[Senate Hearing 107-703]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-703
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 5121/S. 2720
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Architect of the Capitol (except House items)
Capitol Police Board
Congressional Budget Office
General Accounting Office
Government Printing Office
Library of Congress
U.S. Senate
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-483 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
TOM HARKIN, Iowa PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HARRY REID, Nevada MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
Terrence E. Sauvain, Staff Director
Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Minority Deputy Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
JACK REED, Rhode Island TED STEVENS, Alaska
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Carolyn E. Apostolou
Administrative Support
Elnora Harvey
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 13, 2002
Page
Library of Congress.............................................. 5
Wednesday, April 17, 2002
U.S. Senate: Office of the Secretary............................. 79
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 143
Wednesday, May 1, 2002
U.S. Senate: Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper....... 197
Capitol Police Board............................................. 229
Wednesday, May 8, 2002
General Accounting Office........................................ 253
Government Printing Office....................................... 277
Congressional Budget Office...................................... 305
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:32 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Bennett, and Stevens.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES BILLINGTON, THE LIBRARIAN OF
CONGRESS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GENERAL DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
WINSTON TABB, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
opening statement of senator richard j. durbin
Senator Durbin. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order.
We meet this morning to hold our first hearing on the
fiscal year 2003 budget cycle. Excluding the President's
proposal to fund retirement and health benefits in individual
agencies, the total request for the legislative branch is $3.4
billion, roughly 5 percent above the fiscal year 2002 enacted
level. Much of that increase is associated with critical
security initiatives, and mandatory pay and price level
increases.
prepared statements
Today we will hear first from Dr. James Billington, the
Librarian of Congress, who is accompanied by the Deputy
Librarian, General Donald Scott. Then we will hear from Mr. Dan
Mulhollan, Director of the Congressional Research Service.
We will also recognize and welcome this morning Ms.
Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights. We will insert all the
statements into the record.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of James H. Billington
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Library of Congress
budget request for fiscal 2003. The tragic events of September 11,
2001, and subsequent anthrax incidents have underscored the importance
of the Library's historic mission of making its resources available and
useful to the Congress and the American people and sustaining and
preserving a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for
future generations. Since September 11th, the Library has provided
legislative support to the Congress on issues of terrorism, emergency
preparedness, anthrax in the mail, civil defense, and many other
subjects. In collaboration with other archival institutions and private
organizations, the Library has helped to capture important digital
information and has documented for listeners the thoughts and feelings
expressed by citizens, matching our efforts following the bombing of
Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The Library has also provided
administrative assistance to the House of Representatives, the Senate,
the Congressional Budget Office, and the Supreme Court following the
discovery in mid-October of anthrax in the mail system. The Library
provided emergency work space for staff, communications and computer
access, and technical assistance with mail handling.
At the start of the new millennium and the Library's third century,
the Library faces a host of new challenges: bringing in materials when
delivery by mail poses potential new threats to safety; registering
digital copyright claims; and acquiring, preserving, and ensuring
rights-protected access to the proliferating materials that are
produced only in digital format and are playing an increasingly
important role in the commercial and creative life of the United
States. We must continue to add to the Library's collections some three
million artifactual items annually and at the same time harvest the
exponential growth of electronic materials. The Library's fiscal 2003
budget accordingly requests additional funds both to support our
growing traditional collections and to accelerate our plans and
programs for obtaining materials electronically.
The Library of Congress is fundamentally different from any other
institution in the legislative branch of government. The Library serves
not only the Congress but the nation with the most important commodity
of our time: information. The Library's first priority is to make the
world's knowledge available and useful to the United States Congress.
This primary purpose can continue to be realized only if the Library
can acquire, secure, preserve, and make accessible its uniquely
universal collection. In the digital era, this requires creation of a
national digital library collection while sustaining the traditional
library of books and other artifacts.
The Library seeks support in its fiscal 2003 budget request not for
any new function, but simply for the resources needed to perform our
historic mission in a radically changing environment.
For fiscal 2003, the Library of Congress requests a total budget of
$572.7 million ($536.1 million in net appropriations and $36.6 million
in authority to use receipts), a net increase of $56.3 million above
the fiscal 2002 level. The requested increase includes $46.2 million
for mandatory pay and price-level increases, and $34 million for
program increases, offset by $23.9 million for nonrecurring costs. Of
the $46.2 million requested for mandatory pay and price-level
increases, $24.6 million, or 53 percent, is related to the
Administration's new legislative proposal to fund health and retirement
benefits entirely in agency budgets. Excluding this mandated
legislative proposal, the Library's fiscal 2003 budget request is a net
increase of 6.1 percent above fiscal 2002.
Requested funding will support 4,358 full-time-equivalent (FTE)
positions, an increase of 169 FTEs over the fiscal 2002 target of
4,189. To ensure that the Library's workforce can meet the needs of the
agency and its customers, the Library is assuming staffing at the
fiscal 2002 target level and requesting the additional FTEs largely to
support the maintenance and security of the Library's artifactual
collections, which continue to grow at the rate of approximately three
million items per year.
We deeply appreciate the Congress's approval of fiscal 2002
supplemental funds to address recovery from the anthrax closure and
unplanned costs to ensure continuity of operations in the event of any
future incidents. Further fiscal 2002 supplemental funds are required
for the Copyright Office because of continuing delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail.
New protocols for mail delivery have had a profound impact on many
business processes in the Library. Anthrax concerns severely delayed
processing copyright registrations, acquiring materials for the
collections, and communicating with many domestic and foreign partners.
These delays have challenged the Library to conduct much more of its
business electronically and to put in place safe mail handling
procedures for artifactual materials. The Library will continue to
receive approximately one million mail items each month for the
foreseeable future. Because of delays in mail delivery, the Library is
requesting additional supplemental funding of $7.5 million, which is
required to make up for a projected fiscal 2002 shortfall in copyright
registration receipts. The Register of Copyrights has provided further
information in her statement regarding this supplemental appropriations
request.
The Library's fiscal 2003 budget reflects the higher costs of this
new world environment, where major additional steps must be taken to
ensure the safety of staff, facilities, and the mail. The Library
proposes to retain $8.6 million in its fiscal 2003 budget base from the
fiscal 2002 emergency supplemental appropriation to fund prospective
new mail handling costs.
The fiscal 2003 budget request supports the Library's ongoing
priorities of (1) service to the Congress; (2) acquisition, security,
and preservation of materials; and (3) comprehensive access to our
collections. The budget request is needed to fund the following major
initiatives (which I address in more detail later in this statement):
--Digital Futures Increases ($16.5 million and 35 FTEs).--The
Library's digital futures budget request for fiscal 2003 covers
the third year of building support for the National Digital
Library (NDL) and provides for the Law Library's electronic
initiatives.
--Collections Access, Preservation, and Security Increases ($8.7
million and 118 FTEs).--The Library's massive collections of
more than 124 million items require additional resources to
provide for their security, to store and preserve them for
future generations, and to facilitate access to them.
--Infrastructure Support Increases ($5.3 million and 4 FTEs).--The
Library's programs require additional infrastructure support,
including a new central financial management system, an
educational outreach initiative, safety services modernization,
and additional capacity for the Office of Inspector General.
--Copyright Office's Reengineering Plans ($1.4 million).--The Library
is requesting the use of available receipts from the no-year
account to fund the Copyright Office's ongoing reengineering
program.
--Congressional Research Service Capacity Increases ($1.4 million and
12 FTEs).--The Congress must have available the policy
expertise and information resources needed to address key
public policy issues. CRS is requesting new analytical and
informational capacity in two critical areas affecting the
lives of almost every American: (1) terrorism and homeland
security, and (2) issues resulting from the aging of the U.S.
population.
the library of congress today
The core of the Library is its incomparable collections and the
specialists who interpret and share them. The Library's 124 million
items include almost all languages and media through which knowledge
and creativity are preserved and communicated.
The Library has more than 28 million items in its print
collections, including 5,706 volumes printed before the year 1500; 12
million photographs; 4.9 million maps; 2.5 million audio recordings;
877,000 motion pictures, including the earliest movies ever made; 5
million pieces of music; and 55.2 million pages of personal papers and
manuscripts, including those of 23 U.S. presidents as well as hundreds
of thousands of scientific and government documents.
New treasures are added each year. Notable acquisitions during
fiscal year 2001 include: copies of 15,000 Arabic manuscripts held by
the British Library; the collections of Patrick Hayes and Evelyn
Swarthout and Frederick Loewe; and the archives of Theodore Presser.
They also include the letters of Leon Bakst and a host of great
musicians: Irving Berlin, Johannes Brahms, Aaron Copland, Marilyn
Horne, Otto Klemperer, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Franz Liszt, Felix
Mendelssohn, Ned Rorem, and Arnold Schoenberg.
During fiscal year 2001, the Library also reached an agreement to
purchase the only known copy of the map that has been called
``America's birth certificate.'' Compiled by Martin Waldseemuller in
1507, this is the first document of any kind to refer to the New World
as ``America'' and to depict a separate Western Hemisphere with the
Pacific as a separate ocean. The map will be on permanent display in
the Thomas Jefferson Building.
Every workday, the Library's staff adds more than 10,000 new items
to the collections after organizing and cataloging them. The staff then
shares them with the Congress and the nation by assisting users in the
Library's reading rooms, by providing on-line access across the nation
to many items, and by featuring the Library's collections in cultural
programs.
Every year the Library delivers more than 710,000 research
responses and services to the Congress, registers more than 600,000
copyright claims, and circulates more than 23 million audio and braille
books and magazines free of charge to blind and physically handicapped
individuals all across America. The Library annually catalogs more than
270,000 books and serials and provides its bibliographic record
inexpensively to the nation's libraries, saving them millions of
dollars annually.
The Library also provides free on-line access, via the Internet, to
its automated information files, which contain more than 75 million
records to Congressional offices, Federal agencies, libraries, and the
public. The Library's Internet-based systems include major World Wide
Web (www) services (e.g., Legislative Information System, THOMAS,
, Global Legal Information
Network, the Library of Congress On-line Public Access Catalog
, and various file transfer options.
Library of Congress programs and activities are funded by four
salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriations supporting congressional
services, national library services, law library services, copyright
administration, services to blind and physically handicapped people,
and management support. A separate appropriation funds furniture and
furnishings.
national digital library
The Library is requesting a $12.9 million and 25 FTE increase to
support the NDL, which consists of two major components:
--1. Technology Backbone.--The Library is requesting $7,392,000 and
17 FTEs to: (a) identify Library of Congress preservation
standards and protocols that can support a national digital
information infrastructure and preservation strategy
($815,000); (b) develop digital repository architecture and
research and test alternative strategies for long-term
preservation of Library of Congress digital content
($1,500,000); and (c) implement a flexible, yet sufficiently
sound technical infrastructure to protect the Library's
multimillion dollar investment in digital content and access
services ($5,077,000). A robust technology backbone at the
Library is required to support the acquisition of born-digital
items, provide efficient access to digital materials, and
maintain and preserve the digital items for the future.
--2. Digital Access, Services, and Tools.--The Library is requesting
$5,544,000 and 8 FTEs to: (a) improve access services to both
on-site and remote library users ($544,000); and (b) continue
to support the development of a high-speed data transmission
capability between the Library's digital content and western
North Carolina ($5,000,000).
The fiscal 2003 NDL budget request of $12,936,000 is for the third
year of the Library's plan for building resources required to support
the Library's digital services. (This request is separate from, but
complementary to, the special appropriation of $99.8 million to develop
and lead a national strategic plan for the distributed, long-term
preservation of digital materials. In accordance with the provisions of
that December 2000 special appropriation, the Library is now
formulating an implementable national strategy for the life-cycle
management of digital materials as part of the national collection.)
The fiscal 2003 NDL budget request is designed to make sure that
the Library's present operating environment and associated digital
infrastructure can be scaled in the future to support and sustain the
national digital information strategy that is being concurrently
designed. It is already evident that major enhancements will be needed,
for the Library, and that delay will lead to the loss of important but
often ephemeral materials. (The average life of a Web site today is 44
days, and a growing amount of important material is being lost
forever.)
The objective of the National Digital Information Infrastructure
Preservation Program plan is to encourage shared responsibility and to
seek solutions for:
--the continued selection, collection, and organization of the most
historically significant materials, regardless of evolving
digital formats;
--securing the long-term storage, preservation, and survivability of
those needed digital materials; and
--ensuring rights-protected access to the growing electronic
historical record of the American people.
The Library is encouraged by the level of support it has received
for this critical national program. We will continue to collaborate
with a wide variety of institutions in the information community as
mandated by the Congress in the special appropriation. We will forward
our plan to the Congress later this year.
collections security, access, and preservation
A primary mission of the Library is to secure, preserve, and
provide access to its vast and largely unique and irreplaceable
artifactual collections. The Library is requesting $8.7 million and a
118-FTE increase for collections access, preservation, and security.
Components of the increase are:
--$2,615,000 and 60 FTEs to secure the collections by improved
inventory management.--The Library's collections security plan
requires tracking incoming materials using the Library of
Congress Integrated Library System (LC ILS). The LC ILS
replaces multiple stand-alone legacy systems and permits a
greater level of control over the collections. However,
additional staff are required to achieve this strengthened
level of control through the application of bar codes matched
to LC ILS records. The fiscal 2003 budget requests support four
security initiatives that will capture data for 1,562,000 new
items at the point of entry; ensure that LC ILS records are
updated as the status of approximately 75,000 serial items
changes annually; provide for on-line serials check-in for
foreign collections (by converting 10,000 manual records in
Japanese, Chinese, and Korean to electronic files); and enable
the Library to secure 65,000 new sound recordings received
annually.
--$1,475,000 and 14 FTEs to eliminate the backlog of serials
materials.--Security concerns have created new mail processing
protocols. These have added not only a backlog, but another
expensive step to the acquisitions process. The Library must
now assess the condition of collection materials following
their irradiation requiring additional staff resources. The
backlog (arrearage) has a direct impact on research services to
the Congress in science, technology, and business, because
these disciplines rely heavily on journal literature, where the
newest research is published. Therefore, it is critical that
the Library's arrearages in periodicals be addressed and
eliminated as soon as possible.
--$2,288,000 and 35 FTEs to prepare collections for secure off-
Capitol Hill storage.--Funding is requested to support a three-
year plan for the preparation, packaging, and stabilization of
select rare and special collections in advance of their
relocation to the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center
(NAVCC) and to Ft. Meade, Module 2. Module 2 is designed to
store books and rare and fragile items from the Library's
special collections. Because of the diversity of formats and
types of material that will be moved to off-site storage,
careful planning and preparation of collections before the move
is essential. Sound recordings, moving image materials, paper
records, and bound items must be carefully reviewed as to their
condition and readiness for transport. Special collections
materials (e.g., fragile manuscripts, oversized maps, rare
books, and collections of ephemera in many formats) must be
carefully packaged to prevent damage. This preventive work not
only reduces the risk of items being damaged in transit, but
also ensures that the collections will be reviewed,
inventoried, packaged, and labeled correctly, and will arrive
at the new facilities ready for use. Our forthcoming preventive
conservation effort will focus on treating first those
collections most in need of cleaning, basic packaging, minor
mending, and labeling. This action will ensure that the
approximately 3-4 million audiovisual items destined for NAVCC,
and the millions of rare and fragile items bound for Ft. Meade,
Module 2, arrive at those facilities clean, intact, preserved,
and ready for use. Funding for this initiative is crucial to
providing sustained congressional and public access to
America's most comprehensive collection of audiovisual
resources and rare and special collections. Without funding,
the movement of these at-risk, unpackaged collections into the
new facilities will risk degrading many materials and will
create an instant preservation arrearage, that in the initial
years of residency in the new facilities, seriously delaying
access by the Congress and the public.
--$895,000 to support the third of five increments required in our
30-year (one generation) mass deacidification program.--A
priority of the Library's preservation efforts is the
deacidification of a significant portion of materials printed
on high-acid paper, which has dominated printing since the
middle of the 19th century. The Congress approved the first two
increments of this critical preservation program as part of the
fiscal 2001 and 2002 budgets, and the Library requests a
planned increase of $895,000 to continue to scale up to $5.7
million by fiscal year 2005. By 2005, the Library plans to have
reached the capacity to deacidify annually 300,000 books and
1,000,000 manuscript sheets.
--$789,000 to support the Lewis and Clark exhibition.--In fiscal
1999, the Congress appropriated $250,000 to begin work on
planning the Library's portion of the national celebration of
the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition. In fiscal
2003, the Library is requesting $789,000 in no-year funds to
complete the bulk of locating exhibition material, conducting
research, convening advisory panels, for designing and
preparing a presentation and accompanying materials for the
nationwide commemoration, and for sending a smaller version of
the exhibition to at least three sites in the Midwestern and
Western United States. The exhibition, set to open in the
summer of 2003, will bring the Library's collections on Western
exploration to the public's attention, highlighting the impact
of early exploration on the United States.
--$476,000 and 6 FTEs to support the Veterans History Project
(VHP).--In fiscal 2002, the Congress approved $250,000 to begin
this massive project. The Library had already raised private
money and solicited volunteer help to launch the project, but
now needs additional support to implement fully the
Congressionally mandated program. The funds are needed for
expanding public and partner engagement through instructional
materials and training workshops, digitizing the best portions
of interviews and materials received, reformatting and
preserving materials received, and supporting local efforts in
Congressional districts.
law library
The Law Library of Congress has the largest collection of legal
materials in the world and a unique body of lawyers trained in foreign
legal systems. They supply legal research and analysis, primarily for
the Congress, on the laws of other nations and on international and
comparative law. Law Library specialists cover more than 200
jurisdictions representing the vast majority of the sovereign entities
of the world that issue laws and regulations. In addition to the
Congress, the U.S. Courts, and the executive branch, the legal
community depends heavily on the Law Library. The Law Library's staff
of American-trained attorney-librarians provides reference services to
the U.S. Congress whenever either chamber is in session (as mandated by
2 U.S.C. Sec. 138).
The Library is requesting a program increase of $3,063,000 and 6
FTEs to create a fully functional Global Legal Information Network
(GLIN) system with better security, multilingual search capabilities,
and the ability to incorporate additional categories of legal
information, such as court decisions. For 15 countries, GLIN already
provides timely access to primary sources of law, including born-
digital primary sources. These nations send the Law Library digital
versions of their official legal texts together with summary analysis
and finding aids that help the Law Library provide the Congress with
quality service. The Law Library will be seeking $12.7 million over a
five-year period to expand GLIN to a core of the 50 countries of most
interest to the Congress, including retrospective materials dating back
to 1950 for all the 29 Spanish and Portugese-speaking jurisdictions of
Latin America.
The Library is also requesting: $248,000 and 2 FTEs to increase the
Law Library's capacity to meet the legal research needs of the Congress
for Spanish/Portuguese and English-speaking jurisdictions; $213,000 and
2 FTEs to establish an Electronic Reference Unit to respond to the
growing demand for digital services; $124,000 and 3 FTEs to implement
inventory management elements of the Law Library's collections security
plan; and $36,000 to establish a training center with specialized
translation and vernacular language capabilities. Funding the full
request of $3,684,000 and 13 FTEs will secure the Law Library's
electronic future, and its ability to supply quality and timely service
to the Congress.
infrastructure support
The Library is requesting $5.3 million and a 4-FTE increase to
improve infrastructure support, which consists of four components:
--$4,250,000 to replace the Library's central financial management
system.--The Library proposes to replace its aging mainframe-
based financial management system with more modern server-based
technology to maintain and improve financial management
support, including program-based budgeting, access to financial
information, and handling additional electronic transaction
processes (e.g., the capability to receive and route documents
electronically and expand electronic commerce). The Library
proposes to proceed with a joint procurement effort with other
legislative branch agencies during fiscal 2002 and to implement
a cost-effective system over several years.
--$504,000 for Educational Outreach.--The Library has become a world
leader in providing high quality educational material free of
charge on-line. These content-rich materials range from the
papers of the Founding Fathers and other important historical
figures, such as Frederick Douglass and Alexander Graham Bell,
to the basic drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the
Gettysburg Address. But there is a need to educate the public
about the ready availability of these resources with broadcast-
quality communications equipment and to support the expenses
associated with projected special events in Congressional
districts that will involve Members of Congress and
representatives of the Library in highlighting constituent
services that the Library is engaged in, such as the
educational resources for all ages on our Web site. The
astonishingly successful National Book Festival, led by Laura
Bush, has created new possibilities for reading promotion. The
First Lady has expressed a willingness to extend the message to
local libraries and schools. Possible events with the Librarian
of Congress and Members of Congress in local settings could
include the First Lady and/or local governmental and civic
figures.
--$190,000 for Inspector General Computer Security Audits.--The
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is requesting an increase
of 2 additional FTEs to provide oversight of the Library's
information technology (IT) security program. With the
additional resources, the OIG would perform a top-down audit of
agency-wide policies and the security management structure for
information technology. The OIG would conduct reviews of
system-specific policies, procedures, and management, including
operational (people) and technical (computer) controls. Four IT
security reviews would be conducted annually.
--$308,000 and 2 FTEs for Safety Services Modernization and
Training.--The Library needs to upgrade its Safety Services
Division to meet new legal and mission-critical requirements.
