemware
        Working with Evergreen Crystal Company of Montrose, Colorado, the
    Gift Shop developed and began selling a new style of crystal stemware.
    Each glass in this set of four wine glasses depicts a different bird
    taken from the frescoes in the Brumidi corridor.
                Russell Centennial
        The celebration of the Russell Building centennial in March 2009
    presented the Gift Shop with an opportunity to work with the Office of
    the Senate Curator for the purpose of creating commemorative gift items
    appropriate for the occasion. The Gift Shop developed bookmarks,
    jewelry and note cards to complement the celebratory activities that
    took place.

                               HISTORICAL OFFICE

        Serving as the Senate's institutional memory, the Historical Office
    staff 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 staff 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 historians keep extensive biographical,
    bibliographical, photographic, and archival information on the more
    than 1,900 former and current Senators. Historical Office staff edits
    historically significant transcripts and minutes of selected Senate
    committees and party organizations for publication, 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, Senate.gov.

    Editorial Projects
                Pro Tem: Presidents Pro Tempore of the United States Senate
                        since 1789
        To honor the important role played by the Senate's president pro
    tempore (PPT) since 1789, the Historical Office published a 120-page
    history of the office and its occupants in early 2008. A biographical
    profile of each of the 87 individuals who have served in the office
    highlights their PPT service along with their non-Senate careers,
    includes commentary by contemporaries, historians, and biographers, and
    presents a photographic likeness of the individual. Divided into four
    chronological sections, the book includes contextual essays that
    explain the evolution of the office, its changing duties and
    responsibilities, its place in the line of presidential succession, and
    the unique role played by these leaders in Senate history.
                United States Senate Chamber, 1859-2009
        This 25-page richly illustrated booklet commemorates the 150th
    anniversary of the Senate Chamber. It highlights the Chamber's
    construction, physical features and furnishings, and some of the
    landmark events that have taken place there since 1859. Nearly 50 color
    and black and white photographs and illustrations chronicle the
    Chamber's history, from the first session held there during the 35th
    Congress to the official photograph of the 110th Congress. United
    States Senate Chamber, 1859-2009 was made available to Senators on
    January 6, 2009, to mark the anniversary.
                Russell Senate Office Building, The First Century
        In preparation for the centennial of the Russell Senate Office
    Building's March 5, 1909, opening, the Historical Office produced a 32-
    page illustrated booklet highlighting the facility's design,
    construction, and subsequent evolution. The Historical Office assisted
    the Senate Curator, Architect of the Capitol, and Senate Library in
    planning exhibits and a companion Web site, Senate.gov/RSOB.
                ``States in the Senate''
        In this collaborative project, which will be featured on
    Senate.gov, staff historians continued to research and write timelines
    and selected illustrative images for each of the 50 states,
    highlighting persons and events of the state's history that relate to
    the U.S. Senate. This online project has now entered the design stage.
    When complete, it will present an interactive timeline for each state,
    with links to relevant documentary and visual material. It is designed
    to inform Senators, staff, and constituents about their state's
    historical role in the Senate.
                Administrative History of the Senate
        Throughout 2008, the assistant historian continued to research and
    write this historical account of the Senate's administrative evolution.
    This study traces the development of the offices of the Secretary of
    the Senate and Sergeant at Arms, considers 19th and 20th century reform
    efforts that resulted in reorganization and professionalization of
    Senate staff, and looks at how the Senate's administrative structure
    has grown and diversified.
                Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies
        In 2008, Historical Office staff assisted the Joint Congressional
    Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC) with developing the inaugural
    theme, and wrote and edited content for printed materials, including
    the platform program, luncheon program, and the commemorative edition
    of Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States.
    Historical Office staff researched precedents and compiled historical
    data on previous inaugurations in response to queries by the JCCIC, the
    media, and the general public.
                Rules of the United States Senate, Since 1789
        In 1980, Senate Parliamentarian Emeritus Floyd M. Riddick, at the
    direction of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, prepared
    a publication containing the eight codes of rules that the Senate
    adopted between 1789 and 1979. In the 1990s, the Senate Historical
    Office, in consultation with Dr. Riddick, developed a project to
    incorporate an important feature not contained in the 1980 publication.
    Beyond simply listing the eight codes of rules, Rules of the United
    States Senate, Since 1789 is to show how--and why--the Senate's current
    rules have evolved from earlier versions. This work, to be completed
    during 2009, will contain eight narrative chapters outlining key
    debates and reasons for significant changes. Appendices will include
    the original text of all standing rules and, for the first time in one
    publication, all changes adopted between each codification.
                Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress, 1774-present
        Since publication of the 2005 print edition of The Biographical
    Directory of the United States Congress, the historians have added new
    biographical sketches and bibliographical citations that incorporate
    recent scholarship to the work's online database (http://
    bioguide.congress.gov). The assistant historian and historical writer
    work closely with the staff of the House Office of History and
    Preservation to maintain accuracy and consistency in the joint Senate-
    House database, and to promote this valuable resource among historians,
    teachers, students and the public. To enhance the online site, the
    Historical Office currently is selecting printed obituaries for 19th
    century Senators for inclusion in their online profile. Office staff
    collected and scanned images of more than 100 obituaries from
    historical newspaper databases and the Office's biographical files and
    will build on this collection in the coming year.

    Oral History Program
        The Historical Office conducts a series of oral history interviews
    to provide personal recollections of various Senate careers. Interviews
    were completed with Keith Kennedy, former staff director of the Senate
    Appropriations Committee, and with Mario D'Angelo, a Senate barber.
    Other interviews are ongoing with former Senators Charles McC. Mathias
    (R-MD) and Paul Laxalt (R-NV), Tim Profeta, former legislative
    assistant to Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) and Robert B. Dove,
    former parliamentarian. In addition, the office continued to seek and
    conduct interviews with current and former Senate spouses. It also
    expanded on its collection of interviews highlighting the role of women
    on Capitol Hill, completing interviews with Virginia Saunders, a
    congressional documents expert who has been employed at the Government
    Printing Office since 1945. The complete transcripts of 26 interviews
    conducted since the 1970s have been posted on Senate.gov. Each month,
    that site features a different oral history interview series, including
    digital audio clips along with the interview transcripts. Unum, the
    Secretary of the Senate's newsletter, has also begun a regular series
    entitled ``Senate Voices,'' which includes excerpts from the oral
    histories.

    Member Services
                Members' Records Management and Disposition Assistance
        The Senate archivist assisted members' offices with planning for
    the preservation of their permanently valuable records, emphasizing the
    importance of managing electronic records and transferring valuable
    records to a home state repository with a digital asset management
    system. Meetings continued with offices closing at the end of the 110th
    Congress. The archivist revised the Handbook for Closing a Senator's
    Office and the pamphlet, Senators' Papers: Management and Preservation
    Guidelines.
        To enhance communication within the Senate regarding archival
    preservation, the archivist led brown-bag lunch discussions and
    contributed to a listserv that promotes archival training for staff,
    efficient records management, and historical records preservation. A
    video seminar was developed for Senate state offices. The Senate
    archivist continued to work with staff from all repositories receiving
    senatorial collections to ensure adequacy of documentation and the
    transfer of appropriate records with adequate finding aids. Advice on
    access restrictions also was provided. The archivist conducted a
    seminar on records management for Senate offices and participated in
    the Sergeant at Arms' Senate Services Fair.
                Committee Records Management and Disposition Assistance
        The Senate archivist provided each Senate 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. During the fall, the archivist met with representatives of
    nearly all committees to ascertain the status of their electronic
    archiving. The archivist distributed information on best practices for
    managing electronic records and encouraged committee chief clerks,
    systems administrators, and chief counsels to consider hiring
    professional archivists to focus on electronic archiving. As a result,
    several committees have hired, or are in the process of hiring,
    archival staff.
        The Senate archivist oversaw the transfer to the National Archives
    of 729 accessions of Senate records and provided numerous training
    sessions to Senate interns tasked with archiving committee records. The
    archivist and assistant archivist responded to approximately 197
    requests for loans of records back to committees, totaling nearly 1,000
    boxes. The archivist worked with the Foreign Relations Committee to
    transfer classified transcripts to the National Archives. The archivist
    worked with the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the
    Senate Recording Studio to transfer televised recordings of committee
    hearings to the National Archives. The archival assistant continued to
    provide processing aid to committees and administrative offices in need
    of basic help with noncurrent files. A project continues to scan
    committee National Archives' transfer sheets dating from 1982 through
    2004 into the OnBase document management system, which is supported by
    the Sergeant at Arms. To date, records of the Committees on
    Agriculture; Appropriations; Armed Services; Banking, Housing and Urban
    Affairs; Budget; Energy and Natural Resources; Environment and Public
    Works; Finance; Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and
    Pensions; and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs have been
    processed. This information is provided to the National Archives on
    electronic media, both as a security measure and to enhance future
    access as the records become open for research.

    Educational Outreach
                ``Senate Historical Minutes''
        The Senate historian continued a series of ``Senate Historical
    Minutes,'' begun in 1997 at the request of the Senate Democratic
    Leader. In 2008, he prepared and delivered a ``Senate Historical
    Minute'' at 18 weekly Democratic Conference meetings. These 450 word
    ``Minutes'' enlighten members about significant events and
    personalities associated with the Senate's institutional development.
    More than 300 of them are available as a regularly expanded feature on
    Senate.gov (``Historical Minute Essays''). An illustrated compilation
    was published in 2006 as 200 Notable Days: Senate Stories, 1787-2002.
    Senate.gov
        Much of the Historical Office's correspondence with the general
    public takes place through Senate.gov, which has become an
    indispensable source for information about this institution. Office
    staff maintain and frequently update the Web site with timely reference
    and historical information. In 2008, the office responded to more than
    1,400 inquiries from the general public, the news media, students,
    family genealogists, congressional staffers, and academics, through the
    public e-mail address provided on the site. The diverse nature of their
    questions reflects varying levels of interest in Senate operations,
    institutional history, and former members. Research assistance provided
    by Historical Office staff was enhanced by the comprehensive scanning
    of the office's subject files into the OnBase document management
    system, allowing staff to search the full text of these files
    electronically. Staff provided seminars on the general history of the
    Senate, Senate committees, women Senators, Senate floor leadership,
    relations between the press and the Senate, and the U.S. Constitution.
    The historians also participated in Senate staff seminars and members'
    office retreats, and conducted dozens of briefings for specially
    scheduled groups.

    Photographic Collections
        The photo historian continued to ensure history-focused
    photographic coverage of the contemporary Senate by photographing every
    committee once each Congress, collecting formal photo portraits of new
    Senators, and capturing significant Senate events in cooperation with
    the Senate Photography Studio. The photo historian also enhanced the
    office's publications on Senate presidents pro tempore, the Russell
    Building's centennial, and the Senate Chamber's sesquicentennial by
    selecting images to illustrate the respective texts, working closely
    with the historical editor and the Government Printing Office to design
    and publish these three volumes. As a member of the Russell Building
    centennial planning committee, the photo historian helped create the
    official centennial logo and bookmarks, in addition to the centennial
    booklet, and worked closely with the National Archives staff to arrange
    for the scanning of a large collection of early 20th century historical
    photographs donated to the office, thus adding hundreds of rare images
    to the collection.
        The photo historian assisted with several presidential inaugural
    projects, including the selection of images for the commemorative
    inaugural luncheon book. The photo historian also transferred more than
    40,000 photographic negatives of Senators to their appropriate archival
    repositories. These negatives had been languishing at a Senate storage
    site for decades. With the assistance of the archival assistant, the
    photo historian arranged for the transfer of 63 historic Capitol Police
    record books to the National Archives.
        The photo historian also maintained the office's continuity of
    operations (COOP) plan, updated the backup copies of the office's vital
    electronic records, and prepared the office's remote access test plan
    which will enable staff members to fulfill their vital functions from
    an off-site location.

    Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress
        This 11-member permanent committee, established in 1990 by Public
    Law 101-509, meets semiannually to advise the Senate, the House of
    Representatives, and the Archivist of the United States on the
    management and preservation of the records of Congress. Its membership
    representing the Senate includes the Secretary of the Senate, who
    chaired the panel during the 110th Congress; the Senate historian; and
    appointees of the secretary and the majority and minority leaders. The
    Historical Office provides support services for the advisory
    committee's regular meetings.

    Capitol Visitor Center
        Staff historians continued to provide information and guidance to
    Capitol Visitor Center staff on matters related to the educational
    component of the exhibition gallery. The historians participated in
    multiple planning sessions for a new training program for staff-led
    tours. Beginning in October, they have made regular presentations on
    the history of the Senate in both 2-day and 1-day training seminars for
    Senate staff and interns. They have also assisted in the training of
    visitor assistants who guide visitors through the Capitol and
    exhibition gallery.

                                HUMAN RESOURCES

        The Office of Human Resources was established in June 1995 by the
    Secretary as a result of the Congressional Accountability Act. The
    office focuses on developing and implementing human resources policies,
    procedures, and programs for the Office of the Secretary of the Senate
    that fulfill the legal requirements of the workplace and complement the
    organization's strategic goals and values.
        These responsibilities include recruiting and staffing; providing
    guidance and advice to managers and staff; training; performance
    management; job analysis; compensation planning, design, and
    administration; leave administration; records management; maintaining
    the employee handbooks and manuals; internal grievance procedures;
    employee relations and services; and organizational planning and
    development.
        The Human Resources staff administers the following programs for
    the Secretary's employees: the Public Transportation Subsidy program,
    Student Loan Repayment Program, parking allocations, and the summer
    intern program that offers college and other post-graduate students the
    opportunity to gain valuable skills and experience in a variety of
    Senate support offices. Human Resources has completed migration of
    eligible commuters to the Smart Benefits Program, which is operated by
    the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

    Recruitment and Retention of Staff
        Human Resources staff have the ongoing task of advertising new
    vacancies or positions, screening applicants, interviewing candidates,
    and assisting with all phases of the hiring process. Human Resources
    staff coordinate with the Sergeant at Arms (SAA) Human Resources
    Department to post all SAA and Secretary vacancies on the Senate
    intranet, Webster, so that the larger Senate community may access the
    posting from their own offices. In an effort to reach a larger and more
    diverse applicant pool, the department uses multiple posting forums to
    reach potential applicants for employment. As a result, the Human
    Resources Department processed more than 2,500 applications for
    vacancies in the Secretary's Office, including review of applications,
    coordinating scheduling of candidates for interview, sending out
    notices to both successful and unsuccessful candidates, and finalizing
    new hire paperwork.

    Training
        In conjunction with the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment, staff
    continues to develop and deliver training for department heads and
    staff. Training topics include sexual harassment, interviewing skills,
    Family Medical Leave Act administration, and an overview of the
    Congressional Accountability Act.

    Interns and Fellows
        Human Resources staff manages the Secretary's internship program
    and the coordination of the Heinz Fellowship program. From posting
    vacancies, conducting needs analyses, communicating, screening, placing
    and following up with all interns, the office keeps a close connection
    with these program participants in an effort to make the internship
    most beneficial to them and the organization.

    Combined Federal Campaign
        The office has again taken an active role in the Combined Federal
    Campaign (CFC) for the Senate community at-large. The office staff
    serve as co-directors of the program. The staff participates in kick-
    off meetings, identifies key workers in each office, and disseminates
    and collects necessary information and paperwork.

                              INFORMATION SYSTEMS

        The staff of the Department of Information Systems provides
    technical hardware and software support for the Office of the Secretary
    of the Senate. Information Systems staff also interface closely with
    the application and network development groups within the Sergeant at
    Arms (SAA), the Government Printing Office (GPO), and outside vendors
    on technical issues and joint projects. The department provides
    computer-related support for all location area network (LAN) 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 the Office of Secretary of the Senate. Emphasis is
    placed on creating and transferring legislative records to outside
    departments and agencies, fulfilling Disbursing Office financial
    responsibilities to the member offices, and complying with office
    mandated and statutory obligations.

    Fiscal Year 2008 Technology Summary
      --Successfully migrated all departments to the Senate-wide Active
            Directory/Messaging Architecture (ADMA) and upgraded Mail
            Server architecture in fiscal year 2008.
      --Completed fifteen major Legislative Information System (LIS)
            software upgrades and installed LIS application software in the
            legislative clerk offices, Senate Library, alternate computing
            facility, and offsite staff laptop locations.
      --Completed phase two of the Gift Shop and Stationery Room project,
            which involved updating all server and workstations for each
            department.
      --Completed installation testing of Disbursing backup servers at the
            Alternate Computer Facility (ACF).
      --Upgraded all handheld mobile device hardware (Blackberry) for
            essential staff. All staff now can use the devices as modems to
            access the Senate network if required.
      --Completed installation of a development SharePoint Server for the
            Office of Senate Security allowing continuity of operations
            (COOP) related documents to be readily available through a web-
            based secure network connection.
      --Participated and provided direct technical support for all COOP
            exercises in 2008. The most notable exercises included the
            National Level Exercise and Alternate Chamber Exercise in May
            2008, and department pandemic testing exercises conducted in
            third and fourth quarters of 2008.
      --Deployed the Government Printing Office public key infrastructure
            (PKI) software for successful transmission of the 2008 and 2009
            White House budget. Information System staff ``virtualized''
            the software installation for the deputy chief of staff
            avoiding the purchase of an additional workstation, thus
            allowing any workstation to accommodate the transfer of the
            digital certificate document.
      --Reduced space and power consumption by updating printer operations
            in 19 departments with multi-functional scanner/copier/fax
            devices. Using all-in-one devices to perform multiple tasks
            reduces energy, hardware costs, and long term hardware support
            costs.
      --Installed virtualized server architecture for the LIS Information
            Project Office.
      --Augmented the Bill Clerk Amendment Tracking System (ATS) process to
            continue to process submitted amendments in the event that
            network scanning is not available. This ensures that submitted
            and proposed amendments continue to reach the ATS Web server
            site for Senate distribution.
      --Purchased and installed server hardware and network configuration
            in support of the Senate Library taxonomy project.
      --Relocated the departmental operations for the offices of Senate
            Security and Captioning Services from the Capitol building to
            the Capitol Visitor Center expansion space.
      --Redesigned and enhanced the operation of member accountability
            application used during COOP exercises by implementing a
            virtualized desktop process to run the application.
            Standardized the application and provided to both Democratic
            and Republican Cloakroom staff. Added this process to ensure
            high availability by installing on an ``always-on'' secure
            hardware platform at the ACF.
      --Finalized the Living Disaster Recovery Planning System (LDRPS) in
            fiscal year 2008. Initial user training began in February 2009.
      --Upgraded workstation hardware and software operations in the
            Executive Office of the Secretary and the Office of Senate
            Security.
      --Upgraded Microsoft Office Software applications, Adobe Acrobat
            software, and web browser operations in fifteen Secretary
            departments. Timeframe to complete legislative offices will
            coincide with updated SAA LIS application support in the second
            quarter of 2009.
      --Initiated Parliamentarian indexing software project to migrate
            operation to a new hardware platform. End results will allow a
            virtualized environment to index precedent information without
            a specific laptop or personal computer hardware vendor
            requirement. Estimated completion is the second quarter of
            2009.
        In 2007, forty five e-mail security alerts were issued from the SAA
    Security Operations Center alerting Secretary staff of a possible virus
    or malicious code installed on their staff workstations. Information
    Services staff ``clean'' each compromised workstation. This process can
    take up to three hours to correct the possible problem. In 2008, this
    number was reduced by 50 percent.
      --Upgraded to Microsoft Office 2007 Groove collaboration software in
            the offices of Information Systems, Senate Security, Senate
            Library, Web Technology, Historian, and the Executive office.
            This application continues to provide critical information to
            dispersed staff members who might be offsite or relocated out
            of the office. Streamlined application deployment by utilizing
            an improved web management console to install the application
            remotely.
      --Update the People Trak database operation in the department of
            Human Resources to allow staff to enter time and attendance
            sheet records via the Secretary Intranet web portal. Project
            implementation to be determined by HR Director.

    Ongoing and Future Projects
      --Extend Member Status application support to both cloakroom staff
            during a COOP event
      --In collaboration with the Office of Legislative Counsel, design a
            ``Virtual Desktop Infrastructure'' (VDI) allowing staff to
            access desktop applications in a secure manner. VDI reduces the
            cost in purchasing new computers, centralizes the software
            management in the ACF data center, provides a reduction in
            electricity costs, and provides fewer application compatibility
            problems associated with multiple applications.

                          INTERPARLIAMENTARY SERVICES

        The Office of Interparliamentary Services (IPS) has completed its
    27th 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 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
      --United States-China Interparliamentary Group
      --United States-Japan Interparliamentary Group
        In May, the 49th Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S.
    Interparliamentary Group was held in New Mexico. In June, the first
    meeting of the United States-Japan Interparliamentary Group meeting was
    held in Washington, DC. In July, the United States-Russia
    Interparliamentary Group meeting was also held in Washington, DC. IPS
    staff handled arrangements for these successful events.
        As in previous years, all foreign travel authorized by the Majority
    and Minority Leaders is arranged by the IPS staff. In addition to
    delegation trips, the staff 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 and
    the Minority Leader, IPS assists staff members of Senators and
    committees in completing the required reports.
        IPS maintains regular contact with the Department of State and
    foreign embassy officials. The office staff frequently organizes visits
    for official foreign visitors and assists them in setting up meetings
    with leadership offices and tours. 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 Senate 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 Majority and Minority Leaders, 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 IPS.
        Planning is underway for the 48th Annual Meeting of the Mexico-U.S.
    Interparliamentary Group which will be held in the United States in
    2009. Preparations are also underway for the 2009 British-American
    Parliamentary Group meeting and the spring and fall sessions of the
    NATO Parliamentary Assembly. IPS will also undertake advance work,
    including site inspection, for the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group
    conference to be held in the United States in 2010.

                  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.
    123(e)) 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
    the transition to and implementation of a standard system for the
    authoring and exchange of legislative documents, which 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
        In April 1997, a joint Senate and House report recommended the
    establishment of a data standards program. 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 LIS in
    January 2000, the LIS Project staff shifted their 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
    transition to and implementation of 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 Senate Legislative Counsel (SLC) and the Enrolling
    Clerk. The XML authoring application is called LEXA, an acronym for the
    Legislative Editing in XML Application. LEXA replaces the DOS-based
    XyWrite software used by drafters to embed locator codes into
    legislative documents for printing. The XML tags inserted by LEXA
    provide more information about the document and can be used for
    printing, searching, and displaying a document. LEXA features many
    automated functions that provide a more efficient and consistent
    document authoring process. The LIS Project staff has worked very
    closely with the SLC and the Enrolling Clerk to create an application
    that meets the needs of legislative drafting.

    LISAP: 2008
        Early in 2008, the Senate and House deployed a module developed by
    the Government Printing Office (GPO) for creating, editing, and
    printing tables in an XML document. This new table tool improves the
    process and provides another module that is common to LEXA and the
    House application.
        Also in the first quarter of 2008, Senate, House, and GPO software
    developers each upgraded their respective installations of the
    Microsoft.Net framework. This upgrade allowed GPO to substantially
    decrease the time it takes to compose large documents for printing. The
    printing component is developed and maintained by GPO and is common to
    both the Senate and House applications.
        Throughout 2008 the SLC used LEXA to create 99 percent of measures
    drafted. The SLC provided valuable feedback on new features and
    required fixes to the software. The Senate Enrolling Clerks also used
    LEXA for the bulk of their production of engrossed bills and amendments
    and enrolled measures.
        The production staff of the Appropriations Committee used LEXA to
    convert XML documents to locator when needed, and provided their
    requirements regarding using LEXA to draft appropriations committee
    prints and bills in XML. The production staff will begin using LEXA in
    2009 to prepare the bills for fiscal year 2010. The LIS Project Office
    participated in meetings with the House, GPO, Appropriations, and the
    Office of Management and Budget to work toward exchanging and round-
    tripping, or transferring back and forth, XML data among the various
    entities.
        Support for LEXA users remains an important concern. The LIS
    Project Office provides support for LEXA through the LEXA HelpLine and
    LEXA Web site. The Web site (http://legbranch.senate.gov/lis/lexa) is
    also used to distribute updates of the application to GPO and provide
    access to release notes, the reference manual, and other user aids. The
    2004 legislative branch appropriations act directed GPO to provide
    support for LEXA much as they have for XyWrite. GPO continues to work
    toward augmenting the support provided by the LIS Project Office.
        GPO maintains and supports the printing and table tool software,
    and they also develop and maintain the stylesheet that is used on LIS
    (http://www.congress.gov) and Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov) to display
    the XML bills. The LIS Project Office worked with the House and GPO in
    2008 to resolve any remaining XML tagging issues and HTML display
    issues so that the XML versions of Senate measures will be made
    available on LIS and Thomas starting with the 111th Congress. The HTML
    version produced from the XML data more closely resembles the printed
    document. This improved HTML format will eventually replace the HTML
    version currently available on the Web.

    LISAP: 2009
        The LIS Project Office will continue to work with the SLC and the
    Enrolling Clerk to refine and enhance LEXA so that all of the
    legislative measures produced by those offices will be done in XML. The
    office will also support the Appropriations Committee production staff
    as they begin producing appropriations bills in XML. The LIS Project
    staff will monitor the use of the tagging structures created for
    appropriations language to determine if they provide a sufficiently
    complete description so that appropriations bills can be created as XML
    documents. XML tags and LEXA functions will be added as needed to
    create the appropriations bills using LEXA. The LIS Project Office will
    also continue to participate in the project to exchange and round-trip
    budget and appropriations data in XML.
        The LIS Project Office will continue to work with the House, GPO,
    and the Library of Congress on projects and issues that impact the
    legislative process and data standards for exchange. These groups are
    currently participating in two projects with GPO--one to define
    requirements for replacing the Microcomp composition software and
    another to improve the content submission and exchange processes. Both
    the Senate and House will need to test and implement Vista-compatible
    versions of the XML applications.
        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, verified by
    the clerks, keyed into the respective documents, and re-verified at GPO
    before printing. An interface between this database and the electronic
    documents could exchange data mutually. 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 document type definitions 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 staff will coordinate with the Systems
    Development Services Branch 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.

                                    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; an extensive book collection on American
    politics, history, and biography; a popular collection of audio books;
    and a wide array of online resources. The library also authors content
    for three Web sites--LIS.gov, Senate.gov, and Webster, the Senate's
    intranet.
        The year 2008 brought much change to the Senate Library, with the
    retirement in February of the prior Senate Librarian, Greg Harness, and
    the arrival of Mary Cornaby, the first woman to serve as Senate
    Librarian, in April. Other changes included adoption of a new audio
    books program to help meet the needs of visually challenged patrons,
    increased statistical benchmarking, and increased focus on instruction
    and outreach. The Library's expanded use of Web technology, online
    resources, and electronic mail requests continues to meet the Senate's
    increasing demand for information.

    Notable Achievements
        Rollout of the new version of the Webster intranet in October 2008
    included extensive Library staff participation on taxonomy, indices,
    and content development, improving Web information delivery,
    functionality, and stability.
        The Senate Library increased its service statistics this year,
    serving every Senator's office and all Senate committees. The Library
    showed a 69 percent increase in the number of requests handled,
    including Web-based inquiries, from 2007.
        Focus on new and more frequent Library instructional classes
    resulted in a 23 percent increase in Library instructional offerings in
    2008.
        The new audio books program, which assists in serving patrons with
    diverse needs, proved wildly successful at bringing Senators and staff
    into the Library. All titles are checked out, and many have a waiting
    list.
        Partially as a result of the success of the audio books program,
    2008 saw a 73 percent increase in online book requests.
        An effective book stack rearrangement program will delay the need
    for new book stack space in the Russell Building for 10 years.
        An emphasis on careful negotiation or renegotiation of vendor
    contracts and purchases has already saved over $352,000 in database
    expenses over the next 4 years.
        An effort to register new library users included a 37 percent
    increase in staff accounts, a 560 percent increase in intern accounts,
    and a 155 percent increase in Senate page accounts.

    Senate Library Inquiries, Online Book Requests, and Patron Accounts
        The rise in electronic requests for materials, the availability of
    new and enhanced electronic database offerings, and the expanded
    availability of resources on the Web, combined with efficient content
    management, have all increased Library inquiries dramatically. Prior to
    the availability of Web-based information, Library inquiries totaled
    46,368. Inquiries for 2008 totaled approximately 2.5 million.

                                                SENATE LIBRARY INQUIRIES
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Web                                  Increase
                                                    ---------------------------------------               From Prior
                   Year                 Traditional                                            Total       Year (in
                                                       Webster        LIS       Senate.gov                 percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2008..............................       27,283       37,940       29,468    2,429,380    2,524,071          +69
    2007..............................       26,309       31,065       32,121    1,392,947    1,491,442           -8
    2006..............................       31,032       15,478       20,156    1,561,138    1,627,804          +90
    2005..............................       33,080       13,713       26,775      782,588      856,156          +35
    2004..............................       33,750      ( \1\ )       20,749      581,487      635,986          +61
    2003..............................       46,234      ( \1\ )       18,871      329,327      394,432     \2\ +751
    2002..............................       40,359      ( \1\ )        6,009      ( \1\ )       46,368      ( \3\ )
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NA.
    \2\ Web inquiry statistics, first available in 2003, increased the total from the previous year by 751 percent.
    \3\ Baseline.

        A 73 percent increase in online book requests for 2008 can be
    attributed not only to the successful advertising campaign for audio
    books, but also to the direct link between titles in the new books list
    and the catalog record containing the link to the online request form.
        Of the 1,432 library patrons currently registered to borrow
    materials, the breakdown by entity is as follows:

        In 2008, a drive to create library and computer accounts for
    interns, working through office managers as the responsible party,
    combined with high visibility of the new audio books program, resulted
    in higher public recognition of the Library, expansion of its client
    base, and direct contact with all committee and Senators' offices. The
    result was a 560 percent increase in intern accounts, and a 37 percent
    increase in staff accounts. Efforts to assist Senate Page School
    teachers with tours, a reserve collection, and reference assistance
    resulted in a 155 percent increase in page account registrations.

    Senate Knowledge Base
        Projects to publish authoritative, standardized Senate data sources
    for multipurpose use continue to be a Library priority. Such projects
    ensure the accurate and timely dissemination of Senate information. The
    Senate knowledge base is an institutional repository for data to
    support these projects: the newly-modernized Webster site, the Senate
    Library site on Webster, and a senator biography database.

    Webster Modernization
        A greatly enhanced version of Webster (webster.senate.gov), the
    Senate's intranet, was launched in September. The launch was a
    culmination of a multi-year collaborative effort of Webster's four
    stakeholders--the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms, the
    Senate Chaplain, and the Committee on Rules and Administration. The
    Senate Library and the Web Technology department represent the
    Secretary on the Webster Advisory Group (WAG), which oversees site
    management.
        Since its debut in 1995, Webster has been the most-visited site for
    Senate staff seeking information about internal operations, support
    services, and employee benefits. The large-scale redesign initiative,
    launched last fall by the WAG, was intended to help staff easily
    navigate the ever-expanding volume of online information and to locate
    the resources staff need to do their jobs.
        Usage statistics for the five taxonomy-based indexes total 276,129
    for 3 months, indicating that this new resource is well-used by staff.

                 WEBSTER TAXONOMY USAGE STATISTICS, OCT-DEC 2008
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Taxonomy                              Usage
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Services...................................................       81,376
    Leadership.................................................       27,896
    Legislative................................................       55,655
    News & Research............................................       55,574
    About the Senate...........................................       55,628
                                                                ------------
          Total Taxonomy Usage.................................      276,129
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The improved Webster-enterprise search functionality is popular
    with staff; there have been 30,114 searches since the redesign
    launched. Library staff help improve search results by analyzing
    monthly statistics and matching popular search terms with pages. During
    the new site's first 3 months, 315 ``keymatches'' were established. To
    date, 845 document records and 1,120 term records in the Senate
    knowledge base are supporting the Webster search and taxonomy projects

    Floor Schedule
        Repurposing of authoritative, standardized and timely Senate floor
    schedule data expanded this year, helping to make Senate operations
    more efficient. Floor schedule information is the key component of the
    new Senate intranet and is being used to keep Capitol Visitor Center
    information kiosks up-to-date. Plans to distribute floor schedule data
    in a format that can be displayed on Senate BlackBerry devices are in
    the exploration phase. Floor schedule data are published in XML by the
    Library after each Senate meeting adjourns.

    Senate Library Webster Site
        Management of the Senate Library Webster site was transitioned to a
    content management system (CMS) in December, significantly improving
    efficiencies in publishing and editing timely information for Senate
    staff. CMS-published data can also be repurposed for Senate.gov,
    further economizing staff time and labor. The Senate Library site on
    Webster is a research service and information portal for Senate staff.
    The Library's site design team began redesign of the user interface of
    the site in December and is expected to finish in 2009. The team
    continues to identify technology tools that will make delivery services
    and information to Senate staff more timely and efficient.

    Senator Biography Database
        The Senate knowledge base currently contains biographical data
    records for the more than 1,900 people who have served as Senators.
    Increased uploading of data records and a refinement/redesign of the
    knowledge base for this purpose will continue in 2009.

    Instruction and Professional Outreach
        In order to target the needs of Senate staff, the Library now
    offers two new classes in addition to a renamed class (Beyond Google).
    Increasing the number of sessions taught allowed the librarians to
    teach to smaller groups, increasing interaction and retention.

                             SENATE LIBRARY CLASSES
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Subject                        Students   Classes
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Insider's Guide to Webster........................         10          5
    LIS Savvy.........................................        190         32
    Research Tips and Tricks..........................        103         15
    Beyond Google.....................................         20          4
    Services of the Senate Library and Got Questions          459         20
     Tours............................................
                                                       ---------------------
          Totals......................................        782         76
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The number of classes taught and the number of sessions taught
    rose; specifically, there was a 23 percent increase in 2008 in Library
    educational offerings and a slight increase (2 percent) in Senate staff
    trained in 2008.

                                         SENATE LIBRARY CLASSES BY CALENDAR YEAR
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Increase                  Increase
                                                                   Attendees    From Prior    Classes     From Prior
                                Year                                 Total       Year (in      Total       Year (in
                                                                                 percent)                  percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2008........................................................          782            2           79           23
    2007........................................................          770           49           64            7
    2006........................................................          518           25           60          114
    2005........................................................          416      ( \1\ )           28      ( \1\ )
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Baseline.

        In addition, the Library staff gave tours of the Senate Library to
    Senate groups and to outside library professionals. These tours ranged
    from an introduction to each semester's Senate Page School class to
    hosting parliamentary librarians from Germany and the Netherlands. The
    Library also participated in the Senate Services Fair and in giving
    tours for National Library Week. The Library continued its
    participation in the Federal Library Institute, which introduces
    interested library school graduate students to federal libraries,
    resources, and career opportunities.

    Collection Development
                Audio Books Program
        The Library's Acquisitions Committee and the Technical Services
    Department worked collaboratively to create and maintain a new service
    to the Senate Community in the Library's adoption of an audio books
    lending program. Designed to assist users with diverse needs, including
    those who may be visually challenged, as well as to draw patrons into
    the library, the program proved popular in its first year. Of the 55
    titles acquired in 2008, most were checked out multiple times, with
    audio book titles accounting for 50 percent of the holds on the wait
    list, even though they account for less than one percent of the
    collection.
                New Digital Resources
        The Library provides a number of digital resources to the Senate.
    In an effort to reduce purchase and subscription costs, the Library
    acquired, with considerable negotiation, the U.S. Congressional
    Retrospective Hearings from Lexis-Nexis and the Gale Nineteenth Century
    Newspapers database. The Library also negotiated a reduced price
    subscription to the Oxford English Dictionary, for a total savings of
    $352,000 over the next 4 years. These resources provide staff with
    desktop access to two centuries of important legislative documents. In
    addition, the Gale e-book Countries of the World and, after many
    committee staff requests, the journal Health Affairs, are also
    available to the Senate community.
                Expansion of Special Collections
        Summer interns reviewed and collated all versions of every House
    and Senate bill and resolution from the 109th Congress. The project
    resulted in the addition of 188 new bill volumes to the collection and
    identification and mounting of missing full-text documents on GPO
    Access for use in LIS and Thomas.
        As a participant in the Government Printing Office's (GPO) Federal
    Depository Library Program (FDLP), the Library receives selected
    categories of legislative, executive, and judicial branch publications.
    The Library received 11,231 government publications in 2008, the
    majority of which were received through the FDLP. In response to the
    trend of issuing government documents in electronic format, 3,184 links
    were added to the library catalog, bringing the total to more than
    25,976. The links provide Senate staff with desktop access to the full-
    text of each document.
        Library staff scanned and created archival print and digital copies
    of Senate Rules for the years 1820, 1849, 1877, 1882, and 1890. These
    were cataloged and bound for the Library's permanent collection with
    links to the digital copies.

                                  ACQUISITIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Category                              Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congressional Documents....................................        8,234
    Executive Branch Publications..............................        2,997
    Books......................................................          901
    Electronic Links...........................................        3,184
                                                                ------------
          Total Acquisitions...................................       15,316
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cataloging
        The Library's cataloging staff draws on years of experience to
    produce and maintain a catalog of more than 200,000 bibliographic
    items. During 2008, 7,596 new titles were added to the catalog, a 14
    percent increase in cataloging over the prior year. The catalog is
    updated nightly to ensure that Senate staff will retrieve accurate and
    current information on Library holdings. The addition of book jacket
    images for the new titles enhanced visual appeal and utility.
        A project to review nomination hearings from the 103rd-105th
    Congress in order to enhance existing catalog records with the addition
    of name subject headings for all nominees was completed.
        Catalogers created 633 bibliographic records for Senate hearings
    not yet printed from information in the Congressional Record Daily
    Digest and the combined hearings schedule on Webster. These records
    remain in the catalog until the printed hearing is received and
    cataloged.
        General topical retrieval for the audio book collection was
    enhanced with the addition of genre headings, including biographical
    fiction, legal stories, historical fiction, mystery fiction, political
    fiction, and war stories. These headings were also retrospectively
    applied to catalog records for titles in the print fiction collection.
        Catalogers also completed a project to improve the information
    organization, access, and retrieval of library material regarding the
    offices under the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms.
    Catalogers created and implemented specific classification schemes
    based upon Library of Congress (LC) classification schedules, creating
    specific classification numbers for each of the distinct offices. The
    need for greater specificity in classification reflects the depth of
    the library's collection, which was unanticipated by LC classification.

    Library Automation
        Support was provided to the Senate knowledge base project by
    working with the Secretary of the Senate Information Systems office to
    configure and install a server for the software underlying the
    knowledge base. The Library's Head of Technical Services worked with
    the system vendor and the Office of Web Technology to install and test
    the database server, update database files, edit Web files, and test
    the data transfer function to the content management system and
    Webster.
        The Library assumed management of a proxy server to manage computer
    accounts for the library patron computer workstations from the
    Secretary of the Senate Office of Information Systems. Local management
    of the accounts allows the Library to maintain the information more
    efficiently.

    Preservation, Binding and Collection Maintenance
        Technical Services staff and summer interns boxed a large portion
    of the library's books collection for transfer to the Library's space
    at the Senate Support Facility (SSF), as well as reshelving material in
    climate-controlled storage. Once additional shifting is completed, this
    effort will yield 10 years of growth storage space in the Russell
    Building book stacks.
        Discovery of a mold bloom in the Library's book stacks, a flood
    from a malfunctioning HVAC pump, and two substantial leaks from
    overhead plumbing all highlighted the vulnerability of the Library's
    collections in the Russell Building. The Technical Services staff and
    the AOC provided a quick response in working together to balance
    existing environmental monitoring systems. The AOC also made
    modifications to the HVAC system to regulate temperature and relative
    humidity in the book stacks.
        Technical Services staff continued to participate in book repair
    training sessions led by the Director of the Office of Conservation and
    Preservation. Trainees repaired 153 historic volumes, an increase of
    425 percent from 2007, making significant progress in the preservation
    of the Library's bound book collection.
        An archival flat file map storage cabinet was purchased for
    installation at the SSF. As a result, for the first time, the Library
    can preserve and store properly flat maps from the United States
    Congressional Serial Set.

    Budget
        In addition to the substantial savings in the purchasing of new
    databases, budget savings from cancellation of subscriptions in 2008
    totaled $4,225; and, after 11 years of budget monitoring, the amount of
    total savings is $81,076.86. This continual review of purchases
    eliminates materials that do not meet the Senate's current information
    needs. This oversight is also critical in offsetting cost increases for
    core materials and in acquiring new materials.

    Special Projects
                Unum, Newsletter of the Office of the Secretary of the
                        Senate
        Unum, the Secretary's quarterly newsletter, has been produced by
    Senate Library staff since October 1997. It serves as an historical
    record of accomplishments, events, and personnel in the Office of the
    Secretary of the Senate. The newsletter is distributed throughout the
    Senate, and to former staff and Senators. Highlights from the 2008 Unum
    issues include articles on the greening of Secretary's offices and
    emergency preparedness; new online resources such as the Chicago Manual
    of Style and the revamped Webster Web site; new publications produced
    by Secretary offices, such as the President Pro Tem book by the
    Historical Office; annotated bibliographies of books and audio books in
    the Senate Library; leadership portrait unveilings; and reaccreditation
    of the Page School.
                Exhibitions
        In November 2008, the Library created an imaginative display on
    presidential campaigns, including books, campaign buttons from past
    presidential campaigns, and a multimedia PowerPoint presentation of
    photographs, drawings, and new articles from past campaigns.
                National Library Week
        The National Library Week events were well-attended, with 205
    people attending the opening dessert reception, nearly doubling the
    prior year's participation. The talk by James L. Swanson on his book,
    Manhunt, drew 125 attendees, the largest group ever.

    Cooperative Projects
        Library staff completed a pilot project to enter House and Senate
    report titles for the 110th Congress into the Library of Congress's LIS
    system. This project, begun in July 2008 at the request of LIS staff,
    contributed 361 report titles to the database. This project will be
    continued for the 111th Congress.
        Working in cooperation with the Senate Historical Office and the
    Curator's office, Library staff digitized 221 Senate seating charts to
    enhance historical information about the Senate chamber on Senate.gov,
    the Senate's public Web site.
        Library staff worked with LIS staff to test modifications to the
    data management system (DMS) for the entry of multi-part hearing
    numbers. The update was intended to standardize the treatment of part
    numbers and to provide better automated URL link matching.
        In 2008, Library staff made significant contributions to the
    celebration planned for the Russell Building Centennial in 2009. Work
    has been completed in logo design and bookmark design, and significant
    progress has been made on the Library's four display cases.
    Informational displays are planned to highlight the Caucus Room, the
    Russell building's architectural features, a historical chronology of
    events that have taken place in the building, and a look back at office
    life in the oldest Senate Office Building. There was also a special
    issue of Unum to celebrate the Russell Building's centennial.
        On a weekly basis, hearing URL data from the Library catalog is
    exported in order to provide LIS and Thomas with full-text links to
    Senate hearings for the 110th Congress. The Senate Library contributed
    428 new Senate hearing links to the LIS database during 2008.
        The Library's head of Technical Services worked with Joint
    Committee on Taxation staff on a small pilot project to supply
    bibliographic records for a set of committee documents submitted for
    scanning at the Federal Scanning Center at the Library of Congress. The
    scanning center will extract the data needed to enhance retrieval of
    the scanned documents on its public digital archive site.

    Major Library Goals for 2009
        Completing the Library's contribution to Webster other than
    maintenance contributions; enlarging the data store and bringing the
    Senators' biography portion of the Senate knowledge base to a wider
    Senate audience; and upgrading the Senate Library Webster page.
        Assuming co-direction of the Senate Information Services Program in
    preparation for transition to full direction at the end of 2010.
        Developing online courses and research and reference guides for
    Senators' state office staff.
        Offering a program of in-house training courses for library staff.
        Outreach to all new senators and their staffs in 2009.

                                                       SENATE LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Books         Government Documents          Congressional Publications
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                         Reports/    Total
                                                            Ordered    Received    Paper      Fiche     Hearings    Prints     Bylaw       Docs
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January..............................................         25         51        150         68        298         18         62        304        951
    February.............................................         10         57        217         33        375         14         89        420      1,205
    March................................................         29         84        197         77        289         11        102        309      1,069
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          1st Quarter....................................         64        192        564        178        962         43        253      1,033      3,225
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    April................................................         27         56        199         62        306         13         79        322      1,037
    May..................................................         16         56        158         74        267         15         68        391      1,029
    June.................................................         36         99        141         58        280         12         56        370      1,016
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          2nd Quarter....................................         79        211        498        194        853         40        203      1,083      3,082
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    July.................................................         17         50        168         89        309         12         66        337      1,031
    August...............................................         22         56        178         69        287         11         82        367      1,050
    September............................................        101         66        116         11        286          4         85        265        833
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          3rd Quarter....................................        140        172        462        169        882         27        233        969      2,914
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    October..............................................         21         91        161         93        433          7         53        336      1,174
    November.............................................         23        115        128         99        263          3         41         83        732
    December.............................................          4        120        387         64        238          9         46        141      1,005
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          4th Quarter....................................         48        326        676        256        934         19        140        560      2,911
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    2008 Total...........................................        331        901      2,200        797      3,631        129        829      3,645     12,132
    2007 Total...........................................        306        822      2,734      1,433      9,396        576        967      3,797     19,725
                                                          ==================================================================================================
    Percent Change.......................................      +8.17      +9.61     -19.53     -44.38     -61.36     -77.60     -14.27      -4.00     -38.49
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                   SENATE LIBRARY CATALOGING STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Bibliographic Records Cataloged
                                        S.               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Hearing     Report           Books               Government Documents           Congressional Publications      Total
                                     Numbers     Titles  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Records
                                     Added to   Added to                                                                                  Docs./   Cataloged
                                       LIS        LIS       Paper     Audio/E-    Paper      Fiche    Electronic   Hearings    Prints     Pubs./
                                                                       Books                                                             Reports
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January.......................         30  .........         20  .........          7          1          14        439          1         10        492
    February......................         79  .........         30          3         16  .........          24        489  .........          7        569
    March.........................         30  .........         26  .........         20          6          15        405          2         11        485
                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          1st Quarter.............        139  .........         76          3         43          7          53      1,333          3         28      1,546
                                   =========================================================================================================================
    April.........................          3  .........         97          2         29  .........          17        666          4          2        817
    May...........................          3  .........         26  .........         16  .........           9        611         12         16        690
    June..........................         43  .........         22          1          2  .........          19        488         14          8        554
                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          2nd Quarter.............         49  .........        145          3         47  .........          45      1,765         30         26      2,061
                                   =========================================================================================================================
    July..........................          9         57         20          1          8  .........          24        677          7          8        745
    August........................         15         84         34         18         13  .........          20        468          4          8        565
    September.....................         22         79         31         11         16          2           7        604          4         44        719
                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          3rd Quarter.............         46        220         85         30         37          2          51      1,749         15         60      2,029
                                   =========================================================================================================================
    October.......................         12        119         48         26          4          3          24        497          2         40        644
    November......................          5  .........        123          1         15          2           9        464          5  .........        619
    December......................         20         22        114          1          9  .........          32        524          1         16        697
                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          4th Quarter.............         37        141        285         28         28          5          65      1,485          8         56      1,960
                                   =========================================================================================================================
    2008 Total....................        271        361        591         64        155         14         214      6,332         56        170      7,596
    2007 Total....................        687  .........        451  .........         84         57         267      5,580         74        136      6,649
                                   =========================================================================================================================
    Percent Change................     -60.55  .........     +31.04  .........     +84.52     -75.44      -19.85     +13.48     -24.32     +25.00     +14.24
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 SENATE LIBRARY DOCUMENT DELIVERY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Micrographics  Photocopiers
                                                       Volumes    Materials  Facsimiles   Center Pages      Pages
                                                       Loaned     Delivered                 Printed        Printed
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January........................................         167         289          22           256         5,969
    February.......................................         333         335          31           810         7,209
    March..........................................         378         371          32           246         7,665
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
          1st Quarter..............................         878         995          85         1,312        20,843
                                                    ================================================================
    April..........................................         518         445          24           417         5,873
    May............................................         309         260          27           315         8,048
    June...........................................         303         291          27            49         8,362
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
          2nd Quarter..............................       1,130         996          78           781        22,283
                                                    ================================================================
    July...........................................         308         294          30           301        22,415
    August.........................................         322         208  ..........            58         5,900
    September......................................         466         175           9           117         9,517
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
          3rd Quarter..............................       1,096         677          39           476        37,832
                                                    ================================================================
    October........................................         463         260          18           610         9,941
    November.......................................         411         232          21           130         4,667
    December.......................................         359         245          17           204         4,700
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
          4th Quarter..............................       1,233         737          56           944        19,308
                                                    ================================================================
    2008 Total.....................................       4,337       3,405         258         3,513       100,266
    2007 Total.....................................       2,547       3,319         416         2,926       101,533
                                                    ================================================================
    Percent Change.................................      +70.28       +2.59      -37.98        +20.06         -1.25
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  PAGE SCHOOL

        The United States Senate Page School provides students with an
    academically and experientially sound program, within the limits of the
    constraints imposed by their work for the Senate, during their stay in
    the nation's capital. The Page School also strives to provide a smooth
    transition from and to the students' home schools,

    Summary of Accomplishments
        Accreditation by the Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools
    continues through April, 2013.
        Two page classes successfully completed their semester curriculum.
    Closing ceremonies were conducted on June 6, 2008, and January 23,
    2009, the last day of school for each semester.
        Orientation and course scheduling for the Spring 2008 and Fall 2008
    pages were successfully completed. The semester schedules were
    determined by the needs of incoming students.
        Each semester, faculty administered an English Usage pre- and post-
    test to students and reviewed the results to determine what usage
    instruction or remediation was needed.
        Faculty and staff provided extended educational experiences to
    pages, including twenty-four field trips, seven guest speakers,
    opportunities to play musical instruments and vocalize, and foreign
    language study with the aid of tutors. As an extension of the page
    experience, eight field trips to educational sites were provided for
    summer pages. National tests were administered for qualification in
    scholarship programs as well.
        The community service project embraced by pages and staff in 2002
    continues. Students, staff and faculty collected items for gift
    packages, which were assembled and shipped to military personnel in
    Afghanistan and Iraq. Pages included letters of support for the troops.
        Historical Power Point Presentations from Colonization to Present
    was purchased for use in U.S. History classes.
        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, and staff
    continues certification in CPR/AED procedures.
        In May 2008, 16 Senate pages took Advanced Placement tests in 7
    subjects. There were 27 pages in the Spring 2008 page class.

    Summary of Plans
        Goals include:
      --Teachers will continue to offer individualized small group
            instruction and tutoring on an as-needed basis.
      --Foreign language tutors will provide assistance to students.
      --The focus of field trips will be sites of historic, political, and
            scientific importance which complement the curriculum.
      --An English Usage pre- and post-test will be administered to
            students each semester to assist faculty in determining needs
            of students for usage instruction.
      --Staff development options include attendance at seminars conducted
            by Education and Training and subject matter and/or educational
            issue conferences conducted by national organizations.
      --The community service project will continue.

                         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, Chapter 7 (Congressional Printing and Binding) of the
    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 2008, OPDS prepared 3,970 requisitions
    authorizing GPO to print and bind the Senate's work, exclusive of
    legislation and the Congressional Record. Because the requisitioning
    done by OPDS is central to the Senate's printing, the office is
    uniquely suited to perform invoice and bid-reviewing responsibilities
    for Senate printing. As a result of this office's cost accounting
    duties, OPDS is able to review and ensure accurate GPO invoicing, as
    well as play an active role in helping to provide the best possible
    bidding scenario for Senate publications.
        In addition to processing requisitions, the Printing Services
    Section coordinates proof handling, job scheduling and tracking for
    stationery products, Senate hearings, Senate publications and other
    miscellaneous printed products. The Printing Services Section also
    monitors blank paper and stationery quotas for each Senate office and
    committee. OPDS coordinates a number of publications for other Senate
    offices, such as the Curator, Historian, Disbursing, Legislative Clerk,
    and Senate Library, as well as the U.S. Botanic Garden, U.S. Capitol
    Police, Architect of the Capitol, and the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center.
    These tasks include providing guidance for design, paper selection,
    print specifications, monitoring print quality and distribution. Last
    year's major printing projects included:
      --Semi-Annual Report of the Secretary of the Senate
      --Tributes to Retiring Senators
      --U.S. Senate Leadership Portrait Collection brochure
      --U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee brochure
      --U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee brochure
      --U.S. Senate Republican Leader's and Democratic Leader's Suite
            brochures
      --Senate Chamber 150th Anniversary brochure
      --Russell Building Centennial and building furniture brochures
      --Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper brochures
      --Capitol Visitor Center tour tickets and informational brochures
      --2009 Inaugural Ceremony materials
                Hearing Billing Verification
        Senate committees often use outside reporting companies to
    transcribe their hearings, both in-house and in the field. OPDS
    processes billing verifications for these transcription services,
    ensuring that costs billed to the Senate are accurate. OPDS utilizes a
    program developed in conjunction with the Sergeant at Arms Computer
    Division that provides improved billing accuracy and greater
    information gathering capacity, adhering to the guidelines established
    by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration for commercial
    reporting companies to bill the Senate for transcription services.
    During 2008, OPDS provided commercial reporting companies and
    corresponding Senate committees a total of 855 billing verifications of
    Senate hearings and business meetings. Over 63,000 transcribed pages
    were processed at a total billing cost of $408,467.
        The software program used to process the hearing verifications
    required by the Senate Disbursing Office to pay vendors for
    transcription services was completely updated in 2008. OPDS worked with
    the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to draft updated
    regulations governing the production and reimbursement of transcripts
    in order to provide greater flexibility to the particular needs of
    different committees. In addition, input was solicited from vendors and
    committee clerks to ensure consideration of current transcription
    practices and costs. The new software program has been fully tested by
    all current Senate transcription vendors and is now fully implemented.
        The office continued to process all file transfers and billing
    verifications among committees and report companies electronically,
    which ensures efficiency and accuracy. Department staff continues to
    train in today's expanding digital technology in order to improve
    performance and services.
                Secretary of the Senate Service Center
        The Service Center is staffed by experienced GPO detailees who
    provide Senate committees and the Secretary of the Senate's office with
    complete publishing services for hearings, committee prints, and the
    Congressional Record. These services include keyboarding, proofreading,
    scanning, and composition. This allows committees to decrease or
    eliminate additional overtime costs associated with the preparation of
    hearings, thus improving the management of Congressional Printing and
    Binding Appropriation funds. Additionally, the Service Center provides
    work for GPO detailees assigned to legislative offices during Senate
    recesses.

    Document Services
        The Document Services Section coordinates requests for printed
    legislation and miscellaneous publications with other departments
    within the Secretary's office, Senate committees, and 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 is one of the many printed documents provided by
    the office on a daily basis. Additionally, the office processed and
    distributed 7,450 distinct legislative items during the second session
    of the 110th Congress, including Senate and House bills, resolutions,
    committee and conference reports, executive documents, and public laws.
        The demand for online access to legislative information continues
    to be strong. Before Senate legislation can be posted online, it must
    be received in the Senate through OPDS. An improved database allows the
    office to report the receipt of all legislative bills and resolutions
    received in the Senate. These bills and resolutions are then made
    available on Web sites such as the Legislative Information System (LIS)
    and Thomas, which are used by Congressional staff and the public.
                Customer Service
        The primary responsibility of OPDS is to provide services to the
    Senate. During 2008, more than 15,000 requests for legislative material
    were received at the walk-in counter, through the mail, by fax, and
    electronically. Online ordering of legislative documents and the
    Legislative Hot List Link, where Members and staff can confirm arrival
    of printed copies of the most sought-after legislative documents,
    continued to be popular. The site is updated several times daily as new
    documents arrive to the Document Room from GPO. In addition, the office
    handled thousands of phone calls pertaining to the Senate's official
    printing, document requests and legislative questions. Recorded
    messages, fax, and e-mail operate around the clock and are processed as
    they are received, as are mail requests. The office stresses prompt and
    courteous customer service while providing accurate answers to Senate
    and public requests.
                On-Demand Publication
        The office supplements depleted legislation where needed by
    producing additional copies in the DocuTech Service Center. The
    DocuTech is staffed by experienced GPO detailees who provide Member
    offices and Senate committees with on-demand printing and binding of
    bills and reports. On-demand publication allows the department to cut
    the quantities of documents printed directly from GPO, thereby reducing
    waste. The DocuTech is networked with GPO, allowing print files to be
    sent back and forth electronically. This allows OPDS to print necessary
    legislation for the Senate floor and other offices in the event of a
    GPO continuity of operations (COOP) situation.
                Accomplishments and Future Goals
        Over the past year, OPDS has continued to provide new services for
    customers and improve existing ones. The office is committed to help
    ``green'' the Senate. The office has made improved quality 100 percent
    recycled copier and letterhead paper available to all Senate offices,
    and orders for those products have increased tenfold over the previous
    year. The office works diligently to track document requirements by
    monitoring print quantities and reducing waste and associated costs.
    The office continues to use the electronic proofing procedures that
    were implemented in 2006; over four hundred new and revised print jobs
    were routed electronically for customer approval, improving turnaround
    time and efficiency. Additionally, blank paper orders, now transmitted
    electronically to GPO as they are processed, save time and move toward
    the office's goal of paperless ordering.
        The office's future goals include working with GPO to improve
    efficiency and help answer the evolving needs of the Senate, as well as
    developing online ordering of all stationery products for Senate
    offices. The office will continue to focus on COOP and its emergency
    preparedness. OPDS staff continue to seek new ways to use technology to
    assist Members and staff by adding services and improving access to
    information.

                                 PUBLIC RECORDS

        The Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains
    records, reports, and other documents filed with the Secretary of the
    Senate that involve the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended; the
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended; 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 publication of
    these documents. From October 2007 through September 2008, the Public
    Records office staff assisted more than 2,300 individuals seeking
    information from reports filed with the office. This figure does not
    include assistance provided by telephone, nor help given to lobbyists
    attempting to comply with the provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act
    of 1995. A total of 125,160 photocopies were sold in the period. In
    addition, the office works closely with the Federal Election
    Commission, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, and the Clerk of the
    U.S. House of Representatives concerning the filing requirements of the
    aforementioned Acts and Senate rules.
                Fiscal Year 2008 Accomplishments
        The office implemented major parts of S. 1, the Honest Leadership
    and Open Government Act (HLOGA), which amended the Lobbying Disclosure
    Act of 1995 and the Senate Code of Conduct. The work entailed updating
    the written guidance for the lobbying community and posting two
    versions of four new public databases.
                Plans for Fiscal Year 2009
        The Public Records office is working with the staff of the Clerk of
    the House of Representatives on updating the Lobbying Disclosure Act
    (as amended) guidance as needed, and is concentrating on compliance
    issues that have arisen as a result of HLOGA.
                Automation Activities
        During fiscal year 2008, the Senate Office of Public Records worked
    with the Sergeant at Arms to design a new lobbying database, new public
    query programs for Senate.gov, and a new page design for Senate.gov.
                Federal Election Campaign Act, as Amended
        The Act requires Senate candidates to file quarterly and pre- and
    post-election reports. Filings totaled 4,232 documents containing
    253,527 pages.
                Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
        The Act requires semi-annual financial and lobbying activity
    reports. As of September 30, 2008, there were 5,073 registrants
    representing 19,799 clients. The total number of individual lobbyists
    disclosed on 2008 registrations and reports was 14,247. The total
    number of lobbying registrations and reports processed was 89,738.
                Public Financial Disclosure
        The filing date for Public Financial Disclosure Reports was May 15,
    2008. The reports were made available to the public and press by
    Friday, June 13, 2008. Public Records staff provided copies to the
    Select Committee on Ethics and the appropriate state officials. A total
    of 3,885 reports and amendments were filed containing 23,321 pages.
    There were 383 requests to review or receive copies of the documents.
                Senate Rule 35 (Gift Rule)
        The Senate Office of Public Records received 301 reports during
    fiscal year 2008.
                Registration of Mass Mailing
        Senators are required to file mass mailings on a quarterly basis.
    The number of pages was 625.

                                STATIONERY ROOM

        The mission of the Keeper of Stationery is to:
      --Sell stationery items for use by Senate offices and other
            authorized legislative organizations;
      --Select a variety of stationery items to meet the needs of the
            Senate community on a day-to-day basis and maintain a
            sufficient inventory of these items;
      --Purchase supplies utilizing open market procurement, competitive
            bid and/or GSA Federal Supply Schedules;
      --Maintain product supply and order capability during Continuity of
            Operation incidents;
      --Maintain individual official stationery expense accounts for
            Senators, Committees and Officers of the Senate;
      --Render monthly expense statements;
      --Ensure receipt of reimbursements for all purchases by the client
            base through direct payments or through the certification
            process;
      --Make payments to all vendors of record for supplies and services in
            a timely manner and certify receipt of all supplies and
            services; and
      --Provide delivery of all purchased supplies to the requesting
            offices.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                                   2008            2007
                                                Statistics      Statistics
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gross Sales.............................      $4,547,290      $5,456,125
    Sales Transactions......................          41,704          45,608
    Purchase Orders Issued..................           6,224           7,356
    Vouchers Processed......................           6,832           8,078
    Office Deliveries.......................           6,985           7,305
    Number of Items Delivered...............         160,538         153,813
    Number of Items Sold....................         503,238         587,529
    Cartons Received at SSF.................          19,637          31,678
    Mass Transit Media Sold.................          70,766          91,569
        $20.00..............................          54,905          75,922
        $10.00..............................           8,781           6,955
        $5.00...............................           7,080           8,692
    Public Transportation Users.............           2,006           1,763
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fiscal Year 2008 Highlights and Projects
                Computer Modernization Upgrades
        The Stationery Room began fiscal year 2008 preparing for major
    application upgrades to its Microsoft Business Dynamics Retail
    Management System and Great Plains accounting application software.
    These upgrades involved the installation and configuration of new
    workstations and server hardware, along with upgrades to the Microsoft
    Sequel database engine. Project and implementation planning were
    paramount in making this process smooth and transparent. The upgrade
    process began in mid-July and concluded on October 23, 2008 after
    successful system acceptance and testing.
                Recycling Initiatives
        The Stationery Room continues to monitor the marketplace for office
    products that are suitable, sustainable and environmentally friendly in
    order to promote recycling programs. In conjunction with the Senate
    Superintendent, the Stationery Room launched a battery recycling
    program approximately 2 years ago. Since that time, approximately 70
    gallons of battery product have been captured and recycled through the
    Superintendent's recycling sources.
        The Stationery Room also continues to promote the Senate
    Superintendent's recycling program for safe disposition of printer, fax
    and copier cartridges. This effort was initiated to eliminate the
    disposal of these materials in landfills. Users are encouraged to drop
    these materials off at the Superintendent's drop-off site in the
    Dirksen Building.

    Senate Support Facility (SSF)
        The facility continues to be a major asset for Stationery Room
    operations. During fiscal year 2008, the Senate Sergeant at Arms
    Central Operations Division transported 19,637 cartons of product from
    the U.S. Capitol Police screening facility to the SSF for processing
    and distribution to the Senate campus. This process has virtually
    eliminated most commercial vehicular traffic coming to the Senate
    campus in support of Stationery Room operations. The Senate Sergeant at
    Arms' (SAA) Central Operations Division is to be commended for the
    support and ``team effort'' they provide to the Stationery Room
    operation in meeting its responsibilities to the Senate community.
                Public Transit Subsidy Program
        As reported last fiscal year, the Washington Metropolitan Transit
    Authority (WMATA) announced that they would be discontinuing the
    Metrochek paper media at the end of 2008 and transitioning agencies to
    the SmartBenefit SmarTrip Card. In order to facilitate this process,
    the Stationery Room, in coordination with WMATA and the Senate
    Committee on Rules and Administration, held four workshops to
    demonstrate self-program management tools in order for participating
    offices of the Public Transportation Subsidy Program to continue
    offering the subsidy in an accountable electronic format.

                                 WEB TECHNOLOGY

        The Department of Web Technology is responsible for the Web sites
    that fall under the purview of the Secretary of the Senate:
      --the Senate Web site (Senate.gov)--available to the world;
      --the Secretary's internal Web site (Webster.senate.gov/secretary)--
            covering functions of the office, available to the Senate
            Staff;
      --the central portion of Senate intranet (Webster.senate.gov)--
            available to the Senate Staff; and
      --the Senate Legislative Branch Web site (Legbranch.senate.gov)--
            available to the Senate, House of Representatives, Library of
            Congress, Architect of the Capitol, Government Accountability
            Office, Government Printing Office, Congressional Budget
            Office, and U.S. Capitol Police.

    The Senate Web Site--Senate.gov

        The Senate Web site content is maintained by over 30 contributors
    from seven departments of the Secretary's office and three departments
    of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA). Content team leaders meet regularly to
    share ideas and coordinate the posting of new content. All content is
    controlled through the Secretary's Web Content Management System (CMS),
    which is managed by the Department of Web Technology.

    Major Additions to the Site in 2008
        United States Senate Expulsion and Censure Cases (http://
    www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/
    Expulsion_Censure.htm);
        Senators Who Changed Parties During Senate Service (Since 1890)
    (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/
    senators_changed_parties.htm);
        History of the Senate Chamber (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/
    history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/Senate_Chamber.htm);
        Senators Representing Third or Minor Parties (http://
    www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/
    senators_thirdParties.htm);
        Votes to Break Ties in the Senate (http://www.senate.gov/
    pagelayout/reference/four_column_table/Tie_Votes.htm);
        16 Historical Minute Essays added (http://www.senate.gov/
    pagelayout/history/b_three_sections_with_teasers/essays.htm);
        4 Oral History Interviews (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/
    history/g_three_sections_with_teasers/oralhistory.htm);
        Breaking New Ground--African American Senators (http://
    www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/
    Photo_Exhibit_African_American_Senators.htm);
        Senator Dole's and Senator Daschle's leadership portrait
    unveilings;
        13 new Virtual Index Pages; (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/
    reference/b_three_sections_with_teasers/virtual.htm);
        10 Bibliographies available internally and externally; (http://
    www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/a_three_sections_with_teasers/
    biblio.htm);
        XML data of popularly requested information (Senators' contact
    information and committee assignments); and
        Public Disclosure Online Tutorials (http://www.senate.gov/
    legislative/Public_Disclosure/Training.htm).
                Homepage Feature Articles Published
        What is All this Talk About Sessions;
        A U.S. Senate Tradition: Washington's Farewell Address;
        Recording the Senate's Debates: The Congressional Record;
        Historical Minutes: Stories about Senate History;
        Classic Senate Speeches: Great Orators of the Senate's Past;
        ``We the People'' Celebrating the Constitution;
        The Senate's President Pro Tempore; and
        The Senate Chamber: 1859-2009.
    Secretary's Web site--Webster.senate.gov/secretary

        The department launched a new intranet Web site (http://
    webster.senate.gov/secretary) covering the office of the Secretary.
    This replaced the previous site, which had existed for over a decade.
    The new site uses the CMS to maintain all content that exists on the
    site and is now in XML. The new design implements a universal banner on
    all Webster pages. For the first time, each of the Secretary's 26
    departments has a presence on the site and supplied input to meet
    specific office needs. In the next year, maintenance of the individual
    pages will be transferred to the distinct departments, as desired,
    leveraging the CMS.
    Webster Central Web site--Webster.senate.gov

        In conjunction with the SAA, Chaplain, and the Senate Committee on
    Rules and Administration, the Secretary, through the Web Technology
    Department, completed a 2-year effort to publish a new Senate Intranet,
    Webster.senate.gov (Webster). As these organizations represent the
    stakeholders that manage Webster, they enacted a formal management
    strategy, the Webster Administrative Group (WAG), to develop a mission
    statement, determine operating guidelines and enlist feedback from
    Senate staff for the site.
        Collectively, the WAG established components desired by Senate
    staff and developed solutions to deliver the information in an
    efficient and timely matter. Throughout its development, the WAG
    continually involved Senate staff in the process through exhaustive
    user testing and surveys. The newly added components are:
      --Floor Schedule.--The data for this section is derived from several
            other files already used to populate the public Web site,
            Senate.gov, and the Capitol Visitor Center museum kiosks. The
            data is updated both automatically from the Secretary's Content
            Management System (CMS), through integration with the
            Legislative Information System, and manually by Senate
            librarians.
      --Events.--A calendar display of activities of interest to staff that
            occur around the Capitol Hill Complex, such as Committee
            Hearings, training classes, and special Senate activities.
            Senate staff can now easily add and edit information to display
            on the calendar.
      --Announcements.--Revamped this component from the old site so that
            designated staff from the four stakeholders may easily create
            their own announcements and manage its display.
      --Did You Know.--A rotating section that allows all stakeholders to
            advertise services that may be of special interest.
      --Image of the Week.--Each week a piece of artwork or a photograph
            from either the Curator's office or the Historical office is
            highlighted. This content is managed through the CMS and reuses
            graphics and data posted on Senate.gov.
      --Tabs.--Assisted the Senate Library in the creation, delivery, and
            maintenance of five advanced indices organizing Senate related
            information: Services, Leadership, Legislative, News &
            Research, and About the Senate. The tabs are populated through
            XML feeds from the Montague Knowledge Base which catalogs
            relevant pages by establishing relationships to terms through a
            taxonomy and integrated through the CMS.
      --Search.--Established, built, and maintained a virtual server to
            implement the advanced features of the Google Search Appliance,
            Onebox. The new search uses information supplied from the
            Senate Library's knowledge base to assist users in quickly
            finding their desired information through the established
            taxonomy. The search is now implemented site-wide and is a vast
            improvement over the previous search. The now-established
            architecture may be expanded for additional advanced
            functionality.
      --Common Header.--Established and implemented a consistent header to
            be used across all Webster.senate.gov pages, regardless of
            stakeholder, to ensure that the focus is service-based instead
            of department-based.

    Senate Legislative Branch Web site (Legbranch.senate.gov)
        A new Legbranch server was installed, replacing obsolete hardware.
    The Department of Web Technology worked in conjunction with the SAA to
    ensure all preexisting content was transported and functional on the
    new system. Web Technology also built and maintained a simple internal
    Web site for a Capitol Hill e-mail messaging working group. In the
    upcoming year, the server will be used to share more information with
    other Capitol Hill entities.

    Accomplishments of the Office of Web Technology in 2008
        Led online Congressional Research Service (CRS) publication
    project, fulfilling a request of the Senate Committee on Rules and
    Administration to enable offices to easily publish CRS reports online
    and ensure that the reports posted are always the most current version.
    Completed the project through collaboration with CRS, the Committee on
    Rules and Administration, and Senate SAA. The CRS Publishing
    application (http://webster.senate.gov/crsapplication) is now available
    to all Senate offices and is being utilized.
        Created virtualized development server for the Secretary's intranet
    in conjunction with integration into the CMS. The processes for
    controlling content for the Secretary's intranet now mimic that of
    Senate.gov, facilitating the content authors with procedures in which
    they are well versed and increasing their ability to train others.
    Created, populated, and launched a new Secretary Intranet site in
    conjunction with all 26 departments and the Webster Administrative
    Group based on the new back-end architecture.
        Vastly expanded the functionality of the Google Search Applicance
    used for internal searching on Webster.senate.gov through taking
    advantage of Google's Onebox technology. Worked with the SAA to set up
    a virtual server to run a Onebox application used on the new Webster
    search, which can be easily expanded to incorporate more complex search
    requests. The search is now integrated with portions of the taxonomy
    maintained in the Senate Library's knowledge base.
        Worked with the Curator's Office and the Government Printing Office
    in the design of three custom sites: the Henry Clay portrait unveiling,
    Senate myths, and the Russell Senate Office Building Centennial.
        Audited the Senate.gov Web pages regularly, updating and correcting
    links; verifying content; and reviewing individual page designs
    throughout Senate.gov.
        Worked with the Curator's office to reorganize their content within
    the Art and History bucket. Instituted new information architecture for
    the artifact pages, making editing much more efficient. Designed new
    layout concepts for the Curator's office areas of focus. Built subject-
    based collection lists, initially organizing art objects by sitters,
    which will be expanded for other subject areas, all drawn from the
    Curator's maintained object database.
        Constantly monitored data feeds from the LIS/DMS system, ensuring
    content on Senate.gov was current and all processes were functioning
    properly. This is of vital importance regarding information such as
    committee hearing schedules, vote data, and member contact information.
        Worked with new Senate Offices to establish and maintain temporary
    web pages, including a picture, biographical, and contact information,
    until they are able to establish permanent Web sites.
        Conducted user testing with Senate Staff and interns to increase
    understanding of current Web site desires and best practices. User
    testing was conducted for the Curator's Senate Myths exhibit, the newly
    launched Webster Central, and the Legislative reorganization of
    Senate.gov.
        Incorporated the use of handles established by the Library of
    Congress for legislation, ensuring functional links to pieces of
    legislation regardless of changes to other systems. Handles are now
    used on the many different statistical tables maintained by the Senate
    Library, and reflect information on currently active legislation,
    cloture motions, nominations, and vetoes. Also, summary tables were
    created for the various data sets to further ensure the accuracy and
    usability of data reported.
        Created a secure custom Web site for the Senate Chief Counsel for
    Employment (SCCE) along with a separate and secure search. Also
    reviewed current security practices and options with the SAA and
    validated the current methodology for SCCE's Web site is most apt.
        Established a new system for the Senate Placement Office to post
    employment offerings online. Collaborated with the Sergeant of Arms in
    the development of a web-based application that integrates with the CMS
    and a newly created display of job postings via XML. Having the data in
    XML will allow for the integration of all job postings from the
    Secretary's Office and the SAA into one comprehensive list which may be
    sorted.
        Worked with the Office of Public Records, Secretary's Counsel, and
    the SAA to maintain and enhance newly established reporting
    requirements relating to public disclosure on Senate.gov. Also,
    collaborated with staff from the House of Representatives and the
    Senate Recording Studio to set up streaming tutorial videos in various
    formats ensuring accessibility.
        Incorporated various LIS/DMS streams to produce XML data requested
    by the Capitol Visitor Center to populate kiosks displaying member
    information. Worked with the Legislative Clerk and staff to ensure the
    correctness of this data. Worked with LIS/DMS group to transition to
    committee hearings being reported in XML and shared with the Capitol
    Visitors Center. Additionally, floor Schedule information is now
    maintained by the Senate Library in XML in order to facilitate needs of
    the Capitol Visitor Center and Webster Central.
        Established a back-up server for the CMS at the Alternate Computer
    Facility (ACF) with the SAA, vastly improving continuity of operations
    planning (COOP). The newly built server is an exact replica of the
    production system and has been thoroughly tested to serve as a real
    time replacement should the production server become inoperable.
        Participated and helped organize Capitol Hill-wide webmaster
    meetings, where best practices were shared among various entities.
    Regularly gave presentations and facilitated conversations during
    meetings.
        Worked extensively with the Senate Library in the development and
    implementation of taxonomies utilizing the Montague Knowledge Base
    system. Currently, the knowledge base is used to populate the tabs on
    the front page of Webster, allowing staff to easily find appropriate
    services and resources, regardless of the provider. Aided in data
    capturing and reporting of senator data through the knowledge base.

    Senate.gov Usage Statistics
        In 2008, over 275,000 visitors per day, on average, accessed the
    Senate Web site. Twenty-one percent of them entered through the main
    Senate homepage of the central site (http://www.senate.gov) while the
    majority came to the site through a bookmarked page (possibly directly
    from their Senator's site) or to a specific page from search results,
    consistent with previous years.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         2007-2008
                            Title of Web Page                          2007 Visits/    2008 Visits/       Percent
                                                                           Month           Month         Increase
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Visits--Entire Site.............................................       8,196,662       8,521,779               4
    Senate.gov......................................................       1,704,675       1,704,697  ..............
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Reviewing statistics on Web page usage helps the content providers
    better understand what information the public is seeking and how best
    to improve the presentation of that data. Visitors are consistently
    drawn to the following content items, listed in order of popularity.

                                               MOST VISITED PAGES IN 2008
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2007 Visits/    2008 Visits/
                                Top Pages                                  Month           Month      Percent Change
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senators Contact Information List...............................         448,301         546,847             +21
    Roll Call Votes.................................................         242,122         182,691             -25
    Committees......................................................          91,451          78,810             -14
    Legislation & Records...........................................          63,544          64,010              +1
    Votes Home......................................................          62,578          58,277              -7
    Active Legislation..............................................          36,730          37,860              +3
    Senate Leadership...............................................          18,104          19,981             +10
    Committee Hearings Scheduled....................................          18,232          16,668              -8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        By a huge margin, the most popular page on Senate.gov is the list
    of Senators with links to their Web sites and comment forms. Visitors
    also continue to be interested in legislative matters, with Roll Call
    Vote Tallies, the Active Legislation table, Committee assignments and
    schedules being particularly popular. The visits per month did decrease
    across some of the most visited pages on the site. The decrease is most
    likely attributed to the information on the pages being consumed by
    other Web sites and then being redisplayed. Additionally, some of the
    most sought information was offered in XML for the first time in 2008,
    making the consumption and dissemination faster and easier. Thus,
    although the actual visits to Senate.gov decreased on some pages, it is
    likely that more people actually utilized the information being
    provided.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Christopher J. Doby, Financial Clerk of the
                                     Senate

        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present to your
    Committee, the Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 2010.
        Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2010 budget estimates for the Senate
    have been included in the Budget of the United States Government for
    fiscal year 2010. This Budget has been developed in accordance with
    requests and proposals submitted by the various offices and functions
    of the Senate. The total budget estimates for the Senate are
    $1,015,431,000 which reflect an increase of $114,975,000 or 12.77
    percent over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2009 and does not
    reflect any adjustments to these estimates which may be presented to
    your Committee during these hearings. The total appropriations for the
    Senate for fiscal year 2009 are $900,456,000. An individual analysis of
    the budget estimates for all functions and offices has been included in
    the Senate Budget Book, previously provided to your Committee.
        The budget estimates for fiscal year 2010 are divided into three
    major categories as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Items............................................    $194,995,000
    Senate Contingent Expense Items.........................     814,245,000
    Senate Joint Items......................................       6,191,000
                                                             ---------------
          TOTAL.............................................   1,015,431,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2010 budget estimates
    reflect increases over the fiscal year 2009 enacted levels as a result
    of: (1) the anticipated 4.0 percent cost-of-living adjustment including
    locality pay for fiscal year 2010, and the annualization costs of the
    fiscal year 2009 4.78 percent cost-of-living adjustment; (2) the
    cumulative under funding of previous fiscal years in the Senators'
    Official Personnel and Office Expense Account due mainly to increases
    in population categories of various states and increases in the
    Administrative and Clerical Assistance Allowance authorized by the
    Legislative Branch Appropriations Acts 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004,
    2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009; (3) personnel adjustments, other than
    the cost-of-living; (4) increases in agency contributions applicable to
    the cost-of-living adjustments and other personnel increase requests;
    and (5) other miscellaneous and administrative expense increases.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit for the consideration of your Committee, the
    Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 2010.

                        Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

    STATEMENT OF HON. TERRY GAINER, SERGEANT AT ARMS
    ACCOMPANIED BY DREW WILLISON, DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS

        Senator Nelson. Terry.
        Mr. Gainer. Thank you, chairman and ranking member and
    members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to
    testify today.
        I have a brief statement about the progress that our office
    has made in our plans to enhance our contribution to the Senate
    in the coming year. I ask that my written statement be made
    part of the record.
        Senator Nelson. It shall be.
        Mr. Gainer. On behalf of our nearly 900 employees, I would
    like to take just a few moments to describe the breadth of
    services we provide to the Senate community. My deputy, Drew
    Willison, often describes our roles as that of city managers. I
    think he is correct.
        We provide most of the nonlegislative and nonpayroll, back-
    of-the-house services that are required to keep the Senate
    running smoothly every day. From BlackBerries and cell phones
    to parking and haircuts and ID badges and the pages, the
    Sergeant at Arms organization cuts a pretty broad path.
        My written testimony covers many of the specifics in great
    detail. I would like to provide some context very quickly here.
        Kim Winn, our chief information officer, runs our largest
    organization. All our phones, BlackBerries, computer servers,
    firewalls, and other activities related to the Senate network
    infrastructure are handled through Kim's shop.
        Esther Gordon runs central operations. Our Capitol
    facilities unit is charged with cleaning and maintaining the
    Senate wing of the Capitol, and I think it is spotless. She
    also oversees the printing, graphics, and direct mail shop that
    handles everything from your constituent newsletter to the
    posters you use during debates on the floor.
        Our customer service staff that your office managers rely
    on every day work within Esther's organization, as do the folks
    who handle your State office leases. Esther also oversees one
    of the finest cabinet shops in the country. Your Senate chair
    was handmade by these craftsmen, and the maintenance of all the
    desks and furniture on the floor are under their watchful eyes
    and hands. All the Senate surface parking lots are also run by
    Esther's team, as is the Senate hair care facility.
        Rick Edwards runs our Capitol operations organization. His
    shop includes the doorkeepers office, the Senate post office,
    the recording studio, the media galleries, and the Senate
    appointments desk. The doorkeepers not only assist with keeping
    order on the floor, they also assist the thousands of visitors
    to the galleries each year.
        The recording studio produces our floor feed, provides live
    coverage of nearly all the Senate committee and subcommittee
    hearings, and assists all 100 Members in sending your messages
    home.
        The appointments desks in the Capitol, Russell, and the CVC
    ensure that official visitors to the Capitol get where they
    need to be quickly and efficiently. The post office delivers
    millions of pieces of mail the Senate receives each year,
    screened and safe.
        The police operations, security, and emergency preparedness
    organization is under the command of Mike Heidingsfield. Mike's
    team is charged with working with the United States Capitol
    Police and others to ensure our evacuation plans work, that we
    are able to shelter in place, if necessary, and able to
    communicate with Members and their staff here or anywhere else,
    regardless of conditions.
        Mike Heidingsfield's team has led a huge effort in recent
    years to make sure that the 450 State offices, your offices,
    for all the Members and your staff are as safe as possible.
    That team is responsible for the COOP operations--continuity of
    operations, continuity of Government, and enduring
    constitutional Government, the relationship between the other
    two branches.
        Peggy Greenberg runs our joint office of education and
    training, along with the Secretary of the Senate. Her team
    provides hundreds of in-person and remote classes per year. She
    facilitates retreats and oversees a number of health
    promotions. And she mentioned with some pride, Senator Tester,
    this past summer when she visited you in Montana, getting up on
    your tractor in order to accomplish her work.
        Elizabeth Roach is the director of the page program. And
    while the Secretary of the Senate is responsible for the page
    school, Elizabeth and her staff handle logistics of housing,
    meals, and taking care of them. And yes, keeping them out of
    the kind of trouble only 16 year olds can dream up.
        Christy Prietsch facilitates our Employee Assistance
    Program and does a fantastic job of meeting the needs of our
    large and varied community.
        Pat Murphy directs our human resource shop and ensures that
    the vast majority of our positions are competed, that annual
    written performance appraisals for all are completed on time,
    and that position descriptions are updated frequently to
    reflect changes to work required and work performed. He is also
    charged with ensuring that our merit-based salary system is
    fully implemented.
        And finally and most important, Chris Dey, our chief
    financial officer (CFO). He and his team are responsible for
    our budget and contracting systems. I have worked with many
    CFOs during my career, and Chris is, without a doubt, the best
    I have encountered at keeping our books straight, managing
    contracts, insisting on competitive awards, and offering solid
    policy advice.
        So there you have it, a rather quick Senate Sergeant at
    Arms 101. As we like to say, if all of us are having a good day
    and everything is going just right, you barely notice we are
    here. To the extent that happens, it is a tribute to the hard-
    working men and women who serve this institution every day.
    They exceed the expected.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, many Capitol Hill offices
    experience pretty high turnover. It is natural and has always
    been the case. A lot of young staff coming and going from
    graduate school, campaigns, and the administration. We are very
    different. Our average tenure for nonpatronage employees is
    well over 10 years. Retirements of 20, 30, and 40 years are not
    unusual.
        We work very hard to create a workplace where someone can
    come to find challenging work, promotional opportunities, and
    the ability to build a career. The sheer scope of what we do
    helps us to ensure that we are always--there are always
    opportunities available.
        Our budget for fiscal year 2010, we respectfully request a
    total budget of $243 million, representing an increase of just
    over $23 million, or 10.5 percent over fiscal year 2009. This
    request will allow more than mere maintenance, but leads to
    improvement in the level of service we provide to you and your
    staff and your community.
        The general operations and maintenance expense budget for
    the existing and new services is $91.7 million, which is an
    increase of $8.2 million, or 9.9 percent over 2009. Major
    factors contributing to the expense budget increase are
    equipment and software maintenance costs for enterprise
    storage, professional services, software purchase, and
    technical support for information technology (IT) security and
    smartcard badges for the ID office.
        One of our information technology priorities in fiscal year
    2010 is upgrading the Secretary's payroll system. We are
    requesting contract support at the cost of $2 million and
    upgrading our data network to keep up with the ever-increasing
    demands for network-based services at a cost of $4.7 million.
        We are also requesting $5 million for the Senate recording
    studio, to upgrade committee rooms, an activity we have
    undertaken for years with end-of-year funds. But this year, we
    are requesting it in our budget.
        Our budget submission requested five new FTEs. We need the
    particular job sets. However, after discussions with your staff
    and meeting with you, Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday, I withdraw the
    request for five FTEs and will work with your staff to further
    trim our headcount through the elimination of some vacancies
    and reclassification of vacant positions.
        As you know, the Sergeant at Arms serves on the Capitol
    Police Board, this year as chairman. As the chief law
    enforcement officer of the Senate, I work closely with Chief
    Morse and his valiant team. They do a great job. I am proud to
    have served with them.
        But in that agency, there is nearly a singular point of
    failure--radio communications. The funds necessary to leap to
    the 21st century are included in the supplemental, and I
    request your support of that need and recognize that there will
    be substantial discussions about it.
        With the exception of our police operations, security, and
    emergency preparedness created after 9/11, generally the scope
    of our office has not changed significantly since 2001. But the
    depth of the responsibilities has expanded materially, and our
    information technology budget has continued to increase as we
    try to keep up with the ever-changing ability of bigger,
    better, and faster technology.
        Today, unlike a few years ago, all printing equipment is
    digital, networked, and computer controlled, improving resource
    use. We went from computer servers in closets to virtual
    servers. As more processes can be automated and managed
    electronically, we have added those applications to our
    inventory, improving customer service, management of processes,
    and enabling new services to be offered in a cost-effective
    manner.
        Our efforts are closely tied to our strategic plan in which
    we have captured performance measures that help us assess our
    work--performance measures that can identify in the areas of
    customer satisfaction, timeliness of service, employee
    satisfaction, employee personal development, and competitive
    contracts. Plans are underway for assessing performance for
    these measures in the calendar year 2010.
        I have an outstanding senior management team led by Drew
    Willison, who serves as my deputy. The Office of the Sergeant
    at Arms works closely with other organizations in the support
    of the Senate. The Secretary of the Senate, Nancy; the
    Architect of the Capitol; the Office of the Attending
    Physician; and the United States Capitol Police are partners.
    We coordinate our efforts with the House of Representatives and
    the agency's executive branch where possible.
        Finally, let me say this. The employees of the Office of
    the Sergeant at Arms are among the most committed and creative
    in Government. They are quiet, effective, and dedicated to you
    and your staffs. They spend their working life careers with us.
        And I would just like to point out one special individual,
    Mr. Chairman, that you mentioned, and that is Steve Mosley.
    Early this morning, we were notified that Steve, a 32-year
    employee of the Senate Sergeant at Arms office, died of an
    apparent heart attack.
        He spent 32 years with us. He was a wonderful husband and a
    father. I talked to his wife, Michelle, this morning, and she
    was still in shock, and the hurt was very raw. She appreciated
    the comments and well wishing from our office. But Steve was a
    friend to everybody and known throughout the Capitol. He will
    be deeply missed.
        We joked that he was a diehard Redskins fan. I don't think
    any of our meals that we have and different holiday seasons
    will ever be the same without him. And he is truly
    representative of the type of employees that I have the
    opportunity to lead. And I just wanted to affirm what you said.
    He was a wonderful man and will be a terrible loss to the
    Senate community.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you. And I will be happy to answer questions when
    appropriate.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

             Prepared Statement of the Honorable Terrance W. Gainer

                                  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 2010, the Sergeant at Arms respectfully requests a
    total budget of $243,505,000--an increase of $23,104,000 (or 10.5
    percent) over the fiscal year 2009 budget. This request will allow us
    to maintain and improve the level of service we provide to the Senate
    community. It will also fund the development and maintenance of
    business and network security applications, among other support
    services. Appendix A, accompanying this testimony, elaborates on the
    specific components of our fiscal year 2010 budget request.
        In developing this budget and our operating plans, we are guided by
    three priorities: (1) ensuring the United States Senate is as secure
    and prepared for an emergency as possible; (2) providing the Senate
    with outstanding service and support, including the enhanced use of
    technology; and (3) delivering exceptional customer service to the
    Senate.
        This year I am pleased to highlight some of this office's
    activities, to include the furtherance of our efforts towards our
    United States Senate Sergeant at Arms Strategic Plan, in which we have
    captured performance measures that help us assess our work. During the
    past fiscal year we clearly lived up to our motto: ``Exceptional Public
    Service . . . Exceeding the Expected.'' Most recently, performance
    Measures have been identified in the areas of Customer Satisfaction,
    Timeliness of Services, Employee Satisfaction, Employee Professional
    Development, and Competitive Contracts. Plans are underway for
    assessing performance for these measures in calendar 2010.
        Our accomplishments in the areas of security and preparedness,
    information technology, and operations are impressive. Recent months
    have brought great successes with the opening of the Capitol Visitor
    Center (CVC), affecting a safe January Presidential Inauguration, as
    well as ensuring a secure Presidential address to a Joint Congress. Our
    office has been involved with the CVC since its inception, and scores
    of hours were spent preparing for the operations and security of the
    Center.
        Our men and women working in IT Support Services, Technology
    Development, and Process Management & Innovation continued to improve
    our cyber security efforts by not only reducing the amount of spam and
    phishing e-mail messages, but by enhancing the reliability of core IT
    systems. They automated more of the Senate's business processes, made
    www.Senate.Gov more functional, helped implement the Honest Leadership
    and Open Government Act of 2007, and improved wireless access on
    Capitol Hill. The greening efforts of the CIO team stepped up this year
    with substantial power savings due to the implementation of the Virtual
    Machine Infrastructure and the elimination of the costly creation of
    CD-ROMs through ISO server software delivery.
        Continuing to progress, yet taking longer than we had expected, the
    telecommunications modernization project experienced some setbacks as
    the vendor had several personnel changes, replaced some of the
    originally-proposed system components, and had to rewrite design
    documents. We are very close to the end of the final engineering and
    design phase of the project and we currently are reviewing the proposed
    design to ensure it meets the Senate's needs. Once we accept the final
    design, we will begin a testing phase that will extend through this
    summer. Assuming that testing goes well, the production system will be
    installed later this year in preparation for pilot tests in offices to
    start early next year. The work that has been completed thus far has
    been under a fixed-price contract, so the cost to the Senate has not
    increased even though the effort has clearly taken longer than
    expected. We will work with the vendor to identify every opportunity to
    compress the remaining work to roll out the enhanced system as soon as
    possible.
        We had over 250,000 visitors to the Senate galleries; handled over
    100,000 official appointments; increased the ability to simultaneously
    broadcast Senate hearings from three to twelve hearings; and tested and
    delivered 10 million pieces of mail while reducing mail processing
    time, costs, and personnel. These efforts were accomplished through
    improved processes, teamwork, and the desire to improve.
        Our Employee Assistance Program (EAP) offered a variety of services
    to staff, Pages, interns, and family members. EAP expanded outreach
    programs through updated materials, the Web and Page training, and
    provider resource development. It expanded the Peer Support Team
    training functions, and is exploring additional work/life benefits for
    Senate employees, including child care and nanny locator, advocacy
    support for children with special needs, backup child care placement,
    and elder care support and referral services.
        Our Education and Training personnel introduced several online,
    self-paced training programs, provided hundreds of customized classes
    and consultations for Senate staff, and led the Senate's participation
    and certification in the mandatory Code of Conduct training. They lead
    retreats in state offices, delivered in-office Systems Administrator
    training, add certification courses, such as Web Development, and are
    deeply involved in new Senator orientation programs.
        We have several new initiatives during this next fiscal year. In
    emergency preparedness efforts, the Senate and House will participate
    in a joint Contingency Legislative Processes exercise that will test
    our ability to transfer various legislative documents between the
    House, Senate and the White House during an emergency. We also plan to
    conduct a Continuity of Government tabletop exercise that will include
    participants from the Sergeant at Arms, Secretary of the Senate, Clerk
    of the House, House Sergeant at Arms, and House Chief Administrative
    Officer organizations. Additionally, we plan to exercise our Briefing
    Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, and Leadership Coordination
    Centers within the Washington, DC area. These exercises will not only
    test the sites, but also the personnel responsible for setup and
    operation.
        Assisting with all of the efforts of the Office of the Sergeant at
    Arms is an outstanding senior management team including Drew Willison,
    who serves as my Deputy; Administrative Assistant Rick Edwards;
    Republican Liaison Mason Wiggins; General Counsel Joseph Haughey;
    Senior Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Police Operations, Security and
    Emergency Preparedness Michael Heidingsfield; Assistant Sergeant at
    Arms and Chief Information Officer Kimball Winn; Chief Financial
    Officer Christopher Dey and 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.
        The Office of the Sergeant at Arms also works with other
    organizations that support the Senate. I would like to take this
    opportunity to mention how important their contributions have been in
    helping us achieve our objectives. In particular, we work regularly
    with the Secretary of the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol, the
    Office of the Attending Physician, and the United States Capitol
    Police. When appropriate, we coordinate our efforts with the United
    States House of Representatives and the agencies of the Executive
    Branch. I am impressed by the people with whom we work, and pleased
    with the quality of the relationships we have built together.
        I am very proud of all the men and women of the Sergeant at Arms
    team who help keep the Senate running. While serving as Sergeant at
    Arms, I have seen their great work and devotion to duty. The employees
    of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms are among the most committed and
    creative in government. We are continuously building on the success
    this organization has experienced in recent years.
        None of our efforts would be accomplished, though, without the
    guidance of this Committee and the Committee on Rules and
    Administration. Thank you for the support you consistently demonstrate
    as we work to serve the Senate.