The division is responsible for assessing the workplace for
environmental health factors such as air and water quality, for
ergonomic issues, and for chemical/biological exposure to
anthrax and other potential pathogens. The division is also
responsible for defining and coordinating required safety
training for more than 4,300 employees. In its January 2001
report, the Office of Compliance reported weaknesses in the
fire safety programs of both the Library and the Architect of
the Capitol. The Library has made progress, but needs
additional resources to address both the many safety
requirements of the Congressional Accountability Act and the
new needs resulting from the September 11 terrorist attacks.
copyright office
The Library's Copyright Office promotes creativity and effective
copyright protection annually processing more than 600,000 claims. The
office annually transfers more than 700,000 works, with an estimated
value of $32 million, to the Library. The Office also annually records
approximately 15,000 documents with more than 150,000 titles and
responds annually to more than 340,000 requests for information.
The Library requests an increase in the Copyright Office's
Offsetting Collections Authority from $21,880,000 to $23,321,000. The
$1,441,000 increase in Offsetting Collections Authority is based on
projected annual registration receipts of $21,500,000 supplemented by
$1,821,000 from the Copyright Office no-year account.
The Copyright Office proposes that the increase in receipts be used
to support information technology and business process reengineering
initiatives. While the fee receipt forecast for fiscal 2003 is the same
as fiscal 2002, the recent anthrax incidents impacting legislative
branch mail operations have dramatically reduced Copyright Office
deposits and service fees. Mail delivery has been disrupted for more
than four months. Until mail delivery has been restored fully and
delayed mail processed by the office, the Copyright Office's fee
projection will be subject to wider fluctuations than in the past.
Given the uncertainty of the situation, the Copyright Office is
requesting a fiscal 2002 supplemental appropriation of $7.5 million to
make up for lost receipts. Depending on the ultimate outcome of the
collection of fees, the Copyright Office may need to use more funds
from the no-year account than previously planned, and the fiscal 2003
budget may also require amendment.
The Register of Copyrights delivered a revised schedule of fees and
accompanying analysis to the Congress on February 28, 2002, to be
effective July 1, 2002 (unless the Congress enacts a law objecting to
the new fee schedule). The new fee schedule does not change the $30 fee
for a basic claim in an original work of authorship, but a number of
other fees are increased. While the new fee schedule may ultimately
generate a 7 percent increase in receipts, the Copyright Office is not
recommending any change in the fiscal 2003 budgeted receipt level of
$21.5 million, because information is not available at this time to
warrant a change.
congressional research service
As a pooled resource of nonpartisan analysis and information, CRS
is a valuable and cost-effective asset to the Congress. To carry out
its mission, CRS staff provide a great diversity of analytic and
research services, including close support to the legislative process
through interdisciplinary reports and consultations, analyses of
alternative legislative proposals and their impacts, assistance with
hearings and other phases of the legislative and oversight processes,
and analysis of emerging issues and trend data.
In order to continue serving the Congress at the highest level, CRS
is requesting additional capacity in two critical areas that will
affect the lives of almost every American: (1) terrorism and homeland
security, and (2) issues resulting from the aging of the U.S.
population.
CRS is requesting $572,000 and 5 FTEs to acquire new analytical and
informational capacity to assist the Congress in grappling with
terrorism and broader homeland security issues that are likely to be at
the center of congressional attention for years to come, and for which
CRS does not presently have adequate resources and expertise. This
funding will support four senior analysts and one senior librarian to
provide intellectual resources for the Congress in the areas of Islamic
and Arabic Affairs, Public Health (Epidemiology), Infrastructure and
Systems Analysis, Science and Technology (Biochemistry), and
Comparative Religion. Given the profound effects the September 11
attacks have had on virtually all aspects of American government and
society, this additional expertise is needed to support the Congress.
CRS is also requesting $849,000 and 7 FTEs for the salaries and
benefits of seven senior analysts to build the service's capability to
assist the Congress in issue areas affected by the aging of the United
States population. These issues will have major impact on the economy,
the health-care system and on a wide range of social policies and
services. This request would enable CRS to acquire new competencies in
genetics, gerontology, the economics of aging, and the economics of
health care, as well as actuarial and demographic expertise and would
allow CRS to build its overall capacity to support the Congress in
science and technology. The added expertise we are requesting in
epidemiology, biochemistry, genetics, bioethics, and pharmacology will
better equip CRS to address a wide range of legislative issues, from
global warming to stem cell research. The Library is the nation's
leading scholarly repository, which this new expertise will be able to
mine for the Congress.
national library service for the blind and physically handicapped
The Library administers a free national library program of braille
and recorded materials for blind and physically handicapped persons
through its National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped (NLS). Under a special provision of the U.S. copyright law
and with the permission of authors and publishers of works not covered
by the provision, NLS selects and produces full-length books and
magazines in braille and on recorded disc and cassette. Reading
materials are distributed to a cooperating network of regional and
subregional (local, nonfederal) libraries, where they are circulated to
eligible borrowers. Reading materials and playback machines are sent to
borrowers and returned to libraries by postage-free mail. Established
by an act of Congress in 1931 to serve blind adults, the program was
expanded in 1952 to include children, in 1962 to provide music
materials, and again in 1966 to include individuals with other physical
impairments that prevent the reading of standard print.
The fiscal year 2003 budget maintains program services by funding
mandatory pay and price-level increases totaling $1,954,000. Funding
the fiscal year 2003 increase is necessary to ensure that all eligible
individuals are provided appropriate reading materials and to maintain
a level of sound reproduction machines able to satisfy basic users'
requirements without developing waiting lines. The budget also supports
the exploration of alternative digital technologies, which will
ultimately lead to a new delivery system to replace the current analog
cassette tape technology.
library buildings and grounds
The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the
structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library's
buildings and grounds. In coordination with the Library, the AOC has
requested a capital budget of $15,163,000, an increase of $4,263,000.
The AOC capital budget includes funding totaling $6,600,000 in
appropriations for five projects that were requested by the Library.
The largest Library-requested project, amounting to $5.5 million,
is for the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper,
Virginia. During fiscal years 2000-2002, the Congress approved the
first three increments ($11.6 million) of its matching appropriated
share. The fiscal 2003 budget request continues to build toward the
Federal share of $17.1 million (including an increase of $600,000
needed for higher oversight and monitoring costs). Assurance of the
government support is critical in leveraging the far larger amount
(which has now increased to well over 75 percent of the total) that we
are raising privately for this project.
The four other Library-requested projects support the preservation
of the Library's collections and space modifications in the James
Madison Building. Library- requested projects are prioritized based on
critical need and in accordance with both the security needs and
strategic plan of the Library.
The Library also requested, but the Architect did not approve,
funding requests for the construction of book-storage module two at
Fort Meade, Maryland, and for the design of modules three and four. The
Library has been seeking off-Capitol-Hill storage for its growing
collections for more than a decade. The availability of the first book
storage module is now far behind schedule; and the Library cannot
accept the Architect's proposal to delay work further on the second,
third, and forth collections-storage modules. The Library's existing
storage facilities are extremely overcrowded. Many books cannot be
shelved, posing security, life safety, and preservation problems. The
Library cannot postpone, again, the availability of additional storage
facilities. I respectfully ask that the Congress reconsider the
Architect's proposal to delay the construction of module two and the
design of modules three and four.
automated hiring system
To resolve outstanding motions pending in the District Court
related to the Library's hiring and selection procedures for
professional, administrative, and supervisory technical positions, the
Library implemented a new hiring process, including an automated hiring
system. The motions were resolved when the court adopted the Joint
Report of the parties, which included the new automated competitive
hiring process. The Joint Report stipulated that the new hiring process
would be in place no later than March 1, 2001.
Implementation problems associated with the Library's automated
hiring system, AVUE, prompted me to ask the Library's Inspector General
(IG), on July 30, 2001, to undertake a programmatic audit of the
system. Prior to receiving the final IG report, the Library took steps
to implement improvements, including appointing a new project manager.
The IG report, dated February 12, 2002, covered only the initial period
of implementation (March 2001 through October 2001), and made
recommendations to improve the automated hiring process and to evaluate
other alternative systems.
The Deputy Librarian, the Library's Chief Operating Officer, has
organized a project management team to address the IG's recommendations
and has asked for an extensive review of the Library's requirements for
a content-valid, automated hiring system. In the short term, the
project management team is working with the vendor to resolve
processing issues and to improve the timeliness of recruitment actions.
In the long term, the project management team's evaluation of
alternatives will help guide further action. The Library will take the
necessary steps to ensure that our hiring system meets both competitive
selection requirements and timeliness goals.
summary
``Every day in America is a new beginning,'' President Reagan used
to say. ``We are a nation that never becomes, but that is always
becoming.'' With Congress's support, the Library of Congress has become
the most universal collection of information and knowledge in the
history of the world, far more comprehensive even than that of the
ancient library of Alexandria. Its superbly qualified staff now serves
the Congress with public policy research service and a Law Library that
are the world's largest; the nation's libraries with cataloging data
and material for the blind; the general public with 21 public reading
rooms here and with on-line digital materials everywhere; and the
nation's authors and creative artists with the administration of the
copyright laws.
Now the Library faces a new challenge to extend its traditional
function beyond artifactual to electronic collection and preservation.
We will deliver a National Digital Information Infrastructure
Preservation Program plan later this year that builds a wide variety of
new national and international networked relationships. These
relationships will broaden the Library's reach and support in new ways
America's role as a leader in the community of nations.
Maintaining our artifactual collections and at the same time
building for a networked digital future requires additional resources.
If America is to remain strong, free, and capable of growth and
innovation, we must preserve the knowledge of the past, gather in the
information of the present, and help develop wisdom for the future. The
Library has an important catalytic role to play in the new, networked
environment. We can and must fortify and stimulate the research and
dissemination of knowledge as America becomes engaged in complex
international issues and conflicts.
The Congress deserves great credit for supporting all the work that
the Library of Congress is doing to preserve and make accessible the
nation's creative heritage and the world's knowledge. Consistently for
202 years, on a bipartisan basis, our national legislature has been the
greatest patron of a single library in the history of the world.
With congressional support of our fiscal 2003 budget, the Library
of Congress will continue its dedicated service to the work of the
Congress and to the creative life of the American people.
On behalf of the Library and all its staff, I thank this Committee
for its support, and look forward to working for and with the Congress
in the Library's work of acquiring and transmitting knowledge for
America.
______
Prepared Statement of James H. Billington, Chairman, Board of Trustees,
Center for Russian Leadership Development
I am appearing before this Subcommittee for the first time as
Chairman of the Center for Russian Leadership Development, the new
Legislative Branch institution that has succeeded the Russian
Leadership Program at the Library of Congress.
The Board of Trustees of the Center for Russian Leadership
Development met for the first time on March 7, 2002, at the Library of
Congress. The Board's Honorary Chairman, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) ,
and all four of the leadership appointed Congressional trustees were
present: Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Bill Frist (R-TN);
Representatives Amo Houghton (R-NY) and Bud Cramer (D-AL).
Board appointees from the private sector, appointed by me as
Librarian of Congress, joined us by telephone: former Member of
Congress James W. Symington, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, James F.
Collins, and Anthony Richter of the Open Society Institute,
representing George Soros. One board vacancy remains to be filled.
The members elected me to serve as Chairman for one year. Senator
Levin and Representative Houghton will serve as vice chairs for the
same term. The Board approved an operating budget of $15.0 million for
2002 including grants and contracts totaling $13.3 million. The board
also approved the Center's fiscal year 2003 appropriations request
about which I am testifying today. The members of the board intend to
remain actively engaged with the Center providing valuable, continuing
oversight.
Finally, the board approved the formation of a corporate advisory
council and initial appointments to that council. The board
acknowledged receipt of current gifts and pledges totaling $2.0 million
and engaged in an active discussion of the center's opportunity for
private fund raising, to supplement the funds appropriated by Congress,
in accordance with the Center's authorizing legislation.
The Russian Leadership Program (as it was designated in its first
Congressional authorization) began in 1999 as a one-year pilot at the
Library of Congress. The law creating the pilot program (Public Law
106-31) presented the Library with the challenge of identifying and
bringing up to 3,000 young and emerging political leaders from Russia
to the United States for short-term stays to observe our democracy and
market economy in action.
This initial authorizing and funding legislation gave the Library a
mere six months to launch and carry out the program. The leadership and
vision of Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), at that time the Chairman of the
Joint Committee on the Library, recognized and seized a historic
opportunity to improve U.S.-Russian relations at one of their lowest
points since the collapse of Communism in the former Soviet Union. Now
nearly three years later, U.S.-Russian relations are in a dramatically
different and more positive condition in the wake of the terrorist
attacks of September 11.
The United States and Russia are now addressing, in a more
cooperative way than in recent times, a wide range of critical issues
such as rule of law, security, trade, and the global fight against
terrorism. A second summit is scheduled for May in Moscow between
President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and
dialogue is reviving between the American business community and the
Russian economic sector (led by the U.S.-Russia Business Council and
the American Chamber of Commerce in Moscow).
The role that can be played in the Legislative Branch by the Center
for Russian Leadership Development is suggested by its origin in April
1999. Throughout its brief history, the Russian Federation has called
this program ``Open World,'' a term that we have now adopted for
official use in both the United States and Russia.
History
At a breakfast meeting of 25 Members of Congress from both Houses
and both parties during the NATO engagement in Kosovo, I reported that
U.S. actions in the Balkans had produced severe strains in U.S.-Russian
relations and, when asked, ``What can be done?'', I repeated a
suggestion made to past CODELs that I had accompanied to the former
Soviet Union: the need to replicate for Russia that small part of the
Marshall Plan that had brought the new post-war generation of political
leaders from a former adversary to the United States to experience the
workings of an open democratic society.
Many Members of Congress were eager to discuss this idea. Senator
Stevens moved quickly to draft legislation and to provide funding for a
pilot in the supplemental appropriations bill on Kosovo, which was
signed in six weeks (Public Law 106-31). The Library rapidly organized
a program that brought 2,150 young Russians to America in just over
five months.
In late 1999, Congress extended the pilot for a second year (Public
Law 106-113) and in 2001 for a third. It has become more focused on key
issues for Russian reform, and has been extraordinarily well received
by American hosts.
The ``Open World'' Russian Leadership Program has been a success
and deserves the Subcommittee's continued support:
It links and engages legislature to legislature and community-to-
community. Russian leaders have come to date from 88 of Russia's 89
regions and have been hosted in over 700 communities in 48 states and
the District of Columbia.
Open World engages a ``people-to-people'' diplomacy unequaled in
scope and impact since the Fulbright-Hays exchange program and the
Peace Corps.
The Center for Russian Leadership Development (Public Law 106-54)
Three years after its founding, the Open World Program is still
housed at the Library of Congress, but it is independently managed by
the new Center for Russian Leadership Development, created by the
Congress (Public Law 106-554). The Center is overseen by a
distinguished Board of Trustees, many of whom were among the earliest
supporters of Senator Stevens' initiative in drafting the enacting
legislation. Senator Stevens himself serves as active and committed
Honorary Chairman.
Why Should Congress Continue Its Support?
Having a constructive, more open relationship with Russia--which is
what prompted the Senate to authorize and fund the program in 1999--is
even more crucial now for the United States, in light of our need for
Russia's continued partnership in the global fight against terrorism.
The United States needs to engage the leadership and people of
Russia--at all levels--at this critical juncture in the relations
between our two nations. The Open World Program is a necessary, viable,
and key partner in the U.S. government's engagement with Russia at many
complementary levels:
Open World is an important means for the U.S. Congress to engage
both the Russian Parliament and Russia's regional and local leaders on
the issues that are paramount to our evolving relations, particularly
the issues of security and trade--the focal points of Open World's 2002
parliamentary program.
In 2002, we propose to bring Russian parliamentary delegations to
work with their American counterparts on such key issues as Jackson-
Vanik, WTO accession, money laundering, banking and land reform, and
combating global terrorism, and, most importantly, rule of law, which
is key to all other reforms and overall political and economic
stability in Russia.
The Open World Program has led the way, for the past three years,
in reviving public diplomacy with Russia at the community-to-community
and people-to-people levels. The key element of the program remains
constant: short-term stays by current and future political leaders who
have not before visited the United States and who do not speak English
(thus making them unlikely to be chosen by other U.S. exchange
programs).
The heroes of Open World are the American organizations and host
families that make it possible for the program to operate on such a
large scale with such modest funding and with such spectacular results.
Ten days in America can make a great difference to a Russian who has
never before visited this country. We continually evaluate our criteria
for selection and the programs offered to our participants.
The first question we are often asked is about the short length of
stay. We are bringing active political leaders with day-to-day
responsibilities and ongoing involvement in building democracy and a
market economy in Russia. The time we ask them to spend is all they can
spare. Despite its brevity, the United States stay can still bring
about a dramatic change in understanding and attitude. Follow-up
communications between hosts and guests and between host communities
and Open World participants express the nature of the experience most
eloquently:
``I equate the eleven days I spent in the United States with
eleven years of my life (in terms of the exchange of
information, the wide spectrum of professional discourse, and
the opportunity to get acquainted with another culture and
people).''----Judge Mikhail Tarasov, Deputy Chair, Novgorod
City Court, Head of the Novgorod Oblast Council of Judges.
Host: Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith, U.S. District Court, Western
District of Pennsylvania
``I truly believe these visits will have, over time, an
historic impact on the development of Russian democracy.''----
Judge Michael M. Mihm, U.S. District Court, Central District of
Illinois, Member, Judicial Conference Committee on
International Judicial Relations
``I give the highest possible rating to the preparation and
organization of the program for Russian judges . . . We had the
opportunity to spend time with judges, court employees,
lawyers, prosecutors, journalists, and state congressmen . . .
During the visit to America I was convinced that there is a
great deal in common between American and Russian jurists and
between the American and Russian people. And we must take steps
to bring our countries closer together.''----Judge Alimzhan
Shaimerdyanov, Chair, Aleksandrov City Court, Head of the
Vladimir Oblast Council of Judges. Host: Judge Michael M. Mihm,
U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois
The thanks for these results rest with our American volunteer hosts
who are also affected and rewarded for their participation in the Open
World program:
``We host many visitors and this group was definitely among
the best--they were well selected, highly qualified and very
engaged. We thoroughly enjoyed hosting this delegation and were
highly impressed with their professionalism and level of
interest. Through such an exchange, both sides--the Russian and
the American--can only benefit as longstanding, productive
relationships are initiated and a great amount of information
is exchanged.''----Sylvia L. Nimmo, Friendship Force Local Host
Coordinator
Results-What Can Open World Achieve:
The Open World brief stays are catalysts in three areas:
They are catalysts for dramatic changes in attitude. Experiencing
the reality of the United States rather than absorbing the distortion
of American popular culture portrayed in television, film, and music
helps dispel stereotypes embedded in Soviet-era anti-American
propaganda;
The visits are--in a large number of cases--``life-changing''
experiences that leave participants with the ability to imagine
solutions to the many obstacles in the Russia's path to democracy and a
market economy;
Most significantly--for the future--Open World fosters ties between
people and communities that help promote systemic change long after the
visits have ended.
Let me cite just a few examples:
Open World's Rule of Law program brings Russian judges to the
United States to be hosted by senior U.S. federal and state judges. A
total of 163 Russian judges participated in 2000-2001. Our plans to
bring 300 judges in 2002 coincide with Russia's preparations to
implement recently enacted judicial reforms. Our partner in this effort
is the Judicial Conference of the United States. Many of the American
judges who have participated--led by Judge Paul Magnuson of Minnesota
and Judge Michael Mihm of Illinois--are actively seeking to establish
U.S.-Russian ``sister court'' relationships to further promote key
concepts of court administration and judicial ethics in Russia.
A grant to the American International Health Alliance (AIHA)
approved at our Board meeting last week will bring key political
leaders from five Russian regions on a pilot basis to advance a model
of healthy communities to combat Russia's overwhelming health crises.
Pilot sites in both the United States and Russia are being carefully
chosen to create the optimal linkage between U.S. host communities and
participating Russian communities.
Conclusion
President Putin's call to President Bush immediately after the
attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11 set in
motion a dramatic realignment in U.S.-Russian relations. President
Putin is advancing bold and ambitious reforms on many topics; the
upcoming U.S.-Russia Summit has many unresolved issues as the two
nations seek to address security, trade, and anti-terrorism agendas.
Understanding of these common goals remains, however, less well
understood within the 50 states that make up the United States and the
89 regions that constitute the Russian Federation. The Open World
Program is unique among American exchange efforts. The Center's
mission, scope, and results enable it to advance the overall U.S.
agenda with Russia. It has been praised by business leaders, NGO
leaders, political leaders, and citizens in both nations.
This Subcommittee's support is essential. The Center's fiscal year
2003 budget request seeks to restore our initial funding level of $10.0
million and absorb inflation in the United States and Russia over three
years and the costs to be reimbursed to the Library for housing the
Center, and the costs of applying the lessons learned over three years
to provide the highest-quality program possible to 2,500 Russian
political leaders in 2002.
The United States has painfully discovered the consequences of
abandoning public diplomacy and engagement in Afghanistan and other
nations of the Muslim world. Russia is a key ally in the global war
against terrorism. It is home to vast natural resources, huge and often
ill-secured reserves of weapons-grade plutonium, and the world's
largest land-mass with a largely unsecured border with China. The
reasons to support our budget request for fiscal year 2003 are
straightforward:
--The Open World Program is identifying and bringing to the United
States the leaders throughout Russia who will be the United
States' partners at negotiations on security, trade, and other
issues in 2002 and beyond.
--An investment of $10.0 million from the Congress in that next
generation of leaders is a smart and economic step toward
ensuring the future.
______
Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the fiscal 2003
budget request for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Our
request this year focuses on two areas of critical importance to the
nation's security and future stability: terrorism and homeland
security, and the aging of the U.S. population. Before discussing the
details of our request, however, I would like to thank the Subcommittee
for its generous support of our fiscal 2002 budget.
status of fiscal 2002 crs technology initiative
Last year, with your support, Congress provided CRS with $3.5
million to build analytical capacity in the areas of information and
technology policy, and to acquire the technical staff and tools needed
to build and maintain a secure 21st century technology-based research
environment. Included in this initiative was funding to hire five
senior policy analysts in information and technology policy and 12
technology staff. We hope to have the full complement of these staff
on-board in CRS by the end of this year. Also included in our 2002
technology initiative was funding to support our efforts in the areas
of disaster recovery and information security, and to begin developing
a collaborative computing infrastructure in CRS. Earlier this year, I
approved a series of contracts to support these aspects of our
technology initiative, and we are in the process now of implementing
those contracts.
While CRS has focused for many years on issues related to
information security and disaster recovery, these efforts took on added
significance in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks and the
anthrax assaults on Capitol Hill. In response to these events, CRS
escalated its emergency preparedness and business continuity planning
efforts so as to ensure that in the event of any future emergency,
Congress would have near-immediate access to needed CRS staff and
information systems such as the CRS Website and the Legislative
Information System (LIS). I am particularly pleased that CRS has been
asked by the Senate to integrate our emergency preparedness and
business continuity planning efforts with your own ``Continuity of
Operations Plan''. Thank you again for your generous investment in our
technology capacity. We will continue to use the resources you have
given us to further protect and enhance our information systems in
support of our ultimate goal to build a robust technological
infrastructure from which to deliver leading edge research services to
the Congress when, where, and in the form that you need them.
assisting the congress on issues related to terrorism and homeland
security
Beyond these endeavors to ensure the safety and security of our
staff and systems here on Capitol Hill, CRS continues to work closely
with Members and Committees in both Houses on a multitude of issues
related to combating terrorism and ensuring homeland security. As we
are all too aware, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the
United States have fundamentally altered America's way of life. From
the steps of the Capitol to the Olympic stadiums of Salt Lake City, we
see daily reminders of this new and different world: heightened
security at public buildings and sporting events; new screening
procedures at the nation's airports; town hall meetings to discuss
emergency preparedness and evacuation plans; news reports concerning
potential risks to our nation's food, water and energy supplies; and
continuing uncertainty about the state of the U.S. economy--to name but
a few.
In all the years that the U.S. government has had to confront
organized terrorism, the challenges of deterrence, detection,
interdiction, immediate response, and incident remediation have never
been as great, and the consequences of failure more potentially
catastrophic. The September 11th attacks, subsequent anthrax incidents,
and the unfolding responses have few precedents in terms of their
impact on virtually all U.S. programs and policies. The budgetary
implications of these events and the ongoing war against terrorism will
be equally profound. Current estimates for homeland security
appropriations are $29 billion in fiscal 2002, and nearly $38 billion
requested for fiscal 2003. Future costs will likely continue to rise,
accompanied by numerous questions about how much is adequate, how
priorities should be set, and how resources should be allocated. New
policies and programs may need to be developed to defend against
conventional, biological, chemical, and nuclear attack by improving our
threat assessment and response capabilities, federal coordination, law
enforcement capabilities, and public health services. Indeed, most of
the issues on the Administration and congressional agendas are being
reexamined and reshaped in the context of September 11th.
Congress must be prepared to address these challenges in both the
short and long term. And CRS must be prepared to help you. Building on
our already close working relationship, my goal is for CRS to be there
with you at every step of the way as you examine the universe of issues
related to combating terrorism and ensuring homeland security. Congress
and CRS already have a strong history of working together on terrorism-
related issues. For example, following the October 2000 assault on the
U.S.S. Cole in Yemen and the release of the recommendations of four
national study commissions, CRS supported Congress in its efforts to
address federal anti-terrorism policy, organization, and funding, and
to develop reform legislation. We provided extensive analysis to a
number of Members and Committees examining terrorism-related issues,
and developed a range of analytic products and services, including a
terrorism website. CRS specialists testified before two House
Committees on proposals for reforming U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. We
organized a congressional seminar to compare and analyze commission
findings with senior representatives from each of the study panels.
Several reports and issue briefs were prepared for Congress on
terrorism-related topics, including a comprehensive assessment of Near
Eastern terrorism groups and state sponsors that was released on
September 10, 2001.
To assist Congress in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks,
CRS instituted a Service-wide, coordinated response that drew upon
senior policy experts in all relevant fields. Within days after the
attacks, we had prepared dozens of situation reports and assessments on
a range of issues. Within two weeks, we prepared policy analyses on
over 80 pertinent topics and offered these to Congress through our
website. We provided intensive counsel to a number of Members and
Committees during their deliberations of the Fiscal 2002 Emergency
Supplemental, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the USA
Patriot Act, and the Border Security and Visa Entry Reform bill. In
addition, we continue to conduct in-person briefings and seminars for
Members and congressional staff, testify before congressional
Committees, and prepare new reports each week on topics ranging from
the federal role in emergency management to the future government of
Afghanistan.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity CRS has had to
serve you during this difficult time in our nation's history, and I am
proud that so many Members and staff have called upon us to deliver the
type of objective, nonpartisan assistance that only CRS can provide.
Each Member who has called to request a briefing, and each staffer who
has called to discuss the implications of a particular policy issue or
problem, has given us an opportunity to contribute directly to the
nation's recovery from the September 11th attacks.
Despite this record of support, however, there are several
important areas of expertise that CRS has been unable to offer you up
to this point. These areas of expertise include Islamic and Arabic
affairs, epidemiology, biochemistry, infrastructure engineering, and
comparative religions. For example, a specialist in Islamic and Arabic
affairs or comparative religions would have enabled CRS to analyze in-
depth the various Islamic sects and factions to help Congress address
questions about what religious beliefs the terrorists held and how
those beliefs may have dictated their actions, what backing those
beliefs have in the Islamic world, and why the terrorists exhibit such
hatred toward America. Without a specialist in public health/
epidemiology, CRS was similarly not well positioned to provide timely
analyses on the nation's readiness to respond to acts of bio-terrorism
through early detection and prevention methodologies such as vaccines
and prescription drugs, or to discuss the relationship between the U.S.
public health system and various state and local health entities and
how that relationship supports or hinders accurate threat assessment
and early detection and treatment of public health hazards. CRS also
lacked the capacity to provide sophisticated analysis on legislative
issues associated with domestic risks and threats from biological and
chemical agents expertise that could have been provided by a specialist
in biochemistry. Finally, CRS could have done more to assist Congress
in assessing risks to the nation's critical infrastructure had we had a
specialist who could lead analysis on issues related to structural or
civil infrastructure engineering, risks associated with critical
infrastructure elements such as dams and nuclear power supplies, and
related governmental planning and operational procedures.
To address these critical gaps in CRS capacity, I am requesting 5
FTEs and $572,000 to hire senior expertise in each of these five areas.
These are not capacities to be acquired temporarily on contract. Nor
are they capacities that are resident in CRS's current mix of staff.
They are fundamental new competencies that Congress must have available
to it in order to legislate effectively on issues related to terrorism
and homeland security--issues that are likely to be at the center of
the congressional agenda for many years to come. Without this infusion
of new expertise, CRS support to Congress on these critical national
issues will be incomplete.
assisting the congress on issues related to the aging of the u.s.
population
Although much of Congress's attention is rightly focused on issues
related to combating terrorism and ensuring homeland security, there is
another ``national security'' issue confronting the Congress that I
would like to raise with you today, namely the aging of the U.S.
population. Issues related to the aging of the U.S. population will
affect the lives of millions of Americans and have a profound impact on
our economy, our health care system, and on a whole range of social
policies and services, from now until well into the foreseeable future.
Already, this session, you are grappling with several major age-related
initiatives: improved coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare as
proposed in the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act (S.
358) and the Medicare Reform Act (S. 1135); new tax incentives to
encourage the purchase of long-term care insurance, such as the Health
Care Assurance Act (S. 24); and increased staffing and improved
employment conditions in nursing homes and home health care agencies,
as proposed in the Nurse Reinvestment Act (S. 4). In addition, you are
facing the prospect of major Social Security reform legislation in the
108th Congress. Given their enormous scope and the implications they
will have for so many aspects of American society, I believe it is
critical that CRS begin positioning itself now to assist you with these
important issues.
From a budgetary standpoint alone, these issues are enormous.
Annual federal spending associated with retirement and disability
programs will reach $1 trillion for the first time in fiscal 2002. This
spending amounts to half of all federal spending and 9 percent of gross
domestic product (GDP). These programs, the largest of which are Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal employee retirement, already
dominate the fiscal policy debate. Projections indicate that, under
current policies, these programs will continue to grow as a proportion
of total federal spending and GDP as the U.S. population grows older.
Congressional concern with these spending trends will likely intensify
because of reduced revenue projections and the spending impacts of
recession and the war against terrorism. Already, Congress is
considering a number of Social Security reform proposals. Projections
that Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will become insolvent as
early as 2029 are also occupying congressional attention. In addition,
many Members have expressed concern about the status of the federal-
state Medicaid program, which is experiencing a higher growth rate in
costs than is Social Security. Many states are in a fiscal struggle to
keep their programs adequately funded. Federal Medicaid spending, $143
billion in fiscal 2002, is expected to grow at an annual rate of 6.3
percent over the next decade, the highest growth rate of any
entitlement program. Nearly half of Medicaid spending goes for long-
term care services for the elderly.
Against this backdrop of fiscal concern, Congress is under pressure
to address perceived weaknesses in current benefits for the aged, and
these pressures are likely to grow as the number of elderly Americans
begins to accelerate. In particular, the aging and retirement of the
``Baby Boomers'' (the oldest of whom will reach age 60 in 2006) will
cause considerable changes and challenges in our political, social, and
budgetary institutions. However, the immediate concern regarding the
retirement of the large Baby Boom generation is only a stage in an
expected transformation of our society, a transformation that will
produce an older population than has ever existed before. Indeed, over
the next thirty years, the population over age 65 is projected to
double, and will constitute 20 percent of the population in 2030.
Recognition of the future rapid aging of the population is already
driving current legislative activity on private pensions, retirement
savings, proposals for prescription drug coverage, long-term care,
military health care for retirees and dependents, social services for
the aging, special housing and assisted living, health personnel and
facilities, and other programs focused on the elderly. To address such
a broad set of initiatives within the context of growing budget
pressures, the Congress will need access to high levels of expertise
across a number of fields. CRS is uniquely positioned to provide this
type of expertise, but building such a staff capability will require us
to hire new competencies in genetics, gerontology, the economics of
aging, and the economics of health care, as well as actuarial and
demographic expertise. Accordingly, I am requesting 7 FTEs and $849,000
to hire seven senior analysts to build these capacities in CRS. Given
the extraordinary transformation our society will undertake in the
coming years, I believe that now is the time to start acquiring and
developing this expertise for the Congress.
growing capacity for congress in the areas of science and technology
Finally, I would like to note what I perceive to be a significant
added benefit of funding CRS's fiscal 2003 budget request. If approved,
this request would enable CRS to continue building its overall capacity
to support the Congress in the areas of science and technology. Indeed,
the expertise we are requesting in epidemiology, biochemistry,
genetics, gerontology, and pharmacology could be applied broadly across
a wide range of emerging legislative policy issues. For example,
Congress will be facing increasing legislative needs in the biomedical
area with accelerating developments in genetics and biotechnology
affecting the areas of human health and governmental oversight; in the
domestic and international environmental area as growing population and
economic activity place increasing burdens on the sustainability of
natural systems; and in the general area of emerging information
technologies as they affect security and infrastructure systems.
Together with the positions you provided to us last year to increase
CRS's technology and information policy capacity, these additional
positions would significantly enhance CRS's ability to enrich the
policy analysis it provides to the Congress with high-quality
scientific and technical expertise.
The addition of these positions would also serve to augment the
efforts CRS has undertaken within existing resources to identify much-
needed science and technology capacities through our ongoing succession
planning. Over a year ago, we identified and filled a number of
positions in the areas of science and technology, including four
Ph.D.'s in physics, biomedical science, environmental science, and
information policy. In addition, CRS currently is contracting for
Ph.D.-level expertise in the areas of biology, chemistry, and petroleum
geology.
As this budget request demonstrates, science and technology are
playing an increasingly important role in virtually all areas of public
policy. In order for Congress to legislate effectively in this
increasingly complex world environment, you must have access to the
best scientific minds and technological expertise the country has to
offer. I believe that CRS can and should play a role in providing you
with this expertise. If approved, this budget request will assist us in
doing so.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and
your colleagues today, and I want to thank you again for the support
you and this Subcommittee have given to CRS over the years. I want to
assure you that I continue to adjust existing staff and resources to
align with the Congress' legislative needs. This request for 12
positions reflects new added capacities that cannot be drawn from other
subject areas without weakening CRS's overall support to Congress
across all legislative issues. We take very seriously our mission to
provide the Congress with comprehensive and reliable analysis,
research, and information services that are timely, objective,
nonpartisan and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed
national legislature. I hope you find that we are meeting this mission,
and that we are doing so in a way that warrants your continued trust
and support.
______
Prepared Statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights,
Copyright Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to present the Copyright Office fiscal year 2003 budget
request. This is an exciting time for the Copyright Office as we move
ahead with our reengineering program to improve our public services
including the provision of these services online. This budget request
ensures our ability to maintain a strong and effective national
copyright system, one that serves both owners and users of copyrighted
works. It provides funding to administer the nation's copyright law and
provide expert policy assistance to Congress and the Executive Branch.
fiscal 2002 supplemental request
I would like to begin by noting that the Office has requested a
$7.5 million supplemental appropriation for fiscal 2002 resulting from
the security-related suspension of U.S. Postal Service mail to the
Library. This disruption of USPS mail delivery began on October 17,
2001 and has caused a one-third decrease in receipts for the first four
months of the fiscal year from the level we had projected. This is
extremely significant since two-thirds of the Copyright Office's basic
budget is funded through fees, primarily those received for registering
claims to copyright. Based on current information from the
congressional mail task force, we anticipate a substantially reduced
flow of USPS mail continuing for at least another four or five months.
Even when full mail delivery resumes, the Office will have difficulty
processing the resulting backlog and fees before the end of the fiscal
year. Based on actual receipts for the first four months of the fiscal
year and the expected continued delays in mail delivery, the Copyright
Office estimates the fiscal year 2002 receipts will be down from $21.5
million to $14 million. We are, therefore, requesting a $7.5 million
supplemental appropriation for the Copyright Office, Salaries and
Expenses Account.
We need this supplemental funding for the Office to maintain its
basic operations and staff. This capacity must be ensured so that we
can meet public service needs once mail delivery resumes.
copyright office mission
The mission of the Copyright Office is to promote creativity by
administering and sustaining an effective national copyright system. In
doing this, the Office carries out the following functions: (1)
Administration of the United States copyright law: It processes claims
for copyright registration, documents for recordation, and works
deposited under the mandatory deposit provisions of the law. It creates
public records of these actions and provides copies of deposited works
for the Library's collections. The Office also administers the law's
compulsory licensing provisions, and convenes arbitration panels to
determine royalty rates, terms and conditions of licenses, and the
disposition of royalties. (2) Policy Assistance, Regulatory Activities,
and Litigation: The Office assists congressional committees in drafting
and analyzing legislation relating to intellectual property; represents
the U.S. Government at international meetings and diplomatic copyright
conferences; and advises the U.S. Trade Representative, the State
Department, and the Commerce Department on domestic and international
copyright laws. (3) Public Information and Education: The Copyright
Office provides information to the public about United States copyright
laws and Copyright Office practices and procedures, and conducts
searches, which may be certified, of the copyright records. The Office
conducts outreach to inform the public discussion of copyright issues.
fiscal year 2003 budget request summary
For fiscal 2003, the Copyright Office requests an increase in its
Offsetting Collections Authority from $21,880,000 to $23,321,000. This
$1,441,000 increase is based on projected annual fee receipts of
$21,500,000, and the use of $1,821,000 from the Copyright Office no-
year account.
The Copyright Office no-year account balance totaled $3,080,660 as
of September 30, 2001. In the current fiscal year we will use $380,000
from the no-year account to fund the ongoing reengineering program.
This fiscal 2003 initiative represents the continuation of a five-year
reengineering program initiative started in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal
2003, the Office proposes that no-year account funds be used for two
parts of the reengineering program: (1) $1,441,000 to partially fund
the IT improvements; and (2) $380,000 to continue implementing business
process reengineering. We plan to use the remainder of the no-year
account funds to further develop and build IT systems.
The fiscal 2003 reengineering funds will be used to hire
contractors to perform system design and development activities based
on the IT Requirements Analysis we are now undertaking and which is
scheduled to be completed in June. The analysis will provide the
Copyright Office with an IT strategy that supports reengineering, lays
out a plan for replacing aging systems, and expands the electronic
delivery of our public services.
proposed adjustment in some copyright office fees
On February 28, 2002, I delivered a revised schedule of fees to
Congress. The new fees will take effect 120-days after submission, on
July 1, 2002, unless Congress enacts a law within that period stating
that it does not approve the schedule. The Office is proposing
adjustments for certain fees, but does not recommend a change for the
$30 basic copyright registration filing fee. No change is recommended
in the fiscal 2003 budgeted receipt level of $21.5 million because of
the great uncertainty in our receipt levels due to the mail situation
both this year and into next year, making it extremely difficult for us
to make fee projections at this time.
review of office work and future plans
I would like to briefly highlight some of the Office's current and
past work, as well as our plans for fiscal 2003.
Reengineering
Since September 2000, the Office has pursued a needed, and
ambitious, reengineering program to improve our public services. We are
now merging our information technology planning and our business
process reengineering to form an Office-wide reengineering program that
incorporates our processes, technology, organization, and facilities.
This program will allow the transformation of our processes from hard-
copy and largely manual processing to one where we offer our services
electronically to the maximum extent possible and use technology to
improve our internal workflow. The reengineered processes call for
information systems and tools that markedly reduce keyboarding of data
and the extensive movement of paper and materials that are so prevalent
in the processes the Office use today. The initiative will also enable
the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress to fulfill their
missions in the digital environment by increased acquisition of digital
works through the copyright registration system.
To provide public services online and to implement the reengineered
business processes, the Office must put into place a new technology
infrastructure, including hardware and software. The new infrastructure
will promote the use of electronic applications, deposits, and
correspondence; incorporate the latest scanning technologies including
optical and intelligent character recognition (OCR/ICR); create
tracking and reporting capabilities; and permit the exchange and
sharing of data between Copyright Office and the Library of Congress
electronic records.
The time line is aggressive and carefully integrates the new
business processes with the development of new robust Copyright Office
Information Technology (IT) systems. We have made significant progress
in defining new processes and improvements for our core business
processes and in chartering a path for a comprehensive information
technology strategy.
In fiscal year 2001, the Copyright Process Reengineering Team,
composed of staff directly involved in these processes, assessed the
Office's core business processes and completed a Baseline Current
Operations Report in January 2001. This report was the first of a
series of documents to record findings, conclusions, recommendations,
and plans to implement new processes in the Office. The team used this
report as the baseline from which to plan for the new environment.
From January until April 2001, the team worked to redesign the
Office's principal business processes. During this phase of the
project, the team analyzed issues and problems with the current
processes and developed new processes that are organized around
outcomes to ensure that activities focus on the final output to be
produced. The new processes are: Maintain Accounts, Answer Requests,
Record Documents, Acquire Deposits, Register Claims, and Receive Mail.
A Reengineering Implementation Plan was completed in June. We are
now defining the redesigned processes to an operational level, drafting
procedures manuals, creating a training plan, and developing a
reorganization package, including new job roles for the new processes.
Recognizing the need for a concomitant reengineering of IT systems
to support the reengineered business processes, last year the Office
began a comprehensive assessment of IT systems and projects and
established an interim Information Technology Oversight Group (ITOG) to
direct IT activities. In 2001, the Office formally began the
reengineering of its automated systems by issuing a request for
quotation for contract assistance to complete an IT requirements
analysis. This is the first step in the process of building and
acquiring the Office's IT systems so they will support the reengineered
business processes and allow the Office to provide more services
electronically.
In September 2001, an IT requirements analysis contract was awarded
to follow in step with the Office's reengineering work and define the
automated procedures to collect, route, and manage the information that
makes up the historical record of a copyright. This effort will address
electronic and scanned images of applications for copyright
registration and documents, more comprehensive fiscal processing
including acceptance of credit card payments, electronic routing of
records and documents, and effective means to track public service
requests. In addition, parts of the Office not included in the business
process reengineering study are being looked at and opportunities
identified for technology based improvements in those areas.
The requirements analysis will produce two products by this summer
that will be critical to fully prepare for the new business
architecture: (1) functional specifications for system components that
will be needed to support the reengineered business processes including
decisions about best hardware and software options and best IT
development and operation practices; and (2) an integrated BPR and IT
implementation plan that lays out the events and tasks necessary to put
in place the changes in the Office processes, organization, and
facilities, as well as in technology. The plan will delineate the
dependencies between events and will identify the critical path to
facilitate management of the overall program.