                           SECURITY AND PREPAREDNESS

              (Protecting the Senate and Planning for the Unknown)

        In our security and preparedness programs, we work collaboratively
    with organizations across Capitol Hill to secure the Senate. We also
    rely upon Senate Leadership, this Committee, and the Committee on Rules
    and Administration for guidance and support.
        The SAA Office of Police Operations, Security, and Emergency
    Preparedness (POSEP) represents the integrated plans and programs for:
      --Successful execution of law enforcement support and coordination.
      --Access credentialing of the Senate community, appropriate staff
            from other government agencies, and members of the press.
      --Security of the Senate as both an institutional body and a campus.
      --Protection of Members and staff in the District of Columbia and
            respective state offices.
      --Counterterrorism measures taken to physically guard against attack.
      --Continuous Senate operations during minor or major disruptions.
      --Necessary testing, training, and exercising in preparation for any
            catastrophic event.
        Formerly composed of the standalone Office of Security and
    Emergency Preparedness and the Office of Police Operations and Liaison,
    these offices have been re-titled and restructured as Contingency and
    Emergency Preparedness Operations (CEPO) and Law Enforcement and
    Security Operations (LESO) in an effort to merge all SAA homeland
    security efforts under a single operational umbrella. This
    restructuring was undertaken in the fall of 2008 and continues to
    mature, creating enhanced efficiency, unity, and collaborative lines of
    authority.

    Contingency and Emergency Preparedness Operations
                Emergency Notifications and Communications
        A robust number of effective notification and communications
    programs have been designed to ensure devices and systems are ready to
    support the Senate during emergencies. The Dialogic Communicator NXT
    system now functions as the primary alert and notification system
    (Senate Alerts) to provide a single interface for delivering emergency
    e-mail, PIN, and voice messages to the Senate population. Message
    templates and customized distribution lists allow quick dissemination
    of important information and a staff training package includes step-by-
    step activation procedures, visual aids, and login instructions. We
    provided support to the USCP Command Center during the Democratic and
    Republican National Conventions by configuring the Dialogic system with
    convention-specific alert and notification information.
        Monthly Senate Alerts tests for staff and biannual tests for
    Senators are conducted in coordination with the USCP, Secretary of the
    Senate, party secretaries, and other stakeholders. These tests are
    designed to ensure our emergency messaging system is reaching all
    intended recipients and are transmitted through e-mail, PIN, voice,
    annunciator, and public address systems. Other means we have developed
    for distributing emergency messaging services to the Senate community
    include the Chyron Emergency Alert System. This is a text and/or voice
    messaging service broadcast over the Senate cable television network.
    We recently upgraded the system's capacity to include new cable
    channels 37 through 60. Requirements for installing modulation
    equipment were finalized in December and modulators which will separate
    House and Senate channels and allow exclusive Senate emergency
    notification broadcasts were ordered in February; equipment delivery is
    expected to be completed in early April, and the system is forecast to
    be operable at the end of April.
                Accountability
        The ability to account for Senators and staff remains a priority in
    all emergency plans and evacuation drills. Several years ago, we
    undertook an initiative to improve procedures for offices to report
    accountability information to the USCP and the SAA quickly and
    accurately using proximity card-enabled laptops and a BlackBerry-based
    application that allows office emergency coordinators to account for
    staff remotely. In 2008, we focused on training coordinators to use
    these programs flawlessly. The backbone of this capability is the
    Accountability and Emergency Roster System (ALERTS), which allows each
    office to manage staff rosters and designate individuals receiving e-
    mail and phone alerts. We train Senate staff and USCP personnel to use
    ALERTS during individual and classroom sessions.
                Training
        Three distinct themes serve as the foundation of our emergency
    planning training program and provide essential knowledge to the Senate
    community regarding office emergency coordinator responsibilities,
    emergency preparedness basics, and escape hood use. Additional training
    courses focus on the specialized features of emergency preparedness on
    Capitol Hill. We collaborate with Senate offices to deliver
    personalized training specifically designed to meet staff needs by
    covering such topics as emergency equipment use, emergency action
    planning, emergency coordinator responsibilities, and preparedness
    basics. During the past year we conducted 249 sessions with 4,359
    attendees.
                Emergency Plans, Operations, and Facilities
        We continue to implement emergency plans that emphasize life safety
    and continuity of operations to address Senate needs after a disaster.
    We assisted all new Member offices in developing emergency action
    procedures, taking into account that many of them were initially
    assigned to temporary office spaces. As a result, each of the new
    offices has functional emergency action plans, established primary and
    secondary evacuation routes, mobility impaired evacuation procedures,
    and a complete collection of emergency contact records.
        Senate SAA and House planners joined forces with the USCP's
    Emergency Management Division and the Architect of the Capitol to
    establish procedures in response to respiratory threats requiring the
    use of internal relocation sites. Select facilities throughout the
    Capitol complex have been structurally improved and modified to allow
    for short-term (2-3 hour) sheltering. We will continue to focus on
    police procedures, signage, and subsequent staff training to fully
    implement this capability.
        We participated in the Emergency Management Task Force with the
    USCP, House SAA, House Office of Emergency Preparedness Planning and
    Operations, and Architect of the Capitol to prepare the Capitol Visitor
    Center for opening. The group's primary focus was to develop emergency
    preparedness plans, procedures, and joint training for the CVC by
    preparing USCP officers and Capitol Guides, creating safety outreach
    material, training staff and visitors, and developing general facility
    emergency plans. Our role was to review egress capacities in
    stairwells, identify potential chokepoints, and create visitor
    emergency preparedness facts to be published on the CVC website and
    included in brochures and guided tours. Layouts of the new facility
    have been added to the Senate Emergency Action Plan and Member Office
    Visitor Guide. To date, eight emergency phones for two-way
    communication with the USCP Command Center have been installed and a
    mobility impairment evacuation guide has been developed in conjunction
    with House counterparts. We assisted Senate offices with moving into
    the facility's expansion space by conducting 13 individual emergency
    evacuation walkthroughs with more than 230 staff members. These offices
    were also supplied with emergency equipment and received assistance
    updating emergency action plans.
                Exercises
        Our comprehensive exercise program is structured to ensure Senate
    plans are practiced and validated regularly. Every year, the SAA and
    Secretary of the Senate conduct exercises in coordination with the
    USCP, Architect of the Capitol, party secretaries, and other key
    stakeholders. This year's exercise plan outlines a series of diverse
    events to maintain and strengthen our existing capabilities, while
    addressing emerging needs. A key area of emphasis over the last several
    years has been the integration of several joint exercises with the
    House of Representatives and other Legislative Branch entities.
        We continue to conduct ``no-notice'' exercises to test select
    functions at various locations. During fiscal year 2009, we conducted
    exercises in partnership with the USCP, Office of the Attending
    Physician, Secretary of the Senate, Architect of the Capitol, Committee
    on Rules and Administration, and the House of Representatives. The
    general exercise format included functional capabilities demonstrations
    and tabletop scenarios. These exercises are designed to test the
    Senate's ability to function during an event that requires relocating
    the federal government. After-action reports are generated to document
    lessons learned and improve future plans.
        The Senate Chamber Protective Actions Exercise is a notable event
    we led in concert with the USCP, Secretary of the Senate, party
    secretaries, and other key stakeholders. This was the largest and most
    complex chamber protective action exercise to date. The exercise used
    two protective actions (evacuation due to an air threat and shelter-in-
    place) to examine life-safety procedures and validate the new Chamber
    Emergency Actions Guide. The guide coordinates staff action on the
    Senate floor and areas surrounding the chambers. As a result of the
    exercise, several areas of our plan requiring improvement are being
    addressed. Three joint exercises are being planned with the House of
    Representatives and other Legislative Branch organizations: Contingency
    Legislative Processes, Continuity of Government, and Shelter in Place.
                Office Support
        Providing responsive customer support through training, equipment,
    exercises, planning, and outreach to Senate offices and support
    organizations continues to improve overall individual readiness.
    Readiness equates to developing appropriate continuity plans and
    emergency procedures, making necessary equipment available, and
    training individuals on execution and use. Readiness involves ensuring
    the Senate community is alert and able to react to any emergency event,
    whether it be a minor service outage or a serious fire incident.
        Each office receives an array of emergency equipment that is
    distributed, inventoried, and maintained by emergency preparedness
    staff on an annual basis and includes escape hoods, Victim Rescue
    Units, Wireless Emergency Annunciators, and Emergency Supply Kits. Our
    inventory ensures equipment accountability and functionality resulting
    in the replacement of all expired batteries, food, and water in
    Emergency Supply Kits during fiscal year 2009.
        Another initiative has been to increase staff awareness and
    personal preparedness outside the workplace. We developed a Personal
    Preparedness Plan Tutorial allowing users to create, update, and store
    a personal preparedness plan. The tutorial provides step-by-step
    planning instructions and allows each user to create a customized plan.
        A variety of security and emergency preparedness brochures and
    publications have been developed and disseminated to continuously
    educate the Senate community. Recent additions and updates include:
      --Capitol Visitor Center Staff-Led Tours Z Card.--In order to reach
            each staff member conducting tours, a foldout card was
            developed to address safety procedures when dealing with
            visitors. The Z Card lists prohibited items, evacuation routes,
            shelter-in-place locations, alternatives for mobility-impaired
            individuals, and safety measures to consider before embarking
            on a tour. The Z Card also contains maps of all three facility
            floors with stairwells, evacuation elevators, and exits
            depicted.
      --U.S. Senate Emergency Annunciator System.--We recently switched
            from a wideband frequency to a narrowband frequency due to a
            National Telecommunications and Information Administration
            directive requiring transmissions to be on a narrowband system
            by 2008. While the USCP maintains a wireless annunciator system
            used to disseminate emergency information and situational
            updates, we are responsible for maintaining and replacing units
            throughout Senate office buildings including the Capitol and
            Capitol Visitor Center. We surveyed the entire complex to
            replace these units and updated the accompanying pamphlet.
      --Equipment.--Over 18,800 SCape CBRN30 Escape Hoods are currently
            deployed throughout the Senate. This number includes both adult
            and baby escape hoods located in Senate offices and public
            caches. We continue to conduct over 80 courses to train
            hundreds of staff members to use this equipment appropriately.
          More than 1,590 Wireless Emergency Annunciators are deployed
            throughout the Senate complex. These devices allow the USCP to
            provide verbal instructions to staff during significant events
            and provide periodic updates. Our office provides daily
            troubleshooting support for these devices.
          There are 1,229 Victim Rescue Units positioned alongside escape
            hood bags throughout Senate offices, in public caches, and
            included in each Emergency Supply Kit.
        We have additionally developed a program to review existing
    continuity of operations plans that are more than 2 years old. This
    initiative has resulted in more than 80 percent of D.C. Member offices
    being equipped with modern plans that will allow operations to continue
    in the event of a relocation. A program has also been initiated to
    provide assistance in developing and executing tabletop exercises for
    D.C. Senate offices to test their published plans. This program allows
    offices to discuss individual roles and responsibilities that must be
    performed in order to continue legislative and constituent operations
    offsite. The Living Disaster Recovery Planning System is a new
    automated program that is being tested and piloted, which will allow
    offices to quickly develop Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans that
    capture all aspects of essential functions and personnel
    electronically.

    Law Enforcement and Security Operations
                Smart Card Programs
        The implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive
    (HSPD) 12--Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal
    Employees and Contractors will significantly impact Senators and their
    staff whose offices are located in federal buildings across the
    country. While Legislative Branch adoption of HSPD-12 is optional,
    compliance will allow Members and staff unhindered access to work
    freely within these facilities. We are currently collaborating with our
    Executive Branch counterparts to implement compatible access cards
    during the 111th Congress.
        Sophisticated Smart Card credentials can provide multiple functions
    beyond current ``flash pass'' identification badges. The primary
    movement towards Smart Cards is a result of Executive Branch programs
    like HSPD-12, but potential uses within the Senate community include
    secure network logins, digital signatures for financial documents, and
    encrypted personal identification information. Although a substantial
    cost is associated with system architecture, we will continue to
    explore the advantages of Smart Card deployment.
        The First Responder Authentication Credential system launched under
    the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security outlines issuing
    cards to individuals who require access to controlled areas during
    emergencies. We envision limited Senate staff receiving these badges
    during the 111th Congress and are engaged with our Legislative Branch
    partners and other program administrators within the National Capital
    Region to determine the Senate's involvement in this program.
                State Office Security and Preparedness Programs
        The goal of this program is to provide a level of security and
    preparedness in state offices similar to Senators' Washington, DC
    offices. We provide equipment, training, and consulting for secure
    reception areas, access control, and duress and burglar alarms. With
    over 400 state offices varying from single to multiple staff offices,
    located everywhere from commercial storefronts to federal courthouses,
    this is no easy task. However, these programs remain critical and have
    been well received by state staff, even with their voluntary
    implementation status.
        We initiated the State Office Preparedness Program in January 2008
    to provide an all-hazards risk assessment to each state office, a basic
    set of emergency supplies, online and video teleconferencing training
    tools, and a template to build customized office emergency plans.
    Offices have the opportunity to verify compliance with Congressional
    Accountability Act requirements when they utilize this program, and all
    Senate offices have received basic equipment and general program
    briefings.
        Through the State Office Security Enhancement Program established
    in 2002, we have conducted over 700 onsite physical security surveys of
    state offices throughout the country. The results of these surveys are
    shared with Senate offices along with recommendations for improvement.
    State offices open, close, and relocate throughout the year, and
    sometimes offices that have already received remediation choose to
    relocate and require our services more than once. There are currently
    433 state offices, of which 294 are located in commercial space and 139
    are located in federal buildings. We have provided security remediation
    in 73 percent of commercial offices and 57 percent of those located in
    federal buildings. These state programs have received accolades from
    Senate offices and we continue striving to provide a higher level of
    customer service.
                Senate Campus Access Accommodations
        Our team collaborated with the USCP in fiscal year 2009 to
    coordinate and approve 211 requests for vehicles requiring special
    access to the Senate campus. This total does not include military and
    government arrivals, which we also coordinate. Requests for access
    continue to grow with the opening of the new Capitol Visitor Center.
    Our office works closely with House counterparts to coordinate access
    on both sides of Capitol Hill for groups with special needs who wish to
    visit their Members or attend functions hosted by them. This service
    involves working directly with Member offices and their constituents to
    help resolve accessibility issues and create memorable, meaningful, and
    safe trips to the Hill without compromising security. We recently
    approved a new webpage designed to better facilitate accessibility
    requests from Senate offices.
                Campus Security Vulnerabilities
        Our office continues to address security vulnerabilities throughout
    the Senate complex. We anticipate continued analysis of various campus
    security and vulnerability studies conducted by the USCP, U.S. Secret
    Service, and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to develop and enhance
    security measures. Our office employs area-specific security experts
    dedicated to identifying vulnerabilities and implementing solutions.
    The Senate's physical presence extends well beyond Capitol Hill, making
    it critical to engage in continued research, deliberate planning, and
    exploration of emerging security technologies. We expect our security
    role to continue to grow in fiscal year 2010.
                Mail Handling
        Last year, the Senate processed, tested, and delivered nearly
    15,000,000 safe items to Senate offices, including over 9,400,000
    pieces of U.S. Postal Service mail; over 5,200,000 pieces of internal
    mail that were routed within the Senate or to or from other government
    agencies; almost 111,000 packages; and over 130,000 courier items. The
    total volume of mail for the past 2 years has been significant and
    represents an 8.2 percent increase in the mail that we delivered as
    compared to the previous 2 years.
        We continue to seek improvements in mail processing and have worked
    with this Committee to identify avenues to reduce our costs. Last year,
    we began processing packages that previously had been processed by a
    contractor. This move reduced our expenses by over $200,000 annually,
    and improved our security as zero suspicious packages were delivered to
    Senate offices.
        This year, we further reduced our costs by leveraging technology
    and improving our processes. We were able to reduce the Senate Post
    Office FTEs by four, without compromising safety or customer service.
        Recently, we employed a technology solution to replace the manual
    ``clip and jog'' process that has been employed for the past 7 years.
    We worked with our science advisors to create a solution that is less
    damaging to letter mail, without compromising safety to Senate offices.
        We also worked with this Committee and the Committee on Rules and
    Administration to build and operate one of the best facilities within
    the government to process time-sensitive documents that are delivered
    to the Senate. In August 2006, we opened the Courier Acceptance Site to
    ensure all same day documents are x-rayed, opened, tested, and safe for
    delivery to Senate offices. The number of time-sensitive documents
    addressed to Senate offices is significant. Last year, we processed
    almost 131,000 courier items to ensure safe and timely delivery to
    Senate offices.
        Last year, our Senate Post Office and our Office of Security and
    Emergency Preparedness worked collaboratively with our science advisors
    to develop and introduce the first device designed to provide Senate
    staff who work in state offices a level of protection when handling
    mail. To date, 52 Senate state offices across the country have the
    Postal Sentry mail processing device in place. We have offered this
    device to all Senate state offices and we remain ready to assist and
    install the Postal Sentry in any office that requests one.

                             INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

                 (Enhancing Service, Security and Stewardship)

        We continue to embrace and enhance the role of technology to
    improve upon physical and information security and life safety, to
    prepare for emergencies and to support the entire Senate's information
    technology needs. As in our other areas, we also emphasize
    stewardship--the careful use of all our resources, including the
    funding we are provided, our personnel, and the external resources that
    we consume--in all aspects of our information technology operation.
        As we do each year, we have updated and are performing under our 2-
    year Information Technology Strategic Plan. The current revision, under
    which we will be operating in fiscal year 2010, continues to emphasize
    our five strategic information technology goals and their supporting
    objectives that drive our information technology programmatic and
    budgetary decisions:
      --Secure: A secure Senate information infrastructure.
      --Customer Service Focused: A customer service culture, top-to-
            bottom.
      --Effective: Information technology solutions driven by business
            requirements.
      --Accessible, Flexible & Reliable: Access to mission-critical
            information anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances.
      --Modern: A state-of-the-art information infrastructure built on
            modern, proven technologies.
        Our strategic goal of a customer service culture top-to-bottom
    starts with our own staff. Our Chief Information Officer (CIO)
    organization, in particular, is dedicated to ensuring that we foster
    mutual respect and teamwork where every customer and employee is a
    valued member of the Senate team. Major accomplishments in the
    information technology area during the past year include:
      --Making it easier for our customers to obtain cellular telephones
            and BlackBerry devices by continuing to upgrade and improve our
            online ordering system to meet the changing needs of our
            customers. With the introduction of touch screen devices, we
            implemented a loaner program to enable customers to ``try
            before you buy'' ensuring that they are comfortable and able to
            adapt to the usage differences required by the new devices.
            Offices are then allowed to switch back to a more traditional
            device with no financial penalty should the touch screen device
            not meet their needs.
      --Improving the ability of Senators, staff, and visitors to
            communicate by increasing the capacity of our infrastructure
            that supports cellular telephone, BlackBerry devices, and
            wireless data networks into the Capitol and the Senate
            expansion space in the Capitol Visitor Center. As part of our
            Inauguration efforts, we temporarily increased system capacity
            on the West Front of the Capitol to improve the probability
            that guests could successfully use their wireless devices.
      --Improving the experience of office staff as they accommodate the
            required physical inventory of Senate assets by expanding the
            use of barcode scanning technologies and developing electronic
            reports that are immediately available to the office as the
            inventories are completed. In keeping with our effort to
            implement solutions based on supporting the Senate, work is
            also underway to include features in TranSAAct that will allow
            offices to maintain the user names and locations associated
            with their equipment.
      --Continuing to progress toward the implementation of our new
            telephone system while ensuring that the existing phone system
            meets the existing needs of our customer base. As the final
            design moves toward approval, plans are in place to operate
            both systems concurrently to ensure no loss of service.
      --Making it easier for office administrative personnel to manage
            their offices by deploying additional functionality within
            TranSAAct, our Web-based system for managing office functions.
            Some of the added features include access to Verizon Wireless
            bills and accounts, which eliminates the need for paper
            statements and allows office administrative staff to makes
            account changes that formerly required SAA staff to handle;
            access to indoor and outdoor parking allocations and permits;
            and the ability to grant floor privileges and authorization to
            make charges from the Recording and Photographic studios.
      --Improving the functionality and reliability of Senate Conference
            Services and Senate Fax Services.
      --Ensuring that we maintain a responsive infrastructure for secure
            communications by successfully completing the audit of secure
            communications equipment that was mandated by the National
            Security Agency.

                        ENHANCING SERVICE TO THE SENATE

              (Customer Service, Satisfaction, and Communications)

        Our strategic plan stresses customer service as a top priority, and
    we actively solicit feedback from all levels and for all types of
    services. For instance, we solicit customer feedback for every Help
    Desk ticket opened. In major contracts that affect our customers, we
    include strict service levels that are tied to the contractors'
    compensation--if they do well, they get paid more; if they do poorly,
    they get paid less. For instance, during the past year, the percentage
    of on-time arrivals for the IT installation team never dropped below
    99.1 percent. The percentage of Help Desk calls that were resolved
    during the initial call averaged 47 percent, and 96 percent of customer
    surveys rated the IT Help Desk and installation services as either very
    satisfactory or excellent.
        We continue to stress effective communications with our customers
    through a well-developed outreach program that includes information
    technology newsletters, periodic project status reviews, encouraging
    customer participation in information technology working groups, weekly
    technology and business process review meetings with customers, and
    joint monthly project and policy meetings with the Committee on Rules
    and Administration, the Senate Systems Administrators Association, and
    the Administrative Managers' Steering Group.

    Keeping Senators and Staff Informed
        The Senate Information Services program continues to deliver
    premium, vital online information services to Senators and staff. These
    services range from the Senate's own near-real-time news tool,
    NewsWatch, to mission-critical external research services providing
    far-reaching current and archived news and general information,
    historical newspapers dating back as far as the 18th century, federal
    and state statutes and case law, regulatory and judicial updates,
    Congressional news and current policy issues analysis, information
    technology policy developments, and daily updated directories of
    personnel in government, business, media, and professional
    associations. Senators and staff accessed more than 3.5 million real-
    time news stories and almost 2 million pages of Congressional news and
    current policy analyses throughout 2008. During the same period, staff
    conducted more than 15,000 hours of legal research, read more than
    39,000 historical newspaper and journal articles, researched contact
    and biographical information for 53,000 professionals in wide-ranging
    disciplines, and reviewed newspaper content contained in almost 22,000
    images from more than 400 local daily newspapers from the United States
    and around the world.

    Robust, Reliable and Modern Communications
        The Senate data network supports the vast majority of our
    information technology. As with other information technology services,
    the data network is a constantly evolving entity that must be scalable
    and robust enough to more than meet the increasing needs for
    information technology services and solutions. Most critically, it must
    remain available to ensure these services are reachable.
        We have undertaken extensive efforts this past year to ensure that
    the core of the data network environment is in position to meet the
    rapidly increasing needs for more centralized data services. Our
    efforts included enhancing the overall availability of critical
    services such as e-mail and access to the Internet and World Wide Web
    by increasing network capacity within the core and data center
    environments, using a robust optical network between our primary and
    alternate computing facilities. We also improved our ability to react
    quickly to restore services following failures by decreasing the number
    of exposure points outside the Senate's internal data network.
    Consolidating the number of ``border'' points to a geographically
    dispersed set of firewalls has allowed us to eliminate several
    processes that previously required manual interaction that delayed
    service restoral. We increased the level of availability of critical
    services by dispersing them between two distinct sites. In addition to
    enhancing our overall security posture, we have also more than doubled
    our capacity for Internet services this past year by being able to use
    what was once idle bandwidth at the Alternate Computing Facility. This
    increase then provided the opportunity for adding services such as
    high-quality video streaming of Senate committee hearings without
    degrading the level of service our customers have come to expect.
        To ensure we maintain a secure information infrastructure, the data
    network and information security teams increased their level of
    collaboration to ensure a more proactive and rapid approach to
    identifying and resolving network-based vulnerabilities, as well as to
    remain vigilant on the issues of protecting both the perimeter and
    internal components of the data network. The collaboration has resulted
    in more rapid notification and reaction to evolving threats, as well as
    a more comprehensive assessment of security vulnerabilities affecting
    major networking components. We also remain vigilant in our approach to
    maintaining network-based access controls and, during the next year,
    will be assessing technologies to further enhance our security posture
    for managing remote access clients.
        The Senate led a collaborative effort with the other Legislative
    Branch agencies during the latter part of 2008 to enhance the
    capabilities and resiliency of the common backbone between the
    agencies--Capnet. This included the creation of a new common network at
    the Alternate Computing Facility using optical connections from each
    agency to the facility and dynamic failover mechanisms to ensure
    availability and provide a more secure environment for inter-agency
    communications. All Legislative Branch agencies participated in a
    successful full-scale failover exercise in October 2008. This coming
    year, efforts will continue among the agencies to facilitate an
    increase in communication services over Capnet and to take advantage of
    its high-speed conduit to enhance continuity of operations capabilities
    such as alternate office space.
        The network team completed the installation of wired and wireless
    data network services to the Capitol Visitor Center this past year, in
    preparation for the recent opening of this facility. An added benefit
    of the work in the Capitol Visitor Center was to add resiliency to the
    networks supported within the Capitol by dispersing the two main
    distribution points supporting these networks and using diverse fiber-
    optic paths to increase redundancy.
        This coming year, the focus will be on further preparing the campus
    network for the anticipated support of the Senate's new IP-based phone
    system as part of the Telecommunications Modernization Program.
    Already-planned enhancements to the resiliency of the access layer
    switches and will give them the ability to power the IP-based telephone
    sets much like traditional telephone sets are powered by the telephone
    switch today. We will also refresh other network hardware, which will
    be the first major refresh of this equipment since we acquired it in
    fiscal year 2004.
        At the end of calendar year 2008, we introduced a virtual server
    environment to support the new class of Senators initially, with the
    anticipation of expanding participation to all interested offices. The
    centralized server environment provides great benefits, and it will
    increase the bandwidth requirements on the data center network. To
    accommodate those increases, we have begun upgrades to increase
    capacity there and will continue this year with the overall backbone
    network. Combined with the planned upgrade efforts to the access layer,
    we will be in position to enhance the capacity to these locations as
    necessary. This is not solely due to the virtualization effort, but is
    needed to ensure support for a growing number of network-based services
    that extend outside the individual offices' networks.
        The wide-area network supporting state offices, commonly referred
    to as the WAN, has also been a focus this past year in terms of
    upgrading network hardware to meet expanding business requirements and
    position the Senate for future capabilities. We upgraded the hardware
    in almost 75 offices this past year and, overall, have completed router
    and switch upgrades in more than 200 sites. In addition to the
    immediate benefit of providing higher-speed access to staff in the
    state offices, the new hardware positions us for future technologies
    such as a secure wireless solution for state offices. This past year we
    also installed higher speed service at the Alternate Computing Facility
    to support the aggregation of WAN circuits, which provided a threefold
    increase in available bandwidth. This positioned us to pursue
    relocating replication servers from state offices to the alternate
    computing facility, including 18 sites this past year and 40 offices
    overall, thus preserving bandwidth to these sites for more critical
    services.
        We have continued to emphasize visibility and proactive management
    of network services as key to the success of ensuring the availability
    of network resources. We have increased our focus on change and
    configuration control processes this past year. That focus will
    continue to increase as more services become dependent on the data
    network, including the advancement of IP-based telephony. The Network
    Operations Center, which manages the network change process, received
    more than 1,000 network-related change requests in 2008 and serviced
    more than 950 requests for LAN connections, the majority of which are
    associated with changes in the data center environment. These requests
    range from minor modifications to major build-outs of new services and
    does not include the various moves, adds, and changes within the office
    environments that occur on a daily basis. The continuing evolution of
    our data network further instills the need to continue properly
    documenting and reviewing changes to the networking environment,
    especially when supporting less-tolerant applications such as voice and
    video.
        The entire Senate enjoys the benefits of a modern, robust,
    reliable, and scalable messaging infrastructure that includes built-in
    options for continuity of operations, design choices, and a platform
    for leveraging modern technologies to improve collaboration, mobility,
    and communications. During this past year, we upgraded the messaging
    system to the latest software version that provides additional features
    and benefits for electronic mail users and reduces by half the number
    of messaging servers required. We also provided single sign-on
    capabilities and changes that allow us to deploy many solutions
    centrally where they are available to all offices, thus reducing
    development, deployment, and support costs. This year we leveraged this
    ability to deploy Microsoft's Office Communications Server to allow
    instant messaging and collaboration within the Senate and messaging to
    external clients without the risks associated with other instant
    messaging clients. More than 2,500 users in at least 30 offices
    currently use the service.
        We continue to make progress toward modernizing the Senate's entire
    telecommunications infrastructure to provide improved reliability and
    redundancy in support of daily operations and continuity of operations
    and government, as well as to take advantage of technological advances
    to provide a more flexible and robust communications infrastructure.
    While conducting the final engineering and design phase of the
    Telecommunications Modernization Project, we determined that some of
    the proposed components should be replaced to better serve the Senate
    and meet our functional requirements. Concurrently with this effort, we
    asked a third party to conduct an independent verification and
    validation of the proposed solution. After replacement products were
    identified, the independent vendor endorsed the overall architecture
    with some caveats and suggested additional considerations and best
    practices before deploying the solution. These best practices include
    process and operational changes, security recommendations, and the
    suggestion to migrate our systems deliberately to ensure adequate time
    for lessons learned and feedback regarding the impact of this
    transformative technology. We are working to incorporate those
    suggestions into the project. In late January, we received a design for
    the system and have continued to work with our vendor to further
    clarify and refine several design elements. We expect to be performing
    proof-of-concept testing into late spring or early summer. The outcome
    of that testing will result in a decision on implementing the solution.
        To help ensure systems are kept updated, we deployed a server to
    better make available software updates that come on disk. This solution
    eliminates the need for mass duplication of system update disks by
    providing the necessary files for offices to create disks on their own
    or download the files directly without creating a disk. This solution
    makes updates available faster and at a time of the offices' choosing.
        In the past year we have significantly enhanced our
    videoconferencing infrastructure by upgrading the systems which handle
    video traffic routing. This upgrade has increased redundancy and will
    enable us to further enhance the stability of the network through load
    balancing traffic between infrastructure at the primary and alternate
    computing facilities. This move also prepares our infrastructure to
    support future converged technologies, which will use a new standard
    for communications. Additionally, we have enhanced the scalability of
    our infrastructure to handle up to 5,000 individual video call
    registrations, a tenfold improvement.

    Web-based and Customer-Focused Business Applications
        Working with the other major stakeholders (the Secretary of the
    Senate, the Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Senate
    Chaplain), we launched a restructured version of Webster, the Senate's
    intranet. The new Webster provides a more functional front page, a new
    banner, and an improved look and feel. Included in the site is a new
    method of categorizing information to improve search results and
    content layout, making information easier to find and significantly
    improving the user experience.
        This year, we completed the third phase and began the next phase of
    TranSAAct, which is our platform for moving business online. Based on
    the business requirements of offices and the Committee on Rules and
    Administration, we continue to develop TranSAAct to eliminate paper-
    based manual processes and move them to the Web. Through TranSAAct,
    administrative managers and chief clerks can manage and track invoices
    for SAA services through a modern Web interface, and have single sign-
    on access to 14 Web-based applications, including the ALERTS emergency
    notification database, package tracking, and the Capitol Facilities
    ordering system. The latest additions to TranSAAct provide the ability
    to request services online and use electronic signatures for approvals,
    eliminating paper requests and significantly streamlining the
    previously manual processes. In addition to the processes for granting
    floor privileges and authorizations to request services from the
    Recording Studio, we added the processes for granting authorizations to
    request services from the Photo Studio, real-time consolidated view of
    outdoor and garage parking space allocations and permit issuance,
    access to Verizon Wireless billing, and a comprehensive set of over 20
    links to the services that administrative managers use the most.
    Because it is built on an extensible modern database framework,
    TranSAAct allows indefinite expansion as new requirements are
    fulfilled. We look forward, over the coming months and years, to moving
    additional business process to the Web, reducing the time, paper, and
    errors associated with the current manual processes.
        We developed and deployed several Web-based tools in support of the
    56th Presidential Inauguration, including applications to manage the
    credential approval process and help the Joint Congressional Committee
    on Inaugural Ceremonies manage seating during the ceremony and the
    luncheon afterward. Our efforts streamlined the credentialing and press
    ticketing process by allowing the Joint Congressional Committee on
    Inaugural Ceremonies, the Capitol Police and the Media Galleries to
    approve requests for credentials for all applicants. The credentialing
    application managed the entire approval process, including name and
    personal information submission, data export for background
    investigations, notifying appropriate parties of approval status,
    allowing selection of broadcast position or access area, photo
    acquisition and data export to the Government Printing Office for badge
    printing. Overall, 10,137 credentials were processed and distributed
    utilizing our application in advance of the Inaugural ceremony.
        The seating management application provided Joint Committee staff
    the ability to enter and manage data on guests of the 56th Presidential
    Inauguration via a secure internal website, and to generate custom
    reports and event timelines from that data. The Joint Committee staff
    extensively used the application and this effort contributed to the
    success of the Inaugural ceremonies with 1,578 seats assigned. More
    than 1,250 guests were processed, including 148 packages or groups of
    guests, and 186 rooms were scheduled for the event.
        We also developed and deployed a new and improved version of the
    Rules Committee room reservation system. The application allows offices
    to view the 25 rooms under the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee and
    request a reservation. The application has an approval process and room
    availability schedule that allows the Rules Committee staff to view and
    approve requests.
        Finally, we deployed the infrastructure to support streaming the
    video of committee hearings and other events in higher quality using
    Flash Media, and developed Web-based tools that allow the Senate
    Recording Studio to post archived committee hearings and send
    committees the links to their archived hearings.

    Showcasing and Promoting Modern Information Technology in the Senate
        This past year, we continued to highlight new technologies in the
    Information Technology Demonstration Center through a series of well-
    attended demo days. After products are tested and validated in our
    technology assessment laboratory, they are then available for offices
    to try in the Demo Center. The demo days feature live demonstrations of
    new and emerging technologies. Just to name a few of the new products
    and technologies that we recently brought to the Senate, in the past
    year we introduced the Office Application Manager, a secure Web-based,
    user-friendly application that provides Senate offices the ability to
    create and manage online forms such as service academy nominations,
    flags, internships, and fellowships; a service that provides
    information to system administrators about the computers in their
    offices and the status of applicable security updates; an e-mail
    archiving solution that provides an alternative to larger mailboxes
    through a software application that archives and indexes aged e-mail
    messages and attachments; and Research in Motion's latest 3G network-
    hosted BlackBerry devices, the Bold and Storm.
        In order to perform technology assessments, feasibility analysis,
    and proof of concept studies to ensure we are considering technologies
    that will directly support the Senate's mission, we continue to improve
    the capabilities in our technology assessment laboratory. Technologies
    and solutions are vetted and tested here prior to being announced for
    pilot, prototype, or mass deployment to the Senate. To ensure we focus
    on the most relevant technologies and solutions, the CIO-sponsored
    Technology Advisory Group, consisting of CIO staff and our customers,
    performs high-level requirements analysis and prioritizes new
    technologies and solutions for consideration for deployment in the
    Senate. Some of the new technologies evaluated and/or recommended for
    support through our lab testing during the current fiscal year include:
      --Enterprise class server virtualization to reduce the number of
            physical servers we require;
      --Tier 2 enterprise class storage, which greatly reduces the cost of
            highly available, highly reliable centralized data storage;
      --Enterprise instant messaging, a critical business communication
            tool that provides all the customary instant messaging
            capabilities, without sacrificing enterprise class reliability
            and security;
      --More than 34 new Hewlett-Packard, Fujitsu, and Apple portable or
            desktop computer offerings;
      --16 new Hewlett-Packard workgroup printers;
      --10 new document imaging scanners;
      --Nearly 600 Microsoft critical software security patches; and
      --24 office productivity suite applications.
        We will continue or intensify these efforts in fiscal year 2010 to
    ensure that the Senate is always well equipped to perform its
    functions. To keep our customers informed of our efforts, we publish
    the results of our studies on the emerging technology page of the CIO's
    area on Webster.
        We continue to seek ways to improve our offerings to the Senate
    community for their correspondence systems. Working together with our
    users, we developed new, updated requirements for the Constituent
    Services Systems to help keep them responsive to changing office needs.
    By using new technologies to freshen the application mix, we are
    ensuring that these applications reflect the evolving Senate enterprise
    needs.

    Enhancing Security with Accessible, Flexible and Reliable Systems
        We continue to seek ways to improve the security of our technology
    infrastructure in order to protect data, respect privacy, enable
    continuous Senate operations, and support our emergency and continuity
    plans.
        This past year our CIO organization fully implemented a BlackBerry
    scanning program designed to detect security intrusions on wireless
    devices used during international travel. Increasing our education
    efforts allowed us to find some potential security compromises on
    BlackBerrys that were taken to foreign countries. A strong partnership
    with the National Security Agency helped to mitigate the risk to the
    Senate once the discrepancies were found. For staff looking for
    additional protective measures, we introduced tamper-evident storage
    bags into which they could place laptops or smaller wireless devices
    when leaving those devices in a non-secured location such as a hotel
    room. These relatively simple procedures have helped mitigate potential
    damage that might have occurred otherwise.
        We successfully completed the first audit in 5 years of our secure
    communications equipment by the National Security Agency with high
    marks from the audit team. The audit team found no discrepancies and
    complimented us on our knowledge and control of secure communications
    equipment in the Senate. We also continued our efforts to stay ahead of
    end-of-life deadlines on certain secure equipment that will arrive
    within the next year. We have begun upgrading firmware and replacing
    secure key cards to ensure that, should an emergency arise, our
    community will suffer no denial of service and will be able to
    communicate securely with outside entities.

    Alternate Sites and Information Replication
        We are continuing to test our technology in scenarios in which our
    primary infrastructure and primary work locations have become
    inaccessible. This includes the simulated loss of our primary data and
    network facilities, as well as simulated loss of staff work spaces. All
    mission-essential Senate enterprise information systems continue to be
    replicated at our Alternate Computing Facility (ACF), using our
    upgraded optical network and storage area network technology. In
    December, working with staff from the Office of the Secretary of the
    Senate, we conducted a third failover exercise involving the Senate's
    financial systems. Our CIO organization, including staff from all
    departments and vendors, continued to conduct pandemic exercises. These
    exercises demonstrate the CIO's ability to support mission-essential
    systems with a minimum number of on-site personnel, and the ability to
    support substantial numbers of people working from home. As a means to
    further our commitment to ensuring customer service regardless of the
    situation, the Network Operations Center (NOC) remains vigilant in the
    organization's support of network resources by continuing to answer
    service calls once a week from the ACF and by conducting periodic
    ``pandemic'' testing where support staff operate through remote access.
    The NOC also rotates remote access and WAN services between the
    alternate and primary sites on a monthly basis as a means to
    continually test and ensure network availability and continue our
    mission to provide access to mission-critical information at all times.
    These exercises continue to be extremely successful and give us
    valuable insight into how we would provide our support in an emergency.
        This past year, our CIO organization also continued helping offices
    protect their data by enabling them to replicate data to state offices
    or the ACF through the remote data replication program. To date, 57
    Senate offices and 23 committees are taking advantage of this program,
    with 81 percent installed at the ACF and 19 percent installed in
    Senators' state offices. Remote data replication provides the Senate an
    unprecedented ability to access institutional data in the event of an
    emergency. Another system that is integral to emergency planning,
    particularly in the event of a mass telecommuting scenario such as a
    pandemic, is our video teleconferencing system. We continue to maintain
    a state-of-the-art level of services and offerings in our video
    teleconferencing infrastructure. We have improved infrastructure
    redundancy and functionality by incorporating seamless failover
    capabilities and support for high-definition video. Through this
    highly-successful project we have installed nearly 650 units in offices
    across the nation with usage rates in excess of 35,000 minutes per day
    when the Senate is in session.
        Two (enterprise and hybrid) of the three architectural options we
    offer for electronic messaging provide complete replication of the
    office's electronic mail at our Alternate Computing Facility. Eighty-
    six percent of offices are now taking advantage of the continuity of
    operations capability inherent in the enterprise and hybrid options.
    Also, the recently deployed e-mail archiving system provides complete
    replication of electronic mail that has been archived to ``near-line''
    storage media for long term storage.
        Our previous virtual file server offering is reaching its end-of-
    life and is being replaced with newer virtual technology, which is
    addressed later in this testimony.

    Securing our Information Infrastructure
        As a result of the information security activities we described in
    last year's testimony, we now have much better insight into the dynamic
    nature of global cyber threats. This knowledge, combined with the
    flexible technologies we use in our information security operations
    centers, allows us to monitor and quickly respond to changes in IT
    operational risk present in the Senate environment. Our active
    prevention and detection capabilities continue to evolve. We are
    deploying technologies and processes that will help detect and prevent
    most malware infections and attempts to exploit vulnerabilities as they
    are attempted. Our capability to detect and prevent attacks in real
    time is crucial in light of the ``zero-day'' (previously undetected)
    attacks that frequently target our computing environment. These
    processes and technologies shield Senate information technology assets,
    reducing operational impact on offices and accompanying downtime and
    lowering remediation costs. We continuously adjust our controls in
    response to new threats and make security recommendations to offices
    and committees, thereby increasing the resiliency of the Senate's IT
    infrastructure to ensure continuity of government, even under duress.
        Similar to security in the physical world, protecting information
    and technology resources requires constant vigilance and the capability
    to detect and deter attacks. We operate in an ongoing attack
    environment, as the threats to our information infrastructure are
    increasing in both frequency and sophistication. We continue to see not
    only ``general'' threats that affect all Internet-connected
    organizations, but also sophisticated, targeted attacks originating
    from numerous foreign and domestic sources. These attacks continuously
    target vulnerabilities in our systems using many different infection
    vectors and malicious programs, including viruses, worms, Trojan
    horses, spyware, spybots, adware, adbots, trackware, keyloggers, and
    rootkits. Countering this evolving threat environment requires
    situational awareness and robust processes, as well as continual
    research, testing and deployment of emerging security technologies.
    Recently, infections have been highly virulent in nature and difficult
    to detect because they exploit newly-identified or previously-unknown
    vulnerabilities. We have determined that these attacks are probably
    launched by determined and sophisticated adversaries, so we have very
    little advance notice of new types of attacks. Responding to these
    attacks requires significant investment in flexible security control
    structures and processes that can be rapidly revised and adjusted to
    respond to these sophisticated new threats. As part of this effort, we
    are cultivating external relationships to improve our overall awareness
    of Internet-based threats. As the global threat environment shifts and
    intensifies, we continually modify our processes and technologies to
    better protect the Senate's information and IT infrastructure. Over the
    next year, we will meet the challenge of managing a dynamic security
    environment by: (1) expanding our current security controls to enhance
    our incident handling capabilities; (2) expanding the technical
    capabilities of our information security operation centers; (3)
    collaborating with other federal agencies to enhance our situational
    awareness and incident response capabilities; (4) evaluating, testing,
    and deploying new security technologies and processes; and (5)
    enhancing communication with system administrators to help them improve
    the security posture of their own information infrastructures.
        In 2008, we provided an increased level of computer security
    support to offices. We were increasingly called upon to help office
    system administrators properly configure desktop and server security
    controls and assist them in responding to security threats of which we
    had notified them. Through our outreach program, we conducted training
    for staff in nearly a dozen offices, regularly assisted with
    orientation sessions for our own new staff, and produced a number of
    new reference guides to assist staff in securing information and
    technology resources. We also continued to work with system
    administrators to promote staff awareness of threats to Senate
    information, and to help them understand what they can do to assist in
    reducing the risk from such threats. As part of the information sharing
    process, we produced numerous blog entries, articles, and user notices
    targeted at both system administrators and the general Senate user
    population. As the Senate continued to employ cutting edge
    technologies, we adjusted our processes and controls to ensure optimal
    product performance and service delivery. We augmented both our
    security services and security infrastructure. For example, over the
    past year we upgraded our security technology monitoring infrastructure
    to provide greater flexibility, improved utilization of our computing
    resources, and enhanced our continuity and disaster recovery
    capabilities. This infrastructure is very scalable, allowing us to
    expand capabilities while controlling costs.
        This year we have continued development of our redundant
    information security operations centers. The mission of these centers
    is to identify and understand threats, assess vulnerabilities, identify
    failure points and bottlenecks, determine potential impacts, and remedy
    problems before they adversely affect Senate operations. We augmented
    these capabilities by collaborating with other federal agencies to
    ensure that we have the most up-to-date information and techniques for
    combating cyber threats. The combination of our information security
    operations centers, defense-in-depth capability, enterprise anti-
    malware programs, and centralized security update management service
    has proven effective.
        As outlined earlier, we must continue to remain vigilant because
    the threat environment, as measured by detected security incident
    attempts, remains very high. For example, every day our security
    operations center detects approximately 28.6 million potential security
    threats targeting the Senate, less than 5 percent of which are
    characterized as high-risk based upon the possible severity or impact
    of the threat. Our SAA information security staff handles about 40
    security issues each month. We have also improved our capability to
    monitor the Senate's information technology environment over the past
    year. For example, our ability to detect, analyze, and categorize
    security ``events,'' defined as instances of network traffic that have
    the potential to cause a security breach, have dramatically increased
    from 7 to 9 million per month in 2008, to almost 860 million per month
    so far in 2009. During 2008, we upgraded existing equipment which
    provides richer data feeds on the Senate network. These improvements
    allow us to more clearly identify malicious activity, and thus, have
    resulted in an increase in the number of events we have observed.
    Looking ahead, we project that in-progress infrastructure improvements
    will allow our information security operations centers to evaluate many
    more events in a 24-hour period. This capability will help prevent our
    systems from being overwhelmed during a widespread malware outbreak or
    distributed denial of service attack, and will also allow for
    significant improvements to our security monitoring sensor network.
        Our anti-virus controls detected and countered nearly 52,500 virus-
    related events on Senate computers during 2008. Similarly, our client-
    based firewalls detected and countered approximately 52,000 attempted
    exploits on Senate computers during the same period. Almost all offices
    use our managed anti-virus system to detect and prevent malware
    infections, and receive patches to repair critical software
    vulnerabilities from our software update servers. These systems protect
    more than 12,000 Senate computers from malicious software and other
    known software vulnerabilities that would otherwise allow attackers to
    compromise these systems. With this said, security controls best
    prevent against unsolicited network traffic, which is to say traffic
    that is not initiated from internal users. We have continued to see an
    increase in infection attempts brought about by users opening malicious
    e-mail attachments or visiting infected Web sites. While the Senate did
    experience an assortment of viral infections on multiple systems in
    2008, our security controls prevented any of these isolated events from
    turning into a widespread outbreak. All our information security
    monitoring activities are in compliance with the SAA's information
    privacy policy.
        Our new information security Watchstander role, patterned after
    similar security operations center positions in other agencies,
    requires around-the-clock availability of our information security
    staff. The position provides the Senate community a central point of
    contact when reporting and responding to IT security events. The
    Watchstander also reviews and responds to IT security alerts,
    suspicious activity bulletins, and warnings compiled by public and
    private sources. Watchstander services include responding to office
    complaints about e-mail spam, e-mail disruptions due to blacklisting by
    external Internet service providers, and phishing attempts. The
    Watchstander also creates user notices in response to warnings on new
    vulnerabilities, and responds to reports of suspicious network traffic
    identified by our information security operations center.

    Emergency and Contingency Communications
        This year we continued upgrading and testing our two Senate
    emergency response communications vehicles according to a monthly
    exercise plan. These assets are available for deployment with data
    network, telephone, and satellite connectivity and provide the ability
    to relocate significant information infrastructure virtually anywhere.
    We also continue to train and expand our deployment teams, and work to
    revise and refine our operations procedures for deployment of these
    vehicles in support of the Senate.
        During the year we refined the in-building wireless infrastructure
    in the Capitol and the Capitol Visitor Center. This infrastructure
    provides coverage in areas where it was previously poor or non-existent
    and also allows Senate staff to connect back to their offices via
    wireless remote computing. The wireless infrastructure also supports
    the major cellular carriers, allowing Senators and staff to use the
    carrier of their choice with the device of their choice across the
    Senate campus.
        As we continue to demonstrate during continuity of operation
    exercises, staff can work and communicate from virtually anywhere at
    any time. Because these capabilities are crucial to our ability to
    support the Senate in an emergency, we continue to enhance and expand
    these capabilities in order to support a potentially dispersed
    workforce with the ability to telecommute. It also allows us to provide
    employees with flexible work options on a daily basis and, by allowing
    those options, keeps their remote access skills honed and ready to use
    as needed.

    Enhancing Stewardship through Fiscal and Environmental Responsibility
        Stewardship of our resources is intertwined in everything we do, as
    well as being a driving force for some of our activities. We are always
    looking for ways to improve our processes or technologies so that we
    save time, money, electricity, paper, or other resources. Our CIO
    organization is a good steward of the fiscal resources of the Senate,
    as they are consistently and continuously improving on the services
    offered to our customers while seeking only modest increases in
    funding. Many of their initiatives save offices hundreds or thousands
    of dollars in costs that would otherwise be borne out of their official
    accounts. As most of these initiatives save money due to a reduction in
    the purchase of some commodity, they also fit in with our efforts
    toward environmental stewardship. Some examples of our efforts to
    enhance fiscal and environmental stewardship are:
      --Continuation of our virtualization efforts, where we now save
            $100,000 in annual energy costs and $975,000 in maintenance and
            support costs by running more than 150 servers/services in
            virtual environments. We will continue an aggressive campaign
            to virtualize more systems.
      --During the past year we replaced all Internet e-mail gateway
            servers with new appliances. The appliances have a much smaller
            footprint than the servers that they replaced, use much less
            power, and provide more computing power than the older servers,
            which allowed us to reduce the number of servers. The
            appliances also come pre-configured so support is much less
            labor-intensive. Addition of new appliances or upgrades to
            existing appliances should also be easier. The overall effect
            of this replacement project is a ``greener'' computing center.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Pre-              Post-          Difference
                              Metric                              consolidation     Consolidation       (percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Power consumption.........................................           80,000W           32,760W               -59
    Number of servers.........................................                25                20               -20
    Rack space................................................    100 rack units     40 rack units               -60
    Heat dissipation..........................................    136,475 BTU/hr     59,464 BTU/hr               -56
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      --The newly implemented virtual machine infrastructure allows us to
            centrally host office file and application servers on shared
            hardware at our primary and the alternate facilities as well as
            consolidate the test and production servers we manage. The
            infrastructure greatly increases server hardware efficiency
            over both the previous virtual file server offering and in-
            office servers, and through system duplication and data
            replication, offers enterprise class data redundancy and
            recovery in the event of a critical local failure or crisis.
            The virtual solution will also relieve offices of considerable
            noise, excess heat, and will increase usable office working
            areas for staff. It removes the single point of failure from
            existing office servers and meets continuity of operations and
            data replication requirements for approximately half the cost
            of existing solutions. To date, we are hosting 28 Senate office
            file servers on our virtual infrastructure. Virtual servers
            running in the Data Center consume only 15 percent of the
            energy of a comparable number of physical servers. This means a
            reduction in power consumption and air conditioning
            requirements, saving Senate funds, while enhancing our ability
            to provide reliable and redundant services.
      --Adding network services to copier maintenance contracts allows
            offices to consider purchasing a networked multi-function
            copier that can perform print, scan, and fax functions rather
            than having three separate machines. One machine doing the work
            of three decreases energy consumption as well as consumable
            costs. Because network services were previously a billable item
            for offices, the initiative to bundle network services into the
            maintenance contracts also reduces invoicing costs.
      --We continue to upgrade and enhance the electronic fax system to
            encourage offices to use this as well. Senate Fax Services
            saves hundreds of thousands of pages of paper each year by
            allowing staff to dispose of unwanted fax messages
            electronically before they are printed, and reduces the need
            for fax toner cartridges, which again reduces the need for
            manufacturing and disposal of them, and saves tens of thousands
            of dollars a year on their purchase.
      --Online Verizon Wireless billing through our TranSAAct system has
            eliminated a significant amount of paper. Each invoice was
            potentially several hundred pages long and at least three paper
            copies of each invoice were sent to the Senate.
      --Scrutiny of our telecommunications bills for overcharges and
            incorrect items has saved us more than $100,000 in the current
            fiscal year.
        We also ensure that the devices we recommend to the Senate meet the
    applicable EnergyStar guidelines, and where feasible, the guidelines
    for the responsible manufacture of information technology equipment.
        IT security is, and will continue to be in the near term, a growth
    area. We anticipate that the trend of cyber attacks associated with
    geopolitical events will continue. In response, our operating model
    emphasizes speed and agility and the ability to bring needed resources
    to bear quickly. Our cyber security contract provides additional
    resources to support this operating model. We continually work to stay
    ahead of threats and put new safeguards in place to protect the
    Senate's information and computing infrastructure. In support of our
    efforts to increase both our analytical and defensive capabilities, we
    are filling two new full-time positions in our IT Security Branch
    approved in our fiscal year 2009 appropriations. We are also deploying
    additional security mechanisms and other protective technologies in the
    Senate network, which will enhance our ability to protect the Senate
    from cyber threats, malware, and other network-borne threats that
    originate from external networks. In addition, we are assisting in
    efforts to integrate sophisticated security products and technologies
    into the new telecommunications system, thus providing a monitoring,
    detection, and active prevention capability that will further protect
    us from current and future cyber threats and better satisfy the
    Senate's requirements for voice communications privacy and reliability
    Capitol Visitor Center
        Our office has been involved with the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC)
    since its inception. We have worked collaboratively on this bicameral
    project with representatives from Leadership, oversight committees and
    other agencies to ensure the design, construction and operational
    aspects of the facility achieve the desired results. Our participation
    and the challenges presented have been vast and varied, including but
    not limited to: security; hours of operation; transitioning the Capitol
    Guide Service; emergency preparedness; information technology;
    furnishings for the Senate side of the CVC; Senate Meeting Rooms
    design, set-up and maintenance; bus routes; Capitol tour routes; coat
    checks; official appointments; accommodating visitors to the Senate
    Gallery; broadcast media infrastructure; ATM service; telephone service
    and other communications infrastructure.
        We have several departments that have been impacted by the CVC.
    Their operation and processes changed with its opening.

    Senate Appointments Desks
        To improve security and the flow of visitors to the Capitol, the
    Senate Appointments Desk added two desks in the CVC, one located near
    the main entrance and the other located outside of the Senate Meeting
    Rooms on the lower level. Our goal is to process approximately 80
    percent of the people who have appointments at the Capitol through the
    CVC, reducing congestion within the Capitol and minimizing processing
    and waiting time for our guests. We have maintained scaled versions of
    the Capitol and the Russell Appointments Desks for visitors with
    appointments with Leadership and for those who have appointments in
    both the Senate office buildings and the Capitol. Our Appointments
    Desks staff expanded from six to ten and we researched avenues to fill
    these vacancies without increasing the Sergeant at Arms budget. The
    labor efficiencies we implemented in the Senate Post Office enabled us
    to transfer 4 FTEs to the Senate Appointments Desk team to fill the
    vacancies created by our expansion of services to the CVC.

    Senate Gallery Visitors
        We improved the visitor experience for those who want to witness
    Senate proceedings from the Gallery. We now process these guests
    through the CVC, rather than the Capitol's North Door. This process
    enhancement improved security, as well as the visitor experience, by
    eliminating the long lines and congestion that had been commonplace
    throughout the Capitol. Our Senate Doorkeepers team manages a staging
    room in the CVC that facilitates the collection of Gallery prohibited
    items and the movement of people in a secure manner. The staging room
    and the surrounding areas offer our guests numerous creature comforts
    and educational opportunities.
        The number of visitors to the Senate Gallery has increased by
    nearly 300 percent during the first 2 months of the 111th Congress as
    compared to the same period during 2008. We expect this trend to
    continue throughout 2009 and beyond. Despite the significant increase,
    the feedback from our visitors has been extremely positive. Senate
    Gallery visitors have complemented our processes, including the
    elimination of long lines waiting outside in the elements, the speed of
    gaining access to the Gallery, and the educational opportunities
    afforded by the CVC.
        This was another opportunity where our team was able to make
    significant improvements without adding FTEs. Despite the fact that our
    Doorkeepers' footprint of responsibility increased by over 70 percent,
    we were able to improve our performance with existing resources.
        The opening of the CVC has had a major impact on the duties of
    Capitol Facilities. We procured and installed both modular and standard
    furniture and relocated other office goods to the Senate Expansion
    Space occupied by the Office of Police Operations, Security and
    Emergency Preparedness (POSEP), Senate Security, the United States
    Capitol Police (USCP), the Senate Curator's office, the Senate
    Recording Studio, and Closed Captioning Services. We also procured
    special event seating, tables and podiums to support ten meeting rooms
    in the CVC that fall under Facilities' purview.
        Capitol Facilities is responsible for providing planning assistance
    for special event set-up, including tables, chairs, podiums, and
    easels. We provide daytime cleaning of space occupied by Senate
    Security, as well as the setup, take down and clean up for each special
    event in the Senate Meeting Rooms. Our Facilities team assisted in the
    conversion of vacated Capitol space due to CVC moves. This included the
    installation of new carpeting and furnishings, as well as furniture
    moving and deep cleaning of renovated spaces. Future expenditures can
    be anticipated as the useful life of furnishings and equipment will be
    determined by the frequency of use.
        Virtually all of the Senate side of the CVC's IT infrastructure is
    supported by the SAA. Maintenance initially will be minimal and will
    not require additional FTEs. However, changes in requirements or
    technological enhancements could require significant time and
    resources. Additionally, as time passes, obsolescence and advances in
    technology become issues that have significant impact on costs.

    Recording Studio
        Our Recording Studio is responsible for providing gavel-to-gavel
    coverage of Senate floor proceedings, broadcasting Senate committee
    hearings, and providing radio and television production studios, and
    equipment for Senators' use. Last year, we televised all Senate floor
    proceedings, broadcast 1,309 radio and television productions, and 885
    committee hearings. The committee hearing broadcasts represented a 17
    percent increase versus 2007. This trend continues with the 111th
    Congress as, in the month of January, committee hearing broadcasts
    increased by 86 percent, and radio and television productions increased
    by 62 percent as compared to the previous year. This is another example
    of where we have increased productivity by utilizing process
    improvements and technology rather than adding FTEs. In coming years,
    the Recording Studio will require new cameras in the Senate Chamber and
    replacement of a satellite truck necessary for alternate chamber
    broadcasts and other COOP events.

    Committee Hearing Room Upgrade Project
        Demand for additional committee broadcasts has been continually
    increasing. In 2003, we began working with this Committee and the
    Committee on Rules and Administration to upgrade and install multimedia
    equipment in Senate committee hearing rooms. The project includes
    digital signal processing audio systems and broadcast-quality robotic
    camera systems.
        To date, we have completed 21 hearing rooms, S-207, S-211, and we
    are currently working on SH-219. Room enhancements include improved
    speech intelligibility and software-based systems that we can configure
    based on individual committee needs. The system is networked; allowing
    committee staff to easily and automatically route audio from one
    hearing room to another when there are overflow crowds. Additionally,
    the system's backup will take over quickly if the primary electronics
    fail.
        As part of the upgrades, we installed technologies in our new
    Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) Recording Studio to enhance our ability to
    provide broadcast coverage of more hearings simultaneously without
    adding staff. For example, the Committee Hearing Room Upgrade Project
    will allow us to cover a hearing with one staff member. Before the
    upgrade, three staff members were required to adequately cover a
    hearing. These technology enhancements, coupled with the expansion of
    the number of control rooms for committee broadcasts to twelve, will
    enable us to increase our simultaneous broadcast coverage of committee
    hearings from five to as many as twelve.

    Migration to the Capitol Visitor Center
        Our Senate Recording Studio was one of the first departments to
    move into the recently completed Capitol Visitor Center. We
    successfully moved from eight dispersed offices in the Capitol to our
    state-of-the-art facility in the CVC. This move enabled the Recording
    Studio to complete its upgrade to a fully digital, high definition
    facility, which began almost 10 years ago. The Studio completed the
    move of all aspects of its operation, including the engineering shops,
    the Senate Television operation, Studio production and post-production
    facilities, committee broadcast services, and all administrative and
    management offices to the CVC by September 2008, when the Senate
    returned to session.
        Our new facility has received accolades from guests since its
    opening, including Senate Leadership, Senators and their staffs. The
    convenience of the Studio's location and proximity to the Senate Floor
    and Senate subway is a benefit to Senators and staff.
        We completed the move on time despite the challenge of broadcasting
    ten pro forma sessions during August. We successfully used equipment
    designated for Continuity of Operations (COOP) events to broadcast
    these sessions, allowing us to exercise our COOP processes and
    equipment simultaneously.

    Media Galleries
        Our four Media Galleries experienced one of their busiest years on
    record and performed their tasks exceptionally well despite numerous
    challenges. Changes in technology have created significant issues for
    our Galleries as they seek avenues to accommodate the various new media
    that have been emerging over the past 10 years. All Galleries have
    worked to incorporate as many online and multimedia organizations as
    possible within the current rules and structure of each respective
    Gallery.
        A significant accomplishment was expanding ``Wi-Fi'' to all rooms
    occupied by Gallery staff and media. This was done in an efficient and
    secure fashion. All involved worked very hard to maintain necessary
    firewalls while providing the wireless access.
        The Media Galleries moved their respective gallery membership data
    files into online applications. This data is housed on more secure SAA
    servers, is easily accessible to Gallery staff, and is available for
    day-to-day credentials, as well as numerous upcoming special events.
        Our Media Galleries work in some of the most beautiful areas of the
    Capitol. Last year we renovated the Daily Press Gallery with a complete
    remodeling of furniture, and installed the latest technology so that we
    may better serve our Members and the media who cover the Senate. The
    Senate Radio/TV Gallery Studio was also renovated in order to install
    the latest technology and provide a modern look for Senators'
    appearances on camera.
        The historic 2008 election cycle was the major story that occupied
    much of the news over the past 2 years. The declaration of six sitting
    Senators seeking their respective party's Presidential nomination and
    the election of two sitting Senators as President and Vice President
    was significant and kept our Galleries busy. This story, coupled with
    the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the declining economic conditions
    created great interest among those in the media throughout 2008.
        Election years require significant additional efforts from our
    staff who work in the Media Galleries because, in addition to their
    normal duties, the scope of their responsibilities is expanded to
    making media arrangements for the Democratic and Republican Conventions
    and the Inaugural Ceremonies. While our Media Gallery staff has worked
    diligently on the Presidential Conventions since 1904, that role was
    codified through legislation this past year.
        Preparations for the 2008 Republican and Democratic Presidential
    Nominating Conventions in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Denver, Colorado
    began in January 2008. After months of working on preliminary
    arrangements, workspace assignments, screening applicants, press stand
    allocations, and numerous other logistics, staff were on-site at the
    convention cities from mid-August through the first week in September.
    Approximately 15,000 media attended the conventions. While onsite, the
    Media Galleries allocated approximately 200,000 square feet of
    workspace for news organizations. Additionally, they accredited press,
    oversaw workspace, assigned positions on press and camera stands, and
    distributed floor passes. This year, most arrangements for the
    Democratic convention had to be done twice, since the first three
    nights took place in the Pepsi Center Arena, and the final night was
    held at a second venue, the Denver Broncos football stadium.
        As soon as the conventions ended, our Media Galleries immediately
    shifted their attention to the Inauguration. This year was
    extraordinary: we had approximately a 400 percent increase in the
    number of organizations who wanted to cover the Inaugural compared to
    2005. Newspapers and reporters from all over the United States and from
    countries around the globe applied for credentials. Between the four
    galleries, roughly 5,000 media were on the Capitol's West Front for the
    swearing-in ceremony.
        After January 20th, the work of the Galleries was not done. The
    first year of an Administration is always the busiest time for the
    media, and this one, like the conventions and Inauguration, has had
    more media interest than anything we have seen.

                             OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT

    Capitol Facilities
        Capitol Facilities serves the Senate community by providing a clean
    and professional work environment through its Environmental Services
    Division. The Furnishing Division provides creative framing services to
    all Senators and committees, custom cabinets and other high quality
    furniture, carpeting and draperies.
        The Senate Expansion Space of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) has
    impacted both the Furnishings Division and the Environmental Services
    Division of Capitol Facilities. Through multi-year funding, furnishings
    were procured for the offices located in this space. The Environmental
    Services Division has accommodated the additional ten event spaces by
    providing meeting planning through our administrative division and room
    setup. Daytime cleaning is also provided for the Senate Security
    offices.
        The Cabinet Shop designer has been instrumental in providing space
    planning for the Senate Expansion Space offices and the newly renovated
    Capitol offices. Through the use of computer aided design, floor plans
    were constructed easing the transition of Capitol offices into their
    new CVC spaces.
        An online request system known as CAPFOR (Capitol Facilities Online
    Request) has been launched to provide online access for Capitol work
    requests. This system provides an instantaneous way for staff to make
    service requests and view photos of the office furniture inventory.
        Capitol Facilities completed 5,000 service requests from staff;
    planned and provided 2,600 setups for special events; constructed 140
    pieces of furniture; and matted and framed 1,900 documents, photos and
    memorabilia for Senators.

    Central Operations
                Printing Graphics and Direct Mail
        The Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail (PGDM) branch provides
    high-level, direct customer support to the Senate community in
    photocopying, print design, and production services. During 2008, PGDM
    responded to customer requests for color printing by utilizing digital
    and traditional full-color offset printing equipment to produce over
    19.7 million full-color pages, an increase of 4 percent over 2007.
        PGDM retained high levels of customer satisfaction through
    maintaining reliable, user-friendly copiers in convenient satellite
    copy centers which produced over 8.6 million copies in 2008. In
    response to many requests, PGDM expanded its very popular microfilm
    conversion service and produced over 551 CDs from microfilm, a 77
    percent increase over 2007. PGDM also met growing Senate office
    requests for report printing and produced 2.8 million pages, up 16
    percent over 2007.
        As a good steward of its own resources and that of others, PGDM
    saved the Senate over $2.2 million in postage costs (53 percent more
    than 2007) by pre-sorting 10.9 million pieces of Senate franked mail, a
    126 percent increase over 2007. PGDM's commitment to teamwork and to
    excellent customer service extends to our Senate partners as well. The
    department's collaborative work with the Architect of the Capitol (AOC)
    fulfilled 65,000 flag requests during 2008 and in tandem with the
    Government Printing Office, delivered over 1 million documents (Pocket
    Constitutions, Our Flag, Our American Government, etc.) to requestors.
        PGDM's Senate Support Facility upheld the SAA mission for
    operational security by receiving 65,425 items from the United States
    Capitol Police Off-Site inspection facility and transferring them to
    the Senate Support Facility in 2008. This eliminated 619 truck
    deliveries to the Capitol complex.
                Parking Office
        The Senate Parking, Transportation and Fleet Office is a leader in
    ``green'' initiatives:
      --The fleet includes 22 flex-fuel vehicles, two hybrid vehicles and
            one electric car. In a collaborative agreement with the AOC,
            eleven E85-compatible Senate vehicles have access to the AOC
            E85 fuel station.
      --Six motorcycle parking spaces were added on the Northwest Lower
            Drive in 2008. In combination with 28 motorcycle spaces on Lot
            16 and 12 spaces on Lot 12, this gives Senate staff more
            choices when considering their commuting options.
      --Solar panel lighting was added to Lot 18 to provide heightened
            security and energy efficient illumination for customers.
                Photography Studio
        The Photography Studio provides photography and imaging services
    for Senate offices, capturing 75,000 photo images and producing more
    than 100,000 photo prints in fiscal year 2008. The Photography Studio's
    popular image archiving service was used to scan, organize, and
    transfer more than 113,000 photo images to portable hard drives for
    departing Senators.
        The Photography Studio is currently replacing the Photo Browser
    application. After extensive research and evaluation of numerous
    commercial off-the-shelf products, a selection was made and application
    installation began in December 2008. North Plains Telescope is a fully
    supported Digital Asset Management (DAM) product that is well-
    architected and meets all modern, open architecture programming
    standards. General Dynamics is working with North Plains and Photo
    Studio staff to identify design and configuration requirements, and
    plans to test the new application by June 2009.
                Senate Hair Care
        Following careful market research, Senate Hair Care increased
    prices on selected services in July 2008. Within the following 7
    months, revenue increased by $18,565 (7 percent) over the same period
    in 2007. After listening to customers, services and retail product
    offerings were also expanded to include more personal care products and
    travel-sized items which keep customers compliant with Transportation
    Security Administration security. Customers are responding positively
    to the new services and retail products offered in Senate Hair Care.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We take our responsibilities to the American people and to their
    elected representatives seriously. The composition of the Office of the
    Sergeant at Arms is comparable to a number of small businesses, each
    with its own primary mission, each with its own measures of success,
    and each with its own culture. It has a fleet of vehicles that serves
    Senate Leadership, delivers goods, and provides emergency
    transportation. Our Photography Studio records historic events, takes
    official Senate portraits, provides a whole range of photography
    services, and delivers thousands of pictures each year. The SAA's
    printing shop provides layout and design, graphics development, and
    production of everything from newsletters to floor charts. The Office
    of the Sergeant at Arms also operates a Page dormitory, a hair salon,
    and parking lots. It provides many other services to support the Senate
    community, including framing, flag packaging and mailing, and intranet
    services. Each of these businesses requires personnel with different
    skills and abilities. One thing that they all have in common is their
    commitment to making the Senate run smoothly.
        Over the past year, the staff of the SAA has kept the Senate safe,
    secure, and operating efficiently. This Committee and the Committee on
    Rules and Administration have provided active, ongoing support to help
    us achieve our goals. We thank you for your support and for the
    opportunity to present this testimony and respond to any questions you
    may have.

                  Appendix A--Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request

               ATTACHMENT I--FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS--UNITED STATES SENATE
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Fiscal year 2010 vs.
                                                                              Fiscal year       fiscal year 2009
                                                                 Fiscal year      2010    --------------------------
                                                                 2009 budget    request                    Percent
                                                                                              Amount      Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Salaries...................................................      $66,800      $75,044       $8,244          12.3
    Expenses...................................................      $83,472      $91,712       $8,240           9.9
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance...............     $150,272     $166,756      $16,484          11.0
                                                                ====================================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments...........................      $63,118      $55,114      ($8,004)        -12.7
    Capital Investment.........................................       $2,315      $15,185      $12,870         555.9
    Nondiscretionary Items.....................................       $4,696       $6,450       $1,754          37.4
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL................................................     $220,401     $243,505      $23,104          10.5
                                                                ====================================================
    Staffing...................................................          958          963            5           0.5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To ensure that we provide the highest levels and quality of
    security, support services and equipment, we submit a fiscal year 2010
    budget request of $243,505,000, an increase of $23,104,000 or 10.5
    percent compared to fiscal year 2009. The salary budget request is
    $75,044,000, an increase of $8,244,000 or 12.3 percent, and the expense
    budget request is $168,461,000, an increase of $14,860,000 or 9.7
    percent. The staffing request is 963, an increase of five.
        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
    $75,044,000, an increase of $8,244,000 or 12.3 percent compared to
    fiscal year 2009. The salary budget increase is due to the addition of
    five FTEs, a COLA, and merit funding. The additional staff will support
    increased demand for services, as well as advancing technology.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request for
    existing and new services is $91,712,000, an increase of $8,240,000 or
    9.9 percent compared to fiscal year 2009. Major factors contributing to
    the expense budget increase are equipment and software maintenance
    costs for enterprise storage, $1,235,000; professional services,
    software purchase and technical support for IT Security, $1,094,000;
    escalating costs of the IT Support Contract and other IT Support
    agreements, $844,000; smart card badges for the ID Office, $650,000;
    and system design costs for the Senate services portal, $600,000;
    system design services for admin systems, $553,000; and telephone
    system maintenance, $551,000.
        The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
    $55,114,000, a decrease of $8,004,000 or 12.7 percent compared to
    fiscal year 2009. This budget supports state office rents, $17,644,000;
    voice and data communications for Washington, DC and state offices,
    $13,200,000; purchase of computer equipment, $12,315,000; procurement
    and maintenance of office equipment for Washington, DC and state
    offices, $4,665,000; maintenance and procurement of Member mail
    systems, $4,500,000; and state office security enhancements,
    $2,700,000.
        The capital investment budget request is $15,185,000, an increase
    of $12,870,000 or 555.9 percent compared to fiscal year 2009. The
    fiscal year 2010 budget request includes funds for audio and video
    upgrades for committee hearing rooms, $5,000,000; hardware for network
    upgrades, $2,500,000; equipment purchases for the storage area network,
    $1,600,000; replacement of printing equipment, $1,540,000; and state
    office wide area network hardware, $1,150,000.
        The nondiscretionary items budget request is $6,450,000, an
    increase of $1,754,000 or 37.4 percent compared to fiscal year 2009.
    The request funds three projects that support the Secretary of the
    Senate: contract maintenance for the Financial Management Information
    System, $3,427,000; costs related to the replacement of the Senate
    Payroll System, $2,150,000; and maintenance and necessary enhancements
    to the Legislative Information System, $873,000.

          ATTACHMENT II--FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST BY DEPARTMENT

        The following is a summary of the SAA fiscal year 2010 budget
    request on an organizational basis.

                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Fiscal year 2010 vs.
                                                                              Fiscal year       fiscal year 2009
                                                                 Fiscal year      2010    --------------------------
                                                                 2009 budget    request                    Percent
                                                                                              Amount      Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Capitol Division...........................................      $31,307      $39,566       $8,259          26.4
    Operations.................................................      $42,827      $47,120       $4,293          10.0
    Technology Development.....................................      $47,877      $62,523      $14,646          30.6
    IT Support Services........................................      $81,752      $75,368      ($6,384)         -7.8
    Staff Offices..............................................      $16,638      $18,928       $2,290          13.8
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL................................................     $220,401     $243,505      $23,104          10.5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                                    CAPITOL DIVISION
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Fiscal year 2010 vs.
                                                                               Fiscal year      fiscal year 2009
                                                                  Fiscal year      2010    -------------------------
                                                                  2009 budget    request                   Percent
                                                                                               Amount     Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries................................................      $17,537      $19,612       $2,075         11.8
        Expenses................................................      $10,970      $12,254       $1,284         11.7
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance................      $28,507      $31,866       $3,359         11.8
                                                                 ===================================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments............................       $2,700       $2,700  ...........  ...........
    Capital Investment..........................................         $100       $5,000       $4,900      4,900.0
    Nondiscretionary Items......................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.................................................      $31,307      $39,566       $8,259         26.4
                                                                 ===================================================
    Staffing....................................................          287          287  ...........  ...........
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Capitol Division consists of the Executive Office, the Office
    of Police Operations, Security and Emergency Preparedness, Post Office,
    Recording Studio and Media Galleries.
        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $19,612,000, an increase of $2,075,000 or 11.8 percent. The salary
    budget increase is due an expected COLA and merit increases, and other
    adjustments.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
    $12,254,000, an increase of $1,284,000 or 11.7 percent primarily in
    support of the new smart card badges for the ID Office.
        The mandated allowances and allotments budget request for state
    office security initiatives is $2,700,000.
        The capital investments budget request of $5,000,000 will fund
    hearing room audio and video upgrades.

                                                       OPERATIONS
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Fiscal year 2010 vs.
                                                                               Fiscal year      fiscal year 2009
                                                                  Fiscal year      2010    -------------------------
                                                                  2009 budget    request                   Percent
                                                                                               Amount     Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries................................................      $18,509      $20,358       $1,849         10.0
        Expenses................................................       $6,876       $7,028         $152          2.2
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance................      $25,385      $27,386       $2,001          7.9
                                                                 ===================================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments............................      $16,992      $17,744         $752          4.4
    Capital Investment..........................................         $450       $1,990       $1,540        342.2
    Nondiscretionary Items......................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.................................................      $42,827      $47,120       $4,293         10.0
                                                                 ===================================================
    Staffing....................................................          305          307            2          0.7
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Operations Division consists of the Central Operations Group
    (Director/Management, Parking Office, Printing, Graphics and Direct
    Mail, Photo Studio, and Hair Care Services), Facilities, and the Office
    Support Services Group (Director, Customer Support, State Office
    Liaison, and Administrative Services).
        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $20,358,000, an increase of $1,849,000 or 10.0 percent. The salary
    budget increase is due to an expected COLA, merit increases, two new
    FTEs to support increased service levels, and other adjustments.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
    $7,028,000, an increase of $152,000 or 2.2 percent. This increase is
    primarily due to increases in equipment maintenance costs.
        The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
    $17,744,000, an increase of $752,000 or 4.4 percent due to increased
    commercial and federal office rents.
        The capital investment budget request is $1,990,000, an increase of
    $1,540,000 or 342.2 percent. This request includes funds for a color
    network printer, $500,000; laser printer, $400,000; copy center
    copiers, $200,000; and servers, $200,000; a digital printing and
    processing machine, $200,000.

                                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Fiscal year 2010 vs.
                                                                               Fiscal year      fiscal year 2009
                                                                  Fiscal year      2010    -------------------------
                                                                  2009 budget    request                   Percent
                                                                                               Amount     Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries................................................      $13,922      $16,306       $2,384         17.1
        Expenses................................................      $27,594      $31,572       $3,978         14.4
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance................      $41,516      $47,878       $6,362         15.3
                                                                 ===================================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Capital Investment..........................................       $1,665       $8,195       $6,530        392.2
    Nondiscretionary Items......................................       $4,696       $6,450       $1,754         37.4
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.................................................      $47,877      $62,523      $14,646         30.6
                                                                 ===================================================
    Staffing....................................................          146          149            3          2.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Technology Development Services includes the Technology
    Development Director, Network Engineering and Management, Enterprise IT
    Operations, Systems Development Services, Information Systems Security
    and Research Services.
        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $16,306,000, an increase of $2,384,000 or 17.1 percent. The salary
    budget increase is due to the addition of three FTEs, an expected COLA
    and merit funding for fiscal year 2010. Technology Development requires
    three FTEs in support of wireless network services and to provide
    expertise in mass distribution of software solutions in the SAA LAN
    environment.
        The general operations and maintenance expense budget request is
    $31,572,000, an increase of $3,978,000 or 14.4 percent. This increase
    is due to equipment and software maintenance costs for enterprise
    storage, $1,235,000; professional services, software purchase and
    technical support for IT security, $1,094,000; and systems design
    services for admin systems, $553,000.
        The capital investment budget request is $8,195,000, an increase of
    $6,530,000 or 392.2 percent. This request includes data network upgrade
    project, $2,500,000; data network engineering, $2,200,000; upgrade of
    the Storage Area Network (SAN), $1,600,000; and state office wide area
    network hardware, $1,500,000.
        The nondiscretionary items budget request is $6,450,000, an
    increase of $1,754,000 or 37.4 percent. The request consists of three
    projects that support the Secretary of the Senate: contract maintenance
    for the Financial Management Information System, $3,427,000;
    replacement of the Senate Payroll System, $2,150,000; and maintenance
    and necessary enhancements to the Legislative Information System,
    $873,000.

                                                   IT SUPPORT SERVICES
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Fiscal year 2010 vs.
                                                                              Fiscal year       fiscal year 2009
                                                                 Fiscal year      2010    --------------------------
                                                                 2009 budget    request                    Percent
                                                                                              Amount      Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries...............................................       $6,916       $7,669         $753          10.9
        Expenses...............................................      $31,310      $33,029       $1,719           5.5
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance...............      $38,226      $40,698       $2,472           6.5
                                                                ====================================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments...........................      $43,426      $34,670      ($8,756)        -20.2
    Capital Investment.........................................         $100  ...........        ($100)       -100.0
    Nondiscretionary Items.....................................  ...........  ...........  ............  ...........
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL................................................      $81,752      $75,368      ($6,384)         -7.8
                                                                ====================================================
    Staffing...................................................          113          113  ............  ...........
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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
    $7,669,000, an increase of $753,000 or 10.9 percent. The salary budget
    will increase due to an expected COLA and merit funding for fiscal year
    2010.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
    $33,029,000, an increase of $1,719,000 or 5.5 percent. This increase is
    primarily due to escalating costs of the IT Support Contract and other
    IT support agreements, $844,000; telephone system maintenance,
    $551,000; and upgrade of Postal Square voice and data cabling,
    $354,000.
        The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
    $34,670,000, a decrease of $8,756,000 or 20.2 percent. This budget
    supports voice and data communications for Washington, DC and state
    offices, $13,200,000; computer equipment, $12,315,000; procurement and
    maintenance of office equipment for Washington, DC and state offices,
    $4,665,000; and maintenance and procurement of Member and Committee
    mail systems, $4,500,000.
        The capital investment budget request is $0.

                                                      STAFF OFFICES
                                              [Dollar amounts in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Fiscal year 2010 vs.
                                                                               Fiscal year      fiscal year 2009
                                                                  Fiscal year      2010    -------------------------
                                                                  2009 budget    request                   Percent
                                                                                               Amount     Incr/Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance:
        Salaries................................................       $9,916      $11,099       $1,183         11.9
        Expenses................................................       $6,722       $7,829       $1,107         16.5
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total General Operations & Maintenance................      $16,638      $18,928       $2,290         13.8
                                                                 ===================================================
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Capital Investment..........................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Nondiscretionary Items......................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.................................................      $16,638      $18,928       $2,290         13.8
                                                                 ===================================================
    Staffing....................................................          107          107  ...........  ...........
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Staff Offices Division consists of Process Management &
    Innovation, Education and Training, Financial Management, Human
    Resources, Employee Assistance Program, and Special Projects.
        The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
    $11,099,000, an increase of $1,183,000 or 11.9 percent. The salary
    budget increase is due an expected COLA, merit funding and other
    personnel adjustments.
        The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
    $7,829,000, an increase of $1,107,000 or 16.5 percent. This increase is
    primarily due to system design costs for the Senate services portal,
    $600,000.

                          UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE

    STATEMENT OF PHILLIP D. MORSE, SR., CHIEF
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            DAN NICHOLS, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS AND ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE
            GLORIA JARMON, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

        Senator Nelson. Chief Morse.
        Chief Morse. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member Murkowski, Senator Pryor, Senator Tester. It certainly
    is an honor for me to be here today.
        I do have written testimony that I would like to submit for
    the record.
        Senator Nelson. It will be received.
        Chief Morse. I also have a brief opening statement, if that
    would be okay with you?
        Senator Nelson. That would be fine. Thank you.
        Chief Morse. First, I would like to make just two
    introductions. First, to my left is the chief of operations,
    our assistant chief of police Dan Nichols. And to his left is
    our chief administrative officer, Gloria Jarmon.
        Over the past year, several years, the department has
    undergone many changes. While all of these are necessary to
    move the department forward, I believe that our focus for the
    next fiscal year will be one of leveling out our operational
    and administrative activities.

                FUNDING EFFICIENCIES AND ADDRESSING DEFICIENCIES

        My direction to my management team is to focus on finding
    efficiencies and addressing longstanding deficiencies to meet
    the department's core mission as well as focus on
    institutionalizing and standardizing repeatable business
    practices.
        The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office
    of Inspector General has made over 169 recommendations since
    2005, which were intended to improve the department's
    operations, and most of these were geared toward the
    administrative operations. These administrative operations
    encompass more than just how we manage our finances.
        The audit recommendations cover how we maintain our
    physical inventory, how well we control privacy information,
    how well we secure our information systems, as well as how
    efficiently and effectively we recruit, select, train, and pay
    our employees. I am pleased to report that, again, we have made
    significant progress.
        We have now closed over one-half of all these
    recommendations. This is despite the addition of 40 additional
    recommendations this past year alone. We currently have just 85
    of 169 still open and are in the process of implementing
    corrective actions to close these in the near future.
        Recently, we closed 16 Office of Inspector General
    recommendations dealing with property management, the memorial
    fund, hiring standards, and the student loan repayment program.
    We also anticipate closing many GAO recommendations in the
    coming months.
        The department, as you mentioned, produced a fiscal year
    2008 financial statement in time for a complete independent
    audit, which resulted in the department receiving a clean
    opinion on our financial statements for the first time in our
    history.
        We received reaccreditation from the Commission of
    Accreditation in Law Enforcement after undergoing an extensive
    onsite evaluation to review operations and supporting
    documentation to verify that we have maintained compliance with
    standards over the 3-year accreditation review period. This
    confirmed the fact that we achieved mandatory compliance for
    almost 300 accreditation requirements.
        We issued our updated strategic plan and strategic human
    capital plan, which will improve our ability to link our human
    resources programs to our strategic goals and enable us to
    measure out our staffing needs and progress much more
    efficiently and effectively. We implemented effective business
    practices and internal controls in our financial and human
    capital resources, facilities, and information technology.
        We reconciled our financial management and property
    management systems and performed a complete physical inventory.
    We aligned our salary and benefits data with the National
    Finance Center. We revised our budget justifications to
    incorporate strategic objectives, accomplishments, and
    schedules consistent with executive and other legislative
    branch agency budgets.
        Finally, on the operational side of the mission, again, our
    police officers and our operational civilians have once again
    done an outstanding job representing our police department and
    protecting the legislative process and all its members, staff,
    visitors, and dignitaries. And I want to thank them today for a
    job well done.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        At this time, sir, I will answer any questions that you
    have.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Phillip D. Morse, Sr.

        Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the
    Committee, I am honored to be here to testify before you today. With me
    today are Dan Nichols, our Chief of Operations, and Gloria Jarmon, our
    Chief Administrative Officer.
        Over the past several years, the Department has undergone many
    changes. While all of these were necessary to move the Department
    forward, our focus for the next fiscal year will be one of ``leveling
    out'' our operational and administrative activities. My direction to my
    management team is to focus on institutionalizing standard and
    repeatable business practices, finding efficiencies, and addressing
    longstanding deficiencies to meet the Department's core mission set. To
    do so, we have developed a budget proposal that I believe meets my
    vision.
        Our total budget request for fiscal year 2010 is $410.1 million.
    This represents a requested increase of $104.3 million. Of this
    increase, about 69 percent or about $71.6 million is for modernization
    of our radio system and 20 percent or about $18 million is for items
    over which we have no control such as cost of living and salary
    adjustments, costs associated with the merger of the Capitol Police
    with the Library of Congress Police, plus uncontrollable inflation
    increases. The remaining portion of our requested increase is primarily
    to cover additional positions to help us reduce the overtime that we
    need to properly cover everyday post requirements, as well as to
    address the lifecycle replacement of systems that have been deferred in
    previous fiscal years. Due to the time critical nature of the radio
    modernization project, we have also requested that the same $71.6
    million be included in the President's fiscal year 2009 Supplemental
    Request.
        I would like to take a few minutes to expand on some of these areas
    and provide you with the highlights for some of our accomplishments
    over the last year.

                          RADIO MODERNIZATION PROJECT

        First, let me address our request for funding to support the new
    radio system. There are three critical life and safety tools that our
    officers need in the performance of their duties. They are reliable
    radio communications, weapons, and protective equipment. The radio
    system currently in use is the only one of these three that we believe
    may present an unacceptably high risk to the life and safety of our
    officers, Members of Congress, their staff, family, and visitors, as
    well as to our ability to properly respond to emergency situations on
    Capitol Hill. Since the attacks of 9/11, the threat posed to the
    Congress, the Capitol, and the Complex has changed significantly. It
    has become much more critical for us to have reliable radio
    communications that provide for interoperability between the Department
    and our other federal, state and local law enforcement partners in the
    area. As the scope of this increased threat on the Congress has
    evolved, it has become increasingly apparent that our current radio
    system, which is over 20 years old and experiencing multiple regular
    failures, is not capable of providing the reliable communication
    capability that we need.
        In addition, we have recently received notice from the manufacturer
    of our dispatch consoles that they will no longer be providing us
    technical support because of the age of our equipment. These
    circumstances create a substantive risk to our ability to properly
    carry out our mission, especially during a time of emergency.
    Increasing that risk is our lack of an interoperable system able to
    communicate with other first responding organizations such as the
    Secret Service, the Metropolitan Police, the Metropolitan Fire
    Department and the U.S. Park Police. We believe this risk to be
    significant and immediate. Another area of vulnerability is the lack of
    encryption for our current radio system. This lack of encryption
    enables our adversaries, the press and others to monitor our radio
    transmissions, which has potential to compromise our mission.
        To address this risk, the U.S. Capitol Police plans to procure a
    VHF trunked radio system in order to achieve adequate on street, in-
    buildings, garages, basements and in-tunnels radio coverage throughout
    the Capitol Complex as well as our extended area of operation.
    Therefore, we are requesting a total of $71.6 million in multi-year
    funding for this project.
        Because of the criticality of this requirement, we have expedited
    our request for this funding by asking that it also be included in the
    President's fiscal year 2009 Supplemental Request. The sequence that we
    would otherwise follow would require us to complete the detailed design
    and hopefully obtain funding in fiscal year 2010, and then procure the
    necessary equipment and services. If funding is delayed (by a CR, for
    example) due to circumstances beyond our control we would need to
    suspend procurement activity until such time as funding could be made
    available, and that would slip project completion dates accordingly.
        If we could get supplemental funding in fiscal year 2009 rather
    than in fiscal year 2010 it would permit us to begin the acquisition
    process for segments of the project as soon as the detailed engineering
    design is completed for each segment rather than having to delay all
    procurement activities until we are able to obtain funding in fiscal
    year 2010. By doing so we could begin to roll out these segments much
    sooner than we would otherwise be able to do and consequently may be
    able to shave several months off the time required to fully implement a
    new system. Given the increased risks associated with the continued
    problems we are experiencing with an aging system, we believe it
    prudent for us to expedite our new system implementation as much as we
    can.
        We believe that the nature of the radio modernization project
    comports with the intent of emergency supplemental bills, which
    frequently fund ``pressing domestic needs.'' This new system is
    critical to our ability to effectively address anti-terrorism, and the
    continuity of government operations. The initial funding of $10 million
    for this project was provided in the fiscal year 2007 emergency
    supplemental bill because of the urgency associated with beginning the
    planning and detailed engineering design of the new system as quickly
    as possible. We believe that urgency still exists and justifies our
    request that funding for the project be included in the pending
    supplemental.
        The requested amount of $71.6 million for the radio project
    includes $4 million for the build out or construction of a mirror or
    alternate site; $31.1 million for equipment hardware costs; $20.1
    million for subscriber equipment; $9.9 million for travel equipment,
    encryption, and professional services; and $6.5 million for contingency
    funds for unforeseen conditions with strict controls on the use of such
    funds. However, the Department's funding requirements for a new radio
    system are estimated at $89.6 to $97.6 million, which includes the $10
    million previously provided by the Congress for this purpose and the
    $71.6 million included in this request. The remaining $8 to $16
    million, which is expected to be requested in fiscal year 2011, relates
    to the indoor coverage requirements, which cannot be finalized until
    after the completion of the design engineering, plus project
    contingency requirements.
        The Department has evaluated a number of alternatives regarding how
    to proceed with this critical procurement. We have also sought the
    advice of various independent experts, who have advised us to enlist
    the project management and related services of an outside government
    agency with considerable expertise in technical procurements of a
    similar magnitude. For this reason, we have established an interagency
    agreement with the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). NAVAIR's Special
    Communications Requirements Division has accomplished numerous
    communications efforts for other U.S. government agencies, to include
    the White House Communications Agency, the U.S. House of
    Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Department of Homeland Security's
    Office of Emergency Communications and various other classified
    efforts.
        For this effort, they have already begun to develop a detailed
    design engineering study of each building, garage, tunnel, and outdoor
    site so we will have complete technical specifications for the project
    once we have the funding and are ready to proceed.