This year, based on the planning and requirements analysis work now
underway, the Copyright Office will award task order contracts to begin
systems analysis, design and development work. These contracts will be
put into place to rebuild and integrate the Copyright Office's
information systems to meet the new business process requirements. The
systems development effort will be substantial and the Office expects
that most, if not all, work will be done through outsourcing tasks to
contractors skilled in building state of the art systems. The task
order contracts will facilitate assignment of manageable and measurable
tasks to the contractors. Issuing concurrent task assignments will also
accelerate development with most occurring during fiscal years 2003,
2004, and 2005.
Registration, Recordation, and Cataloging Operations
In fiscal 2001, the Copyright Office continued to fulfill its
statutory mandate to register claims to copyright and make available a
public record of these claims. During the fiscal year, the Office
received 590,091 claims to copyright covering more than 800,000 works,
and registered 601,659 claims. The Office worked diligently to improve
the timeliness of its registrations by reducing a backlog of claims on
hand. In February 2001, the Examining Division implemented a major
backlog reduction effort. The goal of this effort was to reduce the
processing time for a copyright registration from receipt of the
application to issuance of a certificate and to reduce the number of
unexamined claims on hand to four. At the end of the year, this number
had been achieved and the backlog had been reduced by more than 80
percent.
Title 17 of the U.S. Code requires the Register of Copyrights to
provide and keep records of all deposits, registrations, recordations,
and other copyright-related services such as renewals and to prepare
indexes of all the records. The Cataloging Division records the
copyright facts of all works registered in the Copyright Office. In
fiscal 2001, the Division received 595,224 registrations and created
cataloging records for 548,458.
The public record created by the Cataloging Division also includes
assignments, security interests, notices of termination of transfers,
statements of death, and notices of errors in the name in a copyright
notice. The Documents Recordation Section received 15,369 documents and
recorded 15,242 covering more than 300,000 titles or works.
Licensing Activities
The Copyright Office administers the compulsory licenses and a
statutory obligation under Title 17. The Licensing Division collects
royalty fees from cable operators for retransmitting television and
radio broadcasts, from satellite carriers for retransmitting
``superstation'' and network signals, and from importers and
manufacturers of digital audio recording products for later
distribution to copyright owners. In fiscal year 2001, the Office
distributed approximately $264 million to copyright owners. The
Division deducts its full operating costs from the royalty fees and
invests the balance in interest-bearing securities with the U.S.
Treasury.
During fiscal year 2001, the Copyright Office administered five
Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings. Three of the
five proceedings involved setting rates and terms and the other two
proceedings involve the distribution of royalty fees.
Copyright Education
Another principal function of the Copyright Office is providing
information on copyright law and its application. The Copyright Office
responds to public requests for information and engages in outreach
programs to inform the public discussion on copyright issues. The
Public Information Office responded to 138,352 telephone inquiries,
13,932 letter requests, and 12,000 electronic mail requests for
information from the public. It also assisted 11,600 members of the
public in person, taking in 21,845 registration applications, and 2,164
documents for recordation. The Copyright Office Web site continued to
play a key role in disseminating information to the copyright community
and the general public with 12.1 million hits during the year, a 28
percent increase over the prior year.
conclusion
The Office looks forward to working with Congress on the copyright
challenges facing the United States both at home and abroad. Our major
reengineering program will position us to fully meet the
responsibilities given to the Office in the Copyright Act. I thank you
for your consideration of this request for fiscal 2003, as well as our
supplemental appropriations request for the current fiscal year.
MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE LIBRARY'S BUDGET REQUEST
Senator Durbin. The Library's budget request for fiscal
year 2003, excluding the Congressional Research Service and the
President's accrual proposal for health and retirement
benefits, is $423.9 million, an increase of $23.7 million over
the current year. The Library is requesting a substantial
increase for digital initiatives as it balances the need to
adapt to the electronic age with its traditional mission of
acquiring, preserving, and making accessible books and other
artifacts. Significant increases are also requested to expedite
processing of new materials, eliminate arrearages, and prepare
items for off-site storage.
Other critical issues we look forward to discussing today
include the Library's mail backlog and its impact on
operations, an issue which we are familiar with on Capitol
Hill; the status of the new automated hiring system; and the
Russian Leadership Program.
I now turn to my friend and ranking member, Senator
Bennett, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have covered
all of the items that we need to pay attention to.
I would simply like to raise an issue that I raised in
conversation with Mr. Mulhollan, when he came by in a courtesy
visit prior to the hearing, that really goes back to my memory
of the Library of Congress when I was serving up here as a
staffer, and that is how do we make sure that Members of
Congress understand what is available to them in the form of
the Congressional Research Service and do what we can to
facilitate the use of those superb support services that are
there in CRS.
The Library represents a national treasure. I try not to
use that term overmuch. I remember a period in our political
history when everybody was a national treasure, the old line
about we are all special. But the Library truly is a national
treasure, but we must remember that it exists primarily, first
and foremost, to serve the Congress and support the Congress.
Unfortunately, I think some of our fellow members do not
understand what a treasure they have within walking distance
and do not use it as much as they should.
So, Mr. Mulhollan and I had that conversation when he was
in my office, and I want to get it on the record of the hearing
here that it is going to be one of the things that I am going
to pursue in the time ahead.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would just comment that I have
been to enough of these now, met these three gentlemen often
enough, to know that they are outstanding public servants and
that the country, as well as the Congress, should be grateful
for the service that they render.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Bennett. Not only are
these gentlemen fine public servants, you are truly a national
treasure.
Dr. Billington.
OUR NATION'S CHALLENGES
Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bennett
and members of the committee.
The details of our funding request, which we are very
pleased and honored to have the opportunity to present to you
today, are in my longer statement. I would like just briefly to
suggest at the outset how the Library is helping to address
some of these key challenges facing our Nation today.
We are, in the first place, in the midst of a digital
explosion. It is the greatest revolution in communication since
the advent of the printing press. The Library of Congress is
playing a leading role in bringing the potential educational
benefits on the Internet free of charge to the American people
in their own localities with our National Digital Library,
which now has more than 7\1/2\ million items of American
history and culture on line. We have the beginning of a global
on-line library with agreements with the national libraries of
Russia and Spain, continuing conversations with others, and we
are putting on line the best practice teaching experiences of
teachers and librarians across the country, a number of whom we
have helped train.
The Advertising Council has recognized the educational and
inspirational value of these on-line Americana resources by
supporting for the first time in their history a multi-million
dollar, nationwide program for a library.
Overall, our free on-line services, such as THOMAS for
comprehensive information on the Congress, received well over 1
billion transactions last year. We are now leading the new
congressionally mandated campaign to create and implement also
a shared national plan to preserve the growing amount of
important material that is being produced only in digital form
in a world where the average website lasts only 44 days and
much of the most important material is endangered and
vanishing.
Much of the Library's requested budget increase, including
key digital projects in the Law Library for its Global Legal
Information Network, and in the Copyright Office for its re-
engineering process, are needed so that we can, in effect,
enhance electronic services as befits the age we live in and
also integrate, a new virtual library into the already existing
traditional artifactual one.
WAR ON TERRORISM
In the war on terrorism, as in the competitive global
marketplace, both of which America is deeply involved, we need
to know more about more parts of the world than ever before.
Hitherto little-known regions like Kosovo, Burundi, Chechnya,
Afghanistan, smaller Muslim countries of Central Asia, all play
a much greater role in our thinking these days, and the Library
has unique collections for all of these places, collections in
450 languages. We continuously gather in a wide range of
materials from six unique overseas offices in places like
Cairo, Islamabad, New Delhi, Jakarta. We have large special
reading rooms for the Asian, European, Hispanic, African, and
Middle Eastern worlds, and we have the largest and most
comprehensive Middle Eastern collection in the world, including
also an extraordinarily rich Arabic one.
Our expert curators recently discovered, for instance, in
our Arabic language collections a 92-page, 11-year-old
interview with Osama bin Laden with a great deal of important
detail that was not otherwise available. Supporting such
collections and the curators who understand them and cull them
is a national need that our proposed budget will help meet.
There is a closely related national need to bridge the
continuing split in our society between the thinkers and doers.
The Congressional Research Service does much of this, providing
knowledge usefully for the Congress in a shared service. We are
proposing now to augment that capacity particularly in
technical fields within CRS that Mr. Mulhollan will talk about
in a minute. These are areas that are important in the current
war on terrorism.
The Library has now also raised a private endowment, thanks
to John Kluge, the head of our Madison Council, largely, but
from a few others as well, to bring a significant number of the
world's greatest minds to the Library to be available for
informal contact with the Congress, people who can dispense
wisdom, not just sound bites, and provide deep perspective for
a present-minded city.
The war on terrorism has opened up new areas of cooperation
with Russia and this relationship is becoming even more
important as we seek to prevent the spread of Russia's huge and
unique supply of weapons of mass destruction to hostile nations
of terrorists. The Library has helped forge good relations with
the new generation of emerging Russian political leaders by
bringing more than 4,000 of them from all over Russia to
America, with more than 2,000 scheduled for this year under our
Open World Russian Leadership Program, which the Congress has
now set up as an independent center.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS
Wherever people today are trying to move from autocracy to
democracy, they realize that open access to knowledge is one of
the essentials for a participatory and accountable government
and they admire the special link that our legislature has had
from the beginning with its Library. The Congress of the United
States quite simply has been the greatest single patron of a
library in the history of the world, amassing here more than
124 million items in all languages and formats and a staff
superbly equipped to make it all freely accessible to the
public.
The Library of Congress provides the Congress and the
Government here in Washington with the world's knowledge and
transmits to people everywhere more and more the primary
materials of America's creative heritage and also increasingly
of the world's varied cultures.
To sustain this demanding range of things that we do and to
sustain these collections, the Library needs substantial
infrastructure and security enhancements. The increased funds
requested for the coming fiscal year are mainly for mandatory
pay raises and benefits and unavoidable price increases.
Programmatic and infrastructure requests represent net overall
only about a $10 million net increase over last year's
appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett, and members of the
committee, we thank you on behalf of all of us at the Library
of Congress for your terrific support over the years and for
your consideration of this year's request.
I would like to turn the microphone over to my
distinguished colleague, our Chief Operating Officer, the
Deputy Librarian of Congress, General Donald Scott.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL INITIATIVES
General Scott. Thank you, Dr. Billington.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett. I thank you
for the opportunity to support Dr. Billington's overview of the
Library's efforts to address some of the key challenges facing
our Nation. I will highlight a few of the ongoing
administrative and technical initiatives that this budget will
fund and help to achieve the Library's vision for providing
service to the Congress and to the Nation.
The Library requires continuing support from Congress to
build and strengthen our digital infrastructure. This budget
includes the necessary next steps toward building a digital
library, one that provides for storage, preservation, and the
access to information that the Congress and the American people
increasingly rely upon for decision making in their daily
lives. This budget also funds collections and computer security
improvements.
Keeping the mail flowing safely is a must for the Library's
comprehensive collections. We greatly appreciate the Congress'
immediate response to the anthrax closure by providing
supplemental funds to address recovery from the shutdown and
other unplanned costs to ensure continuity of operations. While
the Library's mail flow has resumed, it is at a greatly-reduced
level, which has had a major impact on the acquisition of
materials and the intake of copyright registrations and
receipts. We are, however, taking the necessary steps to
process as quickly as possible the backlog of materials that
originate from within the United States, as well as materials
from our critical overseas operations in Cairo, New Delhi,
Islamabad, Rio, Jakarta, and Kenya.
Mr. Chairman, we also have asked for funds to support the
purchase and implementation of a new financial management
system.
And, finally, we continue in our efforts to install a fair
and timely automated hiring system so that we are able to
recruit individuals with the varied skills and abilities that
our unique work force requires.
All of these ongoing efforts are part of the Library's
vision to keep pace with the informational and service needs of
the Congress and the Nation.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, General Scott. If you
do not mind, we will ask questions relative to the Library and
then Mr. Mulhollan will speak to the CRS.
MAIL--PROCESSING
Let us talk about mail for a minute, a constant source of
vexation since September 11th and the anthrax scare on Capitol
Hill. Let me try to go over some information that we have and
ask you for your comment.
It is my understanding that the Library of Congress is now
processing its mail, letters and parcels, with the use of an
outside contractor, Pitney Bowes, and that the estimated
expense to the Library is about $8 million a year for that
purpose. Is that what you are anticipating in next year's
budget? Is that correct?
General Scott. Yes, sir. The Library is participating with
the House and the Senate. Our cost for the processing of the
mail is about $5.4 million, with fixed costs we estimate to be
approximately $2.8 million. The difference making our costs so
much higher than the Senate's is our volume, which is about 70
percent more than the Senate's.
Senator Durbin. I think that is accurate. The staff has
advised me that 70 percent is a pretty good estimate of the
difference in volume. I also understand there is a difference
in character of mail and that you are more likely to have
parcels than the Senate in our normal course of activity.
Here is the point I would like to make to you. We spend in
the range of $2.5 million in the Senate, the House about $9
million, and the Library of Congress about $8 million to
literally process this mail. I cannot imagine the days coming
when we are going to abandon this activity. It is more likely
that this is now part of the routine that we are going to face
for a long time unless something happens that I cannot
envision.
MAIL--CONTRACTING OUT
So, my question to you is this. Do you believe that it is
worthwhile for us now to take a step back, 6 months after
September 11th, and to assess whether or not contracting out
under this circumstance makes sense, is cost wise in terms of
what this is going to entail, or whether we ought to look at
this approach somewhat differently?
For instance, if you take the $2.5 million spent by the
Senate where we do it in-house and double it to $5 million, it
is still considerably less than what the Library is paying
Pitney Bowes. Add another 20 percent or more for the fact that
you have more parcels, and you are still below the amount being
paid to Pitney Bowes. What is your thought about dealing with
this from a nonemergency perspective in a long-term view?
General Scott. We do feel that it is time now to take a
hard look at all available options to make sure that we can
process the mail in a timely way and a safe manner. To that
end, we are looking at other vendors who have processes that
meet the specifications of the DOD scientists, and looking at
the option of perhaps having our own people process the mail.
We will come up with what we think is in the best interest of
timely, efficient, and safe processing of the mail and the
Library's mission.
MAIL--COMPETITIVE BIDDING
Senator Durbin. Was this a competitive bid? Did other
vendors bid on this business?
General Scott. I am not sure that I can answer that since
we were not the contractor.
Dr. Billington. There was not, Mr. Chairman, any
alternative that could deal with both the mail processing
aspects and the environmental aspects. Obviously, we want to
take a look at how we are going to do it in the future.
MAIL--BACKLOG
But the other important point in our case is that getting
over this backlog is of critical importance, because when there
is a backlog, a very heavy backlog, in serials for instance, if
we do not keep them current, we are not able to make sure that
we are accurately surveying all of the world on these various
problems. We have a real backlog to get over now, and there was
only one vendor who was able to process the mail in a timely
way and safeguard it environmentally.
MAIL--SOLE SOURCE VENDOR
Senator Durbin. I understand that, and you faced the same
emergency we faced on Capitol Hill. The House went in one
direction, the Senate in another, and only time will tell which
made the right choice. But I anticipate, at least I suspect,
from your budget request for next year, you are planning to
continue on with this sole source vendor. Is that correct?
General Scott. No, sir. We did ask for the money for next
year, but we also plan to take a very serious look at
alternatives. If we do come up with some alternatives that are
better than what we currently are doing, then we certainly will
go with the best alternative.
RETAIL SALES
Senator Durbin. I have asked you from time to time about
the retail sales, the retail income into the Library of
Congress, and we have asked the General Accounting Office to
take a look at it. We had a preliminary report from them which
raises some interesting questions. I do not know if you are
familiar with their findings. Have you had a chance to review
them?
General Scott. Yes. We received the GAO report just
yesterday and are in the process of going through it to make
sure we understand all the recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, we welcome the opportunity to have retail
sales and to make sure that we can put the necessary planning
together that will assure this becomes a profitable operation.
We have already put in motion a marketing plan, and have hired
a contractor to help us do so.
Senator Durbin. When was that done?
General Scott. About 2 weeks ago.
PHOTODUPLICATION SERVICE
Senator Durbin. Now, what the GAO has found is in a period
of 5 years, ending September 30, 2001, your Photoduplication
Service reported losses of $2.2 million, gift shop losses of
$180,000, and the audio-video laboratory $120,000.
It is my understanding that the Photoduplication Service
has reported losses. In the first 2 years of this review, they
made money, but in the last 3 years, they have lost money when
you used contractors to meet internal microfilm needs. Are you
familiar with that?
General Scott. Yes, sir, I am familiar with the fact that
we found it necessary to make some drastic cuts in the
photoduplication service. I would like, with your permission,
to call up Winston Tabb, who is our manager in this area and,
who, I think, has done an expert job of handling this issue,
which is systemic to some of the challenges we face in assuring
cost effective operations.
Senator Durbin. Of course.
Mr. Tabb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is true that we had to make significant reductions in
the staffing of the Photoduplication Service last year. A total
of 29 staff were considered to be redundant primarily because
that business had changed dramatically. The Photoduplication
Service was initially set up to make copies, upon individual
requests from people, from the Library's collections. Those
requests had decreased, and a lot of the staff who were working
in that area had been doing microfilming, but now we are moving
much more toward digitization for our preservation work. So, it
was no longer necessary to have that many staff there.
We also felt that if we were going to get repositioned to
have the Photoduplication Service focus on the kinds of things
that you are interested in and that we are, which is to be much
more proactive in getting people to want to have copies from
the collections, we needed to get on a sound financial basis so
that we could begin to build from that with a very different
kind of focus, from a very passive one, as established in the
1930's, to a much more aggressive one of outreach. And that is
what we are trying to do.
Senator Durbin. Let me make sure I understand the
situation. I can understand that you would need internal
photoduplication and digitization and such. My impression from
the GAO report, though, is we are talking about the outside
world asking for Photoduplication Services and paying for them,
and that over the 5-year period reviewed by the GAO, in the
first 2 years, the Library made a profit off of that
Photoduplication Service, but then decided to contract it out,
and for 3 straight years lost money on it, which suggests to me
that you are not charging your customers enough to break even.
Mr. Tabb. Pricing is always a difficult area in the
Government, and this is one of the points that we have been
working with GAO on--to determine at what point you raise the
prices to the point that you drive people away.
Unfortunately, it is not always possible in the Government
to be as agile as one needs to be. This is why we know that if
we are going to be able to achieve the objectives, which we
share, to be able to generate profits from some of these areas,
we probably are going to have to have some legislative help so
that we can be much more agile in having both contract and
Library staff.
Part of the problem here has been that historically we had
really been focusing in the Photoduplication Service, if I can
say this a different way, on two different primary customers,
one, the passive requests coming from people who wanted single
items from our collections, and second, on microfilming the
Library's collections for preservation purposes.
Senator Durbin. Here is the problem I am having. Most
people say we should contract out to save the taxpayers money.
It appears in Photoduplication Services you contracted out to
lose taxpayer money.
Mr. Tabb. What actually happened is that the management of
the Photoduplication Service, if I can be direct about this,
was not quick enough to furlough staff or to reduce staff after
the point when their revenues had ceased to come in.
Senator Durbin. For 3 years?
Mr. Tabb. It was actually 2 years.
Senator Durbin. It took 2 years?
Mr. Tabb. Yes.
Senator Durbin. There is a definite lack of agility.
Mr. Tabb. The problem has been resolved now. I will be
happy to speak about that preferably off the record since it
involves personnel.
Senator Durbin. That would be fine to do it that way.
But are you telling me that if we sit down together next
year, that the Photoduplication Services to outside customers
will show at least a break-even or a profit?
Mr. Tabb. It will be at least at a break-even, which is
what it is supposed to be, and that was the reason why we did
reduce in force the 29 positions. We are on a much better
footing now than we were 6 months ago.
But I would like also to say that we are not looking at the
Photoduplication Service. What we think must occur, if we are
to achieve the objectives that you have set for us and that we
have for ourselves, is that we think about the Photoduplication
Service, the motion picture revolving fund, and the retail
shops as one entity for marketing purposes, not as three
separate ones. And that is one of the other changes that we
have recently made, to bring these three activities together so
they can be thought of collectively as a way of making the
Library's collections more available to the public.
Senator Durbin. The reason I asked for the GAO study and
the reason I raise this issue is not to suggest that we need to
commercialize the treasures of the Library of Congress, but to
suggest that there are certain things that we can do to make
them available and, in generating revenue from that
availability, help defer some of the needs of the Library so we
can reinvest it right back into the Library for things of value
to the American people for generations to come. We can stop
short of putting a price tag on everything that you have in
your inventory but still find a way to show profitability in
what is known as a retail venture. My colleague has been
involved in business a lot longer than I have, and I will
suggest to him that even with losses, you cannot make it up in
volume.
So, I will pass it along to Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION OF DIGITAL MATERIALS
Dr. Billington, we have had a number of conversations over
the years about the digital age and the digital revolution. We
appropriated in December 2000, $100 million for a national
digital strategy effort to archive and preserve digital
information. The law authorized the Library to spend $5 million
immediately to develop a plan and then the balance would be
made available upon completion of the plan and matching funds
of $75 million.