                               OVERTIME/STAFFING

        Our other area of requested growth is related to additional sworn
    personnel, whom we would use to help us reduce the Department's
    dependence on overtime in meeting our normal mission requirements. Over
    the last year, we have continued to analyze and evaluate posts and
    other staffing needs and have concluded that we could increase
    operational efficiency through the addition of sworn personnel.
        The Department has continued to approach its sworn manpower
    requirements through a three-pronged approach. This approach includes
    the assessment of threats against the Capitol Complex using the risk
    matrix we designed in collaboration with the Government Accountability
    Office, the physical security surveys we have conducted on the Capitol
    Complex buildings under our jurisdiction, and the alignment of
    available sworn staff to meet the threats.
        The Department began the first step in this effort in fiscal year
    2007 with a review of our overtime utilization in relation to mission
    requirements. The review resulted in a manpower study that was
    performed for us by Enlightened Leadership Solutions (or ELS).
        We have begun to use the ELS study as a guiding management tool for
    the alignment of functions and the deployment of personnel, but this
    study does not represent a complete analysis of our sworn manpower
    requirements. We will also need to assess the staffing requirements for
    the Library of Congress and Capitol Visitor Center, since these
    missions were added subsequent to the completion of the ELS study. As a
    result, we are continuing to analyze ELS data, current threat
    assessment data and the ability of our infrastructure to support sworn
    growth, in order to establish and validate an appropriate staffing
    level for the Capitol Police, as well as an appropriate level of
    overtime. We expect this analysis to be completed no later than our
    fiscal year 2012 budget submission. In the meantime, we believe that
    our fiscal year 2010 sworn staffing request represents a reasonable
    first step toward the proper balance of overtime and full-time sworn
    staff and can be supported within our current infrastructure.
        This year's request is an important step in an ongoing evaluation
    that we will use to identify an overtime level that will be balanced
    and more efficient.

    New Sworn Positions
        Therefore, we have requested an increase of 89 sworn positions in
    fiscal year 2010, which includes 76 to help us to fulfill our current
    mission while enabling us to begin reducing our use of overtime. The
    other 13 sworn positions are requested in our Protective Services
    Bureau for counter surveillance and investigative intelligence
    gathering in order to conduct basic surveillance detection and field
    collection operations across the Complex. This will bring the sworn
    positions to 1,888 by the end of fiscal year 2010.
        Our plan is for the new sworn officers we are requesting to enable
    us to reduce the amount of overtime worked by most of our sworn
    positions once recruit training is completed. Of course, there will
    always be a need for overtime to cover uncontrollable protective
    details of Members and certain intermittent work requirements, such as
    scheduled events like the Fourth of July celebration. In addition,
    unpredictable overtime to support events, such as unplanned late
    Congressional sessions, Congressional delegations, unplanned special
    events, unplanned major demonstrations, and emerging threats, will also
    be needed. Scheduled and unscheduled events such as these will continue
    to be staffed by using overtime, as they reasonably should be.

    New Civilian Positions
        In fiscal year 2010, we have also requested 48 new civilian
    positions. Twenty-one of these positions are for civilian employees who
    were formerly LOC officers, transferring to the USCP as a result of the
    Capitol Police and Library of Congress Police merger. Several of the
    remaining positions would eliminate our need to use contractors to
    accomplish critical mission sets, as well as to address outstanding
    audit findings. Additionally, four of these positions are to support
    the Department's Office of the Inspector General.
                Highlights
        We recognize that our requested salaries and general expenses
    increases are significant in today's fiscal environment, but we believe
    these funds are critical to the Department's ability to efficiently,
    effectively and--most importantly--safely perform our mission.
        However, I believe that when an agency is making such a request for
    increased budgetary consideration, we must also demonstrate to you the
    value we bring to the overall community. Therefore, I would like to
    provide some brief highlights of these operational and mission support
    efforts to you.
        Over the last year, the Department has made significant efforts to
    review its operations for efficiency, standardize its business
    practices, address its management and fiscal shortcomings and address
    outstanding audit recommendations and findings. During this same
    period, we also provided law enforcement operations for a number of
    high profile activities, while continuing to provide for the safety and
    security of the Capitol Complex.
                Operational Activities
        Nearly 400 officers and support staff participated in the law
    enforcement and security activities associated with the Republican and
    Democratic Conventions. These efforts included dignitary protection and
    protective intelligence.
        The Department played a key role in the planning and execution of
    the law enforcement support for the 56th Presidential Inauguration. By
    any measure, the Inauguration of President Barack Obama was historic
    with an unprecedented 1.8 million people gathered to witness and
    experience this historic event.
        In addition:
      --We provided security and counter-intelligence support for 63 Head
            of State arrivals, 34 Presidential and Vice Presidential
            Motorcades, the State of the Union, the Papal Visit, the 2008
            Concert Series and over 2,000 VIP arrivals to include Supreme
            Court Justices, Cabinet Members and other U.S. and foreign
            dignitaries.
      --We screened 8.7 million staff and visitors to the Complex,
            including the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) that opened in
            December 2008.
      --As a result of law enforcement actions, we confiscated several
            handguns, an AK-47, a number of .22 Caliber Rifles, shotguns, a
            BB rifle, ammunition, a sword, a night stick, several knives, a
            bayonet, a machete, a hatchet, a stun gun, metal pipes,
            grenades, pepper spray, mace, box cutters and razor blades, a
            sling shot, a table leg and a baseball bat.
      --We conducted over 163,000 K-9 security sweeps.
      --We screened over 32,000 vehicles at our offsite facility.
      --We conducted over 24,000 Transportation Interdiction Group
            Emergency Response Team (T.I.G.E.R.) vehicle screenings, which
            resulted in 11 vehicles being refused access to the Complex, 3
            arrests and 104 citations.
      --We conducted 3,500 foundation checks of the buildings on the
            Complex utilizing the Department's mountain bike patrols
            yielding 9 arrests, and 532 Notices of Interest.
      --We conducted 3,800 hazardous materials/weapons sweeps and responded
            to over 150 suspicious package and substance incidents.
      --We conducted 90 emergency evacuation drills in conjunction with the
            House, Senate and the Architect of the Capitol to ensure that
            the Congressional Community is trained to respond to
            emergencies.
      --We completed 5,664 preventative maintenance checks on security
            equipment, up from 2,229 checks in 2007, partially due to
            delays in lifecycle replacement.
      --We completed 7,172 checks on Barriers, up from 2,263 in 2007,
            partially due to delays in lifecycle replacement.
      --We performed 3,697 Magnetometer calibrations, up from 1,997 in
            2007, partially due to delays in lifecycle replacement.
                Administrative Activities
        Over the last year, we have also provided a significant level of
    mission support to the overall operational mission, and we improved
    upon our administrative capabilities.
        As you know, both the Government Accountability Office and our
    Inspector General have made 169 recommendations since 2005 intended to
    improve the Department's operations, and most of these are geared
    toward administrative operations. These administrative operations
    encompass more than just how we manage our finances. The audit
    recommendations cover how we maintain our physical inventory; how well
    we control privacy information; how we secure our information systems;
    as well as how efficiently and effectively we recruit, select, train,
    and pay our employees. Responding to these recommendations with limited
    staff has been a challenge for us, but we are pleased to report that we
    have made significant progress.
        We have now closed about half of all these recommendations--this
    despite the addition of 40 recommendations in the past year alone. We
    currently have just 85 of the 169 still open and are in the process of
    implementing corrective actions to close these in the near future.
    Recently, we closed 16 OIG recommendations dealing with property
    management, the Memorial Fund, hiring standards, and the Student Loan
    Repayment Program. We also anticipate closing many GAO recommendations
    in the coming months. We believe we are beginning to get ahead of the
    curve on improving our administrative operations, and while we realize
    we have a lot of work ahead of us, we anticipate more improvement as
    the year proceeds.
        Some of the best progress we have made in the past year has been in
    the financial management arena. In order to achieve these results, we
    focused on the hiring of a Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Deputy CFO,
    Budget Officer, Deputy Procurement Officer, as well as several other
    professional positions within the Office of Financial Management. The
    hiring of these highly qualified managers allowed the Department to
    benefit from their experience, talent, knowledge and understanding,
    along with a high level of integrity that is critical to agency
    operations. They have federal--as well as considerable legislative
    branch--expertise, and we are optimistic that with this team we can
    establish the practices, policies and procedures that (as this
    Committee has noted in the past) we have been lacking. The professional
    administrative oversight from these individuals, as well as the many
    other professional and technical civilians within the Department, has
    enabled us to begin to institutionalize an administrative operation in
    the U.S. Capitol Police that will be as responsive, accountable, and
    transparent as any in the federal government.
        To this end, we have recently completed classes in appropriation
    law for all of the Department personnel who have any impact on
    appropriated funds. This makes it the perfect time for us to continue
    to examine our procurement and budgeting standard operating practices
    to ensure we comply with all mandates. In addition, we are now
    ascribing salary data to the Bureaus and Offices that directly benefit,
    and thus in the future, we will be better able to project salary data
    and trends. Having tied our strategic goals to spending of our general
    expenses appropriation in the fiscal year 2010 budget request, we will
    be able to do this with our salary appropriation, as well, for the
    fiscal year 2011 budget cycle.
        Other administrative accomplishments and enhancements within the
    past year have included the following:
      --The Department produced an fiscal year 2008 financial statement in
            time for a complete independent audit, which resulted in the
            Department receiving a clean opinion on our financial statement
            for the first time in the Department's history.
      --We received reaccreditation from the Commission on Accreditation of
            Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) after undergoing an extensive
            on-site evaluation to review operations and supporting
            documentation to verify that we have maintained compliance with
            standards over the 3 year accreditation review period. This
            confirmed the fact that we achieved mandatory compliance for
            all of the almost 300 accreditation requirements and resulted
            in the Department receiving its third accreditation award.
      --We issued our updated Strategic Plan and our Strategic Human
            Capital Plan which will improve our ability to link our human
            resources programs to our strategic goals and enable us to
            measure our staffing needs and progress much more efficiently
            and effectively.
      --We implemented effective business practices and internal controls
            into our financial, human resources, facilities, and
            information technology operations.
      --We reconciled our financial management and property management
            systems, and performed a complete physical inventory.
      --We aligned our salary and benefit data with the National Finance
            Center budget object codes to be able to respond to Committee
            requests with more precision.
      --We revised our budget justification to incorporate strategic
            objectives, accomplishments, and schedules consistent with
            Executive and other Legislative Branch agency budget reports.
        Even with these significant achievements, the Department continues
    to struggle to level off its administrative operations. One of our
    biggest concerns is the retention of professional talent within our
    civilian staff that we know to be necessary to move the Department
    forward. We simply cannot sustain the turnover rates in critical
    civilian positions that we have experienced in the past. By continuing
    this level of attrition, we lose far too much in productivity,
    institutional knowledge and employee morale. We need to be able to
    provide the same flexibilities for our civilian employees that other
    federal government agencies provide.
        While we have authorization and often funding to provide
    recruitment and retention bonuses, as well as to administer a Student
    Loan Repayment Program and tuition reimbursement program, the
    Department has either not had sufficient program staff onboard to
    develop, implement and manage a best-practices program for each of
    these areas, or the onboard staff has been overburdened with workloads
    necessary to maintain other areas of the Department.
        Additionally, we do not have alternate work schedule or telework
    programs or an incentives awards program that provides for cash and
    time off incentives, programs for which many federal civilian employees
    have grown accustomed in their workplace.
        All of these factors have contributed to the Department's
    challenges in recruiting qualified candidates or retaining those we
    currently have onboard. In fact, during our attempts to fill some of
    the current civilian vacancies, the process has proceeded to the point
    of selection, only to have the selectee decline the job offer when they
    found out that the Department could not offer workplace benefits or
    quality of life programs similar to those of other federal entities.
        To address these challenges, the Department is working on policies
    to administer these programs in accordance with applicable laws,
    regulations and consistent with best practices. However, the Department
    wants to be thoughtful in its rollout, so that the programs are not
    compromised, which could result in additional audit findings and
    stakeholder recommendations.
        Additionally, we are planning our first all-employee customer
    satisfaction survey, and have begun regularized exit interviews for
    terminating employees to better understand how to improve the workplace
    in order to retain our talented sworn and civilian workforce.
        Another area in which we also hope to achieve greater efficiencies
    is in fleet management. We are completing a comprehensive analysis of
    our fleet services, including a cost-benefit analysis of leasing versus
    buying vehicles, which we plan to present to the Committees for funding
    consideration. This plan will focus on providing justification for the
    fleet requirements, demonstrating areas where we have reduced or plan
    to reduce the fleet, and it will provide for a 5-year fleet management
    plan to meet the validated fleet requirements. This plan will also
    address our efforts to make the fleet more energy efficient.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In conclusion, I believe that there is much work left to be
    undertaken, but we expect that the combined efforts of many of our
    dedicated staff will result in the continued transformation of the
    Department into a more efficient and accountable organization.
        Recognizing that the Committees have expressed concerns over the
    last several years about the Department's leadership, internal
    controls, and financial management, we have placed significant emphasis
    on addressing these shortcomings.
        Under the leadership of Gloria Jarmon, the Department achieved a
    clean opinion on its financial statements 2 years earlier than
    expected; our Office of Financial Management has become more efficient
    and it has achieved staffing stability; we have addressed numerous
    oversight studies and inquiries; we have developed a comprehensive plan
    to procure and implement a new radio system; we have redesigned our
    budget development and execution processes; we have completed
    appropriations law training for all Department personnel who have any
    impact on appropriated funds; and we have resolved numerous audit and
    oversight findings and recommendations.
        On our Operational side, under the leadership of Dan Nichols, the
    Department has continued our efforts to find efficiencies in sworn
    staffing and the utilization of those personnel resources. This effort
    has resulted in a savings in the Department's overtime utilization.
        All these achievements have been accomplished while supporting the
    operational mission of protecting the Capitol Complex, providing
    security for two national political conventions and supporting a
    Presidential Inauguration of historic size and capacity.
        It is through this leadership and the dedication of our employees
    that the Department has been able to realize these achievements, even
    with a large number of civilian vacancies and under a continuing
    resolution. With a continued focus on addressing our civilian staffing
    needs, balancing the optimum sworn personnel levels against overtime
    requirements and resolving audit recommendations and findings, I
    believe that the next year will see even greater efficiencies and
    effectiveness from our team.
        I believe that our fiscal year 2010 budget request supports the
    goals I have stated here today. Please be assured that this management
    team, with the continued support of the Capitol Police Board and our
    stakeholders, is committed to moving the Department forward to meet
    these operational and administrative goals.
        I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

        Senator Nelson. Senator Tester, do you have any opening
    remarks you might like to make before we go to the questions?
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just want to thank you for the work you do, and we will
    grill you on the budgets here in a bit.
        So, thank you.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        Ms. Erickson, can you discuss the project that you are now
    working on jointly with the Sergeant at Arms to replace the
    current Senate payroll system? How that will work and how it
    will be improved, what it will cost, and how long it will take
    to complete?
        Ms. Erickson. Sure thing. Our payroll system has served us
    well over the years, but it has been what we call patched and
    updated to meet the growing demands of the system. And it was
    actually brought to my attention by the Sergeant at Arms IT
    staff that there are concerns that the technology--our payroll
    system uses a mainframe technology--has a declining market
    share these days. And as a result, there is declining vendor
    support.
        I felt that it was prudent to look ahead at other options
    for our payroll system and had asked our financial clerk to
    work with his counterpart, Jay Moore, in the Sergeant at Arms
    IT shop to begin the process of looking at what is available
    out there for technology that would meet the increasingly
    complex demands of the Senate community.
        Senator Nelson. In the improvement of that, will there be
    some cost savings that are identifiable? In other words, will
    it be not only more efficient, but will that efficiency
    translate into lesser costs?
        Ms. Erickson. Yes, I believe over the long run, it will be
    a more efficient system. And as this subcommittee well knows,
    our payroll system is highly customized to meet the
    requirements of Federal statutes, title II. We have a unique
    semi-monthly or 24-pay cycle. We have shared employees often
    between Senate offices and committees. And we don't have a
    uniform pay scale. We also have unique minimum and maximum
    salaries.
        So it is a very highly customized system, but I am
    confident, Mr. Chairman, that the system will in the long run
    be efficient.
        Senator Nelson. I know that Senator Pryor is worried that
    his check will come on time.
        I am sure that you can assure us that there won't be any
    slowdown in pay?
        Ms. Erickson. I promise. I promise.
        Senator Nelson. Good. For both Ms. Erickson and Mr. Gainer,
    a question on evacuation drills. I know that we have from time
    to time tried to go through evacuation drills to keep everybody
    aware of what is necessary in the case of an emergency. And it
    seems like it is a better process than the first time that I
    heard officers running through the Capitol--near the Senate
    chamber yelling, ``Get out of the building,'' which was fairly
    mundane compared to what I think we are perhaps able to do
    today.
        Can you tell us where we are on the security that would be
    involved to get people out of the Capitol in an organized,
    prompt, and safe manner?
        Mr. Gainer. Senator, thank you.
        We have come a long way, I think, since the--one of the
    first mass evacuations after 9/11 when I was the Chief of the
    Capitol Police, when we had the incoming aircraft, Senator, at
    Reagan's funeral----
        Senator Nelson. That is the one I was referring to.
        Mr. Gainer [continuing]. Which didn't go as smooth as it
    would today. And what it meant was between the Chief's office
    and our office and others was to put together programs and
    practice those programs that would get as orderly an evacuation
    as you can when everybody is pretty terrorized.
        So we have plans. We work with your offices and staff so
    that they understand those. There are plans for each one of the
    offices, and we have been drilling those. And in fact, next
    month there will be another drill on the Senate floor, where we
    will exercise staying in place or evacuating. And we work very
    closely with the floor staffs to do that and your office and
    Nancy's and the police departments.
        And we just had a meeting in the Secretary's office
    yesterday, I believe, with the other officers of the Senate,
    and we will come to each one of your luncheons--the Democratic
    luncheon and the Republican luncheon--to give a little bit more
    focused information for you as we do with your staff. So I
    think we are actually in a pretty good place on it.
        Senator Nelson. I have a question that was submitted to us
    from Senator Inouye, the chairman of the Appropriations
    Committee. He says that a few years ago, the offices submitted
    in conjunction with the Senate Rules Committee, a contract for
    a study of the Senate employees childcare center. Based on the
    findings of this study, do we have a shortfall of adequate
    childcare available to Senate employees, or is it okay? If it
    isn't, what is the next step in addressing that challenge?
        Ms. Erickson. Well, the Senate Rules and Administration
    Committee asked my office in 2007 to conduct a childcare
    survey, and it was the first survey that was done since the
    childcare center opened in 1984.
        And if my memory serves me correctly, I believe we had
    roughly 3,500 Senate employees, including State staff
    employees, who participated in the survey. And to my
    recollection, there were roughly 850 people who responded who
    indicated that they were using childcare services or plan to in
    the very near future.
        We do have a problem, particularly with infant care. There
    are only nine infant slots. I have someone on my staff who has
    put her name in the Senate childcare center and was told there
    was a waiting list of 99 people for infant care with the Senate
    childcare center.
        It has been a problem for a long time. My baby, who is now
    14, was on the waiting list back in 1994. He never got off the
    waiting list. So I am empathetic to the young parents in the
    Senate community who are trying to get into the center.
        Some of the options that the study looked at were possibly
    expanding the facility; collaborating with other childcare
    centers, particularly those on Capitol Hill; purchasing slots
    for Senate employees; providing specialized referral services
    for our staff, as well as looking at other family friendly
    policies; and providing folks, when applicable, telecommuting
    opportunities.
        My staff was asked to look at some property. There is a
    townhouse located next to the childcare center that is
    currently for sale. The assistant secretary and my chief of
    staff went to look at the property. A follow-up visit was done
    by the Architect of the Capitol's staff, who determined that
    the row house would not be feasible for a childcare center.
        One positive result of the study, I will say, is that it
    prompted the Senate childcare center, which is a nonprofit run
    by a parent cooperative board, to retool their admission
    policy, which now gives preference to Senate employees.
        Another promise that was made by the childcare center is
    that they would increase transparency in their waiting list.
    Unfortunately, a promised Web site that would give people who
    apply to the childcare center a sense of where they are at on
    the wait list hasn't been launched yet.
        But I am, again, very empathetic to the situation. It is a
    problem, and I am grateful for Senator Inouye's and all of your
    interest in this issue and advocacy on behalf of young parents
    in the Senate.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Nancy, you had mentioned in response to the chairman's
    inquiry on the payroll system, explaining the importance of it
    and the need to advance with the Sergeant at Arms. I didn't
    hear if you mentioned what the estimated cost is for that new
    system.
        Ms. Erickson. I believe $2 million. Is that----
        Mr. Gainer. If I may?
        Ms. Erickson. Go ahead.
        Mr. Gainer. Well, the initial funds we are asking you for
    is $2 million. I think the total cost for its full
    implementation won't be known until the first quarter of fiscal
    year 2010. But we have discussed with the Secretary if that is
    the case, if it gets much beyond where we are at, then we will
    sit down collaboratively and see how we can come up with those
    funds and perhaps not have to come back to you.
        So we are aware it could be more, and we just wait to see
    that final price.
        Ms. Erickson. And I would also add we are obviously
    consulting with your subcommittee, keeping you posted as we
    learn more about the potential costs for such a system.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. So at this point in time, we are
    just in the process of identifying----
        Ms. Erickson. The very beginning.
        Senator Murkowski [continuing]. What it is that we are
    looking at there.
        Ms. Erickson. The very beginning.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.
        Terry, let me ask you, you had indicated that after
    conversations with the chairman--and this is as to the staffing
    within the Sergeant at Arms office--that you were now prepared
    to perhaps pull back on some of the full-time equivalents
    (FTEs) that you had advanced. Now I just want to have a clear
    sense as to what the staffing issues and needs are within the
    Sergeant at Arms office.
        You are proposing an increase in the salary budget of over
    12 percent, and as I understand, you are requesting 878
    employees, and expect to have approximately 824 onboard this
    year. I can very clearly see, as you look at the numbers
    advancing since the year 2001, you can clearly appreciate the
    need for additional staffing.
        But talk to me a little bit about why we would continue to
    expect to see an increase. Since 9/11, it was about a 35
    percent increase is what I understand. In view of that and
    recognizing that at some point you expect to be tapering off,
    tell me why I should expect to see continued increase in
    staffing with each subsequent year?
        Mr. Gainer. Sure. Thank you, ma'am.
        We looked at it, and actually, over the last 6 years or so,
    we have grown by nearly 100 positions. And it is something that
    we continue to wrestle in this organization, as I have in the
    others, and what I wanted and was provided a breakdown of where
    those positions went. And the largest majority, as I recall, 60
    went to our IT group.
        And with this ever-increasing technology, there is the
    requirement to manage it and care for it. So, in some respects,
    to an old sociologist like myself--and cop--it would seem that
    as we get the better technology, we should have fewer people.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Gainer. But it just requires more sophisticated people
    to take care of those things, and we keep adding IT
    requirements. So, for instance, over those years, I think it
    may have been the year 2000, I am not sure we had many
    BlackBerries. We initially distributed 100 or so to the
    Members. We now have 6,000 BlackBerries distributed to staff.
        So when you add the computers and the BlackBerries and the
    servers and all that is required, and especially the other area
    is the security issue of our technology. We have expanded that
    shop.
        And I was reading in the New York Times today that the New
    York Police Department indicated--this is related to security--
    had 70,000 attempts per day to hack into their computer system.
    In talking to our chief information officer, we may have 10
    times that a day, people trying to hack into our system.
        So we really have set up a large shop to counter those
    types of activities. Now that is just an example, and we will
    continue to work with you and your staff to point those out.
        Other areas, 20 people went into the operations division,
    and they went into printing and graphics. As I mentioned, it
    was just a few short years ago that we had monstrous machines
    not unlike that you see at the Government Printing Office, and
    now it is technology driven. But with that technology and
    maintenance, it requires a more sophisticated individual, and
    those are where those people have gone.
        And when I looked at these five, and again, based on
    conversations as recently as Tuesday with the chairman, as he
    did when he was Governor and I worked for my Governor, you have
    to take some of this out of hide. So we went back and looked.
    We saw that last year, we asked you for 19. I believe you gave
    us 19.
        We actually only hired 15 of those 19. One more I think is
    in the pipeline someplace. So I challenged our own staff to say
    we didn't even hire all the ones we asked for last time. Let us
    take a look at what we are doing. As of this morning, we had
    about 38 vacancies in our staff. I said, okay, let us see if we
    can see where and how long we have gotten away with not filling
    those and see if we can convert those to some of the new
    positions.
        So technology actually is driving the more people.
        Senator Murkowski. Which seems counterintuitive.
        Mr. Gainer. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. You think that if we have got the smart
    technology, you don't need to have as many human beings behind
    it. I would be curious to see a little bit more in terms of the
    breakdown and where it is going. Just because the four of us
    have new BlackBerries doesn't mean that we have got to have one
    person to check up on each of the equipment that is out there.
        Let us have a discussion, though, about these vacancies.
    Now it was my understanding that there is somewhere around 50
    vacancies throughout the organization. You say perhaps it is
    closer to 38. And I appreciate the fact that you are doing a
    specific assessment as to those vacancies. How long have they
    been vacant? Can you do without them? How much funding could we
    save if, in fact, we reprogrammed to other priorities?
        Within these areas of vacancies, where are you seeing that?
    You are saying that they are not in the IT area specifically.
    So what aspect of the organization----
        Mr. Gainer. Sure. Actually, I was looking this morning at a
    spreadsheet, and I will provide that to you and your staff to
    spell it out. One of the things I learned was we really got
    behind with the--where our budget wasn't approved for about 6
    months so we couldn't hire. That is how we got behind in some
    areas.
        And I think these positions are spread throughout the
    agencies. And as I sit here, ma'am, I can't recite those. I
    have a spreadsheet, and I will give it to you and your staff.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I have just been handed a
    spreadsheet here, and it looks like there is a lot in tech
    development and support services. But I think that would be
    important to take a look at those and determine if we need more
    folks now in the IT and tech support, okay, are there other
    areas that are perhaps dated now? I think that is going to be
    important as we look at the staffing.
        I also understand that there have been funds available from
    prior years, fiscal year 2006 through 2008, totaling over $17
    million that aren't needed for the purposes for which they were
    appropriated. Can you tell me a little bit about the status of
    those funds? Why, what do you propose to be doing with them?
    And do you anticipate that any of the funds provided in fiscal
    year 2009 not to be needed for the purpose for which they were
    initially appropriated?
        Mr. Gainer. Well, the easy answer to the last one is,
    first, we need to work with your staff to see how we can best
    utilize those funds. And the other question we asked, Drew and
    I did, how did we get to that position?
        So, over the 5 years, we have developed that extra funds,
    but also we should keep in mind that over those 5 years, we
    were actually dealing and managing a budget of $750 million of
    $1 billion. So some analysts might say a 3 percent overage is a
    reasonable ballpark and has added up.
        But I did get some specific breakdowns in unexpected
    reductions in the volume of local and especially long distance
    calls. So as I talk about those 6,000 BlackBerries, the upside
    of the 6,000 are people are making fewer telephone calls. We
    ended up saving $5 million in the last 3 years just on that
    alone.
        In the performance incentives in our IT contracts, when we
    let those contracts, we assume that contractors will meet or
    exceed the expectations so that there are performance awards in
    there. And to the extent they don't, that again produces money.
    And that was to the tune of about $2 million.
        So I, of course, said to my CFO, well, are we bad
    estimators or are we contracting improperly? And appropriately,
    they educated me on the fact that the best business practice is
    to assume that your contractor is going to meet all those
    requirements, come in under funds, and come in early, and we
    will owe them the incentive. So our preference would be to
    continue to budget like that and not underbudget what a
    contract may be.
        Let us see, $1.5 million, a customer requirements change,
    the cost of the equipment changed. And so sometimes, blessedly,
    as the process is delayed from the day you order it, envision
    it to 3 years later, it becomes cheaper. And we have picked up
    some funds that way.
        But clearly, that is money we all need to look at to see if
    that can help all of us out in this fiscal year.
        Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions for
    Chief Morse, but in deference to my colleagues, I will yield to
    them at this time.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        Senator Pryor.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Now I understand that Senator Tester may have to leave at
    3:30 p.m.? Do you want to--why don't you go first?
        Senator Tester. If you would be so kind? Thank you very
    much. I owe you--hopefully not too much.

                          RADIO MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

        The question I have deals about the radio modernization
    program. Terry, you talked about it in your testimony. Chief
    Morse, you talked about it in your testimony. Where is the
    money? Which budget is it coming out of?
        Chief Morse. Thank you, Mr. Tester.
        We have also requested funding for the radio modernization
    program in the supplemental. The reason that we have----
        Senator Tester. Is that the $71.6 million?
        Chief Morse. Yes, sir.
        Senator Tester. Okay.
        Chief Morse. The reason we have requested in the
    supplemental is due to the criticality of the system itself. It
    is one of our critical life safety tools, communication. And
    the immediacy in which we can begin to purchase technical
    equipment and such, the supplemental would help us to do that
    in a more timely fashion.
        Senator Tester. And that takes care of the entire project?
    Is there money that comes out of your budget for 2010 also, or
    is it just the supplemental dollars?
        Chief Morse. The supplemental dollars take care of the
    project.
        Senator Tester. Okay. Any out of your budget, Terry?
        Mr. Gainer. No, sir.
        Senator Tester. Okay. If you look at your budget, Nancy, it
    shows an increase of about $2 million, if I am correct----
        Ms. Erickson. Actually, sir, I am not requesting an
    increase in my operating budget. It will remain the same at $2
    million.
        Senator Tester. Okay.
        Senator Nelson. No increase, yes.
        Ms. Erickson. But an increase in the salaried portion of
    the budget, roughly $1.7 million.
        Senator Tester. Okay. So the budget for--let us go this
    way. The budget for fiscal year 2010 is at $27.790 million,
    includes $25.790 million in salary costs and $2 million for
    operating budget. And then the salary budget increases of about
    $1.770 million. That is outside the $2 million for the
    operating budget?
        Ms. Erickson. Yes.
        Senator Tester. Okay. All right. What was your budget in
    2009?
        Ms. Erickson. Our budget for operating costs was at $2
    million. So we are requesting the same level of funding that we
    requested last year.
        Senator Tester. Okay, and what was your salary?
        Ms. Erickson. And the salary budget is $1.7 million more
    this year, which consists of providing a cost-of-living (COLA)
    benefit for employees.
        Senator Tester. Right. So your budget this year is $1.7
    million higher than over last year?
        Ms. Erickson. Roughly a 7 percent----
        Senator Tester. Seven percent? Seven percent, is that what
    the----
        Ms. Erickson. Right.
        Senator Tester. All right. The issue of the five FTEs, what
    kind of savings does that represent of budget?
        Mr. Gainer. Approximately, I think the salary savings was
    $400,000. That would----
        Senator Tester. Is there any other savings that will accrue
    from that, those five FTEs that you are going to pull out?
        Mr. Gainer. I am guessing out-year merit issues and other
    pay adjustments would be affected by that. But the basic salary
    and the COLA would be saved. So probably just close to
    $500,000.
        Senator Tester. Oh, okay. All right. Thank you.
        The payroll system, if I heard the answer to the question
    of Senator Murkowski, was that this was going to be a study to
    see what kind of payroll system you needed?
        Ms. Erickson. Right. I think it is important that we not
    rush ahead, that we take our time.
        Senator Tester. As do I. The question is, is how old is the
    one you have got now?
        Ms. Erickson. Chris, how old?
        Mr. Doby. Twenty plus years.
        Ms. Erickson. Twenty plus years.
        Senator Tester. Twenty plus years. All right. And do you--
    and this applies to all three of the entities. Do you do long-
    range planning for these kind of things? In other words,
    payroll is something that is going to be around for a while.
    And your payroll system, once you get this one in, it is going
    to be obsolete after x number of years.
        The same thing could be said about the radios. The same
    thing could be said just about everything. I mean, it all is
    going to wear out. It is going to become obsolete. Do you have
    those kind of things within your budget that you set aside so
    much for obsolescence?
        Ms. Erickson. Well, the payroll issue was brought to my
    attention this last year. But----
        Senator Tester. I should ask to begin with, can you even do
    that?
        Ms. Erickson. Can I do that? Well, the two systems that I
    would think of that would be our payroll system and then our
    financial management information system (FMIS) system, which is
    a Web-based system for creating and processing vouchers.
        But I do think that we can do a better job of long-range
    planning, and that is my concern with the payroll system is
    that it is an old system. And I would hate to have the Senate
    in a position where something happens to the system and we
    hadn't done our job to look ahead.
        Senator Tester. Right. I understand. But currently, it is
    not a matter of practice to--and this is a revolving thing. You
    don't have this job forever. So, I mean, but there is not a
    system in place where you plan for that right now, at least not
    in your office?
        And I mean, it is not a negative thing if that is the way
    it is. But if that is the way it is, that is the way it is. I
    am just curious.
        Ms. Erickson. Yes. I think we can do a better job of long-
    range planning.
        Senator Tester. Okay. Terry.
        Mr. Gainer. Yes, we do. And in fact, as part of this
    budget, I am trying to do some quick numbers on your question.
    It might be as much as $10 million is built in there to replace
    and upgrade equipment or replace printing equipment or other
    items. And I can get more specific.
        Senator Tester. Okay.
        Mr. Gainer. And we do have kind of a 5-year vision of how
    those affects----
        Senator Tester. Is that public information? Can I get that?
        Mr. Gainer. Yes. You sure can, Senator.
        Senator Tester. Okay.
        [The information follows:]

                          FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--EVERGREEN BUDGET BY EXPENSE TYPE
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       111th Congress        112th Congress        113th Congress
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal
                                                    year 2009  year 2010  year 2011  year 2012  year 2013  year 2014
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operations and Maintenance:
        Salaries..................................     66,800     75,044     80,414     86,225     92,260     98,719
        Expenses..................................     83,472     91,712     97,867    101,388     96,722    100,762
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Operations and Maintenance........    150,272    166,756    178,281    187,613    188,982    199,481
                                                   =================================================================
    Allowances and Allotments.....................     63,118     55,114     55,460     55,826     56,591     57,291
    Capital Investments...........................      2,315     15,185      7,982     12,100      8,800      5,821
    Nondiscretionary Items........................      4,696      6,450      9,982     10,073      6,145      6,210
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          Grand Total.............................    220,401    243,505    251,705    265,612    260,518    268,803
                                                   =================================================================
    Staffing......................................        958        963        964        966        966        966
                                                   =================================================================
    Totals:
        Salaries..................................     66,800     75,044     80,414     86,225     92,260     98,719
        Expenses..................................    153,601    168,461    171,291    179,387    168,258    170,084
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Salaries and Expenses.............    220,401    243,505    251,705    265,612    260,518    268,803
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Tester. Chief Morse.
        Chief Morse. Yes. We strategically plan in our budget for
    lifecycle replacement with the things that we know will become
    obsolete or wear out. The radio system, of course, is a more
    robust system that lasts longer than most technology.
        Senator Tester. I understand. Do you have the same kind of
    situation as Terry has? Do you have a 5-year plan or a 10-year
    plan or longer than that as far as replacement of equipment in
    your agency?
        Chief Morse. We do. It may be equipment or technology
    specific, but we do look at each item and strategically plan
    for when it will need to be replaced in the budget.
        Senator Tester. Is that something I can lay my hands on?
        Chief Morse. Yes.
        Senator Tester. And it is not that I want to micromanage
    anybody's agencies. I don't. I just am curious to see where you
    guys put your priorities.
        Chief Morse. Okay. Thank you.
        Senator Tester. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Nelson. Now Senator Pryor.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me start, if I may, with you, Ms. Erickson, about the
    daycare center. The Rules Committee, which we are members of,
    asked was it last year to review and evaluate what is going on
    with the daycare center and to come back with some
    recommendations. What is the current policy about former staff
    members being able to have their children in the daycare
    center?
        Ms. Erickson. Well, it is my understanding that the policy,
    the current policy is that Senate--a sibling of a current
    Senate employee's child or Senate childcare employee's child
    already in the center has preference, followed by a child of
    Senate or childcare center employees. After that preference is
    given to a sibling of a child already enrolled in the center
    who has a parent employed by another legislative branch agency,
    followed by a child of an employee of another legislative
    branch agency. Children whose parents are not employed by the
    legislative branch are further down on the order of preference.
        But that wasn't the case before the study. So you had the
    situation where former staffers who had left the Hill and were
    lobbyists, for example, had their children enrolled in the
    center ahead of current Senate employees.
        Senator Pryor. My understanding, though, is there are still
    22 children enrolled that are children of former staffers. Do
    you know?
        Ms. Erickson. I can get that information and follow up with
    you. But I believe that there are children that have worked
    their way up into the system that are still there.
        Senator Pryor. That are of former staffers?
        Ms. Erickson. Yes.
        Senator Pryor. Okay, yes, I would like to know that. But
    the policy is that if they are former staffers, they shouldn't
    be there. Am I wrong on that?
        Ms. Erickson. Well, that would be a decision for the parent
    board, the cooperative board that runs the childcare center
    with oversight of the Senate Rules Committee.
        Senator Pryor. Okay. I would like to know----
        Ms. Erickson. But I would share your--I mean, my personal
    opinion is obviously that the current Senate employees should
    be given preference.
        Senator Pryor. Right. Yes, I would like to know the facts
    on that, if I may? If you could provide that, I would
    appreciate it.
        [The information follows:]

     [From Senate Employee's Child Care Center Parent Handbook--2009-2010
                                  School Year]

                      ENROLLMENT AND WAIT LIST INFORMATION

        Applications for enrollment will be considered without regard to
    race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or disability.
        A wait list has been established to accommodate the demand for
    child care. Placement on the wait list is determined by (1) priority
    ranking, which is based upon where the parent(s) are employed; (2)
    registration date, which is the date your check for your wait list
    registration fee and your annual Corporation membership fee are
    received at the SECCC (details below); and (3) the age range of the
    vacancy to be filled. Unfortunately, not all applicants will be able to
    enroll because the demand for child care exceeds the current
    availability. Parents are therefore encouraged to place their child,
    expected child, or adoptive child (completed or in a formal adoption
    process) on the wait list at the earliest possible date to increase the
    likelihood that a space will be available at the Center when needed.
    You must have a child, be pregnant or be in a formal adoption process
    to apply for the wait list. Once a space becomes available for a child,
    the parents will be contacted by the Director and given two business
    days to decide whether to enroll their child at the Center. If a
    position is declined, the child will remain in his or her current
    position on the wait list as long as the family remains current with
    annual Corporation dues. Failure to pay annual Corporation dues in a
    timely manner results in removal of a child from the wait list.
        Priority for enrollment is given in the following manner:
      --Sibling of a U.S. Senate employee's child or SECCC employee's child
            already enrolled in the Center;
      --Child of a U.S. Senate or SECCC employee;
      --Sibling of a child already enrolled in the Center who has a parent
            employed by another entity of the legislative branch of the
            Federal Government;
      --Child of an employee of another entity of the legislative branch of
            the Federal Government;
      --Sibling of a child already enrolled in the Center whose parents are
            not employed by the legislative branch of the Federal
            Government; and
      --Child of parents not employed by the legislative branch of the
            Federal Government.
        A Senate employee is classified as someone who receives his or her
    paycheck from the Secretary of the Senate. A legislative branch
    employee is classified as an employee of the U.S. House of
    Representatives, the Library of Congress, the Capitol Police, the
    Architect of the Capitol, the U.S. Government Accountability Office,
    the Office of Technological Assessment, the Government Printing Office,
    and any other legislative branch activity and spouses of such
    employees.
        In the unlikely event that wait list children have the same
    registration date, the same priority ranking, and the same age range,
    wait list placement will be differentiated additionally by a random
    drawing.
        In order to facilitate transparency of the wait list and assist
    families in making child care decisions, the SECCC offers online wait
    list access to Senate families. The system is accessible through the
    SECCC website and allows individuals to:
      --Enroll as members of the Corporation;
      --Register their child(ren) to be on the wait list;
      --Modify contact and employment information; and
      --Monitor their position on the wait list.
        The online system does not have the capability of accepting
    payments. Therefore, new families that enroll as members of the
    Corporation and register to be on the wait list must deliver or mail a
    check for their wait list registration fee and annual Corporation fee
    to the SECCC in order to activate their account and be assigned a
    registration date. The registration date is the date Corporation
    membership and wait list registration fees are received at the SECCC.
        Non-Senate families may contact the Director to apply and monitor
    their placement on the wait list.
        Families must keep the Center updated with current home, work and
    cell phone numbers, address, employment status and preferred email
    address to ensure that the Center is able to contact families with
    Center information and in the event that a space becomes available for
    a child.

                       RADIO FUNDING IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL

        Senator Pryor. Chief Morse, let me ask you about your radio
    system. There is $71 million in the supplemental for that. That
    seems awfully high to me.
        I know that Arkansas went through this process a few years
    ago where they put in a statewide system that was
    interoperable, that the idea was that all the counties and all
    the local first responders and all that could tie into the same
    system. I think the cost to do that system statewide was $94
    million, and that was covering 53,000 square miles. And you
    know, you are covering more like 300 acres. So tell me why it
    is so expensive.
        Chief Morse. Certainly. The system and our operations are
    rather unique. In most municipalities, State organizations, and
    some of our Federal partners, there is probably about 80
    percent external use of a radio system, with about 20 percent
    being internal. Here, it is just the opposite. Eighty percent
    of it is internal, and about 20 percent is external.
        That drives the cost because of the infrastructure and
    engineering design that takes place to have adequate coverage
    subterraneally in our garages, subways, and basement areas. So
    that drives the costs. Whereas in an external system, you would
    not have that significant cost.
        Senator Pryor. I can understand how that would drive the
    cost, but not to $71 million. That is an enormous amount of
    money for a radio system.
        Chief Morse. I do have some of the technical experts with
    me. But I believe our coverage would be about 100 square miles
    of area covering a 25-mile radius, which is specific to our
    responsibility for continuity of Government, continuation of
    operations. And perhaps not in this forum, but sidebar, I could
    and the Sergeant at Arms could brief you specifically on that.
        But our operations do not just exist here within the
    Capitol campus. It does reach out far beyond that, and that
    also drives the cost of a system of this nature.
        Senator Pryor. Do you have a breakdown of the costs?
        Chief Morse. Yes, sir. I do.
        Senator Pryor. Do you have a contractor already in place
    that is doing this?
        Chief Morse. No, sir. We do not. This will be an RFP, an
    open competitive bid that will be put out once our engineering
    design is complete for the system.
        Senator Pryor. All right. I would like to see the
    breakdown. Again, not in this forum because I don't want to
    waste my colleagues' time on that, but I would like to look at
    that.

                       SPECIFICATIONS OF THE RADIO SYSTEM

        And also I am curious about the life expectancy of this
    system. It is like what Senator Tester was asking a few moments
    ago about long-range planning. What is the life expectancy on a
    system like this?
        Chief Morse. The life expectancy of this particular system
    is about 10 to 15 years.
        Senator Pryor. And do I understand that it is going to be
    encrypted?
        Chief Morse. Yes, sir. That is one of the pieces of the
    uniqueness of our operations.
        Senator Pryor. Why? Why does it have to be encrypted?
        Chief Morse. Currently, our system is not encrypted.
    Therefore, anyone in the public, press, or another adversary
    could listen to any of our operations. In order to mitigate any
    circumstance that we would have in a critical incident, it is
    imperative that we be able to communicate without others
    listening in or knowing what it is that we are doing to
    mitigate the crisis that we are dealing with.
        So encryption is necessary to protect the legislative body
    as well as visitors and staff that we are trying to protect. If
    we were giving direction to, for instance, shelter in place or
    relocate, and the adversary knew where that was, then it would
    be adverse to the action that we are trying to take.
        Senator Pryor. Do you know how much the encryption adds to
    the cost?
        Chief Morse. I don't have the figure with me, but we do
    have a specific figure for that.
        Senator Pryor. Okay. And I would like for you to provide
    that to the subcommittee, if you could?
        [The information follows:]

                                   Encryption

        The table below (excerpted from the USCP budget request) specifies
    the encryption costs associated with designing a radio communication
    system for USCP.
        Encryption.--OTAR, Secure Cards for each Console, Packet Data
    Gateways--$1,300,000.
    Notes:
        OTAR (Over-The-Air-Rekeying) is the common name for the method of
    changing encryption keys in a two-way radio system over the radio
    channel (``over the air'').
        Packet Data Gateways (PDGs) integrate alternative Internet protocol
    (IP) access networks into the mobile core and enable delivery of
    services over the IMS (IP multimedia subsystem) control layer. IMS is a
    unified service architecture for all networks.

        Senator Pryor. And I will note that my understanding is--I
    am getting this from just some research I have done--that when
    the District of Columbia went to a new system, in the District,
    it was about $40 million. And I think, to me, $71 million just
    seems way out of line with--and I understand the uniqueness,
    and I understand the challenges, and I understand the old
    buildings and the subterranean nature of some of the things you
    have to do. But that just seems very, very expensive.

                          ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL REQUEST

        And I would like to look at your requirements that you have
    in mind, and I would like to look at that and work with you,
    with the chairman's permission, because that just seems awfully
    high. And I need to look more closely at your budget, but are
    you adding police officers as well?
        Chief Morse. Yes, sir. We are.
        Senator Pryor. And how many are you adding?
        Chief Morse. We are adding 89.
        Senator Pryor. And why?
        Chief Morse. Seventy-six of those are to apply to our
    deployment for our mission in order to reduce the overtime.
        Senator Pryor. Are you basing that on this most recent
    year? How do you make--I mean, is that what you are averaging
    in overtime, the equivalent of 76 additional officers?
        Chief Morse. No, actually, we have had to do a
    comprehensive manpower survey to give us a template in which to
    assess the manpower that we need versus the threat that we
    face. So one of our first bites at the apple with this new
    template is--with the other things that we have to deal with--
    for instance, attrition and the ability to have facilities to
    train--is to try to reduce overtime with the new 76.
        The remaining 13 is an enhancement that we are asking for
    with the ability to detect or deter any criminal activity or
    terrorist activity.
        Senator Pryor. Is that counterintelligence?
        Chief Morse. Yes, sir.
        Senator Pryor. Okay. I have a concern about doing
    counterintelligence as well. I am not trying to be a naysayer
    on the Capitol Police because I appreciate what you all do, and
    it is a very important mission. But tell me why you think the
    U.S. Capitol Police should be doing counterintelligence work.
        Chief Morse. First, we--the police department has had
    countersurveillance capability since probably about 2003. We
    know that in terrorist planning for any sort of operation that
    they must first come and surveil. They must first actually come
    to the location and to review the type of operation that they
    are going to do at the facility that they are going to do it.
        One of the ways that law enforcement has found most
    effective in deterring that or discovering that is through
    countersurveillance activities as well as strengthening the
    training and observation and vigilance of our police officers.
    So we believe that with the program that we currently have,
    making it more robust is a benefit to detecting or deterring
    any type of criminal or terrorist activity that may be planned
    for our facilities.
        Senator Pryor. When you talked about that I think you said
    76 or 79 additional officers?
        Chief Morse. Seventy-six.
        Senator Pryor. Are you talking about actually officers in
    uniform that are going to be patrolling the area, or is that
    administrators as well?
        Chief Morse. Those are sworn police officers in uniform to
    be deployed in the field for the various post assignments.
        Senator Pryor. And you already have 1,799 officers?
        Chief Morse. That is correct. That is our current
    authorized strength.
        Senator Pryor. And basically, those 1,800 officers--I mean,
    is it fair to say that they are basically covering about a 300-
    acre area?
        Chief Morse. Yes, sir. With also protective operations with
    Members of Congress throughout the United States.
        Senator Pryor. Let me ask, and again, I understand the
    unique mission that the U.S. Capitol Police have and the unique
    circumstances in which you serve and what your responsibilities
    are, but is there--give me a sense of a city that has about
    1,800 police officers right now. I mean, can you point to a
    city or some cities around the country that have about that
    many police officers?
        Chief Morse. I would say probably the county, some of the
    larger counties in the metropolitan area would come close to
    that.
        Mr. Gainer. Senator, would you mind if I just chimed in a
    little bit? Chief.
        Senator Pryor. Sure.
        Mr. Gainer. Because having run the Illinois State Police
    for 9 years, I remember when I came here and had the chance to
    get the chief's job before Phil. Many of the Members of
    Congress said, jeepers, you have a police department up here
    larger than our State police or larger than our county police
    or larger than our city for a substantially smaller area.
        So over these 7 years that I have been around, we continue
    to wrestle with this, and it is not just the officers per acre,
    but it is the demands we put on them. And I can tell you from
    my office now, with Phil, I have made demands on your behalf.
    And I will just give you some for instances.
        The CVC, which I think many thought was going to be the
    panacea for security, really resulted in more doors open for
    the Capitol Police and for the responsibilities of the Senate
    now Sergeant at Arms. Not another single door in this
    institution closed. That just opened more doors.
        And when we look around at all the millions of dollars that
    Congress has given the police department and the Sergeant at
    Arms office to put up the physical security, we take a look at
    Hart and the Hart building, and it is not any top secret issue
    about the openness of Second Street and the vulnerabilities of
    the Hart building.
        So it wasn't too long ago that while the chief and his
    deputies struggled with how to tighten security, that we in the
    Sergeant at Arms office, on behalf of the Senate, said you just
    have to operate different. And they ended up putting, I don't
    know, a dozen or two dozen officers in and around the Hart on
    the streets, on A Street, on Second Street, to try to minimize
    the risk from suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices,
    and trucks.
        And the number of doors that we, the Senate or the House,
    require to be open for the convenience and the egress of
    Members have encumbered that. And so, over the years, the
    Police Board or others have said there are a lot of ways to
    save officers up here. And we could close a lot of doors to do
    that, but there has never been the will on the part of people
    to inconvenience themselves in some respects on door openings
    and in other respects because we have the place open 24/7 to
    provide the access that everybody has.
        Senator Pryor. Well, I will tell you what. I still--my
    sense is that we are heavy in this area, and we are expensive
    in this area. And again, the radio system is a prime example of
    that.
        So what I would like to do is at some point in the future,
    you know, fairly soon, sit down with you and really download on
    the specifics of what your requests are, what your needs are.
    And if you think that we need to close doors, I need to know
    that. You maybe have already mentioned that to the Rules
    Committee or something like that.
        But if you think we need to change some things around here,
    I would like to hear that from you. So let us just set up a
    time sometime in the next week or two where we can really visit
    in detail about it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.

                    INCREASE IN STAFF AND EFFECT ON OVERTIME

        Let us stay with the police issue for the moment. Chief,
    your force has grown in manpower by 38 percent since 2000, and
    the overtime has continued to grow steadily as well. In fact,
    between 2006 and 2008, the sworn staff increased by 25 percent,
    and overtime still increased by 80,000 hours.
        I know there is always an argument to be made that it is
    the amount of staff that will dictate whether or not there is
    overtime. But it appears that staff and overtime continue to
    grow at about the same level, and there is another
    countervailing theory that overtime becomes part of regular
    compensation just as a normal happening.
        There does seem to be some correlation between the
    increases here. One would have thought that the increase in
    staff would have decreased the overtime, but that is not
    occurring. Can you help us understand that?
        Chief Morse. Yes, sir. And I don't know that I will be able
    to do that in the limited time that we have. So----
        Senator Nelson. Well, we can plan to talk about it further,
    too.
        Chief Morse. But I would like to just sort of give you a
    broad brush of what might be able to answer the question. Is
    that one of the most significant tragedies in my career here at
    the Capitol Police occurred in 1998 with the loss of our two
    police officers.
        And since that time, we have had 9/11, anthrax, and ricin.
    And with each of these incidents have really come new missions.
    Some of the missions have been related to physical securities.
    Some have been related to post standing, and many have been
    related to technology. So the increase that I have seen, as a
    police officer here since 1985, has been directly related to
    posting of new posts, new technology, and physical securities.
        A lot of our overtime certainly is generated by things that
    we cannot control, and sometimes that is affected by the
    environment in which we live. For instance, last year we had
    many war demonstrations that we did not expect. We have had
    many significant demonstrations this year. One most recent, the
    Power Plant. And I just learned recently there will be a
    significant event on May 30 down at the Lincoln Memorial.
        So there are many unexpected events that take place here on
    the Capitol grounds as well as off the grounds that Capitol
    Police have authority and responsibility for.
        What I do want to assure you is that the Capitol Police, my
    managers, the professionals who are sitting behind me, do have
    a plan to be as efficient and effective as we can with our
    people. We, as I mentioned earlier, have recently gone through
    a manpower study. That manpower study gives us a template that
    is--its foundation is threat based, which came through our GAO
    recommendations.
        What we are trying to do now is apply that to every program
    that we have and every facility that we have. Two facilities
    that are--one is most recent to us and one that will be coming
    in October, the CVC and the Library of Congress. We have not
    yet been able to apply that template, but we will.
        In addition to that, we have looked at many programs where
    technology can replace people, and we are working on doing that
    as well. So not only does the Enlightened Leadership Solutions
    (ELS) study help us--the manpower study by ELS helped us to
    better effectively ask you for people, but it could also result
    in decreasing the size.
        So this is really a very lengthy process. It is one that we
    take very seriously. We understand the sensitivity of the
    growth and the budget, and we are working very hard to not only
    minimize over time, but have the most effective and efficient
    use of our people for the safety and security of the complex.
        Senator Nelson. Well, I hope the report will enlighten us
    because if I understand the numbers right, by adding 55 FTEs,
    you will save $2.5 million. However, the cost of the 55 FTEs is
    $3.7 million. So we get worse off under those numbers by adding
    individuals. We would be better off to spend $2.5 million
    rather than $3.7 million.
        So I hope that as you work through this manpower study that
    you will be able to help us better understand how there will be
    true reductions, bottom-line reductions.
        Chief Morse. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. We will do that.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chief Morse, I want to go back to questions about the radio
    system that Senator Pryor was discussing with you. We are
    talking about a total cost now of $71.6 million. I would agree
    it seems extraordinarily high, and I think it is important that
    we fully understand and appreciate all that is going into this.
        How confident, though, are we really about this as a cost
    estimate? It is my understanding that when you were first
    looking at this, there was a rough estimate back in 2007 that
    the total of this radio system would be about $35 million. So
    we have essentially doubled it in a 2-year period. So is $71.6
    million a number that we can really believe in?
        Chief Morse. $71.6 million was the request that we had in
    the 2010 budget and for the supplemental. There is an
    engineering design study taking place right now for the
    infrastructure of the building, and we could expect to ask for
    $8 million to $16 million more in the 2011 budget, depending on
    the results of the engineering design and coverage for the
    system itself.
        So we are still what we have done is with the current $71.6
    million request is had many people review the technical
    requirements and the technology associated with that, and we
    are comfortable that those figures are accurate.
        Senator Murkowski. Accurate, but what you are saying is
    that it could be anywhere from $8 million to $16 million in
    addition to the $71.6 million after we get this engineering
    design proposal back?
        Chief Morse. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murkowski. So it is getting worse.
        Chief Morse. The cost will rise, yes.

                        MANAGEMENT OF THE RADIO PROJECT

        Senator Murkowski. Okay. How are we going to ensure that we
    will have proper management of the procurement to ensure that
    once we identify what that cost is that we stay on budget and
    on time?
        Chief Morse. Let me first just add one other figure--that
    we did receive $10 million back in the 2007 supplemental to go
    toward the radio system.
        But to answer your second question, we have designed a
    five-phase approach to this. It is a 36-month project. We have
    through the Economy Act looked at Naval Air Systems Command
    (NAVAIR) systems, who have expertise not only with some of the
    existing technologies here on Capitol Hill, but also the
    procurement capabilities and the expertise in that field to
    augment our staff. They have a team and integrated approach and
    will be our consultants.
        In addition to that, we have had the RFP and the technical
    requirements as well as the engineer design reviewed by the
    Government Accountability Office as a safeguard that we are on
    track and doing things right.
        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask about some of the
    administrative issues, and I will echo what was said earlier in
    recognizing the accomplishment of a clean opinion from the
    auditors on the financial statements.
        I do understand that we do have some areas of improvement.
    But there are some 85 open recommendations from GAO or the
    inspector general on the need for improved internal controls,
    whether it is improved asset management, control of travel
    vouchers, payroll processing, information security.
        And you ticked off a few of those areas that have been
    closed out, but given what you have outstanding, what would you
    say are your biggest challenges in resolving these
    administrative deficiencies? Where are your highest priorities
    here?
        Chief Morse. Well, we do prioritize our recommendations. We
    try to go for the low-hanging fruit, the ones that don't cost
    us a lot of money, and get those out of the way first.
        Our biggest challenge is really the people to get this
    done. We have been struggling with that. Most of our folks who
    are working on this, working very hard on this, have other
    duties and responsibilities within the agency. But they work
    very hard to prioritize this. Our chief administrative officer
    works very closely with the Office of Inspector General. We
    have a great working relationship with the Government
    Accountability Office.
        And we try to prioritize these recommendations based on
    risk to our organization. So the ones with the most risk we go
    after first. So we keep track of this. We can actually produce
    a document for the record or for your review that can see how
    we manage the recommendations, how we go about closing them,
    and how we interact with the GAO----

                         ONGOING ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

        Senator Murkowski. Well, I would appreciate that. If we
    have got 85 that are outstanding that need to be resolved, it
    is one thing to go after the low-hanging fruit, but if you have
    issues out there that are problematic and have been problematic
    for a period of time, I know that the inspector general has
    recently reported that you didn't have adequate spending
    controls on travel. And I don't know whether or not those
    controls are being put in place.
        I also understand that there were problems with the payroll
    processing, the need to make sure that we have got timekeeping
    records that are adequate. And following in the chairman's
    concern about overtime, is this an issue and an area that needs
    to be placed higher on the priority list?
        Can you just speak to these two? If, in fact, your auditor
    has indicated that with the payroll processing that this is a
    material weakness for you, when do you get to that point where
    you implement those recommendations from the audits?
        Chief Morse. Well, let me just start by saying that by
    getting that clean financial statement, we very aggressively
    went after the recommendations in our financial management.
    That was our most risk to our organization. And I think the
    fact that we were able to obtain clean financial opinion a year
    earlier than we were directed to do so shows the aggressiveness
    in which we go after these recommendations.
        Many of the recommendations that you just mentioned, for
    instance, the travel vouchers, et cetera, we are actively
    working on closing those recommendations as well as many other
    GAO recommendations. We----
        Senator Murkowski. Do you think you are going to have a
    clean report again this year?
        Chief Morse. Absolutely. And our Office of Inspector
    General and the Capitol Police Board, we really work together
    to make--to find out what we need and prioritize what we need
    as an organization, what the Board would like the Capitol
    Police to expound upon, and what the Capitol Police needs.
        We work together so that we are not overwhelmed or
    inundated by audits. So we try to work closely together. We try
    to identify what causes most risk to the organization, and we
    are very transparent about that. We accept the fact that we
    have weaknesses. We accept the fact that we have challenges,
    and we work together to address them.
        So we would be happy to show you how we do that and much of
    the accomplishment that we have had in the last 2 years.

                               CIVILIAN STAFFING

        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask one more question before I
    turn it back to my colleagues here, and this is on the civilian
    staffing. I understand that you currently have about 75
    civilian vacancies, about 15 in the Office of Human Resources.
    Another 21 civilian positions have been requested in fiscal
    year 2010. Tell me why you need these additional positions and
    the prioritization, if you will, for these slots.
        Chief Morse. With respect to some of the civilian
    positions, they are ones that will be coming to us from the
    Library of Congress. There are 23 new positions, 19 of which
    were submitted in previous budgets, and 4 of those are related
    to the radio system, technical experts to do the radio system.
        We also have been working very hard as a part of our audit
    is to reevaluate each position and, in some cases, rewrite
    position descriptions, which has added some delay in those
    positions. Currently, of the 79, we have 25 of which are in the
    hiring phase right now, along with 25 which are currently being
    announced, and we are preparing advertisements for 22 others
    and then the----
        Senator Murkowski. And in what areas would those be, these
    new ones that you are announcing?
        Chief Morse. Those are already approved positions.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Chief Morse. So of the new 23----
        Senator Murkowski. These are not the 21 that you are then
    requesting in fiscal year 2010?
        Chief Morse. That is correct.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. So you have got these 23 that you
    are filling that have already been authorized, and you are
    seeking then an additional 21?
        Chief Morse. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murkowski. And in what areas would these additional
    21 be?
        Chief Morse. They would be helping us with the audit
    findings. Those are specific to the audit findings or the
    intelligence enhancement, or radio engineering. We have
    requested one diversity officer and training coordinators,
    which are for another program we are working on within our
    Training Services Bureau, a budget analyst, an accountant,
    legal administrative assistant, and then a mission assurance
    bureau person. So some are related to audit findings to help us
    improve in those areas. Some are related to the radio and
    information technology, and others are related to the Training
    Services Bureau and our finances.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that the GAO
    has been closely involved in reviewing these administrative--
    not only the administrative problems, but some of the staffing
    issues. I would like to hear what their recommendations are on
    the need for these additional positions and just understand.
        It seems to me that at this time we don't need to be
    necessarily adding more and more and more in terms of staffing,
    we are doing that in very many areas, and I will express my
    concern about it. I would like to understand the need more.
        Senator Nelson. I believe we can probably obtain that
    information. Is that accurate?
        Chief Morse. Yes.
        Senator Nelson. Well, let us do that. Let us get that
    distributed to the subcommittee for our review.
        Senator Murkowski. Appreciate it.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator.
        We understand that the number for the radio project is well
    established. Now I am a little unclear because I heard you say
    $71.6 million as the base, but that is after $10 million that
    has already been put in. So this is a multiyear process. What I
    am trying to find out is the additional $8 million to $16
    million, this is the total as it all comes together so that it
    won't change? Is that fair?
        I am just trying to understand that the costs are
    established and they have been because it is a multiyear
    process that is going on here. Is that accurate?
        Chief Morse. Once we do the engineering design phase within
    the infrastructure of the buildings, the additional cost for
    indoor requirements could be $8 million to $16 million.
        Senator Nelson. Eight to 16.
        Chief Morse. There was $10 million given to us in 2007.
        Senator Nelson. Right.
        Chief Morse. And then the request for $71.6 million.
        Senator Nelson. Does not include that $10 million already
    received or the additional of $8 million to $16 million?
        Chief Morse. That is correct.
        Senator Nelson. There is not another part of the project
    that is not included within those numbers?
        Chief Morse. That is correct.
        Senator Nelson. Okay. I just want to get that for the
    record so we have the total numbers. I was unclear. I
    appreciate that.
        Let us see now. If you didn't have the radio project in
    place and you didn't have that capability that the radio
    project is going to give you when it is complete, what are the
    implications for security on the campus?
        Chief Morse. Let me just give you real quick the status of
    our current system. We are unable with our current system to be
    interoperable with any of our partners who would respond here
    to assist us in the event of an emergency.
        Senator Nelson. And they would be who, the partners?
        Chief Morse. It would include the fire departments, the
    local police, and other Federal agencies. The other concern is
    that we most recently were contacted from one of the vendors on
    our dispatch technology who said they could no longer service
    it because it was outdated.
        And we have experienced pretty routinely both software and
    hardware failures with our system, and at one point within the
    last 3 years, we had a complete failure of the system.
    Therefore, it would cripple our ability to communicate with
    each other in a critical incident situation should that system
    fail, which is, like I mentioned before, is one of the three
    critical life safety tools for a police officer, and a life
    safety tool for the legislative process.
        So we are obviously very concerned about that. That is why
    we brought it as a priority. This was originally looked at in
    2005 to begin the process of replacing the system.

                        OVERTIME AND ADDITIONAL STAFFING

        Senator Nelson. Switching now, going back to the overtime
    and additional staff question, let me just see if I am clear
    here. Is your goal to eventually eliminate the use of overtime
    in your day-to-day operations, or are you intending to use a
    combination of overtime and onboard staff? And have you
    established what positions are better utilized through the use
    of overtime if you plan to continue to have overtime?
        Chief Morse. We plan to use a combination. As I mentioned
    before, in some cases, we are using technology, and I could
    provide that information to you in a sidebar. But we are using
    technology that will decrease the number of officers we need to
    do a specific mission. Therefore, we can put them back into the
    field.
        In other instances, by adding, for instance, the 76, we can
    perhaps downsize the amount of overtime that we are using and
    enhance our capability with our mission. So we are using a
    combination of technology as well as redeployment of our
    personnel.
        We have also worked very closely with our oversight
    committees in detail, for instance, we're checking how many
    people come through a specific door during a specific time. And
    the committees have worked with us, for instance, at adjusting
    the hours of those doors.
        So we have done things on the very low level and on the
    very high level to try to lower the amount of overtime and have
    the most efficient and effective use of our police officers. So
    it is a challenge. I don't know that we could ever eradicate
    overtime because there are so many variables that come with
    that. For instance, the special events and demonstrations, et
    cetera, that I had mentioned before, just to name a few.
        Senator Nelson. It appears you are having some difficulty
    attracting and retaining civilian personnel, some in positions
    that are quite critical to your mission. How many civilian
    openings would you have at the present time and why?
        Chief Morse. There are 79 or 78 vacancies that are
    currently open. As I was saying earlier, in some cases, we are
    reevaluating the need or the position description or
    reclassifying it to meet our current mission. Many of the
    recommendations that we receive change the way we do business.
    We are trying to do business more efficiently.
        So some of the delays have been with redoing the position
    descriptions. But as I mentioned before, many of these are in
    the hiring process currently, and they passed me a note that
    most recently we just hired four additional personnel. But 16
    are in the hiring process. Twenty-five have vacancy
    announcements out right now.
        So as fast as we can make sure or ensure that these
    personnel are the positions that we need, that we have the
    right person in those positions, then we will, in fact, fill
    them.
        As far as retention is concerned, there is a turnover, and
    some of that has been remedied by simply answering
    recommendations and gaining control and organization over these
    entities and ensuring that we have a strategic plan for where
    it is that we are going to go. And one example of that is our
    Office of Financial Management, where we have current
    tremendous leadership, which resulted in a positive thing for
    the police department.
        But in hiring some of these additional personnel and some
    of the reclassifications, we will do some of the things that
    the other Federal agencies do with regard to retention
    benefits, where we could be more attractive to those from the
    private industry as well as other Federal agencies.
        Senator Nelson. Well, my final question is relating to
    those 13 additional officers for counterintelligence. Have you
    considered in some way partnering with the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS) or some other agency, perhaps even the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to attract that kind of
    capability rather than try to develop it within the police
    department yourselves?
        Chief Morse. Well, first, let me say that we have wonderful
    relationships with our area law enforcement agencies. We do
    have liaisons at the major intelligence organizations as well
    as DHS, the FBI, Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense
    Intelligence Agency, the metropolitan police fusion center. So
    we work very closely with them. And I won't speak for any one
    of those agencies specifically, but the countersurveillance
    capability is taxing on their own specific mission.
        We are, as you know, the only Federal law enforcement
    agency who has authority and responsibility for protecting this
    branch of Government. And we feel that it is our responsibility
    to recommend that a more robust countersurveillance operation
    would minimize the risk of any criminal or terrorist activity
    that could be planned for our facility. And certainly no one is
    more dedicated to protecting this legislative body than the men
    and women of the United States Capitol Police.
        Senator Nelson. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. One final. The President's budget is
    about an 8 percent increase over last year, if I remember
    correctly. What would happen if we were to set that standard
    within the legislative branch? Right now, we are looking at
    about a 15 percent increase.
        What would that mean to you in terms of your budget and
    your priorities if you were told you got about 8 percent
    increase over last year? Where would you go? We will start with
    you, Ms. Erickson.
        Ms. Erickson. Well, I think I am in the best----
        Senator Nelson. You would have to raise yours, yes.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes. We will start with the easy one.
        Ms. Erickson. I think I am in the best shape of the three
    of us. My operating budget has remained the same, and I will
    say we look for every opportunity to cut costs, down to our
    Senate librarian who just renegotiated some vendor contracts
    and saved $352,000 over 4 years.
        I personally look at every voucher, and I can say our chief
    employment counsel's attorneys have cut back on their travel or
    look for conferences that are held in Washington, DC, rather
    than traveling across the country. So we take that
    responsibility very, very seriously.
        The budgetary impact for our operation would be salary and
    that would mean that I would not be able to offer a COLA to our
    employees or implement our employee performance program for
    merit pay, which, with few exceptions, is capped at 3 percent.
    So that would be the impact for the Secretary of the Senate's
    employees.
        Senator Murkowski. What is the longevity of the employees
    within----
        Ms. Erickson. We have very low turnover. We have I think it
    is 3,000--if you add up the total, we have 3,000 years of
    Federal experience, 238 employees. So there isn't a lot of
    turnover, but there are employees who have a great deal of
    institutional expertise that we hope to keep for a long time.
        Senator Murkowski. Terry, how would you reprioritize if you
    had to?
        Mr. Gainer. I would eliminate the $2 million that I have
    asked for Nancy.
        Seriously, I wouldn't do that because she pays us, too.
        Most of what we do, aside from the salary issues, are
    really for your benefit and your offices. So, number one, we
    would work with you and see how to scale that back.
        But it is really, I think, adjusting the Members' and their
    staffs' and your 450 State offices' expectations so that each
    year, for instance, when we add money in to try to get more
    bandwidth so that your computer works quicker in your home
    State, we would scale that back. And rather than have someone
    come and repair the computer in your office within 30 minutes,
    it might take 2 days.
        So we can adjust that, and we would work with you to try to
    figure that out.
        Senator Murkowski. Chief Morse.
        Chief Morse. Well, it would certainly take some very
    serious analysis to prioritize what we would lose by that. I
    would fear that a lot of our lifecycle replacement that we
    talked about earlier in our technology that helps safeguard the
    campus would be at jeopardy, along with hiring.
        We certainly talked about a significant amount with the
    radio system that is critical to the life safety not only for
    our police officers and employees, but for the legislative
    process. And if we were to still go with the radio project,
    then that would significantly impact other areas of the police
    department.
        Our employees are certainly here and dedicated to you under
    any condition, and I would be remiss if I didn't say that I
    would want to take care of them first.
        So I think that a lot of the significant areas of concern
    would be mostly with the technology, the lifecycle replacement,
    the radio system, and hiring, which I think would probably
    cascade on us as the years went on. We would probably never be
    able to recover from the not hiring.
        Senator Murkowski. Appreciate your responses.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        And I would like to personally thank our witnesses for
    attending today's hearing and providing us with their excellent
    responses.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                      Questions Submitted to Terry Gainer
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson

                        FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST

        Question. If the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill for fiscal
    year 2010 is held to current year levels, what will be the impact to
    your agency's operations and on the day to day operations of the
    Senate?
        Answer. We understand that the Committee may face challenges in
    preparing the fiscal year 2010 Appropriation. If we are held at the
    current level, we will examine all of our initiatives and establish
    priorities that reflect the funding allowed. We will review spending on
    capital investments and maintenance; we will defer expenditures for new
    equipment to the extent that we can. We will work with Committee staff
    to ensure that all Senate priorities are funded.
        Question. Your organization has requested a 10 percent increase--to
    $243.5 million in fiscal year 2010. As we have discussed, increases are
    going to be very difficult in a tight budget year. Regardless, the SAA
    has grown from an enacted budget of $109 million in fiscal year 2000 to
    well over $200 million in the current year. I, like most Members, have
    a great deal of respect and gratitude for the work your organization
    does around here--but do you mind spending a couple of minutes telling
    us how you got from there to here in terms of budget and staffing?
    Where do you see the trend line moving in the next few years?
        Answer. Our organization has changed dramatically since 2000. To
    set the stage, in 2000 our budget was just about $100 million. In
    fiscal year 2009, our budget is $220 million. We had 780 employees then
    and have 958 now. In almost all respects, we no longer are the same
    organization. Let me give you some specifics of the changes.
        With the exception of POSEP (formerly OSEP), generally, the
    responsibilities of the SAA have not changed since 2001. However, the
    scope of those responsibilities has expanded materially. Our goal is to
    support Senate offices to enable Members and staff always to more
    effectively manage their business and communicate with their
    constituents. It takes people and money to initiate, implement, operate
    and maintain the infrastructure that provides the systems and services
    to the Senate. In a sense, we do this so that you don't have to. More
    specifically, here are some of the changes that have occurred over the
    years.
        Post Office--receipt and delivery of mail in 2001. Today, receipt,
    inspection and delivery of all mail and packages to Senate offices. We
    have our own offsite facility for mail and package inspection.
        Warehouse--in 2001, we operated four warehouse locations. We now
    have a central facility double the size if the four locations that is
    modern and functional for all of our needs.
        PGDM--in 2001, old press model. Since then, all equipment is
    digital and run by computer operation. This improves resource use and
    quality of printed products.
        Recording Studio--complete conversion to digital High Definition
    since 2001 replacing an infrastructure that was entirely film based.
    Combined with the Hearing Room upgrade project, we can remotely manage
    and broadcast about 12 hearings at the same time. Previously, we were
    able to film three at once.
        CIO Organization--small infrastructure in 2001 with limited backup
    capabilities. Today, we have a fully operational alternate computer
    facility that serves as a real time back up site for all major Senate
    applications and for data storage for many Senate offices. Our primary
    service contracts are all performance based. We have very high
    performance standards which the contractors regularly meet. This is, of
    course, costly.
        We also have state-of-the-art network monitoring capabilities that
    protect the Senate networks from attack. This Security Operations
    Center also has a back up at the ACF.
        As more processes can be automated and managed electronically, we
    have added those applications to our inventory. These applications
    improve customer service, management of our processes and enable new
    services to be offered in a cost effective manner. Applications that
    come to mind include TranSAAct (for managing parking and ID requests,
    floor privileges and SAA billings), MCS (for requesting BlackBerry and
    cell phone services) and the IT Catalog (for ordering computer
    equipment). All Senate offices use these systems.
        In addition to BlackBerrys and cell phones, there are other
    wireless technologies that are expected to expand in the future and we
    must be prepared to support wireless services demanded by Senate
    offices.
        Additionally, we have the ability to set up an alternate Senate
    site, chamber and offices, through the use of satellite and
    communications vehicles. Prior to 2001, there was no such capability.
        POSEP--in 2001, the office did not exist. Since then, the office
    provides nationwide office outreach for security planning and response.
    POSEP leads the Senate's COOP program and coordinates with other
    agencies in the planning and development of COOP and other exercises
    and training events.
        Question. I recently received tea bags in the mail, as did many of
    my colleagues as a result of the organized tax day protests last week.
    Obviously, these envelopes had been subjected to a significant amount
    of screening. Do you mind updating me on the mail and package screening
    processes utilized here in the Senate?
        Answer. All United States Postal Service (USPS) letter mail
    addressed to the Senate zip code 20510 is irradiated by a USPS
    contractor. After irradiation, all mail is x-rayed, opened and tested
    for contaminants at an offsite facility operated by Senate Post Office
    employees, prior to delivery to the Senate office. The mail is
    quarantined, awaiting clear test results.
        Packages are not irradiated. All packages addressed to the Senate
    zip code 20510 are delivered to the same offsite facility operated by
    Senate Post Office employees. Packages are x-rayed, opened and tested
    for possible contaminants, prior to delivery to the Senate office. The
    packages are quarantined, awaiting clear test results.
        The Senate Post Office operates an on-campus facility for expected
    courier deliveries to Senate offices. The items are x-rayed, opened and
    tested for contaminants. Expected items are delivered by the Senate
    Post Office, after the items have clear test results.
        Under no circumstances should anyone bring mail and/or packages
    into the Capitol or Senate buildings that have not undergone the
    Senate's mail and package testing protocols. Tested items are clearly
    marked and are delivered by uniformed Senate Post Office employees
    bearing a Senate ID.
        We provide safe mail handling training for Senate state offices.
    Additionally, our science advisors developed the Postal Sentry, a
    device designed to contain contaminants that a terrorist could send in
    an envelope.
        Question. Your expense budget includes an increase of $15 million--
    or 10 percent this year. Yet your office has identified substantial
    multi-year unobligated balances and savings--much of that resulting
    from savings in your Information Technology investments. Can you take
    advantage of prior year savings to reduce your fiscal year 2010
    request?
        Answer. Yes. We will work with the Committee to use these funds in
    a manner that meets your needs.
        Question. Most of the Legislative Branch agencies--including yours
    have requested significant increases for technology development
    upgrades this year. Since most of your prior year unobligated balances
    reflect savings in IT what can you do to improve budgeting for these
    large-ticket items?
        Answer. In some cases, we have already refined our budgets for the
    items that produced the savings. In the other cases, we are reviewing
    our cost estimates and contracts to determine if we can improve our
    budget processes.
        Question. You are requesting funding for five new FTEs--bringing
    your total FTE up to 963. What is your current on-board staffing level?
    Will you work with my staff to arrive at a fiscal year 2010 funding
    level that better addresses your on-board staffing level?
        Answer. We withdraw the request for the additional five positions.
    Our managers will prioritize positions and fill those most necessary to
    complete their respective missions. We have 905 on board at the end of
    April 2009. And we will work with Committee staff to refine our salary
    funding needs for fiscal year 2010 that addresses current and expected
    staffing levels.
        Question. I understand the Senate has invested some $20 million on
    a new telephone system, but that it has been somewhat delayed. What is
    the status of the $20 million telecom modernization project--when will
    it be complete?
        Answer. The Telecom Modernization Project is nearing the end of the
    Final Engineering and Design phase. While this phase took much longer
    than expected, it served its purpose in that we have modified the
    proposed design to better meet the Senate's needs. To begin addressing
    operational issues, we will implement a new voicemail system this fall.
        We are currently preparing for a testing phase to validate the
    design. Upon successful completion of testing, we will order and
    install the equipment which will take about 6 months. We expect to be
    piloting the solution within the Sergeant at Arms organization in the
    spring of 2010 and making it available to offices in the summer. The
    time it takes to migrate all offices to the new system will depend on
    the willingness of the offices to migrate, and could take as long as 3
    years.
        Question. Your salary budget increase totals nearly 13 percent
    which is very high. In your budget submission you used a 4.5 percent
    increase as your COLA base. Other Legislative Branch agencies used a
    2.9 percent formula for their COLA. Why was yours higher?
        Answer. We base our COLA on the most recent base COLA amount plus
    an estimate of the locality adjustment. At the time the fiscal year
    2010 budget was prepared, the general base COLA was 2.99 percent to
    which we added an estimate of locality of 1.5 percent. That resulted in
    the 4.5 percent amount used in the fiscal year 2010 budget. We included
    the COLA for 9 months of 2010 (January through September).
        Question. Your fiscal year 2010 request includes $5 million for
    hearing room upgrades. How much have we invested in this effort so far
    and how much longer will this item be included in your request?
        Answer. The Committee on Rules and Administration selects the rooms
    and identifies the requirements for this project. Since 2003, 21
    hearing rooms have been completed and $25.4 million has been funded for
    this project. Another 11 rooms have been identified as future rooms for
    renovation and upgrades. We anticipate that, with our funding request
    for fiscal year 2010, we will complete the hearing room upgrades that
    we have been tasked to do.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted to Phillip D. Morse, Sr.
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson

                                     RADIOS

        Question. We understand that the engineering design for the radio
    project is scheduled to be complete at the end of 2009. If you obtain
    supplemental funding for this project would you be able to accelerate
    the purchase of any portion of this project prior to December?
        Answer. Yes, if we could get supplemental funding in fiscal year
    2009 it would permit us to begin the acquisition process for segments
    of the project as soon as the detailed engineering design is completed
    for each item; this would permit us to roll out these segments much
    sooner than we would otherwise be able to do. We believe that the
    nature of the radio modernization project comports with the intent of
    emergency supplemental bills, which frequently fund ``pressing domestic
    needs''. This new system is critical to our ability to effectively
    address anti-terrorism, and the continuity of government operations.
        Question. Would there be any advantages to acquiring increments of
    this system prior to the completion of the final design?
        Answer. As the design engineering study progresses, and technical
    issues are identified, we would be able to begin to contract to acquire
    the technology to meet the specifications the engineering study
    indicates (such as purchasing certain antennas, repeaters, cabling,
    etc.). Additionally, contracting can commence once a final
    determination on the mirror site has been recommended and approved. The
    principal advantage of being able to proceed with procuring increments
    of the project would be overall implementation several months sooner
    than if we were to wait to begin any procurement activity until all of
    the engineering design is complete. The procurement process itself can
    be lengthy. The sooner we are about to begin that process the sooner
    the radio system will be able to go live.
        Question. Can you briefly outline for me what vulnerabilities or
    disadvantages we continue to have in the Capitol Complex by not having
    this technology in the event of an emergency?
        Answer. The most significant vulnerability is our current inability
    to effectively communicate with other first responders as well as some
    of our Legislative Branch partners. In addition, the reliability of the
    current 20-year-old system presents an unacceptable risk of a complete
    system failure during an emergency situation. Also, there are places in
    the Capitol Hill complex (e.g., the Capitol Visitor Center, new
    tunnels, garage areas and other subterranean locations) that the
    current system was not designed or intended to cover and where reliable
    radio communication cannot be expected.
        There are three critical life safety tools for a law enforcement
    agency: proper weapons, protective equipment, and reliable
    communications. Our current communications system is an antiquated
    analog system without interoperability capabilities, and it is not
    encrypted. In many cases, it has been failing us both in the hardware
    and software areas. We most recently had one of our vendors call us to
    say that they could no longer service our dispatch equipment or
    technology because of its age. In the threat environment in which we
    work after 9/11, it is critical that we be able to communicate with our
    partners in a critical incident situation, which we currently cannot
    do. Additionally, we have experienced dead spots with our current
    system. This makes us unable to receive subterraneous communications in
    some of our garage areas, tunnel systems, subways, etc. Part of the
    reason for this is the lack of cabling, antennas, etc., in areas where
    essential communication could not have been foreseen over 20 years ago
    when the system was put in place. In view of the these issues, we
    believe it is critical that we move towards modernizing our radio
    system as soon as possible to ensure the continued safety of Members,
    staff and visitors on the Capitol Complex.

                                    OVERTIME

        Question. You are requesting $3.7 million for 55 FTE to reduce your
    overtime to about 10 percent. What percent of overtime are you
    utilizing right now? Is your overtime in a ``pool'' where officers who
    want to work overtime can do so while officers who prefer not to can
    elect to defer? Aren't some of these officers depending on overtime to
    augment their salaries?
        Earlier this year USCP worked with the GAO to review and validate
    our methodologies in the computation, management and reporting of OT
    and utility of officers. The ACOP was notified by the GAO that the
    methodologies were using were consistent and measurable to allow proper
    management and control of its personnel and distribution of OT across
    USCP for controllable OT.
        In the utilization of Load Leveling USCP uses this methodology in
    conjunction of its Officer Voluntary Reassignment Program (OVRP) to
    staff division so that there is fairness in the use overtime across its
    divisions. USCP staffs most of its divisions between 80 percent-90
    percent to regular requirements and available and qualified personnel,
    the remainder requirements are staffed with overtime.
        Regular requirements include the following:
      --The difference between the total Uniformed Services Bureau (USB)
            post hours and the total USB officer availability (USCP has
            deemed that each available officer is available 1560 hours per
            year).
      --The difference between the average usage of overtime used by
            specialty assignments and the total specialty assignment
            officer availability (USCP has deemed that each available
            officer is available 1560 hours per year).
      --Specialty assignments include Containment Emergency Response Team
            (CERT), Dignitary Protection Division (DPD) (in-town),
            Hazardous Devices Section (HDS), Hazardous Materials Response
            Team (HMRT), Security Services Bureau (SSB)) and a minimal
            amount of supervisory overtime.
      --46 K-9 handlers are currently receiving handler pay; handler pay is
            30 minutes of additional duty per day paid to the handler to
            provide care for the K-9 after normal duty hours.
        USCP must also abide in the distribution and assignment of OT based
    on statutory Pay Caps and agreements stated in the Collective
    Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The Office of Human Resources (OHR) and
    Office of Financial Management (OFM) continuously monitor and control
    this area to ensure that no officers exceed these amounts.
    Additionally, Officers direct supervisors determine whether an Officer
    is operationally qualified, eligible and authorized to stand any
    overtime.
        In fiscal year 2009 USCP has had several variable and unscheduled
    OT requirements which are monitored through coding in the time and
    attendance system. USCP has some control of the use of overtime in
    these areas but a majority of these requirements for OT are event, risk
    and threat or member driven and are staffed to maintain the appropriate
    levels of protection and security for the facilities and personnel.
    Some examples are DPD out of area OT, Extended Sessions, House and
    Senate Codels, additional post to the Opening of the CVC, Earlier
    opening of the CVC, special events such as the Capitol Power Plant
    Protest, and ANSWER Demonstration. The level of staffing for the above
    mentioned items are based on the risk and threat associated with them.
        Overtime is allocated evenly within organizational units, but some
    units are required to work more overtime by the nature of their
    assignment. For example, House and Senate Chambers are required to stay
    when Congress is in session late, as is the Dignitary Protection
    Division. However, officers who don't want to work overtime (or
    overtime at the particular time they are scheduled to work) can ask
    someone else to work their hours. Therefore, there is substantial
    variance in how much overtime officers earn per year, although the
    majority earn less than $10,000.
        We have not conducted any analysis to determine whether and to what
    degree officers rely on income from overtime to augment their salaries.
        Question. Your budget request suggests we will realize a savings in
    overtime of $2.5 million if we fund the additional 55 FTE you've
    requested for this purpose. Yet the 55 FTE will cost $3.7 million. This
    seems like a negative savings to me if we spend $3.7 million to save
    $2.5 million of taxpayers' money. Can you explain your rationale in
    making this request?
        Answer. In the first year of funding for additional FTE, it is true
    that adding them would cost more. The cost of recruiting and outfitting
    the new officers alone is substantial, and benefits add to the cost.
    However, not all of the benefit that would derive from decreasing
    overtime would be realized in the first year of the additional
    recruits' tenure, since they would be in training for approximately 6
    months. The full benefit in terms of reducing overtime happens once
    they complete their training, in 2010, 2011, and thereafter.
        In addition, although we have not directly analyzed how working
    prohibitively long hours, or sequential shifts, may affect the
    effectiveness of the officers who are protecting the Capitol and its
    inhabitants, it stands to reason that rested officers will do the job
    better than their tired counterparts, with faster response times in the
    event of a true emergency. A sufficient work/family balance will also
    help sustain the morale that is essential in a police force with such a
    critical mission.
        Question. Your force has grown in manpower by 38 percent since 2000
    and yet your overtime has continued to grow steadily as well. In fact,
    between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2008 your sworn staff
    increased by 25 percent and still overtime increased by 80,000 hours.
    So there doesn't seem to be a trend that shows that more staff equals
    less overtime. What can you do to better manage your overtime usage?
        Answer. Since 2000, the Department's mission load has increased,
    which has outpaced the sworn staffing provided to meet these mission
    requirements. Additionally, the Department has conducted numerous
    threat assessments and we have utilized the outcomes from these
    assessments to deploy our workforce to meet the threats. The staffing
    gap between the required sworn staffing and the mission load
    requirements must be met through the use of overtime.
        To manage our resources while meeting our mission requirements, we
    are also employing various efficiencies Department-wide to reduce
    overtime. To this end, we have:
      --Conducted load leveling of Operational units to ensure
            proportionate staffing across the Department.
      --Standardized breaks across divisions to a 1-to-4 ratio.
      --Audited the K-9 function. K-9 has undertaken a 4/10 work schedule
            for better efficiency in meeting its mission set.
      --Approved revisions to the CP-1301 system to better manage overtime
            by improving how we draft and manage assignments. While the CP-
            1301 process modification has been approved, the assignment of
            overtime is currently being reviewed and negotiated as part of
            the Fraternal Order of Police Union Contract.
      --Included 76 new sworn officers in the fiscal year 2010 budget
            request in order to reduce overtime and increase capability to
            address threats.
      --Audited and reorganized the Truck Interdiction Program (TIPS), in
            order to return officers to posts.
      --Directed TIPS midnights staffing reductions.
      --Increased the utilization of technology at the Offsite Delivery
            Center, in order to return officers to other priority post
            requirements.
      --Migrated the Security Services Bureau (SSB) to a 4/10 work schedule
            for better efficiency in meeting their mission.
      --Migrated the Mission Assurance Bureau to a 4/10 work schedule for
            better efficiency in meeting their mission.
      --Incrementally increased DPD to reduce overtime utilization and
            better meet the mission. Although DPD is not staffed to the ELS
            recommendation level, we are migrating to that point based on
            threat analysis and evolving mission.
      --Assigned recruit officers to USB directly from officer training for
            distribution following their field training.
      --Assigned HMRT to conduct random sampling of deliveries at the
            Offsite Delivery Center to leverage their staffing and mission
            capabilities.
        We have also instituted several cross-training initiatives to
    achieve additional efficiencies. We have:
      --Trained over 1,000 sworn in x-ray security screening protocols to
            better identify and address threats.
      --Trained all recruit classes in detecting surveillance techniques to
            enhance officers'' ability to detect individuals conducting
            surveillance, to elicit information from the individuals during
            conversations, and to determine what actions to take based on
            the information obtained.
      --Directed the integration of all divisions within the Patrol Mobile
            Response Division (PMRD) into one holistic operation, rather
            than focused units like heavy motors, mountain bikes, TIGER,
            etc.
        We are continuing several works in progress to reduce overtime and
    increase our overall efficiency. We are completing a staffing gap
    analysis for Uniformed Services Bureau Divisions. Gap analyses from all
    divisions within the Uniformed Services Bureau are due by June 1, 2009.
    We have also directed that a study be conducted to review civilization
    of the USCP Command Center. We are looking at using the Wounded Warrior
    program for this purpose.
        Finally, we are implementing upgrades to version 8.3 of Workbrain,
    so we can adopt electronic scheduling in fiscal year 2010.
        Question. Is your goal to eventually eliminate the use of overtime
    in your day to day operations? Or do you want to use a combination of
    overtime and on-board staff? What positions are better utilized through
    the use of overtime?
        Answer. Our goal is to utilize the findings of the ELS Manpower
    Study and current risk and threat analyses for the Capitol Complex to
    determine the proper mix of full-time sworn staffing, overtime
    utilization, outsourcing, civilianization and technology to meet the
    mission requirements facing the Department.
        As a part of this effort, we believe we must balance the cost-
    effectiveness of full-time staffing against the cost and efficiency of
    overtime in meeting mission. In our current configuration, the
    Department has limited long-term infrastructure, such as physical
    space, with which to support additional sworn and civilian personnel.
    Therefore, we believe that any new personnel must be directed at normal
    post requirements for which we currently do not have full-time sworn
    staffing. These post requirements are driven by threat and have pre-
    determined sworn staffing requirements against which to manage
    personnel deployment.
        Because many events such as demonstrations, Congressional hearings,
    extended sessions of Congress and other unplanned events on the Complex
    are unpredictable, we believe these are the sworn assignments that are
    best covered using overtime. Additionally, because our dignitary
    protection responsibilities are often unpredictable, we believe that we
    must utilize a balance of sworn staffing and overtime to meet these
    mission requirements.
        Additionally, as a part of our ELS Study implementation, we are
    reviewing normal post requirements to determine any that might be
    candidates for technology implementation, civilianization or
    outsourcing, rather than utilizing sworn personnel or overtime to meet
    the need.
        We do not believe that we could or should eliminate overtime
    utilization to meet mission requirements. Rather, we must find the
    correct balance for its utilization as a part of achieving our overall
    mission or protecting the legislative process.
        Question. Have you conducted an employee survey recently to
    determine your employees' level of satisfaction?
        Answer. USCP has recently taken aggressive steps to gather data
    from its employees regarding satisfaction with their work lives.
        More comprehensive in nature is USCP's effort to gather feedback
    with its Human Capital Survey (Climate Survey), which is currently
    underway. Open for participation throughout the months of May and June,
    this completely online survey will be the first Department-wide
    examination designed to give insight into employees' work life
    perceptions. So far, more than 33 percent (almost 700) of the employees
    have submitted their responses, and we're continuing to encourage their
    participation.

                               CIVILIAN STAFFING

        Question. You are apparently having significant difficulty
    attracting and retaining civilian personnel--some in positions critical
    to your mission. How many civilian openings do you currently have and
    why?
        Answer. We currently have 78 civilian openings. We are planning to
    fill 51 of these by the end of this fiscal year. In the past year, we
    had management challenges in our Office of Human Resources, and we also
    had the need to review job descriptions and classifications carefully
    before posting positions. We also recently issued a Human Capital
    Workforce Plan and are conducting an employee survey for the first
    time. Both of these initiatives, along with others designed to enhance
    our human capital programs, should assist in our efforts to hire and
    retain highly qualified civilian personnel.
        It is also unusually time-consuming to hire civilian employees at
    the U.S. Capitol Police. Prospective employees are required to undergo
    a background investigation, and it is required that they be approved by
    House and Senate oversight committees. Not infrequently, we find that
    fact that many of the people who apply for civilian jobs actually find
    other jobs before we get the approvals necessary to make them an offer.
        Question. With regard to the Library of Congress merger--you are
    obtaining approximately 21 former Library officers who do not meet the
    criteria to become Capitol Police officers. What will these employees
    be doing and can they help in addressing your request for new civilian
    FTE?
        Answer. There are currently 23 LOC sworn officers who have been
    determined to be ineligible for consideration to transfer to the USCP
    as sworn officers, because they cannot meet the statutory requirement
    for 20 years of ``continuous'' Federal service prior to becoming 60
    years of age. These individuals will transfer to Department as
    civilians (i.e., as ``civilianized'' former officers) on October 11,
    2009, which is the 1st day of the 1st pay period following the
    completion of the merger transition period.
        The Department is also finalizing the positions that may be
    civilianized in order to support the transition of the Library of
    Congress sworn to civilian employees. The positions being considered
    are:
      --LOC Dispatchers (Currently a sworn assignment)
      --LOC Call Takers
      --LOC Computer Emergency Notification System (CENS) Messengers
      --LOC Deaf Pager Notifications
      --LOC Fire Panel Monitors
      --Firearms Range Instructors (Currently a USCP sworn assignment)
      --LOC Exit Inspections (Currently a sworn assignment. Two positions
            and one relief position)
      --CVC Exit Inspection Post
      --Cannon/Madison Tunnel Exit Post
      --LOC Division Support
        We plan to have decisions on the civilianization of these positions
    by mid-June, 2009. These employees will transition into civilian
    positions on October 11, 2009 in accordance with the merger statute.
        Currently, the Library of Congress utilizes sworn officers to staff
    their dispatch operation. This operation is intended to continue to
    reside within the LOC until the USCP's new radio system is implemented.
    Therefore, we intend to look at utilizing up to 16 of these
    civilianized employees for this purpose. This will allow us to
    reallocate the sworn resources currently used for this purpose to meet
    other critical security requirements upon the merger transition
    completion. We also intend to consider these civilianizing employees
    for exit screener positions at the LOC, as well as for monitoring of
    the exits to ensure that collection materials are not removed from the
    LOC, and to support the LOC division. Additionally, two civilianized
    employees are certified firearms instructors and will be considered for
    placement at the USCP firearms range. Finally, any transferring
    civilian employee who does not get placed into any of these
    opportunities, because of a lack of knowledge, skills and abilities
    necessary to meet the position requirements, will be placed at the time
    of transition into a mission support function within the Department
    where their knowledge, skills and abilities are better suited.
        Those LOC sworn officers eligible for sworn consideration who do
    not successfully meet the prescribed hiring standards will transfer as
    civilian employees in accordance with the statute and will be placed
    according to the mission needs of the Department at the time of
    transfer.

                              COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE

        Question. You are requesting 13 additional officers for ``counter-
    intelligence'' work. I don't want to ``reinvent the wheel'' here. Are
    you currently coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security and
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation on assessing threats to the
    National Capitol Region--and to Capitol Hill in particular?
        Answer. The Department has three USCP liaisons assigned to
    coordinate with both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.
    We currently have agents assigned to the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task
    Force and the FBI's National Joint Terrorism Task force. These agents
    work closely with their counterparts in the FBI, other Federal agencies
    as well as State and local law enforcement agencies in the national
    capitol region. The USCP has one Intelligence Research Specialist
    assigned to the Department of Homeland Security and this analyst
    provides analysis on international and domestic terrorist threats
    toward the U.S. Congress.
        The 13 additional counter surveillance agents would provide broader
    coverage within the USCP jurisdiction and be primarily assigned to the
    detection of hostile surveillance towards the congressional campus,
    Members of Congress and congressional staff. Their primary assignment
    would be the Legislative Branch of the government, as opposed to other
    agency counterparts for whom Congress, its Members, visitors and staff
    represent collateral interests. The current agents assigned perform
    collateral duties outside of the counter surveillance scope to include
    demonstrations, protective operations for congressional leadership
    visiting dignitaries and special congressional events. There are
    currently nine agents assigned to complete all of these tasks.
        Question. What will you do if this committee does not fund these
    additional FTE for counter-intelligence?
        Answer. Should the Department not receive additional sworn FTE to
    meet this mission need, we will continue to run the risk of not having
    the necessary counter-intelligence information necessary to address
    threats against the legislative process. If additional sworn resources
    are not provided, the Department may need to utilize overtime or detail
    sworn officers from other mission activities to address this risk.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski

        Question. If your agency were to receive only half of the requested
    increase for fiscal year 2010, what would be the impact and what
    changes would you make to your budget?
        Answer. If USCP were to receive only half of the requested increase
    (excluding the radio project funding and LOC merger effect), we would
    adjust our projected hiring to focus on replacing attrition and hiring
    the most critical civilian positions including most of the backfills
    and those needed to civilianize the dispatch and alarm monitoring
    program, training managers, and radio technicians. Most of this
    increase would be used to cover mandatory personnel costs including
    COLAs. We would also cover some of the infrastructure and/or lifecycle
    replacements.
        We would not be able to fund all of the infrastructure and/or
    lifecycle replacement projects included in our request for security
    systems (about $3 million was included), information technology (about
    $3.8 million included in our request), vehicle replacements, and other
    infrastructure projects. We would also not be able to hire all of the
    critical civilians we have included in our request, nor new sworn
    officers, and as a result our overtime would once again increase.
        Question. What were the results of the ELS staffing study completed
    a year ago? Did it result in any efficiencies or improvements in
    operations?
        Answer. The Department views the Enlightened Leadership Solutions
    (ELS) Manpower Study (``the Study'') as a living document of guidelines
    and methodologies from which the Department can develop and manage its
    sworn manpower requirements.
        Because the threats facing the Capitol Complex are ever changing,
    items may be added to the list of recommendations as these threats and
    mission requirements change. Likewise, recommendations may be removed,
    because they are completed, determined as not feasible or overcome by
    events.
        Built into the Study are new security protection and response
    protocols, as well as reviews and recommendations from previous
    security studies. After the Study was reviewed by the Government
    Accountability Office and others, additional processes were added, such
    as budgeting via a threat-based approach, in order to ensure holistic
    analysis, consideration and implementation.
        As a first step in implementing the Study's recommendations, the
    Chief of Operations reviewed and prioritized its recommendations based
    on the current threat level facing the Capitol Complex. The Department
    is in the process of documenting this decision making process in the
    recommendation action and tracking matrix described below.
        As a result of his review, the following mission sets received top
    priority for review and implementation of recommendations: the Capitol
    Division (CD), to include the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), the
    Hazardous Incident Response Division, the Protective Services Bureau's
    Intelligence operation, the Containment Emergency Response Team (CERT),
    and the Truck Interdiction Program.
        Many of the changes we have made or that we will make to theses
    areas are done by optimizing the staffing resources that we have
    currently, which is what we are currently doing within the Capitol
    Division to our assigned personnel. In addition, we are realigning the
    Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU) and Hostage Negotiation Team (HNT) to the
    Mission Assurance Bureau (MAB) in an effort to group mission
    responsibilities for efficiency. Neither action requires additional
    resources to accomplish these recommended efficiencies.
        The Department has implemented many ELS recommendations or taken
    actions in order facilitate the future implementation of
    recommendations in both the USB and other organizational elements
    throughout the Department. (Some of these also assist us in reducing
    our reliance on overtime, and are included in the response to Question
    #6 above.) These include:
    Mission Efficiencies
        Conducted load leveling of Operational units to ensure
    proportionate staffing across the Department.
        Standardized breaks across divisions to a 1-to-4 ratio.
        Changed the CODEL footprint, so that roles are performed during
    deployment in line with how they are performed on the Capitol Complex.
    For example, MAB now operates the Command Vehicle when deployed for
    CODELs.
        Reviewed the requirements for a podium camera program and are
    working toward the implementation of the program.
        Restructured the Capitol Division in order to address the
    additional threats resulting from the Capitol Visitor Center
    operations.
        Implemented the assignment of Protective Services Bureau
    intelligence/threat agents traveling with the Speaker's detail.
        Standardized the make up of leadership protective details with
    Dignitary Protection Division to seven agents, except for the Speaker's
    detail.
        Audited the K-9 function. K-9 has undertaken a 4/10 work schedule
    for better efficiency in meeting its mission set. The Chief of
    Operations is evaluating K-9 stopping its search and rescue program and
    the patrol dog program, implementing a vapor wake detection program to
    meet emerging threats.
        Directed that all POAs and Operation Orders go through MAB and the
    Office of the Chief of Operations to create a historical record of
    activities and operational decision-making, as well as to standardize
    the process for developing and implementing them.
        Trained over 1,000 sworn in x-ray security screening protocols and
    podium training to better identify and address threats.
        Reviewed and revised the screening standard operating procedures
    and training for barrier access, and entry points and doors, in order
    to standardize the processes across the Complex. We have also reviewed
    and revised the directive addressing screening and it is now being
    vetted as a part of the Department's directives modernization project.
        Purchased and installed computer x-ray image interpretation
    software on division computers to enhance the officer's ability to
    detect threats in x-ray images.
        Training all recruit classes in detecting surveillance techniques
    to enhance officers' ability to detect individuals conducting
    surveillance, to elicit information from the individuals during
    conversations, and to determine what actions to take based on the
    information obtained.
    Staffing Efficiencies
        Approved revisions to the CP-1301 system to better manage overtime
    (OT) by improving how we draft and manage assignments. While the CP-
    1301 process modification has been approved, the assignment of overtime
    is currently being reviewed and negotiated as part of the Fraternal
    Order of Police Union Contract.
        Established a standardized positioning of officers at security
    screening posts (doors) to ensure the officer are optimally positioned
    for mission effectiveness and officer safety reasons, and to ensure
    consistency of operations.
        Included 76 new sworn officers in the fiscal year 2010 budget
    request in order to reduce overtime and increase capability to address
    threats.
        Reassigned outside patrols to the House and Senate Divisions for
    better efficiency and effectiveness in addressing threats.
        Audited the CERT function--the Assistant Chief has provided
    tentative approval to restructure CERT.
        Audited the Hazardous Materials Response Team (HMRT) program--
    Letters are being prepared for the Capitol Police Board's concurrence
    to reorganize this function to meet the current threats facing the
    Complex.
        Audited and reorganized the Truck Interdiction Program (TIPS), in
    order to return officers to posts.
        Directed TIPS midnights staffing reductions.
        Directed the integration of all divisions within the Patrol Mobile
    Response Division (PMRD) into one holistic operation, rather than
    focused units like heavy motors, mountain bikes, TIGER, etc.
        Increased the utilization of technology at the Offsite Delivery
    Center, in order to return officers to other priority post
    requirements.
        Automated the Officer Voluntary Reassignment Program.
        Migrated the Security Services Bureau (SSB) to a 4/10 work schedule
    for better efficiency in meeting their mission.
        Migrated the Mission Assurance Bureau to a 4/10 work schedule for
    better efficiency in meeting their mission.
    Interim Steps Necessary To Implement Recommendations
        Incrementally increased the Dignitary Protection Division (DPD) to
    reduce overtime utilization and better meet the mission. Although DPD
    is not staffed to the ELS recommendation level, we are migrating to
    that point based on threat analysis and evolving mission.
        Included the intelligence capability business case in the fiscal
    year 2010 budget request. (This was previously requested in fiscal year
    2009, but not funded.)
        Assigned recruit officers to USB directly from officer training for
    distribution following their field training.
        Implemented revised protocol, so that officers can transfer into
    Patrol Mobile Response Division (PMRD) without a formal selection
    process. This has added to better efficiencies in addressing emerging
    staffing requirements in a timely manner.
        Assigned HMRT to conduct random sampling of deliveries at the
    Offsite Delivery Center to leverage their staffing and mission
    capabilities.
    Work in Progress
        Completed the gap analysis for the House Division.
        Conducted an assessment of applying a 4/10 shift to the Chambers,
    but this analysis determined that there would be offsetting staffing
    needs, so implementation has been suspended at this time.
        Directed that a study be conducted to review civilization of the
    USCP Command Center. To accomplish this effort we are looking at using
    the Wounded Warrior program for this purpose.
        Approved the movement of Civil Disturbance Unit to the Mission
    Assurance Bureau (MAB). The Department is currently working on the
    implementation.
        Approved the movement of the Crisis Negotiation Team to MAB. The
    Department is also working on this implementation.
        Reviewing operational requirements for the staffing of the
    Communications activities. Originally the Department considered the
    civilianization of Communications, but based on additional analysis, we
    decided to make Communications all integrated sworn activity. These
    sworn officers will rotate between duties within Communications to
    better utilize available resources and achieve efficiency in the
    delivery of the mission set.
        Implementing upgrades to version 8.3 of Workbrain, so we can adopt
    electronic scheduling.
        To better document the Department's ongoing efforts to utilize the
    Study's recommendations and methodology to determine the staffing and
    overtime requirements necessary to meet the various subsets of our
    mission, as well as achieve business process reengineering, we are
    implementing a formal tracking matrix for the recommendations contained
    in the Study. This matrix will be used to assist the Department in our
    evaluation and prioritization of initiatives to be considered in our
    annual budget formulation.
        We plan to catalog each of the recommendations contained in the
    Study on this matrix, as well as add new recommendations based on
    emerging threat or mission requirements. We also plan to capture the
    outcome of the feasibility review conducted on each recommendation, the
    management decisions or authorities governing the implementation, the
    preliminary list of resource requirements, training and competencies
    required, and the status of the implementation effort.
        Question. In preparing your staffing request, how were the results
    and recommendations of the ELS study factored into your analysis and
    what type of risk and threat assessments were performed to arrive at
    the number and mix of staff requested for fiscal year 2010?
        Answer. In developing the Department's fiscal year 2010 budget
    request, we looked at several factors in determining the number of new
    sworn and civilian positions that were requested. Because the
    Department is undertaking a three pronged approach to reviewing,
    validating and implementing the ELS study recommendations, the fiscal
    year 2010 sworn staffing request was a limited step forward toward this
    end.
        The Department views the Enlightened Leadership Solutions (ELS)
    Manpower Study (the Study) as a living document of guidelines and
    methodologies from which the Department can develop and manage its
    sworn manpower requirements. Because the threats facing the Capitol
    Complex are ever changing, items may be added to the list of
    recommendations as these threats and mission requirements change.
    Likewise, recommendations may be removed, because they are completed,
    determined as not feasible or overcome by events.
        Built into the Study are new security, protection and response
    protocols, as well as reviews and recommendations from previous
    security studies. After the Study was reviewed by the Government
    Accountability Office, House Appropriations Surveys and Investigations
    and others, additional processes were added, such as budgeting in a
    threat-based approach in order to ensure holistic implementation.
        In order to balance the sworn staffing requirements versus the need
    for overtime and/or technology to address mission requirements, the
    Department believes it must validate the total number of sworn
    personnel necessary to achieve the Department's mission. To do so, we
    plan to use the ELS Manpower Study data as a baseline for reviewing
    each post against current threat and mission requirement. This
    validation will determine the total number of staff hours necessary to
    achieve the mission and the best methods for achieving these
    requirements, such as the appropriate ratio for sworn staffing,
    overtime, outsourcing, and the utilization of technology.
        The 13 sworn positions that were requested for enhanced counter-
    intelligence capability were directly related to recommendations
    contained within the ELS study. This request is also directly linked to
    continued threat analysis conducted for the Capitol Complex.
        The 76 requested sworn positions were intended to address existing
    core mission post requirements for which we do not currently have sworn
    staffing. The addition of these sworn positions, once deployed, would
    directly reduce overtime utilization necessary to address normal post
    requirements as determined by our continued threat and risk analyses
    for the Complex. Additionally, these sworn positions when deployed
    would begin to address ELS recommendations as the feasibility for each
    recommendation is validated for implementation. In determining the
    number of sworn positions to request in our fiscal year 2010 budget,
    the Department also had to consider our ability to support recruit
    training activities, as well as our ability to provide the long-term
    infrastructure necessary to support the deployment of these sworn
    personnel.
        The 23 civilian positions were intended to address several critical
    areas, such as positions currently staffed by contractors, positions
    directly related to addressing audit findings and positions necessary
    to support the new radio system and training transformation efforts.
        Question. When will you complete a risk assessment and staffing
    analysis for the CVC and LOC?
        Answer. The Department plans to undertake a risk assessment of the
    Library of Congress (LOC) following the transition of the law
    enforcement functions from the LOC to the USCP in October 2009.
        This LOC review will include a threat analysis, as well as a
    facility security survey, of the LOC's facilities to determine the risk
    and threat levels requiring mitigation. These findings will be applied
    to a gap analysis to determine the appropriate staffing levels required
    to staff the LOC mission under the USCP's sworn staffing model, as well
    as potential alternate staffing models for Capitol Police Board
    consideration. Based on the identified threats facing the LOC
    facilities, the USCP may utilize its existing sworn staffing model or
    an alternate model which best mitigates the identified and validated
    risks. We believe that this threat analysis will be completed during
    the second quarter of fiscal year 2010.
        Similarly, the Capitol Division will undertake a staffing review
    and gap analysis of the CVC to review the current sworn staffing
    pattern against the identified threats and known mission requirements.
    Since opening to the public in the fall of 2008, the CVC's operating
    assumptions have changed and the alignment of posts was altered from
    the original planning assumptions. To address these changes--many of
    which resulted in new posts or extended/expanded hours of operations,
    the Capitol Division has had to realign staffing within the Division
    and utilize overtime to meet the mission. We believe that this staffing
    and gap analyses will be completed by the end of June 2009.
        Both of these assessments will be conducted using the methodology
    developed in the ELS Manpower Study.
        Question. What are the positions you intend to assign the LOC
    officers transferring as civilians to USCP? How will you take advantage
    of their sworn experience?
        Answer. There are currently 23 LOC sworn officers who have been
    determined to be ineligible for consideration to transfer to the USCP
    as sworn officers, because they cannot meet the statutory requirement
    for 20 years of ``continuous'' Federal service prior to becoming 60
    years of age. These individuals will transfer to Department as
    civilians on October 11, 2009, which is the 1st day of the 1st pay
    period following the completion of the merger transition period.
        The Department is also finalizing the positions that may be
    civilianized in order to support the transition of the Library of
    Congress sworn to civilian employees. The positions being considered
    are:
      --LOC Dispatchers (Currently a sworn assignment.)
        --Call Takers
        --Computer Emergency Notification System (CENS) Messengers
        --Deaf Pager Notifications
        --Fire Panel Monitors
      --Firearms Range Instructors (Currently a USCP sworn assignment)
      --LOC Exit Inspections (Currently a sworn assignment. Two positions
            and one relief position)
      --CVC Exit Inspection Post
      --Cannon/Madison Tunnel Exit Post
      --LOC Division Support
        We plan to have decisions on the civilianization of these positions
    by mid-June, 2009 and will begin meeting with the affected employees
    shortly thereafter. These employees will transition into civilian
    positions on October 11, 2009 in accordance with the merger statute.
        Currently, the Library of Congress utilizes sworn officers to staff
    their dispatch operation. This operation is intended to continue to
    reside within the LOC until the USCP's new radio system is implemented.
    Therefore, we intend to look at utilizing up to 16 of these
    civilianized employees for this purpose. This will allow us to
    reallocate the sworn resources currently used for this purpose to meet
    other critical security requirements upon the merger transition
    completion. We also intend to consider these civilianizing employees
    for exit screening positions at the LOC, as well as for monitoring of
    the exits to ensure that collection materials are not removed from the
    LOC, and to support the LOC division.
        Additionally, two civilianized employees are certified firearms
    instructors and will be considered for placement at the USCP firearms
    range. Finally, any transferring civilian employee who does not get
    placed into any of these opportunities, because of a lack of knowledge,
    skills and abilities necessary to meet the position requirements, will
    be placed at the time of transition into a mission support function
    within the Department where their knowledge, skills and abilities are
    better suited.
        Question. Please provide a list of all light duty posts.
        Answer. Please see below table, which includes 27 employees on
    light duty, 5 of whom are pregnant, and 7 are on Workers' Compensation.
    Recently, the bureaus were authorized to assign light duty officers to
    administrative positions within the organization.

                            RESTRICTED DUTY EMPLOYEES
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Name                              Detail to
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    T.D........................................  PD-K9
    J.T........................................  LOC
    R.H. (Sgt.)................................  DPD
    D.S........................................  DPD
    D.C........................................  Training
    T.H........................................  Training
    J.J........................................  HD-2
    D.P........................................  WC
    M.D........................................  Cap Div
    L.B........................................  PD
    H.E........................................  PD
    S.G........................................  LOC
    D.S........................................  Sen Div
    E.W........................................  Sen Div
    M.R........................................  Sen Div
    E.R. (Lt.).................................  Comm
    L.H. (Sgt).................................  CC-1
    B.R........................................  DPD
    S.W........................................  House Div
    R.E........................................  FRU-2
    D.N........................................  Veh Maint
    K.G........................................  Veh Maint
    E.V. (civ.)................................  PD
    L.W........................................  Spec Event
    C.Y........................................  Cap Div-1
    A.B........................................  OHR
    A.M........................................  House Div
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What is the status of reorganizing the Hazardous
    Materials Response Team, and what specific changes will be made to this
    unit?
        Answer. The Department has reviewed the mission requirements for
    the Hazardous Materials Response Team (HMRT) and has determined that
    the scope of the HMRT's role, duties and responsibilities should be
    reorganized to better support the Department's protective mission in
    accordance with our Strategic Plan.
        To guide this effort, a broadly representative task force was
    established within the Hazardous Incident Response Division (HIRD) to
    develop recommendations and mission-driven proposals for improving the
    Department's Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Law
    Enforcement (CBRN-LE) program.
        The Department is recommending the following changes to the Capitol
    Police Board for consideration:
      --Reallocation of duties of the HMRT Manager, the Planning and
            Readiness Manager, and the HMRT Operations Supervisor to
            improve leadership and quality management within the
            organization.
      --Elimination of the Level ``B'' Response Team (LBT) program and
            incorporation of those members into the Advanced Law
            Enforcement Response Team (ALERT) program, which will expand
            the ALERT program to approximately 160 members.
      --Training for all sworn officers and officials to the Hazardous
            Materials Operations level through a combination of on-line and
            roll call training.
      --Issuance of new and improved highly portable and compact protective
            masks to all sworn officers and officials. This will enable
            USCP officers to quickly evacuate a contaminated environment,
            establish a secured perimeter and effectively assist others in
            an emergency situation.
      --Creation of an Integrated Response Team (IRT) under the command of
            the HDS Commander.
      --Rotation of ALERT officers through the HIRD facility four times per
            year (one week per quarter) for fit testing of equipment,
            medical screening, classroom training and practical training
            with the Integrated Response Team.
      --Unification of ALERT management functions under the command of HIRD
            Management.
      --Centralize training at the HIRD Headquarters offices, including
            review of current training, development of ALERT training
            modules, and creation of USCP Executive Management Overview
            training to be provided to Captains and above.
      --Creation of a permanent hazardous materials screening team at the
            Off-Site Delivery Center (OSDC) tasked with conducting random
            vehicle screening and responding to requests to inspect
            suspicious mail at the Senate mail handling facility.
        Upon concurrence of the Capitol Police Board, the Department will
    request the appropriate committee approvals to effect the
    reorganization of the Hazardous Incident Response Division, to include
    the Hazardous Materials Response Team.
        Question. What are you doing to ensure overtime is used only where
    it is truly necessary? What controls have been put in place to better
    manage overtime in the last year?
        Answer. In an effort to align overtime usage to the budget
    allocation, several measures were taken to reduce overtime without
    adversely affecting our ability to meet our mission.
        The following Department-wide guidelines have been set in place in
    order to efficiently manage necessary post assignments, enabling our
    continued reduction and management of overtime.
      --Training that is not mission critical or requires back fill by
            overtime is not authorized, which is a continuation of how the
            Department has operated during the continuing resolution.
      --Handgun qualifications will continue at the RHOB Range instead of
            Cheltenham. When handgun requalifications are held at
            Cheltenham, the officers are removed from the field and must be
            replaced with overtime for 16 hours per year per officer. When
            the handgun requalifications are held at our RHOB Range, the
            officers are not removed from the field and accomplish their
            requalifications during their tours of duty, requiring no
            overtime.
      --Restricted Duty personnel will be utilized on Sections 1 and 3 for
            administrative duties in lieu of officers being paid overtime.
      --Personnel will be relieved when the need for overtime dissipates.
            Instead of keeping officers for an entire 8-hour tour of duty
            when they are working overtime, the officers will be sent home
            if their overtime assignments end prior to the end of their
            tours of duty.
      --Bureaus are to ensure a 1:4 break ratio for fixed posts.
      --Overtime for sergeants, lieutenants, and their civilian equivalents
            is to be approved by Division Commanders.
      --No officers are to be assigned to administrative offices. The
            duties performed by these officers are being assumed by
            civilian employees or restricted duty officers.
      --Day off allocations are to be adjusted to decrease the scheduling
            OT on any one particular day.
      --Line reduction posts will not be staffed.
      --Emergency Responder posts are not staffed on Section 1. Uniformed
            Services Bureau (USB) sergeants and Patrol Mobile Response
            Division (PMRD) sergeants will assume these duties.
      --House and Senate Office Buildings outside foot patrols staffed by
            the House and Senate Divisions were eliminated. PMRD will
            assume these patrols as collateral duties.
      --For out of town protectees, we will request that the local law
            enforcement agencies begin their D checks as soon as the
            protectee arrives at their residence, instead of at 2300 hours
            as they do currently.
      --Officers in the Field Training Officer (FTO) Program (trainee) will
            be used as the 2nd officer at posts. Previously, trainees
            shadowed their FTO and were not included in the staffing for
            the Section. Now they are assigned a post but must always work
            with their FTO present.
        In addition to the above Department-wide guidelines, the Department
    has taken several measures at the Division level to control or reduce
    overtime utilization. Because the posts described are law enforcement
    sensitive, the list of post reductions will be provided to the
    Committee separately.
        Question. Please provide a breakout of your total officer staffing
    request by division.
        Answer. See table below.

                                                             OFFICER COUNTS (ON-BOARD AS OF 5/15/09)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Additional
                                                                                Fiscal year     Fiscal year      officers       Fiscal year      Projected
        Bureau name/Division name              Title/rank             # of         2009       2009 projected     requested    2010 projected     total at
                                                                    officers    additional     attrition--PP   (fiscal year      attrition      fiscal year
                                                                                   sworn      10 to year-end     2010) \1\                     2010 year-end
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chief Of Police..................  COP.......................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       CAPTAIN...................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       LIEUTENANT................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................          7  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Chief Of Police.....  ..........................         10  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    Chief Of Operations..............  COO.......................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       INSPECTOR.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Chief Of Operations.  ..........................          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
            Long Term Absence

    OHR--OPERATIONS DIVISION.........  LIEUTENANT................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......         18  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE W/TRAINING........          5  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Long Term Absence...  ..........................         26  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
        Office Of Human Resources

    OHR--PROGRAMS DIVISION...........  LIEUTENANT................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Office Of Human       ..........................          4  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
           Resources.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
         Mission Assurance Bureau

    MAB..............................  INSPECTOR.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       CAPTAIN...................          4  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       LIEUTENANT................          6  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................         20  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......         52  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE W/TRAINING........          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SPECIAL TECHNICIAN........          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       TECHNICIAN................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, MAB--OPERATIONS       ..........................         86  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
           (DIVISION).
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    MAB--SPECIAL EVENTS (OFFICE).....  LIEUTENANT................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......          5  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
          TOTAL, MAB--SPECIAL EVENTS   ..........................          7  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
           (OFFICE).
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Mission Assurance     ..........................         93  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
           Bureau.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    Office of Policy and Management    PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
     Systems.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
       Operational Services Bureau

    PATROL DIVISION..................  DEPUTY CHIEF..............          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       DETECTIVE.................          3  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       INSPECTOR.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       LIEUTENANT................          5  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......         84  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................         18  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       TECHNICIAN................          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       TECHNICIAN K-9............         43  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, PATROL DIVISION.....  ..........................        156  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    HAZARDOUS INCIDENT RESPONSE        CAPTAIN...................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
     DIVISION (HIRD).
                                       INSPECTOR.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       LIEUTENANT................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       DETECTIVE.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......          9  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, HIRD................  ..........................         15  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
          Total, Operational Services  ..........................        173  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
           Bureau.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
        Protective Services Bureau

    PSB..............................  DEPUTY CHIEF..............          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION..........  CAPTAIN...................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       DETECTIVE.................          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       LIEUTENANT................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................          3  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......         21  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, INVESTIGATIONS        ..........................         28  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
           DIVISION.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    DIGNITARY PROTECTION DIVISION      INSPECTOR.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
     (DPD).
                                       CAPTAIN...................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       LIEUTENANT................          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................         11  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       DETECTIVE.................          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SPECIAL TECHNICIAN........          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......        116  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, DIGNITARY PROTECTION  ..........................        134  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
           DIVISION.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
          Total, Protective Services   ..........................        163  ..............  ..............              13  ..............  ..............
           Bureau.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
         Security Services Bureau

    SSB..............................  LIEUTENANT................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, SSB.................  ..........................          3  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    PHYSICAL SECURITY DIVISION.......  SERGEANT..................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......          5  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, PHYSICAL SECURITY     ..........................          6  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
           DIVISION.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    TECHNICAL COUNTERMEASURES          DETECTIVE.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
     DIVISION.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
          Total, Security Services     ..........................         10  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
           Bureau.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
         Training Services Bureau

    TSB..............................  DEPUTY CHIEF..............          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       INSPECTOR.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       LIEUTENANT................          4  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................          8  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, TSB.................  ..........................         16  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    ENTRY LEVEL TRAINING DIVISION....  PRIVATE...................        151  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    5700--PHYSICAL SKILLS (DIVISION).  LIEUTENANT................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................          5  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......          3  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, PHYSICAL SKILLS       ..........................          9  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
           DIVISION.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
          Total, Training Services     ..........................        176  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
           Bureau.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
         Uniform Services Bureau

    USB..............................  DEPUTY CHIEF..............          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       LIEUTENANT................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       DETECTIVE.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PLAINCLOTHESMAN...........          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, USB.................  ..........................          4  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    USB/LOC..........................  INSPECTOR.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       LIEUTENANT................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................          4  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......         58  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE W/TRAINING........          6  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, USB/LOC.............  ..........................         70              87  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    HOUSE DIVISION...................  INSPECTOR.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       CAPTAIN...................          3  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       LIEUTENANT................          6  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................         27  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       DETECTIVE.................          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......        243  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE W/TRAINING........         44  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, HOUSE DIVISION......  ..........................        326  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    SENATE DIVISION..................  INSPECTOR.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       CAPTAIN...................          2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       LIEUTENANT................          4  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................         19  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       TECHNICIAN................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       DETECTIVE.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......        177  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE W/TRAINING........         65  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, SENATE DIVISION.....  ..........................        270  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
    CAPITOL DIVISION.................  INSPECTOR.................          1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       CAPTAIN...................          3  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       LIEUTENANT................          9  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       SERGEANT..................         37  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE FIRST CLASS.......        250  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       PRIVATE W/TRAINING........        105  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, CAPITOL DIVISION....  ..........................        405  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
          Total, Uniform Services      ..........................      1,075              93  ..............              76  ..............  ..............
           Bureau.
                                                                  ==========================================================================================
          Total......................  ..........................      1,734          \1\ 93              28         \2\ 229             140           1,888
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Total includes 61 LOC Sworn Transfers, 26 LOC Sworn Backfill and 6 USCP Backfill.
    \2\ Total includes 89 new sworn positions requested in the fiscal year 2010 budget request and 140 USCP Sworn Backfill

        Question. Please provide a list of additional closures that could
    be made in posts that are underutilized, and the annual savings that
    would be associated with these closures.
        Answer. Over the last 2 years, the Chief and Assistant Chief have
    continually realigned assignments, looked for efficiencies, and
    eliminated and added posts based on threat conditions and stakeholder
    requirements. This is a business process to which we are committed to
    continuing.
        To meet fiscal year 2009 budgetary requirements, the Department has
    developed a plan to adjust post requirements to the Capitol complex.
    ``Round 1'' cuts will have no or minimal impact on the Capitol complex.
    The posts identified are not necessarily underutilized, but we have
    determined that the requirements may be better absorbed through other
    divisions or posts picking up the workload as a secondary
    responsibility to their primary responsibility. It should be noted that
    if security conditions change these post may have to be reinstated.
        By executing the Round 1 cuts the USCP expects to save 1,177 hours
    or $61,511 per week in overtime. These cuts were executed at the
    beginning of Pay Period 9 and are expected to decrease our overtime
    requirement for the remainder of fiscal year 2009 by $1.35 million.
    Further, we have included these cuts as an offset for our revised
    fiscal year 2010 overtime request of $25.5 million.
        Because the posts described above are law enforcement sensitive,
    the list of post reductions will be provided to the Committee
    separately.
        Question. Please provide a list of all new posts created in the
    last year, costs for each, and who directed the creation of the post.
        Answer. The majority of posts that were added to USCP in fiscal
    year 2009 are attributed to the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center
    (CVC). In fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009, the Congress
    authorized and appropriated funds for 31 new sworn positions for the
    CVC based on a proposed staffing plan. This staffing plan was proposed
    prior to the final security assessment or the opening of the CVC.
        Since this time additional posts have been required for the CVC and
    posts that the Department thought would be eliminated were retained.
    This equated to an additional 1,811 hours of overtime per week or an
    additional $4 million from the beginning of fiscal year 2009 Pay Period
    24 until the end of fiscal year 2009. Additionally, requirements for
    the CVC to open at 8:30 a.m., 30 minutes prior to the original planned
    opening were added, which required an additional 349 hours per week or
    an additional $780,000 from fiscal year 2009 Pay Period 24 until the
    end of fiscal year 2009.
        Below is a more detailed description of the additional posts added
    as part of CVC that were not projected in the initial staffing plan:
      --Nine mandatory life safety posts required during evacuations (this
            does not include two funded and anticipated life safety posts
            or ERs, patrols, or perimeter officers). Life safety posts are
            staffed only during operating hours of the CVC--additional
            overtime is incurred for late night receptions/events based
            upon anticipated guest participation.
      --Two officers Upper Level of the CVC at base of escalators, Monday-
            Friday 0700-1630; one officer, Saturday 0830-1630; and one
            officer for late sessions of Congress.
        --The escalators leading to the U.S. Capitol from the upper level
                of the CVC are the major pedestrian/visitor access point
                between the two buildings. As such, in order to ensure the
                security of the U.S. Capitol Building and prevent
                unauthorized access into the building, additional officers
                were assigned in this area, which were not originally
                planned. Specifically, during business hours, special
                events and late sessions of Congress, it is necessary to
                post a minimum of five additional officers--two in the area
                of the CVC upper level escalator base, one at the Crypt/top
                of the escalators, one on the second floor of the Capitol/
                Rotunda entrance, one on the third floor East Front
                Corridor.
      --One officer at the Rotunda Door interior, Monday-Saturday 0800-
            1630.
      --One officer at the 3rd floor East Front Corridor, Monday-Friday
            0800-1630 or until the House and Senate adjourn.
      --Two officers, working 24/7 at the CVC Main Entrance exteriors to
            monitor multiple fire doors.
      --Two officers working 24/7 to monitor new West Front egress fire
            doors.
      --Two officers working 24/7 to monitor Law Library and Memorial
            Doors.
        In addition to the new unplanned posts outlined above, the
    Department estimated that 89 sworn FTE would be realized by reassigning
    sworn personnel from posts that would close upon the opening of the
    CVC. However, some of these closures have not been realized, these
    include:
      --North Screening/North Door has remained open after CVC opening,
            which requires six officers to operate the post.
      --S-407 continues to be a 9-5 post which is an unplanned expenditure.
        --40 hours per week for an additional 47 weeks in fiscal year 2009
                for a cost of ($100,000).
      --Five officers are required to prevent early morning/late night
            access into the Capitol from the CVC i.e., tunnels, etc. (CVC
            opens 30 minutes prior to the Capitol and often has late night,
            unescorted events.)
      --When the CVC fence was taken down, several doors leading into the
            Capitol Building had to be staffed because the doors were not
            alarmed or secured. This was a departure from our CVC staffing
            plan.
        Additionally, requirements for the protection of Leadership
    positions of Congress were placed on USCP during fiscal year 2009.
      --During the presidential campaign, the Dignitary Protection Division
            (DPD) was required to place protective details on Senator John
            McCain and Then-Senator Barack Obama while they were within the
            Capitol Complex.
      --Due to a staffing shortage, DPD was required to work additional
            overtime to cover leadership travel. We could not anticipate
            this staffing shortfall.
        Further, we have had additional requirements, which are:
      --We are staffing two new Truck Interdiction Posts (2nd and D Street,
            NE, 3rd and C Street, NE).
        --Staffed M-F 0900-1700 or until Senate goes out of session and on
                weekends when Senate in session; average 80 hours per week
                or $4,180 per week. Normally when Senate is in session
                posts are open until about 2100 or an additional 40 hours
                per week in session or an additional $2,100 per week.
        --It is projected in one fiscal year that Congress is in session 39
                weeks per year and 13 weeks out of session.
      --The money for the overtime required to replace LOC officer during
            their transition training ($900,000) was not included in our
            2009 budget.
        --The requirement for this was that each officer eligible for
                transfer form the LOC would be required to attend 10 weeks
                of training at Cheltenham. This equated to approximately 57
                officers that required backfill or approximately 17,000
                hours to backfill with USCP Officers.
        Question. A total of $19 million is requested for the Security
    Services Bureau, an increase of $3.9 million or 26 percent over fiscal
    year 2009. Please explain the need for this increase, and the impact of
    deferring or eliminating any of the new items proposed for fiscal year
    2010. How frequently does security equipment need to be refreshed?
        Answer. The $3.9 million increase in fiscal year 2010 would support
    a combination of programs aimed at ensuring that Congressional
    facilities meet current USCP standards and compliance with the LOC
    merger legislation. It is also intended to minimize security
    vulnerabilities, and assist us in maintaining equipment and systems at
    manufacturer suggested lifecycle standards for optimum performance.
        The $3.9 million increase in fiscal year 2010 (over fiscal year
    2009) breaks out as follows:
      --$1.37 million to install technical security systems in the
            Alternate Computer Facility (ACF) to meet current USCP security
            standards;
      --$928,000 to design and install Emergency Call Boxes and CCTV
            cameras throughout the stairwells, areas of refuge, and safe
            havens for Congressional Office Buildings (a new initiative
            recommended and approved by the Capitol Police Board);
      --$718,000 for LOC access control system and CCTV integration (steps
            required to undertake security responsibilities per statutory
            merger language); and
      --$923,000 for LOC lifecycle replacement of various systems.
        All security equipment has lifecycle replacement guidelines per
    manufacturer recommendation and industry best practices. When equipment
    does not get replaced in a timely manner per these guidelines,
    equipment performance slips, downtime increases, and vulnerabilities
    are more likely. In addition the LOC does not use the same screening
    standards so if the equipment is not procured more officers may be
    required to support screening. By not funding these programs, important
    security equipment such as explosive detectors and x-ray machines would
    be prone to more outages, causing a ripple effect of having to spend
    more resources on repair, rather than proactive preventive maintenance.
        Question. Please provide the Department's comments and concerns
    with legislation passed by the House making technical and other changes
    to USCP statutes.
        Answer. The Department has coordinated with the House
    Administration and Senate Rules Committees on the legislation passed by
    the House making technical and other changes to USCP statutes. The
    Department has no significant comments or concerns with this
    legislation.
        Question. For fiscal year 2009 USCP proposed funding to recruit 264
    officers, with classes planned for October and November 2008, January,
    February and May 2009. What is the status of recruit classes for this
    year? How many new recruits do you anticipate?
        Answer. As of May 15, 2009, USCP hired 163 recruits and have lost
    19 (11.66 percent) recruits in training. We are expecting an additional
    32 sworn personnel to start training on June 4th, and have adequate
    qualified candidates to fill the August class with an additional 24
    hires. Altogether, we could add 56 more recruits to the 163 we've
    already hired totaling 219 for fiscal year 2009. We are monitoring our
    staffing levels closely to stay within our authorized positions.
        Question. Last year USCP estimated it would require $6,956,503 for
    costs associated with the LOC merger in fiscal year 2009. (DM#406860)
    This included $618,453 in salaries, $3,120,000 in transfers from LOC,
    and $3,218,050 in general expenses. What are the current estimates? LOC
    estimated overtime and benefits to cover mission during training of the
    transferring LOC sworn personnel at $400,000. What is the current
    estimate?
        Answer. When this document was created, 73 individuals had been
    identified as being eligible for consideration to transfer to the USCP
    as sworn officers. This was based on an initial review of Federal
    service time and other requirements of the U.S. Capitol Police and
    Library of Congress Police Merger Implementation Act of 2007. In
    addition, 21 LOC sworn officers were determined not to be eligible for
    consideration to transfer to the USCP as sworn officers at the end of
    the transition period pursuant to the U.S. Capitol Police and Library
    of Congress Police Merger Implementation Act of 2007.
        Another assumption when this document was created was that the
    Department would be able to absorb the overtime necessary to backfill
    for the LOC sworn officers who are eligible for consideration to become
    USCP sworn officers while they attended transition training. The
    Department believed at the time that with the efficiencies we were
    realizing in overtime management that additional overtime funding would
    not be necessary for this activity. However, this did not come to pass.
        Currently, there are 61 LOC sworn officers who have been determined
    to be eligible for consideration to transfer to the USCP as sworn
    officers based on the statutory requirements. This total may decrease
    based on the final certification of eligible sworn transferees against
    the standards set by the Capitol Police Board.
        Likewise, there are currently 23 LOC sworn officers who have been
    determined to be ineligible for consideration to transfer to the USCP
    as sworn officers, because they cannot meet the statutory requirement
    for 20 years of ``continuous'' Federal service prior to becoming 60
    years of age. These individuals will transfer to Department as
    civilians (i.e., as ``civilianized'' former officers) on October 11,
    2009, which is the 1st day of the 1st pay period following the
    completion of the merger transition period. There are also 11
    additional LOC sworn vacancies requiring backfill.
        To address the backfill requirements for this mission set, the
    Department is conducting a recruit officer class in June 2009, in which
    we will hire 26 new recruit officers for this purpose. Following the
    conclusion of the transition, the Department may need to request
    authorization and funding for the eight remaining sworn complement for
    this purpose, which are currently vacant.
        The current estimates for fiscal year 2009 are:
      --The Department received $279,000 in transferred funds from the LOC
            to cover the salaries for the four civilians that transferred
            from the LOC to the USCP on October 1, 2009.
      --The Department projects receiving $88,099 transferred salary
            funding from the LOC to cover the salaries, benefits and
            overtime from September 27-30, 2009 for the 61 anticipated
            sworn transfers.
      --The Department will expend $149,000 in general expenses to conduct
            the sworn transition training.
      --The Department will utilize an estimated $1.615 million in general
            expenses to provide uniforms, equipment and weapons for the
            certified sworn transferees.
        The projected estimates for fiscal year 2010 are:
      --The Department requires $4,688,582 in salaries and benefits to
            annualize for the 61 sworn officers transferring to the USCP in
            the last 3 days of fiscal year 2009.
      --The Department requires $1,998,412 in salaries and benefits to
            annualize for the 26 LOC backfill officers hired in the June
            2009 Recruit Officer Class.
      --The Department requires $2,184,000 in salaries and benefits for the
            23 current LOC sworn officers who transfer to the USCP on
            October 11, 2009 as civilians pursuant to the U.S. Capitol
            Police and Library of Congress Police Merger Implementation Act
            of 2007 and the three civilians currently with the Department.
            (Salaries for these three civilians were transferred to the
            USCP form the LOC appropriation for fiscal year 2009.)
      --Benefits and a 2.9 percent COLA for the positions noted above are
            $2,973,557 and $192,944 respectively.
      --$1.42 million in overtime to cover the backfill for the 26 recruit
            officers in the recruit officer class until they are deployed
            in January 2010 as well as overtime to cover backfill for the
            remaining eight LOC sworn vacancies until they are authorized
            and funded.
      --$873,000 for overtime for normal post requirements that are
            currently funded with LOC appropriated salaries funding.
      --The Department has requested $1.966 million in general expenses
            funding to support the first phase of technical security
            integration for the Library buildings when they fall under the
            Capitol Buildings and Grounds jurisdiction on October 1, 2009.
        Question. Last year USCP estimated (DOC#409916) it would require
    $3,064,958 for the 2009 Presidential inaugural, including $2,080,958
    for overtime and $984,000 for expenses. What is the current estimate?
        Answer. The overtime estimate was revised multiple times up to and
    including the $1,646,800 we referenced in our reprogramming request
    dated October 3, 2008. That amount was based on the number of hours
    employees would work for the Inauguration itself, Inauguration
    rehearsals, and the extra hours we planned to work for Inauguration
    ticket pickup. We spent approximately $1.2 million in overtime for all
    of the Inauguration events combined. There are several contributors to
    this variance, the most significant among them that we have not charged
    ``holiday pay'' to the Inauguration funding--although it had been
    included in the estimates--since it is not strictly overtime.
        As recently as January 2, we still anticipated using virtually all
    of the general expenses funding we had budgeted for the Inauguration
    (i.e., $945,700), the same amount referenced in the October 3
    reprogramming request. We ultimately used almost $500,000 of the total.
    The reason for the variance was the strict control exerted by the
    Inauguration Task Force over what expenditures were intrinsic to the
    Inauguration, and which were desirable but not absolutely necessary for
    that purpose.
        Question. Last year USCP estimated (DOC#409919) it would need an
    increase of $7,300,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center salary costs.
    Total FTE required to meet the mission was estimated at 155 sworn FTE,
    of which 134 were offset through previous authorization and
    reassignments. What is the current estimate? What additional
    requirements have been experienced that were not planned for the CVC?
        Answer. The current salaries and benefits costs projected for the
    CVC is approximately $2.1 million for the 31 sworn positions provided
    to support the staffing shortfalls identified at the time of these
    estimates. The current overtime estimate for fiscal year 2009 is $2.191
    million, which includes overtime to support the early opening time for
    the facility and new post requirements, including life and safety
    posts, as well as reduced offset posts following the opening of the
    CVC.
        In fiscal year 2010, the Department is continuing its load leveling
    efforts to evenly spread workloads and overtime impacts across the
    Department. In doing so and accounting for new CVC post requirements,
    as well as planning assumption changes for the operation of the
    facility, the Capitol Division, which includes the CVC, will have a
    higher overtime allocation than previously estimated.
        The current general expenses projected costs to support the 31 new
    sworn officers are $575,000 for uniforms, equipment and weapons.
        Since opening to the public in the fall of 2008, the CVC's
    operating assumptions have changed and the alignment of posts was
    altered from the original planning assumptions. To address these
    changes--many of which resulted in new posts or extended/expanded hours
    of operations, the Capitol Division has had to realign staffing within
    the Division and utilize overtime to meet the mission. To determine the
    full impact of these staffing assumption changes, we are conducting a
    staffing and gap analysis which will be completed by the end of June
    2009.
        Additional posts added as part of CVC that were not projected
    previously:
      --Nine mandatory life safety posts required during evacuations (this
            does not include two funded and anticipated life safety posts
            or ERs, patrols, or perimeter officers). Life safety posts are
            staffed only during operating hours of the CVC--additional
            overtime is incurred for late night receptions/events based
            upon anticipated guest participation.
      --Two officers Upper Level of the CVC at base of escalators, Monday-
            Friday 0700-1630; one officer, Saturday 0830-1630; and one
            officer for late sessions of Congress.
      --One officer at the Rotunda Door interior, Monday-Saturday 0800-
            1630.
      --One officer at the 3rd floor East Front Corridor, Monday-Friday
            0800-1630 or until the House and Senate adjourn.
      --Two officers, working 24/7 at the CVC Main Entrance exteriors to
            monitor multiple fire doors.
      --Two officers working 24/7 to monitor new West Front egress fire
            doors.
      --Two officers working 24/7 to monitor Law Library and Memorial
            Doors.
        In addition to the new unplanned posts outlined above, the
    Department estimated that 89 sworn FTE would be realized by reassigning
    sworn personnel from posts that would close upon the opening of the
    CVC. However, some of these closures have not been realized, these
    include:
      --North Screening/North Door has remained open after CVC opening,
            which requires six officers to operate the post.
      --S-407 continues to be a 9-5 post which is an unplanned expenditure.
      --Five officers are required to prevent early morning/late night
            access into the Capitol from the CVC i.e., tunnels, etc (CVC
            opens 30 minutes prior to the Capitol and often has late night,
            unescorted events.)
        Question. Please provide a prioritization of FTEs requested in
    fiscal year 2010, and explain whether any of those requested are a
    higher priority than those for which vacancies currently exist.
        Answer. Realizing that the fiscal year 2010 budget allocation for
    the Legislative Branch will not allow for double digit increases for
    the Department, we have reprioritized our total salary and general
    expenses requirements and determined that it will be more efficient for
    the Department to meet its sworn staffing shortages through overtime in
    fiscal year 2010, rather than with new sworn officers. While we will
    not be able to immediately staff for an increased intelligence
    capability, we plan to utilize our overtime and other resources to meet
    these and other critical mission requirements.
        Likewise, the Department plans to refocus its efforts on hiring the
    currently authorized and funded civilian positions during fiscal year
    2010. As a part of this effort, we plan to seek authorization to
    reallocate some vacant civilian positions to critical mission
    requirements that would have been filled by the new civilian positions
    included in our fiscal year 2010 budget request. Additionally, we will
    be seeking authorization to reallocate current vacant positions to meet
    mission needs currently met through outsourcing, such as communications
    and dispatch.
        Because of reduced benefits costs for overtime and a reduction in
    general expense outlays for new positions; we believe we can better
    meet our mission requirements, as well as critical infrastructure and
    lifecycle needs, within a single digit increase, by utilizing overtime
    to meet sworn staffing shortages.
        Question. How much overtime has been expended to date on the power
    plant utility tunnel project? What is required for fiscal year 2010?
        Answer. As of Pay Period 8, the USCP has not yet expended overtime
    to support the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) Tunnel Project in fiscal
    year 2009. The requirement for overtime is based on the project plan
    presented by AOC. Based on AOC estimates for fiscal year 2009, the
    Department is projecting to expend $280,000 in fiscal year 2009 for
    this purpose.
        Recently, the AOC presented USCP with its proposed project plan for
    the remainder of fiscal year 2009, as well as for fiscal year 2010. We
    are working with the AOC to determine the security requirements, both
    in terms of physical security and the physical presence of a USCP
    Officer to provide security and protection due to direct access to the
    Capitol Complex. Once the AOC has finalized its project plan and
    implemented mitigating physical security elements, we will be able to
    provide estimates for the overtime needed to support this project in
    fiscal year 2010.
        Question. USCP generally loses approximately 10 percent of recruits
    in any given class for a variety of reasons. What is the cost
    associated with this ``drop-out'' rate? What is USCP doing to improve
    its ability to recruit those individuals who have a high probability of
    graduating from FLETC and becoming USCP officers?
        Answer. In terms of human resources costs, the average cost per
    recruit who drops from training (which includes removal from training
    up to the last day):
      --Recruiting/Background Investigation Cost: $8,496 (not including any
            salaries for any USCP employee working in recruiting or
            Background Investigations (BI) or staffing, etc.)
      --Average Salary Cost (loss): $27,169
      --Average Overtime Cost: $4,079.
        Thus, the OHR drop cost total is $40,122.
        Additionally, there are offsetting losses to overtime reductions
    for recruits who ``drop-out'' during training. This offset is based on
    the recruit officer's contribution to meeting mission requirements
    going forward from their time of actual deployment. Because this
    contribution varies within a fiscal year dependant on when recruit
    classes occur and actual recruit officer deployments take place, it is
    hard to determine exact costs within a fiscal year resulting from this
    loss recruit officer contribution.
        In order to continue to improve our ability to recruit those
    individuals who have a high probability of graduating from FLETC, we
    are doing the following measures.
      --Recruiting and BI operations include a rigorous testing and
            evaluation system that includes testing of cognitive skills and
            evaluation of psychological, medical, polygraph, and personal
            history as well as a personal interview with an investigator.
      --Applicants who meet the highest of standards in each category then
            have their packages reviewed by a panel of USCP senior leaders
            at the rank of Inspector, who make recommendations to the Chief
            of Police on the best qualified candidates for hire.
      --The Chief of Police reviews these recommendations and makes a final
            determination of the best candidates to send forward for hiring
            approval.
      --From there, each individual is approved for hire by the Committee
            on House and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
            Chairs after first passing through the Capitol Police Board.
        We believe this rigorous multi-faceted, multi-phased approach has
    so far yielded consistent results in effectively prescreening
    applicants prior to the appointment to the USCP.
        Additionally, the Department is drafting updated sworn hiring
    standards, which will include physical fitness aptitude testing, for
    the consideration of the Capitol Police Board. Because many recruit
    officers either ``drop-out'' or are recycled into future recruit
    classes are as a result of physical injury resulting from the recruit's
    inability to meet the rigorous physical fitness requirements of
    training, we felt it was important to recommend the implementation of a
    physical fitness aptitude test prior to hiring a recruit officer.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Nelson. The subcommittee will stand in recess until
    2:30 p.m. on May 7, 2009, when we will meet in room SD-124 to
    take testimony on the fiscal year 2010 budget requests of the
    Architect of the Capitol and the Office of Compliance.
        We are recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., Thursday, April 23, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., Thursday,
    May 7.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:35 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ben Nelson (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Nelson, Pryor, and Murkowski.

                            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

    STATEMENT OF STEPHEN T. AYERS, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE
                CAPITOL

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NELSON

        Senator Nelson. We will come to order.
        We will begin. I will get through the opening statement,
    and then we will take care of Senator Murkowski's opening
    statement when she gets here.
        Good afternoon, and we are happy to have so many people
    here. We are meeting this afternoon to take testimony on the
    fiscal year 2010 budget requests for the Architect of the
    Capitol (AOC) and the Office of Compliance (OOC).
        It is my pleasure to welcome shortly the ranking member and
    my good friend Senator Murkowski, and Senator Pryor is here and
    will return. And I believe Senator Tester is also planning to
    be here.
        I want to welcome our witnesses today--Stephen Ayers,
    Acting Architect of the Capitol and Tamara Chrisler, the
    Executive Director of the Office of Compliance. We welcome both
    of you. It is good to have you here, and we look forward to
    hearing from you.
        If it is possible to keep your opening statements brief,
    around 5 minutes, and submit the rest of your testimony for the
    record, it probably would work best for us. And I now welcome
    my ranking member, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Pryor to the
    hearing.
        One thing that I think, hopefully, we established at our
    first hearing a couple weeks ago is that we are not eager to
    increase the overall legislative branch budget. We certainly
    intend to address your agencies' needs, but this is not the
    year for the ``nice to haves.''
        This subcommittee received an 11 percent increase in fiscal
    year 2009, but I seriously doubt that we are going to see
    anything near a double-digit increase this year.

                       AOC deg.AOC APPRECIATION

        Mr. Ayers, I would like to first extend my personal
    gratitude to your entire staff for their hard work in
    maintaining the Capitol complex on a daily basis. You have got
    a very dedicated workforce. We are aware of that. We see it
    every day. And in particular, I would acknowledge the great
    service provided to us here in the Senate, led by the Senate
    Superintendent Robin Morey.
        It was interesting to note that while we recently
    celebrated the 100th birthday of the Russell Senate Office
    Building, the House is estimating a cost of about $753 million
    to remodel the Cannon House Office Building, which was built
    just 1 year earlier. So I think it says an awful lot for AOC's
    Senate folks who truly do a great job, and we appreciate all of
    your efforts.
        Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Nelson. You are welcome.
        The Architect of the Capitol's fiscal year 2010 budget
    request totals $644.6 million, a 20 percent increase over
    current year. And as we discussed in my office a few weeks ago,
    an increase like this is going to be quite a challenge,
    especially following the 28 percent increase your agency
    received in fiscal year 2009.
        Now I realize what you are going to face in maintaining
    working historical buildings with all the aging infrastructure
    while being held to mandated energy reductions. But we are
    going to have to work closely in identifying your most critical
    needs in crafting the 2010 appropriations bill.
        I also want to welcome Tamara Chrisler from the Office of
    Compliance. Your budget totals $4.4 million, a 10 percent
    increase over current year, including one additional employee,
    who brings your agency to a total of 22 full-time employees
    (FTEs). I look forward to hearing more about your agency
    mission and your fiscal year 2010 request.
        Now I would like to turn to my ranking member, Senator
    Murkowski, for her opening remarks.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I add my welcome to both of you here this afternoon. Ms.
    Chrisler and Mr. Ayers, we appreciate the work that both of you
    have done over the years.
        Mr. Ayers, I think your agency's accomplishments as you
    have dealt with the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center
    (CVC), preparing the Capitol for the President's inauguration,
    keeping the facilities in good condition, we appreciate your
    efforts, that of your staff. And again, thank you for that.
        I understand that the AOC is moving forward with a variety
    of energy-related projects. I look forward to hearing a little
    bit more about those initiatives this afternoon.
        As the chairman has mentioned, we have seen with this
    legislative branch request for fiscal year 2010 a total of over
    $5 billion, an increase of nearly 15 percent over fiscal year
    2009. And Mr. Chairman, as I said in my last hearing and you
    have repeated, I am in favor of the legislative branch serving
    as a model for the rest of the Government. My questions today
    will seek to determine how we can accomplish that goal.

                   AOC deg.AOC BUDGET REPRESENTATION

        As you have indicated, the AOC budget represents a 20
    percent increase, while the budget resolution, which we just
    passed, calls for a 7 percent increase in discretionary
    spending.
        Now I think we do appreciate here in the Capitol--we see it
    as we walk through--there is a backlog of projects within the
    AOC, primarily, because of the age of our buildings and the
    fact that we are still playing some catchup with implementing
    fire and life safety standards.
        But it is my understanding that some of the projects in the
    budget request probably wouldn't make it into the General
    Services Administration's (GSA) budget, for instance, because
    the legislative branch is held to a higher standard than the
    executive branch. And I understand the Congressional
    Accountability Act (CAA) enables the Office of Compliance to
    apply standards that would not ordinarily be applied to
    historic buildings.
        Now I want to be clear that I am very supportive,
    absolutely supportive of having strong fire and strong life
    safety standards. But I do have to question whether applying a
    gold standard to the legislative branch is appropriate. I think
    we need to be pragmatic, and I think we need to operate within
    a risk-based framework.
        I do believe that we need to do some paring back, and we
    will need your help, Mr. Ayers and Ms. Chrisler, to ensure that
    we meet the highest priorities and we fund those projects that
    really do give us the most bang for the buck, if you will. But
    I appreciate your good work, and I look forward to your
    testimony this afternoon.
        Senator Nelson. Senator Pryor, you waive your opening
    statement?
        Senator Pryor. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Nelson. But not questions?
        Senator Pryor. Exactly.
        Senator Nelson. All right. Thank you.
        Well, first of all, Mr. Ayers, please, if you would, your
    opening remarks?

                       SUMMARY STATEMENT OF STEPHEN AYERS

        Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski
    and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify
    today regarding the AOC's fiscal year 2010 budget.
        First, I would like to thank the subcommittee for your
    support of our fiscal year 2009 budget to make the Capitol a
    safer, greener, and more efficient place. This year, we are
    requesting $644 million to support the maintenance, care, and
    operations of the buildings and grounds of the Capitol complex.
    We have developed our budget request to reflect the massive
    challenge of addressing the need to preserve the historic
    infrastructure on Capitol Hill while also recognizing the need
    to be fiscally responsible.

              AOC deg.AOC CHALLENGES--NEEDS VS. RESOURCES

        One of our biggest challenges is to maintain the aging
    infrastructure in this city within a city here on Capitol Hill.
    In March, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Russell
    building, and last year, we marked the 100th anniversary of the
    Cannon House Office Building.
        These buildings are historic and iconic, and require
    extensive maintenance in order to preserve them while, at the
    same time, keeping pace with new technologies, increased
    security requirements, and the necessary visitor amenities.
        Mr. Chairman, our needs far exceed the available resources,
    and we have developed an excellent project prioritization
    process to enable the Congress to make the best possible and
    informed decisions. Every project is evaluated on its
    importance, its urgency, and its category. These are really
    important, so I would like to take a moment to explain them.

                    AOC deg.PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

        First, each project is categorized as deferred maintenance,
    capital renewal, capital improvement, or capital construction.
    Our budget requests are driven by the large number of deferred
    maintenance projects, as we believe it is most important to
    care for what you have before constructing new. So, in fact, 63
    percent of our budget is focused on these deferred maintenance
    projects, and only 12 percent is focused on capital renewal
    projects.
        Next, each project's urgency is determined by independent
    consultant assessments of our facilities. Projects are ranked
    as immediate, high, medium, or low urgency.
        Finally, each project's importance is carefully evaluated
    based upon a set of predetermined criteria, including historic
    preservation, fire and life safety, mission, economics,
    physical security, and energy and sustainability. We take all
    of these factors and bring them all together in a composite
    rating guide and, ultimately, deliver to the Congress a list of
    prioritized projects, top to bottom.

            AOC deg.AOC'S FISCAL YEAR 2010 PROJECT REQUESTS

        For fiscal year 2010, this list totaled $350 million worth
    of projects, and we have decided to request $168 million worth
    of those projects, which are only the highest, most urgent, and
    most important of all of those on the list. The choice to fund
    more projects or fewer projects is easy and is as simple as
    moving up or down on this priority list, depending upon the
    bottom line we need to achieve.
        We have continued to refine the data on which our planning
    is based. For example, over the past 5 years, we have conducted
    these independent facility condition assessments throughout the
    Capitol complex. These assessments identified the most critical
    issues in the facilities, and the objective data collected
    during this process helps us to identify which urgent needs
    must be done expeditiously.
        Specifically, the data continues to show that immediate and
    high-urgency deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects
    will increase significantly over the coming years. If these
    conditions are not addressed within a reasonable period of
    time, they will continue to deteriorate to the point where they
    can, and will, impact congressional operations.
        Last year, thanks to the subcommittee's commitment for
    funding to reinvest in the Capitol complex facilities, we were
    able to make a significant step toward buying down much of this
    deferred maintenance work. This includes improving life safety
    conditions throughout the Capitol complex.

           AOC deg.CAPITOL COMPLEX'S ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT

        We have been aggressively working to reduce the Capitol
    complex's overall energy consumption and its environmental
    footprint. In fiscal year 2008, our energy conservation efforts
    resulted in reducing the Congress' energy consumption by 10.7
    percent, exceeding the 2008 requirement of 9 percent.
        While these steps are significant, in moving forward, our
    goal is to make the Capitol complex more sustainable and energy
    efficient. There is still much work to do in furthering our
    sustainability practices.
        Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Capitol is the people's house, and
    for that reason, it is imperative that we do everything we can
    to continue to protect and preserve the Nation's icon for
    generations to come.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you
    may have.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Stephen T. Ayers

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the Office of
    the Architect of the Capitol's (AOC's) fiscal year 2010 budget request.
        I want to thank the Subcommittee for your support of our fiscal
    year 2009 budget request and the programs and priorities we set out in
    that submission, as well as for your guidance as we continually work to
    achieve our goals to serve Congress with a commitment to excellence.
        The past 6 months have been an extraordinary time for the AOC as
    the U.S. Capitol once again served as the Nation's stage. On December
    2, the doors to the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) were opened to the
    public for the first time. Since that day, we have seen record numbers
    of daily visitors--just 2 weeks ago we saw our first day of more than
    19,400 guests. Over the past 5 months, we have seen visitation at the
    Capitol double over the number of guests received last year.
        Just 6 weeks after the CVC opened, the eyes of the world again
    turned to the Capitol Building for the historic 56th Presidential
    Inauguration. The AOC's involvement dates back to the 1860s when the
    Presidential Inauguration became a decidedly public event, and
    arrangements were made to allow the President to be closer to the
    people when taking the oath of office. We are honored to shoulder the
    responsibility for making all the infrastructure arrangements that are
    necessary to accommodate this event every 4 years.
        Given the magnitude of this event, we knew there was no room for
    error--the President-elect must be sworn-in at noon on January 20. Our
    capable team rose to the challenge; working countless hours to ensure
    that the Presidential platform was constructed, the seats on the West
    lawn were in place, and all of the final details were completed to
    ensure that the ceremony was successfully supported.
        As we worked to accommodate modern technologies into the Inaugural
    ceremonies, we also stayed true to our daily mission, which is to
    protect and preserve the national treasures entrusted to our care.
    Standing on the Inaugural platform, I couldn't help but think of the
    responsibility we have to ensure that the President-elect will be able
    to take his or her oath of office on January 20, on the West Front of
    the U.S. Capitol--the iconic symbol of our representational democracy--
    for generations to come.
        With this in mind, the AOC has developed its budget request for the
    past several years to reflect the massive challenge of addressing the
    need to preserve the historic infrastructure on Capitol Hill, while
    recognizing the need for fiscal responsibility.
        In fact, our fiscal year 2010 budget has been structured around
    four focus areas. They are:
      --Solving the Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal backlog;
      --Following the Capitol Complex Master Plan process;
      --Meeting Federally-mandated and Leadership energy goals;
      --Managing and caring for the AOC work force.
        As I have discussed with this Subcommittee at prior hearings, we
    must continually manage the backlog of Deferred Maintenance and Capital
    Renewal projects, and have put into place a process by which to
    prioritize these projects.
        Not only do we face the challenge of the upkeep of aging buildings,
    we need to keep pace with new facility maintenance and building
    technologies, as well as increased security requirements. Last year,
    the Cannon House Office Building reached its 100th anniversary, and in
    March, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Russell Senate Office
    Building. These buildings are historic and iconic, and require
    extensive maintenance in order to preserve them, as well as ensure that
    they continue to serve as functioning, professional working
    environments for years to come.
        The following chart--the ``bow wave'' chart--clearly shows that
    ongoing facilities requirements and new mandates have created a
    significant increase in resource requirements. Our fiscal year 2009
    budget request, and subsequent appropriation, was a significant step in
    buying down a portion of the bow wave. This includes addressing
    stringent, modern-day fire and life-safety standards, and abating
    Office of Compliance citations to improve safety conditions throughout
    the complex. Life-safety projects are very high priorities for our
    Agency.
        However, we must continue to work on and to invest resources in
    projects that will prevent our critical facilities from further
    deterioration and failure. If we continue to defer these projects, the
    bow wave will move out and costs will increase over the long run.

    Capital Budget Request and Project Planning Process
        Therefore, we are requesting $644.6 million for fiscal year 2010.
    We again utilized our program development process, which relies on the
    recommendations in the Capitol Complex Master Planning process, in
    structuring this budget request. This process assesses all the
    requirements of a project; determines the best way to implement these
    projects, including the option of ``phasing'' large projects over
    several years to manage costs and schedules; and prioritizes projects
    so that those of the greatest urgency are addressed immediately. We
    also took into consideration the need for fiscal restraint, and the
    challenge of executing the required programs efficiently throughout
    this process.

        As the above chart demonstrates, we continue to invest our
    resources in the areas that have an ``immediate'' urgency rating:
    Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal projects.
        We continue to refine the data on which our planning is based. For
    example, for the past 5 years we have conducted independent Facility
    Condition Assessments throughout the Capitol complex. These assessments
    identify the most critical issues in the facilities, and the objective
    data collected during this process helps us to identify the urgent
    needs that must be addressed expeditiously. Specifically, the data
    continues to show that ``immediate'' and ``high'' urgency Deferred
    Maintenance and Capital Renewal requirements will increase dramatically
    over the next several years. If these conditions are not addressed
    within a reasonable amount of time, they will continue to deteriorate
    to the point where they can, and will, impact Congressional operations.
        The Facility Condition Assessments also are used to determine a
    Facility Condition Index based on the backlog of Deferred Maintenance
    work. The Facility Condition Assessments and Facility Condition Indexes
    are used to predict the positive effect of investment and the negative
    effect of deferring work. Our assessments are showing that, at current
    funding levels, Capitol complex facilities are trending toward a
    ``poor'' rating.
        Tied into the overall planning process is the Line Item
    Construction Program. During this process, projects are evaluated based
    upon an objective set of criteria.
        These criteria include:
      --Preservation of historic or legacy elements or features of
            buildings or entire historic structures;
      --Fire and life-safety, code compliance, regulatory compliance, and
            statutory requirements;
      --Impact on mission including client urgency, and accommodation of
            new or changed missions;
      --Economics, including value, payback, life cycle costs, and cost
            savings;
      --Physical security, including protection of facilities and people;
      --Energy efficiency and environmental aspects.
        The projects are further evaluated based on the conditions of the
    facilities and their components, and the urgency to correct the
    deficiencies.
        As we developed our fiscal year 2010 budget, we considered more
    than $350 million worth of projects, and are requesting $168.8 million
    for Line Item Construction Program projects. This prioritized list
    includes 36 projects; 32 of which are categorized as being of
    ``immediate'' urgency. The remaining four are categorized as ``high.''
    An additional 85 projects remain on the deferred list.
        Of particular note is a ``high'' urgency renewal design project:
    the Taft Memorial Renewal ($240,000). The Taft Memorial was constructed
    in 1958 and requires significant renewal. Its Tennessee marble facade
    has shifted, and the stonework is in need of major repair. Included in
    the design are plans to make the surrounding plaza ADA compliant. If
    the major deficiencies in this landmark memorial are not addressed
    expeditiously, structural and system failures could lead to the loss of
    a historically significant structure.
        The Senate Underground Garage has been identified by the Facility
    Condition Assessments as having serious deficiencies. It is rated
    ``poor'' in terms of its Facility Condition Index, and it is nearing
    the end of its useful life. The planned study would examine options for
    providing parking to meet anticipated future needs; address
    infrastructure issues and mechanical, electrical, and fire prevention
    systems that have reached their life expectancies, as well as improve
    energy efficiency.
        Other key capital projects included in the AOC's fiscal year 2010
    budget request are:
      --Interim Painting of the Capitol Dome (part of ongoing
            rehabilitation project);
      --Sprinkler System Design, Thomas Jefferson Building;
      --Various egress, fire door, and ADA restroom improvements for
            Library of Congress buildings;
      --Independence Avenue repaving;
      --Cannon House Office Building Whole Building Renewal;
      --Upgrading physical security at the Capitol Power Plant;
      --Purchase Hazardous Device Unit and Vehicle Maintenance Facility for
            U.S. Capitol Police;
      --Invest in Capitol Power Plant infrastructure;
      --Construct Book Storage Module 5 for Library of Congress;
      --Energy Conservation projects, such as Senate Office Building
            computer server closet cooling, HVAC controls replacement, and
            other projects identified by energy audits.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to call to the Subcommittee's attention
    one project that has benefited from our comprehensive planning
    process--the Utility Tunnel Improvement Program. Last year, we
    requested $126.6 million for the program based on preliminary studies
    so that we could meet the 5-year completion schedule per the agreement
    with the Office of Compliance. After submitting the fiscal year 2009
    request, we re-evaluated the program, examined phasing and contract
    options, and employed innovative new construction technologies to
    increase the pace of the work.
        Based on the excellent progress made during the ongoing engineering
    work, we also evaluated and re-validated our approach to the project
    work, and refined our budget projection accordingly. We downsized our
    fiscal year 2009 request to $56.4 million. In fiscal year 2010, we are
    requesting $45.8 million to maintain our aggressive schedule to meet
    the settlement terms by 2012. All told, we were able to reduce the
    total projected cost of the Utility Tunnel Improvement Program from
    $235 million to $186.4 million--more than a 20 percent decrease. And,
    we remain on schedule to meet the settlement agreement terms by June
    2012.
        This past year, we have repaired and expanded the existing
    communications system to ensure continuous communications capability in
    the tunnels. As a result, the Office of Compliance approved the closure
    of this citation in January 2009.
        We also are engaged in an aggressive program to abate friable
    asbestos pipe insulation from steam, condensate, and chilled water
    lines in the tunnels. Completion of this work is anticipated in 2010.
    In addition, the removal of spalling concrete is on schedule. With
    regard to tunnel temperatures, we have re-insulated all steam and
    condensate lines, the major cause of high heat conditions in the
    tunnels; improved the existing ventilation system to further reduce
    temperatures, and designed a new ventilation system to further improve
    temperatures. In addition, we've upgraded existing egresses, and we are
    installing new egresses where needed.
                energy conservation and sustainability programs
        The AOC has been aggressively working to reduce the Capitol
    complex's environmental footprint, and its overall energy consumption.
    In 2008, the AOC increased its use of natural gas; purchased renewable
    energy; and installed more than 14,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs.
    According to our analysis for fiscal year 2008, these efforts resulted
    in the Congress reducing its energy consumption by 10.7 percent;
    exceeding the fiscal year 2008 requirement of a 9 percent reduction as
    compared to the fiscal year 2003 baseline. For fiscal year 2009, the
    AOC is required by law to meet a cumulative 12 percent reduction under
    the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; the Green the Capitol
    Initiative requires a 16.5 percent reduction.
        To meet these requirements to further reduce energy consumption, we
    have requested $17 million in fiscal year 2010 for Energy Program
    management, metering, and design and development of energy conservation
    projects. In addition, we have requested more than $11 million for
    capital projects that were submitted and considered because they
    implement sustainability practices and/or contain projected energy
    savings.
        However, the fiscal year 2010 request is only a down payment on the
    investment needed to meet the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of
    2005 (2 percent per year for a total of 20 percent by 2015); Energy
    Independence and Security Act (3 percent reduction per year for a 30
    percent reduction by 2015); and the goals of the Green the Capitol
    Initiative (50 percent energy reduction for the House Office Buildings,
    Capitol Building, and Capitol Visitor Center, and 31 percent reduction
    at the Capitol Power Plant by 2017). Based on what is known today, to
    meet the Energy Independence and Security Act goals, we estimate
    current and future funding requirements of more than $320 million.
        To better identify and evaluate energy savings opportunities in
    Capitol complex facilities, we have been using energy audits since
    fiscal year 2007. To date, the AOC has invested nearly $2.5 million
    toward these audits, and the data collected will help us realize better
    cost-benefit results.
        We also are implementing alternative funding strategies such as
    Energy Saving Performance Contracts. Under these contracts, companies
    invest their own capital to complete energy saving construction
    projects, and are then reimbursed from the savings generated by the
    installed projects. The AOC plans to use seven Energy Saving
    Performance Contracts across the Capitol complex to include individual
    contracts for the Capitol Building, House Office Buildings, Senate
    Office Buildings, Library Buildings and Grounds, Capitol Power Plant,
    Botanic Garden/Office of Security and Police Buildings, and Capitol
    Grounds.
        However, the Energy Saving Performance Contracts alone will not be
    able to achieve the energy reductions goals mandated. We continue to
    purchase Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) and have requested an increase
    in fiscal year 2010 funding to purchase the equivalent of 100 percent
    of our electricity in RECs. In addition, we are continuing our efforts
    to complete the program to install steam, electricity, natural gas,
    chilled water, potable water, and condensate meters across the Capitol
    complex. This is a key effort in terms of being able to measure current
    consumption, look for improvement opportunities, and measure energy
    savings results.
        Because the Capitol Power Plant plays a critical role in our long-
    term energy conservation strategy, we are continually working to
    improve and upgrade operations there. For example, we are developing a
    Strategic Energy Plan, with the assistance of the National Academies of
    Science, which will influence our future Energy Program planning.
    Another step we took was to move toward maximizing the use of natural
    gas at the Capitol Power Plant.
        In February, following the direction of Senate and House
    Leadership, we took immediate steps at the Capitol Power Plant (CPP) to
    further reduce the production of carbon dioxide, and we are now
    refining the engineering strategy for equipping the CPP to meet peak
    steam demands using only natural gas.
        Specifically, I directed the CPP staff to begin its seasonal
    conversion to natural gas operations immediately. In previous years
    this conversion did not occur until late May. Assuming the weather
    remains mild and we do not experience any major equipment issues, we do
    not expect to burn coal for the remainder of this fiscal year.
        As a result of this action, we anticipate achieving a fuel ratio of
    75 percent natural gas and 25 percent coal for fiscal year 2009. This
    significant decrease in the amount of coal used compared to fiscal year
    2008 will reduce carbon dioxide levels by approximately 6,700 tons. We
    plan to fund the purchase cost for the additional natural gas in fiscal
    year 2009 from available appropriations.
        We are also looking at various options for continued energy
    efficiencies that have emerged throughout the development of the draft
    Capitol Power Plant Strategic Energy Plan, which we plan to share with
    this Subcommittee and Congressional Leadership in the coming weeks.
        Over the past several years we have been working to create a
    healthy and productive workplace where environmental awareness and
    sustainability are the normal ways of doing business in the Capitol
    complex. There are a number of initiatives that the AOC has been
    engaged in, and we continue to see results in our efforts to improve
    energy efficiency.
        The following is a list of just a few of our ongoing energy-saving/
    sustainability initiatives.
      --We opened an ethanol (E-85) fueling station to Legislative Branch
            Agencies in October 2008, for use by official flex-fuel vehicle
            fleets.
      --We replaced more than 14,000 conventional incandescent light bulbs
            with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) across the Capitol
            complex.
      --We implemented a policy requiring the purchase or leasing of
            alternate fuel vehicles when replacing aging vehicles in the
            AOC fleet.
      --We installed dimmable ballasts in 21 Senate/Committee office
            suites. The program typically saves 11,400 kilowatt hours per
            week or 40 percent of lighting energy used in an office suite.
      --We installed a renewable, solar energy source for lighting in Lot
            18 in fall 2008. These new solar-powered lights save
            approximately 1,825 kilowatt hours per year.
      --We launched our energy awareness program: Power to Save in October
            2008. We are providing tools and tips on our Power to Save Web
            site to encourage Capitol Hill offices to conserve energy.
            www.aoc.gov/powertosave.
      --We more than doubled total tonnage of recycled waste from 1,400
            tons to 3,100 tons from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2008.
            Contamination rates remain at zero.
      --We recycled 100 percent of all AOC computer and electronic waste
            which includes monitors, keyboards, computers, printers,
            laptops, and other types of computer hardware over past 3
            years.
      --We are using food waste, garden clippings, and other green waste,
            and repurposing it as compost for flower beds and to sustain
            other plantings throughout the Capitol complex.

                        ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST

        Our fiscal year 2010 annual operating budget request for $423.6
    million provides funding for continuing the routine activities of
    operating and maintaining the infrastructure which supports the
    Congress, other Legislative Branch agencies, and the public, as well as
    other AOC essential mission support services. Some of these services
    include financial management, safety, human resources, project and
    construction management, planning and development, communications,
    information technology, procurement, and central administration.
        As I mentioned earlier, one of our four focus areas is the managing
    and caring for the AOC work force--our greatest asset. A budget
    priority for fiscal year 2010 is providing the proper training for our
    people. Unfortunately, the AOC lags behind the industry standards in
    terms of automated facility management tools. Receiving the requested
    funds in this area would bring us closer to that standard, and increase
    our ability to manage facilities utilized by Congress and the American
    public.
        Other operating cost increases lie outside the control of the AOC.
    Utility rates have risen, the cost of leases has increased, recycling
    and bulk waste removal contracts are now more expensive, and mandatory
    pay raises combined with the increase in transit subsidy benefits have
    added to the cost of our day-to-day operations.
        Additional funding is being requested for development and technical
    skills training for staff; to provide uniforms for employees of our
    Construction Division to ease recognition of staff and reduce potential
    security issues within the Capitol complex; to provide training,
    equipment, materials, and services in preparation for and response to
    emergency events; and to purchase necessary safety apparel such as hard
    hats, safety glasses, gloves, steel-toe shoes, and hearing protection
    for project management staff.

                CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST

        Our past budget requests for the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC)
    included funding for its construction. In fiscal year 2010,
    construction costs are no longer part of our CVC budget. We are
    requesting $24.6 million for CVC operations and administration, to
    include payroll for the Capitol Guides, who have been integrated into
    our organization, and are an integral part of our team. We also are
    requesting an additional 25 FTEs to support CVC full-year operations to
    include additional staff to coordinate greater than anticipated
    requests for use of the CVC rooms and restaurant services, and
    specialized maintenance personnel to perform furniture repairs and
    sheet metal repairs in the coat check rooms and the Congressional
    auditorium.
        The mission of the Capitol Visitor Center is to provide enhanced
    security for all persons working in or visiting the U.S. Capitol, and a
    more convenient place in which to learn of the work of Congress and
    about the Capitol. Since December 2, 2008, when the CVC was officially
    opened to the public, we have been very successful in achieving our
    goal to make the visitor experience at the U.S. Capitol one that is
    safe and enjoyable for all who come here.
        Instead of standing in line for hours, visitors now pass through
    security quickly and are able to enjoy the amenities and the exhibits
    housed in the CVC. To date, we have welcomed more than 800,000
    visitors. In late April, we hosted more than 19,470 guests in a single
    day, and thanks to the efforts of the U.S. Capitol Police and our
    Visitor Assistants, the average wait time to enter the facility was 6
    minutes. In addition, every staff-led tour request during this time was
    accommodated.
        As we continue this next year in ``test and adjust'' mode, Ms.
    Terrie Rouse, Chief Executive Office for Visitor Services, and her team
    continue to adapt to changing situations and make accommodations for
    Members of Congress as necessary. For example, they have made
    improvements to the tour schedule and various policies to help Members
    accommodate constituents who visit their offices who may not have tour
    reservations. She also has initiated ``Congressional staff listening
    sessions'' where staff may share ideas and thoughts about Capitol tour
    operations.
        The Congressional Historical Interpretive Training (CHIP) Program
    has also been updated since last fall based on feedback from Members'
    offices. Our team's ongoing review of the pilot program's curriculum
    since its implementation in fall 2008 has allowed it to grow and
    improve to meet participants' needs. Thus far, more than 2,000
    Congressional staff have participated in the program. We're happy to
    report that the CHIP Program has greatly enhanced the tour experience
    for Members' constituents, and that staff-led and Capitol tours have
    worked in parallel, thereby reducing security risks and optimizing
    safety concerns of visitor flow within the Capitol Building. Most
    importantly, the training has successfully met its goal to aid in the
    accuracy and consistency of the information provided to all visitors.
        As a point of interest, I would like to add that on April 13, we
    introduced 50 new documents into the CVC's Exhibition Hall. The new
    items, which include the December 11, 1941, resolution declaring war
    against Germany, one of only two printed drafts of the U.S.
    Constitution discussed during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and a
    list of supplies requisitioned by Meriwether Lewis prior to his
    historic Lewis and Clark Expedition, will be on display through October
    1, 2009.

                              AOC ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Mr. Chairman, as I discussed earlier, the past year has been one
    full of significant achievements for the AOC, in addition to the public
    opening of the Capitol Visitor Center and supporting the Presidential
    Inauguration. I would like to sum up my testimony by listing a few of
    our many accomplishments.
      --We conducted our annual Building Services Customer Satisfaction
            Surveys, and in fiscal year 2008, we maintained more than 90
            percent customer satisfaction rating. Customer satisfaction
            continues to increase annually.
      --We completed 24 Senate Office moves in April. We also moved 184
            House Offices and 2 House Committees in less than 1 month's
            time, and achieved a customer satisfaction level of 96 percent.
      --The Government Accountability Office provided the AOC with 67
            recommendations to help improve its strategic management since
            2003. Nearly 75 percent of those recommendations have been
            fully implemented, closed, or incorporated into new
            recommendations (as of February 2009).

      --We continued to improve our cost accounting procedures and internal
            controls, and received our sixth consecutive clean audit
            opinion on our financial statements. The Capitol Visitor Center
            also received a clean audit opinion.
      --We conducted employee focus group sessions in April 2008 to gather
            observations on topics ranging from customer service and
            internal procedures to our mission and our work environment.
        --Participants noted that the AOC has made tremendous progress over
                the past few years. Specifically, 54 percent of
                participants responded that they were satisfied or very
                satisfied with their jobs versus 35 percent in 2004. Those
                who said they were very dissatisfied with their jobs
                dropped from 21 percent in 2004 to just 4 percent in 2008.

      --We decreased our Injury and Illness Rate for 9th year in a row. We
            dropped to 4.06 cases per 100 employees in fiscal year 2008;
            the lowest rate the AOC has ever sustained.
      --We closed 71 of 99 items from Office of Compliance citations (80
            percent), as of February 2009, and we have submitted a request
            to close seven additional items.
      --United States Botanic Garden (USBG) has achieved accreditation from
            the American Association of Museums (AAM), the highest national
            recognition for a museum. Of several hundred public gardens in
            North America, the U.S. Botanic Garden is 1 of only 19 that
            have been awarded accreditation.
      --The West Refrigeration Plant Expansion project at the Capitol Power
            Plant was selected as 2009 Craftsmanship Award Winner in the
            mechanical category for HVAC-Piping by the Washington Building
            Congress.
      --The Washington Building Congress also recognized the AOC's Painting
            and Plastering team in the ``Specialty Painting'' category for
            relocating the Statue of Freedom model from the Russell Senate
            Office Building to Emancipation Hall in the CVC.
      --Our stone mason team that worked to restore the marble floors in
            the Jefferson Building, while installing electrical conduits to
            support the new Visitors Experience project was also recognized
            by the Washington Building Congress with a 2009 Craftsmanship
            Award.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Every brick, every floor tile, every element of the U.S. Capitol is
    saturated with our Nation's art, history, and politics, and coming here
    is one of the best ways Americans can see and understand themselves,
    their country, and their government.
        We are all part of the brick and mortar of our Nation, and this
    Capitol belongs to each and every one of us. For that reason, it is
    imperative that we do everything we can to succeed in our mission to
    protect and preserve our Nation's icon and a symbol of representative
    democracy for generations to come.
        The AOC is committed to being good stewards of the Capitol complex,
    and in that regard, we have accomplished much and experienced numerous
    successes. These achievements can be directly attributed to the
    dedicated, professional individuals that make up the AOC team. In my
    role as Acting Architect for the past 26 months, I have been honored
    and privileged to work along side them. Because of their efforts and
    commitment to excellence, we continue to provide exceptional service to
    Congress and the visiting public.
        Once again, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. Mr.
    Chairman, we look forward to working with this Subcommittee, the House
    Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, and our Oversight Committees to
    address the backlog of maintenance and repair projects, and continue to
    protect and preserve the U.S. Capitol for generations to come. I would
    be happy to answer any questions you might have.

                              OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

    STATEMENT OF TAMARA E. CHRISLER, ESQ., EXECUTIVE
                DIRECTOR
        Senator Nelson. Ms. Chrisler.
        Ms. Chrisler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Murkowski, and
    Mr. Pryor.
        I am honored to appear before you today on behalf of the
    Office of Compliance in support of our 2010 budget request.
        There are really three major items from our budget request
    that I would like to highlight in my opening statement, and
    they involve the funding and authorization of an occupational
    safety and health (OSH) program supervisor, funding for the
    already authorized and unfunded compliance officer position, as
    well as funding for a contract fire safety specialist.

                      OOC deg.A HEARTFELT THANKS

        Before I get to those three items, though, I would like to
    thank this subcommittee for the support of the efforts of the
    Office of Compliance. Specifically, in fiscal year 2009, the
    subcommittee's support allowed the office to improve our
    operational infrastructure, provide salary levels reflecting
    the outstanding performance of our staff, as well as provide
    technical assistance to the covered community.
        Because of the support of this subcommittee, the Office of
    Compliance has been able to work collaboratively with the
    Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Senate Sergeant at
    Arms, Senate Chief Employment Counsel, and the Senate
    Superintendent to improve the safety and health conditions on
    Capitol Hill and in Senate offices.
        During the last two Congresses, safety and health hazards
    in Senate office buildings has dropped by over 50 percent, and
    that is due to the support of this subcommittee. So we thank
    you.

              OOC deg.OOC FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST

        Our 2010 budget request recognizes the economic
    difficulties of this country and the fiscal constraints of this
    subcommittee. And we have refrained from renewing old requests
    from fiscal year 2009 that went unfunded, and we really did
    some reevaluating of how we can perform the work that we need
    to perform with the minimal resources. So I present to you the
    most critical of those needs that we have.
        The most critical item that I present to you today is the
    funding and authorization of an OSH program supervisor.
    Currently, that duty is being performed by a detailee from the
    Department of Labor. This detailee retires in calendar year
    2010. The individual has over 30 years' experience in safety
    and health.
        He is a certified industrial hygienist, and what he does is
    supervises the safety and health inspectors, works with outside
    OSH experts, and provides technical advice, expert technical
    advice to our general counsel. This position is critical to the
    success of our safety and health program.
        After having spoken with some of the staff over at the
    Department of Labor, we have been informed that not because the
    Department of Labor doesn't want to, but they are going to find
    it very difficult to replace that individual with another
    nonreimbursable detailee of the same experience with the same
    credentials.
        Through attrition, through retirement, they have lost a lot
    of their senior staff, and they are having a hard time
    servicing their needs. And they are very doubtful that they
    will be able to replace this position with a nonreimbursable
    individual.
        So we are looking to have the authorization and funding to
    bring this position on staff. Having the position within our
    staff will bring accountability within our office and within
    the legislative branch, where it really should be, and ensure
    consistency with our operations.

                   OOC deg.FTE FUNDING AUTHORIZATION

        The second item that I would like to discuss with you today
    is funding for a compliance officer. In fiscal year 2008, this
    subcommittee supported the authorization of a compliance
    officer position for our office. And what this position would
    do is verify the abatement schedule of existing hazards, making
    sure that nothing falls through the cracks. And this is a
    critical position that the office is seeking funding for during
    this fiscal year.