As I contemplate this from a layman's point of view, I have
a concern that I would like to raise here and have you speak
to. Digital information inherently is a whole lot cheaper than
hard copy. We have discovered that just in our families, that
it is a whole lot easier to send an e-mail than it is to write
a letter and buy a 34 cent stamp and pay for the stationery and
wait for it and so on. We politicians are discovering that in
campaigns that if you get a digital mailing list, you can send
an e-mail piece of campaign literature for virtually nothing,
compared to what it would cost you to mail post cards to
everybody in your congressional district or your home State.
So, I would be interested in knowing where we are with the
plan and the raising of the $75 million, but I would also be
interested in your long-term view. As we go down this road of
trying to preserve digital information and we see the ratio
between digital information and hard copy information tilt
toward the former, are we going to see long term some financial
savings out of the fact that we are not archiving magazines, we
are archiving websites? More and more magazines are web
magazines and information can be taken off the Internet
virtually for free and preserved virtually for free as opposed
to having to have a subscription and having to have somebody
handle it physically as it comes in, look at it, place it on a
shelf, give it a number, all of the things connected with hard
copy information.
So, that is kind of a long-term view of things, but as we
are talking about the cost of this, I would like to know where
we are short term, but I would also like your observations
about where we are going long term.
NATIONAL DIGITAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRESERVATION PROGRAM
(NDIIPP)
Dr. Billington. Well, it is a very good and very searching
question. Let me take the long-term view first.
I think there is no doubt that in the long term, if you
adopt as your costing device a unit of knowledge, or a unit of
information, we will have enormous savings. But if you take the
overall cost, it may not show because we are generating so much
more knowledge. So much more knowledge is being made public
through the Internet. In other words, you have a huge number of
data sets, publications, expressions of opinion that would fall
short of publication under traditional artifactual
publications.
What we are seeing is an explosion of the world's knowable
information; that is to say, things that were in somebody's
head now spill out into the Internet in digital form. There is
going to be a tremendous expansion of knowable information and
of the recorded intellectual activity of the human race. There
are many more participants in this activity in many more
countries. This is the first generation in which women have
really come anywhere near equality of participation in the
generation of knowledge. There is going to be a great deal
more.
The problem is that if you have great savings in the unit
cost, you also have the explosion of worthless information. You
do not have to go very far on the Internet to see chat rooms
and violent games and all kinds of things that really do not
add, which are helping to fill it up.
We have been trying to get a standard of quality free on
line. I regret to say we have not had as much participation in
the for-profit sector as we would like because the Internet is
still seen basically as a marketing and an entertainment device
and an area for just disorganized chatter. Indeed, the basic
unit of human thought, the sentence, is gradually getting
assaulted as we get these run-on chat room conversations.
One of the purposes of the legislation is to task us with
forming a shared distributed national strategy for organizing
and sorting this information so that it is retrievable.
But the startup costs of establishing that are really very,
very substantial. Congress took this welcomed initiative last
year and gave us the assignment of bringing all the Government
and the non-governmental people together to address this issue.
In the long term, yes, both in terms of the unit cost of a
unit of information and knowledge, there are going to be real
economies. In terms of the overall amount of useful knowledge,
as well as useless knowledge, there is going to be a great
expansion of that. Both qualitatively and, in terms of unit
costs, quantitatively, this is a tremendous boon.
Now, it is a tremendous challenge to sort, to use it, to
make it accessible. That is what we have accepted on a shared
basis.
We have had two meetings of our 26-member advisory board to
begin formulating a strategy.
The situation is becoming very alarming. The last survey
that was taken some years ago said the average life of a
website was 76 days. Now the latest study made last year says
it is 44 days. The information that gets eliminated tends to be
disproportionately the good information. It has real utility,
but does not have present marketability. We are going to want
it 10 years from now. And that is what we are enjoined to do,
and it is very visionary of the Congress to do this.
We have a 26-member advisory board that includes a great
many people from the stakeholder communities, the industry,
representatives of new media, websites, digital TV, film, e-
journals. These kinds of people have been brought in, as well
as representatives of the major public libraries and private
archives and repositories.
We have had two planning meetings and then we have broken
up in individual teams to deal with different aspects of what
is really an enormous problem.
We have 15 other Federal agencies involved in this
discussion. There are four designated by the legislation,
myself, the Archivist of the United States, the Secretary of
Commerce, and the White House Advisor in Science and
Technology, as a core group. There is also a broader group.
We will be presenting a plan later this year, most likely
in either July or September, with the results of this planning
operation and recommendations. What we are doing now, after
defining many aspects of this problem--and developing a
national plan, is the initiation of archiving. We work with the
Internet Archive, which is the principal agency archiving this
material. They give us snapshots of the web at periodic
intervals. We are beginning to deal with the challenges in a
variety of ways that Laura Campbell, who is in charge of this,
could explain in greater detail if you wanted.
We think the IT community is getting involved.
NDIIPP STRATEGIC FUNDING PLAN
On the question of funding, you will remember that the
first stage is the $5 million, to develop a strategic plan, out
of this very highly iterative and consultative process.
We have had particularly good leadership from James
Barksdale who is one of the pioneers in this industry. He has
been playing a particularly helpful role, but others have as
well. We call it the National Digital Information
Infrastructure Preservation Program, NDIIPP.
We had hoped to be further along. The legislation provides
for an additional $20 million that begins when we have
submitted our plan to Congress, which must approve and
authorize. Finally, as is presently scheduled, by March of next
year, we are scheduled to have developed the plan to match the
$75 million remaining in that which was appropriated from
either cash or in-kind contributions.
To be frank about it, since 9/11, the fundraising climate
for this has been not very propitious. It was the judgment of
the key people in the private sector that we consulted with
that it would be better to defer our fundraising efforts until
later for two reasons; one, because it was very difficult in
this climate for this kind of a thing to be done, and second of
all, it would be more effective to approach it once we had the
strategic plan developed, which we are in the process of doing.
The key is future scenarios. We have to have a variety. We
have to have made a major effort to really analyze the breadth
of this problem. This is a colossal problem for which there is
no precedent. The only precedent that comes to my mind is when
the Library of Congress undertook at the Congress' behest at
the beginning of the 20th century, to develop a systematic
cataloguing that was suitable for the expanding libraries that
had outgrown the Dewey Decimal System. Congress was willing to
use the Library of Congress' system to bring order out of what
was considerable developing chaos in the then exploding world
of published materials.
Now we are dealing with a far greater explosion, and the
cataloguing data, the so-called meta-data, is not developed.
All this has to be done consultatively. We have been working
under Laura Campbell's leadership very effectively.
In all candor, we may have to ask for an extension on
meeting the March 2003 deadline, for the $75 million match. The
people who we hope and believe will help us in the private
sector have advised us that this is not the best time to do
this, and because in their judgment it is better to have a plan
to show to demonstrate in order to effectively engage the
industry because a lot of the private contribution will be in-
kind in nature. We will also have a much clearer idea of
exactly what we are going to need by then.
That is where we stand on both aspects of that question. I
am sorry I took so long.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. You give me a view of where the
long term will be. In the short term, you are saying you are
probably going to come back next year for a little more money.
Dr. Billington. Probably a little more time.
Senator Bennett. Some of the people behind you are shaking
their heads and some are nodding.
Dr. Billington. I think we will need more time if we are
going to approach that match, not more money next year. In the
long run, yes, it is going to be more expensive.
This is to be a distributed and a shared responsibility. We
may need the Congress' help and counsel, this committee or
others' help and counsel in determining who and how to do the
sharing. Everyone participating on our advisory board thinks
this is a great idea and deserving of help that somebody else
will certainly be willing to provide.
Senator Bennett. Yes, I am familiar with that. We have all
lived with it.
Dr. Billington. We are trying to develop a sense that this
is shared, but you are dealing with competitive industries and
you are dealing with institutions. I think we can develop this
but I think it is probably going to take a little more time. In
the long run, beyond this $100 million, it is certainly going
to take a great deal more funding. But we hope that as we
develop a certain esprit in this group and as the importance of
this becomes clearer to everybody, we will be able to get
better buy-in and work out some pattern of how the burden
should be shared.
DIGITAL FUTURES
We have found, for instance, in the National Digital
Library, that we raised the money, private money, for a number
of other institutions to digitize their material to put on the
net. We have 36 institutions on the National Digital Library,
among the 7\1/2\ million things we have digitized. With an
extremely small development office, we have ended up raising
the money to bring other institutions of very considerable
wealth into this.
I think this cannot be the case, we are going to have to
have direct collaboration.
This is part of entering the new networked world. I think
there is a sense of patriotism and common purpose that America
has generated so much of the world's knowledge. If we do not
find ways to effectively preserve it and make it accessible, as
we have with books and with other artifacts in the past, we
will be losing our own resource. I think more and more people
recognize this. More education is needed of people interested
in short-term returns rather than the long-term position of the
United States. I think people are more open to that argument,
but it has to be made decisively.
I think we may have to involve Members of Congress at the
appropriate point in developing a strategy to get everyone's
buy-in on this. We are working on it and we think when we have
a plan to you, hopefully by July, but certainly by September,
we will be able to move ahead confidently to the next step of
this program.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett and
Dr. Billington.
HIRING SYSTEM
I want to ask a question about the hiring system, and I
think I am going to elicit answers from both the Library and
specifically from CRS. So, it is a little out of order here,
but Mr. Mulhollan, I will go into the hiring question and then,
after Senator Bennett has completed his second round, we will
go to your statement.
But let me ask you about this. As I understand it, you are
facing a court order of some complexity which is asking for a
much more non-prejudicial and colorblind approach to hiring at
the Library of Congress, and that in response to that, the
Library has brought on an automated hiring system.
I am told that during the course of the last year, the
Congressional Research Service has been unable to fill a
vacancy with this system, and that many of the people hired
within the Library of Congress are actually internal
promotions, people more familiar with the system than perhaps
the outside world.
So, could you tell me if you believe that this automated
system is meeting the goals that were enumerated in the court
decision that led you to use it?
General Scott. Yes, sir. The Library, just to set the stage
here, and plaintiffs attorney's negotiated an agreement, that
was approved by the court to develop a new automated hiring
system, one that would not discriminate. The court gave us a
time line in which we had to implement the new system.
Additionally, we had an old hiring system that was manually
based that was very cumbersome and took an enormous amount of
time to try and get quality staff hired. As a matter of fact,
the old system had an average of taking 175 days to get someone
from start to finish through the system.
So, having the impetus to move ahead and wanting to
establish a system that was timely, a system that also would
respond to the various agencies within the Library who have
different hiring needs, we looked at vendors and OMB and
selected a vendor that was on the GSA schedule.
We started this last March. We underestimated some of the
challenges that we would face in putting in a new system. We
had training problems. We had some other system problems and
typically some of the problems that you have anytime you put in
a new system.
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S RECOMMENDATIONS
To date, Dr. Billington has recognized that we needed to
have a deeper insightful look at what we were doing and
appointed his Inspector General to come up with a report that
would give us recommendations. Of the recommendations, the key
one which Dr. Billington has acted on was to form a project
manager and a project management team. That team has currently
expanded with some outside consultants in human resources, and
we are giving a very detailed review of what the system needs
to do in order to respond to the unique hiring challenges
within the Library of Congress.
Senator Durbin. Well, if it took about 6 months to hire
someone under the old system, how long does it take to hire
them under the automated hiring system?
General Scott. We have mixed reviews. We have hired about
140-some-odd people under the new system, and the average time
of that was about 80 days under that system.
Senator Durbin. Those were internal hires, most of them.
General Scott. Some of those were internal hires, to
include permanent placement of digital technology staff. I
could get you the breakout of how many were internal and how
many were external.
Senator Durbin. Your Inspector General came out with a
report in February of this year making some recommendations for
some changes, and what you have mentioned so far, General, is
that the project manager recommendation is being responded to.
How about the other recommendations from your Inspector
General?
General Scott. Yes, sir. The other recommendations from the
Inspector General are also being reviewed. The reason we acted
with some urgency to appoint a project management team was to
be sure that we had a team that could look at all of the
recommendations and help us to prioritize them so that we could
do a couple of things simultaneously. Also we needed to try and
get as many of our critical hires through the system as we
possibly could, and develop some system requirements that
uniquely meet the Library's hiring needs. We think that the
project management expanded team will be able to handle all of
the recommendations that the Inspector General has proposed.
Senator Durbin. Now, do I understand it, in reading the
background of this lawsuit, which interestingly enough was
filed in 1975 by employees alleging discrimination in the
Library's hiring practices and finally resolved in 1999, a mere
24 years later, was a negotiated settlement? Is that correct?
Or was this an order of the court?
General Scott. There are a couple of things here that I
need to be clear on. The negotiated settlement was between the
Library's attorneys and the plaintiffs' attorneys, for a new
hiring process or amended appendix B, which is the guideline
under which we have to implement this new hiring system.
Senator Durbin. I do not want to belabor this. And I was
mistaken. It appears that it was filed in 1975 and finally
resolved in 2001. So, it was 26 years.
But what I am trying to drive at is, did you have any
options? Was this the only way that you could go to meet the
terms of the negotiated settlement, an automated system?
General Scott. The settlement included implementing the new
hiring process using an automated system. At the time, we
thought the online system was the best option that would
satisfy our hiring needs, satisfy the court, and, I might add,
the Library's desire to have a system that is fair and does not
discriminate. So, yes, we thought this was the best.
OTHER AGENCIES USING HIRING SYSTEM
Senator Durbin. Are there any other agencies of the Federal
Government that use this automated data hiring system that you
are familiar with?
General Scott. Yes, sir, there are other agencies in the
Federal Government all in the executive branch, that use an
automated hiring system.
Senator Durbin. Have they had any better luck than the
Library in terms of actually hiring people from the outside?
General Scott. I cannot speak to the detail of the other
agencies in the luck that they have had. I can speak, by way of
comparison, that the other agencies do not have the diversity
of jobs and the complexity of position descriptions that we
have in the Library, which has caused us to have to work harder
to make this system, or any automated system, adjust to our
needs.
Senator Durbin. So, Mr. Mulhollan, you have had, obviously,
some difficulty with the system and been unable to fill a
vacancy with it.
Mr. Mulhollan. We have been doing everything possible
working with the Library to get this to work for us as other
parts of the Library.
My recollection is, to the question you asked before, out
of the 144 positions--my most recent information--that have
been filled under the Avue system, 94 were internal. But I
believe our head of human resources would like to point out a
number of those were temporary employees that were included in
the internal mix because they were part of the digital library
staff that Congress allowed to be incorporated.
The Avue system called for is part of a number of automated
systems that are out there currently being used. The challenge
is applying the system to what Don Scott just mentioned,
amended appendix B, which is an amendment to the original
settlement you mentioned in 1999. The Library had a hiring
system, but the court determined that that system produced a
workforce that was underrepresented in two major areas. There
was also a question about the statistical system being used for
reporting statistics to the courts. Those are the issues that
we responded to.
CRS VACANCIES FILLED USING HIRING SYSTEM
Senator Durbin. How many vacancies have you tried to fill
in the CRS using this system?
Mr. Mulhollan. We currently have and plan to fill 88
positions; 79 positions will be filled under the new Avue
system, and 9 positions will able filled under alternative
hiring programs, such as the law recruits.
Senator Durbin. I am trying to get to a scorecard here.
Mr. Mulhollan. Yes. We have not filled any positions under
the new system.
Senator Durbin. How long have you been trying?
Mr. Mulhollan. Since the implementation of the negotiated
settlement.
Senator Durbin. One year.
Mr. Mulhollan. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. This is hard for me to deal with here. This
is a system which you agreed to by negotiation, and it
apparently has created a world of problems for you if you
cannot fill a vacancy in 1 year. The old system took 6 months,
which sounds terrible, and this system is going to break all
records. Maybe you will never fill a vacancy.
But I am wondering, has there been any thought given to
either, one, reviewing whether you have a good system or there
is a better system being used by other executive agencies, or
perhaps returning to the court to try to negotiate some other
approach that achieves this goal? If the idea was to improve
the diversity of the employment at the Library of Congress and
the only people who are being, quote, hired--and I used that
term advisedly--are already on your employee rolls, it does not
sound like you are going to reach your goal of having a more
diverse work force.
General Scott. If I might respond to that, Senator. We are
currently in the process of evaluating the current system and
at the same time examining other systems that might be
available that would help us to reach our goal. We have not
ruled out that this system can work. We have admitted that it
has been a difficult challenge and we think we have all the
horsepower we need to come up with what is in the best interest
of the Library to hire people fairly and efficiently and to be
able to know how we have met the challenge within the next 45
to 60 days.
Senator Durbin. I am going to conclude this round of
questioning with one last question. Is it fair to say that some
of these vacancies are critical in terms of the operations of
the Library of Congress?
General Scott. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator Durbin. Well, I hope that you will get on this very
quickly. What we have heard this morning about the contracting
out and photoduplication and 2 years before people can be
furloughed, a system that took 6 months to hire people is now
replaced with an automated system that does not hire anyone,
cannot fill critical vacancies, this is not a good report card
in terms of dealing with some essential management problems. We
want to work with you. We know you are facing a court order, so
this is not all your own design or choice, but it appears that
there should be a better way.
Senator Bennett, do you have any questions?
Senator Bennett. Well, Senator Stevens.
Senator Durbin. Senator Stevens?
Senator Stevens. If I may. I have just come from another
hearing and I have got to go to two more yet today. I
appreciate the chance to be here to welcome the Librarian and
General Scott and Mr. Mulhollan.
MAIL--IMPACT ON LIBRARY'S OPERATIONS
I do want you to know we are working very hard on the mail
problem. Mr. Chairman and Senator Bennett, the Librarian showed
me yesterday one of the applications for a copyright that had
been caught up in the mail. The tape was burned and the blue
ink was turned to brown, and it did not arrive until 2 months
late, something like that. That is a tremendous problem and I
hope that we will be sensitive to the impact on the operations
of the Library, particularly the Copyright Office. This is a
very difficult problem we are all facing in terms of mail
delays, but also the costs associated with that. Now they have
got to go back and have the applicant repeat the process, I
gather. We are having to do the same job two and three times.
The Librarian, I think, has a tough job trying to work with
that.
RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
I want to commend you on the way that you have handled the
Russian Leadership Program. It was my honor to be involved in
it, but beyond that, I was called to the Rotarians' annual
meeting and they were overwhelmed and have supported this
process now substantially. We are attracting more and more non-
government people into this operation. I am told now, Dr.
Billington, are there not several members that have come over
here from local governments that are now members of the Duma?
Dr. Billington. Yes. A good number of the members of the
Duma have actually participated in the program as well.
Senator Stevens. It is an outreach that is bringing into
the cities of our country people who are elected
representatives of local governments in Russia. They are the
leaders of the future and they are coming over and living with
our people and learning how individual cities in this country
are run and what freedom means to our people. I think it is an
extremely fine program and I hope we can continue it.
KNOWLEDGE OF HIRING SYSTEM PROBLEMS
Lastly, I too am concerned about what this chairman was
talking about in terms of this hiring problem. Are your
relationships with your own IG such that you think you can work
together to formulate a program that will meet less criticism?
Dr. Billington. Yes, I think we will. There are a couple of
things, and then I will turn it over to General Scott again who
has been working intensively and effectively on these difficult
problems.
First of all, we initially had rather favorable reports
from other Government agencies on this process. We have since
had some more mixed reports. There are concerns. Part of this
evaluation that we are doing is to determine our own
specifications so that we can then examine a variety of
alternative systems as a possibility including the one we have.
The Library faces a very unusual situation which is that no
other agency dealing with an automated hiring system faces the
problem of depending primarily on applicant questionnaires to
assess qualifications. That is a so-called elimination of
minimum qualifications.
Senator Stevens. You do not have the money to pay to bring
them in and interview them?
Dr. Billington. Oh, yes, we bring them in and interview
them. But, if you have a process which generates four times the
number you used to get, per vacancy, it tends to clog up the
system.
WORKFORCE DIVERSITY
We have, in fact, been steadily and I think successfully
increasing the diversity of the work force. So, the end
objective here is being methodically approached and
successfully advanced internally within the Library quite apart
from the court order. The terms of the settlement agreement
specified how the Library must approach this issue, which no
other Government agency has had to deal with--and has been an
inhibiting factor.
Anyhow, I turn it over to the General.
Senator Stevens. Well, I am sorry. They have called me next
door. I was an hour over there getting in line, so I either go
back or lose my place in line over there.
Thank you very much.
General Scott. Yes, sir. The short answer is that the IG is
helping us as part of this project management team to work
through these issues.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
Senator Bennett.
HIRING SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS
Senator Bennett. I do not want to beat the horse anymore,
so I will just make an observation. I finally understand what
the problem is with Dr. Billington saying that you have four
times as many applications as you used to have and you have to
look at all of those. Is that fundamentally what is clogging--
--
Dr. Billington. That is a good part of the problem, yes.
General Scott. That is one part, but there are more
problems than that, Senator, but that is one piece of it.
Senator Bennett. I can understand some of that clogging new
hires. I have a tough time understanding why it takes 80 days
to evaluate an employee that you already have.
We have all had the experience of hiring people, and I had
a vacancy in my office, did not have anybody on board that I
thought was the right one to fill it, and we spent a fairly
significant amount of time looking around, getting
applications, trying to find people who could fill that. And
that we understand.
When my chief of staff here left, I knew he was going to
go, and you certainly have advance notice of who is retiring
because we have already had information from you about your
attrition rate. I knew he was going to go. I had his
replacement within 30 minutes because I knew that there was
somebody on the staff that was capable of stepping into that
slot with whom I had been working for 8 years. So, in that 8-
year period, I did not need another interview. If the bulk of
your hires, since you have gotten into this new circumstance,
have been promotions from within and it takes you 80 days, it
does not meet the smell test.