                       OOC deg.CONTRACT SERVICES

        Third, as we have discussed a little bit already today, is
    fire safety. And we are seeking funding for a fire safety
    specialist.
        In fiscal year 2009, the Office of Compliance requested the
    authorization and funding for an FTE for these services. Having
    reevaluated our needs and really taking into consideration the
    economic difficulties that are facing us today, we are seeking
    only a portion of that funding and not the FTE. We are looking
    to see how we can meet the needs with contract services.
        What this position would do is ensure that longstanding
    fire hazards are abated and that they are done so timely.
        Outside of not renewing the request for an FTE for the fire
    safety specialist position, the Office of Compliance has also
    not renewed requests for the trainer and the ombudsman that we
    did request in fiscal year 2009. We are mindful of the
    situation, the financial crisis that the country faces. We are
    mindful that this year is not the year for the ``nice to
    haves,'' and we are presenting to you what we critically need.
        We have also taken efforts to share services with sister
    agencies to reduce our costs in our mediation and our hearing
    program. And that effort is very successful.
        So we continually strive to provide the needed services
    with minimal, though adequate, resources. And it is our hope
    that this budget request that we submit to you reflects such
    effort.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, and I
    welcome any questions that you have.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Tamara E. Chrisler

        Mr. Chairman, Ms. Murkowski, and distinguished Members of the
    Subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you today on behalf of the
    Office of Compliance (``OOC''). Joining me today are General Counsel
    Peter Ames Eveleth, Deputy Executive Director Barbara J. Sapin, Deputy
    General Counsel Susan M. Green, and Budget and Finance Officer Allan
    Holland. Collectively, we present to you the agency's request for
    appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and we seek your support of our
    request.
        Before I get to next year, though, I want to express our
    appreciation for your support of our Office during fiscal year 2009.
    The Subcommittee's support for the mission and efforts of the OOC was
    reflected in the funding level authorized for the OOC in fiscal year
    2009. Thanks to the Subcommittee's support, the agency is able to
    increase its efforts to provide technical assistance to employing
    offices and employees, both on Capitol Hill and in remote offices;
    offer training programs tailored to the specific needs of the covered
    community; improve its operational infrastructure; and provide its
    talented workforce with salary levels that reflect their level of
    performance. We appreciate the continued support of the Subcommittee
    and thank you for your assistance in ensuring a fair and safe workplace
    for our covered community.
        Your support continues to demonstrate results. Over the past two
    Congresses, safety and health hazards in Senate Office Buildings have
    dropped by over 50 percent. We expect this progress to continue when we
    inspect Senate Buildings in the current Congress. Those inspections
    will begin during the August recess. We attribute these results to your
    support for our collaborative efforts with the Senate Chief Counsel for
    Employment, Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the AOC/Senate Superintendent.
        For our fiscal year 2010 operations, the Office of Compliance is
    requesting $4,474,475--an increase of $402,475 or 9.88 percent over our
    fiscal year 2009 funding level. Like all of us in this room, we are
    mindful of the economic difficulties confronting the country and the
    Federal Government. We know that this Subcommittee faces real fiscal
    constraints. Accordingly, we are not renewing our request for a number
    of items from our 2009 appropriations request: namely, three FTEs--the
    fire safety specialist, the trainer, and the ombudsman. We recognize
    our responsibility to make more efficient our operations to meet the
    government's current fiscal challenges while at the same time
    fulfilling our mission.
        Despite our funding challenges, however, we continue to perform our
    statutory duty. For example, we are working closely with the Office of
    the Architect of the Capitol (``AOC'') staff to implement the Capitol
    Power Plant Utility Tunnel Settlement Agreement. Our full-time tunnel
    liaison has an excellent working relationship with AOC officials. As a
    consequence, our offices cooperate extremely well in ensuring that the
    life-threatening hazards that characterized the tunnels in the past are
    being abated in a timely fashion. In particular, asbestos has been
    removed from four of the tunnels and is being removed from a fifth.
    Assuming continued funding, we anticipate that all asbestos will be
    removed from all tunnels by the summer of 2010. Structural repairs are
    continuing. Emergency egress is being improved. Heat stress is being
    reduced. We are very pleased with the progress so far, and look forward
    to continued cooperation with the AOC, until the Settlement Agreement
    is completely fulfilled.
        We are also proud of our accomplishments in resolving employment
    disputes in the legislative branch. In fiscal year 2008, we processed
    more than 100 claims raised by covered employees through our use of
    alternative dispute resolution, resulting in 18 formal settlements.
    Some of these claims were resolved with monetary awards, but many were
    not. The OOC played a significant role in fostering creative
    settlements that included non-monetary terms tailored to meet the needs
    of the disputants. This type of resolution is significant as it often
    results in a win-win situation for both parties, and it is also a cost-
    savings measure for the government.
        Looking forward, we want to continue to report accomplishments and
    meet our statutory mandates, but we cannot accomplish our mission
    without adequate resources. In light of the current economic situation,
    we are not requesting three FTEs that we asked for in the last fiscal
    year. But changed circumstances have highlighted the need for us to add
    one new position to our ranks.
        Since 1997, the agency has benefited from the services of an
    employee on a non-reimbursable detail from the Department of Labor.
    This long-time OSH program supervisor and special assistant to the
    General Counsel is a certified industrial hygienist with over 30 years'
    experience in occupational safety and health matters. His duties
    include supervising our safety and health inspectors, working with
    outside OSH experts, and providing expert technical advice to the
    General Counsel and guidance to OGC staff regarding the application of
    OSHA standards. In short, he is critical to our operation. But this
    detailee plans to retire in January 2010, and it is unlikely that we
    will be able to replace him with another non-reimbursable detailee.
    Moreover, these types of duties are best performed by an employee on
    staff with the agency, who is accountable to the very agency where the
    duties are performed. For these reasons, we are requesting the
    authorization for and funding of an OSH program supervisor FTE. Because
    the current supervisor will not retire until calendar year 2010, we
    have presented our request with a prorated amount of funding.
        In fiscal year 2008, the Subcommittee authorized a compliance
    officer FTE. The Subcommittee recognized the agency's need to monitor
    the abatement schedules of employing offices and ensure that employing
    offices have taken appropriate steps towards resolution of identified
    hazards and violations. Indeed, in fiscal year 2006, this very
    Subcommittee reminded the agency that mechanisms and personnel are
    necessary to better assure efficiency and timeliness in our monitoring
    program. Because of financial constraints, however, the position was
    authorized without funding in fiscal year 2008 and remained unfunded in
    fiscal year 2009. The agency requests in our fiscal year 2010
    submission funding for this very critical position. Receiving funding
    for this position will allow the Office to perform its statutory duty
    by providing technical assistance to employing offices in abating
    complex hazards, assuring timely abatement of hazards identified in the
    OSH biennial inspections and requestor-initiated inspections, and
    ensuring compliance with OSH-related citations.
        In our fiscal year 2009 request, the OOC sought funding to support
    our ``prevent and reduce'' initiative. This initiative was created to
    reduce the number of incidents giving rise to allegations of violations
    of the Congressional Accountability Act (``CAA''). It was contemplated
    that three additional FTEs--a fire safety specialist, a trainer, and an
    ombudsman--would provide technical fire safety expertise, as well as
    assist employees and employing offices to resolve complaints at the
    earliest opportunity, resulting in taxpayer savings. The agency remains
    convinced that these FTEs would provide the covered community with
    essential technical assistance and allow for early and amicable
    resolution of workplace disputes. However, given our current financial
    situation, we have explored other ways of providing these services to
    the covered community. Consequently, we have removed these FTEs from
    our fiscal year 2010 request and only seek minimal funding for
    contracted fire safety services.
        We are all aware that fire safety continues to be a critical
    concern for the legislative branch. Significant, long-standing fire
    hazards remain in Senate and House Office Buildings, the Capitol, and
    Library of Congress facilities. These buildings present special
    challenges due to their historic nature, innate beauty, and ongoing
    heavy usage. Through collaboration with the AOC, the OOC has made
    significant progress in developing abatement plans to resolve fire
    safety Citations that have been pending since 2000 and 2001. However,
    because of the challenges presented by the beauty and history of these
    buildings, the efforts to abate the hazards may continue for years
    before complete abatement is achieved. As our efforts at accelerating
    abatement activity have increased, the demands on our fire protection
    engineer and legal staff have significantly expanded.
        As the agency is staffed with only one inspector with specialized
    expertise in fire safety issues and one attorney who spends a large
    portion of his duties addressing matters other than fire safety
    concerns, the agency is limited in its resources to address these
    critical hazards. We recognized the need for additional resources in
    this area and requested an FTE in fiscal year 2009. Although the need
    for additional resources continues, the agency has reexamined exactly
    how to meet that need. As a result, the agency requests fiscal year
    2010 appropriations for the contractual services of a fire safety
    specialist. We expect that this Specialist will serve a function
    similar to that of our tunnel liaison, and devote full-time efforts to
    resolving the very serious fire hazards present in the legislative
    branch. Removing, the request for an FTE results in a savings of almost
    $25,000.
        In an effort to reduce costs for our mandated dispute resolution
    program, the OOC has entered into an interagency Memorandum of
    Understanding with the Merit Systems Protection Board (``MSPB''). This
    Memorandum allows the agency to utilize MSPB mediators and hearing
    officers to conduct proceedings that are required by the CAA. Further
    plans are being made to enter into additional interagency agreements
    with other agencies. Such agreements allow the OOC to reduce costs
    because they typically provide for more favorable rates for contracted
    services. The OOC realizes that our mediation and hearing services
    contain certain elements beyond our control: the agency cannot dictate
    either the number of claims presented for mediation or the number of
    complaints filed for hearing. We do have control over the costs for
    services, however, and it is those costs that we are continually
    working to reduce.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The agency approaches fiscal year 2010 with heightened fiscal
    responsibility and an understanding that only minimal funding essential
    to meeting our mission may be available. We have reexamined our
    programs in conjunction with our statutory mandates, and we have made
    significant efforts to streamline our appropriations request to reflect
    the country's and the government's current economic difficulties. With
    that understanding, we present to the Subcommittee only those items
    necessary to meet our statutory mandates. There are a number of items
    requested in our written budget justification that we submit for your
    consideration. The ones mentioned today, though, are those that we
    would like to highlight for the Subcommittee: an OSHA program
    supervisor, funding for the previously authorized compliance officer
    FTE, and contractual funding for a fire safety specialist. Funding for
    these items will allow the agency to continue to provide needed
    services and technical assistance to the covered community.
        On behalf of the Board of Directors and the entire staff of the
    Office of Compliance, I thank you for your support of this agency. I
    would be pleased to answer any questions.

        Senator Nelson. Six or seven minute questions? Seven?
        Senator Murkowski. Yes.
        Senator Nelson. Seven, okay.
        Well, first of all, as I have not had an opportunity to
    visit with you, Ms. Chrisler, I have got a couple of questions.
    I have already spent some time grilling poor Mr. Ayers, but I
    will hold that for second.

                     OOC deg.BIENNIAL INSPECTIONS

        But I understand that your organization conducts what are
    called biennial inspections of the legislative branch
    facilities. Now are there biennial inspections conducted on the
    rest of the Federal Government, or is it just on the
    legislative branch, if you know?
        Ms. Chrisler. Well, the way that the Congressional
    Accountability Act was written was inclusive of a mandate that
    our office conduct inspections of the covered community once
    every Congress. So, yes, we are required to conduct these once
    every Congress.
        Whether the OSH office and the executive branch or in the
    private sector have a similar mandate is something that I am
    not aware. But I do know that this is the way that the CAA was
    written for us.
        Senator Nelson. Well, I don't know that that is what was
    intended, but we are going to take a look into that because it
    does seem, from what we are hearing from other branches of
    Government, that we are being held to a higher standard. I
    don't know that we ought to be held to a low standard. I am not
    suggesting that.
        But there ought to be a comparable standard. Safety is just
    as important in the other branches of Government as it is in
    ours. And so, I think that is something that we are going to
    have to look into because if we are being held to a higher
    standard, it can affect the budgets, obviously.
        But I don't want to imply in any way that we don't want a
    high standard. We just want to make sure that there is equity
    and fairness as well as comparability in the standards that
    other branches are held to.
        Ms. Chrisler. If I may, Mr. Nelson?
        Senator Nelson. Sure.
        Ms. Chrisler. It is my understanding that the standard, the
    OSH standard that is applied to the legislative branch, is the
    same standard that is applied to the private sector. Not the
    executive branch. The way that the CAA was written was that the
    standards, same standards are applicable in different manners,
    and the manner that it is to be applied to the legislative
    branch is that of the application to the private sector.

                OOC deg.GOVERNMENT BRANCH COMPARABILITY

        Senator Nelson. Okay. What do you know about the
    difference, let us say, that would apply to the executive
    branch? I know it is a different branch of Government, but once
    again, comparability, I think, would be important here. Do you
    know what the standard is there?
        Ms. Chrisler. I do know that the way that the CAA is
    written, the comparability was to that of the private sector.
    As I understand it, the application of the standard to the
    executive branch is less restrictive than it is to the private
    sector. But as the CAA was written, Congress chose to apply the
    standard to itself as it does to the private sector.
        Senator Nelson. I understand that.
        Ms. Chrisler. Okay.
        Senator Nelson. We have old buildings, and we have new
    buildings. Are the same requirements applied to, let us say,
    the Jefferson building and the Russell building as for fire and
    safety as they might be in the case of a new construction?
        Ms. Chrisler. As I understand it, the standards are what
    they are. What our office does consider is the historicity of
    the buildings, the significant challenges that we have with
    respect to very old buildings, historical buildings, beautiful
    buildings that are significant in our Nation's history.
        So we recognize that. We understand the challenges that are
    faced with respect to addressing some hazards that may exist
    for virtue of the building's age. And we work collaboratively
    with the covered community. We work very well with the Office
    of the Architect of the Capitol.
        And in understanding the challenges and the hurdles that we
    face in addressing the hazards, we apply the standards. Yes, so
    we do take into consideration some of the challenges that we
    have because of the age of the buildings.
        Senator Nelson. And you may not have the specifics on this,
    but, for example, addressing the egress stairwells in the
    Jefferson building, which would cost more than $12 million to
    require, causing major disruption to both staff and visitors
    when it is questionable whether it is necessary, when 98
    percent of the building is equipped with sprinklers, 100
    percent of the building is equipped with smoke detectors, and
    it is fully staffed with security, Government security during
    the occupancy periods.

                    OOC deg.HISTORICAL AUTHENTICITY

        How does that square with ordinary requirements for, as you
    say, historicity?
        Ms. Chrisler. What I understand with respect to the
    Jefferson building is that it contains the page school, the
    House page school. And one of the hazards that our office has
    discovered is that there are egress challenges with respect to
    the students exiting the building from the page school if there
    were to be a fire inside the school.
        With respect to abating the hazard, our office is working
    collaboratively, again to ensure that before the permanent
    abatement can take place that interim measures are put into
    place. So we understand that the abatement may not be able to
    be achieved immediately. Though the hazard still exists, we
    have recommended and suggested and are working toward
    implementing interim measures to protect the safety of the
    students and the visitors to the building while other
    considerations are being made.
        Senator Nelson. Okay. Well, thank you very much. My time is
    about out.
        Senator Murkowski.

                 OOC deg.HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT FUNDING

        Senator Murkowski. Well, we will keep you on the hot seat
    here for a few more minutes, Ms. Chrisler.
        I am trying to understand exactly how much flexibility
    there is built into all of this. As I understand, the AOC puts
    the highest priority--and I appreciate, Mr. Ayers, you kind of
    walking through how you prioritize what you are dealing with as
    you look at these projects. But we understand that AOC puts the
    highest priority on funding for the projects that have received
    a citation.
        I also understand that there have been over 9,000 findings
    in the draft report for the 110th Congress for the last
    biennial inspection. Nine thousand is a lot to prioritize. And
    the question that I would have, and it follows on what Senator
    Nelson has addressed with regard to the Jefferson building, do
    you have flexibility to either work with the Office of the
    Architect here to not issue that citation so that you can work
    through some interim measures?

             OOC deg.HAZARD FUNDING--NOTIFICATION PROGRESS

        Are you required to issue a citation first and then ask
    questions later? How do you proceed with that?
        Ms. Chrisler. It is our intent and our effort to work very
    hand-in-hand.
        Senator Murkowski. But what are you required to do?
        Ms. Chrisler. We are required to make Congress aware of
    existing hazards.
        Senator Murkowski. By way of a citation?
        Ms. Chrisler. No, not necessarily.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Ms. Chrisler. So the finding that is made, the hazard that
    is uncovered is--we tell the employing offices about their
    hazards through a finding. Once the finding is shared, we work
    with the employing office to abate the hazard. So that the
    citation is not something that is required unless there is no
    cooperation from the employing office, unless there is not
    significant improvement toward abating the hazard.

                 OOC deg.ISSUED CITATION NOTIFICATIONS

        Senator Murkowski. So, in 9,000 cases, there was either not
    cooperation or there wasn't significant improvement?
        Ms. Chrisler. There were 9,000 hazards that were uncovered.
    There were not 9,000 citations. In the past----
        Senator Murkowski. I stand corrected. Yes. Of those 9,000
    findings, how many citations do you figure were issued?
        Ms. Chrisler. Well, what I can tell you, that in the last 6
    years, I believe our office has only issued 16 citations. So,
    within the 9,000, it is probably less than 10.
        Senator Murkowski. So there is the ability to work through
    these?
        Ms. Chrisler. Right.
        Senator Murkowski. There is an effort to provide for some
    level of abatement. So what we are working to do then is to
    prioritize those areas where there is highest risk, as opposed
    to chronologically we need to take care of all these things
    because they have been sitting out on a list for too long.
        But if you have got a high-risk issue, a life safety issue,
    that is prioritized as more immediate. Is that a correct
    statement?
        Ms. Chrisler. I beg your pardon?
        Senator Murkowski. Is that a correct statement, that the
    issue would be given higher priority, based on a risk
    assessment?
        Ms. Chrisler. What we--what our role is, is to discover the
    findings and provide the information and work with the
    employing office to abate the hazards. What we are hoping to
    do, what our general counsel's office is striving for, is to be
    of assistance and a resource in staging the abatement of these
    hazards.
        So the employing office would make the determination as to
    which hazards they can abate first, based on a number of
    considerations. And what we are looking to do as a resource and
    as a tool and servicing the agency is to help them in staging
    their abatement.

                       OOC deg.HAZARD ABATEMENT

        Senator Murkowski. Well, then let me give you a specific
    example. It is my understanding that the AOC is working to
    remedy a citation. This is a citation in the Cannon building,
    and it is going to be relatively expensive. I don't recall
    exactly how much it was, but it was a considerable amount. And
    yet, the Cannon building is scheduled for whole building
    renovation in a couple of years.
        Why in the world would we spend the money to fix this now
    when 2 years from now, we may have a whole building renovation?
        Ms. Chrisler. Sure, and this is actually the example that
    you use of something that we were just discussing. As much as--
    --
        Senator Murkowski. $7 million.
        Ms. Chrisler. Pardon?
        Senator Murkowski. Apparently, it is the Cannon stairwell
    enclosure for $7 million?
        Ms. Chrisler. Yes. And this is something that our office
    has discovered as a hazard and is working with the appropriate
    personnel to abate the hazard. Hopefully, in the----

                    OOC deg.ABATEMENT CLARIFICATION

        Senator Murkowski. What do you mean when you say ``abate
    the hazard?'' What will you do for this enclosure?
        Ms. Chrisler. It depends on the discussions that the
    technical experts have. I don't know if it is because of the
    renovation that will be occurring in 2 years if it is prudent
    to do a complete abatement or if it is prudent to incorporate
    interim measures to provide for the safety of the employees and
    visitors while the renovation is upcoming and pending.
        So there are different steps, and we are working to make
    sure that the smart thing and the right thing is done and not
    that we are making any improvements or abating the hazard to
    say, okay, this is done. Now let us all tear it down because we
    are going to build the building again.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I would hope that we would agree
    that spending $7 million is not the prudent thing to do if we
    are going to do a whole building renovation in 2 years.
        Ms. Chrisler. Well, certainly, our office has been engaged
    in discussions with the folks that will be----
        Senator Murkowski. Again, this gets me back to my question
    about how much flexibility you have. You have got a citation.
    You are trying to work on it. But you know that in a very short
    time period here, you are going to be doing a wholesale
    remodel.
        And so, it really doesn't make much sense to do a full-on
    roof here. Let us just patch the roof until we can really
    address the bigger problem. Are we in agreement that that is
    not the approach that we need to take?
        Ms. Chrisler. Absolutely. And we are all--we, the Office of
    Compliance, are all in favor of finding an appropriate and a
    safe interim measure depending on the circumstances. And in the
    example that you provide, the circumstances include a complete
    building renovation. So we would work toward providing a safe
    mechanism in the interim.
        Senator Murkowski. Ms. Chrisler, can you tell me when this
    particular citation was actually issued? Has this been
    outstanding for a while?
        Ms. Chrisler. This has been outstanding since 2000.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Mr. Chairman, my time is up.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Pryor.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And actually, believe it or not, I have a lot of questions
    for Mr. Ayers here.
        But since these other two have asked about you, I do have a
    few follow-ups on what they said. I hope it doesn't take all my
    time. But let me try to move very quickly.

               OOC deg.CANNON BUILDING STAIRWELL HAZARD

        Just for my--I am new to the subcommittee, and I am trying
    to get a handle on this, and I apologize for this. But the
    example that we have been talking about, the stairwell in the
    Cannon building, what is the hazard there?
        Ms. Chrisler. They are open stairwells that don't block
    off, if you will, the fumes and smoke and fire if there were to
    be a fire in the building. So enclosed stairwells provides
    extra protection and ensures that there is--ensures a cutoff so
    that the fire is contained, smoke is contained, and the fumes
    are contained so that it doesn't spread as quickly.
        Senator Pryor. And do you have a design on a fix for that?
        Ms. Chrisler. I do believe that there is a design for a
    fix. Correct.
        Senator Pryor. Okay. And you talked about these 9,000
    findings.
        Ms. Chrisler. Right.

                  OOC deg.CATEGORIZED ITEM BREAKDOWN

        Senator Pryor. Are there large categories of items you are
    looking for, like fire issues and like plumbing and whatever
    type issues? ADA-type compliance. I mean, are there broad
    categories?
        Ms. Chrisler. Yes. Yes, we go in and we look for
    everything. We look to----
        Senator Pryor. And do you have a breakdown of all that and
    what the findings are? As I understand it, you go through each
    office even and look and see if maybe too many things are
    plugged into one electrical outlet.
        Ms. Chrisler. Right.
        Senator Pryor. Is it your experience that when you bring
    those to the attention of the individual offices, they get
    fixed?
        Ms. Chrisler. Absolutely. There are in the previous
    Congress--if you will just indulge me for a moment. There were
    a number of hazards that were discovered that are abated right
    on the spot.
        In the 110th Congress, there were 63 percent of the hazards
    that were open were closed, and 80 percent actually of the
    findings that were--the hazards that were found in the Senate,
    80 percent were abated. And some of them, a large majority of
    them are abated right on the spot.
        Senator Pryor. Okay. And, but it does sound like there are
    some hazards like the Cannon stairwell that doesn't go away,
    that you have to just at some point work through that?
        Ms. Chrisler. Yes.
        Senator Pryor. And I think, let us see, that may be all I
    had on you.

                      AOC deg.CAPITOL POWER PLANT

        So if I have a few more minutes, Mr. Ayers, let me ask you.
    Let me start with one of the big-ticket items that I know you
    are working on in terms of a long-range plan, and that is the
    Capitol Power Plant. Tell me, if you can, one of your requests
    is to convert maybe one boiler from, what, coal to gas. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Ayers. That is correct.
        Senator Pryor. And what will the mix of the fuel be then at
    that point that will be available to the Capitol, you know, the
    source of the energy?
        Mr. Ayers. We will be able to burn 100 percent natural gas
    with sufficient backup capacity.
        Senator Pryor. Okay. And is there a long-term plan on the
    Power Plant? I mean, do you know what you want to do with that?
    Or do you just want to keep it and convert it to gas, or are
    you looking for other options? Give us the update on that.
        Mr. Ayers. Well, we have a team of consultants in place
    today that are looking at a 20-year and longer outlook for the
    plant. We have developed that scenario looking at 16 different
    possible options of what to do with the plant in the future.
    That study is about 75 percent complete.
        We are currently having it peer reviewed by the National
    Academy of Sciences, and that peer review is scheduled to be
    finished this month. So we will take those peer review
    comments, we will fold them back into the report and then
    finalize it. This will be completed in another 2 or 3 months
    after that.

                  AOC deg.POSSIBLE AVAILABLE OPTIONS

        Senator Pryor. Okay. And these, what did you say, 16 or 17
    options?
        Mr. Ayers. There are 16 different options that they are
    currently looking at.
        Senator Pryor. Does that mean like one of them might be,
    say, for example, geothermal? One of them might be just going
    all natural gas? One of them might be to totally get away from
    the Power Plant completely? I mean, what are you talking about
    there?
        Mr. Ayers. Things like co-generation of electricity, things
    like biofuels.
        Senator Pryor. And long term, are you looking at replacing
    the heating and air systems throughout the Capitol complex?
        Mr. Ayers. Well, certainly, we heat and cool the Capitol
    campus through a centralized distribution system. The Power
    Plant itself provides all of the heat through steam and chilled
    water for cooling all of the buildings on the Capitol campus.
        We will send that steam and chilled water out through every
    building, and then each of those buildings will take that steam
    and chilled water and run it through mechanical systems to heat
    and cool each space. So, ultimately, over the course of time,
    all of these mechanical units have a certain lifespan, maybe 20
    or 30 years, and we will be replacing those.
        For example, right now, we have recently awarded a contract
    to replace the mechanical equipment in this building, the
    Dirksen building. You will see that starting here in the next
    couple of weeks.
        Senator Pryor. You just heard Ms. is it ``Chry-sler'' or
    ``Chris-ler?''
        Ms. Chrisler. It is Chrisler. Thank you.

                   AOC deg.CITATION-RELATED PROJECTS

        Senator Pryor. Chrisler. Sorry about that. Ms. Chrisler,
    just heard her testimony a few moments ago. How much money in
    your proposed appropriation, how much money are you requesting
    for citation-related projects?
        Mr. Ayers. Just give me a moment to add that. I would
    suspect it is over $50 million.
        Senator Pryor. Okay. And I may have that breakdown. I don't
    see it. But what are some of the big-ticket items there?
        Mr. Ayers. The seven highest projects on our consolidated
    priority list are for citations. The first one is the utility
    tunnels that I spoke of earlier.
        Senator Pryor. Right. Right.
        Mr. Ayers. That is $45 million for that program. The next
    biggest one is for ADA compliance issues in the restrooms of
    the John Adams Building at $3 million. And some door issues as
    well in the John Adams Building at $1.5 million, some egress
    improvements in the Thomas Jefferson Building, design work for
    about $2 million.

                      AOC deg.ENERGY CONSERVATION

        Senator Pryor. Let me ask one question about energy
    conservation, and this will be my last question because I am
    out of time here. But I think you are requesting $11 million
    worth of projects in fiscal year 2010 for energy reduction. How
    long does it take that to pay for itself?
        Mr. Ayers. Each of those has an individual payback. There
    really is no good rule of thumb. So a photovoltaic system is
    going to have a far different payback than equipment
    replacement. I have to go specifically with each individual
    project to get you an accurate figure.
        Senator Pryor. But you can't say, well, we are going to
    spend $11 million, and then we will make that money back over a
    3-year period? You don't have it broken down that way?
        Mr. Ayers. We do have it broken down that way. I don't have
    that at my fingertips, but I would be happy to submit that for
    the record. For our projects we do a comprehensive lifecycle
    projection to determine if it is an appropriate payback. If it
    is not, we don't do it.
        Senator Pryor. Right. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        [The information follows:]

        Payback periods for each project are summarized in the
    following table. It is important to note that some fiscal year
    2010 requests are for construction and others are for design.
    The projected simple payback period for construction projects
    (numbers one, two, three, and five in the table below) totals
    $9.5 million, and is for a period of less than 3 years.

                                                     FISCAL YEAR 2010 CIP--PROPOSED ENERGY PROJECTS SUMMARY
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Energy Savings                  Economic Summary
                                                                                            ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Energy/                   Percent
                      Project Title                     Project       AOC/AE     Water Cost                Reduction
                                                          Cost      Design Fee    Savings       mmBtu       (Fiscal       Simple      LCCA \1\     SIR \2\
                                                                                               Savings     Year 2003     Payback
                                                                                                            Complex)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Computer Server Closet Cooling, Phase 1.........  \3\ $2,010,     $196,789   $1,593,838       57,986         2.09          1.3  $24,082,037         12.7
                                                              000
    Computer Server Closet Cooling, Phase 3.........  \3\ 4,430,0      429,533    1,246,189       45,332         1.63          3.6   15,911,191          4.5
                                                               00
    HVAC Controls Replacement.......................  \3\ 2,260,0      336,130      618,675       17,872          .64          3.7    6,876,642          4.0
                                                               00
    Economizer Additions to Air Handling Units......    8,601,521  \3\ 830,000      809,050       55,000         1.98         10.6    2,571,247         10.6
    Capitol Police Jurisdiction Energy Saving         \3\ 800,000      116,872       56,000        2,713          .10         14.3  ...........  ...........
     Projects.......................................
    Botanic Gardens Sustainable Design..............  ...........  \3\ 380,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................   18,101,521    2,289,324    4,323,752      178,903         6.44  ...........  ...........  ...........
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ LCCA is the sum of the present values of initial investment, O&M, replacement, and energy and/or water costs.
    \2\ SIR (Savings to Investment Ratio) is the ratio of the total savings to the total investment cost over the life cycle of the project.
    \3\ Indicates request amount.

    Notes:
      Projects are ranked by priority according to LCCA (Life Cycle Cost Analysis) in descending order.
      LCCA and SIR calculated with NIST's Building Life Cycle Cost Program (BLCC 5.3-08), in accordance with 10 CFR 436. Subpart A.
      Combined simple payback of Projects 1, 2, 3 and 5 is 2.70 years.
      Project #4, Economizer Additions to Air Handling Units, is currently proposed for design in fiscal year 2010. Projected simple payback is 10.6 years.

        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator.

                  AOC deg.CANNON STAIRWELL RENOVATION

        Mr. Ayers, in that money that you have set aside for
    citation matters, do you have any money in there for the Cannon
    stairwell?
        Mr. Ayers. No, sir. I think the Cannon stairwell money has
    already been appropriated.
        Senator Nelson. But not spent apparently?
        Mr. Ayers. I believe----
        Senator Nelson. The project hasn't----
        Mr. Ayers [continuing]. That work is underway now.
        Senator Nelson. Oh, the work is underway?
        Mr. Ayers. I am sorry. The design is underway. The physical
    construction is not underway yet.
        Senator Nelson. Well, then if the design is underway,
    construction hasn't begun, what is the possibility that that
    design will mesh with what overall renovation is going to be
    required for the Cannon? Will it be totally consistent with it?
    Will it be something that will fit in, or will it be outside
    the range of what the remodeling is, if you know, Ms. Chrisler?
        Ms. Chrisler. The question, Senator, is whether the design
    meets----
        Senator Nelson. Yes, if we are spending money for design
    and we are going to redo the building in 2 years, are they
    copasetic? Will the design fit in with what is going to be done
    overall, or do we even have the overall plan, design plan for
    the remodeling, the total remodeling in place to compare it to?

                    OOC deg.CANNON HAZARD ABATEMENT

        Ms. Chrisler. Sure. Our office's involvement in the design
    of or the abatement plan is focused on ensuring that the hazard
    is abated or that interim measures address the hazard that is
    found. Now what makes sense to me is that fixing the stairwells
    will mesh with the overall renovation, and doing it early makes
    sense.
        But whether the particular details of the design plan that
    is in place is very difficult for me to answer. That is not
    something that is within the area of our expertise. Our
    expertise is in providing technical assistance in abating the
    hazard.
        Senator Nelson. Well, will you have looked at the design
    that is being developed right now and being paid for for that
    abatement? Will you look at that before the design is
    completed?
        Ms. Chrisler. We certainly hope to be included in the
    design process, and we hope that our input is requested and
    received.

                  OOC deg.DESIGN ABATEMENT RESOLUTION

        Senator Nelson. So you are not really throwing a flag, like
    a referee throws a flag? You are going to make certain that
    whatever the design is works and cures the problem that you
    have identified?
        Ms. Chrisler. As I say, we work very collaboratively. So we
    welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk about the
    abatement, what is necessary, what is being planned, what is in
    place, and how those two things can come together to ensure
    safety.
        Senator Nelson. Mr. Ayers, will we be able to deduct from
    the total remodeling cost of the Cannon building the cost of
    the repair of this stairwell? Will it be consistent? Will it be
    compatible? Do you know at this point?
        Mr. Ayers. I think we certainly can deduct that, and
    certainly, another option is to postpone that actual
    construction work and roll it into that comprehensive building
    renovation if ultimately----
        Senator Nelson. Will she pick up the flag if you do that?
        Mr. Ayers. She might. We work pretty well together.
        Senator Nelson. Oh, okay. I think everybody understands
    where we are going with this, and I think you understand and I
    am sure you share the view that it doesn't make any sense to
    make a pie a piece at a time here when we have an opportunity
    to do the whole thing.
        Ms. Chrisler. That is right.

                  OOC deg.STAIRWELL CITATION RANKING

        Senator Nelson. Yes. Okay. Well, maybe enough on that, but
    I think it is enlightening us. And I hope that in working
    together, the 30,000-foot view down is looked at as well as the
    on-the-ground view because it is important. It would be
    important in any particular budget, but particularly this one.
        So the 16 citations over 6 years, if you were to rate them
    in priority, how much would you rate the stairwell issue in
    Cannon? How high would that be within those 16 citations?
        Ms. Chrisler. If you will allow me to confer?
        Senator Nelson. Oh, sure. Sure.
        Ms. Chrisler. Thank you.
        Of the 16 citations, the most important are the fire
    hazards, as we can all imagine. There are about seven or so of
    the citations that are fire hazards. Ranking those hazards
    within themselves is difficult to do because a fire hazard is
    significant in itself. But of the 16, we would say about 7 are
    those that are fire hazards.
        Senator Nelson. How many fires--apart from some that were
    lit by someone in the Capitol Police over here a few years ago,
    how many fires have we really had in the Senate office
    buildings and in the House office buildings, if you know?
        Ms. Chrisler. I do have some understanding of some of those
    numbers. I would be happy to provide them for you for the
    record. Within the last few years, without including the one
    that you mentioned, there appear to be two within the last
    couple of years.
        In 2005, there was a Capitol, the fire in the Capitol. In
    2005, there was the substation explosion and fire at the Power
    Plant.
        Senator Nelson. Okay. How extensive was the fire in the
    Capitol? How much damage was done, and how at risk were
    employees there?
        Ms. Chrisler. I am happy to research that for you and
    provide that for the record.
        Senator Nelson. Was it significant, or was it de minimis?
    You can research it. I am not trying to put you on the spot.
        Ms. Chrisler. I appreciate the opportunity to do that.
    Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

        See Appendix A on pages 208-212 for a complete listing.

          OOC deg.CANNON VERSUS RUSSELL STAIRWELL COMPARISON

        Senator Nelson. And in terms of the stairwells, without
    running the risk of more citations here, how would the
    stairwell in the Cannon building compare with the stairwells,
    let us say, in the Russell building?
        Ms. Chrisler. They are similar. The similarity is that they
    are both unenclosed. So the same risks that are involved in
    having an unenclosed stairwell in Cannon are the same risks
    that are involved in the Russell building.
        Senator Nelson. Well, if I might just ask this question as
    a follow-up? Why is it a more significant risk to have a
    citation in Cannon, but not necessarily in Russell?
        Ms. Chrisler. I believe that there is a citation for the
    stairwells in the Russell building as well.
        Senator Nelson. Oh, there is? Okay. But we are going to
    take care of the House Members before we take care of the
    Senators?
        Thank you. My time is up.
        Senator Murkowski. I just can't let a good thing drop here.
    I understand that here on the Senate side, the Rules Committee
    has asked for some kind of a blue ribbon panel to come together
    to actually review the situation with the citation, the Russell
    stairwell, recognizing that it is a 100-year-old building, and
    it is made out of granite or marble or something pretty
    impervious to fire. That it is fully alarmed, fully
    sprinklered.

                     OOC deg.CITATION FLEXIBILITY

        And I guess it gets back to my initial question, which is
    about flexibility when we issue citations and then, how we
    respond by way of abatement. At what point in time does the
    reasonable and prudent standard come into place?
        Ms. Chrisler. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. And I will give you an example, and I am
    going to detract for just a minute. We dealt with a situation
    in my home State where an individual built a hotel out of ice.
    And he was shut down by the fire department because he didn't
    have a sprinkler system in it.
        Now, think about it. In a way, and I don't mean to be trite
    and flip here with safety, but I think we do need to appreciate
    that if we have made reasonable and prudent efforts to make
    sure that the life safety issues are fully addressed, if we
    haven't checked off the boxes that somebody has detailed in an
    office somewhere else and we are still not in compliance, and
    then we are forced to spend $7 million, whether it is the
    Cannon or whether the Russell, I guess I get a little
    frustrated because I want us to exercise good common sense.
        I want us to have buildings that are strong and safe and
    are beautiful and are historic, but I think we also need to use
    a little bit of common sense in how we address the issue. And
    we have been going on about the stairwells for a long time, Mr.
    Chairman. But why would we move forward with a blue ribbon
    panel to look at the issue in the Russell and then on the House
    side make a decision that we are going to go ahead with a
    similar project?

            AOC deg.HOUSE BUILDINGS VERSUS SENATE BUILDINGS

        You have indicated, Ms. Chrisler, that you are working
    together to deal with some kind of abatement situation, but yet
    if you guys are moving forward with design and you are asking
    or you are saying we would be happy to be included at the
    table, it doesn't sound to me like we are all really talking
    here.
        And I don't know whether that is a rhetorical question, or
    just putting it out on the record, I would be happy to hear
    responses from either one of you. But I am curious to know as
    to why we would treat the House building different than the
    Senate building on this.
        Mr. Ayers, do you want to comment on that, why we would be
    treating them different?
        Mr. Ayers. Well, I do know that we certainly move those
    projects forward at different times, as they are separate and
    different appropriations. So they may be moved forward just a
    little bit at different times. The Cannon building was funded
    before the Russell building.
        In the Russell building, as we moved forward and requested
    our authorizing committee's authorization to spend that money,
    they asked us to take a step back and take a second look at
    this design. They really questioned whether this was an
    appropriate use of funds and an appropriate interpretation of
    the building codes, and they warned us to assemble a blue
    ribbon panel to look at all of the issues surrounding this, and
    advise them with this panel whether this work is required or
    not.
        I received a letter from the chairman and ranking member of
    that committee this week, and we will be moving now to
    undertake that blue ribbon panel expeditiously.
        Senator Murkowski. So does that kind of put that particular
    citation on hold, in your opinion, as this blue ribbon panel
    reviews this?

                        AOC deg.ENERGY PROJECTS

        Mr. Ayers. From my perspective, it does. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you a question about some of
    the energy projects that we have going, following on Senator
    Pryor's comments. This relates to the boiler. As you know, I am
    on the Energy Committee, and most of my day is focused on
    energy and how we can be reducing our emissions and be
    responsible stewards of the environment. I am pleased with the
    direction that we have been able to take in reductions of
    emissions and our carbon footprint.
        But if I understand until last year, coal was used for
    about 45 percent of the fuel mix. Then the decision was made to
    discontinue the use of coal at the Power Plant, and you are
    retrofitting one of the seven boilers this summer. I am told
    that by next year, you will be able to operate at 99 percent
    using natural gas. Is that correct?
        Mr. Ayers. That is correct, with three caveats, if I could?
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Mr. Ayers. Those caveats are, first, that our utility
    provider, and our gas provider needs to make some improvement
    to the service line to the Capitol Power Plant to enable us to
    do that. We expect that to be done this summer.
        Second, if we don't have a severe winter, we will be able
    to achieve that 99 or 100 percent. Similarly, if we have no
    equipment outages, we will be able to achieve that.
        So with those caveats, yes, that is correct.
        Senator Murkowski. I am then told to get to a clear 100
    percent level of using natural gas year-round that we need an
    additional $10 million in the fiscal year 2010 budget to
    retrofit another boiler. Is that correct?
        Mr. Ayers. That is correct.
        Senator Murkowski. So I just want to make sure that we all
    understand that for one last percentage, so that we can say we
    absolutely, positively are not using coal, we are going to
    spend $10 million to retrofit this last boiler?
        Mr. Ayers. I think that 1 percent, your analysis is
    correct, as well as, similarly, in powerplant business, it is
    not realistic to assume all of your equipment is going to run
    all of the time. It just doesn't happen, and powerplants don't
    operate that way.
        But if it is acceptable to the Congress that we fall back
    to burning coal and fuel oil if we have an equipment issue,
    then we could save $10 million.
        Senator Murkowski. Save $10 million. And if we have got a
    tough, cold winter, to have that in reserve. I just wanted to
    make sure that I understood that.
        My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.

     AOC deg.ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL/GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                  SIMILARITIES

        Mr. Ayers, both the AOC and the Government Printing Office
    (GPO) provide a number of similar industrial-type functions,
    for example, electrical, carpentry, masonry, and those related
    functions. And since the AOC is already using space at the GPO,
    is it possible that somehow that you could achieve economies of
    scale by combining some of these functions?
        Mr. Ayers. That is an excellent idea and, quite frankly,
    one I had not considered before. If you would give us an
    opportunity to work with the Public Printer and do an analysis
    of the pros and cons of that, we would be happy to.
        Senator Nelson. Sure.
        Mr. Ayers. A great idea.
        Senator Nelson. Well, occasionally, we come up with one. So
    it could possibly at the same time free up some space in the
    Senate and the House office buildings as well. What we don't
    want to do is we wouldn't want to see a decline in service, but
    certainly I would hope that you could take a look at what that
    would mean and what the effect would be of some combination or
    sharing the responsibilities.
        Mr. Ayers. I am happy to do that.

                    AOC deg.BENEFIT/RISK ASSESSMENT

        Senator Nelson. If the committee that you are putting
    together comes back and says that it is not the best
    expenditure of money in terms of risk assessment, and I always
    try to look at things in cost benefit/risk assessment, through
    that lens, what would that mean? Would that mean if they said
    that on the stairwells that it is not worth doing that, the
    risk is not great enough to justify that kind of expenditure,
    that you would make the decision not to do it?
        Or what would be the next step in the process? The Rules
    Committee? I happen to sit on the Rules Committee. So would it
    come to us? What would be the next step?
        Mr. Ayers. Yes, I think it would come to the Rules
    Committee. They are the requester of this blue ribbon panel. So
    we would assemble that panel and facilitate that and deliver
    that deliverable back to the Rules Committee, who ultimately, I
    think, will certainly work collaboratively with all of the
    stakeholders to come to a common course of action.
        Senator Nelson. And I am not trying to prejudge the outcome
    of whatever that committee does, I have no idea what they are
    going to determine. But as a hypothetical at least, that is
    what could happen. Would that have any effect on the Cannon
    building and the stairwell there?
        Mr. Ayers. Well, I think it could. I think--and maybe that
    is something Ms. Chrisler and I should talk about in the coming
    days about this blue ribbon panel, which I don't believe she
    knows about. We have not transmitted that letter to her.
        So maybe that is something she and I should talk about in
    the next couple of days and get back to the subcommittee on how
    that might affect the Cannon building.
        Senator Nelson. Sure. I think that is a good idea. I assume
    that would work well with you as well, Ms. Chrisler?
        Ms. Chrisler. It certainly would. Thank you.
        Senator Nelson. Sure, sure. Senator Murkowski may have
    asked you when you expect to have the report. I don't know that
    I heard when you expect the committee to have completed its
    work?
        Mr. Ayers. I think assembling a group of blue ribbon
    experts like that, from my experience, is something that will
    take at least 6 months to pull them together, develop a report,
    have that report reviewed a couple of times and, ultimately,
    agreed upon. Usually, it is a several month effort.

                AOC deg.PROJECT RECOMMENDATION TIMELINE

        Senator Nelson. So in approximately 6 months, we ought to
    have the suggestions that they are going to make regarding many
    of these different projects or their overall view of what risk
    assessment should consist of?
        Mr. Ayers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Nelson. Okay. Let us see, I don't know that I have
    any further questions.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think I am down to the cats and dogs collection here,
    too. Just a few questions all over the map here.

                        AOC deg.STAFF-LED TOURS

        Let us start with the staff-led tours because I think when
    other Members found out that I was part of the legislative
    branch appropriations, they all came to me with their
    complaints about what is going on with the staff-led tours.
        I want to start, Mr. Ayers, by commending those of you that
    are involved and the efforts of the Capitol Visitor Center.
    When you opened that facility, you figured out how to move mass
    numbers of people through, I think, in a very efficient way.
    You are to be commended for that.
        Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. And so, I am a little bit hesitant to
    even bring it up, but that is what these forums are for.
        I have heard concerns from other Members that they feel
    that on some of the staff-led tours, the staff members have
    been treated in a discourteous manner by those that are in the
    Capitol Visitor Center, the ``red coats'' as we call them, and
    that there has not been sufficient oversight in making sure
    that people are saying the right things. I have heard numerous
    stories, and I don't know that they bear repeating here.
        My question to you is what are we doing to make sure that
    all of our visitors, whether they come through the CVC or
    through our respective staff-led tours, are being accommodated
    respectfully? Because I think it does really reflect back on
    all of us, and the public doesn't make the distinction as to
    whether it is staff-led or CVC-led.

            AOC deg.CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER STAFF MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Ayers. That is really an important question. We really
    strive to hire the very best people that are both knowledgeable
    in the history of the Capitol building, are knowledgeable in
    visitor services and learning techniques, but most importantly,
    are personable and respectful of visitors. Clearly, treating
    someone with disrespect or some other fashion is obviously
    unacceptable.
        We are doing a couple of things. One, we are really trying
    to hire the very best people. Second, when we do get feedback
    about a particular behavior that a guide displayed or visitor
    assistant demonstrated in a particular tour, every single day
    we get that group together from 8 to 8:30 in the morning in one
    of the theaters. And our management team comes in and sort of
    describes or sort of conducts a hot wash from the previous day.
    Here is this, and here is that, and here is how we can say that
    a little better and adjust your speech here.
        So I think that is important. And on a broader scale, Ms.
    Rouse, our Chief Executive Officer for the Capitol Visitor
    Center, is holding monthly listening sessions with the
    Congress. These sessions are open to congressional staff and
    Members to discuss what's on their minds or has had a good
    experience or bad experience. Once a month we are getting
    together with all of them and listening to what those concerns
    are so we are sure we will hear them and we can fold those back
    into the visitor services operation.

          AOC deg.CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER FTE STAFFING REQUEST

        Senator Murkowski. Now do I understand correctly that with
    your request, you are seeking another 25 employees?
        Mr. Ayers. That is correct.
        Senator Murkowski. What areas would they be staffing?
        Mr. Ayers. These are 25 employees for the Capitol Visitor
    Center. First is five red coats or guides. Today, we think the
    number of tour guides is low because our tours at our peak
    periods will have about 50 people on each tour. We think that
    is way too many to have an effective and engaging tour.
        So the five new tour guides will help reduce that number of
    people on a given tour. We think that is really important for
    quality of service.
        On top of that, there are 15 visitor assistants. And I
    think the key there is way finding, one, and two----
        Senator Murkowski. I have to ask about way finding.
        Mr. Ayers. Sure.
        Senator Murkowski. Because there is a new person at the
    base of the escalator as you go from the little trolleys up
    north. I haven't any idea what that person does except direct
    traffic. And we have got all kinds of security that is around,
    not that it is particularly their job to direct traffic. But
    why are we paying a person to perch at the base of the
    escalator?
        Mr. Ayers. I think you really hit the nail on the head that
    much of it is a security concern. Instead of posting a police
    officer there, which used to be the case for a very long time,
    we are now posting that with a visitor assistant.
        Senator Murkowski. I think we still have police there.
        Mr. Ayers. No.
        Senator Murkowski. No? Okay, I will double check. I go
    through there frequently.
        Mr. Ayers. There are really two reasons that that person is
    there. First and foremost, I think it is a Member service. If
    we had all of the staff-led tours going up those escalators and
    moving through where those bank of six elevators are right
    there, we believe that it is going to be too congested, and
    Members will not be able to get to votes when they need to move
    quickly and get on an elevator and up to the floor.
        That bottleneck right there is too much for staff-led tours
    or most of the staff-led tours to go that way. So that person's
    job is to see everyone who gets off the subway and everyone who
    has a CVC badge on that, at that end of the tunnel, are
    directed to the doors of the Capitol Visitor Center.
        Senator Murkowski. We couldn't use a sign?
        Mr. Ayers. A sign could do that. From our experience, it
    would be ignored.
        The second thing, and this is important as well, that we
    really want people to go through the Capitol Visitor Center to
    enter the Capitol. That is primarily because the Capitol has
    egress deficiencies, and we need to carefully monitor how many
    people are in the Capitol building at any one time.
        The way we do that is getting them to enter through the
    Capitol Visitor Center so we have a steady count of who is
    going into the building and who is coming back out.
        So those are the two reasons that that person is there.
        Senator Murkowski. I am still not convinced, but I
    appreciate the explanation.

                   OOC deg.OOC FTE STAFFING REQUEST

        Ms. Chrisler, you had mentioned, and I apologize, I know
    that you had indicated that you were looking for the
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) not staff
    director, but compliance----
        Ms. Chrisler. Program supervisor.
        Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Supervisor, but then did
    you also indicate that there were two other positions? There
    was a fire safety position. How many positions are you seeking
    to fill?
        Ms. Chrisler. Right. We are seeking one FTE, the
    authorization and funding for an OSH program supervisor to
    replace the nonreimbursable detailee that will be retiring
    soon.
        Senator Murkowski. So the others were not new adds in terms
    of hires?
        Ms. Chrisler. Not in terms of authorization. The second was
    the compliance officer, which has already been authorized. We
    are seeking funding for that. The third is a fire safety
    specialist, which we are not seeking the authorization for an
    FTE for, just funding for contract services.
        Senator Murkowski. But you currently have a total of 21
    employees?
        Ms. Chrisler. That is correct.
        Senator Murkowski. And does that include your detailee?
        Ms. Chrisler. No, it does not.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. So what is it that you can't do
    with 21 that you need to have these additional 3?
        Ms. Chrisler. Well, the person that is going to be--that is
    one additional position that we are requesting, and that
    position is currently being filled by someone from another
    agency. And once he retires, we won't have the performance of
    those duties any longer.

                OOC deg.OOC FTE STAFFING JUSTIFICATION

        Senator Murkowski. And I can appreciate that because I
    think we have all had good detailees in our respective offices.
    But it would seem to me that given the responsibilities within
    the Office of Compliance, to have a good, solid 21 full-time
    employees is pretty good. So I guess I am asking what are you
    not able to accomplish with the individual staff level that you
    have?
        Ms. Chrisler. Right. The 21 FTEs is wonderful, and it is
    not where the office has been before, and we are very
    appreciative of what this subcommittee and the committee as a
    whole has supported us in doing.
        What we are looking to do--what we are struggling doing
    right now is monitoring a lot of the safety and health findings
    that we have found. The hazards that are outstanding, the fire
    and safety, the safety and health fire hazards that we have
    documented since 2000 and 2001, the abatement needs to be
    monitored.
        The 9,000 violations that were found in this past Congress
    and the 13,000 in the prior Congress need to be monitored as
    well to ensure that the abatement is on track and to ensure
    that progress is being made and to ensure that nothing falls
    through the cracks. That is where these positions would be
    instrumental.
        Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to look
    quickly and see if there is anything else that I wanted to ask
    our witnesses here.

                       AOC deg.RENEWABLE ENERGY

        Oh, there was a fair amount of controversy I guess it was
    last year, it may have been 2 years ago, when we purchased
    renewable energy credits. Are we still doing that?
        Mr. Ayers. There was. I think there is often confusion
    between carbon credits and renewable energy credits, and they
    are very different.
        Senator Murkowski. But we were doing renewable energy
    credits, were we not?
        Mr. Ayers. That is correct.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Ayers. Renewable energy credits enable us to purchase
    electricity through wind sources versus the carbon offsets,
    which is a relatively newer market that allows you to purchase
    carbon offsets, really different from electricity. So----
        Senator Murkowski. What are we doing, and how much are we
    spending?
        Mr. Ayers. The Architect has not purchased carbon offsets.
    So that has not happened. But we do purchase renewable energy
    certificates, and that is required by the Energy Independence
    and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).
        Senator Murkowski. Do you recall how much we spend on that?
        Mr. Ayers. No, ma'am, I don't. But I would be happy to get
    that for you for the record.
        [The information follows:]

        In fiscal year 2004, the AOC purchased 51,296,000 kWh of
    renewable energy credits from 75 percent national landfill gas
    resources, and 25 percent national wind resources at a unit
    price of $0.01081/kWh for a total expenditure of $554,510. In
    fiscal year 2008, AOC purchased 107,365,000 kWh of renewable
    energy credits from national wind resources at a unit price of
    $ 0.006/kWh for a total expenditure of $644,190.
        In addition, beginning in fiscal year 2006, all electricity
    supplied through the GSA-managed electricity contract for
    government entities located in the District of Columbia
    requires renewable energy credits equivalent to 3 percent of
    the annual electricity usage. The unit price for the renewable
    energy credits is included within the base price of the
    contract and we cannot determine actual cost of these renewable
    energy credits.

                     AOC deg.EISA REDUCTION GOALS

        Senator Murkowski. Okay, the last question, and this also
    relates to the energy issues. We have set a goal through EISA
    for a 30 percent reduction by 2015. You indicate that you have
    made reductions of 12 percent since 2003. And you have done it
    through some of the low-hanging fruit.
        So the question is, is how do we meet the goal? And since
    that time, the Speaker has kind of upped the ante even further,
    bringing it to a 50 percent reduction by 2017. What is the plan
    to meet that, and how are we budgeting to do that?
        Because if you have taken the low-hanging fruit already and
    it has gotten us to 12 percent, how do we make it to 50 percent
    by 2017? And what do you figure it might cost us?
        Mr. Ayers. Well, I think there are three steps to that,
    Senator Murkowski. First is it will continue to take direct
    appropriations to achieve some of those energy reductions, and
    you will see some of those in our 2010 budget, I think to the
    tune of almost $11 million. So that is first.
        Second, we are using public-private partnerships; energy
    savings performance contracts. So, for example, in the next
    year or so, we will award several contracts where private
    companies will invest nearly $150 million in our facilities and
    be paid back by the energy savings they achieve through the
    implementation of their projects. So that is the second way.
        The third way, I think, is really yet to be determined. But
    in my view, we need something big in the future to enable us to
    achieve those results. I am hopeful that the National Academy
    peer review of our long-term Capitol Power Plant efforts will
    yield a co-generation recommendation that we can then pursue
    through another public-private partnership and achieve some
    very significant savings through that.
        I can tell you that National Institutes of Health has just
    done that, and the General Services Administration has just
    done that. They are achieving very significant energy
    reductions by a co-generation facility through a public-private
    partnership.

                    AOC deg.UTILITY REDUCTION COSTS

        Senator Murkowski. So we are seeing good results there, but
    do you think we will see a reduction in our utility cost? I
    mean going from coal to natural gas, we know that that was more
    expensive to do.
        Mr. Ayers. Correct.
        Senator Murkowski. Will we see a leveling off in our
    utility costs, do you think?
        Mr. Ayers. I don't believe we are going to see a leveling
    off in our utility cost. The key to an energy savings
    performance contract is we must continue to appropriate the
    same dollars for utilities, and the delta between your energy
    reduction and what you appropriate, that is the money that you
    use to pay your vendors for making that investment.
        So, going forward, we are going to continue to pay the same
    kinds of utilities we pay today.

                    AOC deg.NATURAL GAS VERSUS COAL

        Senator Murkowski. I am looking at a chart that shows the
    differences, and if we were to use, say, 95 percent natural gas
    to 5 percent to zero coal, a cost of $25.6 million. If you were
    to change that mix so it is 45 percent natural gas, 50 percent
    coal, 5 percent fuel oil, your cost is just a little shy of $20
    million. So it makes a difference.
        Anyway, I am not going to belabor that point. One last
    question for you, and it is just to satisfy my curiosity. What
    is the sustainable site demonstration gardens?

                      AOC deg.BARTHOLDI FOUNTAIN

        Mr. Ayers. Our Botanic Garden has partnered with the Lady
    Bird Johnson Wildflower Center to develop an industry
    standardized way of rating landscapes and gardens for
    sustainability, just like the U.S. Green Building Council has
    implemented the LEED standard that you may be familiar with--
    the LEED, leadership in energy and environmental design.
        So we have partnered with them to develop standards for
    sustainability for landscapes, very similar to the buildings
    again, and it is our effort to begin to pilot that rating cycle
    here on Capitol Hill. So that is what that is, and we would
    intend to do that at the Botanic Garden or across the street at
    Bartholdi Park.
        Senator Murkowski. When is that fountain going to be done?
        Mr. Ayers. It is probably 2 years before the fountain comes
    back on.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank both of the witnesses.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator.

            AOC deg.VISITOR ASSISTANTS/GUIDES FTE INCREASE

        I do have a question. The 25 FTE increase for this budget,
    which includes 15 visitor assistants, although that is 5
    additional guides only adds up to 20. But the additional
    visitor assistants, would this be for peak periods, or would it
    be level across the timeframe?
        Mr. Ayers. It would be level across the timeframe, Mr.
    Chairman. The number one driver for these new visitor
    assistants are the very significant number of evening events we
    have in the Capitol Visitor Center, far more than we had
    anticipated, literally hundreds of them, and many going on
    every single night.
        I was here just two nights ago with a group of students in
    the Capitol Visitor Center, and truly, I saw people going to
    events that were walking around all over the place. They had no
    idea where to go, how to get to their room. There was no one
    there to help them, and I found myself sort of doing the way
    finding for these people.
        So that is really the key driver. We need some way finding
    people and organizing people for these evening events.
        Senator Nelson. I assume it is not possible to do that, let
    us say, on a part-time basis because if you have shifts, are
    you going to stagger the shifts, or are you going to need as
    many people at night as you need during the day, for example?
        Mr. Ayers. We should look carefully at a part-time option.
    We will do that.
        Senator Nelson. Because it seems to me that you are not
    going to have as many people at night. I have only been over
    there at night a couple of times myself, but I haven't seen as
    many people at night as I have seen during the day time. Could
    be some exceptions to that, but perhaps not.
        If you would, I think that would be helpful. That, once
    again, would cause us a little less heartburn on your budget.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Well, I want to thank both of you today for spending the
    time and attending the hearing and answering the questions. We
    will be anxious to receive the answers that you are going to
    put together to get to us. We will make them part of the
    record. We appreciate your cooperation.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                    Questions Submitted to Stephen T. Ayers
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson

                              CAPITOL POWER PLANT

        Question. Your request includes $10 million for the conversion of
    one of your boilers to burn natural gas instead of coal. What ratio of
    natural gas to coal are you currently burning in the Capitol Power
    Plant?
        Answer. As part of its normal summer operations, the Capitol Power
    Plant burns 100 percent natural gas to facilitate scheduled boiler
    repairs and preventative maintenance work. This also reduces emissions
    during the heavy ozone season in the summer months. In March, the
    Capitol Power Plant ceased coal operations approximately 2 months
    earlier than in recent seasons. The result of this earlier cessation is
    that the projected fuel usage ratio for fiscal year 2009 is 75 percent
    natural gas and 25 percent coal. Although these percentages could vary
    slightly based on weather variables, which may drive an increased
    campus steam use, this earlier switch to 100 percent natural gas is
    projected to provide an approximate 10 percent reduction in coal use
    for fiscal year 2009.
        Question. If we do not appropriate this $10 million in fiscal year
    2010, what fuel mix will be used at the Capitol Power Plant?
        Answer. In response to the February 26, 2009, letter from the
    Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, the Acting
    Architect directed the Capitol Power Plant to continue planned work to
    upgrade equipment and controls on one of the natural gas boilers to
    increase its efficiency. He also directed expanded maintenance projects
    this summer to test and fine tune the remaining natural gas boilers.
    These efforts will improve the efficiency and capacity of existing
    natural gas equipment to meet the steam requirements for the Capitol
    complex using only natural gas, barring three issues:
      --Based on discussions with the natural gas utility provider, the
            supply line must be upgraded from a four-inch gas line to a
            six-inch gas line to ensure sufficient natural gas can be
            delivered during the winter months. The Architect of the
            Capitol is working with the utility provider to plan the
            upgrade of the gas line.
      --Second, colder than normal weather during the winter months could
            cause the steam demand to exceed the capacity of the existing
            natural gas equipment which would drive a requirement to use
            coal as a fuel source in a boiler.
      --Third, all existing natural gas equipment must be operating at
            capacity to meet steam requirements during the winter. Any
            equipment outages involving the gas boilers would necessitate
            the use of a coal boiler.
        If any of the above issues are realized, coal would have to be used
    to meet demands. While impossible to predict with accuracy, we estimate
    this could be between zero and 3 percent coal usage. On an annual
    basis, it is estimated the Capitol Power Plant will provide 97 to 98
    percent of the required steam generation for the Capitol complex using
    natural gas as a fuel source.
        Question. I understand you have commissioned a long-range study on
    the Capitol Power Plant to look at a range of options for the Plant's
    future. Can you give us an update on the status of that study and what
    potential options are being discussed?
        Answer. Earlier this year, leveraging our in-house experts and
    highly qualified consultants, the Architect of the Capitol prepared a
    draft Capitol Power Plant strategic energy plan which is completed to
    approximately the 70 percent level. This master planning process
    examined numerous options for the Plant to meet goals of improving
    efficiency and reliability, reducing environmental impacts, and
    controlling the cost of operations. The Architect of the Capitol
    enlisted the assistance of the National Academy of Sciences to review
    this draft plan. The National Academy of Sciences assembled a panel of
    industry experts who are currently conducting a thorough review of the
    options and strategies. In addition, the Architect of the Capitol
    requested that the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy
    Technology Laboratory conduct a review of the plan. These reviews will
    provide very useful third-party perspectives on the plan to enable the
    Architect of the Capitol to chart a course that provides the greatest
    efficiency and cost benefits while meeting the needs of Congress. The
    options considered in the report for providing generation at the
    Capitol Power Plant are:
    Options 1-3: Existing Configuration with Boiler Replacement
        Existing configuration using 65 percent natural gas, 38 percent
    coal, and 2 percent fuel oil.
        Existing configuration using 98 percent natural gas, and 2 percent
    fuel oil.
        Existing configuration using 80 percent synthetic coal, 18 percent
    natural gas, and 2 percent fuel oil.
    Options 4-6: Cogeneration with 33 Megawatts of Electricity Generation
        Cogeneration using 85 percent natural gas, 13 percent coal, and 2
    percent fuel oil.
        Cogeneration using 98 percent natural gas, and 2 percent fuel oil.
        Cogeneration using 85 percent natural gas, 13 percent synthetic
    coal, and 2 percent fuel oil.
    Options 7-16: Construction of a New Plant
        New circulating fluidized bed plant (a combustion technology that
    mixes gases and solids) using 65 percent natural gas, 38 percent coal,
    and 2 percent fuel oil.
        New natural gas boiler plant using 98 percent natural gas, and 2
    percent fuel oil.
        New circulating fluidized bed plant using 80 percent synthetic
    coal, 18 percent natural gas, and 2 percent fuel oil.
        New 20 megawatt fuel cell plant using 98 percent natural gas, and 2
    percent fuel oil.
        New coal gasification plant using 98 percent natural gas, and 2
    percent fuel oil.
        New waste-to-energy plant.
        New plant with heat-recovery chillers.
        New plant with a high temperature hot water system.
        New nuclear plant.
        New plant utilizing Department of Energy Super Boiler technologies.
        The report also includes nine separate options for routing of the
    utility distribution system throughout the campus and six options to
    provide for decentralization, construction of a separate utility plant,
    or connection to the General Services Administration system. The final
    version of the plan is expected to be complete by the end of the fiscal
    year.

                              LIFE SAFETY PROJECTS

        Question. As you know this subcommittee places a very high priority
    on funding life safety projects. In fiscal year 2009 we funded over $75
    million worth of these projects including $56 million for the utility
    tunnel repairs. Is the fiscal year 2010 request of $45 million the last
    large installment of funding for this project?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2010 request of $45.77 million will be
    reduced to $16.85 million due to revised project logistics, as well as
    savings achieved in asbestos abatement, use of in-house labor, and
    reduced contract costs. As a result of this reduction, some costs will
    be shifted to fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012. The Architect of
    the Capitol is currently projecting a fiscal year 2011 request of
    $13.95 million, and a fiscal year 2012 request of $10.41 million. The
    revised funding profile will be sufficient to meet the June 2012 date
    mandated by the settlement agreement to abate all tunnel hazards.
        Question. What other ``citation-related'' projects are included in
    the fiscal year 2010 request?
        Answer. In addition to the utility tunnels, the citation-related
    requests for fiscal year 2010 are Sprinkler System, West Main Pavilion,
    1st Floor, Thomas Jefferson Building; Egress Improvements, Phase II,
    Thomas Jefferson Building; Book Conveyor System Modifications, Library
    Buildings and Grounds; Monumental Exterior Exit Doors, John Adams
    Building; Fire Door Improvements, Library Buildings and Grounds; and
    Americans with Disabilities Act Bathroom Renovations, John Adams
    Building.
        Question. In terms of life safety projects in general, is there
    some point when you expect the number of code deficiencies and
    citations to start going down as we address these issues each year?
        Answer. Yes, the number of deficiencies and citations issued by the
    Office of Compliance has been declining. Since 1998, the Office of
    Compliance has issued 97 citation items to the Architect of the
    Capitol. Eighty-five of these (88 percent) were issued between 1998 and
    2000. Since 2005, the Architect of the Capitol has been issued eight
    citation items, with just one citation issued since 2007. Of the total
    97 citation items issued to AOC since 1998, 76 are closed and 21 remain
    open. AOC expects to close five citation items by the end of 2009,
    leaving nine fire and life-safety and seven utility tunnel citations
    open. The Architect of the Capitol biennial inspection deficiencies
    decreased 14 percent from the 109th Congress to 110th Congress, and
    further decreases are projected based on the early 111th Congress
    inspection process. The Architect of the Capitol attributes these
    deficiency and citation declines to a combination of factors including
    increased funding to address fire and life-safety deficiencies;
    implementation of facility condition assessments, safety programs, and
    periodic facility inspections; and improved communication and
    coordination with the Office of Compliance.

                              ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

        Question. One of the drivers of this year's request is meeting
    energy reduction requirements from several different energy bills.
    While I think it is important to lead by example in this regard, I
    realize there are significant costs related to these efforts. What
    major actions have been taken to reduce our energy usage and how
    successful have you been in that regard?
        Answer. The AOC has a number of ongoing initiatives to reduce
    energy consumption and meet legislative goals. Some of the biggest
    contributors to reduced energy consumption are:
      --West Refrigeration Plant Expansion Chillers.--These new chillers
            are 20 percent more efficient and reduce the energy associated
            with chilled water production.
      --Capitol Power Plant Operational Changes.--Since June 2008, the
            Capitol Power Plant has implemented improved operating
            procedures and equipment staging, and reduced chilled water
            supply temperatures in the winter. Combined with heating and
            air conditioning improvements made in the jurisdictions, the
            changes have resulted in a reduction in heating and cooling
            energy production by 20 percent.
      --Infrastructure Improvements.--As a side effect of improving the
            tunnel conditions, the improved insulation was installed and
            significantly reduces leaks and other heating losses, resulting
            in a lower steam production requirement.
      --Jurisdictional Improvements.--Each jurisdiction has implemented
            energy savings initiatives such as lighting upgrades,
            installation of occupancy sensors and compact fluorescent light
            bulbs, change-over to energy star equipment, and other low-
            cost/no-cost improvements. In addition, the Architect of the
            Capitol's energy awareness public outreach program educates
            individuals on energy savings techniques.
        The above initiatives were instrumental in enabling the Architect
    of the Capitol to surpass legislated energy reduction goals (against
    the fiscal year 2003 baseline) as shown in the table below:

                                  [In percent]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Fiscal year                       Goal       Achieved
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2006..........................................            2          6.5
    2007..........................................            4          6.7
    2008..........................................            9         10.7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. You are requesting $11 million worth of projects in
    fiscal year 2010 with an energy-reduction focus. What level of energy
    savings will these projects, if funded, achieve for the Capitol
    Complex?
        Answer. The projected energy savings is estimated at 6 percent when
    the fiscal year 2010 requested projects are completed.
        Question. The Architect of the Capitol is requesting $17 million
    for energy management programs, metering, and design/build development.
    Can you explain how these items tie in to your overall efforts?
        Answer. The Architect of the Capitol plans to use $3.4 million for
    a contract to oversee the work being done by the Energy Savings
    Performance Contracts. The Energy Savings Performance Contracts will
    generate construction-type repair and replacement work across the
    Capitol complex. Some of the work involved may be located in areas that
    contain unique or historically important items. The Architect of the
    Capitol must ensure that the construction is properly managed and also
    must provide for third-party measurement and verification, and
    oversight of commissioning services for projects.
        The use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts and currently-
    planned construction projects will not enable the Architect of the
    Capitol to continue to meet the mandated energy reduction goals.
    Additional energy reduction projects will be necessary. The requested
    $6.5 million to develop design/build packages will help bridge the gap
    between currently identified projects and the energy reduction goals.
        Electrical, steam, and natural gas meters are required per Section
    434 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The $7.1
    million metering request is sufficient to procure and install meters
    and infrastructure to fully meet this fiscal year 2015 requirement. In
    addition, metering compliments the entire energy program by enabling
    the detailed monitoring of energy usage, and will help the Architect of
    the Capitol to identify potential energy savings opportunities at the
    individual building level.
        Question. How are you using Energy Savings Performance Contracts to
    help meet your energy reduction requirements?
        Answer. The Department of Energy's Energy Saving Performance
    Contracts are being used as an alternative funding strategy to
    appropriated funds. Under these contracts, companies complete energy
    saving construction projects, and are then reimbursed from the funds
    that would have been used to pay for the energy that is no longer
    necessary due to savings generated by the installed projects. The
    Architect of the Capitol plans to use several Energy Savings
    Performance Contracts across the Capitol complex. These Energy Savings
    Performance Contracts are in various stages of evaluation and
    negotiation. Since the construction costs are financed through the
    Energy Savings Performance Contracts companies, the Architect of the
    Capitol will reimburse the companies for construction as well as
    financing costs over the next 20 to 25 years, if the companies' efforts
    realize energy savings.

                                OPERATING BUDGET

        Question. The Architect of the Capitol is requesting a 10.4 percent
    increase in its operating budget in fiscal year 2010. That is a pretty
    significant increase for day-to-day operations, particularly given the
    significant capital project needs you are requesting. How much of the
    operating budget increase is ``controllable''--that is, not related to
    pay increases or other inflationary changes?
        Answer. The $39.9 million (10.4 percent) increase in operating
    budget includes $23.9 million in mandatory pay and inflationary
    increases (6.2 percent of the overall operating budget increase), $4.7
    million (1.2 percent) in Capitol Visitor Center program increases, and
    $11.3 million (3 percent) in what could be called ``controllable''
    operating budget increases. The Architect of the Capitol does not
    believe the increases for the Capitol Visitor Center should be
    considered controllable because the increases are driven by unforeseen
    demands and the first full year of operations funding. In addition, the
    $11.3 million (in increases that are not related to mandatory pay and
    inflation) includes critical mission items such as an internal control
    audit to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse; facility condition
    assessments for new inventory buildings such as the Library's book
    storage modules and the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center;
    critical program/project management tools; safety equipment and
    training; uniforms; replacement of a 20-year old cable television head-
    end switcher; an OSHA-required hazardous material survey; and the
    transit subsidy benefit increase. Although these items may not be
    required by law or directive, not funding them will impact the
    Architect of the Capitol's ability to meet mission requirements.
        Question. You are asking for an additional 25 full time equivalents
    in fiscal year 2010 for the Capitol Visitor Center, including 15
    Visitor Assistants and five additional Guides. Have you considered
    hiring these additional personnel on a part-time basis--for the peak
    visitor season--rather than full time?
        Answer. Yes, we can develop a seasonal profile that will minimally
    meet the needs. Due to training requirements and the learning curve for
    these positions, temporary positions do not offer the same level of
    efficiency as full time staff.
        Question. Is this increase in personnel due to unforeseen needs at
    the CVC? Could you explain this request and how you arrived at these
    numbers?
        Answer. The Capitol Visitor Center had to convert a number of
    current Visitor Assistant positions to accommodate unforeseen
    operational needs such as a larger-than-anticipated phone call center,
    the need for a volunteer services coordinator, Congressional liaisons,
    and reservation clerks and a coordinator. The principal driver for the
    additional increase in Visitor Assistants is the greater-than-
    anticipated number of evening events in the CVC meeting spaces and the
    support requirements for these events. Visitor Assistants have been
    frequently called upon to help direct guests to event spaces, and also
    to enforce CVC policies (e.g. food restrictions in Emancipation Hall)
    during the evening hours and special Sunday events. It is also
    necessary to position Visitor Assistants at various points outside to
    provide directional way finding assistance to visitors. Visitor
    Assistants have also been called upon to provide additional support
    during normal operating hours for special Congressional events in and
    outside the Capitol such as the Inaugural, the Days of Remembrance
    ceremony in the Rotunda, and the unveiling of the Reagan statue. The
    Guide increase is driven by the size of tour groups. Currently, tour
    groups range in number from 40 to 60, depending on Guide availability
    and scheduling. The average size of a tour group would decrease to 40
    with the addition of five Guides, providing a more manageable size from
    a logistics and security perspective.

                  GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE SHARED RESOURCES

        Question. Both the Architect of the Capitol and the Government
    Printing Office provide a number of similar industrial-type functions:
    electrical, carpentry, masonry, and related functions. Since the
    Architect of the Capitol is already using space at the Government
    Printing Office, could the Architect of the Capitol and the Government
    Printing Office take advantage of economies of scale by combining some
    of these functions?
        Answer. The Architect of the Capitol is examining the feasibility
    of this, and will report back to the Subcommittee on its findings.
        Question. Would combining some or all of these functions at GPO
    possibly free up space in Senate and House office buildings?
        Answer. If this is a feasible option, the Architect of the Capitol
    will assess potential space availability based on specific functions
    and economies of scale.

                           PLANNING AND PRIORITIZING

        Question. I know your agency has taken significant steps in recent
    years to establish a data-driven planning and prioritization process. I
    understand that you have developed, for the first time, a Capital
    Improvement Plan that's fully informed by facility assessments of each
    area of the Capitol Complex. Once you identify projects that are
    needed, what is the process you use to prioritize them for inclusion in
    your annual request?
        Answer. The AOC developed a project prioritization process to
    evaluate every project in terms of importance, urgency, and
    classification. In this process, each project is categorized as
    deferred maintenance, capital renewal, capital improvement, or capital
    construction. Next, each project's urgency is determined by an
    assessment of several factors including the facility condition
    assessments, and the Capitol Complex Master Plan and associated
    Jurisdiction Plans. Projects are ranked as immediate, high, medium, or
    low urgency. Finally, each project's importance is carefully evaluated
    based upon a set of predetermined criteria, including historic
    preservation, regulatory compliance, mission accommodation, economics,
    and energy efficiency and environmental quality. All of these factors
    are used to derive a composite rating that is used to prioritize the
    projects, top to bottom.
        Question. How did you decide where to establish the cut line on
    projects slated for inclusion in this year's budget request?
        Answer. Understanding the fiscal constraints, the AOC included all
    executable, immediate priority projects in this year's budget request,
    and only critically-needed high priority infrastructure-related
    projects.
        Question. Were any ``immediate priority'' projects left out of your
    fiscal year 2010 request? If so, why were they left out?
        Answer. Three immediate priority projects were not included in the
    fiscal year 2010 budget request. The projects are: Alternate Life
    Safety Approach, Russell Senate Office Building; Bus Screening
    Facility, United States Capitol Police; and K-12 Fence Replacement,
    United States Capitol Police. The Alternate Life Safety Approach
    project does not have a fully matured solution and several issues must
    be resolved before it is ready for execution. At the request of the
    Senate, the Architect of the Capitol is forming a blue ribbon panel to
    review the project and its proposed solution more thoroughly. The Bus
    Screening Facility project was eliminated because a final decision to
    screen buses for the Capitol Visitor Center has not been made. Lastly,
    the Architect of the Capitol is examining potential solutions for the
    fence replacement and did not believe the project was ready to move
    forward at this point.
        Question. Are the projects included in your fiscal year 2010
    request aimed at addressing the worst deficiencies?
        Answer. Yes. The Architect of the Capitol's project prioritization
    process was designed to identify the most immediate needs and
    prioritize those needs based on life-safety and regulatory compliance,
    security, mission, preservation, economics and energy.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski

        Question. The budget resolution calls for a 7 percent increase in
    nondefense discretionary spending. What would be the impact on your
    budget if we were to limit it to a 7 percent increase?
        Answer. Limiting the AOC to a 7 percent increase would mean a
    reduction of over $67 million to our current budget request. This
    reduction would affect our ability to meet the focus areas identified
    in our budget request: solving the deferred maintenance and capital
    renewal backlog; following the Capitol Complex Master Plan process;
    meeting prescribed energy goals; and managing and caring for our
    people. We would have to make significant cuts to the Line Item
    Construction Program causing the backlog across the complex to continue
    to rise, and making mandated energy program goals even more difficult
    to achieve. In addition, the limitation would greatly reduce our
    capacity to satisfy requests from our clients.
        Question. The AOC has completed facility condition assessments for
    most of its buildings and facilities. Ratings range from ``poor'' to
    ``excellent.'' How does the condition of our buildings compare to other
    government facilities?
        Answer. A uniform standard that would allow a ``side by side''
    comparison of the condition of the Capitol complex facilities to that
    of other Federal agencies does not exist. The AOC uses a detailed
    component level review and assessment to determine Facility Condition
    Assessments (FCAs) of Capitol complex facilities. This methodology of
    FCAs identifies specific and detailed repair or renovation requirements
    and assists in the prioritization of these requirements. Other agencies
    either do not conduct FCAs at all, or base their FCAs on a very quick
    assessment of various building components. With the various
    methodologies of conducting FCAs, it is not possible to compare
    building condition of the Capitol complex with other government
    agencies' facilities.
        Question. Citation-related work accounts for a large portion of
    your budget request. How much more work does AOC need to do to meet
    outstanding citations beyond fiscal year 2010, and at what cost? How
    many citations remain open? Are any citations anticipated in fiscal
    year 2009?
        Answer. Citation-related projects that will be submitted in future
    year's budget requests include the following:

                            CITATION RELATED PROJECTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Project                 Projected Construction Cost Model
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tunnel Improvement Program \1\...  $24,360,000
    Alternate Life Safety Approach,    $5,000,000-$10,000,000
     RSOB \2\.
    Alternate Life Safety Approach,    $3,000,000
     CHOB.
    Book System Conveyor Projects,     $10,000,000-$25,000,000
     LB&G \3\.
    Egress Improvements, LB&G........  $3,000,000
    New Exit Stair (Stair B), TJB....  $11,200,000
    New Exit Stair (Stair E), TJB....  $11,200,000
    New Exit Stair (Stair F), TJB....  $8,000,000
    New Exit Stair (Stair G), TJB....  $8,000,000
    Fire Damper and Smoke Control      $25,000,000 or greater
     System Modification, LB&G.
    Fire Door Improvements, LB&G.....  $8,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The $24,360,000 assumes a reduced fiscal year 2010 tunnel program
      request from $45,770,000 to $16,850,000.
    \2\ The Senate has requested a blue ribbon panel to review the citation
      associated with this project; therefore, the project cost is subject
      to change pending the final determination.
    \3\ There are three projects associated with the citation for the Book
      Conveyor system. Portions of all three projects are required to abate
      the citation.

        There are two projects currently funded that are associated with
    the citation for the U.S. Capitol Building. These projects were
    designed assuming that the U.S. Capitol Building would be fully
    sprinklered. A project to install sprinklers throughout the Capitol is
    currently on hold pending Leadership guidance associated with options
    for the Capitol Complex Master Plan study. The sprinkler project
    projected cost model is $24,000,000, but it is not included in the
    table above.
        Currently, 26 citations remain open. The AOC is working to correct
    the open citations and expects to close 11 citations by the end of
    2009. The 15 citations expected to remain open at the end of 2009
    consist of seven for utility tunnels and eight involving fire and life-
    safety.
        The Office of Compliance (OOC) has not communicated to the AOC any
    intention to issue a citation in fiscal year 2009. The AOC is working
    closely with the OOC on a Capitol Power Plant Occupational Safety and
    Health matter. In March 2009, AOC and OOC signed a legally binding
    agreement to provide additional time to address this matter and
    continue to work cooperatively. If this matter is not resolved to the
    satisfaction of the OOC, a citation may be issued.
        Question. The AOC estimates that Energy Savings Performance
    Contracts (ESPCs) currently in place have a value of over $150 million.
    How do ESPCs work, and how do you ensure that the ESPCs result in a
    good ``deal'' for the government and the taxpayer?
        Answer. An ESPC is a process by which Federal agencies leverage
    private funds to implement energy efficiency and renewable energy
    projects. Once the projects are completed, the guaranteed energy
    savings are used to repay the Energy Service Company (ESCO) for its
    investment.
        To ensure that the ESPCs are technically and economically viable,
    significant time and effort is put into conducting the investment grade
    energy audit and formulating the list of Energy Conservation Measures
    (ECMs) in the Detailed Energy Survey. The ESCO guarantees that the
    improvements will generate savings sufficient to pay for the project
    over the term of the contract. The ESCO also is required to verify
    operation of the installed systems, calculate the previous year's
    energy and water savings, and compare verified and guaranteed savings.
    Rigorous measurement and verification (M&V) requirements document
    initial performance and assure persistent savings during the
    performance period.
        The AOC is working with the Department of Energy (DOE) to ensure
    the successful implementation of this initiative. DOE has developed a
    program and refined procedures to ensure the government receives an
    equitable payback on every project, while optimizing the public policy
    purpose of the program by accelerating energy and water efficiency and
    renewable energy improvements to Federal facilities. These procedures
    are implemented with complete DOE guidance in the AOC projects. They
    include DOE program lessons learned, improvements required by statute,
    and recommendations based on Congressional audits.
        A joint AOC/DOE panel is reviewing all aspects of the projects: a
    DOE-provided Project Facilitator reviews the details; a DOE National
    Lab technical expert reviews major aspects of the proposal with special
    attention to the measurement and verification elements. Measurement and
    verification is essential to assuring the avoided cost has been
    achieved each year before a payment is made to the contractor. In
    addition, the AOC is preparing business case and constructability
    analyses to provide a basis for negotiating cost and energy savings.
        Question. The AOC contracted with the National Academy of Sciences
    to review options for the future of the Capitol Power Plant. One option
    being considered is the construction of a co-generation plant. Would
    this be a reasonable investment for us, with significant energy
    improvements? Can you give us some idea of the cost, and when you might
    seek appropriations? How could AOC use a public-private partnership to
    build a co-generation facility?
        Answer. Our initial investigation into co-generation at the Capitol
    Power Plant indicates that it would be a very effective way to improve
    energy efficiency and increase utility reliability. However, the final
    system recommendations and associated cost estimates and schedules are
    not fully developed. Depending on the specific system installed,
    initial cost estimates range from $50 million to $250 million. The AOC
    also is looking at public-private partnerships or ESPCs as possible
    options for the implementation of co-generation.
        Question. GAO has made recommendations in prior years regarding
    improving management of the Capitol Power Plant, including ``right-
    sizing'' the staff. What is the status of GAO's recommendations?
        Answer. Based on the GAO recommendations, the AOC awarded a
    contract to perform a work force study in September 2008. The contract
    covers a workload survey of required tasks, skills, and man-hours for
    plant operations, maintenance, and management; recommendations for
    organization structure and skills needed; and flowcharts of key
    processes. Work Process Flow diagrams were submitted and reviewed in
    January 2009, and were finalized in February 2009. The Workload Model
    submitted in March 2009 is under revision to incorporate workloads from
    the finalized Work Process Flow diagrams. The AOC also has identified
    additional processes for incorporation into the model. The final report
    and recommendations are due by the end of June 2009. In addition to the
    workload study, GAO also recommended that the AOC establish procedures
    and guidelines for outsourcing and pursue a competitive sourcing
    strategy. The Capitol Power Plant (CPP) staff is working to develop a
    specific scope of work for this task and may modify the existing
    contract to accomplish the work.
        As part of the AOC-wide skills survey scheduled to take place from
    June through September 2009 by the AOC's Office of Workforce Planning,
    current CPP employees will have their skills assessed against the
    identified requirements. The results of the skills survey will help
    develop the competitive sourcing strategy.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted to Tamara E. Chrisler
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson

        Question. I understand that your organization conducts ``biennial
    inspections'' of the Legislative Branch facilities. Do these ``biennial
    inspections'' occur in the rest of the Federal Government?
        Answer. No. The executive branch has annual inspections. See 29 CFR
    1960.25(c).
        When Congress enacted the Congressional Accountability Act
    (``CAA''), the result was to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health
    Act (OSHAct) in a manner similar to what is being done in the private
    sector. The OSHAct imposes a ``General Duty'' upon all employers
    (including executive branch departments) ``to furnish a place of
    employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to
    cause death or serious physical harm to employees'' and requires
    employers to comply with regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor
    (OSHA Regulations). The Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) imposes
    this ``General Duty Clause'' upon each employing office and each
    covered employee. However, the CAA does not apply to the legislative
    branch the many specific mandates that the OSHAct imposes in the
    executive branch.
        The OOC's evaluation function includes examining the performance of
    safety initiatives and safety professionals in the employing offices.
    The OOC's ability to conduct this evaluation function has been somewhat
    hampered by the failure to incorporate the provisions of 29 U.S.C.
    657(c) (relating to maintenance, preservation and availability of
    safety records) into the CAA \1\. The OOC's recent Section 102(b)
    Report to Congress (December 2008) proposes several legislative changes
    that would correct this problem proposes several legislative changes
    that would correct this problem by applying OSHA's recordkeeping and
    reporting requirements to the employing offices covered by the CAA. See
    OOC, Section 102(b) Report, p. 10 (December 2008). Under the current
    statutory scheme, unlike the executive branch or private employers,
    employing offices are not required to make, keep, and preserve, or
    provide to the OOC records deemed necessary for enforcement of OSHAct
    Section 5, including records on work-related deaths, injuries and
    illnesses, and records of employee exposure to toxic materials and
    harmful physical agents. Similarly, under the current scheme, the OOC
    is unable to consider any inspection findings of safety professionals
    in the employing offices because employing offices do not share their
    inspection findings with the OOC. OOC inspectors are observing a
    decrease in the number of identified hazards, as well as increased
    educational efforts from the employing offices, but without inspection
    data from the employing offices signifying that they have adequately
    examined and removed OSH hazards from the workplace, the OOC must
    continue to do what is necessary to ensure a safe and healthy workplace
    for covered employees. In addition, neither the AOC nor any other
    covered employing office provides the OOC with injury and illness
    records that are necessary for strategically determining what areas
    should be inspected more regularly or provided more technical
    assistance. This information is not required as part of the CAA, and
    without it, the OOC depends on its biennial inspections to provide
    information regarding safety and health conditions to Congress.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Under the CAA, the OOC's General Counsel is granted the same
    authority as the Secretary of Labor in subsections (a), (d), (e) and
    (f) of OSHAct  8 (29 U.S.C.  657) and all of the authority contained
    in OSHAct  9 and 10. Unlike the OSHAct, 29 U.S.C.  657(c), the CAA
    does not require legislative offices to keep and provide records to the
    OOC necessary to develop information regarding the cause and prevention
    of accidents and illness; records on work-related deaths, injuries and
    illnesses; and records of any large exposure to toxic materials.
    Furthermore, unlike the OSHAct, 29  657(b), the CAA does not give the
    OOC investigatory subpoena power that Congress found in enacting the
    OSHAct to be ``customary and necessary for the proper administration
    and regulation of an occupational, safety and health statute.'' Report
    No. 91-1291 of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 91st
    Congress, 2nd Session, p. 22; Report No. 91-1291 of the Senate
    Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, p.
    12, to accompany S. 2193 (OSHAct) (``a power which is customary and
    necessary to the proper administration and enforcement of a statute of
    this nature.'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Even with these limitations, the OOC works cooperatively with
    safety professionals in the employing offices to improve conditions in
    those offices and also facilitates compliance by providing technical
    assistance and educational opportunities to these individuals. Some
    employing offices have decided to rely exclusively upon OOC inspections
    rather than having their own safety professionals conduct comprehensive
    inspections. In other cases, when necessary and practical, the OOC has
    also brought safety professionals together with other stakeholders to
    coordinate and develop solutions to safety concerns that are acceptable
    to all concerned.
        The OOC is in the process of conducting its next full-scale
    inspection of covered facilities. The 111th Congress Inspection is
    crucial to developing a strategy for future inspections because it
    provides the OOC with three independent data sets to form the
    beginnings of a trend analysis. The OOC had a picture from the data
    garnered from the 109th Congress Inspection, and utilized the 110th
    Congress Inspection data to begin looking for trends. However, with the
    information from the 111th Congress, the OOC will be able to implement
    a more thorough trend analysis and focus future inspections more
    effectively upon the areas with greatest risk. This means that some
    areas may not be included in certain inspection cycles if previously
    identified hazards have been abated and the likelihood of recurrence is
    low. In other words, provided the data supports it, the trend analysis
    would allow OOC to sample areas randomly to determine that hazards are
    not being created rather than actually inspecting every administrative
    space and office on campus. By doing so, the OOC will be able to devote
    more resources to reviewing employing office safety and health
    programs, to focusing inspections on high risk work areas and
    procedures, to developing new educational materials, and to providing
    more detailed technical assistance.
        While the general duty imposed upon all employers (private sector,
    executive branch and legislative branch) is the same--compliance with
    Section 5 of the OSHAct by furnishing a place of employment free from
    hazards--the specific mandates imposed upon the executive branch are
    quite extensive due to the provisions of OSHAct  19 and 29 CFR  1960.
    The following table illustrates the differences between the OSH
    requirements for the executive branch (as mandated by 29 CFR  1960)
    and the requirements for the legislative branch.

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

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To comply with Section 5 of the OSHAct (as mandated by 29   To comply with Section 5 of the OSHAct, legislative
     CFR  1960), executive branch departments are required      offices are required to:
     to:                                                           Submit to inspection by the OOC at least
      Submit to inspection by agency safety and health              biennially.
       inspectors at least annually.
      Designate an ``Agency Safety and Health Official''
       (holding the rank of Assistant Secretary or equivalent)
       who will carry out provisions of 29 CFR 1960,
       Executive Order 12196, and Section 19 of the OSHAct. A
       principal role for this official is to provide
       ``adequate budgets and staffs to implement the
       occupational safety and health program at all levels''
      Establish safety and health officials at each
       appropriate level with sufficient authority and
       responsibility to plan for and assure funds for
       necessary safety and health staff, materials, sampling,
       testing, analyses, travel, training and equipment
       required to identify, analyze and evaluate unsafe or
       unhealthful working conditions and operations
      Ensure that performance evaluations of management and
       supervisory officials measure their effectiveness in
       meeting the requirements of the occupational safety and
       health program
      Make available the agency's occupational safety and
       health plan to employees and employee representatives
       upon their request
      Post a conspicuous notice informing employees of the
       Act, Executive Order and agency occupational safety and
       health program, and relevant information about safety
       and health committees
      Adopt emergency temporary or permanent supplementary
       standards appropriate for application to working
       conditions of agency employees for which there exist no
       appropriate OSHA standards
      Provide safety and health inspectors with safety and
       health hazard reports, injury and illness records,
       previous inspection reports, and reports of unsafe and
       unhealthful working conditions
      Post notices of unsafe or unhealthful working conditions
       that are identified by the agency's internal safety and
       health inspectors. These posters must remain until
       after the hazard has been abated
      Investigate working conditions, which employees have
       reported unsafe or unhealthful, within 24 hours to 20
       working days, depending on the potential seriousness of
       the conditions. These investigations must be made
       available to the employee within 15 or 30 working days
       depending on the condition's severity
      Investigate each accident that results in a fatality or
       in the hospitalization of three or more employees
      Establish procedures to follow up, to the extent
       necessary, to verify that hazardous conditions have
       been abated
      Prepare an abatement plan that includes a proposed
       timetable for abatement, an explanation of any delays
       in the abatement, and a summary of interim steps to
       abate the hazard
      Regularly inform established committees and/or employee
       representatives of the progress on abatement plans
      Either establish safety and health committees or be
       subject to unannounced inspections by OSHA. These
       committees, which have equal representation by
       management and non-management employees, monitor the
       performance of agency-wide safety and health programs
      Participate in the Safety, Health, and Return-to
       Employment (SHARE) Initiative which requires: (1) the
       establishment of goals and plans for reduction of
       injuries and illness; and (2) reporting on progress
       made toward meeting the established goals. The goals
       for 2004-2009 were to: (1) reduce by 3 percent the
       total number of employee injuries per year; (2) reduce
       by 3 percent the annual lost time due to worker
       injuries, and (3) reduce by 1 percent the total number
       of annual lost production days due to worker injuries.
       (Established by Presidential Memoranda on 1/9/2004 & 9/
       29/2006)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In addition, many executive agencies apply more stringent
    definitions and other national standards for safety, health and fire
    prevention, which have not been implemented by OSHA. For example, the
    Department of Defense instruction on hearing conservation defines a
    more protective (lower) level of hazardous noise than the OSHA
    standard. In some cases for which no OSHA standard is appropriate, the
    executive branch has adopted emergency temporary or permanent
    supplementary standards. By contrast, the OOC does not apply any
    standards more stringent than those adopted by OSHA.
        The CAA also requires the OOC to perform inspections in response to
    a written request by an employee, just as OSHA inspectors respond to
    written requests by executive branch employees. At executive branch
    workplaces that have not established a safety and health committee,
    OSHA is also authorized to make unannounced inspections. In contrast,
    the OOC does not conduct unannounced inspections of any type. Although
    the OOC's procedural rules permit the use of unannounced inspections,
    the OOC's General Counsel, exercising his authority under OOC
    Procedural Rule  4.06(3) and (4), has determined that giving advance
    notice of inspections is ``necessary to assure the presence of the
    representatives of the employing office and employees needed to aid in
    the inspection'' and will ``enhance the probability of an effective and
    thorough inspection.'' For these reasons, the OOC does not make
    unannounced biennial inspections. Most employing offices are not only
    notified of the inspection well in advance, but are provided with
    reminder notices shortly before the actual inspection.
        Question. If not, doesn't this hold the Legislative Branch to a
    higher standard than the rest of the government? I do not think that
    was the intent of the Congressional Accountability Act and I certainly
    don't personally think it is appropriate.
        Answer. The legislative branch is not held to a higher standard as
    the rest of the government. As explained above, the general duty
    imposed upon all employers (including the executive and legislative
    branches) is the same--compliance with Section 5 of the OSHAct by
    furnishing a place of employment free from hazards. However, the
    specific mandates imposed upon the executive branch are far more
    extensive than those imposed on the legislative branch due to the
    provisions of OSHAct 19 and 29 CFR 1960, as illustrated in the table
    provided above.
        Question. Does your organization work closely with the Architect of
    the Capitol--taking into account the Architect's Capital Improvement
    Plan and Capitol Complex Master Plan when conducting its biennial
    inspections to ensure that redundancies in work are avoided?
        Answer. Yes. OOC and AOC work collaboratively to conduct the
    biennial inspections. The biennial inspection schedule is an integral
    part of the interim protection methods implemented to reduce the risk
    to occupants of buildings having serious safety deficiencies. The OOC
    is very conscious of budgetary concerns and works closely with the AOC
    concerning plans that involve safety improvements. As features of the
    Master Plan have received approval and funding, the OOC and the AOC
    have worked closely together to avoid redundancies in work and to
    maintain cost effectiveness. Due to the costs of the improvements
    recommended by AOC in its plan to abate hazards originally discovered
    in 2000, the OOC is working closely with the AOC to implement interim
    fire prevention and fire protection methods to lower risks in those
    buildings with serious safety deficiencies.
        The OOC also works with the AOC to conduct biennial inspections so
    as to cause minimal disruption of building operations. The OOC has
    daily contact with AOC staff and conducts regularly-scheduled meetings
    with the AOC to coordinate efforts. Prior to any inspection, a pre-
    inspection conference is held to determine how the inspection can be
    conducted in the most efficient and effective manner. Prior to the
    physical inspection of an employment site, the OOC will review any
    office records regarding self-inspections and other safety initiatives
    to avoid redundancies and to focus the inspection efficiently on areas
    of concern.
        OOC Communications with Building Superintendents.--The OOC and the
    AOC have also been working on improving communication with the
    Superintendents' Offices regarding the hazards that have been
    identified during inspections. OOC and AOC representatives are working
    cooperatively to develop a regular agenda and to otherwise share
    information with the Superintendents' Offices that will better prepare
    them for the OSH Biennial Reports and future inspections. The
    additional information to be shared includes: OOC inspection priorities
    and changes in priorities, most common hazards, most serious hazards,
    inspection trends, and OOC inspector observations of existing
    conditions. This joint effort will benefit both the AOC and the OOC
    because information will be relayed to decision makers on a weekly or
    biweekly basis so that common hazards can be addressed, and employees
    in areas yet to be inspected can be informed of what the inspectors are
    expecting to find. This regular communication enhances overall
    education and protects covered employees more effectively.
        Contested Findings.--In addition, the OOC provides a procedure for
    the AOC and other employing offices to contest Biennial Inspection
    findings. Every cover letter sent with the OOC's Hazard Summary Report
    includes the following language:

        ``As to any identified hazards your office or agency wishes to
    contest, please clearly identify those findings in your responses by
    writing CONTESTED in the response area in line with the Finding ID and
    explain the rationale and related standards for the contest. If you
    object to any of the findings, please be as specific as possible in
    identifying the basis of your contest, e.g. the level of the RAC
    assessment, if you think the finding is not a hazard, if you dispute
    the location of the finding, or contest responsibility for correcting
    the hazard, etc.''

        This procedure ensures that any dispute over a finding, no matter
    what the reason, will be presented to the General Counsel for review.
    The General Counsel responds in writing to any contested finding filed
    by an employing office.
        Cannon Building Project.--The Cannon building project does not
    entail redundant or wasted work; the OOC has not required the
    installation of expensive stairwell enclosures only to be torn out
    during future remodeling. First, the OOC citation issued in 2000 does
    not mandate a specific abatement solution; instead the OOC's role is to
    evaluate whether the abatement measures proposed by the AOC will
    adequately abate the hazard pursuant to the OSHAct and fire protection
    standards. Second, the OOC has assisted AOC in an efficient
    implementation of the AOC's current plan for the Cannon Building.
    Stairwells 3-7 are already enclosed or in the process of being enclosed
    and will remain so in the new design. The alternate life-safety
    measures (creation of separate life-safety zones) to account for the
    unclosed rotunda stairways (1 and 2), if funded, will not be installed
    until 2012, after the design for the renovation has been completed. The
    renovation design plans are likely to incorporate these measures. If
    not, any necessary modifications to the fire safety measures can be
    made prior to any construction. If there are any delays in
    construction, the OOC has agreed to work with the AOC to identify and
    implement interim fire prevention and protection methods.
        Question. Does your office consider whether work that is required
    by a citation may be addressed in phases so that the impacts of the
    work on occupants and budgets may be minimized?
        Answer. Yes. When the OOC issues a citation, it only identifies
    hazards; it does not mandate particular ways in which the AOC is
    required to abate the hazard. The covered offices are given maximum
    flexibility to develop, consider and implement various corrective
    measures. For example, the citations regarding unenclosed stairwells
    contain the following abatement instructions: ``evaluate alternatives
    to reduce the danger posed by open stairwells and develop plan to
    reduce danger, taking into account costs, benefits, and historic
    preservation.'' The OOC provides technical guidance and assistance to
    the covered offices regarding various solutions that are being
    considered. As the technical expertise of the Office has expanded, more
    assistance has been provided. Although the CAA requires that violations
    be corrected ``as soon as possible'' and no later than ``the end of the
    fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the citation is issued''
    [2 U.S.C.  1341(c)(6)], the OOC works with the employing offices to
    implement interim safety measures when abating a citation will require
    expensive alterations and take more than one Congress to complete. See,
    GAO's Briefing for Congressional Staff, AOC's Process for Prioritizing
    Capital Projects (September 2008).
        An example of such interim safety measures is the installation and
    enclosure of stairwells. Most of the AOC's current proposals regarding
    the installation and enclosure of stairwells in various buildings arose
    out of OOC inspections conducted in 2000. Improving fire prevention is
    a recognized interim measure that can allow occupancy of buildings with
    deficient fire protection. A biennial inspection is a comparatively
    inexpensive, interim measure. In buildings with inadequate fire
    protection, it is essential that the inspection focuses on the
    following: eliminating electrical hazards posed by extension cords and
    overloaded or inadequately protected circuits; minimizing egress
    hazards associated with open fire doors and obstructions in exit
    pathways; examining the functioning of all alarms, detectors and fire
    suppression systems; insuring adequate training regarding evacuation
    procedures and plans; and reducing the danger posed by a building's
    total fuel load by encouraging prudent paper storage methods. Due to
    relatively high employee turnover rates in legislative offices,
    biennial inspections are needed to keep the new staff well informed
    about fire prevention methods. Such fire prevention methods go a long
    way towards reducing the probability of fires altogether, as well as
    the severity of a fire should it occur.
        In other cases of addressing the abatement of hazards, the OOC has
    acted as a facilitator by bringing together interested stakeholders so
    that all viewpoints can be considered and a cost-effective solution can
    be found. An example of this type of cooperative decision making
    involved the House Page School, located in the attic of the Thomas
    Jefferson Building. The Page School lacks safe emergency egress--a
    serious safety hazard. The OOC, together with the AOC, brought together
    representatives, of all of the interested parties including the Clerk
    of the House, the Capitol Police, House Employment Counsel, the Library
    of Congress and the Committee on House Administration. Working
    cooperatively with the AOC and the OOC, these parties were able to
    devise a cost-effective, interim solution that addresses some of the
    most significant safety hazards and allows the Page School to continue
    operating at this location in relative safety until a permanent fix can
    be accomplished.
        Question. Do the historical buildings in our complex, such as the
    Capitol, the Jefferson Building, and the Russell Building have
    different requirements for fire and life safety than say a building
    being built today?
        Answer. Yes. The Code for Fire Protection in Historic Structures
    (NFPA 2001) implements a performance-based approach to fire safety in
    historic buildings where rigid adherence to a modern code might
    adversely affect historic integrity. This performance-based approach,
    however, still recognizes that historic buildings must provide
    reasonably equivalent fire and life safety protection for their
    occupants. Older buildings that were not built in accordance with
    modern building codes are more challenging to inspect and require more
    oversight when known hazards remain unabated. Fire departments often
    perform inspections on older buildings more frequently than biennially
    since the risk of fire in buildings with old electrical and gas systems
    is greater and the methods of egress are not as safe as in newer
    buildings. NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, pp. 7-216--7-219 (2003). The
    use of frequent inspections is a common interim ``fire prevention''
    method that allows occupation and use of a building that would
    otherwise be unsafe because known hazards remain unabated.
        Other interim measures in buildings with inadequate egress focus on
    providing more time for occupants to evacuate a building. Increasing
    fire suppression and fire detection systems (e.g., sprinklers and smoke
    detectors) can help offset the threat posed by inadequate egress.
    Ultimately, however, all buildings need to provide safe egress to keep
    occupants out of danger. The answer to the question below offers a more
    detailed explanation as to why this is so.
        Question. Why would we need to add egress stairwells to the
    Jefferson Building--which would cost more than $12 million and cause
    major disruptions to both staff and visitors--when 98 percent of the
    building is equipped with sprinklers, 100 percent of the building is
    equipped with smoke detectors, and it is fully staffed with Capitol
    Police in the event that a fire did occur?
        Answer. After five fires \2\ in Capitol Hill buildings during 1998
    and 1999, the OOC began a comprehensive review of fire and life safety
    systems in all legislative buildings. The OOC inspection of the
    Jefferson Building in 2000 revealed serious life-threatening hazards
    pertaining to unenclosed stairwells and unprotected exit pathways that
    would expose school children, staff, and visitors to smoke and toxic
    gasses in the event of a fire. While developing a plan to abate the
    identified hazards, the AOC hired outside consultants, including Gage-
    Babcock & Associates, to evaluate egress from the building. The
    resulting studies led the AOC to conclude that adequate egress could
    best be achieved by adding additional stairwells rather than merely
    enclosing existing exit stairwells and pathways. The AOC's plan for the
    Jefferson Building is acceptable to the OOC because, not only does it
    address the problems posed by unenclosed stairwells and exposed exit
    pathways, but it greatly improves egress throughout the building.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ In March 1998, a fire in the O'Neill Building (no longer in
    existence) sent sixteen Capitol Police officers to the hospital for
    treatment. In April 1998, seven Capitol Police officers were overcome
    by smoke while attempting to put out a fire in Longworth. In May 1998,
    a grease fire in the Longworth food court sent three kitchen workers to
    the hospital for treatment. In July 1998, Ford and Hart were both
    evacuated because of smoke. An April 1999 electrical fire in the
    Library of Congress' Madison Building seriously injured one employee,
    and required evacuation of the entire building.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In assessing alternatives, the OOC and the AOC have been
    particularly concerned about the inadequate egress for the House Page
    School located in the building's attic. The proposed new stairwell for
    the House Page School is the least expensive of those being proposed
    for the building.
        The Need for Safe Egress.--While sprinklers, smoke detectors, and
    trained staff can provide more time for occupants to evacuate a
    building, buildings with these features still must provide safe egress
    to keep occupants out of danger. As noted in the NFPA Fire Protection
    Handbook, p. 4-65(2003): ``Under no condition can manual or automatic
    fire suppression be accepted as a substitute for the provision and
    maintenance of a proper means of egress.'' Improving egress for fire
    safety also improves egress during other types of emergencies
    (including attacks on the Capitol). The Capitol Hill campus is known to
    be a prime target for an attack. National Commission on Terrorist
    Attacks on the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report (New York:
    W.W. Norton, 2004). Ensuring the safety of the nation's leaders during
    a time of national emergency is a paramount national security concern.
    Id. Buildings need to have better egress when evacuation takes longer
    due to congestion, confusion, and slower walking speeds because they
    contain public assemblies, strollers and wheelchairs, young visitors
    unfamiliar with the layout, and occupants over the age of 65. NFPA Fire
    Protection Handbook, pp. 4-58--4-59, 13-64 (2003).
        Sprinklers.--Sprinkler systems do not prevent fires but help
    control fires after they occur. NFPA, Fire Protection Handbook, p. 13-
    56 (2003). Fires often start in utility closets, electrical cabinets
    and other locations that do not contain sprinklers. NFPA, Fire
    Protection Handbook, p. 13-52 (2003). Sprinklers do not control fires
    that start in locations outside of the water distribution pattern due
    to obstructions (such as under desks and tables). NFPA, Fire Protection
    Handbook, p. 10-201 (2003). Fire risk in a building is determined by
    the ``fire load'' or ``fuel load,'' which measures the amount of
    combustible material in the building. NFPA, Fire Protection Handbook,
    p. 2-42 (2003). Buildings that contain tons of paper and wooden
    furnishings have larger fire loads than many industrial buildings.
    NFPA, Fire Protection Handbook, p. 6-347 (2003); Robert J. Fischer and
    Gion Green, Introduction to Security, p. 216 (7th ed. 2004).
    Combustible materials, like paper, store heat and act like ovens during
    fires even if there is no ignition. Robert J. Fischer and Gion Green,
    Introduction to Security, p. 216 (7th ed. 2004). Sufficient heat can be
    generated by un-ignited combustible material to destroy everything
    inside a building. Robert J. Fischer and Gion Green, Introduction to
    Security, p. 216 (7th ed. 2004).
        Smoke Detectors.--While smoke detectors can alert occupants to the
    presence of smoke, these devices do not eliminate the dangers posed by
    smoke, heat, toxic gas, explosion and panic. Smoke, heat, toxic gas,
    explosion and panic are more frequent killers during fires than flames.
    NFPA, Fire Protection Handbook, p. 2-42 (2003). ``Best estimates are
    that two-thirds of all fatal injuries in fires are due to smoke
    inhalation, possibly in combination with other fire effects, with more
    than half of such deaths attributable to smoke inhalation alone.'' John
    R. Hall, ``Burns, Toxic Gases and Other Fire-Like Hazards in Non-Fire
    Situations,'' p. 2 (NFPA 2004). During a fire, un-ignited combustible
    materials generate smoke. Fire Protection Handbook, p. 8-23 (2003).
    Smoke can reduce visibility to zero within 2 minutes of a fire's
    ignition. A test subject was unable to find a stairway located less
    than 2 feet away. Robert J. Fischer and Gion Green, Introduction to
    Security, p. 218 (7th ed. 2004). The danger of unenclosed stairways is
    that, without floor-to-floor separations, smoke and fire can easily
    spread from the floor of origin to other areas of the building, thereby
    increasing the risk of disability and death due to obscured visibility,
    asphyxiation, and panic. NFPA, Fire Protection Handbook, p. 12-99
    (2003). By providing isolation from smoke, fumes, and flames, enclosed
    stairways also provide safe egress that minimizes the risk of panic.
    The risk of panic is greater in buildings such as the Jefferson
    Building which contain frequent assemblies and many visitors unfamiliar
    with its layout and evacuation plans. NFPA, Fire Protection Handbook,
    p. 13-36 (2003).
        Capitol Police.--Trained personnel, such as members of the Capitol
    Police, can provide valuable assistance to occupants during a time of
    fire or other emergency. Panic can easily erupt in facilities such as
    the Jefferson Building, which receive frequent visitors who are
    unfamiliar with the building's layout and evacuation procedures.
    Trained personnel can help instill calm by providing direction and
    assistance as needed. Providing trained personnel, however, is not a
    substitute for providing a safe method of egress.
        Fire safety is still a serious problem that must be continually
    addressed on the Capitol Hill campus. There have been at least 48 fires
    in Capitol Hill buildings since 1985. A list of these fires has been
    included in the accompanying Appendix A. There have been 22 fires since
    2000.
         appendix a.--identified capitol complex fires; 1985 to present
        The Office of Compliance has identified the following fire events
    as having occurred within the Capitol Complex between 1985 and 2009.
    This list has been reviewed by the AOC for accuracy.
                        (in reverse chronological order)
        Date: 4/26/2009
        Facility: DSOB
        Location: Northeast corner Generator Room
        Description: Generator Fire

        Date: 1/27/2009
        Facility: Madison Building
        Location: Conservation Lab
        Description: Trash can fire

        Date: 9/6/2008
        Facility: Capitol Power Plant
        Location: West Refrigeration Bldg.
        Description: Arc Flash Explosion and fire (localized to a capacitor
    cabinet) destroyed electrical equipment; plant evacuated; D.C. Fire
    Dept. called to scene.

        Date: xx/xx/2008
        Facility: Capitol Power Plant
        Location: (unspecified)
        Description: Electrical circuit fire to a chilled water pump;
    damage minimal.

        Date: 4/7/2008
        Facility: House Page Dorm Bldg.
        Location: Laundry room
        Description: Electrical fire; building evacuated; one USCP officer
    suffered smoke inhalation and was transported to hospital (treated and
    released).

        Date: 11/2/2007
        Facility: DSOB
        Location: Restroom
        Description: Building evacuated.

        Date: 10/31/2007
        Facility: DSOB and HSOB
        Location: Dirksen basement stairway
        Description: Buildings evacuated.

        Date: 10/3/2007
        Facility: DSOB and HSOB
        Location(s): Various women's restrooms
        Description: Four separate suspicious fires in women's restrooms (3
    fires in Dirksen and 1 in Hart). Fires extinguished by USCP.

        Date: 9/28/2007
        Facility: HSOB
        Location: Women's restroom
        Description: Suspicious fire (presumed arson). Fire extinguished by
    USCP.

        Date: 9/26/2007
        Facility: HSOB
        Location: Women's restroom
        Description: Suspicious fire (presumed arson). Fire extinguished by
    USCP.

        Date: 2/27/2007
        Facility: LHOB
        Location: Credit union
        Description: Small computer fire.

        Date: 11/07/2005
        Facility: Jefferson Bldg
        Location: Stack control room
        Description: Electrical transformer fire.

        Date: 10/8/2005
        Facility: Power Plant
        Location: (unspecified)
        Description: Electrical substation explosion and fire; near total
    loss of affected equipment; shut down of power plant for several hours.

        Date: 06/09/2005
        Facility: RHOB
        Location: Concealed pipe chase
        Description: Smoldering fire in concealed pipe chase caused by hot
    work on roof; building evacuated; minimal damage and no injuries.

        Date: 5/11/2005
        Facility: Capitol
        Location: Office (unspecified)
        Description: Fire in office space (localized); believed to have
    been caused by smoking materials.

        Date: 1/6/2005
        Facility: Capitol
        Location: Office (unspecified)
        Description: Fireplace improperly lit; extensive smoke migration
    throughout building; temporary evacuation of the building. DCFD called
    to scene for investigation and smoke removal.

        Date: 10/13/2004
        Facility: RHOB
        Location: Sub-basement
        Description: Fire in corridor (cause believed to be smoking
    materials) with extension to three storage rooms; facility evacuated;
    dense smoke conditions reported; two USCP officers treated for smoke
    inhalation at the scene.

        Date: 07/06/2003
        Facility: RSOB
        Location: Exterior transformer vault
        Description: Significant electrical fire atop transformer.

        Date: 1/24/2003
        Facility: Madison Bldg
        Location: 7th Floor
        Description: HVAC filters caught fire; building evacuated for
    hours; smoke accumulation in remote locations throughout building (due
    to HVAC involvement).

        Date: 6/29/2002
        Facility: Capitol
        Location: Ventilation system; 4th floor
        Description: Electrical motor fire; complete building evacuation;
    burning oil created dense smoke conditions that spread through the
    ductwork to other parts of the Capitol. Fire extinguisher used to put
    out fire.

        Date: 5/9/2001
        Facility: RHOB
        Location: Member's office
        Description: Fire caused by lit candles in bathroom. Building
    evacuated for several hours during the incident. Minor damage to the
    bathroom.

        Date: 6/20/2002
        Facility: Jefferson Bldg
        Location: Elevator mechanical room
        Description: Electrical fire; moderate damage.

        Date: 9/1/2000
        Facility: DSOB
        Location: Display case
        Description: Fire caused by defective light ballast; minimal damage
    and disruption.

        Date: 8/10/2000
        Facility: Capitol
        Location: Rotunda
        Description: Damage to statue and minor smoke throughout building;
    tours delayed several hours until smoke cleared.

        Date: 2/25/2000
        Facility: CHOB
        Location: Staff office
        Description: Total destruction of office; smoking materials
    believed to be cause of the fire.

        Date: 4/6/1999
        Facility: DSOB
        Location: Kitchen
        Description: Total loss of the involved cooking equipment and food
    materials. Food service area shut down for several days for repair and
    clean up.

        Date: 4/3/1999
        Facility: Madison Bldg
        Location: Substation A
        Description: Electrical explosion; two workers injured (one in
    critical condition); building evacuated.

        Date: 1/13/1999
        Facility: Capitol
        Location: West front steps and walkway
        Description: Incendiary device ignited by demonstrators.

        Date: 11/20/1998
        Facility: HSOB
        Location: Garage
        Description: Vehicle in garage caught fire; loss of vehicle was
    total; adjacent vehicles sustained moderate to severe damage. Building
    evacuated for several hours until incident was cleared and smoke was
    removed from the building's garage levels.

        Date: 7/29/1998
        Facility: CHOB
        Location: 4th floor
        Description: Fire incident to construction operations; damage to
    window area and adjacent office space.

        Date: 7/16/1998
        Facility: Ford HOB
        Location: Elevator machine room
        Description: Fire in elevator machine room; building evacuation;
    loss of elevator motor and elevator.

        Date: 5/14/1998
        Facility: LHOB
        Location: Sub-basement elevator machine room
        Description: Extensive smoke and water damage to area; several USCP
    officers injured by smoke.

        Date: 5/6/1998
        Facility: LHOB
        Location: Cafeteria kitchen
        Description: Grease fire; suppression system activated; food line
    shut down for the day for repair and clean up.

        Date: 4/23/1998
        Facility: LHOB
        Location: West elevator machine room on the sub-basement level
        Description: Developed fire in elevator machine room. USCP response
    officers attempted to extinguish--unsuccessful (fire ultimately
    controlled by D.C. Fire Dept). Ten USCP officers suffered smoke
    inhalation and received medical treatment. Smoke concentrations reached
    the top floor of the building.

        Date: 1/23/1998
        Facility: Botanic Garden's Administration Bldg
        Location: Office #115
        Description: Fire in office HVAC Equipment heating system (cause:
    fan coil unit's motor overheated).

        Date: 7/11/1997
        Facility: Madison Bldg
        Location: Loading dock
        Description: Fire began on dock with spread to nearby stored
    materials and trash compactor.

        Date: 5/2/1997
        Facility: HOB Annex I
        Location: Page Dorm
        Description: Total loss of room contents. Fire effects penetrated
    from 6th floor to 7th floor.

        Date: 3/27/1997
        Facility: HOB Annex I
        Location: Page Dorm; 3rd floor Page room
        Description: 50 percent loss in room (cause: portable electric fan
    on floor). Pages evacuated.

        Date: 1/13/1997
        Facility: Capitol
        Location: (unspecified)
        Description: Exterior fire (arson).

        Date: 9/27/1995
        Facility: CHOB
        Location: Basement mechanical equipment room
        Description: (not available).

        Date: 10/1/1994
        Facility: House warehouse
        Location: (unspecified)
        Description: Arson fire; loss estimated at $100,000 + artifacts.

        Date: 7/8/1992
        Facility: Jefferson Bldg
        Location: (unspecified)
        Description: Fire during renovation project (finishing materials
    used in the renovation project ignited).

        Date: 10/2/1990
        Facility: DSOB
        Location: 4th Floor trash cart
        Description: Smoke migration throughout building.

        Date: 7/29/1988
        Facility: CHOB
        Location: 4th floor office
        Description: Fire consumed part of office and window.

        Date: 5/6/1988
        Facility: LHOB
        Location: Speakers private office suite (2nd floor)
        Description: Electrical fire in kitchen and reception areas.
    Estimated damage $500,000. Required extensive restoration. Two USCP
    officers treated for smoke inhalation at the scene.
        (It is OOC's understanding that after this fire, the Congress
    directed the AOC to install fire alarms in all of the major Capitol
    Hill Buildings. Congress also established the House Select Committee on
    Fire Safety to investigate the condition of fire protection features in
    the House Office Buildings and Capitol.)

        Date: 5/5/1988
        Facility: LHOB
        Location: Cafeteria
        Description: Fire suppressed by fixed extinguishing system. Food
    line shut down for several days for repair and clean-up.

        Date: 5/29/1986
        Facility: Adams Bldg
        Location: 4th floor; corner room
        Description: Most materials and ceiling insulation in room
    destroyed. Heavy smoke conditions throughout the floor.

        Date: 2/28/1985
        Facility: RSOB
        Location: Senator's suite
        Description: Computer equipment fault resulting in fire.

        Question. How would you compare the OOC system of occupational
    safety and health inspections to the inspections done by OSHA in
    executive branch agencies?
        Answer. The table comparing the two systems should be responsive to
    this question. In addition, I would like to add that OOC inspections
    are very similar to ``wall to wall'' OSHA inspections. The inspection
    procedure used by the OOC is actually more ``agency friendly'' than
    OSHA's procedure because, unlike OSHA inspections which are almost
    always unannounced, OOC biennial inspections are only performed after
    notice of the inspection is provided to the employing offices. This
    practice provides the employing offices with an opportunity to inspect
    and correct any known hazards prior to an inspection--and many do.
        Question. How much do you rely on the Occupational Health and
    Safety Administration or other executive branch agencies to do your
    work? If you rely on a decision or opinion of OSHA or some other
    Executive branch office, is this allowed under the Congressional
    Accountability Act? Does OSHA itself conduct inspections in
    Congressional facilities?
        Answer. The OOC attempts to apply OSHA regulations as they are
    interpreted across the federal government and the private sector. OSHA
    also publishes directives and issues decisions interpreting its
    standards which provide useful guidance to the OOC's General Counsel in
    exercising his statutory authority under the CAA. OOC's hearing
    officers are also guided by judicial decisions interpreting OSHA as
    mandated by the CAA. 2 U.S.C.  1404(h). Currently, a detailee from the
    Department of Labor provides technical assistance and assists in
    supervising the inspectors; however, he reports directly to the General
    Counsel and is under his direct supervision. The other inspectors are
    either CAA employees or contractors. The CAA permits the Department of
    Labor to detail, upon request, personnel to the OOC as may be necessary
    to advise and assist the OOC in carrying out its OSHA-related duties
    under the CAA. 2 U.S.C.  1341(e)(4).
        As indicated in the OOC's fiscal year 2010 budget request, the
    detailee from the Department of Labor (OSHA) is scheduled to retire
    during the current fiscal year and OSHA has indicated that it cannot
    furnish a comparable or similar replacement detailee. See, OOC, Budget
    Justification Request for the Committee on Appropriations, p. 13
    (fiscal year 2010). The fiscal year 2010 budget proposal has requested
    funding to replace this vital employee.
        Congress did not adopt the substantive occupational safety and
    health regulations that were proposed by the OOC in 1996. The CAA
    requires that any regulations issued by the OOC be the same as
    substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor except to
    the extent that a modification of such regulations would be more
    effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under
    CAA  215. See 2 U.S.C.  1341(d)(2). With respect to any OOC
    proceeding, if no regulations are issued, the CAA requires the OOC to
    apply ``the most relevant substantive executive agency regulation
    promulgated to implement the statutory provision at issue in the
    proceeding.'' See 2 U.S.C.  1411. These provisions suggest that the
    OOC can properly consider decisions and opinions from OSHA when
    interpreting the safety and health provisions of the CAA.
        The OOC is also in the process of developing regulations that will
    be consistent with the current OSHA regulations and will include the
    same requirements now followed by OGC during its biennial inspections.
        OSHA will inspect Congressional facilities only with respect to a
    private contractor performing services on the campus. To the best of
    the OOC's knowledge, OSHA has conducted inspections only in response to
    complaints regarding private contractors performing services on the
    campus.
        Question. How do you see your responsibilities and role vis-a-vis
    safety professionals in the employing offices? Do you give their own
    OSH inspections any credit or deference when deciding what needs
    inspection?
        Answer. The OOC's evaluation function includes examining the
    performance of safety initiatives and safety professionals in the
    employing offices. The OOC's ability to conduct this evaluation
    function has been somewhat hampered by the failure to incorporate the
    provisions of 29 U.S.C.  657(c) (relating to maintenance, preservation
    and availability of safety records) into the CAA \1\. The OOC's recent
    Section 102(b) Report to Congress (December 2008) proposes several
    legislative changes that would correct this problem proposes several
    legislative changes that would correct this problem by applying OSHA's
    recordkeeping and reporting requirements to the employing offices
    covered by the CAA. See OOC, Section 102(b) Report, p. 10 (December
    2008). Under the current statutory scheme, unlike the executive branch
    or private employers, employing offices are not required to make, keep,
    and preserve, or provide to the OOC records deemed necessary for
    enforcement of OSHAct Section 5, including records on work-related
    deaths, injuries and illnesses, and records of employee exposure to
    toxic materials and harmful physical agents. Similarly, under the
    current scheme, the OOC is unable to consider any inspection findings
    of safety professionals in the employing offices because employing
    offices do not share their inspection findings with the OOC. OOC
    inspectors are observing a decrease in the number of identified
    hazards, as well as increased educational efforts from the employing
    offices, but without inspection data from the employing offices
    signifying that they have adequately examined and removed OSH hazards
    from the workplace, the OOC must continue to do what is necessary to
    ensure a safe and healthy workplace for covered employees. In addition,
    neither the AOC nor any other covered employing office provides the OOC
    with injury and illness records that are necessary for strategically
    determining what areas should be inspected more regularly or provided
    more technical assistance. This information is not required as part of
    the CAA, and without it, the OOC depends on its biennial inspections to
    provide information regarding safety and health conditions to Congress.
        Even with these limitations, the OOC works cooperatively with
    safety professionals in the employing offices to improve conditions in
    those offices and also facilitates compliance by providing technical
    assistance and educational opportunities to these individuals. Some
    employing offices have decided to rely exclusively upon OOC inspections
    rather than having their own safety professionals conduct comprehensive
    inspections. In other cases, when necessary and practical, the OOC has
    also brought safety professionals together with other stakeholders to
    coordinate and develop solutions to safety concerns that are acceptable
    to all concerned.
        The OOC is in the process of conducting its next full-scale
    inspection of covered facilities. The 111th Congress Inspection is
    crucial to developing a strategy for future inspections because it
    provides the OOC with three independent data sets to form the
    beginnings of a trend analysis. The OOC had a picture from the data
    garnered from the 109th Congress Inspection, and utilized the 110th
    Congress Inspection data to begin looking for trends. However, with the
    information from the 111th Congress, the OOC will be able to implement
    a more thorough trend analysis and focus future inspections more
    effectively upon the areas with greatest risk. This means that some
    areas may not be included in certain inspection cycles if previously
    identified hazards have been abated and the likelihood of recurrence is
    low. In other words, provided the data supports it, the trend analysis
    would allow OOC to sample areas randomly to determine that hazards are
    not being created rather than actually inspecting every administrative
    space and office on campus. By doing so, the OOC will be able to devote
    more resources to reviewing employing office safety and health
    programs, to focusing inspections on high risk work areas and
    procedures, to developing new educational materials, and to providing
    more detailed technical assistance.
        Question. By what criteria does your office decide to issue a
    citation or a complaint? Do you or your deputies review each of these
    citations before they are issued?
        Answer. Criteria and Process Used to Issue a Citation.--If the
    safety and health specialist and attorney assigned to evaluate a
    certain finding believe that a citation should be issued, they prepare
    a report and make recommendations to the General Counsel. In
    formulating their recommendations, they often consult outside
    specialists at OSHA, GSA, NIOSH or other entities with expertise in the
    subject matter. The General Counsel reviews each and every report
    submitted and makes an independent determination as to whether a
    citation should issue. A citation is only issued if the hazard is
    particularly serious or creates an imminent risk to legislative branch
    employees or the public; when the hazard constitutes a ``repeat'' or
    similar or related violation of the type found in past inspections or
    which a broad, systematic remedy may be required; when an employing
    office fails to take appropriate and timely steps to correct a hazard;
    or when it is otherwise necessary to effectuate the purposes of the
    occupational safety and health laws.
        Communication of Process to Employing Offices.--The processes
    followed by the General Counsel's office with respect to the issuance
    of citations are well documented. This information has been previously
    communicated both in writing and in face-to-face conversations with
    employing offices. For example, Biennial Report on Occupational Safety
    and Health Inspections for the 108th Congress, pp. 7-11 (October 2005);
    Biennial Report on Occupational Safety and Health Inspections for the
    108th Congress, pp. 4-5 (April 2008). See also, letter to Terrell G.
    Dorn, P.E. from Peter Ames Eveleth, April 21, 2008, describing our
    citation processes (previously provided to the Committee, most recently
    on February 3, 2009). The General Counsel issues citations only
    infrequently, 67 in the 13-year history of this Office. Moreover, only
    a single complaint has been filed--that challenging the AOC's failure
    to abate long-standing, life-threatening safety and health hazards in
    the Capitol Power Plant utility tunnels. In contrast, during that
    period, many thousands of hazards have been identified in the hazard
    findings reports issued to the employing offices by the OGC following
    the inspection of each facility without issuance of a citation--13,140
    in the 109th Congress biennial inspection and 9,336 in the 110th
    Congress inspection. The responsible employing office's obligation to
    abate any hazard identified by the General Counsel applies whether or
    not a citation has been issued.
        No Routine Issuance of Citations.--Both OSHA and the OOC's General
    Counsel are required to issue citations for every serious hazard
    identified by inspections. Unlike OSHA, which immediately issues a
    citation and imposes monetary penalties for every serious hazard
    identified by its inspections, the General Counsel only issues
    citations when less formal, non-adversarial means have failed to abate
    a hazard. The General Counsel notifies the employing offices of hazards
    requiring abatement rather than routinely issuing citations. Given the
    vast number of hazards discovered during inspections, the General
    Counsel has determined that this procedure achieves more expeditious
    and voluntary abatement of hazards. The decision to issue a formal
    citation or to follow a more informal process lies within the statutory
    discretion of the General Counsel.
        Only One Complaint Has Ever Been Issued.--As indicated previously,
    only one complaint has been issued in the history of the OOC. This was
    issued due to the AOC's failure to abate long-standing, life-
    threatening safety and health hazards in the Capitol Power Plant
    utility tunnels. A complaint will only be issued when little or no
    effort has been made to abate similar long-standing, life-threatening
    safety and health hazards.
        Question. Does the risk assessment code that you give to an OSH
    matter, such as those highlighting possibly deficient egress points in
    a building, include a consideration of the cost and difficulty of
    corrections and possible disruptions to a building's occupants? How
    might a risk-based analysis of safety citations affect your work?
        Answer. The risk assessment code (RAC), developed and applied by
    OOC inspectors working cooperatively with the AOC, is in fact a risk-
    based analysis of safety hazards based upon the degree of harm and
    probability of occurrence. The employing or correcting office
    determines how to abate the hazard and takes into account cost,
    disruption of operations, and historical consistencies. The role of the
    OOC is to determine whether the abatement options proposed by the
    offices are adequate and timely.
        As noted earlier, the OOC's primary function is to provide an
    objective evaluation of the hazards found in legislative branch
    buildings and to provide technical assistance to employing offices when
    solutions are being considered. The employing offices customarily
    consider the cost and difficulty of corrections and possible
    disruptions to a building's occupants when evaluating and proposing
    different abatement options.
        The risk assessment codes (RACs), which the OOC began to use in
    coordination with the Architect of the Capitol's Director of Safety,
    Fire and Environmental Programs, are a version of the RACs used by the
    Department of Defense. These codes do not include costs or disruptions
    in operations. They have been established to reflect the relative risk,
    viewed as a combination of the likelihood of an exposure to a hazard
    and the severity of the resulting injury or illness.
        The Department of Defense Instruction, DOD Safety and Occupational
    Health Program, DODI 6055.1, August 19, 1998, uses the RAC in
    conjunction with a Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) to determine an
    Abatement Priority Number (APN). The CEI is the cost of correction
    divided by an effectiveness index, which has been derived from an
    analysis of DOD accident experience. In the Department of Defense, the
    APN is used to establish the priority of the funding for abatement
    projects. That accounts for the risk, the cost and the effectiveness of
    the proposed abatement plan.
        To the best of the OOC's knowledge, none of the employing offices
    covered by the CAA uses the APN system to prioritize based upon cost
    effectiveness. In its fiscal year 2010 budget request, the OOC has
    requested funding for a Compliance Officer who would be able to help
    the employing offices establish cost-effective abatement measures. See,
    OOC, Budget Justification Request for the Committee on Appropriations,
    p. 13 (fiscal year 2010). In addition, the OOC's recent Section 102(b)
    Report to Congress (December 2008) proposes several legislative changes
    that might assist in determining relative abatement priorities. These
    changes involve adoption of OSHA's record keeping and reporting
    requirements regarding accident experience. See OOC, Section 102(b)
    Report, p. 10 (December 2008). Effective abatement priorities cannot be
    determined without information about accident experience.
        Question. Do you give priority to facilities that may be lacking
    certain safety features, such as fire sprinklers, or having a greater
    number of occupants exposed to safety issues?
        Answer. Yes. The OOC, in conjunction with the AOC, prioritizes the
    safety hazards in and among facilities by taking into consideration the
    existence of safety features such as automatic fire suppression systems
    and building occupancy rates. For instance, in deciding whether a
    building's egress deficiencies would merit the issuance of a citation,
    the OOC's General Counsel would consider the number of occupants in the
    building when determining whether the hazard was so serious as to
    require a citation.
        Question. Does your office consider whether corrections that a
    citation lists may be spaced over time so that the impacts of the
    corrections on occupants and budgets may be minimized?
        Answer. Yes. The Office of Compliance already works with the AOC in
    a flexible manner to ensure that its abatement efforts are focused on
    the highest risks, i.e., the fire and life safety hazards that the
    Office identified in the U.S. Capitol, Senate and House Office
    Buildings, and Library of Congress Buildings. The OOC identified these
    hazards in 2000 and 2001; they are the subject of open Citations 16-19
    and 29-30.
        We recognize that abating these citations presents many challenges.
    The projects are designed to correct critical safety and health hazards
    that confront Members, employees and visitors. The buildings affected
    are historic structures with powerful symbolic importance that must
    simultaneously accommodate ongoing legislative work, supporting
    services, and visitor access. And, of course, securing adequate funding
    given many competing demands is always a knotty problem. These factors
    complicate the OOC's already-difficult task of evaluating the
    effectiveness of hazard abatement proposals offered by the AOC.
        The AOC's task is more challenging still. While, in this context,
    the OOC is charged ``only'' with enforcing the safety and health
    protections of the Congressional Accountability Act, the AOC also must
    consider other priorities: building maintenance, historic preservation,
    initiatives such as ``Green the Capitol,'' and many more.
        In light of these many important and sometimes-conflicting
    missions, our Office has commenced a comprehensive risk analysis. We
    are working closely with the AOC to identify projects where temporary
    adjustments can minimize life safety risks until permanent structural
    corrections can be made. Together, our offices have begun by
    pinpointing interim measures for the House Page School in the Thomas
    Jefferson Building. Those measures are designed to ensure that students
    and faculty have evacuation routes that minimize the risk of injury
    until an enclosed exit stairway is constructed. We will continue to
    work with the AOC to identify other infrastructure hazards whose risks
    can be reduced by interim abatement measures.
        We are also examining AOC's fire prevention programs, which include
    the installation of sprinklers in legislative branch facilities. Fire
    prevention is particularly important in historic structures, where
    repair or replacement is difficult if not impossible. These programs
    reduce but cannot eliminate the risk that a fire may occur.
    Accordingly, to protect lives, it is essential permanently to correct
    hazards such as inadequate exit capacity, stairways not protected from
    fire and smoke infiltration and the like.
        Effective interim measures may not be feasible in every facility.
    Even the best fire prevention programs cannot guarantee safe evacuation
    from a structurally-deficient building. Significant, permanent
    alterations to existing facilities will be required in order to ensure
    that Capitol Complex occupants may escape a fire safely. No credible
    risk analysis can overlook these facts. We look forward to continued
    cooperation with the AOC and other stakeholders to develop an analysis
    that accounts for these and all other relevant concerns.
        We are hopeful that the AOC-OOC risk analysis will be complete by
    September 1, 2009. Thereafter, the AOC and the OOC look forward to
    presenting that analysis to the Senate and House Appropriations
    Subcommittees, as well as to our oversight Committees. Our goal is to
    provide this and other Committees with the information necessary to
    ensure that funding is directed toward the highest risks.
        Question. Your Board adopted OSH standards in January 1997. Are
    these the standards that your office applies when you decide to issue a
    notice of deficiency or a citation? What is the difference between
    notices of deficiency and citations? Do you hear or review the
    employing office's responses contesting the merits of these findings?
    If not you, who, may review these responses? If the response describes
    a matter that boils down to a difference of opinion or judgment, what
    deference do you give to the thoughts of the employing office
    representatives? Is there a way for an employing office to appeal to a
    higher authority such as a neutral expert or the OOC Board?
        Answer. The OOC goes to great lengths to ``get it right.'' It
    provides multiple opportunities for employing offices to provide
    information, opinions, suggestions, and criticisms.
        Deficiency Notices.--Congress did not adopt the OSH regulations
    proposed by the OOC Board. The OOC does not issue so-called ``notices
    of deficiency.'' If an imminent danger is discovered during an
    inspection the OOC issues a ``Notice of Serious Deficiency.'' The
    Notice of Serious Deficiency requires the responsible office to abate
    the hazard within 24 hours; the AOC routinely complies with such a
    Notice and abates the hazard accordingly. If the hazard does not
    present so immediate a threat, the OOC instead includes it in the list
    of hazard ``findings'' that are included in the final inspection report
    forwarded to the employing office. This procedure allows employing
    offices to develop a plan voluntarily to abate the hazard. The vast
    majority of hazards are abated using this procedure.
        Consideration of Employing Offices' Responses.--As noted earlier,
    the OGC initially allows employing offices to contest any hazard
    finding found during a Biennial Inspection. Every cover letter sent
    with the OOC's Hazard Summary Report includes information regarding how
    to contest the finding. If there is a dispute over a finding, for
    whatever reason, an employing office can appeal to the General Counsel
    for review. The General Counsel will respond in writing to the
    employing office and inform them that the hazard has been marked as
    abated, removed from the list of identified hazards, or remains open
    because the General Counsel has determined that there is sufficient
    justification for the finding.
        The General Counsel will also afford the employing office an
    opportunity to set forth its position on the merits of a hazard
    finding, in writing or face-to-face, if he is considering whether to
    issue a citation. Even after the citation is issued, the employing
    office is given the opportunity to present additional information to
    the General Counsel. The General Counsel gives significant
    consideration to the information presented by employing offices. A
    typical citation contains the following language:

        ``Informal Conference.--At the request of the affected employing
    office, employee, or representative of employees, the General Counsel
    may hold an informal conference for the purpose of discussing any
    issues raised by an inspection, citation, or notice, including the
    abatement date. If you decide to request an informal conference, please
    mail or fax the request to the General Counsel within 10 working days
    of your receipt of this Citation. See Office of Compliance Rules of
    Procedure, 4.15.
        ``During such an informal conference, you may present any evidence
    or views which you believe would support an adjustment to the citation.
    Be sure to bring to the conference any and all supporting documentation
    of existing conditions as well as any abatement steps taken thus far.''

        Citations.--Under the CAA, the OOC's General Counsel has the
    authority to issue a citation to any employing office responsible for
    correcting an OSH violation. 2 U.S.C. section 1341(c)(2). The ``history
    factor,'' that is, whether the hazard constitutes a ``repeat'' or
    similar/related violation of a type found in past inspections, is one
    of several factors taken into account in deciding whether to issue a
    citation. Other factors that the General Counsel considers include
    whether the identified hazard is particularly serious, or creates an
    imminent risk to legislative branch employees or the public; whether a
    broad, systemic remedy may be required; whether an employing office
    fails to cooperate in an investigation or to take appropriate and
    timely steps to correct a hazard; or whether the General Counsel
    determines it is otherwise necessary to effectuate the purposes of the
    occupational safety and health laws. These criteria were published in
    the General Counsel's Biennial Report on Occupational Safety and Health
    Inspections for both the 108th Congress (issued October 2005, pp. 10-
    11) and 109th Congress (issued April 2008, pp. 4-6).
        Appeal Procedure.--While the CAA does not contain an appeal
    procedure allowing review of the General Counsel's discretionary
    decision to issue a citation or a complaint [2 U.S.C.  1341(b)(2) and
    (3)], nevertheless, as indicated previously, employing offices are
    provided with multiple opportunities, both before and after a citation
    is issued, to respond by presenting information and evidence to the
    General Counsel for consideration. In addition to these informal
    procedures, the CAA provides a formal procedure in the event that a
    citation is elevated to a complaint. An independent hearing officer has
    the authority to decide whether a complaint issued by the General
    Counsel has any merit. See 2 U.S.C.  1341(c)(3) and 2 U.S.C.
    1405(g). The hearing officer's decision can be appealed to the OOC
    Board. 2 U.S.C.  1406.
        Variance Requests.--An employing office can also request from the
    Board an order granting a variance from a standard being applied. See 2
    U.S.C.  1341(c)(4). The Board's final decision is subject to judicial
    review if a party is aggrieved by the decision. 2 U.S.C.  1341(c)(5).
        Question. If a citation ends up in the issuance of a complaint, do
    you have access to OSHA experts to serve as hearing officers to judge
    whether the citation must be obeyed?
        Answer. Yes. In the only complaint that has been issued in the
    history of the OOC, an OSHA expert was contracted to hear the case, but
    the case was resolved through a comprehensive settlement agreement
    reached by the parties. I am in the process of developing a master list
    of experts in technical matters relating to occupational safety and
    health matters to serve as hearing officers.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski

                              BIENNIAL INSPECTIONS

        Question. The Office of Compliance conducts biennial inspections of
    the Capitol complex. I understand that there are over 9,000 findings in
    the draft report for the 110th Congress biennial inspection. What are
    the most serious deficiencies which have been identified? To what
    extent have these deficiencies been identified in prior inspections?
    Does it make sense to continue to conduct full-scale biennial
    inspections, now that the OOC has conducted major campus-wide
    inspections for the past three Congresses? What is the cost of
    conducting a biennial inspection?
        Answer: Most Serious Deficiencies Identified.--During the 110th
    Congress Biennial Inspection, the OOC inspection team identified 19
    extremely serious safety violations--those classified as Risk
    Assessment Code (RAC) 1 hazards--the most dangerous category. Those
    deficiencies included unenclosed stairwells, penetrations in fire
    barriers, unrated or under-rated fire doors, and other obstructions
    exposing evacuating employees and visitors to toxic smoke and gasses;
    deficient emergency notification systems; and failure to provide
    effective fall protection. Nearly 2,000 other findings were classified
    as RAC 2 violations. These findings involved (1) damaged or
    deteriorating transite boards \3\ (exposing employees and visitors to
    asbestos fibers); (2) missing, damaged or defective covers, outlets,
    switches, electrical cords, electrical panels, and plugs (causing risk
    of electrical shock and fire); (3) lack of effective emergency
    lighting; and (4) defective or missing machine guards.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ A building material used in flooring composed of cement and
    asbestos that becomes friable when broken.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Extent that Deficiencies were Identified Previously.--Approximately
    90 percent of the RAC 1 hazards identified during the 110th Congress
    inspection were attributable to previously identified hazards that
    remained unabated. Between 1,200 and 1,600 of the RAC 2 hazards are
    related to previously identified hazards, which occur when an employing
    office abated an identified hazard, but did not address its cause. For
    example, in response to a hazard finding, the employing office may have
    encapsulated asbestos from broken transite boards without removing the
    transite boards themselves. As employees continue to roll heavy carts
    over these boards, additional cracks develop and more of the asbestos
    becomes friable (causing further exposure to employees). While the
    previously identified hazard may have been abated, the cause of the
    exposure remains unaddressed and exposure to the hazardous substance
    continues. Other ``new'' hazards may be similar to previously
    identified hazards. For example, a GFCI outlet added to a circuit to
    abate a previously identified hazard may be found to be nonfunctional
    during a subsequent inspection.
        The Need for Major Campus-Wide Inspections.--There is still a need
    to conduct biennial inspections, but the OOC intends to limit the scope
    and scale of these inspections in future Congresses.
        Comprehensive campus-wide inspections have only occurred during the
    past two Congresses. The Office of Compliance has just begun its third
    full-scale, wall-to-wall inspection of the Capitol complex. With the
    completion of this third inspection, there will exist three independent
    sets of data that will enable the OOC to conduct a trend analysis of
    safety and health conditions in the legislative branch. Such an
    analysis will allow the OOC to determine where progress is being made,
    what requires closer attention, etc. Further, in jurisdictions where
    adequate OSH Act mandated safety programs and procedures are in place
    to protect workers, the risk of serious illness or injuries and,
    consequently, the necessity for frequent inspections may be
    substantially reduced as well. Such a risk-based approach will result
    in more targeted deployment of inspector resources, whether in the
    nature of the more focused inspections to ascertain the root causes of
    repeat hazards or the provision of technical and educational assistance
    to employing offices. Future inspections can be more effectively
    concentrated on areas presenting the greatest potential risk of
    illness, death or injury. Some areas may not have to be inspected
    during each inspection cycle, if previously identified hazards have
    been abated and the likelihood of recurrence is low. Other high hazard
    areas may necessitate more frequent inspections to assure abatement has
    been promptly accomplished. This is particularly important where the
    continued existence of a hazard may contribute to the creation or
    exacerbation of a fire hazard in a facility that lacks protected
    evacuation routes or sufficient egress capacity in the event of a fire.
    If the data support it, the OOC may not need to inspect every
    administrative space and office on campus, but rather random sampling
    may be sufficient to ascertain whether or not new hazards are being
    created or old hazards repeated. This will permit the OOC to devote
    more resources to reviewing employing office safety and health
    programs, focusing inspections on high risk work areas and procedures,
    developing new educational materials, and providing more in-depth
    technical assistance. In making these determinations, it is important
    that employing offices make, keep and preserve, and provide to the OOC,
    data which will be needed to develop information regarding the causes
    and prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses, an OSH Act
    requirement, 29 U.S.C. 657(c), applicable to the private sector and
    executive branch agencies, but not required under the Congressional
    Accountability Act.
        The OOC currently lacks sufficient financial resources and
    necessary statutory authority to fully track and verify abatement
    information provided by employing offices and then target its
    inspections accordingly. In its fiscal year 2010 budget request, the
    OOC has requested funding for a Compliance Officer who would be able to
    assist in the development and implementation of such a system. See,
    OOC, Budget Justification Request for the Committee on Appropriations,
    p. 13 (fiscal year 2010). The OOC's recent Section 102(b) Report to
    Congress (December 2008) proposes several legislative changes that
    would assist in the development of a targeted inspection system. These
    changes involve adoption of OSHA's record keeping and reporting
    requirements. See OOC, Section 102(b) Report, p. 10 (December 2008).
        The OOC has informed employing offices that future inspections will
    include a review of the written safety and health programs required by
    the OSH Act. Due to the number of hazard findings identified in each of
    the last two Congresses, the OOC believes that many of these hazards
    could be prevented if needed safety programs were operational in the
    legislative branch. The inspection team has observed many hazards
    attributable to the lack of effective OSHA-mandated safety and health
    programs. Similar hazards recur because employees lack a clear
    understanding of what the OSHA regulations require of them. We hope
    that employing offices will cooperate by furnishing information
    regarding their written safety and health programs. However, as noted,
    if the CAA were amended as proposed in our Section 102(b) Report, the
    OOC would have access to injury and illness records that we could use
    to determine whether existing programs are effective in reducing
    injury, illness, and accident rates as well as a substantially savings
    in worker compensation and other associated costs.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ During fiscal year 2008, the OOC commenced a study of injury
    rates and associated costs in employing offices in the legislative
    branch based upon limited injury rate data available from the Office of
    Worker Compensation Programs. The Library of Congress, the first office
    reviewed, implemented safety programs that appeared to contribute to
    lowering the number of new injuries occurring over the last 7 years.
    From the preliminary information available to this office, it appears
    that the LOC achieved significant cost avoidance--in excess of $11
    million--during this period that otherwise would have been incurred but
    for that agency's efforts to reduce lost time injuries. See Office of
    Compliance, Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Report (March 2009), pp. 13-14.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        During the 111th Congress Biennial Inspection, the inspection team
    is finding fewer hazards as well as increased educational efforts by
    the employing offices. However, without data from the employing offices
    showing that they have adequately discovered and abated OSH hazards,
    the OOC must continue to do what is necessary to ensure a safe and
    healthy workplace for covered employees. In addition, as noted earlier,
    the employing offices do not provide the OOC--or perhaps may not make,
    keep or preserve--injury and illness records that would help us
    identify the most hazardous areas for more regular inspections and/or
    offers of technical assistance. Without this information, the OOC must
    rely upon its biennial and requestor-initiated inspections to provide
    information regarding workplace safety and building conditions in its
    biennial report to Congress. Without biennial inspections and the
    biennial report, Congress would not have the information required to
    exercise its oversight and appropriation functions.
        Finally, the biennial inspection schedule is a relatively
    inexpensive safety measure. Together with the safety measures
    implemented by the Architect of the Capitol in recent years, the
    biennial inspection allows continued and safer occupancy of buildings
    that have very serious fire and safety deficiencies. Due to the large
    costs involved in making building modifications that will provide
    protected egress in the event of a fire or other emergency condition,
    the OOC has worked closely with the AOC and other covered entities to
    implement some interim prevention and protection measures to reduce the
    level of risk to employees and visitors in these buildings with open
    unprotected stairwells and deficient egress capacity. Improving fire
    prevention is such a recognized interim measure. The biennial
    inspection schedule is an integral part of such interim protection
    because it permits periodic training of a continually changing
    workforce about emergency procedures and fire prevention measures being
    implemented in each building. Further, by removing hazards that
    contribute to the creation or spread of a fire, such as improper
    wiring, accumulation of paper and other fuel sources, penetration of
    fire walls, inadequate or damaged fire doors, and blockage of
    sprinklers, fire prevention is enhanced.
        Cost of Conducting a Biennial Inspection.--Most of the funds
    expended by the Office of the General Counsel are related to the
    biennial inspection process. The cost of conducting a biennial
    inspection is difficult to calculate with precision, given the multiple
    and overlapping elements of the process. We estimate that during fiscal
    year 2009, the OOC will spend roughly $1.4 million on the biennial
    inspection process.
        Two FTE's--one inspector and one management analyst--and three
    contractors are engaged in the inspection process. This process
    includes (1) inspection preparation, such as reviewing past inspection
    notes, hazard findings, condition assessments and abatement records;
    (2) scheduling and coordinating inspections with employing offices; (3)
    travel time; (4) physically inspecting over 17 million square feet of
    legislative branch facilities; (5) post-inspection data entry of
    inspection findings; (6) reviewing data for quality control; (7)
    preparing Hazard Findings Reports; (8) communicating with employing
    offices and the AOC about findings and proposed abatement dates; (9)
    reviewing and resolving disputes over any findings contested by
    employing offices; and (10) reviewing proposed abatement measures and
    abatement dates.
        In addition, an Administrative Assistant (FTE) and a contract
    clerical assistant are engaged nearly full time in inspection-related
    responsibilities. Three FTE attorneys also spend significant time on
    inspection-related work. Attorneys and inspectors provide technical
    assistance to employing offices concerning abatement measures, and the
    development and implementation of OSH-mandated safety programs and
    procedures. The attorney and inspection staff prepare statutorily-
    required reports to Congress regarding the biennial inspections.
    Inspectors, attorneys, and support staff contribute to the preparation
    of these reports, including reviewing employing office comments on the
    draft reports in advance of publication. At least 70 percent of the
    General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel's efforts are related to OSH
    matters.
        The OOC spends funds on equipment used in the inspection, such as
    electrical testers, industrial hygiene equipment, door pressure gauges
    and slope meters. Maintaining the FMA database also requires the
    expenditure of funds.
        The value added from these inspections has been proven by the
    reduction in the number of identified hazards in the last 5 years. The
    number of hazards dropped by roughly 30 percent between the 109th and
    110th Congresses. Moreover, in the 111th Congress, the OOC is already
    observing a 75 percent reduction of hazards in Member offices compared
    to the 109th Congress. Because hazards tend to remain unabated absent
    oversight, we believe it unlikely that such reductions would have been
    achieved without our biennial inspections. Finally, as noted earlier,
    the biennial inspection schedule is a relatively inexpensive interim
    measure that substantially contributes to lowering the risk to
    occupants of facilities having serious fire and safety deficiencies.

                                   CITATIONS

        Question. As you know, AOC puts the highest priority on funding for
    projects that have received a citation from the Office of Compliance.
    Are projects with citations necessarily those posing the highest risk
    to health and safety throughout Capitol facilities?
        Answer. Yes. The General Counsel issues a citation when there is a
    hazard posing a potentially high risk to health and safety. Citations
    are issued infrequently, 67 in the 13-year history of this Office,
    particularly given the large number of hazard findings issued during
    our biennial inspections. Moreover, only a single complaint has been
    filed--that challenging the AOC's failure to abate longstanding, life-
    threatening safety and health hazards in the Capitol Power Plant
    utility tunnels. In contrast, during that period, the OGC has notified
    the employing offices of many thousands of hazards following the
    inspection of each facility--13,140 in the 109th Congress biennial
    inspection and 9,336 in the 110th Congress inspection--all without
    issuance of a citation.
        Both OSHA and the OOC's General Counsel are required to issue
    citations for every serious hazard identified by inspections. Unlike
    OSHA, which immediately issues a citation and imposes monetary
    penalties for every serious hazard identified by its inspections, the
    General Counsel only issues citations when less formal, non-adversarial
    means have failed to abate a hazard. The General Counsel notifies the
    employing offices of hazards requiring abatement rather than routinely
    issuing citations. Given the vast number of hazards discovered during
    inspections, the General Counsel has determined that this procedure
    achieves more expeditious and voluntary abatement of hazards. The
    decision to issue a formal citation or to follow a more informal
    process lies within the statutory discretion of the General Counsel.
        Question. I understand your office has been attempting to do more
    outreach to the AOC and work in a more cooperative manner. How does OOC
    decide whether to work with the AOC or issue a citation?
        Answer. The OOC goes to great lengths to ``get it right.'' It
    offers multiple opportunities for the AOC and other employing offices
    to provide information, opinions, suggestions, and criticisms. As
    indicated above, citations are not regularly issued. In fact, only one
    citation has been issued since December 2006. The OOC is continually
    exploring with the AOC and other offices creative ways to work more
    cooperatively. The OGC offers employing offices the opportunity to
    contest any hazard finding found during a biennial Inspection. Every
    cover letter sent with the OOC's Hazard Summary Report includes
    information regarding how to contest the finding. If there is a dispute
    over a finding, for whatever reason, an employing office can appeal to
    the General Counsel for review. The General Counsel responds in writing
    to the employing office and informs them that the hazard has been
    marked as abated, removed from the list of identified hazards, or
    remains open because the General Counsel has determined that there is
    sufficient justification for the finding.
        The General Counsel also affords the employing office an
    opportunity to set forth its position on the merits of a hazard
    finding, in writing or face-to-face, if he is considering whether to
    issue a citation. Even after the citation is issued, the employing
    office is given the opportunity to present additional information to
    the General Counsel. A typical citation contains the following
    language:

        ``Informal'' Conference.--At the request of the affected employing
    office, employee, or representative of employees, the General Counsel
    may hold an informal conference for the purpose of discussing any
    issues raised by an inspection, citation, or notice, including the
    abatement date. If you decide to request an informal conference, please
    mail or fax the request to the General Counsel within 10 working days
    of your receipt of this Citation. See Office of Compliance Rules of
    Procedure, 4.15.
        During such an informal conference, you may present any evidence or
    views which you believe would support an adjustment to the citation. Be
    sure to bring to the conference any and all supporting documentation of
    existing conditions as well as any abatement steps taken thus far.''

        As indicated above, the General Counsel will only issue a citation
    when the identified hazard is particularly serious or creates an
    imminent risk to legislative branch employees or the public; when the
    hazard constitutes a ``repeat'' or similar or related violation of the
    type found in past inspections or when a broad, systematic remedy may
    be required; when an employing office fails to take appropriate and
    timely steps to correct a hazard; or when he determines it is otherwise
    necessary to effectuate the purposes of the occupational safety and
    health laws.
        Question. Can OOC do more to work with AOC in a flexible manner--
    without jeopardizing serious health and safety considerations--to
    ensure we fund those projects that are truly aimed at the highest
    risks?
        Answer. Yes. The Office of Compliance does work with the AOC, as
    well as other offices, in a flexible manner to ensure that its
    abatement efforts are focused on the highest risks, i.e., the fire and
    life safety hazards that the Office identified in the U.S. Capitol,
    Senate and House Office Buildings, and Library of Congress buildings.
    The OOC identified these hazards in 2000 and 2001; they are the subject
    of open Citations 16-19 and 29-30. The AOC historically has determined
    what to include in its budget request. It is the AOC that has set
    funding priorities among citation abatement projects. The OOC
    traditionally has not been involved in the AOC's process of setting
    priorities among those projects.
        At the request of staff from this Subcommittee and their
    counterparts in the House, the OOC and AOC recently have begun an
    effort to assess the relative risks posed by these open citations, with
    the goal of informing the process of setting funding priorities. We are
    working closely with the AOC to identify projects where temporary
    adjustments can minimize life safety risks until permanent structural
    corrections can be made. For example, our offices began by pinpointing
    interim measures for the House Page School in the attic of the Thomas
    Jefferson Building, which can be evacuated only via a spiral staircase.
    The interim measures are designed to ensure that students and faculty
    have evacuation routes that reduce the risk of injury until an enclosed
    exit stairway is constructed.
        We will continue to work with the AOC to identify other
    infrastructure hazards whose risks can be reduced by interim abatement
    measures. We are hopeful that the AOC-OOC risk analysis will be
    complete by September 1, 2009. Thereafter, the AOC and the OOC look
    forward to presenting that analysis to the Senate and House
    Appropriations Subcommittees, as well as to our respective oversight
    Committees. Our goal is to provide this and other Committees with the
    information necessary to ensure that funding is directed toward the
    highest risks.
        Our analysis will include an examination of AOC's fire prevention
    programs, which include the installation of sprinklers in legislative
    branch facilities. Fire prevention is particularly important in
    historic structures, where repair or replacement is difficult if not
    impossible. These programs reduce but cannot eliminate the risk that a
    fire may occur, and if occurring, may be contained in scope.
    Accordingly, to protect lives, it is essential permanently to correct
    hazards such as inadequate exit capacity, stairways not protected from
    fire and smoke infiltration and the like.
        Effective interim measures may not be feasible in every facility.
    Even the best fire prevention programs cannot guarantee safe evacuation
    from a structurally deficient building. Significant, permanent
    alterations to existing facilities will be required in order to ensure
    that Capitol Complex occupants may escape a fire safely. No credible
    risk analysis can overlook these facts. We look forward to continued
    cooperation with the AOC and other stakeholders to develop an analysis
    that accounts for these and all other relevant concerns.
        Question. Under current law, can OOC take into consideration the
    importance of undertaking projects in a coordinated, risk-based manner?
        Answer. As noted above, despite the time limitations imposed by the
    CAA, and understanding the importance of undertaking projects in a
    coordinated, risk-based manner, the OOC has worked with the AOC to
    implement interim measures to reduce the degree of risk to occupants of
    buildings with known safety and fire hazards requiring expensive
    alterations that will take more than one Congress to complete.
    Ordinarily, a citation sets forth the date by which abatement must be
    completed by the office responsible for correcting the hazard. In
    setting that date, the General Counsel takes into account whether full
    or partial abatement is achievable within that timeframe. The employing
    office may challenge the time set by the citation by submitting a
    request for modification of abatement, and if the request is not
    granted, an enforcement proceeding may resolve that issue. The GAO
    addressed this question in a Briefing for Congressional Staff, AOC's
    Process for Prioritizing Capital Projects (September 2008) as follows:
        While it is clear that AOC is statutorily required to correct
    violations of health and safety standards, it is not clear as to when
    the statutory compliance requirement begins if new appropriated funds
    are needed because of the statutory enforcement framework regarding the
    OOC process for citations, complaints, and orders. While 2 U.S.C.
    1341(c)(6) sets a deadline using ``the end of the fiscal year
    following the fiscal year in which the citation is issued or the order
    requiring correction becomes final and not subject to further review,''
    the OOC GC sets a time limit for corrective action consistent with
    OOC's regulations in its citations, complaints, and orders, which could
    be longer than the statutory timeframe. For example, to resolve the
    complaint for hazards in the Capitol Power Plant utility tunnels issued
    by OOC GC, the OOC GC and AOC entered into a settlement agreement that
    set a 5 year time limit for corrective action by May 2012, which a
    hearing officer ordered the AOC to comply with, whereas a literal
    interpretation of the statutory timeframe would require corrective
    action by October 1, 2008. For budgetary decisions, it is unclear
    whether AOC has to correct the violations: using the date of the
    citation or order, or the date stipulated by the OOC in citation or
    order. Using either time limit though, AOC must take steps to obtain
    sufficient funding to correct the violations, such as including amounts
    in its budget request; however, Congress is not required to appropriate
    funds to cover the corrective actions.
        Question. Are there statutory changes needed to ensure we aren't
    holding the Legislative Branch to a higher (or different) standard than
    GSA or private sector buildings? Please be specific.
        Answer. The OSHAct imposes a ``General Duty'' upon all employers
    (including executive branch departments and private employers) ``to
    furnish a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are
    causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
    employees'' and requires employers to comply with regulations issued by
    the Secretary of Labor (OSHA Regulations). The Congressional
    Accountability Act (CAA) imposes this ``General Duty Clause'' upon each
    employing office and each covered employee. However, the CAA does not
    apply to the legislative branch the many specific mandates that the
    OSHAct imposes in the executive branch.
        While the general duty imposed upon all employers (private sector,
    executive branch and legislative branch) is the same--compliance with
    Section 5 of the OSHAct by furnishing a place of employment free from
    hazards--the specific mandates imposed upon the executive branch are
    quite extensive due to the provisions of OSHAct  19 and 29 CFR  1960.
    The following table illustrates the differences between the OSH
    requirements for the executive branch (as mandated by 29 CFR  1960)
    and the requirements for the legislative branch.

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

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To comply with Section 5 of the OSHAct (as mandated by 29   To comply with Section 5 of the OSHAct, legislative
     CFR  1960), executive branch departments are required      offices are required to:
     to:                                                           Submit to inspection by the OOC at least
      Submit to inspection by agency safety and health              biennially.
       inspectors at least annually.
      Designate an ``Agency Safety and Health Official''
       (holding the rank of Assistant Secretary or equivalent)
       who will carry out provisions of 29 CFR 1960,
       Executive Order 12196, and Section 19 of the OSHAct. A
       principal role for this official is to provide
       ``adequate budgets and staffs to implement the
       occupational safety and health program at all levels''
      Establish safety and health officials at each
       appropriate level with sufficient authority and
       responsibility to plan for and assure funds for
       necessary safety and health staff, materials, sampling,
       testing, analyses, travel, training and equipment
       required to identify, analyze and evaluate unsafe or
       unhealthful working conditions and operations
      Ensure that performance evaluations of management and
       supervisory officials measure their effectiveness in
       meeting the requirements of the occupational safety and
       health program
      Make available the agency's occupational safety and
       health plan to employees and employee representatives
       upon their request
      Post a conspicuous notice informing employees of the
       Act, Executive Order and agency occupational safety and
       health program, and relevant information about safety
       and health committees
      Adopt emergency temporary or permanent supplementary
       standards appropriate for application to working
       conditions of agency employees for which there exist no
       appropriate OSHA standards
      Provide safety and health inspectors with safety and
       health hazard reports, injury and illness records,
       previous inspection reports, and reports of unsafe and
       unhealthful working conditions
      Post notices of unsafe or unhealthful working conditions
       that are identified by the agency's internal safety and
       health inspectors. These posters must remain until
       after the hazard has been abated
      Investigate working conditions, which employees have
       reported unsafe or unhealthful, within 24 hours to 20
       working days, depending on the potential seriousness of
       the conditions. These investigations must be made
       available to the employee within 15 or 30 working days
       depending on the condition's severity
      Investigate each accident that results in a fatality or
       in the hospitalization of three or more employees
      Establish procedures to follow up, to the extent
       necessary, to verify that hazardous conditions have
       been abated
      Prepare an abatement plan that includes a proposed
       timetable for abatement, an explanation of any delays
       in the abatement, and a summary of interim steps to
       abate the hazard
      Regularly inform established committees and/or employee
       representatives of the progress on abatement plans
      Either establish safety and health committees or be
       subject to unannounced inspections by OSHA. These
       committees, which have equal representation by
       management and non-management employees, monitor the
       performance of agency-wide safety and health programs
      Participate in the Safety, Health, and Return-to
       Employment (SHARE) Initiative which requires: (1) the
       establishment of goals and plans for reduction of
       injuries and illness; and (2) reporting on progress
       made toward meeting the established goals. The goals
       for 2004-2009 were to: (1) reduce by 3 percent the
       total number of employee injuries per year; (2) reduce
       by 3 percent the annual lost time due to worker
       injuries, and (3) reduce by 1 percent the total number
       of annual lost production days due to worker injuries.
       (Established by Presidential Memoranda on 1/9/2004 & 9/
       29/2006)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The legislative branch is also required to comply with fewer
    mandates than the private sector. Unlike private sector employers, the
    employing offices covered by the CAA are not required to comply with
    OSHA  8(c) [29 U.S.C.  657(c)]. That provision requires employers to
    maintain and provide to the Secretary of Labor records regarding
    employee injuries and illnesses.
        The OOC's recent Section 102(b) Report to Congress (December 2008)
    proposes to apply OSHA's recordkeeping and reporting requirements to
    the employing offices covered by the CAA. See OOC, Section 102(b)
    Report, p. 10 (December 2008). Under the current statutory scheme,
    employing offices are not required to make, keep, preserve, or provide
    to the OOC records deemed necessary for enforcement of OSH Act Section
    5, including records on work-related deaths, injuries and illnesses,
    and records of employee exposure to toxic materials and harmful
    physical agents. Similarly, under the current scheme, the OOC is unable
    to consider any inspection findings of safety professionals in the
    employing offices because employing offices do not share their
    inspection findings with the OOC. In addition, neither the AOC nor any
    other covered employing office provides the OOC with injury and illness
    records that are necessary for strategically determining what areas
    should be inspected more regularly or provided more technical
    assistance. This information is not required to be compiled or
    disclosed under the CAA, and without it, the OOC depends on its
    biennial inspections to provide information regarding building
    conditions and workplace safety to Congress.

                       RISK-BASED APPROACH TO SAFETY WORK

        Question. How do you prioritize your safety-related inspections
    work? Are you able to give priority to facilities that may be lacking
    certain safety features, such are fire sprinklers, or having a greater
    number of occupants and visitors exposed to safety issues? If not, are
    legislative changes needed?
        Answer. As noted above, the OOC has just begun its third
    comprehensive, wall-to-wall inspection of the Capitol complex. This
    inspection will provide a third set of data which will be used to
    develop a more focused risk-based inspection schedule. As also noted
    above, under the current statutory scheme, employing offices are not
    required to make, keep, and preserve, or provide to the OOC, records
    deemed necessary for enforcement of OSHAct Section 5, including records
    on work-related deaths, injuries and illnesses, and records of employee
    exposure to toxic materials and harmful physical agents. Requiring the
    employing offices to maintain and disclose such records would greatly
    assist the OOC in strategically planning what areas should be inspected
    more regularly or provided more technical assistance. This is a
    legislative change the OOC has previously suggested in its Section
    102(b) Report, p. 10 (December 2008).
        Under the CAA, the OOC is also required to inspect and investigate
    places of employment in response to a written request from an employing
    office or a covered employee. CAA  215(c)(1), 2 U.S.C.  1341(c)(1).
    Requestor-initiated inspections are therefore also given priority
    regardless of whether the building has sprinklers or low occupancy
    rates.
        Finally, in buildings with known fire and safety hazards, the OOC
    and the employing offices have implemented interim prevention and
    protection measures to provide relatively safe occupancy. These interim
    safety measures often include frequent inspections and training.
    Buildings that lack sprinkler coverage in whole or in part, and/or have
    higher occupancy rates, are given a higher priority when determining
    the frequency of these types of inspections.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Nelson. The subcommittee will stand in recess until
    2:30 p.m. on May 21, 2009, when we will meet to take testimony
    on the fiscal year 2010 budget requests of the Government
    Accountability Office, the Government Printing Office, and the
    Congressional Budget Office.
        It is recessed. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., Thursday, May 7, the subcommittee
    was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., Thursday, May 21.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ben Nelson (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Nelson and Murkowski.

                        GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF GENE L. DODARO, ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NELSON

        Senator Nelson. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Good afternoon to everybody, and welcome. We meet this
    afternoon to take testimony on the fiscal year 2010 budget
    request for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the
    Government Printing Office (GPO), and the Congressional Budget
    Office (CBO). We will welcome our ranking member just as soon
    as she is able to be here.
        And I want to welcome our witnesses today--Gene Dodaro,
    Acting Comptroller General; Robert Tapella, Public Printer; and
    Doug Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office. It
    is good to have you all here, together with staff, and we look
    forward to your remarks.
        If it is possible to hold those opening statements brief,
    maybe around 5 minutes, and submit the rest of your testimony
    for the record, which we will receive, I think we will be able
    to ask more questions as a result of that.
        One thing that we have established at the first two
    hearings of this subcommittee, and I think it bears repeating,
    is that we are not eager to increase the overall legislative
    branch budget this year. We are looking for your guidance in
    helping us to address your agencies' needs in fiscal year 2010,
    but this really isn't the year for extras.
        The subcommittee received an 11 percent increase in fiscal
    year 2009, but I seriously doubt that we are going to see
    anything near a double-digit increase this year. You can almost
    bet the opposite.
        First, Mr. Dodaro, I want to thank you for your service to
    our country as the Acting Comptroller General of the GAO. I
    think you have done an outstanding job in this role over the
    last year. And according to yesterday's Washington Post, GAO
    ranked among the best Federal Government agencies to work for
    in a survey conducted by the Partnership for Public Service.
        Congratulations on a wonderful piece outlining what a
    terrific place it is to work. And I wish you and your
    colleagues continued success and the continued great
    relationship.
        I especially appreciate the efforts of your agency in
    assisting Congress during our country's current economic crisis
    and your oversight of both the Troubled Asset Relief Act and
    the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. And of course, I
    look forward to discussing your latest findings on these
    activities as well as your fiscal year 2010 budget, which shows
    an increase of 7 percent over fiscal year 2009 and includes 109
    additional full-time equivalents (FTEs).
        I also want to welcome Bob Tapella from the Government
    Printing Office. Your budget total is $166 million, an 18
    percent increase over the current year, which I understand
    includes large increases for both building repairs and
    technology upgrades.
        And finally, I want to welcome Doug Elmendorf, Director of
    the Congressional Budget Office. Congratulations on your recent
    appointment to this position, and your fiscal year 2010 budget
    total is $46.3 million, an increase of 5.2 percent and 12
    additional FTEs.
        And now, it is my pleasure to turn to my ranking member,
    Senator Murkowski, for your opening remarks. And let me say it
    has been a pleasure working with you. This is a subcommittee
    that shows and knows no partisanship, and we want to continue
    to be able to work that way.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate your kind remarks.
        I want to welcome the gentlemen before us today, and thank
    you all for your work in your respective areas.
        As you have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, you have talked a
    little bit about the realities of the budget that we are facing
    and our efforts to try to be perhaps a little more lean and
    mean. I don't like the mean part, but nothing wrong with a
    little leanness here.
        And recognizing that the jobs that are requested are
    difficult, and we have a tendency to complicate probably your
    lives often times with the requests that come from Members
    here. But in order for us to do our jobs, of course, we rely on
    you and what you provide, and we appreciate that.
        As you have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the agencies before us
    today are requesting a combined total of $780 million for
    fiscal year 2010. This is an increase of $64 million, or 9
    percent over last year. Each agency is requesting additional
    staffing on top of the usual cost-of-living increases, and for
    the Government Printing Office, significant increases are
    requested for investments in information technology and systems
    development, as well as repairs to GPO's buildings.
        I do recognize, fully recognize that these three agencies
    perform very important functions, serve the entire Federal
    Government, not just the legislative branch. And it is
    important to keep that in perspective. I do look forward to
    understanding fully the needs of each agency, but I would agree
    with you, Mr. Chairman, that I am skeptical about the need for
    large increases for the legislative branch.
        With respect to the Government Accountability Office, I
    would like to note that GAO has traditionally performed a very
    important role for this subcommittee in its oversight of its
    sister agencies. GAO has done extensive work over the past
    decade in reviewing management and organizational issues at the
    Capitol Police, at the Architect of the Capitol, as well as the
    Library of Congress. And this work has been invaluable,
    particularly to this subcommittee, as we attempt to promote the
    improvements in each of these agencies, and I would certainly
    hope that that would continue.
        Staff discussions have been underway in recent weeks
    regarding the Capitol Police overtime and their staffing
    issues, and I would hope that GAO would place a high priority
    on this work as we wrestle with the need for Capitol Police
    staffing requirements.
        There have also been discussions in the past year on the
    Architect of the Capitol's prioritization of its construction
    work, with particular emphasis on the impact of the Office of
    Compliance citations. We had a very interesting hearing on that
    a couple of weeks ago. We will need to continue to have GAO's
    assistance to ensure that we allocate funds to these projects
    so that we truly do get the most bang for the buck. So we
    appreciate that.
        Again, appreciate the good work that is done and want you
    all to know that we value the important work that you do, look
    forward to your comments here this afternoon.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        Now we will proceed, first, to Mr. Dodaro, who will be
    followed by Mr. Tapella, and last, but not least, Dr.
    Elmendorf.
        Mr. Dodaro.

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENE L. DODARO

        Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Murkowski. It is a pleasure to appear before you this afternoon
    to discuss our 2010 budget request.
        First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your kind
    words and the recognition of GAO as the number two best place
    to work in the Federal Government. We are very proud of that,
    and making GAO a good place to work helps us serve the Congress
    better. So we are very committed to doing both.
        And Senator Murkowski, among the work that we consider to
    be a high priority is our work that supports the legislative
    branch and its important activities. So I can assure you that
    we will continue to give that work high priority.
        I would like to thank the Congress and the subcommittee for
    the support that we had received in 2009. That has helped us be
    in a good position to help support the Congress. Our 2010
    request is intended to help ensure that we are in the best
    position possible to help all the committees throughout the
    Congress tackle very important national issues, as well as some
    difficult challenges.

                    GAO deg.SUMMARY OF GAO WORKLOAD

        We support every standing committee in the Congress and
    about 80 percent of the subcommittees. Now among the difficult
    challenges, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is the work that we
    are doing to help in the financial markets and with the
    economic downturn. In addition to providing reports every 60
    days on the implementation of the Troubled Asset Relief
    Program, we are also the auditors, as of last year, of the
    Federal Housing Finance Administration, which is now the
    conservator and the regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
        And we are also working on proposals to help the Congress
    make decisions on how those entities ought to go forward once
    they come out of conservatorship status. We are also the
    auditors of the Bank Insurance Fund, and of course, they have
    had a lot of difficult challenges, some of the most difficult
    since the savings and loan crisis in the 1980s and 1990s.
        We have also done work on the need to modernize our
    outdated and fragmented regulatory system. We added that on the
    high-risk list for Congress so that it receives congressional
    attention. We have issued reports. It is very important for us
    to continue to help the Congress modernize the financial
    regulatory system so we address the root causes of how we got
    into this situation in the first place and make sure it doesn't
    happen again.
        Part of our request for additional resources is directed
    toward helping us bolster our capability to help Congress
    decide what system should be put in place, but also that it
    works effectively and that there is adequate monitoring going
    forward. So, that is a very important role for us.
        Also, on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we
    have a range of responsibilities that the Congress has assigned
    to us, including bimonthly reviews of the use of the funds by
    selected States and localities. We have picked 16 States and
    the District of Columbia, which will receive over two-thirds of
    the funds being provided to State and local governments. We
    will be doing a longitudinal study over the next 2 or 3 years,
    as the Recovery Act funds are distributed to the States and
    localities, to assess how they use the money and whether or not
    the act is achieving its objectives over time.
        Our request is also intended to support a wide range of
    other issues, ranging from the U.S. efforts in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, and Pakistan to the 2010 census to healthcare
    issues to energy issues and across the full breadth of the
    Federal Government's activities going forward.

                    GAO deg.SUMMARY OF GAO REQUEST

        As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we are asking for a 6.9
    percent increase. This would allow us to increase our staffing
    by 109 FTEs, or 3.5 percent, in order to help respond to the
    estimated 1,200 requests that we receive from the Congress
    every year. The Congress was very kind to us last year. We were
    able to increase our staffing a bit, but we are still near the
    lowest level we have ever been in GAO's history at a time where
    our services are being required more and more.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We believe our request is a prudent one. We have carefully
    thought about it. I understand perfectly the situation that you
    are in. I know you will give careful attention to our request.
    I appreciate that very much, and I look forward to responding
    to any questions that you may have.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Gene L. Dodaro

        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Senator Murkowski, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss
    the U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO) budget request for
    fiscal year 2010. At the outset, I want to thank the subcommittee for
    its support of GAO. We appreciated your efforts in appropriating a
    fiscal year 2009 amount that provides GAO with the resources to better
    allow us to assist the Congress in a timely way to address the many
    difficult challenges facing the Nation. I also want to acknowledge the
    professionalism, talents, and dedication of our GAO workforce in
    supporting the Congress and improving government for the American
    people.
        In fiscal year 2008, GAO delivered advice and analyses to the
    Congress in response to requests from all of the standing committees of
    the House and the Senate, as well as over 80 percent of their
    subcommittees. The hard work of our staff yielded significant results
    across the government, including expert testimony at over 300
    congressional hearings, hundreds of improvements in government
    operations, and billions in financial benefits.
        I submit for your consideration a request for a fiscal year 2010
    appropriation of $567.5 million to support 3,250 full-time equivalent
    (FTE) staff. This request represents an increase of $36.5 million, or
    6.9 percent, over our fiscal year 2009 funding level, which would
    support a 3.5 percent increase over our 2009 FTE level. Importantly,
    almost 70 percent of our requested increase is needed for mandatory pay
    and uncontrollable cost increases. While our fiscal year 2009 funding
    level allows us to make progress in responding to new congressional
    requests sooner, our fiscal year 2010 request would enable GAO to make
    greater progress in addressing the issues of greatest interest to the
    Congress and the American public during these challenging times, which
    is our highest priority. I am also requesting authority to use $15.2
    million in offsetting collections, as detailed in our budget
    submission.

        GAO DELIVERS RESULTS ON AN INCREASING RANGE OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

        The Congress continues to rely on GAO's nonpartisan, objective
    analysis and recommendations and has given us new responsibilities and
    opportunities to play key roles in addressing a number of emerging
    issues. We are addressing challenges in the financial markets and
    broader economy through our work overseeing the Troubled Asset Relief
    Program (TARP), created in 2008. We continue to monitor and report,
    every 60 days, on the status of the implementation of TARP, and we plan
    to conduct an annual financial audit of the $700 billion authorized for
    the program.
        Additionally, GAO is carrying out a range of responsibilities
    overseeing spending related to the 2009 American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act (ARRA)--including bimonthly reviews of how selected
    States and localities across the country are using the billions of
    dollars of funds provided to them--and providing targeted studies in
    several areas, such as small business lending, education, and expanded
    trade adjustment assistance.
        Over the next several years, our work will encompass critical
    areas, including
      --reviewing progress in implementing key activities for the 2010
            Census;
      --helping to support the Congress's consideration of changes in the
            regulatory structure for financial markets and institutions,
            including the establishment and implementation of controls to
            help avoid a future financial crisis of the magnitude the
            Nation faces today;
      --reviewing the revised governance structure for the housing market
            and providing targeted analyses to inform decision makers
            working to restore the functioning of the mortgage market and
            resolve the ultimate disposition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
      --supporting health care reform efforts and control of health care
            costs through analysis of expenditures and payment structures
            in Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance
            Program, and other health programs;
      --reviewing the impact of drawing down our resources in Iraq,
            providing more resources in Afghanistan, and retooling our
            operations in Pakistan;
      --providing balanced and objective assessments of the use of emerging
            technologies in the context of Federal programs and public
            policy issues, such as green energy, energy efficiency, health
            information technology, homeland security technologies, climate
            change, science and math education programs, as well as the
            technical challenges of developing sophisticated space and
            defense systems;
      --reviewing initiatives to enhance protection of cyber assets;
      --assessing contractor management, sourcing strategies, and
            contracting reforms; and
      --helping the Congress tackle both new and continuing high-risk
            areas, such as protecting public health through enhanced
            oversight over medical products, food safety, and toxic
            chemicals.
        Finally, as part of fulfilling our commitments under the
    Presidential Transition Act, as amended, GAO is serving as a key
    resource for the Congress and the administration on major challenges
    needing the attention of the 28 largest departments and agencies across
    government, as well as 13 other issues facing our Nation that require
    urgent attention and continuing oversight. In addition to those already
    mentioned, these include
      --preparing for public health emergencies,
      --improving the U.S. image abroad,
      --protecting the homeland,
      --caring for service members, and
      --defense spending and readiness.
        Our work receives great interest not only from the Congress but
    from the American people. For example, while our reports routinely
    receive media and public interest, in the first half of fiscal year
    2009, 12 GAO reports were downloaded over 10,000 times each from our
    external Web site, www.gao.gov. These reports covered an array of
    important issues, including
      --veterans' health care and the challenges of recruiting and
            retaining inpatient nurses,
      --Medicaid outpatient drug reimbursements and comparisons with retail
            pharmacy acquisition costs,
      --private equity and the risk of leveraged buyouts,
      --the outdated financial regulatory system and the need for a
            modernized framework, and
      --defense logistics and the need for better analyses and cost data to
            support performance-based decisions.
        In addition to our work in response to congressional requests, GAO
    also issues products that provide agencies with guidance and best
    practices, or that otherwise support greater accountability and
    oversight in government. In the first half of fiscal year 2009, 13 of
    these products were downloaded over 10,000 times each from our external
    Web site. The top five picks were (1) special publications on the
    principles of appropriations law, (2) the 2009 high-risk update, (3)
    updated guidance on government auditing standards, (4) the GAO cost
    estimating and assessment guide, and (5) highlights of our May 2007
    health care forum focusing on steps needed to meet future challenges.
        I am pleased by the recognition GAO receives from ordinary
    Americans and civil servants alike as a continuing source of reliable,
    unbiased information about how government operations can be improved.

                   HIGH CONGRESSIONAL DEMAND FOR GAO SERVICES

        GAO is an invaluable resource for helping the Congress provide
    oversight, accountability, and transparency in government. The demand
    for GAO services continues to remain high as a direct result of the
    high quality of our work, and this high demand is an indication of the
    Congress's desire for timely and objective analyses and professional
    advice. In each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008, GAO received over 1,200
    requests and mandates. The number of congressional mandates, our
    highest-priority work, more than doubled from fiscal year 2007 to 2008.
    In addition, as evidenced above, our work covers more and more complex
    issues across a broad range of Federal programs, requiring more in-
    depth analysis to complete.
        This congressional demand for GAO studies also has affected our
    ability to respond promptly to congressional requests. For instance, in
    fiscal year 2008, GAO delayed starting work on 21 percent of our
    accepted requests due to staff unavailability. The average time we took
    to initiate congressionally requested engagements was almost 5 months
    in the first half of 2009, compared with less than 3 months in fiscal
    year 2005.
        In addition, GAO is providing testimony at an increased number of
    congressional hearings. We testified at 304 hearings in fiscal year
    2008. This was the second highest number for GAO in the last 25 years.
        We expect to continue receiving a high volume of requests related
    to either the Nation's new challenges, such as the recent developments
    in the financial markets and economy, or to the many emerging
    initiatives of the Congress and the administration. Moreover, all
    Senate committees are required to review programs within their
    jurisdiction to root out fraud, waste, and abuse in program spending--
    giving particular scrutiny to issues raised in GAO reports--and develop
    recommendations for improved government performance. Also, recent
    changes to House rules require each standing committee or subcommittee
    to hold at least one hearing on any issue raised by GAO that indicates
    that Federal programs or operations authorized by that committee or
    subcommittee are at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, or
    mismanagement.
        Our January 2009 issuance of the biennial, High-Risk Series: An
    Update, which identifies Federal areas and programs at risk of fraud,
    waste, abuse, and mismanagement, as well as those in need of broad-
    based transformations, identified 30 at-risk Federal programs. Issued
    to coincide with the start of each new Congress, our high-risk updates
    have continued to help to focus and sustain attention to these programs
    so that executive branch officials who are accountable for each
    program's performance, as well as members of the Congress, have the
    information needed to complete their oversight responsibilities. The
    high-risk update report is available on our Web site at http://
    www.gao.gov.

                     GAO'S FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST

        With the increased capacity included in our fiscal year 2010
    appropriation request, we can continue to assist the Congress with
    oversight over a broad range of Federal programs. As a knowledge-based
    organization, about 80 percent of GAO's budget funds staff compensation
    and benefits, with much of the balance of our budget funding mandatory
    operating expenses, such as security services and other critical
    infrastructure services necessary to support our ongoing operations.
    For this reason, a significant portion of our requested funding
    increase is not discretionary.
        Our requested increase for fiscal year 2010 of $36.5 million seeks
    funds to cover
      --mandatory pay increases resulting primarily from annual across-the-
            board and performance-based increases, as well as pay raises
            required by the GAO Act, including the annualization of prior
            fiscal year compensation costs;
      --uncontrollable inflationary increases imposed by vendors as part of
            the cost of doing business;
      --nonrecurring fiscal year 2009 costs resulting from program
            improvements, which can offset about one-third of our mandatory
            and inflationary changes;
      --strengthening our staff capacity to provide timely support to the
            Congress in confronting the broad array of critical challenges
            facing the Nation, including
        --helping to support the Congress's consideration of changes in the
                regulatory structure of financial markets and institutions,
        --providing targeted analyses to inform decision makers working to
                restore the functioning of the mortgage market,
        --supporting health care reform efforts and the control of health
                care costs, and
        --providing assessments of technologies in the context of Federal
                programs and public policy issues, and
      --program changes supporting critical investments to (1) provide
            employee development and benefits, (2) implement technological
            improvements, and (3) strengthen our infrastructure.

                                 TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2010 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CHANGES
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Cumulative
                                                                                                       percentage of
                                                                                                       change fiscal
                            Budget category                               FTEs            Amount       year 2009 to
                                                                                                        fiscal year
                                                                                                           2010
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2008 actual........................................           3,081        $498,548   ..............
    Fiscal year 2009 revised estimate..............................           3,141         531,000   ..............
    Fiscal year 2010 requested changes.............................  ..............  ...............  ..............
        Mandatory pay..............................................  ..............          19,475              3.7
        Inflationary cost increases................................  ..............           5,714              4.7
        Nonrecurring fiscal year 2009 costs........................  ..............          (8,338)             3.2
        Staff capacity.............................................             109          16,826              6.3
        Program changes............................................  ..............          10,407              8.3
        Increase in offsetting collections.........................  ..............          (7,587)             6.9
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal--requested changes..............................             109          36,497   ..............
                                                                    ================================================
    Appropriation..................................................           3,250         567,497              6.9
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO.

                               CONCLUDING REMARKS

        I believe that you will find our budget request well-justified as
    it will ensure that GAO has the necessary staff and resources to
    strengthen our capacity to provide timely assistance to the Congress to
    confront the difficult challenges facing the Nation and help improve
    government for the American people.
        With your support of our 2010 budget request, we will continue
    rewarding the confidence you place in us by maintaining a strong return
    on this appropriation investment as we help to improve services to the
    public, change laws, and improve government operations.
        We are grateful for the Congress's continued support of our efforts
    to help improve government performance, accountability, and
    transparency. GAO remains committed to providing accurate, objective,
    nonpartisan, and constructive information to the Congress to help
    conduct effective oversight and fulfill its constitutional
    responsibilities.
        Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Senator Murkowski, this concludes
    my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions
    that you or other Members of the subcommittee might have.

                           GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. TAPELLA, PUBLIC PRINTER
        Mr. Tapella. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, thank you for
    inviting me today to discuss GPO's appropriation for fiscal
    year 2010. And I will take your advice and speak very briefly.
        First, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the
    subcommittee for the support we received for GPO's fiscal year
    2009 appropriations request. More specifically, I would like to
    commend your staff, Nancy Olkewicz and Carrie Apostolou, for
    the time they took to really understand GPO's needs. They asked
    a lot of tough questions, but at the end of the day, they
    really helped us to move forward.
        The fiscal year 2009 funding eliminates the shortfall in
    congressional printing and binding, allows us to undertake a
    number of valuable projects supporting electronic information
    dissemination to depository libraries and other users, brings
    FDsys closer to completion, repairs our roof, and begins to
    renovate our elevators.
        Second, now that the shortfall has been repaid, for fiscal
    year 2010 we are able to request a reduction in appropriations
    for congressional printing and binding of approximately $3.5
    million. For the salaries and expenses of the Superintendent of
    Documents, we are seeking a modest increase of $2.2 million to
    continue transforming the program to a predominantly electronic
    basis.
        For our revolving fund, we are seeking an increase of $18.5
    million to complete the development of FDsys and to carry out a
    number of critically important information technology (IT)
    infrastructure projects. We are also seeking $13.6 million for
    necessary building maintenance and repairs. I understand there
    will be limitations on what the subcommittee can recommend for
    us, and so I am happy to discuss our priorities.
        Finally, like many other agencies and many businesses these
    days, GPO is facing a very different business climate this
    year, in our case as a direct result of the significant
    reduction in demand for passports from the Department of State.
    We are tightening our belt, evaluating all costs and proposed
    projects, and taking all available measures to ensure we stay
    within our budget.
        I won't kid you. This is going to be a tough year for us.
    With your understanding and support, our objective is to
    complete the year on a sound financial basis.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, this concludes my remarks,
    and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Robert C. Tapella
        Chairman Nelson, Senator Murkowski, and Members of the Subcommittee
    on Legislative Branch Appropriations, it is an honor to be here today
    to discuss the appropriations request of the Government Printing Office
    (GPO) for fiscal year 2010.