General Scott. Yes, sir. That was an average and we have
had some positions that have been filled within a shorter
timeframe.
I think, Senator, it does not sound good, but it also is a
fact that anytime you start to replace a system that has been
in place for 15 to 20 years or longer and you add automation,
there are going to be a lot of startup challenges and problems.
Senator Bennett. I can understand that. When you are
dealing with your own employees whom you already know, the
interview cycle should be a whole lot shorter, unless you are
required by the court order to see that everybody in the world
gets to bid on that before you end up with your own employee.
Is that the problem?
General Scott. The Library's hiring process requires that
every position that you post, that everyone has to go through
the same process in order to compete for the position.
Senator Bennett. So, you cannot automatically say, well, we
have been watching Dan Mulhollan for 15 years and he is clearly
the guy to move in when his supervisor leaves. You cannot do
that.
General Scott. No, sir, we cannot. The plaintiffs alleged
that the Library's hiring process was tinged with too many
instances of individuals being appointed without going through
any kind of a competitive process.
Senator Bennett. I will leave it because it is not
productive to pursue anymore.
Senator Durbin. Well, this automation will really slow
things down.
TRAVEL FUNDING REQUEST
Let me ask you about this travel request of $1.7 million, a
58 percent increase. Any basis for that?
General Scott. Yes, sir. The specific request for travel
for 2003 is $213,000 or 14 percent over the 2002 funding. The
reason we have to do more travel is our work to implement all
of the networks that the Library is developing and involved
with in our digital futures initiative.
Senator Durbin. A 58 percent increase over a 2-year period?
Dr. Billington. This was a specific recommendation of the
National Academy of Sciences study. As they enjoined us to do
this massive program for retaining Born Digital materials, they
said one of the major inhibiting factors was the fact that it
could not possibly be accommodated on the travel budget we
have. We have now reviewed and found out that in the first
year, getting into this business of determining a shared
national plan, there is just an awful lot more travel we have
to do, in addition to bringing the advisors in, which is done
under the other budget.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Mr. Mulhollan, we will make your statement a part of the
record. If you would like to summarize it for us at this point.
TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett. I
do appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
present our fiscal year 2003 budget request. Our request this
year focuses on two areas of critical importance to the
Nation's security and future stability: terrorism and homeland
security, and the aging of the U.S. population.
We are all too well aware, the September 11th terrorist
attacks on the United States have fundamentally altered
America's way of life. In all the years the U.S. Government has
had to confront organized terrorism, the challenges of
deterrence, detection, interdiction, immediate response, and
incident remediation have never been as great and the
consequences of failure more potentially catastrophic. The
September 11th attacks, the subsequent anthrax ordeal, and the
unfolding responses have few precedents in terms of their
impact on virtually all U.S. programs and policies.
The budgetary implications of these events and the ongoing
war against terrorism will be equally profound. Current
estimates for homeland security appropriations are $29 billion
in fiscal year 2002, and nearly $38 billion requested for
fiscal year 2003. Future costs will likely continue to rise,
accompanied by numerous questions about how much is adequate,
how priorities should be set, and how resources should be
allocated. New policies and programs may need to be developed
to defend against conventional, biological, chemical, and
nuclear attack by improving our threat assessment and response
capabilities, the whole notion of Federal coordination, law
enforcement capabilities, and public health services.
Congress must be prepared to address these challenges in
both the short and long term. CRS must be prepared to help you.
Congress and CRS already have a strong history of working
together on terrorism-related issues. However, there are
several important areas of expertise that we have been unable
to offer you up to this point. These areas are Islamic and
Arabic affairs, epidemiology, biochemistry, infrastructure
engineering, and comparative religions.
These are not capacities to be acquired temporarily on
contract. Nor are they capacities that are resident in CRS's
current mix of staff. They are fundamental to new competencies
that Congress must have available in order to legislate
effectively on issues related to terrorism and homeland
security, issues that are likely to be at the center of the
congressional agenda for many years to come. Without this
infusion of new expertise, CRS support to Congress on these
critical national issues will be incomplete. Accordingly, I am
requesting 5 FTE's and $572,000 to hire senior expertise in
each of these five areas.
AGING OF THE U.S. POPULATION
The second component of our fiscal year 2003 request is for
additional capacity to address issues related to the aging of
the U.S. population. These issues will affect the lives of
millions of Americans and have a profound impact on our
economy, our health care system, and a whole range of social
policies and services from now until well into the foreseeable
future.
The budgetary implications of these issues are enormous.
Annual Federal spending associated with retirement and
disability programs will reach $1 trillion for the first time
in fiscal year 2002. This spending amounts to half of all
Federal spending, 9 percent of GDP. These programs, the largest
of which, of course, is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
and Federal employee retirement, already dominate the fiscal
policy debate. Projections indicate that under current
policies, these programs will continue to grow as a proportion
of total Federal spending and GDP as the U.S. population grows
older.
Against this backdrop of fiscal concern, Congress is under
pressure to address perceived weaknesses in current benefits
for the aged, and these pressures are likely to grow as the
number of elderly Americans begins to accelerate. Indeed, over
the next 30 years, the population over 65 is projected to
double and will constitute 20 percent of the population in
2030.
Recognition of the future rapid aging of the population is
already driving current legislative activity on private
pensions, retirement savings, proposals for prescription drug
coverage, long-term care, military health care for retirees and
dependents, social services for the aging, health personnel and
facilities and other programs focused on the elderly. In
addition, Social Security reform is expected to be a top
legislative issue in the 108th Congress.
To assist you in addressing such a broad set of initiatives
within the context of growing fiscal pressure, I am requesting
seven FTE's and $849,000 to hire senior expertise in genetics,
gerontology, the economics of aging, the economics of health
care, actuarial and demographic expertise.
Finally, I would like to note what I perceive to be a
significant added benefit of funding CRS's fiscal year 2003
budget request. If approved, this request would enable CRS to
continue to build its overall capacity to support the Congress
in the areas of science and technology. Indeed, the expertise
we are requesting in epidemiology, biochemistry, systems
engineering, genetics, and gerontology could be applied broadly
across a wide range of emerging legislative policy issues. As
the budget request demonstrates, science and technology play an
increasingly important role in virtually all areas of public
policy. In order for Congress to legislate effectively in this
increasingly complex world environment, you must have access to
the best scientific minds and technological expertise that this
country has to offer. I believe that CRS can and should play a
role in providing you with this expertise. If approved, this
budget request will assist us in doing so.
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (CRS)
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. I want
to thank you again for the support that this subcommittee has
given to CRS over the years. In particular, I want to thank you
for your generous support of our fiscal year 2002 technology
initiative. I want to assure you that I will continue to adjust
existing staff and resources to align with Congress'
legislative needs. This request for 12 positions reflects new
added capacities that cannot be drawn from other subject areas
without weakening CRS's overall support for Congress across
legislative issues. We take very seriously our mission to
provide the Congress with comprehensive, reliable analysis,
research, and information services that are timely, objective,
nonpartisan, and confidential, thereby contributing to an
informed national legislature. I hope you find that we are
meeting this mission and that we are doing so in a way that
warrants your continued trust and support.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Mulhollan, and I
do find that the Congressional Research Service is widely
respected on Capitol Hill. You do a great job.
Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you.
CRS WORKFORCE DIVERSITY
Senator Durbin. You came to my office and made a similar
presentation and it is a convincing presentation, particularly
in the two areas that you have focused on.
But I have to get back to an earlier question. If you could
not fill 88 vacancies in the last year, what will 12 new FTE's
really mean to you?
Mr. Mulhollan. I would not be here today asking for those
additional 12 positions if I did not believe, notwithstanding
what has happened so far, that we are on a trajectory to fill
all 88 positions by the end of September.
Because you are dealing with the restructuring of the Merit
Selection process as a result of what has been discussed so
far, there was a great deal of up-front work, particularly with
developing the content-valid position descriptions for our
analytical capacity. We have completed that work and we are now
in the process of putting up all those positions. The next 2
months will tell, and I would not be here asking for that
capacity if I did not feel that we can meet it within the
timeframe.
Senator Durbin. Of course, the lawsuit was generated over
questions of diversity.
Mr. Mulhollan. That is correct.
Senator Durbin. In terms of the employees at the
Congressional Research Service, what can you tell me about the
diversity of your work force?
Mr. Mulhollan. A survey done from 1997 through today, we
have been able to increase our diversity from 14 to 16 percent
in minority population.
Senator Durbin. You have increased it from 14----
Mr. Mulhollan. Fourteen to sixteen percent in professional
positions.
Our most recent recruitments for graduate students in
analysts positions have been at 20 percent. So I think we have
a good record, but this is always going to be a ``work in
progress''. We have been aggressive in our recruitment and will
continue to do so, looking at every feasible program to help to
ensure that we reflect the diversity of the Nation.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FORT MEADE STORAGE FACILITIES
I do not want to put you in a difficult position here, Dr.
Billington, but we are concerned about the building of storage
facilities at Fort Meade, which was deeded to the Library
several years ago. Construction of the first module is behind
schedule. A number of code and other issues are outstanding,
and the Architect of the Capitol did not request funds for
designing and constructing additional storage modules at Fort
Meade in his request for fiscal year 2003.
What are the implications for the Library of the slow
progress that the Architect seems to be making in building
storage at Fort Meade? And do you have any comments about that?
I know it is difficult because you are dealing with another
colleague and his budget. But I would ask for your comments and
would like to know what the Library's long-term plan for
storage is.
Dr. Billington. Let me just say one word and then General
Scott can deal with this.
This is a very serious concern for the Library because
these things are very much delayed, and we do take some issue
with our sister agency in terms of the urgency of this and the
need to have it included in the Architect's budget.
There is a great deal of books piling up in the stacks. It
is a very serious problem, and when you consider the various
other problems we have with the delay of things coming in from
the mail, it is really imperative that this facility, which is
way behind schedule, be put at a high priority and carried on.
I will let General Scott talk about it in detail because he
has worked on it.
General Scott. Yes, sir. You asked about the immediate
impact, which is that we do not have ample storage for at least
50,000-plus books, currently located in buildings here on
Capitol Hill but long planned to go into the first module that
we asked to be built at Fort Meade.
FORT MEADE--MODULE ONE
This first module is 5 years overdue. The issues for delay
currently have boiled down to a concern with the fire
protection system. We finally got through to the Architect of
the Capitol on expediting resolution of that issue, and they
are working with an outside consultant. They now tell us that
within 2 weeks we should have a report that documents what
needs to be done in order to finally get that facility open.
FORT MEADE--MODULES TWO AND THREE
As you mentioned, we have modules 2 and 3 for which we need
to have a module completed every 2 years just to handle
critical collections storage requirements.
The Architect took our requests for those two buildings out
of the fiscal 2003 budget request without talking to us. We
have since communicated to him in writing explaining why it is
so critically important for us to have the design and
construction of those two buildings to proceed on schedule. We
have not gotten a satisfactory resolution to this issue as of
this time. Any additional delay will have a significant
negative impact upon the collections and operations awaiting
the long-delayed storage space at Fort Meade.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Bennett, and thank you
to all the members of the panel.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
As part of our ongoing effort to prepare this legislative
appropriation, your testimony has been valuable and we will
probably have some follow-up questions on issues that we did
not touch on this morning.
[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 Richard J. Durbin
mail
Question. The Library began receiving mail only last week and has a
backlog of hundreds of thousands of items of mail dating back to
October. The Library does not expect to get through the backlog until
July. Why will it take this long?
Answer. There were some delays in establishing the off-site mail
facility. The major issue was obtaining an occupancy permit from the
Prince George's County. The permit was finally issued on March 8th. The
Library anticipates that the Off-Site mail facility build-out may be
completed before July 4th, the original projected completion date.
Question. What is the impact on the Library's operations?
Answer. The full impact of the mail delay will not be known until
all of the mail has been located by the United States Postal Service
(USPS) and the Library begins receiving the materials. However, at the
very least the delay has created a new massive backlog of materials. In
addition, the delay will require additional administrative work as
owners of the damaged Copyright submissions will have to be notified
and instructed on how to resubmit their materials and checks. The delay
has also affected the Copyright Office's receipt level--the reason the
Library requested a supplemental for the Copyright Office. The
President submitted an emergency fiscal year 2002 supplemental request
to the Congress on March 21st, which included the Library's request of
$7.5 million for the Copyright Office.
Question. Has the Postal Service been fully cooperative in ensuring
mail is properly irradiated and expeditiously processed on its end?
Answer. No. As part of a Hill-wide task force addressing the many
issues and complexities involved in resuming safe and timely delivery
of mail, the Library has been frustrated by problems with the USPS. The
USPS has been very uncooperative in providing accurate information on
the location of the Library's mail, the volume of mail, and the
irradiation of Flat mail. In addition, delivery schedules have not been
met. The Library continues to work with the local post office and the
Postmaster General to resolve all of these issues.
Question. The Library has requested a $7.5 million supplemental for
the Copyright Office owing to the fact that receipts are far below
normal. Please explain the assumptions behind the $7.5 million, and how
the copyright receipts to date compare to what had been projected?
Answer. The Library is requesting a supplemental of $7.5 million
for the Copyright Office. Actual receipts through January reflect a
loss of $2.5 million or -31 percent as compared to projected receipts
for this time period. February and March receipts each show a greater
drop, -40 percent compared to last year. If the mail does not resume
until early or mid summer, the Copyright Office anticipates that
another $2.5 million in receipts will be lost during the period of
February-May.
Due to the uncertainty of when mail will resume and the condition
of that mail, the Library assumes that receipts for the last four
months of the fiscal year will also be $2.5 million below projected
receipts, resulting in a total projected income loss of $7.5 million.
It should be noted that even if mail does resume around or before July,
many other factors may prevent the Copyright Office from collecting or
processing fees. Many checks received may no longer be valid due to the
length of time that will have passed, requiring a request for new
payment. Irradiated checks may be damaged, preventing the processing of
the checks and also require the Office to request a substitute payment.
Finally, due to the public's knowledge of the mail situation on Capitol
Hill, some individuals may be withholding registration claims until an
announcement is made that mail is once again being delivered to the
Capitol Hill offices. All of these factors make us very concerned about
the Copyright Office's ability to operate without the proposed
additional funds.
Question. To what extent do you expect irradiation to make
materials unusable?
Answer. Some of the irradiated mail received to date has been
unusable. Examples include: melted CD's and cassette tapes; checks
fused into the envelopes; and letters and paper products that are stuck
together and crumble when pulled apart.
Question. What will the impact upon the Library be?
Answer. The most serious impact of receiving damaged materials is
the long-term impact on the Library's collections, as some damaged
collections will not be replaceable. The delay and associated problems
create more backlogs and may require the redirection of staff resources
to process damaged materials and to send letters to donors indicating
damage and need for new materials and checks. This redirection of staff
resources may, in turn, cause delays in other work processes. The
cumulative impact may have future budget implications.
national library in-process arrearage
Question. I understand the National Library's backlog of
uncataloged materials is growing at the rate of 8,300 monographs and
300 new serials each month. It is expected there will be 781,056 serial
issues to be checked in at the beginning of fiscal year 2003. What is
the impact of this backlog on researchers?
Answer. The impact on researchers is extensive. Researchers are
denied access to the most comprehensive and current collection in the
United States, including the greatest foreign language collection in
the United States, and the richest integrated collection--books, maps,
photos, etc.--of recorded human knowledge in the world.
Question. With the additional funds the Library is requesting for
next year ($1.475 million) when will the arrearage be eliminated?
Answer. The delay in mail receipts has enabled the Library to
reduce its in-process materials arrearage significantly. However, the
delayed mail has also created a new arrearage, the bulk of which will
be processed in fiscal year 2003. Therefore, the requested funding and
staffing are now needed to address this mail backlog. Specific tasks
include examining serial issues received in the Library, via copyright
deposit, for irradiation damage, sorting, checking-in on the LC ILS,
and shelving in the curatorial division. The Library estimates that
monthly receipts of the copyright serials will be approximately 83,000
issues per month--the reason why staff and contract support is needed.
Funding and staffing requested reflected one-time costs and will
not be required after fiscal year 2003.
Question. The Library did not receive mail for several months. Has
this allowed the Library to make a big dent on arrearage?
Answer. Yes. During this period of time, staff have reduced the
number of serials to be checked in from 400,000 to 100,000; reduced the
number of books to be accessioned to 35,000; and processed over 1
million items in the cataloging arrearage into the collections.
acquisitions
Question. Last year the Congress provided a special appropriation
of $5 million for the acquisition of a map dating back to 1507 known as
America's birth certificate--the Waldseemuller map. This was a one-time
appropriation for a very special acquisition. The Library has included
$5 million in its ``base'' for fiscal year 2003, increasing the
acquisitions budget from the fiscal year 2001 level of $11 million to a
proposed $16 million. Why?
Answer. Most of the Library's relatively small acquisitions budget
is spent on current materials that cannot be obtained via copyright
deposit. As costs continue to rise--both for current publications,
especially serials, and for unique materials available in the volatile
auction market--the Library's purchasing power to augment its special
collections is steadily diminishing. Special collections--manuscripts,
maps, photographs, rare books, etc.--are almost always very expensive,
and usually available with little or no advance notice.
The acquisition process for the Waldseemuller Map was unique in
that the owner was permitted by terms of the German export license to
sell the object only to the Library of Congress. Therefore, the owner
had no choice but to wait for Congress to provide extra support through
the normal budget process timetable.
Because that kind of situation rarely, if ever, occurs, it is
critical that the $5 million be retained, in the Library's base budget,
for rare and special acquisitions. The Library can negotiate
effectively with sellers and private funders only if it can respond
quickly to these special acquisition opportunities and have some
federal funds available to meet matching requirements. Only then can
the Library continue to build its unique research collections, making
the Library of Congress, America's pre-eminent Library.
Question. Are there specific items the Library anticipates
attempting to acquire?
Answer. There are many examples of collections the Library would
like to acquire including:
--The Forbes Collection of Americana, one of, if not the, best such
collections remaining in private hands. This collection
includes several hundred letters from Washington, Jefferson,
Madison and Lincoln. The estimate for the entire collection,
every piece of which is worthy of being added to the Library's
national research collections, is in the $15 million range.
--The owner of the most comprehensive and important collection of
stage design in the United States has offered to sell this
collection to the Library at a very concessionary price.
However, the Library's inability to offer complete payment in
one year, or to offer ironclad assurance that we can purchase
the collection over a period of years has brought negotiations
for this important acquisition to a standstill.
--Eero Saarinen Collection--extensive archive of architectural
drawings by leading American Modernist architect. Masterpieces
include the drawings for: Dulles Airport terminal; TWA terminal
at JFK airport, CBS headquarters in New York City and the U.S.
Embassy in London. $1.2 million.
--Art Wood Cartoon and Caricature Collection--the world's most
comprehensive collection of original, historical cartoon art in
private hands; includes 30,000 items by more than 3,000 artists
made between 1757 and 1995. $200,000.
--Design proposals for a New World Trade Center--Sixty, highly
imaginative and thought-provoking design concepts created by a
group of well-known and emerging architects worldwide in
response to the destruction of the World Trade Center towers in
New York in September 2001. Conceptual proposals include
sketches, renderings, and multi-media presentations were
exhibited to acclaim at a New York gallery in January-February,
2002; after a show at the National Building Museum in April
through May, the U.S. State Department will enter the works as
the official U.S. display at the 2002 Venice Biennale.
Architects include many of the major figures practicing today--
Michael Graves, Paolo Soleri, Coop Himmelblau, Hugh Hardy, Hans
Hollein, Daniel Liebeskind, and Frei Otto. $400,000.
--Larry Fritsch Baseball Card collection--world's largest and most
comprehensive collection of historic baseball cards; 750,000 to
1,000,000 items spanning the 1880s to present and including
complete sets and editions. $2.5 million.
--John Steptoe Collection--Drawings, sketches, and painting of
renowned African-American author-illustrator of books about
children, old legends, and neighborhoods of his youth.
Publications include: Train Ride, Stevie, Creativity, Mufaro's
Beautiful Daughters, and Uptown. $1.7 million.
--Garth Williams Collection--Illustrator of numerous enduring
classics of American Children's literature, including E.B.
White's Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little, and Laura Wilder's
Little House books. $1.87 million.
Question. To what extent should such items be financed by private
rather than public funds?
Answer. Acquiring documents or other historical treasures that
should be held by and for the American people and exhibited in the
Congress' Library for all to share is an appropriate use of public
funds. While the Library does seek private funds for many of its
collections, securing private funds can be challenging, at best, and
recent events have made this process even more difficult. Reliance on
private funds also brings other complications: flexibility can be lost
due to the demands/wishes of donors; negotiations may not be as timely
as the time-sensitive acquisitions require; the private donors often
require a Federal match. The $5 million will not only allow the Library
to purchase items in a timely manner but also provide the leverage
needed to secure funding from private partners.
law library arrearage
Question. Last year, a special appropriation of $850,000 was
provided to address the significant backlog of material in the Law
Library. What is the status of Law Library arrearages and when will the
Law Library's materials be current?
Answer. The Law Library is on track with an action plan that will
eliminate arrearages in four different categories/processes by the end
of 2003. For example, the looseleaf arrearage has already been reduced
by 184,482 items (20 percent).