                          RESULTS OF FISCAL YEAR 2008

        Building on our continuing transformation, GPO recorded another
    year of positive performance in fiscal year 2008. Much of this was
    attributable to the production of passports. The State Department's
    requirement for these documents grew significantly during the year,
    rising by nearly a third--from an estimated 18 million to approximately
    24 million--by year's end. By mid-year fiscal year 2009, however,
    passport production had decreased significantly due to reduced demand
    from the State Department.
        GPO's support for Congress during fiscal year 2008 was highlighted
    by work on products required for the Joint Congressional Committee on
    Inaugural Ceremonies, including invitations, maps, signs, programs,
    tickets, and other products, most notably secure credentials for law
    enforcement personnel associated with this event. During the year GPO
    also began producing the new edition of the U.S. Code, and delivered a
    number of other important congressional products, including Black
    Americans in Congress, 1807-2007. For Federal agencies, GPO began
    procuring work to support the upcoming 2010 Census, built its smart
    card business to help support State Department and Homeland Security
    travel documents, and with the Office of Management and Budget GPO
    coordinated the electronic delivery to Congress of the official version
    of the Budget of the United States Government for fiscal year 2009,
    which we authenticated by digital signature.
        GPO's electronic transition efforts proceeded apace as we readied
    our Federal Digital System (FDsys) for its first public release, which
    occurred in January 2009. This system will replace and improve on the
    services of GPO Access, which has provided the public with online
    access to Government information since 1994; funding for FDsys
    operating costs in the future will be derived from the appropriated
    funding sources currently supporting GPO Access. FDsys will also serve
    as GPO's digital platform, with a planned capability to provide for the
    intake, storage, processing, and output of Government publication
    content in a variety of forms and formats. With a state-of-the-art
    search and retrieval capability, FDsys is uniquely positioned to
    support the new Administration's commitment to providing greater
    openness and transparency in Government information. During the year
    GPO also expanded its authentication capabilities. In addition to the
    Budget, GPO completed work on authenticating selected congressional
    bills for the 110th Congress and is extending this capability to all
    bills in the 111th Congress.
        Over the past several years, GPO has implemented a variety of green
    initiatives in its operations: for more than a decade, for example,
    printing papers used by GPO have met the requirements for recycled
    content contained in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
    1989, as amended, and corresponding Executive Orders. The printing inks
    used by GPO and its contractors comply with the requirements of the
    Vegetable Ink Printing Act of 1994. GPO works with the Environmental
    Protection Agency and the District of Columbia to meet the standards
    for emissions of volatile organic compounds established by the Clean
    Air Act.
        However, there is more that GPO can do in this field, and during
    fiscal year 2008 sustainable environmental stewardship was the focus of
    a concentrated effort at GPO. In my view, the future of sustainable
    environmental stewardship means being proactive and making changes so
    that GPO becomes a more efficient operation that makes better use of
    the resources under our control. During fiscal year 2008, we
    articulated a vision for the entire lifecycle of what GPO produces,
    from how we source the raw materials to how we produce our products, to
    what happens to the products when consumers are done with them.
        For GPO, this means a variety initiatives, including development of
    a plan for moving from web offset presses to digital equipment to
    reduce paper consumption; accelerating the re-engineering of business
    processes in production, procurement, documents dissemination, and
    administration to take advantage of the efficiencies offered by digital
    technology; conducting energy audits throughout our facilities to
    reduce our energy demand; using more environmentally responsible paper;
    reducing hazardous waste through solvent recovery systems, and reducing
    the total amount of waste generated by our operations; and installing a
    ``green'' roof on our building, in targeted areas, to double the life
    expectancy of the roof and reduce heating demands in the building.
    During fiscal year 2008, GPO made significant progress in these fields
    and laid the groundwork for continued sustainability improvements in
    the coming year.
                    fiscal year 2010 appropriations request
        For fiscal year 2010, we are requesting a total of $166,307,000, to
    enable us to:
      --Meet projected requirements for GPO's congressional printing and
            binding and information dissemination operations during fiscal
            year 2010;
      --Provide investment funds for necessary information dissemination
            projects in the Federal Depository Library Program;
      --Complete the development of FDsys and implement other improvements
            to GPO's information technology infrastructure; and
      --Perform essential maintenance and repairs on GPO's buildings.

                       CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING AND BINDING
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2009 Approved..............................     $96,828,000
    Fiscal year 2010 Request...............................      93,296,000
    Change.................................................      (3,532,000)
    Change includes:
        Price level changes................................       2,362,000
        Volume changes.....................................       3,273,000
        Elimination of shortfall...........................      (9,167,000)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        We are requesting $93,296,000 for this account, representing a
    decrease of $3,532,000 from the level approved for fiscal year 2009.
        Funding for fiscal year 2010 congressional printing and binding
    requirements includes price level changes averaging 2.7 percent that
    are attributable primarily to existing wage contracts, as well as
    estimated volume changes in certain workload categories based on
    historical data. GPO projects an increased volume for the daily
    Congressional Record, business and committee calendars, miscellaneous
    printing and binding, hearings, document envelopes and document franks,
    and Congressional Record indexers. These workload increases will be
    offset by reductions in volume for committee prints, miscellaneous
    publications, bills, resolutions, and amendments, committee reports,
    and other workload categories. The funding provided for fiscal year
    2009 eliminated the shortfall in this appropriation that was
    accumulated in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.

            SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2009 Approved...............................     $38,744,000
    Fiscal year 2010 Request................................      40,911,000
    Change..................................................       2,167,000
    Change includes:
        Mandatory Requirements..............................       1,094,000
        Investment Requirements.............................       1,073,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        We are requesting $40,911,000 for this account, representing an
    increase of $2,167,000 over the level approved for fiscal year 2009.
    The increase is to cover mandatory pay and price level changes, and to
    continue improving public access to Government information in
    electronic formats by implementing a series of projects and hiring
    additional program specialists.
        As GPO continues to perform information dissemination through the
    Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) on a predominately electronic
    basis, as mandated by the conference report accompanying the
    Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, we need to
    make continuing investments in this program's technology infrastructure
    and supporting systems. Included in our request for fiscal year 2010 is
    funding to cover additional data storage, the migration of legacy
    applications to updated service functions, miscellaneous materials for
    digitization projects, survey and data analysis, legacy application
    integration for the FDLP desktop, and hiring 10 additional full-time
    equivalents to perform acquisitions, classification, cataloging and
    indexing, and related requirements.

                                 REVOLVING FUND
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2009 Approved...............................      $4,995,000
    Fiscal year 2010 Request................................      32,100,000
    Change..................................................      27,105,000
    Change includes:
        Investments in information technology infrastructure      18,500,000
         and systems development............................
        Building maintenance and repairs....................      13,600,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        We are requesting $32,100,000 for this account, to remain available
    until expended, to fund essential investments in information technology
    infrastructure and systems development, as well as needed maintenance
    and repairs to GPO's buildings.
        Our request includes $18,500,000 for investments in information
    technology infrastructure and systems development. The key projects
    covered under this heading are $8 million to complete the development
    of FDsys; $9.5 million to replace GPO's automated composition system,
    implement an automated manufacturing workflow system, continue
    implementing GPO's Oracle business systems, and fund related projects;
    and $1 million for continuity-of-operations (COOP) improvements to
    GPO's presence at the legislative branch alternate computing facility.
        The balance of our request is $13,600,000 for necessary repairs and
    maintenance to GPO's buildings, including continuing elevator
    replacement and renovation, window replacement for energy conservation,
    and related projects. Our request includes $1.7 million for various
    green and environmental initiatives. The funding provided for fiscal
    year 2009 will pay for a new roof as well as contribute to elevator
    repairs and FDsys development.
        Chairman Nelson, Senator Murkowski, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, we look forward to working with you, and with your
    support we can continue GPO's record of achievement. This concludes my
    prepared statement, and I would be pleased to answer any questions the
    Subcommittee may have.

                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, DIRECTOR
        Dr. Elmendorf. Thank you, Chairman Nelson, Senator
    Murkowski. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about
    the CBO's budget request for fiscal year 2010.
        As you know, I became CBO Director just 4 months ago. I am
    honored to have been appointed to that position and to be
    making the case today for CBO's proposed budget. As you said,
    Mr. Chairman, our total request is about $46 million, which is
    a $2 million, or 5.2 percent increase over funding for the
    current year.

                            CBO deg.MISSION

        Since CBO's launch in 1975, our mission has been to provide
    Members of Congress and their staffs with the information you
    need to make effective budget and economic policy. We are
    committed to providing information that is objective,
    insightful, timely, and clearly presented and explained.

                             CBO deg.STAFF

        In providing this information, CBO's most important asset
    has always been its staff. We have about 240 people, mostly
    with Ph.D.s in economics or master's degrees in public policy.
    And I can't resist noting that in the competition for good
    places to work, among the small agency category in which CBO
    competes--not with our friends and colleagues at GAO, but in
    the small agency category--CBO was tied for third place among
    Federal agencies.
        And that is important, as Gene Dodaro noted, it helps us to
    serve you. It helps us to attract the best people and to create
    an environment in which the people are doing their best work.

                        CBO deg.PHASED INCREASE

        CBO has operated with about 235 people for the past decade,
    has increased only a little in size since its founding more
    than 30 years ago. Last year, my predecessor as Director, Peter
    Orszag, proposed to you a 2-year plan to increase the CBO staff
    from 235 to about 260, a phased increase of 10 percent.
        Peter quantified the increased number of testimonies and
    the cost estimates that CBO has been asked to provide, as well
    as the growing amount of informal communication between CBO
    staff and Hill staff, and he argued in particular that CBO
    needed to increase its capacity to analyze policy changes
    regarding healthcare delivery and financing. We are very
    grateful that you and your colleagues approved the first leg of
    that increase, and our budget for next year requests additional
    funding to move closer to that goal.

                 CBO deg.ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR HEALTH

        As you know, we also have been asked to identify the steps
    we might take if additional funds were provided immediately to
    shorten the timetable for providing cost estimates of major
    health legislation. We have identified several steps, including
    acquiring additional high-speed computer hardware and software,
    purchasing actuarial and other expert consulting services,
    purchasing additional data on prescription drugs, providing
    additional compensation to certain CBO staff, and increasing
    the size of CBO staff.
        The analysts that we have previously hired in the health
    area are playing a critical role in our current work. Of
    course, faced with very intricate proposals to make fundamental
    changes to one-sixth of the U.S. economy, we are working very
    hard to analyze the proposals, provide the information that
    Members of Congress need to make decisions about what to do.
        As a result, all of our health analysts are working flat
    out to meet the demands we face, and still we are always adding
    to the list of crucial questions that we need to address.
    Therefore, our budget includes funding for additional staff
    members in the health area.

                 CBO deg.FINANCIAL AND HOUSING MARKETS

        Our budget also asks for funding for additional staff to
    analyze the financial system and housing market. The financial
    crisis and the Government's responses to it have greatly
    boosted demand for our work. The legislation authorizing the
    Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) requires CBO to review the
    administration's reports on the TARP.
        In addition, our budget projections must include
    assessments of the cost of the TARP of dealing with Fannie Mae
    and Freddie Mac and of the dramatically expanded activities of
    the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the
    Federal Reserve. More generally, our evaluation of the impact
    and cost of alternative financial and housing policies requires
    us to monitor and model the financial system to a degree we
    have not done before.

                     CBO deg.SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

        Beyond the health and financial areas, we are also
    requesting several additional staff in the editorial and
    information technology functions, which are critical to our
    ability to produce and disseminate our findings.
        I should mention, too, that the additional people will need
    someplace to sit, as Peter Orszag discussed last year. And we
    have begun discussions about how to meet that need.
        I also want to emphasize that CBO has been responding to
    rising demands in some areas by shifting positions away from
    topics that become less central for the Congress. However, our
    scope for doing so is limited by the breadth of Congress'
    interests in climate change, in energy policy, in national
    defense, in discretionary appropriations, in monitoring
    economic conditions, and much more.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In closing, let me thank the members of the subcommittee
    for your strong support of CBO's work in the past. Your support
    of our budget request for next year would help us continue to
    do our job to the high standard that you and we expect.
        Thank you. We will be happy to answer any questions you
    have.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Douglas W. Elmendorf

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to present the fiscal year 2010 budget
    request for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
        CBO's mission is to provide the Congress with timely, objective,
    nonpartisan analyses of the budget, the economy, and other policy
    issues and to furnish the information and cost estimates required for
    the Congressional budget process. In fulfilling that mission, CBO
    depends on a highly skilled workforce. Approximately 88 percent of the
    agency's appropriation is devoted to personnel, with the remaining 12
    percent for information technology (IT) and other equipment, supplies,
    and purchases of other items.
        The proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 totals $46,365,000, a $2.3
    million or 5.2 percent increase over the funding for fiscal year 2009.
    The net increase is the result of offsetting factors:
      --An additional $2.2 million for rising mandatory pay and related
            costs for existing staff;
      --An additional $1.4 million to expand CBO's staff by 12 full-time-
            equivalent positions (FTEs), from 242 to 254; and
      --A reduction of $1.3 million in nonpay resources, partly because CBO
            plans to use some of its additional FTEs instead of contractors
            to analyze the Troubled Asset Relief Program and other
            government actions in response to turmoil in the financial
            markets.

                       GROWING DEMAND FOR CBO'S ANALYSES

        The substantial budgetary and economic challenges facing the
    Nation, both short-term and long-term, and the major policy issues
    currently before the Congress have created a growing demand for CBO's
    analyses. Some of the issues--like health care and climate change--are
    very complicated and require intensive analysis involving many staff
    members. Often, committees and Members seek CBO's analyses very early
    in the process of developing legislation and then engage in an
    iterative process to refine the legislation in light of its projected
    budgetary impact. For significant legislation, simultaneous work may be
    required on multiple proposals--for example, ones by both the majority
    and the minority, the House and the Senate, or multiple committees of
    jurisdiction.
        The 12 additional FTEs (representing a 5 percent increase) that CBO
    requests for fiscal year 2010 would be used to help meet increased
    demand for analyses in several areas:
    Health Care Issues
        Growing costs for health care continue to be a key contributor to
    the Nation's fiscal imbalance, and major health care legislation is on
    the agenda for the 111th Congress. However, the agency's current
    staffing in this area is insufficient to provide all of the analyses
    sought by the Congress, which are often needed on a very compressed
    schedule. CBO is increasing its work on options to expand health
    insurance coverage, long-term trends in the growth of health care
    costs, and potential areas of cost savings. It anticipates substantial
    work analyzing the impact on the Federal budget and on health care
    spending generally of several broad proposals to modify Federal health
    care programs and the broader health care system--a process that is
    well under way already. (The CBO staff is currently engaged in an
    intensive effort in support of the Senate Committees on Finance and on
    Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions as they begin the process of
    developing broad health legislation.)
        Four of the additional FTEs would continue an expansion of the
    agency's capabilities to analyze health care issues. That expansion
    began in fiscal year 2009, but because of the duration of the
    continuing resolution, CBO was not able to increase its staffing at the
    rate originally anticipated in the fiscal year 2009 budget request. As
    a result, CBO is reflecting these FTEs as new in the fiscal year 2010
    budget request.
        A number of Members of Congress have inquired as to what steps CBO
    might take to improve its ability to provide timely and accurate
    estimates to the Congress on major health legislation if additional
    funding was made available in fiscal year 2009. In response to those
    inquiries, CBO identified several steps that could be taken to
    accomplish that objective: acquiring additional high-speed computer
    hardware and software; purchasing actuarial and other expert consulting
    services; purchasing additional data on prescription drugs; providing
    additional compensation to certain CBO staff; and increasing the size
    of CBO's full-time staff by six more people than the number currently
    planned. In total, implementing those steps would cost about $2.5
    million over fiscal years 2009 and 2010. If such supplemental funding
    was provided and made available through 2010, there would be no impact
    on the agency's fiscal year 2010 budget request. If additional funding
    was provided but made available only through September 30, 2009, the
    cost of additional staff (about $1 million) would need to be added to
    the fiscal year 2010 budget request.
    Financial and Housing Markets
        CBO will continue efforts begun in fiscal year 2009 to analyze the
    financial and housing markets, including analysis to meet requirements
    under the Economic Stabilization Act. That law authorizes the Treasury,
    through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, to acquire or insure up to
    $700 billion in financial assets. The law stipulates that CBO report
    semiannually to the Congress with the agency's assessment of reports
    compiled by the Office of Management and Budget, including a discussion
    of the costs of purchases and guarantees of troubled assets; the
    information and valuation methods used to calculate such costs; and the
    impact on the Federal budget deficit and the debt. In addition, the
    Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance
    Corporation, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac are engaged in a variety of
    complex financial transactions aimed at stabilizing the financial
    markets, the banking system, and the housing market. Those transactions
    involve trillions of dollars, and CBO does not currently have the
    capacity to fully monitor and assess the impact of those activities.
        Analyzing complex financial transactions with a sufficient degree
    of rigor requires supplementing the agency's current staff with several
    analysts with expertise in financial modeling, some of whom will
    probably also have previous experience with institutions in the
    financial sector. Given the wide array of assets that may ultimately be
    purchased or guaranteed by the government and the difficulty of
    attracting highly skilled financial market analysts at government
    salaries, specialized outside consultants with experience in particular
    financial markets may also be necessary.
        Five FTEs would be devoted to this additional work on the financial
    and housing markets, including the requirements associated with the
    Economic Stabilization Act. Some of that work was, of necessity, done
    by contractors in fiscal year 2009 because of the lead time that it
    takes to hire experts in the financial arena.
    Related Mission Support
        CBO's editorial and publications staff are important in making the
    results of the agency's analyses readily usable by the Congress and the
    public. With more output, additional staff in this area will be
    required to maintain the timely production of reports, testimonies, and
    other published materials. In addition, with the expansion of the
    agency, additional IT resources are required to meet greater needs for
    operational support.
        Therefore, to support the expanding analytic staff and mission,
    three additional FTEs would be devoted to providing editorial and
    publishing services and meeting IT requirements.

                                   CBO'S WORK

        CBO assists the Congress in exercising its responsibilities for the
    budget of the U.S. Government and for other legislation. Under the 1974
    Congressional Budget Act, the agency's primary duty is to support the
    Committees on the Budget of both Houses. The agency also supports the
    Congressional budget process by providing analyses requested by those
    committees; the Committees on Appropriations; the House Committee on
    Ways and Means; the Senate Committee on Finance; other committees; and,
    to the extent that resources permit, individual Members. In particular,
    CBO:
      --Reports on the outlook for the budget and the economy to help the
            Congress prepare for the legislative year;
      --Constructs baseline budget projections to serve as neutral
            benchmarks for gauging the effects of spending and revenue
            proposals;
      --Prepares long-term projections of Federal spending and revenues to
            help the Congress assess the impact of rising health care costs
            and an aging population;
      --Assists the Committees on the Budget in developing the
            Congressional budget resolution by providing alternative
            spending and revenue paths and estimating the effects of
            various policy options;
      --Analyzes the likely direct effects that the President's budgetary
            proposals will have on outlays and revenues, their economic
            implications, and any effects that those economic changes will
            have on the budget;
      --Provides estimates of the cost of all appropriation bills at each
            stage of the legislative process, including estimates for
            numerous amendments considered during that process;
      --Reports on all programs and activities for which authorizations for
            appropriations were not enacted or are scheduled to expire;
      --Provides estimates of the cost of many legislative proposals,
            including formal cost estimates for all bills reported by
            committees of the House and Senate and detailed explanations of
            components of cost estimates and the estimating methodology;
      --Estimates the cost of intergovernmental and private-sector mandates
            in reported bills and other legislative proposals;
      --Conducts policy studies of governmental activities having major
            economic and budgetary impacts;
      --Provides testimonies on a broad range of budget and economic
            issues, addressing the agency's budget projections as well as
            specific issues related to national security, health care and
            climate change policy, alternative means of financing
            infrastructure spending, economic and financial conditions, and
            numerous other program areas;
      --Helps the Congress make budgetary choices by providing policy
            options, but not policy recommendations, for how it might alter
            Federal outlays and revenues in the near term and over the
            longer term;
      --Analyzes Federal spending and revenue totals each month; and
      --Constructs statistical, behavioral, and computational models to
            project short- and long-term costs and revenues of government
            programs.
             some details of cbo's fiscal year 2010 budget request
    CBO's request would allow the agency to build on current efforts.
            Specifically, the request would fund the following:
      --A workload of roughly 700 formal cost estimates (most of which
            include both estimates of Federal costs of legislation and
            assessments of the cost of mandates included in the legislation
            that would affect state and local governments, Indian tribes,
            or the private sector) and hundreds of informal estimates,
            approximately 100 analytical reports along with other
            publications, and a heavy schedule of Congressional testimony;
      --254 FTEs, an increase of 12 (4 to continue the expansion of the
            agency's capabilities to analyze health care issues; 5 to
            devote to CBO's additional analyses of the financial and
            housing markets, including new requirements under the Economic
            Stabilization Act; and 3 to support the expanded mission of the
            agency);
      --A projected 8 percent (or $2.3 million) increase in base pay, of
            which $1.1 million would support the 12 new FTEs and the
            balance of $1.2 million, a combination of across-the-board
            increases, promotions, performance bonuses, and merit increases
            for current staff (the across-the-board increase is budgeted at
            2.9 percent for staff earning a salary less than $100,000,
            which is consistent with the pay adjustment requested by other
            legislative branch agencies);
      --A projected 14.7 percent (or $1.3 million) increase in the cost of
            benefits, of which $0.4 million would go toward the 12 new FTEs
            and the balance ($0.9 million), toward existing staff and
            employees who will fill vacant positions;
      --The replacement of obsolete office equipment, desktop computers,
            and network servers, at $0.9 million--a decrease of $154,000,
            made possible because start-up requirements for the new staff
            are funded in fiscal year 2009 and do not recur;
      --Expert consulting, at $0.7 million--a decrease of $1.3 million,
            which is made possible in part by shifting from contractor
            support to full-time staff to meet new requirements under the
            Economic Stabilization Act and to conduct other analyses in the
            financial and housing markets;
      --Purchases of office supplies and subscriptions, at $0.6 million--a
            decrease of $138,000, made possible because some costs in
            fiscal year 2009 are nonrecurring;
      --A contribution toward the activities of the Federal Accounting
            Standards Advisory Board at a normal operating level of $0.5
            million--an increase of $58,600 based on inflation, as
            projected by the Government Accountability Office;
      --The acquisition of commercial data necessary for CBO's analyses, at
            $352,000--an increase of $7,000;
      --Financial management services, including support for payroll and
            financial systems, at $318,000--an increase of $39,900,
            primarily because of anticipated price hikes when renewing
            option-year contracts;
      --IT system development, at $304,000--a decrease of $10,500 based on
            anticipated requirements;
      --Essential software purchases, at $268,000--an increase of $8,000;
      --Equipment maintenance, at $237,200--an increase of $2,000 based on
            current contracting data;
      --Travel, at $229,800--an increase of $56,000, including costs to
            support new FTEs and added training;
      --Telecommunications and telephone services, at $203,600--an increase
            of $8,100;
      --Management and professional training, at $170,000--an increase of
            $21,500, of which $14,000 would be for the new FTEs, with the
            balance restoring training to roughly the fiscal year 2006
            funding level;
      --The completion of the redesign of the agency's Web-based
            information services and platforms, at $125,000--a project to
            update the agency's obsolete external and internal Web sites to
            enhance their usefulness, with improvements in content,
            functionality, and the timely delivery of various work products
            to the Congress; and
      --Independent audit services, at $102,900--an increase of $4,900,
            which is based on contract award data.
        I am pleased to report that CBO received its fifth consecutive
    clean opinion in the latest audit of its financial statements. The
    agency's sixth audit (of fiscal year 2008 financial statements) is
    ongoing.
        Finally, I would like to thank the Committee for the funding
    provided this year, enabling CBO to carry out its responsibilities to
    provide information and analysis to the Congress as it grapples with
    the critical issues facing the Nation.

        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        Should we do 5 minutes first round here?

        GAO deg.LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OSHA ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

        Mr. Dodaro, at our hearing a couple of weeks ago, we
    discussed the Office of Compliance's Occupational Safety and
    Health Administration (OSHA) oversight of the legislative
    branch as set forth in the Congressional Accountability Act,
    and we found that perhaps the legislative branch was being held
    to a higher standard than the executive branch. And while I
    don't want to be in competition with a race to the bottom, or
    anything of that sort, it does seem that some parity might make
    some sense.
        Could you explain what you think about the legislative
    branch enforcement provisions for the OSHA, why they are
    different from the executive branch? I mean, if there is some
    justification we don't understand, we would certainly like to
    pick it up.
        Mr. Dodaro. My understanding, based on the work that we
    have done for the legislative branch over the years, is that
    one of the areas we were asked to look into a few years ago was
    the Office of Compliance and its management practices. With
    regard to the OSHA provisions, my understanding is that while
    the provisions about the type of safety requirements are on par
    with the executive branch and the private sector standards, the
    Congressional Accountability Act required a specific timeframe
    for violations to be fixed and funded that is different and, if
    you will, a little bit tougher standard than what applies to
    the executive branch and the private sector.
        And I am sure, without speaking for the congressional
    intent here, it was intended to make sure that the identified
    deficiencies were rectified over a certain period of time. But
    it does not provide a lot of flexibility that is provided in
    the executive branch and the private sector.
        So, if you would like, we could look at how to make it on a
    par with the executive branch and suggest some legislative
    language for you to consider.
        Senator Nelson. That is where I was going to go, and I
    appreciate your anticipating that because, clearly, we ought
    not to have tied our hands more than others have tied their
    hands. Because when addressing the requirements for fixing the
    defects that the citations reflect, we ought to do it in a
    rational, reasonable, and appropriate fashion. And so, I would
    be very anxious to see what kind of language you might
    recommend for us to consider.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes, we will do that.
        Senator Nelson. And I think it might also be helpful for us
    to have some evaluation of the kind of requirements that are
    being imposed with open staircases in the old, historic
    buildings, and not just as to the cost, but what this can do to
    the structure that represents the history of our country.
        I don't want us to start seeing fire doors in the middle of
    these buildings, particularly where we understand in some cases
    there is a considerable amount of sprinkler systems in place.
    That if one of our buildings was being treated differently than
    it would have been treated under the executive branch. We will
    get you some information on that as well.
        Mr. Dodaro. Okay. Yes, we would be happy to take a look at
    that issue. Certainly, the historical character of the Capitol
    and buildings is a very important issue, and that needs to be
    balanced with safety issues in place and some creative thinking
    about how to achieve both within a reasonable cost. We would be
    happy to take a look at that.
        Senator Nelson. Well, we are certainly on the same page,
    and I appreciate that very much.

     GAO deg.GAO'S STRATEGY TO MEET RECOVERY ACT RESPONSIBILITIES

        On the stimulus funding, you received $25 million in the
    stimulus funding to be able to do your oversight. Can you
    update the subcommittee on what you are doing with those funds
    and how you are spending them? What you are doing to gear up to
    provide the oversight?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. The $25 million was provided to us, and it
    is available through September 30, 2010. There are timeframe
    parameters on it. We are hiring additional people to help us.
    We have employed, I believe, a very creative approach to do
    this because you are never sure that you have the money to
    sustain those people after that period of time when the funding
    is available.
        So two-thirds of the people we are going to hire are going
    to be people who have retired from GAO that we are bringing
    back for specific periods of time. Some of them live in the
    States that we are evaluating which will save us a lot of
    travel cost.
        We are also bringing back or hiring people on term
    appointment, so they will be here for a limited period of time.
    And then the other one-third of the people we are going to hire
    at the entry level, and we will be able to absorb those people
    likely through normal attrition over the next couple of years.
        So we believe this serves the intent for the limited amount
    of funding that is available. Our work, given the spend-out
    rates for the stimulus bill, will extend beyond 2010. We will
    build that into our normal budget request going forward because
    most of the money will be outlayed to the localities in 2010,
    2011, and some of it goes out a little bit further. But the
    bulk of the money is in those periods of time.
        We think we have got a very good plan to meet our
    responsibilities under the act and appreciate Congress'
    support.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Let me follow up on that. The
    individuals that you have indicated that you are going to be
    bringing on to be responsive to oversight with the Reinvestment
    Act, how many of the 109 additional staff that you are looking
    for in this budget are actually going to be focused on this
    aspect, on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?

                       GAO deg.GAO'S FTE REQUEST

        Mr. Dodaro. Very few, if any of the 109 additional FTEs in
    our 2010 budget request would be for the Recovery Act purposes.
    Now we might have to supplement the proposed staffing as things
    progress and new requirements come up because we are beginning
    to receive requests on the Recovery Act beyond the current
    statutory requirements. So the additional staff requested could
    help support those, but it is not intended to do that, Senator
    Murkowski.
        The 109 FTEs are intended to help us in several key areas.
    First is in the areas of financial markets and community
    development. As Doug Elmendorf mentioned, the financial system
    and the housing markets really need a lot of attention. And so,
    we think we can help Congress tackle some difficult issues
    there and bring about some needed reforms. But we need
    additional people.
        Also, in the science and technology area, we are being
    asked to look at more sophisticated weapon systems, satellite
    systems, and a lot of, as you are well aware, solutions to our
    environment and energy issues, require the application of
    technologies. Congress has asked us to do technology
    assessments in the past. So we plan to bolster staff in these
    as well as help in a range of other areas. But it is not for
    the Recovery and Reinvestment Act primarily.
        Senator Murkowski. It seemed, as you were going through
    earlier, you mentioned that it would be to help monitor and
    follow and produce the reports that are requested under TARP,
    auditors for Fannie and Freddie for the Bank Insurance Fund,
    and then the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the 2010
    census. All of these are, hopefully, short-term initiatives.
        You are asking for 109 additional staff. What is the magic
    in that number? You have indicated that you are at the lowest
    staffing level that you have been in some time. How much of
    what you are asking for now is to provide for these very
    targeted focuses? Will this 109 be here for a period of a
    couple of years while we work on these projects, or do they
    become part of the base of the staffing level?
        Mr. Dodaro. Right. I mentioned the TARP initiatives and the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as areas of new
    responsibilities for GAO. They will be limited over time,
    although I don't know how long the TARP program would be,
    particularly if the Government procures the toxic assets and
    holds them to maturity over a period of time. That could go on
    for an extended period of time, and the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act will be several years.
        However, those areas are still relatively a small part of
    GAO's overall service to the Congress among the 1,200 requests
    we have. So the 109 FTEs are really intended to be part of the
    base to address the wide range of issues from all committees in
    the Congress that we receive, including a lot of the work we do
    in the defense area on defense capabilities and management and
    acquisition reform. We do work in cyber security. So everything
    the Federal Government is involved in, we are doing work on.
        The 109 FTEs are intended to help in that work because we
    can't get to all the requests we receive from the Congress in
    as timely a fashion as I would like and that many of the
    committees would like.
        Senator Murkowski. Is 1,200 requests from Congress about
    average? Are we seeing an ever-increasing number of requests?
        Mr. Dodaro. It has increased since 2005 by about 15
    percent, and it has held steady at 1,200. We work with each
    committee to reprioritize those requests to make sure that we
    are working on the top priorities.

                  GAO deg.GAO'S STAFFING LEVEL TRENDS

        Senator Murkowski. So if, in fact, you have seen an
    increase of 15 percent since 2005, what has your staffing level
    been since 2005?
        Mr. Dodaro. For 2009, it has only increased by 60 full-time
    equivalents (FTEs). It actually had been going down. And so, we
    had a situation where the requests were going up in 2006 and
    2007, and the staffing usage was going down. Last year, I asked
    for a 150 FTE increase. We got about one-third of that, and are
    now coming back to ask for more.
        I firmly believe if the 109 FTEs are addressed, that will
    be the right size for GAO--assuming there are no further
    unusual events in our economy, and let us hope not.
        Senator Murkowski. Everything is unusual.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes, but at this time, I think that is the
    right level for us to serve the Congress. So I don't see us
    coming back every year and asking for additional funding. I
    think this will get us up to a level that we can provide
    quality service to the Congress across the breadth of
    committees in a timely fashion.
        Senator Nelson. They did call the vote. So we will take
    about a 10-minute break. Be right back.
        The vote has been accomplished. And with any luck and good
    fortune, we won't have another interruption for a while. So
    appreciate your forbearance.

                     GAO deg.GAO'S HIRING STRATEGY

        Mr. Dodaro, on the 109 new FTEs, is that a number that is
    easily absorbed within a year? In other words, within 12
    months, or would it be safe to say that you could do it over a
    2-year period if you had 50 and 50 or roughly some number?
        But is it doable to bring on 109 people conceivably on the
    first day of the budget if you have an annualized appropriation
    rather than feathering them in over a period of time?
        Mr. Dodaro. Mr. Chairman, we have an ongoing recruiting
    process. Each year, we replace about 10 percent of our
    organization, which is over 300 people, just to replace normal
    attrition. That has held pretty steady, although we are down a
    little bit this year due to the economy. Not everybody is
    retiring as what they originally planned.
        But in the past we have brought in over 400 people in a
    year. If the Congress acts before the end of the fiscal year
    and we have a budget going into the fiscal year, rather than
    have a continuing resolution, we believe we can do that. We can
    bring in staff to replace attrition, and increase 109 FTEs.
        Senator Nelson. And absorb it all at the same time?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes, with qualified people.
        Senator Nelson. Of course. Of course.

                    GPO deg.GPO'S BUILDING REPAIRS

        Mr. Tapella, you are asking for $13.6 million in fiscal
    year 2010 to maintain and repair your buildings, but it is my
    understanding that you are also pursuing the idea of relocating
    to a smaller building in the near future. And is there an
    inconsistency in wanting to spend money on a facility that you
    may be leaving, or is this a facility other than the one that
    you would be leaving?
        Mr. Tapella. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
        GPO would like to build a new, modern manufacturing
    facility on our back lot. We have approximately 7 acres, 5
    blocks here from the Capitol, and we have enough land to build
    a new facility immediately behind our current facility. That is
    our goal.
        And in doing so, we would not only free up the 1.5 million
    square feet that is currently in our existing facilities, but
    we would be able to create a modern manufacturing facility on
    one level. We would be able to meet all of our needs in terms
    of office space and be able to build an additional 1 million
    square feet of space that could be available to the legislative
    branch should it need it, in addition to the 1.5 million square
    feet that we would be vacating.
        In answer to your question about whether it is
    inconsistent, I don't believe it is, sir. We have been trying
    to get a new building for 5 years. Prior to my time at GPO,
    there was a decade where there was a lot of deferred
    maintenance, and we are now dealing with safety and health
    issues.
        We have got elevators in particular--we are moving material
    and people up and down eight stories all day long. My highest
    priority item is elevator repair within that $13.6 million.
        Senator Nelson. You have been optimistic in the past with a
    little bit of deferred maintenance, and now you may not be
    quite as optimistic about the new building, and so let us take
    care of the old building, just in case. Is that fair?
        Mr. Tapella. Well, I don't know that it is necessarily
    whether it is optimistic or----
        Senator Nelson. Oh, I was just having a little fun.
        Mr. Tapella. Oh, okay. Quite honestly, you can only defer
    maintenance for so long, and then things die. And at this
    point, I have got three elevators that are completely out of
    service because they are not safe to be operated.

                         GPO deg.GPO SECURITY

        Senator Nelson. I understand. I also understand that GPO
    does some rather complicated security work for us, and you rely
    on your own police force, and you have contract guards as well.
    What are the differences in responsibilities of the contract
    guards versus your own employees who serve as your security?
        Mr. Tapella. Thank you for that question as well.
        We have 52 uniformed police officers, or we are budgeted
    for 52 uniformed police officers and currently have 8
    vacancies. We also run anywhere between 46 and 44 special
    police officers (SPOs), which are contract officers.
        Now, the mission of our police force and the combined
    security force is actually twofold--one, access control and the
    other protecting GPO's assets, such as the United States
    passport and other work in progress.
        We are looking at our total security posture, and it is a
    mixture of the two. The special police officers handle just
    access control. They are standing at magnetometers, working
    employee entrances, and greeting employees and visitors.
        Our uniformed police force, with the exception of
    protecting the asset of the United States passport, is there to
    respond to incidents and other issues. So when an alarm goes
    off, the uniformed police officers respond.
        Senator Nelson. Would there be much difference in the
    training of these individuals?
        Mr. Tapella. There is a difference in training. All of our
    uniformed police officers, which are the Federal officers, go
    down to Glynco, the law enforcement training center facility
    down in Georgia, to be fully trained. And they are full police
    officers.
        The special police officers have less training. They have
    firearms training. They have access control training, crowd
    control training, and the basic needs that fit what they do.
        Senator Nelson. And what about a differential in the cost?
    Is there a differential? Do you save money by having the two
    different security forces?
        Mr. Tapella. Yes. The SPOs are anywhere between one-third
    and one-half the cost of somebody of the uniformed police
    branch by the time that we include all of the benefits for the
    Federal officers.
        Senator Nelson. Have you had a study to establish that the
    level of security that you get from these two security forces
    is the kind that you truly want? In other words, that there is
    no diminution of security because some are contracted out
    versus some are employed?
        Mr. Tapella. Any time you are talking security, you are
    looking at two things--cost and risk. And you can always have
    more security, but you will have an intended cost, and you have
    to look at what that risk is of an incident occurring.
        In fact, GAO just completed a study of GPO's security, and
    briefed the Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee on
    the House side as well as our oversight committee. In their
    report, they said, ``GPO generally conforms to key practices in
    Government facility protection.''
        I believe that we have the right mix. I am not a security
    expert. However, I do have security experts on staff that are
    running our entire security systems. It involves not just our
    officers. It involves alarms. It involves intrusion detection.
    It involves cameras and a general presence.
        In fact, just last week, the District of Columbia
    recognized the GPO police force and our security services. They
    did a 500-foot radius around 732 North Capitol Street, and the
    amount of crime in that area has been reduced significantly
    over the last 3 years since we have implemented the combination
    of uniformed police officers and special police officers.
        Senator Nelson. Well, it is hard to believe that the House
    got ahead of us, but they did. Because I was going to suggest
    Mr. Dodaro do that very thing in evaluating your police, but
    for once, the House has gotten ahead of the Senate. So we won't
    have to ask for that.
        Thank you.

               CBO deg.SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL

        Dr. Elmendorf, the Senate version of the fiscal year 2009
    supplemental appropriations bill--we talked about this earlier,
    but I would like to get it for the record--includes that $2
    million for CBO to address Congress' growing demand for work.
    Would you explain to us how that is going to happen?
        And let me say that what my colleague was bringing out, it
    seems like Congress asked you to do more work and then gives
    you fits because you want to charge and put in your budget for
    that work. It doesn't seem quite fair that you get squeezed at
    both ends. ``Give us more. We want to give you less.'' But
    maybe you can tell us a little bit about the $2 million?
        Dr. Elmendorf. We appreciate your concern, Mr. Chairman,
    for that position. When we formulated our budget request for
    fiscal year 2010 a few months ago, we put forth what we viewed
    as an important, but modest request for additional funding.
        Starting a few weeks ago, some of your colleagues in the
    Senate became concerned that CBO might be unable to deliver
    estimates of the effects of health reform proposals as quickly
    as was desirable. I want to be clear we have delivered a
    tremendous amount of analysis. We have delivered preliminary
    estimates of more than 100 specific health reform items to the
    relevant committees, and we have delivered preliminary
    estimates of several full-scale reform proposals, overhauls of
    the insurance system to several committees.
        So we have done a tremendous amount. And as I mentioned in
    my remarks, our health staff is working around the clock. But
    it is undoubtedly the case that the committees would like more
    analysis faster. The complexity of the proposals they are
    considering and the variance on the proposals and the variance
    on the variance will, indeed, overwhelm our ability to do that.
        So we were asked what we might do, if funds were provided
    immediately, to accelerate the process of providing analysis. I
    tried to be clear to everybody who has asked or who has to sit
    and listen, that doing more health analysis does not amount to
    going down to the temp agency and just checking the box on 12
    new people and bringing them back to the office and lining them
    up, and then new results come out.
        On the other hand, we do understand the urgency that
    Congress feels for these analyses. So we put together a
    collection of steps we might take with additional funding.

                     CBO deg.HIGH SPEED COMPUTERS

        The supplemental has $2 million for us in it, and the
    purposes to which we have said we would put that are, first, to
    acquire high-speed computer equipment, a very basic point. But
    the proposals we are now analyzing are much more complicated
    than the ones we have done in the past, and just the computing
    time is slowing us down. And new computers that we could have
    in place within weeks of getting the money would accelerate
    that process. We would spend $300,000 on new computer
    equipment.

                 CBO deg.ACTUARIAL AND EXPERT SERVICES

        We also propose spending $400,000 to purchase actuarial and
    other expert services from private agencies. When we estimate,
    for example, the cost of various health reform proposals,
    judging the health and, thus, the likely health spending for
    people in certain pools is an important part of the estimate.
    And we have some of those skills in-house and can do that
    ourselves with time, but could do it much more accurately and
    quickly with outside services.

                    CBO deg.PRESCRIPTION DRUG DATA

        We propose spending $300,000 on data on prescription drugs,
    so we can better gauge the cost of plans that would provide
    drug benefits or would change the way Government purchases drug
    benefits for individuals.

                    CBO deg.ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION

        We would spend $250,000 in additional compensation to CBO
    staff, people who are working around the clock and, I think,
    show a great commitment to public service. But I am concerned
    that weeks and months of this process will drive them into the
    ground and that we will ultimately lose their services in the
    future, and this is a way of trying to make up for some of the
    dislocation of their lives.

                       CBO deg.ADDITIONAL STAFF

        And then we would spend $750,000 to further increase the
    size of CBO staff, to hire four additional people to work in
    the health area. As you know, we have hired very aggressively
    in this area, I think appropriately so. We, of course, need to
    hire the right sorts of people, and other places in the world
    are also demanding people with expertise in health. So it is
    not straightforward, but we have been able to hire.
        I think we have been very pleased at our ability to put the
    people we have hired over the past year to effective work.
    Obviously, people come with a lot of knowledge, but not with
    all of the knowledge they need. And we have been concerned
    about our ability to integrate them. But that has worked out, I
    think, quite well that we have actually--we are getting
    immediate value out of or nearly immediate value out of the
    people we have hired.
        And we think with additional funding, we could bring on
    board more people, and that would enable us to do our jobs more
    effectively and more quickly.
        Senator Nelson. I am sure it must seem like the Finance
    Committee has its foot on your accelerator, and this committee
    has its foot on your brake.
        Dr. Elmendorf. No, Senator. A number of committees have
    their feet on our accelerator, but we do not view you as the
    brake. We appreciate your support very much.
        Senator Nelson. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate the explanation that
    you have given, Dr. Elmendorf. I will admit that I looked at
    the request and the supplemental and said why does this have to
    be in the supplemental? Why the urgency? But I think you have
    related it does appear that what has been requested in the supp
    will be spent within this next year.
        Dr. Elmendorf. As I understand the supplemental, the money
    is available to us for the rest of this fiscal year and through
    fiscal year 2010. That is important because we can't hire
    people in August and not pay them in October. But we do expect
    to spend the money over that period, and I think we will put it
    to good use.
        Of course, it is your choice whether that is the best
    available use of the money. But we will put it to use for you,
    no doubt.
        Senator Murkowski. Appreciate you responding to that.

         GAO deg.PRIVATE SECTOR REPORTING ON THE RECOVERY ACT

        Mr. Dodaro, I had one more question for you. There was an
    article in the Post this morning about the review, the online
    review of the spending of the stimulus dollars under the
    Recovery Act, and it made reference to a Web site that
    apparently was not the Government's Web site but was actually
    doing more of what we had hoped than our Web site. Can you give
    me a little more background on that?
        Mr. Dodaro. My understanding is that, and I read the
    article that you talked about, and it is recovery.org rather
    than dot gov.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Dodaro. And it seemed to indicate that they were paying
    people to go through contract documents and public records and
    things that were done across the country and then taking that
    information and populating their database with it, as opposed
    to the approach that will be used by the executive branch,
    which is to have reports provided by the Federal agencies and
    then have reports come back from all the recipients that have
    received Recovery Act funds. They are required to submit
    quarterly reports.
        Now the quarterly reports are not estimated to begin coming
    into the Federal Government until October. They may have some
    pilot reports in July. One of the recommendations we made in
    our first report was to better define the data collection
    requirements because some of those reports are supposed to
    outline the number of jobs preserved or created, along with the
    status of the additional funding.
        But the basic difference is that you have a private sector
    entity that is combing through public records at all levels of
    Government and putting information together from those sources
    versus the Federal Government building a Web site from the
    Federal agencies and then collecting information from State and
    local and other recipients of the funds.
        We have not evaluated the accuracy or completeness of a
    private sector data source, and we would not have the authority
    to do that. We do plan to evaluate the Federal Government's Web
    site.
        Senator Murkowski. Which I think is appropriate, and you
    should be doing. It does make for kind of an awkward
    comparison, if you will, that, as the Government, we have
    tasked you to do this and, thus far, there is not much to
    report, and yet you see that out there in the private sector,
    they are thumbing through reports and gathering information. It
    does all come down to the accuracy of it.
        Mr. Dodaro. Right.
        Senator Murkowski. I don't know anything more than what I
    read in the paper this morning. I hate to get all of my
    information from the Post, but it is something that I wanted to
    raise because that question will be asked. Well, why is the
    Government so slow in responding if private guys can get this
    information, why are we so slow?

              GAO deg.GAO'S INITIAL RECOVERY ACT FINDINGS

        Mr. Dodaro. Part of the problem is the number of funding
    streams that are occurring at this level, involving many
    different Federal agencies and programs. Some of them are
    flowing directly to localities, bypassing the States. Some are
    going through the States and then allocated down.
        And one of our efforts is to focus at the State and local
    level and to provide that information. So we are tracking that.
    The programs have different requirements. Some of the money,
    for example the Medicaid money, paid States retroactively to
    October 2008. So some of that funding got out a little earlier
    than the funding for transportation highways.
        The 16 States that we looked at had been allocated about
    $15 billion. There is only $3.3 billion that was obligated. In
    that case, the Federal Government and the States had agreed on
    about 950 projects. Most of them are still in the bidding
    process. So in April and May, a couple of States, Mississippi
    and Iowa, had actually awarded contracts and put them in place.
    And then the State stabilization fund is even more complicated
    because most of that goes to education, but 18 percent they can
    use for a wide range of public services.
        So we are trying to track this, and it is in varying stages
    of development. But I think the real question is the accuracy
    and the completeness of whatever information is collected. And
    hopefully, we will be in a position for the localities we are
    at to provide insight into that.
        Senator Murkowski. And we appreciate the complexity, most
    definitely appreciate the complexity. I feel my job, as a
    legislator, now that that money is either out on the street or
    getting out there, we are charged with making sure that there
    is that level of accountability. There is that level of
    transparency. So we do rely on you for that accurate
    information.
        Mr. Dodaro. One of the things I might point out is that one
    of the recommendations that we made is that the administration
    clarify the amount of money that the States could use to ensure
    adequate oversight and accountability of the funds. A number of
    States, as I am sure you are aware, have cut back, because of
    their own financial stress, on some of the management functions
    and the auditing functions that they normally have in place to
    do that, and that was a concern to us.
        And so, we made that recommendation, and hopefully, the
    administration will act on that. They are beginning to clarify
    that issue. But I think that is a very important point that
    needs attention.
        Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.

                     GPO deg.GPO'S REVOLVING FUND

        Mr. Tapella, GPO is requesting over $32 million in fiscal
    year 2010 for the so-called revolving fund. Could you explain
    how the revolving fund works, and which items in this request
    are the most critical for the success of your agency? If you
    could, just give us some idea of how this works.
        Mr. Tapella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Our revolving fund is like a business checking account.
    This year our budget was originally set at $1.02 billion, of
    which roughly 12 to 13 percent is direct appropriations from
    Congress. The remainder we earn by selling products and
    services to all three branches of the Government, as well as
    products to the public through the GPO bookstore.
        Like any business, we have a checking account, and money
    comes in and money goes out. For example, the congressional
    printing and binding fund, when we complete work for Congress,
    we then bill the appropriation, and the money gets moved from
    the appropriation account into the GPO revolving fund. And like
    any business, we keep reserves in our accounts.
        In terms of our priorities for our request for the
    revolving fund, our highest priority is the completion of
    FDsys, the Federal Digital System, which we released earlier
    this year, and that is an $8 million request.
        The second priority is the composition systems replacement
    project, which is $2 million. And this project is to replace
    the system that we use to create all congressional work, plus
    the work we do for the Office of Federal Register and some
    other customers.
        The total cost of that project is roughly, we are
    guesstimating, around $5 million. Last year, GPO allocated out
    of our retained earnings $2 million. We are asking Congress for
    $2 million to cover the congressional proportion of it, and
    anything beyond that we will deal with it as we move forward in
    the project. But we are thinking it could be as much as $1
    million or so beyond the $4 million, the $2 million we have
    allocated and the $2 million we are asking for.
        The third item is what we call GBIS, which is our financial
    system, and it is an Oracle-based financial system. And we are
    asking for a $3 million investment there. Like any business, we
    have to bill customers, and that is what we do with the Oracle
    system.
        We also have to phase out our R-22 air-conditioning
    coolants, and that is a requirement from the EPA this year, and
    we need to fund that at $200,000. And finally, there is $3
    million for elevator repairs. So out of that money we are
    requesting for the revolving fund for the projects that are a
    priority is $16.2 million.

             GPO deg.PUBLIC PRINTER'S REPRESENTATION FUND

        Senator Nelson. What is the Public Printer's representation
    fund?
        Mr. Tapella. Most Federal agencies have what is called a
    ``rep fund,'' which is a representation and reception
    allowance. And in GPO's case, it is not new appropriated money.
    In GPO's case, it is an authorization to use up to $5,000 in
    our revolving fund. We have a limitation by law that we can
    only spend up to $5,000 in our revolving fund for
    representation and reception expenses, subject to restrictions
    on what these funds can be used for.
        Now, unlike most other agencies, we are basically a wholly
    owned Government business, and we have to sell products and
    services to other agencies. That is our complete marketing
    budget for representation and receptions. So it is $1 billion
    enterprise, and our complete marketing budget for these costs
    is $5,000.
        I would like to see, if possible, permission to have that
    increased up to $7,500. And basically, this past year--I have
    been Public Printer now 18 months. In the last calendar year,
    the $5,000 was not enough to meet the needs of the business.
    And personally, I contributed a little over $20,000 to make
    certain that GPO could meet its representation and reception
    needs.
        Senator Nelson. If you doubled that or you tripled that,
    what would it do to your revenues?
        Mr. Tapella. Well, one, I hope it would help us to continue
    in new business development. We have seen a revenue line--our
    revenue trend has been going upward for the last 7 years. We
    got a significant spike because of the increase in both the
    type of passport, the new electronic passport, and the number
    of passports produced.
        But all of our other businesses are growing as well. And
    when we look at the total cost for the Government Printing
    Office, we have a lot of overhead, which is our IT, our
    infrastructure, our buildings. If we do not have business
    opportunities with other agencies, the demands on our
    appropriations are going to be significantly greater.
        I would like to see us put a significant emphasis into new
    business development. That is mostly in the areas of security
    and intelligent documents. For example, we now produce for
    Customs and Border Patrol, the NEXUS and SENTRI cards, which
    are the cards that are used for border crossings to Canada and
    Mexico. We also do the FAST card. We just got a contract with
    the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to do the
    Medicare card for Puerto Rico.
        We have these significant capabilities, but we need to be
    able to make sure we are marketing them as much as we can,
    including through our representation and reception fund. And in
    my view, these items are inherently governmental. Security IDs
    and other secure documents ought to be in a Government-owed,
    Government-controlled facility rather than sent to a private
    contractor in the private sector.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.

                        GPO deg.CHANGES AT GPO

        Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman?
        I appreciate your comments, Mr. Tapella, about kind of
    where or how the GPO is actually changing in terms of what it
    is dealing with and basically staying current and looking for
    those business opportunities. You have mentioned security and
    intelligent ID. What additional changes might you envision
    within the next, say, 5 to 10 years in terms of what it is that
    you are doing?
        Mr. Tapella. I think it really falls into two buckets. One
    bucket is in electronic information. GPO currently operates a
    traditional bookstore. It is on North Capitol Street. We sell
    tangible books. We also have the authority to sell electronic
    information products and have had that authority since
    approximately 1987.
        With the release of FDsys, which is our Federal Digital
    System, which is a repository of authentic Government
    information and electronic forms, I believe that there are some
    business opportunities there, particularly in the area of print
    on demand, as well as in the area of distributing that
    information in a slightly different way. That is one bucket.
        The second bucket is really in the area of secure ID cards.
    Right now, we produce the passport for the State Department. It
    has an electronic chip embedded in it. To date, GPO is the
    single largest chip buyer in the Federal Government. So we have
    economies of scale.
        We are producing and did produce on behalf of the JCCIC,
    the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, the
    secure credential card used by 10,000 police officers on the
    day of the inaugural. And it was a high-tech ID card.
        We are in the process of doing the NEXUS and SENTRI cards.
    We are looking at becoming the backup supplier for the CAC,
    which is the central access card used by the military, or
    common access card used by the military.
        It also takes advantage of the skilled labor we have at
    GPO. We are not only a traditional paper and ink manufacturer,
    we also are in the electronics business. And I would like to
    see those skills and talents of our employees maximized.

                     GPO deg.DEMAND FOR PASSPORTS

        Senator Murkowski. You have mentioned a couple of different
    times the collaboration between GPO and the State Department as
    it relates to the passports with the electronic chip. I
    understand that we have seen a drop-off in demand in terms of
    the passports quite noticeably. How has this fluctuation in
    demand impacted GPO, and are we at the point where the demand
    for passports has stabilized? Do you see that changing at all?
    What do you consider there?
        Mr. Tapella. Last year, because of the significant demand,
    we produced 24.5 million passports. The State Department
    originally anticipated this year that the request was going to
    be 16.5 million passports, and we built a budget around 16.5
    million passports.
        We got a surprise the week before Christmas, which was at
    the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year, where they
    said, ``No, no, this year we will only need 10.5 million
    passports.'' That represented roughly a $75 million decrease in
    revenue to the Government Printing Office.
        When we originally set our budget, we set roughly $2
    million in net income. And that is the money that we use to
    reinvest in our business. Obviously, we don't have that this
    year.
        And in fact, in December, we were facing a roughly $36
    million budget gap between anticipated revenues and what our
    expenses were for the year. We have now got that cap down to
    roughly $10 million to $13 million, and over the course of this
    year, we will end the year, I believe, in the black. But we
    will probably be lucky if we make $2 or $3 million in net
    income by the end of this year.
        We are at the mercy of our customers, just as we are at the
    mercy of Congress in terms of what Congress does. In last
    year's appropriation, we had revenue to pay back GPO's
    revolving fund from money expended to do congressional work
    because there wasn't enough money previously allocated for such
    purposes.
        And so, we are at the mercy of our customers. So we make
    the best guesstimates that we can, like any other business, and
    we run into that difficulty every now and then.
        Senator Murkowski. So what is your forecast for the
    passports for next year?
        Mr. Tapella. We have not yet received the forecast from the
    State Department. I am hoping that it will be larger than this
    year's. It would be nice if it would get up in the 15 million,
    16 million range. We have dedicated nearly 150 employees just
    to passports, and we have a facility here in Washington, DC. We
    have a facility in Stennis, Mississippi. I think a lot will
    have to do with this next deadline for the western hemisphere
    travel initiative, which goes into effect June 1. That may have
    an effect.
        What we are trying to do is get into new businesses, such
    as Customs and Border Patrol, the NEXUS, SENTRI cards, to try
    to make up for potentially less revenue in the passport
    business.
        Senator Murkowski. We have been pushing--we share a border
    with Canada, and we have been urging Alaskans for the past 18
    months to aggressively get your passport now. I think we
    contributed to some of your business.
        But I would imagine that we are probably on that downhill,
    and I don't know whether it is a stabilization, but I wouldn't
    expect that we would see a continued increase in requests for
    passports. I think that the message that we, as lawmakers, were
    trying to get out, I think they finally got it. And people
    really did get out, and we saw that bump up. But I wonder
    whether it is going to continue at that.
        Mr. Chairman, I had a question about the facilities issues
    and the police force, but I understand that you had an
    opportunity to already ask Mr. Tapella that when I was walking
    back over here. So I don't have any further questions.

                 GPO deg.BUSINESS APPLICATIONS AT GPO

        Senator Nelson. I don't know that I have any further
    questions. I guess I would make a comment that maybe that
    representation fund should be expanded because any business
    that would be looking at a downturn on one side of their
    business would be looking for ways to create an upswing on the
    other side of their business.
        And it seems to me that in a day and age when we are
    looking for more transparency, the data, the information,
    everything that you have is valuable to countless numbers of
    groups and others. And it would seem unless you have saturated
    the market out there already, which I rather doubt it, not with
    a $5,000 representation fund, that there would be a market that
    you could go after.
        I don't want to turn the United States Government into a
    business, but certainly there are business applications that
    would be appropriate for what you are doing. So I certainly
    wouldn't be against seeing that fund or that number increasing,
    if you had any thoughts?
        Mr. Tapella. Well, I would agree with you completely.
    Essentially, we are a business or we operate like a business.
    And I actually think it is a good thing. I am not opposed to
    it.
        I think it is important that we be lean and mean like other
    businesses. And there are a lot of opportunities. There are a
    number of things that I believe are inherently governmental
    that are currently being done by private sector vendors that
    are better served in a Government-owned, Government-controlled
    facility, particularly as it relates to security and
    credentials.
        One of the areas that if we had the authority to do, which
    we presently do not have, I would love to be able to use our
    excess capacity in passport production to produce passports for
    other countries. In order to do that, we would have to have
    specific authority or have the State Department host the other
    countries. But that is an area where, for example, we could
    provide some great value, and it would keep our folks gainfully
    employed and fully enabled.
        Senator Nelson. Well, if you have got excess capacity, one
    of the best things that you can do is find a use for it. And
    perhaps you might think about putting a plan of that sort
    together. I am more than happy to continue to talk to you about
    it, and perhaps there is something that could be established to
    do that very thing.
        I don't know whether you--Mr. Dodaro would want to take a
    look at that as well. Certainly, we ought to maximize whatever
    capacity we have, particularly in a down economy.

                      GAO deg.GAO'S PASSPORT WORK

        Mr. Dodaro. We would be happy to take a look at that. We
    have looked at the security surrounding the passports, both in
    terms of being able to get them with falsified documents, as
    well as the securities of the chips that Bob has been talking
    about. So we will be happy to look at the demand issue as well
    for you.
        Senator Nelson. And come up with maybe some path forward on
    what kind of authority would be required. We could take a look
    at it at the very least.
        So, well, I want to thank the witnesses.
        Yes, Senator Murkowski?

                  GPO deg.GPO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

        Senator Murkowski. I just realized there was one final
    question that I had not----
        Senator Nelson. Sure.
        Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Yet asked. I apologize. And
    this relates, Mr. Tapella, to the information technology
    request, the $18.5 million. It is my understanding that these
    initiatives that are contained in this IT request have been
    requested in prior years, but they haven't been funded.
        Can you let me know why is it important that we do them
    now? What the impact of continuing to defer some or all of
    these to a future year might be? I just want to understand
    because $18.5 million is not unreasonable in terms of a
    technology request. But if you have been able to get by without
    it, what would be the impact of continued deferral?
        Mr. Tapella. Number one, as we have looked at prior year
    requests, we requested typically the amount for the entire
    project. And what we have done is we have broken those down,
    and in many ways, we have funded the first phases of these
    through retained earnings when we didn't receive direct
    appropriations for the purposes.
        As we look at FDsys, the subcommittee previously had been
    very supportive by allowing us to use prior year unobligated
    congressional printing and binding funds and salaries and
    expenses to fund FDsys. And that is the whole reason that we
    were able to release it this year.
        The remaining $8 million we need to complete the
    functionality of FDsys, to take it from where it is today to
    the complete functionality, we still have a 2-year roadmap of
    releases for FDsys. And if we don't have the funding, and
    particularly in GPO's current financial state, we will not have
    the retained earnings to fund it out of our revolving fund, as
    we had in some prior years. So FDsys would probably stop with
    its existing functionality should we not get the funding levels
    we need.
        As it relates to composition replacement system, that is
    something that we use for both Congress and for the Federal
    Register. Those are our prime areas. We have already committed
    the first $2 million for it from our revolving fund, and it was
    retained earnings from the products and services we sell to
    other agencies. We expect the total project to cost $5 million.
        Since we use it significantly for congressional products,
    or at least 50-50, we believe the Congress should be paying for
    their share of it. And actually under the law, they really
    should as well because it falls into the Anti-Deficiency Act in
    terms of using funds for its intended purpose.
        That is going to be done in three releases. The first
    release will be completed about 1 year after the initial award.
    And we are ready to go out with an RFP probably within the next
    month or so. And we have got enough money for this first phase.
    If we don't get the money this year to continue it, it is going
    to go on hold.
        As we look at the Oracle system, we are in an interesting
    situation for our transformation. The transformation began in
    2003 really. We are now 6 years into it, and we have had to
    replace all of our systems. We were on old mainframe systems.
    They are legacy systems. They are no longer supported. And this
    year, we are running in duality. We have our new Oracle system.
    We are still running some mainframe systems. We have the new
    FDsys. We are still running GPO Access.
        When it relates to our financial systems, if we do not have
    the funding to continue Oracle, we are going to have to
    continue basically paying double for our overhead in those
    related areas, and we will not see the benefits of such a
    system. And I think that is really critical.
        As it is, we are probably looking another year or two in
    duality just with where we are in funding levels. And if we
    don't get the funding, it is going to be 4, 5, 6 years, which
    means at the end of the day, you are still paying for it
    because we are going to have to charge more for congressional
    printing and binding if we have significantly greater overhead.
        And so, it is sort of a win-win, lose-lose, you pay one way
    or the other.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Appreciate that, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        I want to thank the witnesses today for attending our
    hearing.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        The subcommittee will stand in recess until 2:30 p.m. on
    June 4, 2009, when we will meet to take testimony on the fiscal
    year 2010 budget requests of the Library of Congress and the
    Open World Leadership Center.
        We are recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 4:01 p.m., Thursday, May 21, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., Thursday,
    June 4.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:34 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ben Nelson (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Nelson, Pryor, and Murkowski.

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF
                CONGRESS
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            JO ANN JENKINS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
            DR. DEANNA MARCUM, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
            KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE BLIND
                AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NELSON

        Senator Nelson. Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome. We
    meet this afternoon for our fourth and final legislative branch
    budget hearing for fiscal year 2010. Today, we will hear from
    the Library of Congress and the Open World Leadership Center.
        It is my pleasure to welcome my ranking member--my
    recovering ranking member here--and good friend, Senator
    Murkowski. It has been a real pleasure working with her
    throughout this process this year, as well as with the other
    members of the subcommittee, Senator Pryor and Senator Tester.
    And we hope that perhaps they will be able to join us today as
    well.
        And I want to welcome our witnesses today--Dr. James
    Billington, the Librarian of Congress, and Ambassador John
    O'Keefe, Executive Director of the Open World Leadership
    Center. It is good to have both of you gentlemen here this
    afternoon, and we are looking forward to hearing from you.
        We would hope that perhaps you would keep your opening
    statements as brief as possible, perhaps around 5 minutes, and
    submit the rest of your testimony for the record.
        One thing that we have established at our first three
    hearings, and I hope it bears repeating, is that we are not
    eager to increase the overall legislative branch budget this
    year. And so, we are looking for your guidance in helping us to
    address your agency's needs in fiscal year 2010, but this is
    not the year for the ``nice to haves.''
        Senator Murkowski and I look forward to working with you in
    this regard, and we have been working with the other members of
    the legislative branch in that regard as well.
        First of all, Dr. Billington, I want to welcome you and
    your Chief Operating Officer, Jo Ann Jenkins. It is an honor to
    have you here today. On behalf of the subcommittee, I want to
    wish you heartfelt congratulations on your 80th birthday.
        And thank you for your service as Librarian of Congress for
    these last 22 years, very important years in the development
    not only of the Library for Members of Congress, but for your
    efforts to reach out to world leaders and to bring them into
    the kind of librarian finesse that you have been able to
    continue to provide for all of us, and we appreciate that.
        I know personally, having been with you in Moscow and your
    close association with Mr. Putin and Mrs. Putin, and what you
    have been able to do to help them with their library efforts is
    commendable and makes us all very, very proud. Your service in
    this capacity is both highly commendable and greatly
    appreciated, and we can't express enough our appreciation for
    those efforts.
        The Library's fiscal year 2010 request totals $658 million,
    an increase of $51 million, or 8.5 percent over fiscal year
    2009. And I note that a large portion of your increase, about
    $20 million, has to do with upgrades to the Library's
    information technology systems. I look forward to hearing from
    you and discussing this with you just a little later on.
        I also want to welcome Ambassador O'Keefe of the Open World
    Leadership Center. Your budget total is $14.456 million, an
    increase of $556,000, or 4 percent above the current year.
        I want you to know that I strongly support the work of Open
    World. We are very proud of what you are doing in reaching out
    and bringing others into the kind of relationship with our
    country that we all want and we know that the others respect
    and want to continue.
        Your leadership in that area, your role has been
    tremendous. We are both proud and very supportive of your
    efforts, and we want those efforts to be able to continue. And
    we want to work with you in order to make sure that that, in
    fact, does happen.
        And now I would like to turn it over to my friend and
    ranking member, Senator Murkowski, for her opening remarks.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate how this series of hearings has gone. This is
    our fourth and our last, as you have noted. But as a new member
    to the Appropriations Committee and certainly a new member here
    with this Legislative Branch Subcommittee, there has been a
    great deal of focus and attention to the real workings of what
    goes on within the legislative branch, and I appreciate that.
        Sometimes this is one of those appropriations subcommittees
    where things just kind of move forward on status quo, and I
    think the level of inquiry that we have had in subcommittee
    with your leadership, it has been appreciated on all ends. And
    I just wanted to make that comment.
        I want to welcome the witnesses before us today. I had an
    opportunity to do a little sit-down with Dr. Billington and
    Ambassador O'Keefe. I appreciate that a great deal.
        Ms. Jenkins, it is a pleasure to welcome you back, and I
    know you have got a full team behind you as well. We certainly
    welcome you to the subcommittee.
        There is also an Alaskan today that I want to acknowledge.
    The Library brings to Washington every year a teacher to work
    with its Educational Outreach Division. And for the 2008-2009
    school year, the Library selected David Miller, who is the
    library media specialist from Ketchikan High School.
        I didn't go to Ketchikan High. I was born there. My parents
    both went there. So it is nice to have a hometown person
    associated with our Library. He has worked on several different
    projects, including an online professional development project,
    facilitating educator workshops, and developing teacher
    materials for the Library's Learning Page, which is great.
        The Library has had some important events in the last year,
    including the opening of its new visitor's experience in the
    Jefferson Building, the launching of the World Digital Library
    in Paris with partners from 21 countries, and the first full
    year of operating the state-of-the-art National Audio-Visual
    Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia.
        And Dr. Billington, Senator Nelson mentioned your work with
    Russia, and we know your involvement, very instrumental
    involvement with the opening of the Yeltsin Presidential
    Library in St. Petersburg, Russia. These are truly important
    accomplishments.
        Mr. Chairman, you have noted that for fiscal year 2010, the
    Library of Congress is requesting a budget of $699 million,
    offset by collections of $41 million, and this is primarily
    from copyright fees, which is an increase of 8 percent over
    fiscal year 2009.
        There are some large new initiatives included in the
    budget, such as multiyear information technology enhancements,
    which total about $15 million annually. This is an area that
    hasn't received budgetary increases in some time. So I look
    forward to hearing why an increase of this magnitude is
    justified, how it ties to an agencywide digital strategy.
        As far as the Open World program, Mr. Chairman, you have
    clearly noted your support for that program. They are
    suggesting an increase by 4 percent. I will ask in my questions
    to you, Ambassador O'Keefe, how and why a foreign exchange
    program belongs in the legislative branch bill.
        I am not questioning whether or not it should continue, but
    whether this is the right spot for it. I think you have
    probably had that question before. So I will look forward to
    your response with that.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to hear the comments
    from those who are here today to present.
        Senator Nelson. Well, at the risk of further embarrassing
    Dr. Billington, I certainly would like to say, Dr. Billington,
    that so many of us consider you a national treasure in your
    role in the Library and what you have done to reach out to
    others in the world.
        And certainly, Ambassador O'Keefe, you embody the same
    spirit. So, with that, Dr. Billington, we would love to receive
    your testimony.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BILLINGTON

        Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Murkowski, members of the subcommittee.
        It is really an honor to be here to represent the Library
    of Congress fiscal 2010 budget request.
        The Library has been honored to bring our outstanding
    recent exhibit, Mr. Chairman, commemorating the 200th
    anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth to Omaha as its last
    stop. Actually, it began in Omaha because Union Pacific funded
    it and made it possible. So it is only fitting that it had its
    last stop in that city.
        Senator Murkowski, we really appreciated your staff touring
    the exhibit with Library curators while it was still in the
    Jefferson Building, and we look forward to your coming to the
    Library this summer to look at our holdings on Alaska.
        It happens that right now a member of our staff, in
    addition to Mr. Miller, who is with us this year with our
    Teaching with Primary Sources Program that the Congress has
    supported so well, is running a teacher training workshop in
    Anchorage, and she just reported to us that every school
    district in the State is represented, except for Juneau, where
    the schools are still in session.
        So, anyhow, we look forward to working with you both and
    with all the members of this subcommittee, and we appreciate
    your cordial words.
        In fiscal 2010, we are requesting a net increase of 8.1
    percent, of which 4.6 percent represents funding for mandatory
    pay and price level increases; 0.4 percent is to sustain
    continuing projects, and the remaining 3.1 percent--the only
    major increase this year--is to support a critical investment
    in updating and enhancing the Library's technical
    infrastructure.

                     TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENT

        We are, in effect, superimposing a digital world on top of
    the traditional print world, moving from traditional business
    systems of personnel, finance, cataloguing, and management of
    information systems, to taking in and managing the very fast-
    changing digital formats that include eJournals, eBooks,
    digital TV, Web sites, digital images, digital audio and
    visual, and so forth.
        Each of our major program areas, the Congressional Research
    Service, Library Services, the Law Library, the Office of
    Strategic Initiatives, and the Copyright Office, must now deal
    with all aspects of digital works--acquiring them, preserving
    them, and providing access to them.
        Over the past 15 years, we have built separate systems,
    successfully meeting individual program needs as they have been
    identified to deliver the new services that Congress and the
    American people have asked of us. Some of these systems are
    new, like the Copyright Office's online registration system.
    Others rely on what has now become very dated technology.
        The Library has not sought any increase in base funding for
    the technological infrastructure for all of this for a decade.
    We now have a pressing need to modernize this infrastructure so
    that we support our diverse and vastly increased digital
    activity more efficiently. We must do so with more unified
    Library-wide systems that can be adjusted and scaled up
    economically to sustain services and meet new user demands as
    the technology changes.

                       SUPPORT FOR DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

        We are now providing far more services and with 1,000 fewer
    full-time equivalents (FTEs) than we had in 1992, when we had
    barely begun the Library's digital transformation. Our entire
    technology request builds upon successful services that we have
    built incrementally, and unique experiences and feedback that
    we have gained through a variety of these initiatives.
        We are now poised to develop core infrastructure that can
    be used by all parts of the Library. We recently launched with
    UNESCO our World Digital Library, which has received
    extraordinary international acclaim with something online from
    all 192 members of UNESCO. It attracted 20 million page views
    in its first 4 days and is proving to be an effective catalyst
    for building the new technological platform with reusable,
    scalable, and multimedia components.

                                   FORT MEADE

        In conclusion, let me just highlight our Fort Meade
    request. Having the space to store so much of America's
    creativity and the world's knowledge in environmentally
    controlled facilities is critical to sustaining the historic
    mission of the Library. Publication continues to grow
    worldwide; has increased by approximately 40 percent since
    2000, even as online digital information is expanding. The Fort
    Meade program has achieved 100 percent retrievability, and is
    essential for preserving and making accessible our uniquely
    comprehensive collections for Congress.
        Amazon has recently stated that no meaningful solutions for
    effective long-term collection management can be implemented
    until more space is created, after inspecting the collections
    in a recent pro bono visit to the Library. The Library is a
    unique treasure trove of information, knowledge, and
    creativity, much of which is not available anywhere else.

                              PREPARED STATEMENTS

        Today, when technology is transforming the way we deliver
    our services to Congress and the Nation, the Library is
    renewing and expanding its role in our knowledge-based
    democracy. We look forward to working with this subcommittee to
    craft a budget for fiscal 2010, and we thank you and the
    Congress as a whole for continuing to be the greatest patron of
    a library in the history of the world.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Dr. Billington.
        [The statements follow:]

                   Prepared Statement of James H. Billington

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and other Members of the
    Subcommittee, I am pleased to present the Library of Congress fiscal
    2010 budget request.
        Mr. Chairman, I am deeply grateful to you and the subcommittee for
    your full support of our fiscal 2009 request. It has heartened and
    strengthened us at what we know is a time of extraordinary fiscal
    pressures on the Federal Government. In such a time, I feel a special
    obligation to stress the importance of what the Library of Congress is
    doing for America's future.
        The Congress of the United States has been, quite simply, the
    greatest patron of a library in the history of the world. Its creation,
    the Library of Congress, is the largest and most diverse collection in
    human history of the world's knowledge in all languages and of the
    intellectual and artistic creativity of the American people in all its
    major recorded formats.
        The Library's historic mission has been to serve the Congress and
    the American people by acquiring, preserving and making accessible its
    unique material and human resources. Its major challenge--and
    opportunity--in recent years has been to sustain and extend that
    mission amidst one of the greatest revolutions in history in how
    knowledge is generated and communicated.
        Our task has been, in effect, to superimpose new digital processes
    and services onto those of traditional artifactual library processes--
    while preserving and exemplifying the human values of the older book
    culture that helped create the free, open and knowledge-based democracy
    that we serve. In the course of meeting this challenge, we have
    undertaken a far greater range and volume of innovative processes and
    services than ever before with one thousand less FTEs than in our peak
    pre-digital year of 1992.
        Congressional vision and support has made it possible to continue
    to add important new acquisitions and to sustain unique preservation
    activities. Thanks to the Congress' building a direct passageway from
    the Capitol Visitor Center into the Thomas Jefferson Building, we have
    greatly increased numbers of visitors to see an entire new series of
    interactive exhibits culminating in the centerpiece of the Lincoln
    bicentennial that displays for the first time in 50 years the key
    original documents of Lincoln's presidency in his own hand. We were
    glad to welcome the creation of a Library of Congress Caucus in the
    course of 2008. And we are pleased to note the steady increase of the
    use of the Members Room and other Library facilities now that the
    tunnel directly connects the Library to the Capitol Visitor Center and
    to the Capitol itself.
        Thanks to Congressional support and the unprecedented generosity of
    David Packard and the Packard Humanities Institute, the magnificent new
    Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation in Culpeper, Virginia is
    now up and running under its outstanding new director, Patrick
    Loughney. The Packard Campus is, in essence, a high-capacity digital
    preservation facility for our massive and largely perishable audio and
    film collections. We are now able to save many collections that would
    otherwise have deteriorated and been lost forever.
        We are now in the process of hiring 39 new staff, and the Packard
    Campus is well-launched. The film preservation lab is operational and
    digital preservation of sound recordings, television, and radio
    broadcasts preservation work has started.
        I am pleased to report that our National Library Service for the
    Blind and Physically Handicapped is on schedule with the Digital
    Talking Book program. We have received the first 5,000 machines and are
    sending them to eight regional libraries for user testing. We will also
    send the first book cartridges to these regional libraries next week.
        On April 21, 2009, the Library, in cooperation with UNESCO,
    launched our new World Digital Library. Within hours of going online,
    this multilingual and multi-medial site had attracted 600,000 visits
    and more than 7 million page views. Our National Digital Library/
    American Memory site also began with a relatively small number of high
    quality, one-of-a-kind cultural treasures but has now steadily grown to
    more than 15 million online primary source files with educational
    enhancements.

                           FISCAL 2010 BUDGET REQUEST

        We are requesting a total fiscal 2010 budget of $699.4 million,
    representing a $52.6 million or 8.1 percent increase over fiscal 2009
    funding levels. The majority of this increase represents funding for
    mandatory pay and price level increases totaling $29.8 million or 4.6
    percent. Funding adjustments to support ongoing projects, totaling
    $16.6 million, and non-recurring funding for projects that are ending
    (-$13.7 million), represent a total of $2.9 million or 0.4 percent. The
    remaining 3.1 percent or $20 million represents the focus of our fiscal
    2010 budget request, seeking support for investment in the Library's
    technical infrastructure.

          MODERNIZING THE AGING TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE--$20 MILLION

    Infrastructure--$15.4 million
        The mandatory pay and price level increases are critical for
    keeping the Library whole, but our highest programmatic funding
    priority in fiscal 2010 is an increase in base funding to update and
    enhance the Library's technology infrastructure, upon which the
    progress of all service units of the Library depends. The Library
    requests $15.4 million to modernize our technology. This investment
    will fund: core technology, content management, and content delivery--
    three areas that are inextricably linked. We need an updated technology
    infrastructure before we can construct a foundation for bringing
    digital content into the Library, managing it so that it can be used by
    the Congress and the American people, and preserving it for future
    generations.
        Up until now, the Library has benefited from a centralized catalog
    of print holdings, but the digital projects have been designed and
    maintained separately. This is entirely understandable in a time of
    experimentation and transition, but at this stage of our digital
    maturation, we are now poised to develop core infrastructure that is
    used by all parts of the Library, and to implement flexible, scalable
    systems that meet the broad needs of the institution. The launch of the
    World Digital Library has proven to be a useful catalyst for the
    development of a new technology platform with reusable and scalable
    components. This modern form of technical infrastructure will allow us
    to streamline and make more efficient our workflows and processes
    throughout the Library.
        The 21st century Library is increasingly multi-medial. Our budget
    request will allow the Library to build sustainable systems to manage
    digital content of many varieties: video, audio, text, and images. Such
    technical systems will allow us to manage all of these formats in more
    cost-efficient, integrated ways. The funding we are requesting will
    also allow us to make these multi-media materials available to the
    Congress and other users in the ways they now expect: fast, convenient,
    and easy-to-use.
    Legislative Information System--$1.6 million
        One of the Library's key means of providing information to the
    Congress is through the Legislative Information System (LIS), which was
    first made available in the 105th Congress. This system provides
    Members and their staff with online access to the most current and
    comprehensive legislative information. The LIS has been developed under
    the direction of the House Committee on House Administration and the
    Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. It has been a
    collaborative project of several legislative branch offices and
    agencies. CRS has responsibility for overall coordination of the
    retrieval system. The Library is responsible for its technical
    development and operation.
        We are requesting a one-time investment of $1.6 million to update
    the current LIS so that it can meet growing demands. The new concept of
    operations will be based on a thorough assessment of the current system
    and develop an architecture that provides enhancements for users to
    better perform discovery, navigation, and retrieval across the entire
    spectrum of legislative content. The new system will take a modular
    approach to functions such as search and storage, so that they can be
    independently improved in the future. The Library will reconfigure LIS
    in consultation with House, Senate, Government Printing Office and CRS
    data providers.
    Targeted User Interactivity--$3 million
        Finally, we request an investment of $3 million to support the
    broad expansion of public access to the Library's collections and
    services on-site and online through the testing, evaluation, and
    adoption of emerging new technologies for the K-12 and teacher
    communities. Successful implementation of the Library of Congress
    Experience in the Thomas Jefferson Building has dramatically increased
    public awareness and unleashed the educational potential of the Library
    and its collections through the creative application of new interactive
    programs. Visitorship is up nearly 30 percent since its initial launch
    in April of 2008.

                  IMPROVING ACCESS, CAPABILITIES, AND SERVICES

        Over the past 6 months, the Congressional Research Service has
    shown its exceptional capacity to serve the Congress under
    extraordinary and time-sensitive conditions. It provided comprehensive
    analysis and legislative support during the financial crisis, the auto
    industry crisis, the fiscal 2009 appropriations bill and the fiscal
    2010 budget resolution. It produced more than 100 reports for the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 alone. This year it has
    identified more than 170 active issues for which it will support
    Congress in every step of the legislative process.
        We ask for $1.8 million to enhance access to Congressional Research
    Service (CRS) expertise by modernizing the technical environment that
    supports it. These systems govern how CRS manages and supports its
    research operations, personnel systems, and the systems used to run,
    maintain, and update the CRS web site for Congress. An additional
    $500,000 is requested to purchase network storage and switch hardware
    to improve the IT and emergency backup capability of CRS.
        The renewed LIS will also benefit the public THOMAS system. To
    continue to meet the public's need for legislative information, we
    request $138,000 to hire a web site manager who will develop a user
    interface and an improved navigation system for THOMAS users. The
    THOMAS site has seen a steady increase of inquiries from your
    constituents, and it is important that we make this web site more user
    friendly.
        We request a one-time $1.1 million increase in offsetting
    collections authority for the Copyright Licensing Division so that we
    can secure consulting services to help us convert from a manual to an
    electronic filing process. Electronic filing is needed to maintain
    reasonable operating costs in future years and to minimize increases
    that would be unacceptable to the Congress, copyright owners, and cable
    system operators.
        The Library is requesting $2.7 million to expand the availability
    and usefulness of legal materials collected and stored in the Global
    Legal Information Network (GLIN), a database of more than 160,000 laws
    and related legal materials from 51 jurisdictions in Africa, Asia,
    Europe, and the Americas. In fiscal 2005, the Law Library launched a
    major upgrade of the GLIN system that vastly improved functionality and
    usability, including providing access in 13 different languages. GLIN
    has since attracted a global audience that has increased tenfold,
    exceeding its performance target by 800 percent. As the system has
    improved, new jurisdictions have become members, the size of the
    database has increased, and the level of use continues to expand. This
    funding is specifically requested over a 5-year period, to upgrade and
    refresh the hardware and software to sustain GLIN operations as the
    program continues to expand in content, usage, and membership. This
    funding will also further the Law Library's mission to support the
    foreign law research needs of the Congress, promote the rule of law
    between and among nations, and support the legal information needs of
    emerging democracies. The Law Library has created a private GLIN
    Foundation and will work to attract private financing over the long
    term. This request will cover the hosting and maintenance of GLIN to
    ensure the continuity of operations as new members join.

                REENGINEERING WORK PROCESSES IN LIBRARY SERVICES

        The Library staff increasingly relies on more current technologies
    to perform the new tasks that are required of them. We are assessing
    all of the workflows and processes to make the most effective use of
    present and emerging technologies. For Library Services (LS), where our
    core library functions are carried out, we are requesting $1 million in
    contractual support for a 3-year project to document and evaluate
    operational procedures and information technologies (IT) currently used
    in the 52 divisions of LS. We anticipate many opportunities to
    consolidate technology services within LS to create a more robust and
    integrated architecture and workflows. We will determine which data
    systems and services should be provided within LS and which should be
    provided centrally by the Library's Information Technology Services
    (ITS).

                       MANAGING AND SECURING COLLECTIONS

        We request $1 million to continue the inventory management program
    that was initiated in fiscal 2002 as a cornerstone of the Library's
    Strategic Collections Security Plan, when Congress directed the Library
    to conduct an item-level inventory of its general collections. We have
    made reasonably good progress with that inventory; however, when we
    began moving general collections to Fort Meade, we quickly recognized
    that our most important inventory goal had to be the effective
    retrieval of materials moved there. Happily, we have achieved a 100
    percent success rate in retrieving requested items from that location.
    Now, as we return to the original objective of conducting an item-level
    inventory of our general collections, we are working with the
    commercial sector to explore new technology options for this process.
    Some of these practices are already in place at Fort Meade. The scope
    of this effort is unprecedented. We are grateful for Congressional
    attention and support for this large and complex endeavor.
        To ensure that the Library's heritage assets are preserved for use
    by current and future generations, we are asking for $3.6 million in
    start up and new operational costs for Fort Meade Storage Modules 3 and
    4, which will house our special collections. This kind of housing for
    the Library's special collections is crucial to the Library's long-term
    strategy to provide for their security and preservation, as well as to
    provide sound space management and inventory management. This
    relocation will dramatically increase the life expectancy of these
    vulnerable collections.
        The operation of Modules 3 and 4 will be more intensive and
    expensive than the implementation of Modules 1 and 2, involving the
    expense of new hardware and software, collections protection and
    preservation, moving, on-site support staff, and facility management,
    largely because we are moving special format materials to Modules 3 and
    4, while Modules 1 and 2 house general collections. This year the
    Library is absorbing some costs associated with the opening of Modules
    3 and 4. Base funding is needed in fiscal 2010 for start-up and
    operational costs that will allow the Library to meet requirements in
    the areas of security, preservation, space management, and inventory
    management. With your support, we also will be able to conduct
    construction planning for Module 5 and prepare facility designs for
    Modules 6 and 7. The Architect of the Capitol has included $16 million
    in fiscal 2010 request for construction of Storage Module 5, which will
    help alleviate overcrowding on Capitol Hill and address serious
    concerns about safety, retrieval, and preservation.
        The construction of storage modules at Fort Meade has been one of
    the more significant preservation advances for the Library in decades.
    In short, this program has ensured that the Library of Congress remains
    the mint record of America's creativity by allowing continued
    acquisition of America's creative output and providing optimal storage
    conditions for our existing works.

                            ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

        We are also asking for $238,000 for collections security on Capitol
    Hill, for extended reading room security guard services. Other
    requested funding includes $2 million for the final increment of
    mandated funding for Capital Security Cost Sharing, $2 million for
    modernized, environmentally friendly custodial services, $300,000 for
    facility design services for more complex renovations, and $334,000 for
    escape hoods for the visiting public.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman, I recognize that difficult choices are necessary in
    this economic climate. The Library has already recognized the need to
    sustain our core functions with level or reduced resources. We believe
    that the key to continued success is to make more effective use of
    technology. The $52.6 million we are requesting is an investment to
    ensure that the Library stays current with the new technology in
    today's Internet-based world while we continue to maintain traditional
    services. With your support, the Library will continue to perform its
    historic mission to make its resources available and useful to the
    Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve the
    world's most extensive collection of knowledge and creativity for
    future generations. I believe that, with the careful investments I have
    outlined, the Library will continue, renew, and expand its role in our
    knowledge-based democracy--today and in the days to come. Thank you.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director, Congressional
                                Research Service

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and other Members of the
    Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to present the fiscal year
    2010 budget request for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). I
    would also like to highlight some of the actions and new initiatives
    undertaken recently that we consider essential elements in fulfilling
    the mission that Congress established for this agency. But before I
    discuss our request for next year, I would like to spend a few minutes
    on the importance of the mission of CRS and to relate that mission to
    the current challenges facing the Congress.
        You, as Members of Congress, are required to resolve issues that
    are growing more complex and technical and that are becoming
    increasingly interrelated in both expected and unforeseen ways. This
    complexity necessitates increased reliance on technical competence,
    which in turn demands predictability and coherence in issue areas from
    disciplines that traditionally have been more reliant on projections
    and probability. But whether determining the impact of changes in
    financial market regulations, ascertaining a method for equitable State
    allocations for Federal Medicaid payments, or examining a proposal to
    balance interests in a contentious region of the world, the well-being
    of millions of Americans is at stake if data and analysis do not
    accurately predict actual outcomes.
        The elected representatives of the people are able to rely on the
    expertise of CRS to assess options and anticipate consequences as they
    undertake critical deliberations. Our work must be authoritative,
    objective and confidential, and we must offer just what our charter
    statute instructs us to do, namely, to anticipate the consequences of
    alternative proposals and in doing so, foresee unintended consequences.
        Anticipating the consequences of proposals is becoming ever more
    difficult. The increased complexity of the problems facing Congress is
    obvious. Just look at the array of financial instruments that Members
    must understand and grasp with sufficient confidence to create a
    regulatory regime that maximizes the benefits of innovation and market
    competition while curtailing fraud and abuse. Members must rely on
    specialists in the financial markets, just as they must rely on foreign
    relations specialists with regional expertise to recognize the
    political and cultural forces at work in the world today, and health
    finance experts and health care specialists to understand the factors
    contributing to growing health care costs.
        Congress's reliance on the expertise of others presents a potential
    risk to representative democracy. Citizens elect Members of the House
    and Senate to represent their interests and the interests of the Nation
    as a whole. In effect, your constituents ask you to make decisions on
    the merits of one form of weaponry over another; on the fairest and
    most economically sound way to allocate broadband width; on the balance
    of economic, human rights, labor and environmental interests in a
    bilateral trade agreement; and on the best investment in alternative
    energy technologies. No matter how brilliant and wide-ranging the
    experience of each Member of Congress, he or she must perforce rely on
    the expertise of others on a whole range of issues to ascertain the
    best policy course given his or her values and priorities.
        Democratic theorists have raised the specter of the polity being
    run by technocrats and elite bureaucracies that supplant the people's
    voice and choice in determining the best course in an increasingly
    complex world. I would submit that an important protection against that
    vision is the expertise resident within CRS. The Congress has placed a
    significant investment in the competency and integrity of CRS staff.
    Members of Congress have all sorts of experts approaching them daily,
    and they have, of course, hired personal and committee staff with
    selected expertise or experience. Nonetheless, Members know and rely on
    Service expertise, not only to assess independently the outside expert
    opinions advocated before them, but also to complement their own
    experience and knowledge, and that of their staff, to ensure that the
    judgments they make are as well informed as possible.
        When Members turn to CRS, they can be assured that analysis they
    receive is authoritative, objective, and confidential. We do not
    advocate. We make methodologies and sources clear, and we hold
    legislative needs paramount, including the role of each individual
    Member in the deliberative processes of the Congress. The Congress's
    continued investment in CRS is tacit recognition of the need for
    expertise skilled in multiple disciplines in order that they understand
    the interactions and consequences of complex issues. The Congress also
    recognizes its need to have access to expertise that is solely devoted
    to creating sound underpinnings to inform judgments within the
    legislative branch.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST

        The CRS budget request for fiscal year 2010 is $115,136,000, with
    almost 90 percent devoted to pay and benefits for our staff.
    Significant cost-cutting measures were required in the last fiscal year
    because the enacted budget was over $6 million less than requested.
    This necessitated a reduction in our workforce from the previous FTE
    level of 705 to the current level of 675. This is the lowest staff
    level in three decades, and CRS will continue to operate with a reduced
    level of internal support staff and services to sustain our analytic
    capacity. The lower budget also required reductions in the access to
    research materials and in the investment in information technology. The
    current budget constrains funding to support basic operational needs.
    Therefore it is necessary to request additional funding for enhanced
    means of accessing CRS analysis and information.
        The budget request for fiscal year 2010 includes the mandatory pay
    increases ($5.2 million) and price-level increases due to inflation
    ($.3 million) that will maintain the existing level of service. It also
    requests two program increases totaling $2.3 million that will enhance
    the analysis available to Congress and the capabilities of the
    supporting information technology. Included in the $2.3 million request
    is $1.8 million for a modernization effort to achieve three objectives:
    (1) improve the quality and usability of the CRS website; (2)
    reconstruct and standardize Service-wide systems and information
    resources to form an integrated, interrelated, and interoperable
    research environment; and (3) revise the way CRS procures, stores,
    updates, retrieves, and shares the large, multiple, and complex data
    sets and information systems used in the creation of its analysis. The
    remaining $500,000 will support three other objectives: (1) provide
    real-time computer network fault tolerance, data redundancy, and
    automated fail-over capability in the event the computer network in the
    James Madison Building is inoperative; (2) increase network speeds to
    the Alternative Computer Facility and improve performance of critical
    applications and file transfers, which will reduce the time required to
    save files and run applications; and (3) increase computer storage
    capacity to help meet the growing demand to store CRS work products and
    research information, encompassing the full range of multimedia formats
    such as video, audio, and podcasts.

                          ALIGNMENT WITH THE CONGRESS

        CRS takes full advantage of its close relationship with the
    Congress to align its work with evolving congressional needs across the
    full spectrum of policy concerns that are on the legislative agenda, or
    are likely to arise.
        CRS works in a consultative relationship with Congress so that
    specific congressional needs are recognized as they relate to evolving
    circumstances, including changes in world events, advances in
    government operations, and developments in legislative processes.
    Members and committees of Congress and their staffs maintain
    continuing, on-demand access to CRS experts through phone calls, e-
    mails, personal briefings, confidential CRS memoranda, and by
    consulting actively maintained CRS research products on our website.
        Based on its daily work with the Congress, CRS identifies and
    analyzes the policy areas in which Congress is actively engaged or is
    very likely to become engaged. CRS typically identifies between 150 and
    175 such issue areas. CRS ensures that it has identified all major
    issues that might receive legislative attention through discussions
    with leadership on both sides of the aisle in both chambers. CRS
    support for these policy areas entails formation of teams of experts
    who develop common understandings of major policy questions and
    concerns to ensure that our service for the Congress is fully informed
    by the most appropriate CRS expertise across disciplines and subject
    areas. The CRS website provides ready access to key research products
    and services in each of these policy areas.