While the Law Library does not anticipate any problems in reducing
its current backlog, the impact the mail delay may have in terms of
creating new arrearages is not known.
veterans history project
Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget included $250,000 for the
Veterans History Project and another $476,000 is requested for next
year. The project is also receiving generous support from AARP. Could
you update us on the project?
Answer. The project is unfolding in the way that Congress
envisioned: grandchildren are interviewing grandparents; veterans are
interviewing each other; and schools are identifying subjects and
conducting interviews as class projects. The project is receiving help
from many organizations in 47 states and the District of Columbia,
including veterans associations, libraries, museums, and civic groups.
The Library has developed a complete instruction kit for
organizations and volunteers, available on the project's Web site
(www.loc.gov/folklife/vets) and in print. Large print and audio
versions are also available for the visually impaired. Since the start
of the project, the Library has attracted over 200 official partners.
Close to 40,000 brochures have already been distributed. The Library
receives up to 250 phone calls a day and over 400 submissions have been
received to date, with many more expected. Some members of Congress are
active in this project, organizing projects in their state or
conducting interviews themselves.
This wonderful project assures the American people a personal and
permanent record of our veterans' experiences.
nls/bph digital technology
Question. Last year the National Library Service for the Blind and
Physically Handicapped established a digital long-term planning group.
What has come of this effort and what are the implications of emerging
digital information technologies on the provision of books and
materials to the blind community?
Answer. In 1990, the National Library Services (NLS) began its
long-term planning to convert to a digital system to assess the impact
of the emerging digital technologies on the NLS program and to
investigate the opportunities they provide. In 2001, a long-term
planning group was formed. The group, which has met twice, advises NLS
on the impact on NLS consumers and network libraries of the transition
to a digital audio distribution system, has already provided feedback
on the options for audio book distribution, and contributed to the
gathering of cost data for the system. NLS plans to convene the
committee twice a year for the next five years to lead the program into
the digital age and to guide the development of the digital talking
book.
Digital technologies are already changing the way blind persons
access information, especially as information increasingly becomes
available electronically and accessible to the technically-able in the
blind community. The future use of commercial audio books as a
mainstream publication medium has significant potential. Improvements
in synthesized speech will also enhance information delivery. The long-
term planning group was formed to look at these technologies and assess
their viability for the blind community in general and for the NLS
patron base, in particular.
The development of the digital talking book by NLS is seen to have
very specific implications on the provision of books and materials to
the blind community. Some key aspects of the new technologies under
investigation are:
--Increase ease of use of recorded media (less manipulation of
media).
--Improved sound quality.
--Faster access to information within a document (enhanced navigation
tools).
--Improved interaction with digital media (ability to set bookmarks,
highlight material, etc.)
--Potentially more information accessible (less processing of data).
--Ability to integrate full text file with recorded human speech to
allow keyword searches, spelling of words and other searches.
--Choice of format for accessing text file (human speech, synthetic
speech, braille, large print).
--Direct access to audio materials via the Internet, once sufficient
bandwidth is widely available at a reasonable cost.
Question. With an inventory of more than 700,000 cassette tape
machines, any change will be very expensive. Are there long-term budget
implications we should be aware of?
Answer. The NLS projects that digital audio will be of comparable
cost to current analog cassette system. The impact on NLS budget will
be primarily during the critical transition years as digital copies of
existing audio books are created and as digital playback devices are
built at a higher rate than the normal replacement rate. It is
projected that an additional $70 million, with no-year authority, will
be required to produce an adequate number of digital audio machines for
a period of five years from the date of the first manufacture. At the
end of that period, the current level of funding will be sufficient to
meet patron requirements.
Question. When will the Library request additional funds?
Answer. The NLS plans to make the first request for additional
funds in fiscal year 2005, although the fiscal year 2005 and fiscal
year 2006 budget requests will be nominal. Requests for significant
increases will begin in fiscal year 2007.
global legal information network
Question. The Law Library is requesting $3 million and 6 FTEs to
create a fully functional Global Legal Information Network (GLIN). GLIN
has been under development, without dedicated funding, for a number of
years to provide timely access to primary sources of law including
``born-digital'' sources. I understand over a 5-year period the Law
Library will be seeking $12.7 million to expand GLIN to a core of 50
countries. Can you explain the importance of this program?
Answer. The GLIN is the foundation of the digital law library and
consistent with the goals of the Library's digital futures program. It
serves as the database for foreign and U.S. Law and currently includes
90,000 law summaries, over 32,000 full texts of legal instruments, and
over 250 legal writings. The network consists of 15 member nations, two
international organization members. The Law Library contributes the
laws of 24 Portuguese, Spanish and French speaking nations and the
United States. These numbers will increase to 50 participating
countries with planned outreach efforts during the next five years. The
database/network is critical to the work of the Law Library, ultimately
reducing paper documents and related storage space issues, increasing
staff efficiency and productivity, and providing more immediate access
to all materials.
Question. Why is a specific appropriation needed for the first
time?
Answer. Limited resources have precluded even basic technological
upgrades to the GLIN. No new GLIN system functionality has been
implemented since 1998 and obsolete technology is impeding the growth
of the network. An infusion of resources is necessary now to implement
a critical system upgrade. No funding or reduced funding will result in
the gradual loss of current members and will prevent the attraction of
new members, eventually leading to the demise of the system. The
proposed upgrades to the GLIN can be accomplished in a relatively short
period of time with readily available technology.
Question. How will the expansion of this system benefit the
Congress?
Answer. The system will benefit Congress by providing current and
accurate information on legislation enacted by other nations.
Heightened national security and growing economic interdependence makes
GLIN indispensable in responding to Congress on foreign issues. Recent
major multinational studies exemplify the use and great potential of
the GLIN endeavor: Legislative responses to terrorism in various
countries; health emergencies including anthrax and other contagious
diseases; computer security; and law and policy related to cloning.
computer security
Question. As shown in the annual financial statements for several
years, the Library's auditors have reported an internal control
weakness in computer security. The Library's on-line services are
important to the legislative branch operations and to the nation. What
steps are you taking to address the auditors' concerns and to improve
the Library's computer security?
Answer. The Library continues to upgrade its computer security
through a number of measures:
--External LC firewall deflected over 1 million unauthorized
connection attempts in CY 2001.
--Authorized remote access to LC's internal network is secured
through Virtual Private Network which encrypts data traffic and
requires user authentication prior to use.
--Recent penetration studies reveal no significant network security
vulnerabilities from external (Internet) sources.
--There have been no major incidents or break-ins in the two years
since the January 2000 defacement of the THOMAS system web
page.
Other improvements include upgraded router security, internal
computer security training for all LC staff, and card access security
to the LC central computer facility.
Future Plans include:
--Request for two additional IG auditors in fiscal year 2003 to
increase computer security audits.
--Replicating the central Library data center at a remote facility
for the purposes of disaster recovery and/or speedy recovery
from security incidents. This work is in cooperation with the
House and Senate, using the $16 million provided in the fiscal
year 2002 emergency supplemental.
--Hiring a computer security/communications expert to help document
security policies and procedures across all service units.
--Conducting monthly or quarterly internal network security
penetration studies.
--Installing redundant capabilities to the central firewall to
eliminate the possibility of an unscheduled firewall outage.
--Adding processor power to scan for viruses and inappropriate
content and other security tools.
--Card access security to all telecommunication closets.
hiring and avue system
Question. Did the negotiated agreement specifically call for an
automated hiring system?
Answer. Yes. The negotiated agreement specifically stated that
Appendix B or the new hiring process would be implemented via an
automated system to ensure content validity and objectivity.
Question. Has the Library been able to hire staff under the new
system?
Answer. Yes. In addition to the 144 employees hired under the
automated system, the Library has also selected 113 professional and
administrative employees under the old merit hiring system for a total
of 257 hires.
Question. Has the project manager been able to help with the
implementation of the automated system?
Answer. Yes. The Project Manager coordinated the review of the
Library's hiring process to develop Standard Operating Procedures. The
Project Manager also drafted a Customer Requirements Document to ensure
that the automated system meets the Library's hiring needs. This work
was accomplished at the same time that critical positions were being
filled.
Question. What has been the impact of the Library's new selection
process on workforce diversity?
Answer. The Library has continued its strong record of a diverse
professional and administrative workforce, a record that exceeds the
federal government as a whole. Under the new process, 28.5 percent of
all professional and administrative selections have been minorities,
and overall, 31 percent of the Library's professional and
administrative employees are minorities.
Question. Does the Library believe that filling a job in 80 days is
a good benchmark for the Library?
Answer. While an 80 day recruitment process is not an optimum goal
in filling a vacancy it does represent an aggressive milestone. An 80-
day fill time is more impressive when one understands the complexities
of and specific steps required in the hiring and selection of staff
based on a fair and open competition.
hiring system
Question. Dr. Mulhollan, I understand there has been no hiring at
CRS for almost a year under the new automated hiring system. When do
you expect to be able to hire staff? What has been the impact on your
operations?
Answer. At the March 13th Senate hearing, I stated that CRS plans
to fill 79 positions under the new automated hiring system and nine
positions under alternative hiring programs (such as the Law Recruit
Program). Since that time, the details of our hiring time line have
been updated as follows:
April:
--Complete selection for a Review Specialist.
--Post 12 analyst positions, with selections to be completed during
August and September.
May/June:
--Complete selections for two Public Affairs Coordinators.
--Post the remaining 38 analyst positions, with selections to be
completed between September and December.
June/September:
--Post an additional 26 non-analyst positions, with the first
selections being completed in September.
October:
--Post the 12 new analyst positions requested in the fiscal year 2003
request, with selections being completed in the second quarter
of fiscal year 2003.
Decreased coverage and service quality for the Congress:
Operating with 57 analyst vacancies has been difficult. While CRS
has met all of the Congressional requests, we do not believe that our
analysis has always reflected the depth that might have been possible
if we were fully staffed. Even with the imminent resumption of hiring,
restoring full service to the Congress cannot be accomplished
immediately. New policy experts typically take several years to acquire
the level of knowledge and skills needed to operate with full
effectiveness. New staff will have missed out on mentoring
opportunities from seasoned experts who are beginning to retire in
greater numbers, as we had anticipated. CRS service to Congress in
numerous areas of expertise is currently seriously compromised by staff
departures and unfilled positions. These areas include the following:
Agricultural economics
Appointments and confirmations
Aviation safety and security
Biometrics
Business taxation
Civil rights, equal rights, violence against women
Defense budget
Disease control
Europe-U.S. relations, NATO, EU
Federal laboratory research and management
Financial institutions, regulation and oversight
Global securities markets
Hazard and risk assessment
Impeachments and standards of proof
Industrial technology and infrastructure
Information technology and govt. IT management
Intergovernmental finance and taxation
International monetary systems
International natural disaster assistance
International finance
Judicial reform and improvement
Law and information technology
Military base closures: local impacts and assistance
National defense stockpiles
Natural disasters
research, mitigation and assistance
Ocean and coastal resources
Postal affairs
Productivity and U.S. living standards
Proliferation of nuclear and other sensitive technologies and weapons
Public health policy
Refugee policies
Regulatory commissions and regulatory reform
Research and development incentives
Social security and long-term reform
Social security and the Federal budget
South Asia
U.S. relations
Stem cell research
Tax administration
Trade in financial services
World health threats and assistance
World oil and gas resources and recovery
Disruptions in on-going efforts to strengthen and upgrade business
operations:
Important operational and strategic reviews affecting CRS' ability
to improve Service-wide business operations have been delayed this year
because substantial senior management resources had to be redirected to
help implement the new hiring process. Some significant examples
include the following:
--A major, one-time effort to incorporate ideas and reactions of all
CRS staff on enhancing our service to the Congress was
suspended six months into the process.
--Efforts to develop an online capability for facilitating
congressional access to CRS resources focused on current
legislative issues were truncated and that capability now
operates at a lower level of service than planned.
--A functional review to evaluate and determine the best use of
information resource specialists and CRS' recently enhanced
information technology to integrate electronic information
resources more fully and effectively into research activities
has been on hold for about a year.
Further, from time to time, research responses to congressional
requests have been less than optimal. Senior researchers have had to
assume operational duties, such as review and project management
responsibilities for senior managers whose time had to be diverted to
help implement the new hiring process.
Question. What are you doing to adjust workload internally rather
than asking for additional FTEs?
Answer. In my opening remarks before the Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch Appropriations, I assured the members that CRS was
continuing to adjust existing staff and resources to align with
Congress' legislative needs. The request for twelve additional
positions reflects new added capacities that cannot be drawn from other
subject areas without weakening CRS' overall support to Congress across
all legislative issues.
With regard to the seven additional positions to handle aging
issues, Congress is already, this session, grappling with several major
age-related initiatives such as improved coverage of prescription drugs
under Medicare, new tax incentives to encourage the purchase of long-
term care insurance, and increased staffing and improved employment
conditions in nursing homes and home health care agencies. In addition,
Congress is facing the prospect of major Social Security reform
legislation in the 108th Congress. These issues will affect the lives
of millions of Americans and have a profound impact on our economy, our
health care system, and a whole range of social policies and programs
from now until well into the foreseeable future. These issues also have
a considerable impact on the U.S. budget wherein annual federal
spending associated with retirement and disability programs will reach
$1 trillion for the first time in fiscal year 2002. This spending
amounts to half of all federal spending and 9 percent of the gross
domestic product. Given the enormity of these issues and the costs
associated with them, CRS must be positioned now to assist the
Congress.
With regard to terrorism and homeland security, the five positions
identified in the budget request represent knowledge and skills not
currently resident within the current CRS staffing capacity. CRS has
adjusted work assignments, created teams to foster interdisciplinary
support in issue areas related to combating terrorism and ensuring
homeland security, and has already adjusted baseline capacity to
address some of the policy areas arising from the event of September
11th. The new positions reflect knowledge, skills and work experiences
that the current analyst pool cannot assume for two reasons: (1) the
level of sophistication needed by the Congress is such that current
analysts cannot gain the equivalent expertise quickly; and (2) the
current pool of analysts are fully engaged in supporting other policy
needs of the Congress.
CRS uses a formal and structured process to determine research and
support needs. This process is undertaken at the beginning of each
fiscal year and is reviewed and revised, if needed, regularly. The
Assistant Directors for each research area identify their personnel
needs using a Service-wide ``Needs Assessment'' tool that measures risk
of capacity loss due to planned retirements, historical attrition
rates, and Congress' legislative needs. The Assistant Director for
Finance and Administration and the Assistant Director for Work Force
Development inform this process with reports on the financial condition
of the Service as well as the status of personnel actions such as
hiring and retirements, and contract procurement. At the end of this
process, the Director decides which staffing needs would be filled
given resources. These decisions are reviewed periodically and adjusted
if needed. In addition to this process, CRS is constantly shifting
existing resources within the Service to adjust to Congress'
legislative agenda and needs. The decision to ask Congress for twelve
additional positions in fiscal year 2003 was made after completing a
Service-wide review and determining that the specific research
capacities inherent in these positions could not be met with current
staff or staff identified as part of our fiscal year 2002 hiring
decisions.
Even if it were possible to move analysts from one area to another,
the results would be draconian. CRS would be forced to accommodate the
research needs in equally important issue areas without sufficient
resources.
Question. To what extent is CRS contracting for the needed
expertise, and how effective are contracts in lieu of in-house staff
for getting CRS' work accomplished?
Answer. CRS aggressively pursues the use of contracts to acquire
the capacity needed to meet the needs of the Congress--in any year. The
use of contracts provides some limited relief to current capacity
shortfalls; however, this strategy does not serve the long-term mission
of CRS. The CRS mission can best be carried out with a permanent
workforce that has both institutional knowledge of the legislative
issues facing the Congress and an understanding of the analysis needed
to support Congress' deliberations on these issues. Permanent staff
also gain an organizational loyalty critical to successful public
service.
Having said this, CRS experience with contractors has been very
positive, over a number of years. For example, CRS has used contractors
to develop a database and econometric modeling supporting CRS research
projects, develop seminar presentations by nationally recognized
experts (on terrorism, peacekeeping, budget process), and to complete
selected studies on specific issues for which CRS expertise was not
available, and for which lead time in meeting congressional needs was
not immediate. For the vast majority of Congressional demands on CRS,
use of permanent staff is most efficient and effective. With very few
exceptions Congress places its demands on CRS with some urgency.
Resident experts who are available on demand provide the only feasible
way for CRS to meet the large volume urgent congressional requests in a
timely manner. Congress places a large volume of demands on CRS that
reach across all areas of policy-making. Resident experts who have
experience working together quickly identify the most appropriate
specialist(s) for each set of work requirements and combine forces as
appropriate across disciplines (law, economics, science, international
relations, etc.) or fields (e.g. banking, fraud, pensions, corporate
finance, etc.) to meet the great variety of congressional needs.
Congress works in a setting in which events and responses frequently
evolve rapidly. Resident experts have the flexibility to adjust work in
progress to adapt to new events and evolving legislative proposals.
Because resident experts have continuing responsibilities, they develop
research products that they can and do maintain through updates and
revisions to keep pace with events, including the legislative process.
diversity report
Question. CRS recently completed a report on diversity at CRS. Can
you tell us why CRS undertook this project, and what you found? What is
CRS planning to do to enhance its diversity with respect to the
categories needing improvement, namely Hispanic men and Asian men?
Answer. A copy of the CRS Diversity Report is submitted for the
record. CRS prepared the report for two reasons: (1) to demonstrate
that CRS has been committed to diversity (for a number of years), and
(2) to let the record show that the actions taken over the past few
years has indeed produced a diverse staff in CRS. CRS believes that it
must have a high quality workforce that mirrors the Congress we serve
and the constituencies it represents. The obligation to pursue that
level of diversity in its workforce is one of the core values to which
CRS is fully committed. While this effort is now, and will always be, a
``work in progress'', CRS has successfully employed a diversity
strategy with several component elements:
The first component of the CRS Succession Initiative, was supported
by congressional funding in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. This
initiative involved extensive nationwide recruiting efforts and has
revealed intense competition for a small pool of minority graduate
students (14 percent) reduced further by fewer students seeking public
service. This effort included several components: (1) the CRS Graduate
Recruit Program (41 hires, 20 percent minority) between 1997-2000, (2)
the CRS Law Recruit Program (five hires, 40 percent minority) between
1997-2000, (3) the Presidential Management Intern Program (seven hires,
43 percent minority) between 1997-2000, (4) Research Partnerships
(``Capstone'' projects), and (5) Outreach to Minority-Serving
Organizations (e.g., Atlanta University Center, United Negro College
Fund, Congressional Black Caucus, etc.).
The second component in the CRS diversity strategy is the CRS
Internal Programs which comprise internships, working groups, and
professional development opportunities, such as: project management
coordinators, technical support assistants, and the CRS detail
opportunity program. CRS also participates in the Library's Volunteer
Intern Program, Career Opportunity Plan, and Recruitment and Mentoring
Workgroups.
The third component in the CRS diversity strategy is participation
in many of the Library's diversity programs, including: Hispanic
Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) National Internship
Program (one to two interns per year since 1996), Affirmative Action
Intern Program (three interns in fiscal years 1994-1996), Affirmative
Action Detail Program (participated in the 2000 program), Leadership
Development Program (recently submitted nine project proposals), and
the Executive Potential Program (eight assignments since 1996).
Since the beginning of fiscal year 1994, CRS has lost more staff
than it has been able to replace. For both total staff and professional
staff, however, CRS has been able to hire minorities in a greater
proportion than it has lost. CRS has increased professional minority
staff to 16 percent (total minority staff 33 percent). As of June 2001,
when compared to the national professional civilian labor force, CRS is
at or above parity for Black men and women and Native Americans.
CRS is working to improve under-representation in other areas,
especially for Hispanic men and Asian American/Pacific Island men, the
two categories in which CRS is currently most under-represented. CRS is
focusing recruitment efforts on universities with high concentrations
of Asian and Hispanic students; partnering with specific public policy
schools which have high proportions of Asian and Hispanic students to
undertake research through the ``Capstone'' projects; and meeting with
all Members of Asian-American descent and Members who participate in
the Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus to elicit ideas on how to
improve staff representation.
Director's Report--Diversity in the Congressional Research Service--
November 2001
November 13, 2001.
The sole mission of the Congressional Research Service is ``to
provide the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive
and reliable legislative research, analysis, and information services
that are timely, objective, non-partisan, and confidential, thereby
contributing to an informed national legislature.'' The Service must
carry out that mission, adhering to its core values of client service,
uncompromising integrity, total quality, mutual respect, and diversity.
The commitment of CRS to diversity has been especially apparent in
its recent efforts to meet the challenge presented by the imminent
departure of a large proportion of its staff to retirement. The Service
has operated on many fronts as part of its ``Succession Initiative'' to
take full advantage of the opportunities presented by this transition
period for ensuring for the Congress a talented and diverse workforce
to support its legislative work in the future. The Congress expects no
less, and I am pleased to report on our progress to date and our plans
for the future.
This report outlines many of those efforts that are an integral
part of our succession planning, as well as on-going diversity efforts
that are a regular and permanent feature of CRS programs, policies and
procedures. What is described here is, of course, but a snapshot of
what we have accomplished, where we are today, and what we are working
to achieve in the coming years. Our diversity efforts are, and will
always be, a ``work in progress.'' They must never be a reason for
complacency, but rather a stimulus for further efforts, both new and
old, with the same goal in mind a high quality workforce that mirrors
the Congress we serve and the constituencies it represents.