                            SUPPORT FOR THE CONGRESS

        Over the past year, the Congress has consistently turned to CRS
    when in need of expert, objective assistance as it has addressed
    extraordinarily challenging and enduring problems.
        The financial and economic crisis that still dominates domestic and
    global settings has been the focus of intensive, continuing CRS support
    for Congress. In this area, congressional concerns that have driven the
    work of CRS experts include: limiting damage from the disorder in
    housing markets; restoring functionality to mortgage markets and credit
    markets generally; ensuring viability of financial institutions and
    their return to standard business operations; assessing impacts on
    other credit-sensitive sectors such as autos, home furnishings, and the
    pursuit of higher education; recognizing structural shifts in the
    economy accelerated by the downturn; as well as assisting victims of
    the recession, and mitigating the downturn through oversight and
    regulatory provisions that will limit the recurrence of destabilizing
    financial excesses. CRS economists, legislative attorneys, and
    specialists in American national government, among others, have
    analyzed a range of proposals from the previous and current
    administrations, examined actions in other countries, and assisted in
    assessing evolving economic developments and in identifying and
    evaluating legislative options. Questions CRS has addressed relate to
    concerns such as feasibility, effectiveness, constitutionality,
    unintended consequences, separation of powers, and federalism issues--
    all in a context of largely unprecedented circumstances.
        Other major policy areas facing Congress have also commanded multi-
    disciplinary support from CRS experts, often on a confidential basis,
    and with the need for objectivity and independence from executive
    branch and outside interests. Notable examples of continuing, expert
    support relate to congressional efforts to ensure appropriate and
    effective U.S. engagement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and the broader
    Middle East; provide for emergency responses to Midwest flooding and
    Gulf-coast and Mid-Atlantic hurricanes and mitigate needs for future
    disaster responses; meet energy needs of the Nation with due
    consideration for both environmental imperatives and ongoing functions
    of the economy; improve the safety of food, drugs, and other products
    for American consumers; and limit undue influence of special interests
    in making and executing policy.

                             MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

        The past year saw several successful initiatives aimed at making
    CRS a more efficient and effective organization and enhancing its value
    to the Congress.
    Section Research Managers
        During the past year, CRS revamped its first-line management
    structure, hiring section research managers and integrating them into
    the management of the organization. They are working to ensure that the
    Service stays aligned to the legislative challenges facing the Congress
    through collaboration, multi-disciplinary research and analysis, and by
    fostering an energetic work environment. They have already succeeded in
    breaking down barriers that had at times impeded our ability to
    collaborate and effectively marshal our expertise. Their new thinking
    on ways to address issues on the legislative agenda and convey CRS's
    expertise to the Congress brings both immediate and long-term benefits.
    This corps of section research managers will also serve as a resource
    for management succession in CRS.
    Professional Development Enhancement
        CRS developed enhanced performance standards for each position in
    the Service, as well as performance plans and individual development
    plans. This large undertaking involved a Service-wide coordinated
    effort and is part of a commitment to developing a continuous learning
    culture and to engage fully every individual in his or her own
    professional development. At the end of 2008, 76 percent of the staff
    had created and received supervisor approval of their individual
    development plans for the year.
    Authoring and Publishing Reports
        CRS has implemented a new process for production and formatting of
    CRS research products, streamlining preparation, display, and
    maintenance of these products. CRS undertook this complex effort to
    create research products for the Congress that more efficiently support
    PDF and HTML distribution through the CRS website, standardize the
    presentation format using a uniform and consistent new product design,
    and facilitate more sophisticated use of graphics.
    Tracking Inquiries from Congress
        CRS is in the final stages of configuring a new system to track and
    manage congressional requests from entry to completion. This entails
    customizing an off-the-shelf customer relations management tool. This
    system, known as Mercury, will replace the outdated Inquiry Status and
    Information System (ISIS) and includes additional features to increase
    responsiveness to congressional needs; support research management;
    foster collaboration among researchers; and identify Service-wide
    activity by issue area.
    Redesign of the CRS Website
        CRS has developed a multiyear, phased plan to make CRS.gov more
    user-friendly and ensure that Congress has ready access to the full
    breadth and depth of our analytical and other services. Many
    congressional and CRS staff provided their views on the strengths and
    weaknesses of the current site and ideas for enhancements. These views
    helped to shape our final design. The initial effort this year will
    begin to provide better organization of material and a more intuitive
    navigation of the website.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In making our fiscal year 2010 budget request of $115,136,000, we
    are mindful of the formidable challenge you face in weighing budget
    requests in this period of difficult economic conditions. My managers
    and I have and will continue to examine every activity and program for
    efficiencies and eliminate costs where the return on investment is in
    question. This budget request will provide the resources needed for the
    talented and dedicated staff of CRS to continue to build on the unique
    tradition of providing comprehensive, non-partisan, confidential,
    authoritative, and objective analysis to the Congress. We are proud of
    our role, and we thank you for your support.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights,
                                Copyright Office

        Mr. Chairman, Ms. Murkowski, and other Members of the Subcommittee:
    Thank you for the opportunity to present the Copyright Office's fiscal
    2010 budget request. Today I would like speak with you about some of
    the work and challenges the Copyright Office faced in fiscal 2008. In
    addition, I would like to talk about the Office's Historic Records
    Project that was funded as part of the fiscal 2009 Budget and our
    request for additional offsetting authority to complete our Licensing
    Reengineering effort, which is part of the Copyright Office's portion
    of the Library's fiscal 2010 budget request.

                      HIGHLIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OFFICE WORK

    Policy and Legal Activities
        On June 30, 2008, the Office presented its Report to Congress on
    the statutory licenses (Sections 111, 119, and 122 of the Copyright
    Act) that allow cable operators and satellite carriers to retransmit
    programming carried on over-the-broadcast television signals. The
    Report, which Congress requested as part of the Satellite Home Viewer
    Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, analyzed the differences in
    the terms and conditions of these statutory licenses and considered
    their continued necessity in light of changes in the marketplace over
    the last 30 years. The Report has served as the starting point for
    continuing discussions on legislation to extend the Section 119
    statutory license, which is set to expire on December 31, 2009, unless
    reauthorized by Congress. The Office is working with Senate Judiciary
    staff and stakeholders on proposed amendments to these licenses.
        The Office has worked closely with the Senate Judiciary Committee
    on other pressing copyright matters. One significant issue has been
    orphan works, i.e., the situation where a potential user cannot
    identify or locate the owner of copyrighted works (including literary
    works, photographs, motion pictures, sound recordings and other
    creative works). In April 2008, the Senate introduced the Shawn Bentley
    Orphan Works Act of 2008 (S. 2913) was introduced in the Senate, passed
    by unanimous consent on September 26, 2008. Due to several unresolved
    issues in the House, the Office expects to assist the House Judiciary
    staff on this subject in 2009.
        The Office has also worked with Judiciary Committee staff to
    develop legislation relating to the public performance right for sound
    recordings in Section 106 of the Copyright Act. The Performance Rights
    Act (S. 379), introduced in the 111th Congress, would amend the
    copyright law to expand the public performance right of sound recording
    copyright owners to include analog audio transmissions. This change
    would, for the first time, require over-the-air radio stations to make
    royalty payments to record companies and recording artists.
        Another issue that the Office will address in 2009 concerns the
    copyright treatment of pre-1972 sound recordings. The issue is
    complicated because these works were not eligible for Federal copyright
    protection before February 15, 1972; rather, they were governed by
    State law which, in many cases, is not well-defined. Pursuant to the
    Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, the Office has been directed by
    Congress to conduct a study on the desirability of, and means for,
    bringing sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, under Federal
    jurisdiction. The Office's report is due in March 2011.
        In 2008, the Copyright Office assisted Federal Government agencies
    with a number of multilateral, regional and bilateral negotiations and
    served on many U.S. delegations. Notable among these were meetings of
    the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO's) General
    Assemblies and its Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights,
    negotiations regarding a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement,
    and negotiations and meetings relating to intellectual property
    provisions of existing and proposed Free Trade Agreements. The Office
    also was a key advisor to the United States Trade Representative in a
    successful World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement proceeding
    against China relating to intellectual property protection and
    enforcement in China. The Office expects to continue to play a leading
    role in the United States delegations to WIPO and in other multilateral
    and bilateral meetings and to advise other Federal agencies on
    international and domestic copyright law and policy matters.
        Last year, the Office assisted the Justice Department in a number
    of important court cases, including some involving constitutional
    challenges to various provisions of the Copyright Act.
        In addition to the Office's work on legal and policy issues, fiscal
    2008 was an exciting and challenging year for Copyright Office
    operations.
    Reengineering Program
        At the end of fiscal 2007, the Copyright Office implemented its
    reengineering project: redesigned processes, initiation of hands-on
    training in new operations for the entire staff, established new
    organizations, launched a new integrated IT system to process
    registrations, and renovated facilities. In addition, on July 1, 2008,
    the online registration system Copyright Office (eCO) was released to
    the public through the Copyright Office website.
        The May 19, 2009 Washington Post article containing substantial
    errors, did highlight the paper application registration backlog issue
    we are facing. The article did not choose to discuss our continuing
    efforts to improve operations through staff retraining and realignment,
    technology system enhancements and reallocation of tasks.
        In February 2009 we completed the retraining for all Copyright
    Registration Specialists, and when compared to May 2008, their
    productivity per specialist has doubled. In April 2009, we completed
    the hiring of our first class of new Registration Specialists in over 2
    years. The new Specialists are in training and are already productive.
    Looking ahead we will maintain a continuous improvement initiative
    focused on identifying and implementing workflow and IT system
    improvements.
                Organization
        At the beginning of fiscal 2008, all staff had been reassigned or
    selected for new positions. Honoring the Register's commitment to
    ensure all Copyright staff had positions after reengineering, the
    Office continued its major program to retrain former examiners and
    catalogers to work in a combined position, Copyright Registration
    Specialist. The registration specialists use eCO and the redesigned
    registration process to: examine claims including any related
    correspondence, complete a registration record, and in many cases, make
    selections for the Library's collections. Training was conducted in
    house by Senior Registration Specialists. To date all Registration
    Specialists with us in August 2007 have received at least 1 full year
    of appropriate training and a full year of related experience in eCO.
    Training began in fiscal 2007, extended through 2008, and concluded in
    February 2009. Targeted training to meet individual employee needs is
    still provided. As more Registration Specialists completed training and
    achieved independence, the senior Registration Specialists who served
    as trainers were able to return to full time registration duties.
        During the initial implementation of reengineering, Copyright
    Office management announced a 1-year suspension of performance
    requirements, permitting staff sufficient time to gain the requisite
    training, familiarity, and experience with the new processes and IT
    system. In August, 2008, Office management and AFSCME Local 2910 (the
    Guild) representing the affected employees signed an agreement
    regarding implementation and impact of the new performance requirements
    As agreed, written performance requirements for individual employees
    went into effect October 1, 2008. Phased in following a 90-day grace
    period after each registration specialist reached his/her 1-year
    anniversary working in the new system, the performance requirements
    included a productivity rate of 2.5 claims opened per hour and
    qualitative benchmarks.
        With the implementation of new performance requirements,
    productivity rose in the second quarter of fiscal 2009. For
    Registration Specialists who are still within the 90-day grace period
    before the performance requirements take effect, the overall group
    average is 2.6 per hour. For Registration Specialists who have
    completed training and for whom the performance requirement is in
    force, the overall group average is approximately 3.0 per hour. This is
    double our hourly productivity from where we were in May 2008.
                Processes
        Through its continuous improvement initiative, the Office further
    refined the reengineered processes by examining workflows and support
    systems. On occasion, we adjusted and improved work processes or
    systems to enhance efficiencies. Throughout the year, we identified
    issues, developed alternative processes, and tested and implemented the
    best options. For example, realizing that missing or incorrect fees
    were slowing workflow in the Registration division, we shifted the fee
    resolution process to RAC, a much earlier step in the workflow. This
    improved the registration process time and resulted in a better balance
    of the staff's workload.
        We also examined how to improve eCO's responsiveness. By analyzing
    how eCO processed data, we were able to implement basic system
    redesigns, reducing user wait times.
                Information Technology
        The electronic Copyright Office system has two components: eCO
    Service, which supports online registration (e-Service) and enables
    processing of both electronic and hardcopy claim submissions; and eCO
    Search, which permits searching of more than 20 million registration
    records dating to 1978.
        The Office applies the continuous improvement concept to the
    ongoing refinement of eCO. Earlier this year the Copyright Technology
    Office restructured the Copyright Office's systems internal oversight
    board. The new board is comprised of Office processing divisions'
    supervisors and staff. The board is responsible for reviewing,
    evaluating, prioritizing and recommending proposed eCO system
    improvements. The board gives the employees directly involved with eCO
    a voice to suggest system improvements to enhance operations. To date,
    the Office has implemented a large number of incremental enhancements
    to improve system performance and functionality. As we continue to move
    into 2009, we expect the process will continue to be effective.
        In fiscal 2008, the Office initiated an eCO system Performance
    Improvement Project (eCO PIP) designed to optimize eCO performance and
    to develop short-and long-term recommendations for additional system
    improvements. Following the first round of optimization efforts, system
    performance improved by 50 percent.
        Electronic Submissions.--On July 1, 2008 the Office opened to the
    public eCO e-Service for basic claims, enabling users to submit via the
    Internet, copyright applications and certain classes of copyright
    deposits. Prior to July 2008, e-Service was opened under a limited-
    access beta test. During the last quarter of fiscal 2008, the Office
    created 46,118 e-Service user accounts and processed 59,850 e-Service
    claims. Approximately 43,000 users charged copyright application fees
    to credit cards or bank accounts and the rest charged fees to existing
    deposit accounts. Users submitted approximately 35,000 electronic
    deposit copies; the remaining claims were submitted with hard copy
    deposits sent in by regular mail. By the end of fiscal 2008,
    approximately 72,500 individuals and organizations were registered e-
    Service users. Electronic claims through e-Service now account for well
    over 50 percent of weekly copyright applications received.
        Form CO with 2-D Barcode.--On July 1, 2008, the Office released the
    new Form CO that incorporates two dimensional (2-D) barcode technology.
    The first Form CO submissions were received and processed in September.
    The forms, which are completed online, are intended for applicants who
    prefer not to transact business over the Internet. When printed out,
    each form has scannable 2-D barcodes which encode all the data entered
    in the form. When the Office scans the 2-D barcodes, all fields of the
    eCO record are populated automatically without the need for manual data
    entry.
    Registration of Copyright Claims, Recordation of Documents, and Deposit
            of Copies of Copyrighted Works
        During fiscal 2008, the Copyright Office received 561,428 copyright
    claims covering more than 1 million works. Of the claims received,
    232,907 were registered and 526,508 copies of registered and
    unregistered works valued at $24 million were transferred to the
    Library of Congress for its collections and exchange programs. The
    Office recorded 11,341 documents which included more than 330,000
    titles of works.
        There were 231,000 claims in process in eCO 1 year ago; today there
    are approximately 500,000. The number of copyright claims received in
    fiscal 2008 is comparable to previous years, but the Office registered
    fewer than half the number of claims compared to previous years and
    transferred fewer than half the typical annual number of deposit copies
    to the Library. These reductions are reflective of the significant
    challenges the Office faced in the wake of reengineering
    implementation. There were a number of contributing factors.
      --As mentioned earlier, Registration Specialists required extensive
            training in new processes and the use of eCO. This training
            impacted productivity in multiple ways: first senior
            registration specialist needed to learn the system then the
            senior specialists needed to train junior staff. In effect, the
            first few months of fiscal 2008, production was significantly
            limited.
      --The Office implemented eCO in August 2007, with electronic claims
            processing officially opening almost a year later. Processing
            paper claims electronically proved to be more difficult than
            originally anticipated, with Optical Character Recognition
            (OCR) technology being less successful than expected. The paper
            claims became labor intensive requiring manual data entry into
            the eCO system before the claim could be examined. Combined
            with staff retraining, slow processing of paper claims was a
            contributing factor to the build-up of claims on hand in fiscal
            2008. Public acceptance of e-Service filing, 2-D barcode
            technology and a fully-trained staff have helped us overcome
            these issues.
      --Some large submitters have been slow to adopt electronic filing;
            however, there is a strong indication that in the very near
            future more will move to e-Service.
      --As with any large-scale IT implementation, eCO underwent
            adjustments for usability, efficiency, and stability. The
            Office has largely resolved the issues.
      --Although the Office lost registration specialists through normal
            attrition, to focus training efforts on existing staff,
            management made the decision to hold new hiring until 2009.
            While the decision was necessary, it lead to a temporary
            staffing shortage, adversely affected production. As April
            2009, all Registration Specialists positions are filled.
        The Office has taken a number of steps to improve processing time
    and reduce the number of claims on hand. Subsequently, the production
    trends are very positive in a number of areas.
      --Large bottlenecks of unprocessed works received in the mail have
            been reduced, by more than 65 percent.
      --Paper applications awaiting data entry into eCO have been reduced
            by more than 85 percent: from a high of 34,000 to under 5,000.
      --Unprocessed check batches were reduced from a 6-week lag to real-
            time processing.
      --During fiscal 2008, we closed approximately 40 percent of submitted
            claims. To date through fiscal 2009, we are at 60 percent
            closed claims.
      --As mentioned earlier, training has concluded for all Registration
            Specialists who were on board as of August 2007. As a result,
            registration specialist productivity increased across the board
            to double that of 1 year ago.
      --As more Registration Specialists become fully independent, the
            number of staff requiring quality assurance reviews of their
            work declines, allowing Senior Registration Specialists,
            currently responsible for quality assurance reviews, to focus
            more time on processing claims.
      --The Office recently appointed two new registration specialists in
            the Visual Arts and Recordation Division and seven new
            registration specialists in the Performing Arts Division. On
            April 27, eight new registration specialists started in the
            Literary Division. These actions address the short staffing
            situation that contributed to low production and growth in the
            volume of claims in process.
      --The eCO e-Service online registration system was released to the
            public on July 1, 2008. By the end of fiscal 2008, e-filings
            reached almost 50 percent of all claims entered. The percentage
            for fiscal 2009 thus far has been 53 percent. As the volume of
            e-Service claims increases the volume of paper claims
            decreases, which has a favorable effect on productivity.
      --Registration Specialists have been freed from activities that
            detracted from reducing the number of claims in process:
        --The Office established a quality assurance program targeting data
                entry errors during the process of manually keying data
                from scanned paper applications into electronic records.
                This action reduced the time spent by Registration
                Specialists correcting data entry errors.
        --The Office began identifying and routing claims with fee problems
                to the Accounts Section earlier in the production process.
                This action dramatically reduced the volume of
                correspondence that Registration Specialists were required
                to generate in response to short fees and other fee-related
                problems.
        The volume of paper claims on hand will continue to affect
    processing times until actions already taken or planned by the Office--
    eliminating the short staffing in the Registration Divisions, achieving
    a fully trained staff, implementing strategies to attract more filers
    to eCO, and upgrading to the newest version of the software application
    that powers eCO--have taken full effect.
        Thus far in fiscal 2009 the Office is experiencing a downturn in
    the number of claims received, which we believe is related to the
    current economic environment. At this time, projections indicate a
    possible fiscal 2009 decline in copyright claims of somewhat over 5
    percent compared with fiscal 2008. The Office is taking a cautious
    approach to managing the fiscal 2009 budget to ensure that we remain
    within the forecasted revenue base.
    Copyright Records Digitization Project
        In July 2008, the Copyright Office initiated a study to determine
    how to approach the digitization of its 70 million pre-1978 copyright
    records, many of which are sole copy records. The Office is now ready
    to move beyond the initial planning stages of the project. The
    objectives of the project are to:
      --Provide online access to records of copyright ownership for the
            years from 1923 to 1977 inclusive.
      --Provide online indexes as a finding aid to these records.
      --Create preservation copies of the paper records of copyright
            ownership dating back to 1870.
      --Move from microfilm to online digital records.
        Earlier this year the Office issued a Request for Information (RFI)
    targeting vendors with expertise in records digitization. The Office
    received and reviewed 21 responses to the RFI. In fiscal 2009, we
    intend to initiate a pilot test of several options for digitization
    across a representative sample of the copyright record types and
    formats. Based on the pilot test, we will determine the best
    alternative and begin full production digitization in fiscal 2010. The
    project's duration may extend over several years as necessary based on
    funding availability. However, the plan also calls for flexibility
    allowing us to seek out partnering opportunities that may both reduce
    the digitization cost and shorten the project's duration.
    Licensing Reengineering
        In fiscal 2009, the Licensing Division resumed its reengineering
    efforts, reviewing its current administrative practices and underlying
    technology, performing a needs analysis for future operations, and
    beginning to design its re-engineered systems. The goals of this
    reengineering effort are to decrease statement of account processing
    times by 30 percent or more and to improve public access to Office
    records. The estimated $1.1 million cost of re-engineering will be
    assessed against royalty funds as soon as the Office is granted the
    authority to do so. Fiscal 2010 will be challenging for the Licensing
    Division. The IT system design and implementation must go forward even
    as changes to the copyright law, particularly 111 and 119, are being
    considered. Licensing Division staff may also be forced to work through
    statements of account using the old processing system as the new system
    is piloted.
    Conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, I ask you to support the fiscal 2010 budget request
    including the request for additional offsetting authority to complete
    the Licensing Reengineering efforts. Fiscal 2008 was a transitional
    year for the Office; we are hopeful that the measures we implement in
    fiscal 2009 will help us to overcome many of the reengineering
    challenges.
        I also want to thank the Congress for its past support of the
    Copyright Office reengineering efforts and our budget requests.

        Senator Nelson. Ambassador O'Keefe.

    STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JOHN O'KEEFE, EXECUTIVE
                DIRECTOR, OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER
        Ambassador O'Keefe. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on the Open World Leadership Center's
    fiscal year 2010 budget.
        As the Center's Open World program matures, we see its
    growing significance for both the American communities and
    organizations that make it successful and for the participating
    young leaders from countries of strategic interest to the
    United States.
        With me today is our chairman, Dr. Billington, who, 10
    years ago, proposed what Under Secretary of State for Political
    Affairs William Burns has said is the most effective exchange
    program of the many he was involved with. In 1999, with strong
    bipartisan support from Congress, Dr. Billington, Russian
    academician Dmitry Likhachev, and then-Ambassador to Russia
    James Collins brought forward a leadership exchange program
    that has benefited both the United States and new countries
    born from the breakup of the Soviet Union.
        Thanks to Open World, there are scores of Russian
    nonproliferation experts who now know their American
    counterparts and have a greater sense of joint purpose. There
    are anti-human trafficking advocates and officials in Ukraine
    who have a better understanding of how to track down
    perpetrators of this crime and assist their victims. And there
    are mayors and city councilors in Moldova and Azerbaijan who
    are making local governments more open and responsive to
    ordinary citizens.
        In reviewing this legislative branch agency's effectiveness
    over the years and our successful expansion beyond our original
    focus country of Russia to Ukraine, Moldova, the Caucasus, and
    central Asia, I must give credit to our dedicated staff, the
    partner host organizations, and volunteer experts and home
    hosts across the United States. I am honored to serve a program
    with such broad support in U.S. communities and in countries
    where we operate.

                    BROAD DISTRIBUTION OF HOSTING IN U.S.A.

        In 2008, we have sent delegates to 355 communities in 44
    States. Seven hundred fifty American families home hosted these
    first-time visitors to the United States. We will attain that
    same broad geographic distribution in our hosting program this
    year.
        My main disappointment lies in not accommodating all those
    in the United States who wish to be part of Open World. We have
    more than twice the number of organizations that want to engage
    with us than we have participant slots available.
        Our request this year reflects the revised strategic goals
    approved by our board recently. The original plan called for a
    20 percent expansion between fiscal years 2007 and 2011.
        Even with economies of scale, gifts, and our cost
    reductions, such a goal would require a substantial budget
    increase, which the board believed was not feasible at this
    time. Therefore, our request of $14.456 million is a modest 4
    percent increase. This amount will support expansion to Armenia
    in 2010, as well as other programs.
        We have been good stewards of the funds you have given us.
    Our overhead is 7.1 percent, and for 3 consecutive years, we
    have received clean audits. This year, the auditor had no
    comments, no findings, and no discussion points, which is
    amazing, for those of you who are familiar with audits.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Open World's board and its hosting partners throughout the
    United States have created a powerful tool for Congress and our
    Nation to forge human links to the vast and strategically
    important heartland of Eurasia. I seek your support to continue
    our efforts in the next fiscal year.
        Thank you for your attention.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of John O'Keefe

        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, Senator Pryor, and Senator
    Tester, I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on the Open
    World Leadership Center's budget request for fiscal year 2010. The Open
    World Leadership Center, of which I am the Executive Director, conducts
    one of the largest U.S. exchange programs for Eurasia, through which
    some 6,100 volunteer American families in all 50 States have hosted
    thousands of emerging leaders from former Soviet countries. All of us
    at Open World are very grateful for Congress's continued support and
    for Congressional participation in the Program and on our governing
    board. We look forward to working with you on the future of Open World.
        Last year, American volunteers in 44 States and 202 Congressional
    Districts home hosted Open World participants, contributing a large
    portion of the approximately $1.8 million given to the Program in the
    form of cost shares--an amount equal to 20 percent of the Center's
    fiscal year 2008 appropriation. Even though Open World is an
    international exchange program, more than 75 percent of Open World's
    fiscal year 2008 appropriated funds were expended on U.S. goods and
    services through contracts and grants.
        More than 14,000 emerging leaders from Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan,
    Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Lithuania, and
    Uzbekistan have participated in Open World. Significantly, more than 48
    million Muslims reside in countries where Open World is active, and
    these countries have approximately 2,000 miles of shared borders with
    Iran and Afghanistan.
        In fiscal year 2008, Open World had a 35 percent reduction in
    appropriated funds, which would have translated into an estimated 37
    percent reduction in grants to U.S. organizations. However, through
    cost shares, staff cuts, contract terminations, an interagency
    transfer, and withdrawals from Open World trust fund reserves, the
    Center was able to maintain the quality of the Program and the number
    of participants at levels consistent with prior-year averages.
        The Center's budget request of $14.456 million for fiscal year 2010
    is a modest 4 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 level of $13.9
    million, even though the cost of the logistical services contract will
    rise 6 percent. We will close this gap and maintain a participant
    hosting level of 1,400 through additional cost shares, with a portion
    coming from our partners abroad. We estimate that, as occurred with our
    fiscal year 2008 appropriation, more than 75 percent of the
    appropriated funds will be spent on U.S. goods and services, including
    $4.16 million in direct grants to American host organizations. The
    funds will allow thousands of Americans throughout the United States
    and their counterparts abroad to generate hundreds of new projects and
    partnerships and other concrete results.

                         OPEN WORLD COST-SHARE EFFORTS

        The Center actively seeks a wide range of partners to diversify
    funding and strengthen the Open World Program. In 2008, the Center
    received interagency funding and direct contributions totaling over
    $900,000. Cost shares, mainly from American grantees and hosts, added
    an estimated $1.8 million. We received pledges of $950,000 as gifts
    (for a 3-year period) directed to programs not supported by
    appropriated funds. These pledges include a $500,000 commitment (to be
    spent over 3 years) for our alumni program from Open World Trustee
    George Argyros, and $450,000 (to be spent over 3 years to host health
    and education leaders from the Republic of Buryatia) from Senator
    Vitaliy Malkin of the Russian Parliament. To date, we have received
    $482,000 of the $950,000 pledged.
        An interagency transfer of $530,000 from the National Endowment for
    the Arts (NEA) to support all the hosting costs of the Russian Cultural
    Leaders Program represented a 6 percent increase over NEA transfers in
    previous years.
        In 2007, the Center initiated a cost-share reporting requirement
    for all grantees in an effort to track the generous in-kind support
    that they and local hosts provide to the Open World Program. The
    Program received an estimated $1.75 million in donated goods and
    services from hosts and grantees in 2007--equal to 13 percent of the
    Center's fiscal year 2007 appropriation. We expect to see a higher
    share for 2008 when the cumulative figures become available later this
    spring.
        The Open World alumni program is paid for exclusively with
    nonappropriated funds. Open World has actively sought in-kind
    opportunities and cost shares in this area as well.
        Numerous U.S. judges and legal professionals involved with Open
    World exchanges make independently financed reciprocal trips to meet
    with program alumni. In 2008, 61 American jurists involved with Open
    World's rule of law program made such reciprocal working visits to Open
    World program countries. Reciprocal visits with alumni help fulfill
    Open World's mission of strengthening peer-to-peer ties and
    partnerships.

                            OPEN WORLD AND CONGRESS

        As a U.S. Legislative Branch entity, the Open World Leadership
    Center seeks to link Congress's foreign policy interests with citizen
    diplomacy. The Program proactively involves Members of Congress in its
    programming and strives to make this programming responsive to
    Congressional priorities. In 2008, nearly one out of four (353) Open
    World participants met with Members of Congress and Congressional
    staff, either in Washington, D.C., or in the Members' constituencies.
        A majority of the trustees on the Center's governing board are
    current or former Members of Congress. The Center also regularly
    consults with the House Democracy Assistance Commission (HDAC), the
    Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Congressional
    Georgia Caucus, the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, other Congressional
    entities, and individual Members with specific interests in Open World
    countries or thematic areas. Moreover, in 2008, for the first time, the
    Center partnered with HDAC to provide Open World programming to three
    Ukrainian and six Georgian parliamentary staffers. The Center hopes to
    build on this partnership and to continue its success in the coming
    years.

                              MEASURES OF SUCCESS

        The Open World Leadership Center tracks the results of the Open
    World Program using eight categories, or ``bins,'' such as partnerships
    with Americans, alumni projects inspired by the Open World experience,
    and benefits to Americans. Since launching a results database in August
    2007, Open World has identified more than 2,000 results (see attached
    Results Chart). Some representative results are:
      --A Russian alumna was one of seven recipients of the Secretary of
            State's 2009 International Women of Courage Awards. Accompanied
            by First Lady Michelle Obama, Secretary Clinton praised the
            alumna for her ``stalwart leadership in seeking justice for the
            families of bereaved [military] service members.''
      --Ukrainian alumna Anzhela Lytvenenko and her organization Successful
            Woman won a $15,000 Democracy Grant for a project to improve
            government/NGO cooperation on human-trafficking prevention in
            Ukraine's Kherson Region.
      --An Azerbaijani alumnus designed a brochure for recruiting citizen
            election monitors based on a form for enlisting campaign
            volunteers that he obtained from Representative John Sarbanes
            (MD) during an April 2008 Open World visit to the Baltimore
            area.
      --Open World host and Atlanta-Tbilisi (Georgia) Sister City Committee
            Chairman John Hall partnered with alumni in Tbilisi to organize
            an economic summit in Atlanta in December 2008.

                   OPEN WORLD 2010 PLANS AND 2009 ACTIVITIES

        In 2010, Open World will carry out the goals of the recently
    revised Strategic Plan (2007-2011) as approved by the Board of
    Trustees, focusing on quality control of nominations and U.S. programs.
    We plan to expand to at least one additional country (Armenia), and we
    will continue our effort to diversify our funding. We will add more
    delegates from Central Asia and the Caucasus while proportionally
    reducing the number of Russian delegates.
        We will host additional members of the national legislatures of
    Open World countries located in Central Asia and the Caucasus, based on
    reports of the effectiveness of Open World parliamentary hosting
    received from the U.S. Embassies. The Center will also continue the
    rule of law programs for participating countries where we are finding
    substantial cooperation and movement toward an independent judiciary.
    We will foster sister states/sister cities programs in many locations
    in the United States, and broaden efforts in the cultural field, where,
    through our Russian Cultural Leaders Program, we have, for example,
    benefited museums in the Midwest thanks to our partnerships with the
    Likhachev Foundation and the American-Russian Cultural Cooperation
    Foundation.
        In cooperation with the Department of State, we plan to intensify
    our work with women leaders. With funding in 2010 at the requested
    level, Open World will continue to share America's democratic processes
    and institutions, send about 1,400 participants to homes throughout the
    United States, and spread a wealth of American experiences to borders
    beyond our own.
        For 2009, Open World continues to host in thematic areas that
    advance U.S. national interests, generate concrete results, and support
    U.S. organizations and communities engaged in these thematic areas.
    This programming emphasizes and builds on Open World's incremental
    successes in the fields of governance (emphasizing the legislative
    branch's role in helping to bring about good governance and affecting
    public policy), the rule of law, human-trafficking prevention and
    prosecution, environmental issues, and ecotourism. This year Open World
    will also increase its non-Russian programming to approximately 45
    percent of its total programming (up from 36 percent in 2008 and 23
    percent in 2007).
        Demonstrating Open World's commitment to supporting existing
    partnerships and initiatives, an estimated 70 Open World hosting
    programs (31 percent of all 2009 programming) will be conducted by
    Americans with established partnerships in Open World countries. For
    example:
      --Freedom House, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that serves as
            a voice for democracy and freedom, will host accountable
            governance delegates from Kharkiv, Ukraine, in their U.S.
            sister city of Cincinnati.
      --Building on a 15-year-old relationship between Maryland and
            Russia's Leningrad Region, the Office of the Secretary of State
            of Maryland will host an accountable governance delegation from
            the Leningrad/St. Petersburg area in 2009.
      --In the area of human trafficking, one of Open World's veteran
            grantees, the Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption
            Center, will be hosting some of their Russian partners and
            colleagues on a program focused on combating child exploitation
            and trafficking.
        Turning to post-visit initiatives for alumni, the Center plans,
    using private funds, to host two results-oriented 1- or 2-day thematic
    workshops in Russia, one of which will highlight Open World's
    nonproliferation program. Another 23 or so half-day events will be held
    in Russia and other Open World countries on topics proposed by alumni.

                         OPEN WORLD AND SHARED FUNDING

        In response to the language of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
    (Public Law 111-8), Chairman Billington and I have met twice with
    senior officials of the Department of State and with officials from the
    Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to discuss shared funding. The
    Center has also discussed cost-share arrangements with the Russian
    Supreme Commercial Court. The Court has tentatively agreed to share the
    cost of bringing Russian commercial court judges to the United States
    on Open World for hosting by American judges. We remain committed to
    working with the Subcommittee and our Board of Trustees to pursue any
    alternative sources of funding, and we will report back on our findings
    by no later than May 30, 2009.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST

        The Center's budget request of $14.456 million for fiscal year 2010
    is a 4 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 request of $13.9
    million. Funding at this level will enable the Center to continue its
    proven mission of hosting young political, civic, and cultural leaders
    from Russia; maintain its important program for Ukraine; and continue
    smaller but growing programs in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The
    Board of Trustees believes that maintaining a robust grassroots-based
    Open World presence in Russia is necessary and important for future
    U.S.-Russia relations, but programs in expansion countries continue to
    account for a larger percentage of hosting than in the past.
        The budget request maintains hosting and other programmatic
    activities at a level of approximately 1,400 total participants, which
    remains far below the limit of 3,000 set in the Center's authorizing
    legislation. Actual allocations of participant slots to individual
    countries will be based on Board of Trustees recommendations and
    consultations with the Subcommittee and U.S. Embassies. The requested
    funding support is also needed for higher salary costs in fiscal year
    2010, as well as for increased logistical costs due to higher airfares
    and less favorable exchange rates
        Major categories of requested funding are:
      --Personnel Compensation and Benefits and other operating expenses
            ($1.43 million)
      --Contracts ($8.86 million--awarded to U.S.-based entities)
      --Grants ($4.16 million--awarded to U.S. host organizations)
        The Center also requests Subcommittee approval of an amendment to
    its statute. This proposed amendment will enable the Center to improve
    the Open World Program's administration and to build upon its
    successful civic and cultural exchange programs by encouraging
    interaction with and among program alumni, and by extending the
    cultural program to new countries if approved by the Board.

                                   CONCLUSION

        State Department Under Secretary for Political Affairs William
    Burns said that Open World is the most effective exchange program of
    the many he was involved with while serving as ambassador to Russia
    and, earlier, as assistant secretary in the Bureau of Near Eastern
    Affairs. While Open World's results are often measured in quantitative
    terms, the Program has a profound impact that is captured in anecdotes
    and qualitative feedback from participants. The editor of a major
    Russian regional newspaper told his readers in a post-visit article
    that, after his Open World program in New Hampshire, he saw no basis
    for any future U.S.-Russia conflict (Volna, January 29, 2008). An
    alumna who sits on a Russian regional supreme court wrote an e-mail to
    Open World organizers stating: ``I can say unequivocally that the [Open
    World] visit not only changed my view of the Russian Federation's
    judicial system, but also brought about an overall change in my
    worldview as a whole.''
        Funding the 2010 Open World Program at the requested level will
    allow Americans in hundreds of Congressional Districts throughout the
    United States to engage up-and-coming Eurasian political and civic
    leaders--such as parliamentarians, environmentalists, and anti-human
    trafficking activists--in projects and ongoing partnerships. Americans
    will, once again, open their doors and give generously to help sustain
    this successful Congressional program that focuses on a region of
    renewed interest to U.S. foreign policy.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget request will enable the Open World
    Leadership Center to continue making major contributions to an
    understanding of democracy, civil society, and free enterprise in
    countries of vital importance to the Congress and the Nation. The
    Subcommittee's interest and support have been essential ingredients in
    Open World's success.
       open world proposed amendments for fiscal year 2010 budget request

    SEC. ____. OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER UPDATE.

        (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Open World
    Leadership Center Update Act of 2009''.
        (b) ``Act'' Defined.--In this section, the ``Act'' means section
    313 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554
    1(a)(2) [H.R. 5657], 2 U.S.C. 1151) as amended by the Legislative
    Branch Appropriations Act, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7, div. H, title I,
    Sec. 1401(a)), the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L.
    108-447, div. G, title I, Sec. 1501) and the Emergency Supplemental
    Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Tsunami
    Relief, 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13, div. A, title III, Sec. 3402(b)).
        (c) Board Membership.--The Act is amended in subsection (a)--
                (1) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``members'' and
            inserting ``Members of the House of Representatives''; and
                (2) in paragraph (2)(B) by striking ``members'' and
            inserting ``Senators''.
        (d) Extension of the Cultural Program to Eligible Foreign States,
    and Alumni Program.--The Act is amended in subsection (b) in paragraph
    (1)--
                (1) by striking ``cultural leaders of Russia'' and
            inserting ``cultural leaders of eligible foreign states''; and
                (2) by adding the following sentence at the end: ``The
            Center may also engage with program alumni in educational and
            professional development activities in eligible foreign
            states.''
        (e) Grant Program.--The Act is amended in subsection (b) in
    paragraph (2)--
                (1) by inserting ``and in eligible foreign states'' after
            ``United States''; and
                (2) by adding the following new sentence at the end: ``The
            Center may also award grants to program alumni in eligible
            foreign states to carry out activities directly related to
            their experience during their Open World visits to the United
            States.''
        (f) Use of Funds.--The Act is amended in subsection (b) in
    paragraph (3)(C)--
                (1) by striking ``Grant funds'' and inserting ``Funds'';
                (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of item (ii);
                (3) by adding a new item (iii): ``the costs of program
            activities conducted with program alumni in eligible foreign
            states; and''; and
                (4) by renumbering item (iii) to ``(iv)''.
        (g) Executive Director.--The Act is amended in subsection (d) in
    the first sentence by striking ``The Board shall appoint'' and
    inserting ``On behalf of the Board, the Librarian of Congress shall
    appoint''.
        (h) Reemployment of Annuitants.--The Act is amended in subsection
    (e) by adding the following new paragraph (3)--
                ''(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4064 of
            title 22, United States Code, at the direction of the Board and
            consistent with the authority provided to legislative branch
            officials under sections 8344 and 8468 of title 5, United
            States Code, the Librarian may grant waivers of annuity
            restrictions upon reemployment of annuitants in Center
            positions.''
        (i) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall be
    effective on the date of enactment of this Act and shall remain in
    effect for fiscal year 2010 and fiscal years thereafter.

                               COPYRIGHT BACKLOG

        Senator Nelson. Dr. Billington, regarding copyright, I
    understand that after a fairly significant investment of
    taxpayer dollars, the new $52 million electronic copyright
    registration system is experiencing some challenges and that
    there is a significant backlog in requests for copyrights. In
    fact, according to a May 19 Washington Post article, since
    implementing the new system, the time to process a copyright
    has tripled, growing from 6 to 18 months with further delays
    expected.
        First of all, do we know what our current backlog is and
    what we might be doing and what we can do to overcome this
    situation?
        Dr. Billington. Well, Mr. Chairman, we realize that there
    is an ignorant truth regarding this issue. We are, of course,
    in the process of transforming from a paper-based system to an
    electronic system. And already 53 percent of the claims come in
    the electronic mode. We expect that to increase by about 80
    percent by fiscal 2011, so the time required to complete a
    copyright claim will diminish.
        We have thoroughly briefed the subcommittee staff on the
    extensive program that the Register has developed to deal with
    the 8-month delay in the paper claims. Part of the problem is
    the time required to track new registration specialists. They
    have now accelerated that. They have taken other steps to
    improve operations, including key entry quality assurance.
        In the last 4 months they have hired 17 new people. In the
    last 2 years they retrained the entire staff. But it isn't
    simply a simple matter of retraining. It is a matter of
    retraining both on a new system and new processes. That has
    been completed. Seventeen new registration specialists are
    already processing registrations. We expect some improvement.
        Perhaps the Register--if you want more detail, we could
    give it to you now, or we could provide you with detailed
    account from the Register herself, Marybeth Peters, who is I
    believe----
        Ms. Peters. Right here.
        Dr. Billington. Yes. Would you like more detail on this? We
    are certainly conscious of it, and it is a serious problem. The
    total reengineering of the copyright processes was accomplished
    on time and was as we had scheduled it. But as with other
    reengineering projects of massive scope, it comes with
    challenges.
        We could provide you a detailed plan how we are doing with
    this and the progress that has been made for the record, if
    that would----
        Senator Nelson. That would be helpful. And as part of that
    for the record, if you would help us understand how you might
    keep from incurring additional costs in smoothing the process
    to get on track?
        Dr. Billington. All right. Do you want to hear that now, or
    should we provide that for the record?
        Senator Nelson. Oh, no. For the record.
        Dr. Billington. Yes, sir. We would be glad to.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

        The total cost of the Copyright Office's business process
    reengineering project was approximately $48.8 million, of which $15.5
    million was spent on the development of a new electronic Copyright
    Office registration system, or eCO. As of June 14, 2009, the number of
    claims in various stages of processing in eCO (including an estimated
    count of the most recently received unopened/unprocessed mail receipts)
    was 535,288. The accumulation of such a large number of claims in
    process is a result of relatively low production following
    reengineering implementation. Low production was caused by there being
    insufficient staffing in the key areas of registration, information
    technology, and in-processing; a massive training effort involving the
    majority of staff necessitated by the substantially new positions that
    were created as part of the reengineering effort and implementation of
    the new IT system; and processing bottlenecks caused by new operations
    needing further refinement.
        In response to these issues, the Office has taken the following
    actions:
      --From late 2008 through the end of April 2009, the Office hired a
            total of 17 new Registration Specialists (a nearly 20 percent
            increase in the number of Registration Specialists on staff),
            and the new hires are already reviewing claims as part of an
            accelerated training program. In addition, the Copyright
            Technology Office is preparing to fill several new positions,
            to bring in the expertise needed for its expanded role in the
            Office's processing operations; and the Receipt, Analysis and
            Control Division is also preparing to hire additional staff in
            the In-Processing Section.
      --In accordance with an agreement negotiated with AFSCME Local 2910,
            the union representing employees in professional job series,
            all registration employees were given 1 year of training and an
            additional 90 days to reach written performance requirements.
            As of February 2009, all employees completed a minimum of 1
            year of hands-on training working in the reengineered
            processing environment, and the additional 90 day period pushed
            the effective date of the performance requirements into May
            2009. In cases where employees are still operating below the
            minimum performance level, additional training continues.
      --Through a continuous improvement program, the Office has initiated
            workflow adjustments to achieve more efficient processing. For
            instance, a change to the dispatch procedures whereby the time-
            consuming task of wanding deposit copies to portable
            receptacles was dropped, resulting in a significant increase in
            the volume of copyright deposits dispatched each week and
            freeing Registration Specialists to spend more time registering
            claims.
      --Incremental enhancements to the IT system, based on feedback from
            internal and external users, have also improved productivity in
            the registration area and provided for a better eCO experience
            for remitters. Examples of enhancements to the IT system
            include developing better sorting and searching capability in
            the Registration Specialist's active cases queue so that staff
            can better organize and monitor pending cases; and extending
            the maximum time available for uploading electronic files from
            30 to 60 minutes for a single session, which provides remitters
            greater capability to submit large digital files.

                       TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES

        Senator Nelson. In your opening statement, you mentioned
    your fiscal year 2010 request includes approximately a total of
    $20 million for technology infrastructure upgrades for the
    Library, and a $20 million increase is very difficult to
    accomplish in the current fiscal environment. So my question is
    could this project be funded incrementally over the next, say,
    3 to 4 years to flatten down the cost expense of any particular
    1 year so as not to bust the budget, if you will?
        Dr. Billington. Well, I think probably some adjustment
    could be made there, but this is not just a one-time
    investment.
        Senator Nelson. No, no. I know that.
        Dr. Billington. I think in terms of stretching it out a
    little bit, sure, we would be happy to discuss that with you.
    By taking an incremental approach, we have been able to learn
    from our experience. We haven't invested in the technology
    infrastructure for 10 years now, but at this point, we have
    really a lot of deferred maintenance, a lot of catch-up to do
    with the systems.

                      THE CHALLENGE OF RISING EXPECTATIONS

        We are somewhat the victims of our own success, having put
    15.3 million items--primary documents of American history--
    online, mostly with private money that we were able to raise
    for that purpose. We now find that with the World Digital
    Library there are enormous expectations, and the educational
    impact and usage also are multiplying. The number of States
    that are setting up programs through the Library for training
    teachers and the educational use of the Internet is increasing.
        So the burden is very, very heavy, and we really have, I
    think, enhanced our programs with the addition of the new
    electronic offerings. By the way, 10 days ago I was in Russia.
    The new library system that they have opened in St. Petersburg,
    which has considerable promise, has borrowed many of the
    electronic features that we now offer, even working with the
    same American contractors that we have used.
        This system will greatly increase the demands made by
    Americans all over the country to use Library of Congress
    content for educational purposes. We have to address our search
    and discovery capabilities, which were established a long time
    ago but need to be updated.
        Anyhow, we could certainly discuss this matter with your
    staff and with you.
        Ms. Jenkins. I was just going to say that same thing.
        Dr. Billington. Does anybody want to add to that? I think
    the point is to have an integrated information architecture
    that can be upgraded, can be developed to accommodate the
    unpredictable new demands that will be made.
        Incidentally, in addition to this, there is a request for
    GLIN funding, for the Global Library Information Network, whose
    usage has increased 400 percent just this last year. There are
    also requests for the legislative information system, involving
    all of the legislative branch agencies for which we have
    special responsibility, as well as to enhance the Congressional
    Research Service (CRS) capacity.
        So this is a Library-wide business, and it is a question of
    establishing a platform for the whole thing now that we have
    pretty much a full picture of what we are going to do. We see
    the demand for it. But we would be happy to work with you to
    try to stretch this out a little bit. I do want to caution that
    it can't be stretched out too much because we have already
    stretched programs out for 10 years.
        We financed a lot of this because we were saving money by
    downgrading our mainframe legacy system, and we diverted funds
    that might have been used for that as we went along. But that
    really wasn't adequate, and we now think we have done a
    definitive analysis of needs. And we will follow through in
    various organizational ways to make sure that this does deliver
    an integrated system, which will make it possible for us to
    upgrade with efficiency. There is another approach that many
    Government agencies and others use, and that is to come up with
    an ideal system that addresses specific requirements.
        But when you have an ideal system, things keep changing. We
    are now trying to fix it so that we are on a solid basis for
    future growth and won't have to keep coming back periodically
    for anything quite as dramatic as this.
        Senator Nelson. We appreciate that, and we will be happy to
    work with you, see what we can do over a rational, reasonable,
    appropriate period of time.
        Thank you very much.
        Dr. Billington. Thank you.

                             OVERSEAS FIELD OFFICES

        Senator Nelson. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Billington, let me ask you about the overseas field
    offices. I understand that there are six different field
    offices located in our U.S. Embassies in Jakarta, Rio de
    Janeiro, Cairo, New Delhi, Nairobi, and Islamabad. And it is my
    understanding that they were originally established to acquire
    materials in parts of the world that lacked a mature and
    reliable book trade.
        The annual cost of operating these field offices is about
    $15 million, and I know that there have been questions directed
    to you as to whether there may be more cost-effective ways of
    acquiring the publications that the Library gets through these
    field offices. I understand that there is a study under way
    that GAO had recommended to look specifically at this.
        Can you give me an update as to where that study is and to
    what extent the study is looking at other means that we might
    be able to acquire this type of information short of funding
    additional field offices?
        Dr. Billington. Well, the study that I think you are
    referring to was begun in January of this year. The Associate
    Librarian for Library Services, Dr. Marcum--Dr. Deanna Marcum,
    who controls the 52 different units within Library Services, a
    very broad span of responsibilities, she formed a small working
    group to analyze this whole problem of the overseas offices. It
    is not really a problem. I think it is more an opportunity.
        The working group was charged with addressing whether they
    were acquiring and processing materials that are otherwise
    unobtainable. Are they being collected? Is what we are
    collecting the most desirable? Are the overseas operations
    conducted in a cost-effective manner? And the current
    operations, are they sustainable over the long and short run?

                      BREADTH OF INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIONS

        The working group will address this in a final report to be
    delivered to GAO on July 22. In fiscal 2008, our overseas
    offices acquired almost 300,000 items for the Library's
    collection. This compares to 443,000 items acquired for the
    Library's collection from other foreign sources.

                  SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO FOREIGN COLLECTIONS

        So it is roughly two-thirds of what we have acquired in the
    continuing quest dating back to Jefferson's Library, which had
    books in 16 languages and set the precedent for the
    universality of these collections. Items from the overseas
    offices are well more than one-half of what we collect from
    other foreign sources, a total of about 750,000 items from
    foreign sources acquired for the Library's collections overall.
        Now the differential between what the Library of Congress
    has and what any other institution has is going to increase
    because in the other major research libraries around America,
    there has been a sharp reduction in foreign acquisitions
    because of the economic crisis and endowments and so forth. And
    it has always been very large.
        If you look where the overseas offices are, they happen to
    be almost uniformly in places where the book trade is not
    developed. So you don't really have alternative modes of
    gathering things, for instance, in Islamabad, Pakistan; New
    Delhi, India; Jakarta, Indonesia; Cairo in Egypt; and Nairobi
    in Kenya; and then Rio de Janeiro.
        It really is a unique source of published material that you
    won't get anywhere else. No book dealer would have discovered
    the mimeographed copy in an obscure Afghan town of the
    autobiography of Osama bin Laden. Nobody even knew that such a
    thing existed. It was a mimeographed form from the early 1990s,
    from a very obscure village in Afghanistan.
        So these offices have many native employees who fan out and
    have regular sweeps through precise areas of the world that are
    of particular concern to us. And so, I think it is a unique
    resource.

                          OVERSEAS OFFICE SUBSCRIBERS

        Seventy-five other research libraries across America, in 32
    States, participate in the program. Anybody who wants to
    collect foreign language materials from those parts of the
    world will depend on this source. So it not only benefits the
    Library of Congress, it benefits other institutions across the
    country.
        We will give you the full report, though, in answer to your
    question, on July 22.
        Senator Murkowski. Do you get any contribution from any
    other countries? You just noted how everyone else benefits. Is
    anybody else a participant financially?
        Dr. Billington. There are, I think, some Canadian libraries
    who are subscribers. Maybe Dr. Marcum would like to fill in a
    few details on that?
        Dr. Marcum. Oh, I will just speak loud enough for you to
    hear. There are 75 libraries in 32 States that are
    participating. These are mostly United States research
    libraries, but also there are other national libraries that
    participate. The British library, for example, is one of the
    participants.
        They cover the cost of the materials, and they pay an
    overhead fee as well that helps us----
        Senator Murkowski. The amount that is in this year's budget
    request is $15 million. What would you anticipate you get from
    the other participating countries? And I won't hold you to a
    figure, of course, just off the top.
        Dr. Marcum. Roughly, they cover the costs of the materials,
    plus about 10 percent overhead.
        Senator Murkowski. So what would you anticipate that to be?
        Dr. Marcum. I could get that and get back to you.
        Senator Murkowski. If you could, I would appreciate that.
        Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]

        Fiscal 2008 receipts from the sale of collection materials by the
    overseas offices were $3.346 million. Fiscal 2009 receipts are
    projected to be $3.019 million.

        Dr. Billington. It is an interesting phenomenon that the
    amount of published material continues to grow. You read things
    in the popular press about how digitization is going to replace
    published material and particularly ephemera, things like this
    essentially mimeographed book by Osama bin Laden. Forms of
    communication like this, which you would never get from an
    organized book dealer, but which represent the opinions of
    smaller groups, groups that may become of great importance.
        It was very important that we had collected audiotapes on
    the Left Bank in Paris because that was the only record we had
    when the radical Islamist revolution occurred in Iran, and the
    speeches by the new regime that was coming in, they were first
    rehearsed there. But more and more, there are more
    participants, and we are getting access to them and having
    fruitful conversations as everyone wants to join this World
    Digital Library and demonstrate the cultural treasures of their
    own countries around the world.
        So the international collection, I think, of the Library of
    Congress is very unique. It helps everybody else in the
    country, encourages them, and gives them a reasonable
    alternative. But we will give a full report to the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) on July 22. And any specific
    questions, further questions Dr. Marcum will be happy to answer
    for the record on this. As you can see, I am rather positive
    about these offices overseas. I have visited quite a number of
    them, and they have very good relations.

                         CAPITAL SECURITY COST SHARING

        One of the reasons that they are costing more is because we
    have to pay--the State Department now levies a rather
    substantial charge that is unfortunate, but perhaps necessary,
    and that is for running them because they have run historically
    through the Embassies, and they are now charging a substantial
    fee, which they didn't a few years ago.
        Senator Nelson. Senator Pryor.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                           FORT MEADE MODULES 3 AND 4

        I want to thank the panel for being here, and it is good to
    see everybody again.
        I would like to start, if I may, with a storage issue, and
    that is you requested $3.5 million to implement Fort Meade
    Modules 3 and 4. And as I understand it, the budget also
    requests $16 million in funding to begin construction of Module
    5.
        Tell us, if you can, about this idea of storage when,
    again, the popular perception is that things are going digital,
    and we are investing more and more to store physical books at
    the same time you are asking for money to do more digital. Tell
    us how that works.

                RETRIEVAL, PRESERVATION, AND COLLECTION SECURITY

        Dr. Billington. Well, it isn't solely storage. It is a
    question of efficient retrieval. It is a question of
    preservation. It is a question of security.
        The two modules that we have fully operational at Fort
    Meade attained 100 percent retrievability, which is absolutely
    amazing. So that you can work in the 21 reading rooms we have
    here on Capitol Hill, you can get in a short space of time,
    with 100 percent certainty, delivery from these very scientific
    kinds of semi-automated storage modules--and they are
    controlled for preservation of these materials.
        Most people don't realize that books produced since 1850 in
    the United States and in most of the world are perishable.
    Everything on which knowledge and creativity is recorded is
    degrading, and the Library of Congress has a unique
    responsibility to preserve a lot of this material.
        Now we had Amazon in for a pro bono inspection not long ago
    to see if there are any alternatives to storage because they
    have a huge storage and inventory management program, and they
    said there is no alternative but additional space. You cannot
    simply put books on the floor. There is no way of retrieving
    them, and a new plan is being developed.
        Modules 3 and 4 will be up and running by July. So there is
    a request for making them operational. Once we get the building
    built, it is essential that we move the collections there, and
    make these modules fully operational. We are 8 years behind on
    this project, but Modules 1 and 2, which are fully functional,
    have been extraordinarily successful. To get 100 percent
    retrieval in any huge library system is amazing.
        We get 2, 2.5 million new physical objects and I don't know
    how many terabytes of digital material every year to add to the
    inventory. And you have to store this, but you have to be able
    to preserve it, and you have to do this in environmentally safe
    and defensible facilities. I have said at times that you have
    to have Fort Knox to pay for it. But this is Fort Meade.
        Now as audio-visual materials have been taken care of with
    the support of the Congress at our new facility in Culpeper,
    that whole facility was created by the Packard Humanities
    Institute at a cost of at least $150 million, more likely at
    full valuation close to a $200 million donation. So the big
    capital expense was made by them in partnership with the
    Congress.

                    SPECIAL COLLECTION STORAGE REQUIREMENTS

        Implementing Modules 3 and 4 is particularly tricky because
    these are for special collections, not just for books that can
    be nicely stacked and easily, almost robotically, retrieved in
    a large facility. These are, for example, maps, many of which
    require special cases. But this should be the final rounding
    out of facilities for preserving the special collections, which
    in the Library include unique and enormous manuscripts, and
    many kinds of nonprint things. They are all unique formats, but
    have to be stored properly--so that is rather expensive.

                              FORT MEADE MODULE 5

        Module 5 is in the Architect of the Capitol's budget, of
    course. But we strongly support that investment. To preserve a
    comprehensive collection of the world's knowledge is a very
    expensive and complex undertaking.
        We have a network. It is not just the overseas offices that
    purchase things. It is also exchanges. We exchange Government
    publications of the United States for important materials. We
    have exchanges with hundreds, even thousands of institutions
    internationally.
        Senator Pryor. Dr. Billington, let me interrupt there and
    just ask one quick follow-up, and then I have another question.
        Dr. Billington. Yes.

                         STORAGE CAPACITY AT FORT MEADE

        Senator Pryor. And the quick follow-up is how long before
    you are at capacity with units 4 and 5? How long into the
    future is that going to carry us?
        Dr. Billington. Well, and I asked----
        Senator Pryor. I am sorry. I said 4 and 5. I mean 3 and 4.
        Dr. Marcum. Modules 3 and 4 will be for special collections
    materials. These are the maps, the photographs, the
    manuscripts, rare books, and so on. Those modules will be
    filled as quickly as we can move materials into them because we
    are already well beyond capacity here on Capitol Hill. So every
    square foot is accounted for already in those two modules.
        Module 1 is completely filled. Module 2 will be filled with
    books from the general collections in the next few months.
        Senator Pryor. So it will be at capacity in the next few
    months?
        Dr. Marcum. Yes, Modules 1 and 2. So it is very important
    that we have Module 5 to proceed with the books from the
    general collections. We have books stacked up on the floors.
    There is no more expansion space here on Capitol Hill.
        Senator Pryor. So if you get I think you said 2, 2.5
    million books a year, how long will it take you to fill Module
    5?
        Dr. Marcum. It will take--we take in about 1,200 items a
    day into our collections. That includes both books and special
    collections. So we could fill modules fairly quickly. It would
    probably take a couple of years to move things from the
    collections to modules.
        Senator Pryor. I guess part of what I am asking is does
    that mean in 2 years you will come back and say we need a new
    Module 6? Is that----
        Dr. Marcum. We already have a plan for 13 modules over a
    long period of time. But it is important, I think, for us to
    say, too, that global book publishing is increasing quite a lot
    every year. Even though digital is a very important part of our
    world, book publishing continues to increase. And we are
    collecting internationally. We have a lot of materials----

                               LAW LIBRARY, GLIN

        Senator Pryor. And the last question I had--and I am sorry,
    Mr. Chairman--I did have this one question about the Law
    Library. There is a budget of $19.9 million, which is a $4
    million increase. Some of this is for the Global Legal
    Information Network. And as I understand it, there is also some
    interest in the private sector to help pay for some of this,
    but there may be some legal barriers. Could you tell us about
    that?
        Dr. Billington. Well, we hope very much that that will
    develop. We have been working with committees of the American
    Bar Association and others to discuss this. The Law Library has
    had a dramatic increase in the use of its global information
    network.
        For instance, the President is just today or just yesterday
    in Saudi Arabia. The only online resource for information about
    the laws of Saudi Arabia is in the Global Legal Information
    Network, that now has 36 member nations. It covers the laws of
    51 jurisdictions worldwide. We have to sustain the underlying
    GLIN technology.
        There are other challenges. You have to move, change the
    classification of a large amount of legal material to make it
    more easily accessible. We are working on that.
        And we are in the process of hiring a new law librarian. We
    have excellent interim leadership with Ms. Scheeder. Is she
    there? Oh, right. And she may want to add something to this
    from the Law Library.
        Senator Pryor. Well, just----
        Dr. Billington. But there are no legal barriers. There have
    never been legal barriers to receiving funds from private users
    of the Law Library. We are working closely with the House
    Administration Committee to add additional gift language to
    encourage this, and we are also working with some committees,
    particularly of the American Bar Association, to see if they
    have often expressed desire to beef up various things in the
    Law Library, if they might contribute something.
        I think there is no question that the world's best
    collection of international law contributes a great deal to the
    private practice of law, as well as to the Congress and the
    judiciary and to the executive branch of our own Government. So
    we are working as aggressively as we can on that. I can't
    report sensational results. But we hope this will be a part of
    what happens in the next year or two.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator Pryor.

                          DIGITAL TALKING BOOK PROGRAM

        I have something that might be a little bit different for
    you to talk about. Can you tell us a little bit about the
    digital talking book project? I can get you away from talking
    about numbers and percentages and things like that. It might be
    something you might be anxious to tell us about.
        Dr. Billington. Well, I think that the digital talking book
    program is making pretty good progress. We have already, I
    think, received the first 5,000 machines, and we are going to
    get a lot of feedback on their use. But we are proceeding
    according to schedule.
        It is a very important program. As you know, blind people
    read a lot more than sighted people, and this is a service that
    is very central to the long-term mission. And I think it is
    proceeding well. Maybe Dr. Marcum would want to add a word or
    two about it, but I think it seems to be going well.
        We are moving from a traditional analog universe to a
    digital universe, but it seems to be going well within the
    multiyear development program. This is another example of how
    we are moving into the digital universe for one of our most
    important constituencies.
        And of course, this is administered through local libraries
    everywhere. So it is not something that is dispensed here in
    Washington. It is a really unique national service.
        Dr. Marcum. I think that is the story. Everything is on
    schedule. The players are being produced and the books are
    being produced, and it is exactly as we had planned it.
        Senator Nelson. Can you give us some idea of the scale or
    the size of the project? Is this like everything else that you
    do there? I am sure it is big. The question is how big?
        Dr. Billington. Well, do you want to----
        Dr. Marcum. Kurt Cylke is here. We are going to have Kurt
    Cylke answer.
        Senator Nelson. We have an awful lot of help going on here.
    That is okay.
        Mr. Cylke. This project is a $100 million project
    approximately. There are 800,000 blind and visually handicapped
    people that are using the program now. Dr. Billington and Dr.
    Marcum are correct. We shipped the first 5,000 machines out to
    nine individual libraries and designed a final test to make
    sure that the machines were working well.
        We gave permission to begin production, mass production, to
    the Shinano/Plextor Company in Japan. Production started on
    Monday of this week. They will be producing 23,000 machines a
    month for the first 3 months, 20,000 machines a month after
    that, and the initial run-up will begin the first week of
    August.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        I don't want to leave Ambassador O'Keefe out here now.
        Ambassador O'Keefe. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Nelson. I was interested--after you visited my home
    State and Lincoln in the State of Nebraska with the Open World
    delegates, apparently they were inspired to start up a program
    back in their own countries like the 4-H program that we enjoy
    in America. And yesterday, I must have had my picture taken
    with 100 or more 4-H-ers from Nebraska.
        So I am proud of that program, and it is not limited to our
    State, but maybe you can explain a little bit how you bring
    delegates to the various locations in our country and where
    they come from and how this works?

                NOMINATION OF PARTICIPANTS AND PROGRAM PROCESSES

        Ambassador O'Keefe. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question.
        We work very closely with host organizations and the hosts
    themselves. We often follow the enthusiasm. The thing that I am
    most surprised about--as I mentioned, we went to 44 States in
    fiscal year 2008--is how broad this enthusiasm is.
        In the nomination process, we draw from several sources. We
    draw from the host countries organizations from the U.S.
    Embassies and some of the host country institutions: For
    example, councils of judges. But a substantial number of
    delegates, over one-third, come from organizations in the
    States and cities in the United States themselves.
        The particular group that came to Lincoln was actually
    nominated in Russia. And what we look for is shared interests.
    The individual who came to Lincoln was at a university, and
    very interested in organizing young people. And not only did he
    get the 4-H idea, but he also noticed the ramps for people with
    physical handicaps during his trip to the United States, which
    were not at his university. On his return, he installed a
    similar ramp. This is a small thing. But little by little, if
    you are bringing more than 14,000, it has a cumulative effect.
        What we tell our delegates and what I told 50 Russians who
    came here this morning was that their journey begins when they
    get back home. What we want to see and what we hope they do is
    form partnerships. This is what often happens. The person who
    visited Lincoln could implement the concept of a 4-H-type club
    because he has people back in the United States with whom he
    can discuss ideas.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ambassador, I would like to go back to the issue that I
    raised in my opening remarks, and that is why a foreign
    exchange program belongs in the legislative branch bill. I
    understand that our House counterparts have been encouraging
    you to seek either some or all funding from the State
    Department and that there has apparently been some kind of a
    report underway.
        Can you give me just an update on what is going on with
    that report, what you are finding? And just kind of help me
    understand how you ended up in this particular part of the
    legislative branch budget.

             OPEN WORLD'S PLACEMENT AND ROLE IN LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

        Ambassador O'Keefe. Senator, thank you.
        I will just start with saying when I was first approached
    about becoming Executive Director of Open World, I had the same
    question you did. Why is this in the legislative branch? And I
    think, like many converts, I became very enthusiastic.
        The board of trustees submitted a report last year around
    this time addressing that particular question. I don't want to
    take up too much time, but, in essence, what the board found
    was that by not being any part of an administration policy,
    Open World is uniquely placed to operate in all of these
    countries where relations may go up and down, but we, as part
    of the legislative branch, are not constrained.
        And we also find that by being associated with the
    legislative branch, we can draw a much broader range of
    individuals who might not otherwise want to go on an executive
    branch program.
        I think the second thing is that we--as Senator Nelson
    alluded to, are driven by constituent interests. And so what we
    try to do is link to people in your States and determine what
    they are interested in, then find counterparts so we can create
    these partnerships.
        For example, in Alaska, Carolyn Jones, who is in Rotary in
    Alaska, was our person of the year last year because of her
    extensive work in working with people from Russia coming to
    Alaska, especially for those in the Dal'nii Vostok, in the
    regions that are on the Pacific Rim as is Alaska.
        The report which we submitted on May 30 asked us to
    determine the feasibility of funding from the State Department
    and from the judiciary. Dr. Billington and I went to the State
    Department as soon as we saw the portion of the appropriation
    for 2009 and discussed possibilities with Under Secretary
    Burns.

               FUNDING OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING

        I had several follow-up meetings and presented a proposal.
    The proposal was for 50 percent funding from the State
    Department foreign operations appropriation. I have to be very
    honest, and I was honest in the report. The feasibility of the
    State Department funding for fiscal year 2010 is unlikely. It
    is not completely out of the question, but unlikely.
        One of the things that I sought also from the State
    Department and something which is in process, which might help,
    is that the Georgia supplemental is moving forward right now.
    It is $240 million in the House, $200 million in the Senate, I
    believe. Twenty million dollars of that is designated for
    democracy programs. We could fit in there.
        And should we have our Georgia program funded from that,
    that would be able to reduce our budget by a like amount for
    this year. And that decision comes, I presume, in a month or
    so.
        Just so I am clear, we are constantly looking for cost
    shares. We receive $1.5 million in in-kind contributions, and
    we received another, let us see, $330,000 in gifts, and a
    $530,000 grant from the NEA, appropriated money given to us to
    run a cultural program. We do seek these other sources.
        In addition to those sources, as part of the May 30 report,
    I said that we would submit an action plan on our fundraising
    external to the appropriation process--in other words,
    foundations and other donors.
        Senator Murkowski. What might you anticipate in, say, 2009
    and 2010 then?
        Ambassador O'Keefe. I am no expert in this field, which in
    a way makes the process a little longer. But in talking to the
    individuals and then starting to put this together, what we
    would expect is that whatever we get in 2010, when I come here
    next spring or next June, those funds would be backed out of
    our 2011 appropriation.
        We have requested $1.3 million from the United States-
    Russia Foundation. I don't know whether we will get that. I
    think we may get a portion of it. Should they provide some
    funding, we will reduce our fiscal year 2011 request.
        We will be approaching other foundations. We have a member
    of our board, former Representative Bud Cramer from Alabama,
    who has agreed to walk through the door with us. But what he
    said was before we do anything, whoever we are asking has to be
    warmed up. He said very warm. We are doing our due diligence
    because we only have one chance, and we have to do it right
    when approaching these foundations, especially at a time when
    their endowments have dropped 30 to 50 percent. It appears
    that, in general, they are only funding their ongoing
    commitments, not new ones.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes, it is a tough landscape out there.
    I think we all appreciate that. But I think we also recognize
    that if you want to do any further expansion that the key is
    going to be in these partnerships and in these cost-sharing
    efforts that it sounds like you are pursuing very aggressively
    already.
        Ambassador O'Keefe. Yes, ma'am. And I will keep you and the
    chairman informed of the progress. And as I say, I understand
    that this kind of activity is a long process.
        Dr. Billington, of course, is a master at it. So I am
    trying to learn at his knee.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                 CHAIRMAN BILLINGTON ON OUTLOOK FOR OPEN WORLD

        Dr. Billington. No one is a master of the financial
    problems that we are in, but I was going to say I might just
    add, on behalf of the board, that there is, I think, a feeling
    that there has been a certain hesitancy of the business
    community to themselves invest very heavily. But there have
    been some pioneers and that is including some from Nebraska who
    have been very imaginative and consistent on this.
        And I think the opinion generally is that there is a
    reasonably good chance that with new presidents in both
    countries--and I mean, I had a conversation with the president
    of Russia on this, and he didn't make any promises. But he
    expressed great appreciation for this program, and it seems to
    me that just 10 days ago there have been indications that they
    are thinking about and, at one point, planning to do a parallel
    program to bring Americans over.
        Whether that will materialize or not is not clear. But I
    certainly think that there is a good chance that more people
    will be thinking of this as a possible area in which they
    should become re-interested. So I think this year is rather
    crucial if we can continue to validate the program.
        I think another point about being in the legislative branch
    is that if you are dealing with countries that are struggling
    one way or another with the rule of law, which is the main big
    program in this Open World program, and are legitimizing the
    importance, independent importance of legislatures and
    judiciaries, that having something directly approved by the
    legislative branch of Government is itself something that helps
    make a kind of statement.
        People, I think, understand also the fact that this is not
    just Russia. We actually--the board increased, at the Congress'
    recommendation, the allocation to Georgia when they were in
    some difficulty. And I think, for instance, if it were possible
    to include part of the Georgia program in this special
    supplemental, that money would be--that would lower the amount
    that we would need for this program since the board has voted
    to double the amount in Georgia to sort of help them out at the
    same time that we are continuing with the Russian program.
        So I think this is kind of a crucial year to try to sustain
    the program. And I think it is beginning to register seriously
    that this has been a direct program of the American people and,
    in fact, through their elected representatives, many of whom
    have involved themselves one way or another, have been
    hospitable to and received these delegations when they come
    through.

                   OPEN WORLD ALUMNI--TRANSFORMING EXPERIENCE

        I have been in Russia to speak at the dedication of this
    new library system. And it is amazing. I met a great many
    alumni of the program. They have all been very much impressed.
    But at the same time, they have all gone back, all 13,000
    Russians that have come have gone back. That has never before
    happened. These are average age 38, one-half of them women.
    That has never before happened in Russian history.
        And this is a transformative thing, and you have 10 percent
    of the duma, 15 percent of the Supreme Court are alumni of this
    program. You have a really transformative initiative within the
    legislative branch, and that, in itself, is something that
    people comment on.
        And that it is a statement of fact that the knowledge-based
    democracy, if you want to have an accountable, participatory
    government, they have to have access to knowledge. And so, you
    have permitted us and sustained us in this digital age to
    establish a kind of facilitative leadership role without being
    a dominant overbearing force, and I think this kind of program
    is separate now from the Library. It is only accidentally
    linked with me.
        But it was conceived and signed in the legislative branch
    of Government, and it has been sustained. I think it has now
    registered even at the highest levels in Russia that this is
    something rather remarkable that the Congress has done. And so,
    just a thought.
        Ambassador O'Keefe. Madam Senator, if I could just add two
    quotes, which I think exemplify what we do?
        This is from the chairman of the Atlanta-Tbilisi Sister
    City Committee. And he says, ``Through my involvement in the
    Open World program, I have come to see that in these tough
    economic times, we must make special effort to nurture personal
    ties. Personal ties with foreign emerging leaders also
    strengthen business ties, and business ties strengthen
    democracies. Open World makes our country and countries like
    Georgia stronger in many ways. I am grateful to Congress and
    Open World for fostering such relationships.''
        And the co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission from the
    House side noted that Open World has been both ``important for
    and responsive to Congress.'' We have other quotes, but I just
    wanted to give you a flavor for what we do for the Congress.
        Senator Nelson. Well, I want to thank both of you, and Ms.
    Jenkins as well and Dr. Marcum for your contributions, and for
    others who suggested things from back in the audience as well.
        It has been very helpful for us to understand the budgetary
    requests and to understand the programs that you are engaged
    in, that you are expanding. We appreciate the enlightenment,
    and we look forward to continuing to work with you. And we want
    to thank you very much.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        And I want to thank my colleague and ranking member,
    Senator Murkowski. We found that we are both very fiscally
    responsible and at the same time want to make sure that we do
    the appropriate work in recognizing the needs, but also the
    limitations that we have. So thank you so very much.
        [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 Lisa Murkowski
        Question. Last year, GAO recommended that the Library develop a
    digital strategy. Does the Library have a digital strategy that GAO has
    concurred in? In developing the strategy, how did the Library assess
    the needs of its stakeholders for the different types of digital
    content planned? How does the digital strategy support the $15 million
    investment LOC proposes for fiscal year 2010 and future years?
        Answer. The Executive Committee of the Library prepared one digital
    strategy for the Library, taking into consideration the guidance GAO
    had given us. Each of the Service Unit heads is responsible for
    bringing the needs of their stakeholders to bear in developing the
    digital strategic plan. The $15 million budget request for 2010 is to
    support this digital strategic plan and is outlined in the last chapter
    of the plan.
        Question. Library Services is proposing $1 million to undertake a
    study of the current use of technology as a first step to developing an
    enterprise architecture. Yet LOC requests a base increase of $15
    million for the Office of Strategic Initiatives to redesign and
    reconfigure the Library's online delivery infrastructure, among other
    things. How will the Library Services study will be used and why should
    the Library proceed with information technology infrastructure
    investments before the study is completed?
        Answer. Library Services is a large and diverse operation with
    unique requirements. As such, a thorough understanding of the workflow
    and current use of technology is a part of developing the future IT
    environment for LS and LC. Documenting the current LS environment feeds
    into the documentation of future requirements for new software and
    hardware solutions. This is a typical step in the systems life cycle
    development methodology.
        The requirements gathering work has already started with the
    initial ten divisions that are currently under review. The $1 million
    would allow us to complete this stage for the remaining Library
    Services' Divisions and to start the next phase in the areas that
    pertain to LS and its Divisions. This work will create the integrated
    administrative and operational workflow and the standardization of our
    databases that is unique to LS.
        A common architecture is needed for the institution. We do not
    recommend stopping the work on IT infrastructure improvements while
    waiting for the completed requirements document. In this way the
    underlying architecture can be in place and will allow faster progress
    once the SU requirements are documented. During the ITS refreshment,
    the ITS staff will be meeting with the Service Units about their plans
    thereby guaranteeing institutional continuity and integration.
        Question. How will the Library use technology improvements to
    achieve greater efficiencies and potentially less need for physical
    storage?
        Answer. The Library is collecting and creating an increasing amount
    of digital content, and at some point we fully expect the majority of
    materials will come to us in electronic forms. The reality currently is
    that the production of physical materials has not slowed; it has
    continued to increase. Moreover, there is very little overlap between
    the physical and the digital. It is not a matter of selecting one over
    the other. The Library, with funding from the Alfred P. Sloan
    Foundation, has established a book digitization center, which can
    create digital copies of physical books at the rate of 1,000 volumes
    per week. Once digitized, the physical objects are sent to Fort Meade
    for long term preservation, thus freeing up some space in the stacks.
    The reality, though, is that the Library receives 1,000 new volumes per
    day, so digitizing 1,000 older materials each week will not keep pace
    with the demand. The Library has a unique responsibility as the
    national library to collect materials in the formats in which they are
    produced, and we cannot continue to do so without sufficient storage
    for both physical and digital materials.
        Question. What skills are needed to accept, manage, and make
    available an increasing volume of digital content? Has the Library
    undertaken workforce planning that would address the changing skill
    sets needed?
        Answer. The Library identified an initial set of basic digital
    proficiencies that are needed for librarians and curatorial staff
    across the agency. These include navigating the online public access
    catalog (OPAC) and staff subscription databases, adapting to the
    changing role of libraries and librarians, and understanding the
    increased role of digital resources in the Library. Further, basic
    digital proficiencies for subject specialist positions were identified
    and include advanced web searching, working within the various modules
    of the Integrated Library System (Voyager), understanding emerging
    licensing issues, and metadata. In addition, the Library's Federal
    Library Information Center, in consultation with other federal
    libraries, library associations, and the Office of Personnel
    Management, developed the ``Federal Librarian Competencies.'' These
    competencies define the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed in
    areas such as data preservation and long term access, data authenticity
    and authorship, and intellectual property. As the Library hires new
    staff, it reviews existing position descriptions and determines the
    knowledge, skills and abilities needed for these jobs through a
    structured job analysis process. Digital competencies and other needed
    skills are analyzed and reflected in each vacancy posted and drive the
    selection process. Also, Library Services is developing a ``Knowledge
    Navigators'' plan to train staff to work in the 21st century library
    using their expertise, skills, and talents in a digital environment.
        Question. LOC has requested $7 million to continue the Teaching
    with Primary Sources program. Can this program be used to improve
    distance learning opportunities for educators in rural areas?
        Answer. The Library has requested no additional funding for the
    Teaching with Primary Sources (TPS) program in 2010. The Library is
    launching an online database, TPS Direct, on June 30, 2009. TPS Direct
    will offer any educator, at any time, the ability to customize
    professional development activities from the TPS program for use at the
    school, district or state level for delivery in a face-to-face, online
    or blended format.
        Distance learning outreach is already taking place in Alaska
    through a TPS Regional Grant. Following the TPS workshops that were
    held in Anchorage the week of June 1, a series of webinars and
    asynchronous discussion forums will be led by Elizabeth James,
    Assistant Professor of History, University of Alaska Anchorage
    professor, and Peggy O'Neill-Jones, who manages TPS regional activity
    in the Western part of the United States.
        Question. CRS is requesting $1.8 million for ``enhanced access to
    CRS expertise'' in fiscal year 2010. Please prioritize the elements
    within the $1.8 million request and the amount of funding that will
    allow a staged implementation of CRS's enhanced access.
        Answer. The $1.8 million in fiscal 2010 would accomplish the
    following elements:
      --$0.9 million to design a framework for CRS information systems and
            data sets that can provide an integrated, interrelated, and
            interoperable research environment;
      --$0.6 million to procure the software needed to implement the new
            framework; and
      --$0.3 million to customize the software and begin implementation of
            the plan.
        If the software procurement and implementation was delayed 1 year:
      --$0.9 million would be required in fiscal 2010.
      --The cost in fiscal 2011 would increase from $1.3 million to $1.8
            million
        --$0.6 million added for cost of software.
        --$0.1 million in software maintenance costs avoided.
      --The cost in fiscal 2012 would increase from $1.0 million to $1.3
            million to complete the initial deployment actions.
      --The cost of continued services, maintenance, and enhancements would
            be $1.0 million in fiscal 2013 and beyond.
        Question. Please describe the process you use to ensure the quality
    of your work products, and specifically the process you use to validate
    the factual accuracy of the information in your reports.
        Answer. CRS makes every effort to ensure that its work meets
    several critical quality criteria: it must be accurate and clearly
    articulated; authoritative; objective, non-advocative, non-partisan,
    and without political bias; and must be in conformance with Service
    standards and client expectations of confidentiality. At the same time,
    CRS responses to congressional needs must be timely. Requests are often
    accompanied by tight deadlines that must be met if the information
    provided is to be of value to the client.
        For product quality assurance CRS relies first and foremost on the
    professional competence of its analysts and researchers. CRS experts
    form the ``first line of defense'' against error, but are then backed
    up by a multi-level review process that is designed to ensure product
    quality and adherence to CRS standards and policies. This multi-level
    review starts with scrutiny by Section Research Managers who oversee
    the work of sections of approximately a dozen analysts assigned by
    subject matter expertise. Following that review, a research division
    review (by one of five research divisions) is conducted that ``clears''
    the document to be sent to the Office of Review, overseen by an
    associate director, for final clearance and delivery to the client.
    This final review stage addresses primarily matters of policy (focusing
    on objectivity and balance) but is also a ``fail safe'' for matters of
    accuracy, clarity, and authoritativeness. Throughout the process,
    starting with the author and through the Office of Review examination,
    emphasis is also placed on peer review and inter-divisional review.
    Given the multi-faceted and inter-disciplinary nature of CRS work,
    every effort is made to bring all relevant CRS expertise to bear on the
    issues addressed. This is in keeping with CRS collaborative research
    methodologies that start with the author, and is critical to the
    production of appropriately integrated and comprehensive products for
    the Congress.
        As you know, the high volume of congressional demands places
    significant pressure on CRS analysts and information specialists. While
    we believe that the process outlined above minimizes the risk of
    mistakes, the challenge of avoiding human error is ever-present. When
    we learn of any errors it is Service policy to respond immediately to
    any concerns and to take swift action to make any appropriate
    corrections.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Nelson. The hearing is recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., Thursday, June 4, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Ayers, Stephen T., Acting Architect of the Capitol, Architect of
      the Capitol....................................................   157
        Prepared Statement of........................................   161
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   195
        Summary Statement of.........................................   159

    Billington, Hon. James H., Librarian of Congress, Library of
      Congress.......................................................   261
        Prepared Statement of........................................   265
        Summary Statement of.........................................   264

    Chrisler, Tamara E., Esq., Executive Director, Office of
      Compliance.....................................................   170
        Prepared Statement of........................................   172
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   202
    Cylke, Kurt, Director, National Library Service for the Blind and
      Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress....................   261

    Doby, Chris, Financial Clerk, Office of the Secretary, U.S.
      Senate.........................................................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................    70
    Dodaro, Gene L., Acting Comptroller General, Government
      Accountability Office..........................................   227
        Prepared Statement of........................................   231
        Summary Statement of.........................................   229
    Dwyer, Sheila, Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Office of the
      Secretary, U.S. Senate.........................................     1

    Elmendorf, Douglas W., Director, Congressional Budget Office.....   239
        Prepared Statement of........................................   241
    Erickson, Hon. Nancy, Secretary of the Senate, Office of the
      Secretary, U.S. Senate.........................................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     6
        Summary Statement of.........................................     4

    Gainer, Hon. Terry, Sergeant at Arms, Sergeant at Arms and
      Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate........................................    71
        Prepared Statement of the....................................    74
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   130

    Jarmon, Gloria, Chief Administrative Officer, United States
      Capitol Police.................................................   100
    Jenkins, Jo Ann, Chief Operating Officer, Library of Congress....   261

    Marcum, Dr. Deanna, Associate Librarian for Library Services,
      Library of Congress............................................   261
    Morse, Phillip D., Sr., Chief, United States Capitol Police......   100
        Prepared Statement of........................................   101
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   132
    Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service,
      Library of Congress, Prepared Statement of.....................   269
    Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
        Questions Submitted by...........................137, 200, 218, 298
        Statements of......................................2, 158, 228, 262

    Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator From Nebraska:
        Opening Statements of..............................1, 157, 227, 261
        Questions Submitted by...........................130, 132, 195, 202
    Nichols, Dan, Chief of Operations and Assistant Chief of Police,
      United States Capitol Police...................................   100

    O'Keefe, Ambassador John, Executive Director, Open World
      Leadership Center, Library of Congress.........................   277
        Prepared Statement of........................................   278

    Peters, Marybeth, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office,
      Library of Congress, Prepared Statement of.....................   273
    Pryor, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator From Arkansas, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................     4

    Tapella, Robert C., Public Printer, Government Printing Office...   235
        Prepared Statement of........................................   236

    Willison, Drew, Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Sergeant at Arms and
      Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate........................................    71

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                                                                       Page

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   195
    AOC:
        Accomplishments..............................................   167
        Appreciation.................................................   158
        Budget Representation........................................   159
        Challenges--Needs vs. Resources..............................   160
    AOC's Fiscal Year 2010 Project Requests..........................   160
    Annual Operating Budget Request..................................   166
    Architect of the Capitol/Government Printing Office Similarities.   187
    Bartholdi Fountain...............................................   194
    Benefit/Risk Assessment..........................................   187
    Cannon Stairwell Renovation......................................   183
    Capitol:
        Complex's Environmental Footprint............................   161
        Power Plant................................................179, 195
        Visitor Center:
            FTE Staffing Request.....................................   189
            Operating Budget Request.................................   166
            Staff Management.........................................   189
    Citation-Related Projects........................................   180
    EISA Reduction Goals.............................................   192
    Energy:
        Conservation.................................................   181
            And Sustainability Programs..............................   164
        Projects.....................................................   186
        Requirements.................................................   197
    Government Printing Office Shared Resources......................   199
    House Buildings Versus Senate Buildings..........................   186
    Life Safety Projects.............................................   196
    Natural Gas Versus Coal..........................................   193
    Operating Budget.................................................   198
    Planning and Prioritizing........................................   199
    Possible Available Options.......................................   180
    Project:
        Prioritization...............................................   160
        Recommendation Timeline......................................   188
    Renewable Energy.................................................   192
    Staff-led Tours..................................................   188
    Utility Reduction Costs..........................................   193
    Visitor Assistants/Guides FTE Increase...........................   194

                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

    Actuarial and Expert Services....................................   251
    Additional:
        Compensation.................................................   251
        Funding for Health...........................................   240
        Staff........................................................   251
    CBO's Work.......................................................   242
    Financial and Housing Markets....................................   240
    Growing Demand for CBO's Analyses................................   241
    High Speed Computers.............................................   251
    Mission..........................................................   239
    Phased Increase..................................................   239
    Prescription Drug Data...........................................   251
    Some Details of CBO's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request............   243
    Staff............................................................   239
    Supplemental Appropriations Bill.................................   250
    Support Requirements.............................................   240

                        GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

    GAO Delivers Results on an Increasing Range of Federal Programs..   231
    GAO's:
        Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request..............................   233
        FTE Request..................................................   246
        Hiring Strategy..............................................   248
        Initial Recovery Act Findings................................   253
        Passport Work................................................   258
        Staffing Level Trends........................................   247
        Strategy to Meet Recovery Act Responsibilities...............   245
    High Congressional Demand for GAO Services.......................   232
    Legislative Branch OSHA Enforcement Provisions...................   244
    Private Sector Reporting on the Recovery Act.....................   252
    Summary of GAO:
        Request......................................................   230
        Workload.....................................................   229

                           GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    Business Applications at GPO.....................................   258
    Changes at GPO...................................................   256
    Demand for Passports.............................................   256
    Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations Request..........................   237
    GPO:
        Information Technology.......................................   259
        Security.....................................................   249
    GPO's:
        Building Repairs.............................................   248
        Revolving Fund...............................................   254
    Public Printer's Representation Fund.............................   255
    Results of Fiscal Year 2008......................................   236

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

    Additional:
        Committee Questions..........................................   297
        Requirements.................................................   269
    Alignment With the Congress......................................   271
    Breadth of International Collections.............................   287
    Broad Distribution of Hosting in U.S.A...........................   278
    Capital Security Cost Sharing....................................   289
    Chairman Billington on Outlook for Open World....................   296
    Copyright Backlog................................................   283
    Digital Talking Book Program.....................................   292
    Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request...........................266, 270, 281
    Fort Meade.......................................................   265
        Module 5.....................................................   290
        Modules 3 and 4..............................................   289
    Funding Options and Alternative Sources of Funding...............   295
    Highlights of Copyright Office Work..............................   273
    Improving Access, Capabilities, and Services.....................   267
    Law Library, GLIN................................................   291
    Management Initiatives...........................................   272
    Managing and Securing Collections................................   268
    Measures of Success..............................................   280
    Modernizing the Aging Technology Infrastructure--$20 Million.....   267
    Nomination of Participants and Program Processes.................   293
    Open World:
        Alumni--Transforming Experience..............................   297
        And:
            Congress.................................................   279
            Shared Funding...........................................   281
        Cost-Share Efforts...........................................   279
        Proposed Amendments for Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request......   282
        2010 Plans and 2009 Activities...............................   280
    Open World's Placement and Role in Legislative Branch............   294
    Overseas:
        Field Offices................................................   287
        Office Subscribers...........................................   288
    Reengineering Work Processes in Library Services.................   268
    Retrieval, Preservation, and Collection Security.................   289
    Special Collection Storage Requirements..........................   290
    Storage Capacity at Fort Meade...................................   291
    Substantial Additions to Foreign Collections.....................   287
    Support for:
        Digital Transformation.......................................   265
        The Congress.................................................   271
    Technology Infrastructure:
        Requirement..................................................   264
        Upgrades.....................................................   285
    The Challenge of Rising Expectations.............................   285

                              OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

    A Heartfelt Thanks...............................................   170
    Abatement Clarification..........................................   178
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   195
    Biennial Inspections...........................................174, 218
    Cannon:
        Building Stairwell Hazard....................................   178
        Hazard Abatement.............................................   183
        Versus Russell Stairwell Comparison..........................   185
    Categorized Item Breakdown.......................................   179
    Citation Flexibility.............................................   185
    Citations........................................................   220
    Contract Services................................................   171
    Design Abatement Resolution......................................   183
    FTE Funding Authorization........................................   171
    Government Branch Comparability..................................   175
    Hazard:
        Abatement....................................................   177
        Funding--Notification Progress...............................   176
    High Priority Project Funding....................................   176
    Historical Authenticity..........................................   176
    Issued Citation Notifications....................................   177
    OOC:
        FTE Staffing:
            Justification............................................   191
            Request..................................................   191
        Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request..............................   170
    Risk-based Approach to Safety Work...............................   225
    Stairwell Citation Ranking.......................................   184

                          UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE

    Additional:
        Committee Questions..........................................   130
        Personnel Request............................................   119
    Civilian Staffing..............................................125, 136
    Counter-intelligence.............................................   137
    Encryption.......................................................   119
    Enrollment and Wait List Information.............................   116
    Funding Efficiencies and Addressing Deficiencies.................   100
    Increase in Staff and Effect on Overtime.........................   121
    Management of the Radio Project..................................   123
    Ongoing Administrative Issues....................................   124
    Overtime.........................................................   133
        And Additional Staffing......................................   127
        Staffing.....................................................   103
    Radio:
        Funding in Supplemental Bill.................................   117
        Modernization:
            Program..................................................   113
            Project..................................................   102
    Radios...........................................................   132
    Specifications of the Radio System...............................   118

                                  U.S. SENATE

                            Office of the Secretary

    Bill Clerk.......................................................     9
    Captioning Services..............................................    11
    Chief Counsel for Employment.....................................    31
    Conservation and Preservation....................................    33
    Curator..........................................................    33
    Daily Digest.....................................................    11
    Disbursing Office................................................    17
    Education and Training...........................................    39
    Enrolling Clerk..................................................    14
    Executive Clerk..................................................    15
    Financial Operations.............................................    17
    Gift Shop........................................................    40
    Historical Office................................................    42
    Human Resources..................................................    45
    Implementing Mandated Systems....................................     7
    Information Systems..............................................    46
    Interparliamentary Services......................................    48
    Journal Clerk....................................................    15
    Legislative:
        Information System (LIS) Project.............................    48
        Offices......................................................     8
    Library..........................................................    50
    Official Reporters of Debates....................................    16
    Page School......................................................    59
    Parliamentarian..................................................    16
    Presenting the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request...................     6
    Printing and Document Services...................................    60
    Public Records...................................................    62
    Stationery Room..................................................    63
    Web Technology...................................................    64

                        Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

    Enhancing Service to the Senate..................................    82
    Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request..................................   130
    Information Technology...........................................    81
    Operations and Support...........................................    93
    Security and Preparedness........................................    76

                                       -