Daniel P. Mulhollan,
Director.
executive summary
Diversity has long been identified as one of the five core
strategic values of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), and
remains critical to its success as both a congressional support
organization and an organization of people. The impending retirement
eligibility of more than 60 percent of the Service's professional staff
by 2006 offers significant opportunities for CRS in the area of
diversity opportunities that have not been present on this scale since
the early 1970s, when Congress infused the Service with a new mandate
to serve its analytic needs and provided funding for a substantial
increase in staff capacity. Those 1970s hires have largely remained
with CRS and now approach retirement eligibility. With a very low staff
turnover rate and with government-wide budget constraints, CRS has had
but limited opportunity to add new research staff.
Over the past five years, in anticipation of these impending
retirements, CRS has taken a number of actions, including the
following:
--Launching a formal ``Succession Initiative'' supported by
congressional funding, and using it to fill 53 permanent
positions;
--Utilizing national recruitment and hiring programs to attract
minority applicants to CRS programs such as the CRS Graduate
Recruit Program, the CRS Law Recruit Program, and the Federal
Presidential Management Intern Program;
--Targeting universities and public policy schools with high minority
enrollment to serve as recruitment sources for entry level
professional positions visiting over 60 schools;
--Working with higher education institutions, such as Syracuse
University, the University of Texas at Austin, and the
University of California at Los Angeles, to build research
partnerships that include objectives related to the Service's
ability to attract a diverse pool of applicants for CRS
professional positions;
--Forging special connections with minority-serving organizations
such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities, the
United Negro College Fund, the Congressional Black Caucus, the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and others.
In addition to these actions, CRS has developed programs and
initiatives to provide career development opportunities for all staff,
including the creation of a new positions, the formalization of a
detail opportunity program in cooperation with its labor union, the
Congressional Research Employees Association, and participation in the
Career Opportunity Program. CRS has created a program providing work
opportunities for volunteer interns. The Director also created
recruitment and mentoring working groups to further the goal of
enhancing diversity in the implementation of the succession initiative.
CRS has participated in Library diversity programs and initiatives
in order to enhance diversity in professional and administrative
positions throughout the Service; these include the Hispanic
Association of Colleges and Universities National Internship Program,
the Affirmative Action Intern and Detail Programs, the Leadership
Development Program, and the Executive Potential Program.
Finally, examination of data related to the diversity of the CRS
workforce today reveals that, while CRS has been successful in its
diversity programs, work remains to be done especially to attract
Hispanic and Asian men. The Service is fully committed to a continuing
effort to see that its staff mirrors the full range of diversity found
in the Congress itself and in its constituencies.
introduction
Diversity has long been identified as one of the five core
strategic values of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), and
remains critical to its success as both a congressional support
organization and an organization of people.\1\ As an agency charged
with assisting the United States Congress in the formulation and
evaluation of legislative proposals, CRS has sought to ensure that its
research and analysis are reflective of the diversity within the
Congress itself and among the many constituencies that it represents.
Apart from such obligations, CRS also recognizes the organizational
benefits for a workforce community that flow from incorporating diverse
views, multiple disciplines, and a variety of research approaches into
its work activities and culture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The other four core CRS strategic values are client service,
uncompromising integrity, total quality, and mutual respect (as
outlined in ``The Congressional Research Service: Supporting the
Legislative Work of the Congress in a Period of Fiscal Constraint,''
February 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, when recruiting for its professional positions, CRS focuses
on bringing in staff from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. As a
result, since fiscal year 1994, in spite of staff losses, CRS has
increased minority professional staff \2\ slightly and has even reduced
underrepresentation for some groups when compared to the national
civilian labor force. It has been more difficult for other groups,
however, specifically Hispanic men and Asian men who were significantly
underrepresented in fiscal year 1994 and are still underrepresented.
For example, since fiscal year 1994, CRS has lost four professional
Hispanic males to retirement, other employment, or for other reasons--a
higher turnover rate than any other group. CRS has been able to replace
only two of them through outside appointments. For Asian males, CRS has
lost two and hired three, which reduced underrepresentation, but only
slightly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the purpose of this report, the term ``professional staff''
is based on the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Professional,
Administrative, Technical, Clerical and Other (PATCO) definition of
professional. For CRS, this consists of research analysts and
librarians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low turnover rates among professional staff and government-wide
budget constraints have limited CRS's opportunity to add new research
staff over the past several years. However, as the Service faced the
impending retirement eligibility of a large number of its professional
staff over the next few years, it became clear that this situation
offered significant opportunities for further progress in the area of
diversity--opportunities that have not been present on this scale since
the early 1970s, when Congress infused the Service with a new mandate
and provided funding for a substantial increase in staff capacity.
Consequently, CRS sought and received congressional support for a
succession strategy that placed heavy emphasis on finding a diverse
pool of entry-level candidates for the positions being vacated by those
retiring.
This report examines the key strategic actions CRS has undertaken
in recent years to prepare for these impending retirements and to take
advantage of the opportunities they represent for enhancing diversity
within the Service. The report, which will be updated periodically,
also summarizes CRS participation in other ongoing workplace diversity
initiatives, and provides information on the composition and diversity
of the CRS workforce. The Service remains committed to the goal of
further enhancing the diversity of its workforce in all areas.
crs succession initiative
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 greatly expanded the CRS
mission, mandating that the Service provide, without partisan bias,
``analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of legislative proposals.'' \3\
To implement this new mission, Congress appropriated funds for CRS to
hire significant numbers of new staff. Many of the staff hired during
that period have remained with CRS and are now, or soon will become,
eligible to retire. Indeed, by 2006, more than 60 percent of CRS's
professional staff will be eligible to retire, and more than half of
those eligible have indicated that they will in fact retire within this
time-frame.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The mission of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) is to
provide to the Congress, throughout the legislative process,
comprehensive and reliable legislative research, analysis, and
information services that are timely, objective, nonpartisan, and
confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature.
This mission derives directly from the CRS organic statute, codified at
Section 166 of Title 2 of the United States Code. The Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended in 1970, mandated that CRS
perform a variety of functions in fulfilling its responsibilities.
Generally, the Director is obligated, without partisan bias, to
``develop and maintain an information and research capability.''
Specifically, CRS is to advise and assist congressional committees in
``analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of legislative proposals'',
determining advisability of enactment, estimating probable results, and
evaluating alternatives. Upon request or on its own initiative, CRS is
to ``collect, classify and analyze'' information having a bearing on
legislation and to make that information available to Members and
committees. Legislative support is to be provided at all stages of the
process, from the development of proposals, to the preparation and
conduct of hearings, to mark-up and the writing of reports, to final
floor consideration, and beyond to implementation and oversight.
\4\ The CRS staff is comprised of nationally recognized experts in
many disciplines, able to cover the wide range of issues before the
Congress, including law, economics, foreign affairs, the physical and
behavioral sciences, environmental science and natural resources,
public administration, and the social sciences. The work of these
experts can be undertaken through a synthesis of existing research or
through original analysis based on models, unique databases, or other
analytical tools which support collaborative internal research efforts.
In addition to these subject experts, CRS staff with years of
experience and institutional memory are available to assist with
matters related to legislative processes themselves--from parliamentary
procedures to budget and appropriations procedures, to matters of
jurisdiction and oversight responsibility. The breadth and depth of
resident expertise enable CRS staff to come together quickly to provide
integrated, cross-cutting analysis on complex issues that span multiple
legislative and program areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this anticipated loss of senior expertise, CRS in 1996
developed a comprehensive risk assessment and succession planning
strategy designed to identify the areas of expertise at greatest risk
through retirements and plan in advance for their replenishment.\5\ The
goal of this Succession Initiative was to obtain congressional funding
to hire a cadre of 60 entry-level staff to work alongside veteran staff
in an apprenticeship capacity before those veteran staff retired, thus
providing the Congress with a seamless transfer of CRS knowledge and
institutional memory. Moreover, CRS sought to use this singular
recruitment opportunity as a means to attract minority applicants to
the Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The CRS workforce will undergo a significant transition during
the next five years. As these retirements are taking place, the nature
of the work in CRS is changing to meet the needs of Congress,
particularly as the Congress moves from a primarily paper-based world
to one that is digitally-dominated. During the past several years, the
Service has taken steps to build its internal capacity to continue to
meet the changing needs of Congress, including realigning the
organization, and implementing a succession plan for professonal staff.
Additionally, CRS has undertaken several internal studies related to
better understanding how the work has changed, particularly as related
to production support and research assistance, information services and
librarianship. These studies all point out the need to re-evaluate our
effectiveness, hone position descriptions, and more precisely identify
competencies and skills needed to perform the work. Finally, CRS is in
the process of creating a five-year strategic plan, and it is clear
that replenishing and developing a talented, diverse staff with the
skills to serve Congress in a technologically fast-paced environment is
a key strategy for CRS if it is to comply with its congressional
mandate and meet its strategic goals for the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, five years later, CRS has achieved much of what it set out
to accomplish. As of this writing, the Service has filled 53 permanent
positions as part of this initiative. Fifteen of these positions were
specifically funded by increased congressional appropriations in fiscal
years 1999 and 2000; the remainder were funded from the CRS base
appropriation. Twenty-five percent of these were minority hires (racial
and ethnic).
I. Utilizing National Recruitment and Hiring Programs
The Service primarily used two CRS-created nationwide recruitment
programs as well as the Presidential Management Intern Program to carry
out its succession initiative.
--The CRS Graduate Recruit Program.--This is a two-phase, competitive
program designed to attract the nation's top graduate students
as they complete their degree programs. Phase one consists of
an initial summer experience for those selected. During this
phase participants work closely with senior CRS staff on a
variety of research and analytical projects intended to expand
their academic knowledge and skills and enhance their
familiarity with the work of CRS. Participants who perform
successfully during this initial summer experience are then
considered for Phase Two of the program--non-competitive
placement in a permanent position with the Service. For
students having already completed their advanced degree, the
program provides an opportunity for immediate conversion to a
permanent position. Students who have not yet earned their
advanced degree return to school and are given the opportunity
for a permanent position upon completion of all degree
requirements.
CRS has hired 41 permanent staff including 8 minorities (20
percent) under the Graduate Recruit program since 1997.
--The CRS Law Recruit Program.--This program offers law students the
opportunity for permanent employment as legislative attorneys
with the CRS American Law Division. The program is open to law
students in their final year of law school. Offers to students
are effective after all requirements for the degree have been
completed, with the understanding that bar membership will be
obtained within a stipulated time period. Since 1997, CRS has
hired five permanent staff under the Law Recruit Program,
including two minorities (40 percent).
--The Federal Presidential Management Intern (PMI) Program.--This is
a national program administered by the Office of Personnel
Management and designed to attract to federal service
outstanding graduate-level students from a wide variety of
academic disciplines having an interest in, and commitment to,
a career in the analysis and management of public policies and
programs. Universities nominate the top ten percent of their
advanced degree candidates to compete in a national pool out of
which 500 interns are selected for placement. CRS has hired
seven staff under the PMI program since 1997, including three
minorities (43 percent). CRS offered rotation opportunities to
eight additional PMIs from other agencies, 25 percent of whom
were minorities.
II. Building and Sustaining Successful University Recruiting
Relationships
The Succession Initiative presented CRS with considerable
opportunities and challenges in the area of university recruitment.
Government-wide budget reductions and exceptionally low CRS staff
turnover rates \6\ resulted in relatively few new hires to the Service
during the late 1980's and early 1990's. Consequently, by the mid-
1990s, many of the Service's university recruitment networks had become
inactive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The typical annual staff turnover rate for CRS in the early
1990s was between 3 and 4 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this problem, CRS launched an aggressive campaign to re-
familiarize graduate school administrators and faculty with the Service
and its work. Specifically, CRS focused its recruitment efforts on
graduate schools (particularly public policy schools) considered to be
of the highest academic caliber and with a high proportion of minority
enrollment. CRS relied on several sources in making these judgments,
notably studies conducted by the Association for Public Policy and
Management (APPAM) and by the National Association of Schools of Public
Affairs and Administration (NASPAA), national school rankings by
various media, and input from resident CRS experts in key policy areas.
The truly national character of the effort is evidenced by the number
and geographic dispersal of universities visited.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The colleges and universities visited by CRS during these
recruitment efforts include: American University, Brigham Young
University, California State University, Hayward, Carnegie Mellon
University, Catholic University, Chicago State University, Clark
Atlanta University, College of William and Mary, Columbia University,
Cornell University, Duke University, Emory University, Florida
International University, Florida State University, Florida A&M,
Georgia State University, George Mason University, George Washington
University, Georgetown University, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Golden Gate University, Harvard University, Howard University, Indiana
University, Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins (SAIS),
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Morehouse College, Morris Brown
College, New York University, Northwestern University, Old Dominion
University, Princeton University, Rutgers University, San Jose State
University, San Francisco State University, Spelman College, Stanford
University, Syracuse University, Texas A&M, The New School for Social
Research, Tufts (Fletcher School), Tulane University, University of
California-Berkeley, University of California-Davis, University of
California-Los Angeles, University of California-San Diego, University
of Chicago, University of Delaware, University of Denver, University of
Illinois, Chicago, University of Maryland-College Park, University of
Maryland-Baltimore, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota,
University of Missouri, Kansas City, University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, University of Pennsylvania,
University of Pittsburgh, University of Rochester, University of
Southern California, University of Texas, Austin, University of Texas,
San Antonio, University of Utah, University of Virginia, University of
Washington, University of Wisconsin, Virginia Commonwealth University,
Washington University, Wayne State University, Yale University.
CRS has conducted its recruitment campaign at several levels. At
the highest level, top CRS management, including the Director, Deputy
Director, and the Associate Director for Research Operations, conducted
personal visits to over 40 universities, meeting with Deans, Career
Counselors, and key faculty. Recruiting at these and other graduate
schools was also undertaken across CRS by top managers and other senior
staff.\8\ As part of its Graduate Recruit Program, CRS enlisted the
further support of 39 staff who volunteered to visit and maintain
relationships with graduate school career counselors and faculty
members.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Six CRS research divisions (the American Law Division, the
Domestic Social Policy Division, the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division, the Government and Finance Division, the Information
Research Division, and the Resources, Science, and Industry Division)
and the Office of Information Resource Management participated.
\9\ In selecting staff to serve as recruiters, careful attention
was paid to ensure diversity. In addition to being racially and
ethnically diverse, recruiters represented a range of CRS divisions and
subject areas and a mix of new and veteran staff. Where possible,
recruiters were paired in two-person teams that joined senior staff
with more recent hires, and minorities with non-minorities. Recruiters
participated in formal training sessions that emphasized diversity as a
core CRS value, and were provided information on how to target minority
groups and organizations on graduate school campuses. When available,
the names and telephone numbers of university minority recruitment
coordinators were also provided to recruiters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, CRS has maintained an active presence at the following
regional minority career fairs: the Mid-Atlantic Black Law Students
Association Job Fair, the Midwest Minority Recruitment Conference, the
Northeast Black Law Students Association Job Fair, the Southeastern
Minority Job Fair, the Sunbelt Minority Recruitment Program, and the
University of California at Berkeley Diversity Career Fair--a three-day
event that is considered to be the largest diversity job fair of its
kind in the United States.
The importance of maintaining relationships with the academic
community cannot be overstated. First and foremost, they offer CRS an
opportunity to inform key university officials about the work of CRS
and to promote the Service as a potential employer. At the same time,
they provide an opportunity for CRS to learn about the latest trends in
university recruiting from some of the top graduate schools in the
United States. For example, through these relationships, CRS learned
that many graduate schools were experiencing a decline in the number of
graduates interested in pursuing public service careers.\10\ For those
graduates who are choosing public service as a career, CRS was told
that the promise of substantive work and the opportunity to ``make a
difference'' are the most important considerations.\11\ CRS has
witnessed first-hand that competition for top graduates is increasing
among both public and private sector organizations, many of whom are
able to offer graduates signing bonuses, increased benefit packages,
student loan forgiveness options, and workplace flexibility such as
work-at-home, telecommuting, casual dress, and flexible work hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ This observation has since been echoed by several public
administration scholars, most notably Paul Light at the Brookings
Institution. In his 1999 research study, ``The New Public Service'',
Light observes that the number of public policy and administration
graduates taking first jobs with the government has decreased steadily
from 76 percent in 1973/74, to 68 percent in 1983, to 49 percent in
1993. See also, Chetkovich, Carol A. ``Winning the Best and Brightest:
Increasing the Attraction of Public Service.'' The
PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for The Business of Government, Human
Capital Series (July 2001).
\11\ Heather Barrett, et al. ``Recruiting Strategies for the
Congressional Research Service'', a research study conducted by
students of the Maxwell School at Syracuse University, June 11, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These relationships have also provided a forum for CRS to exchange
ideas, observations, and experiences on how to successfully recruit
minority graduate students. By initiating this dialogue on diversity,
CRS has gained valuable insights into the factors that motivate
minority graduate students to pursue careers in public service.
Perhaps most significantly, CRS learned that the pool of minority
graduate degree recipients is proportionately small--in the 1996-1997
school year, only 14 percent of all graduate degree recipients were
minorities.\12\ In the fields of public administration, law, library
science, and social science--fields which traditionally have yielded
large numbers of hires for CRS--the pool of minority graduate degree
recipients is even smaller. In these fields, a recent study suggests
that minorities represent only 7 percent of the graduate degree
recipients.\13\ As a result, there is strong competition for the top
minority graduate students among both public and private sector
organizations. In terms of incentives that attract minority graduates
to particular organizations, it became evident that minority graduate
students typically are attracted to diverse organizations in diverse
communities, and to jobs that offer an opportunity to make a difference
and impact change. CRS also learned that proximity to family,
availability of student loan forgiveness programs, access to mentors
and other senior minority employees, and workplace flexibility were
also mentioned as important factors minority graduate students consider
in their job search.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ National Center for Education Statistics, ``Degrees and Other
Awards Conferred by Title IV Eligible, Degree-granting Institutions:
1996-97''.
\13\ Ellen Rubin, et al. ``CRS Succession Planning: Diversity and
Reform'', a research study conducted by students of the Maxwell School
at Syracuse University, June 9, 2000.
\14\ These observations were later confirmed by Ellen Rubin, et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Establishing Research Partnerships
In addition to efforts focused exclusively on recruitment, CRS also
commenced partnerships with select universities through their
``capstone'' projects--graduate course work designed to give students
the opportunity to work on ``real world'' issues for ``real'' clients
as a final component of the curriculum.\15\ Concomitantly, CRS and the
Congress benefit from the substantive research resulting from these
efforts. As a ``spin-off'' of CRS recruiting efforts of the past few
years, the capstone effort has focused on many of the same schools
targeted by the Graduate Recruit Program and by other Service actions
aimed at attracting a diverse pool of talented applicants for each
hiring opportunity presented. The recruiting efforts that have led to
examination of capstone programs specifically targeted schools with
strong diversity postures. Reciprocally, involvement in capstone
projects clearly helps CRS attain its goal of identifying and
attracting minority candidates for positions at CRS. One of the
projects undertaken through this program evaluated general recruitment
efforts of CRS and another focused specifically on recruiting diverse
candidates.\16\ The panel for the latter project was itself highly
diverse, with 3 of the 7 graduate students (43 percent) being
minorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Angela Evans, et al. ``University ``Capstone'' Programs,
Congressional Research Service Opportunities for Cooperative Public
Research Projects for the Congress'', October 2000.
\16\ These studies were conducted by the Maxwell School of
Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, which has
produced several other studies in recent years as part of the capstone
programs. CRS also has entered into an agreement for two projects with
the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of
Texas. The Service has been exploring further partnerships with the
University of California at Los Angeles School of Public Policy and
Social Research, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University, and the School of International and Public Affairs at
Columbia University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is generally recognized that one of the most effective
recruiting tools is ``word of mouth.'' The capstone concept not only
educates students, both minority and non-minority, to the nature of CRS
work, but also gives them a glimpse of how we operate and the positive
aspects of a CRS career. Whether the students working on the project
prove interested in applying for a position with CRS or not,
information about the agency travels throughout the program and leads
to expressions of interest by students who learn of CRS from classmates
and faculty. Capstone projects also provide CRS an opportunity to gauge
the quality of students at a particular school and to look at the
curriculum and points of emphasis in the training received. CRS
managers who visit these schools in the course of carrying out a
capstone project are also thereby positioned to conduct recruiting
sessions with students, discuss potential candidates with faculty, and
continue fostering a positive relationship with the schools for future
recruiting and collaborative purposes.
As part of its capstone project with the Maxwell School of
Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, CRS submitted a
proposal requesting that a team of Master of Public Administration
candidates recommend means by which it can bolster the recruitment of
qualified minority candidates. A team of graduate students under the
supervision of a senior faculty member was assigned to this task. This
project joins a series of efforts CRS has recently undertaken to
increase diversity in its succession planning, including a risk
assessment and the creation of an Office of Workforce Development.
The Maxwell report \17\ made recommendations in the categories of
facilitating change in organizational culture; supporting and
encouraging minority networking; broadening the scope of external
contacts; enlarging the target recruitment pool; modifying the current
application process; developing standard recruitment training; creating
the Office of Workforce Development; implementing professional
development strategies; and augmenting current CRS strategies. Many of
the recommendations expand or increase existing actions or programs at
CRS. The report recognized that CRS had already taken many positive
steps toward achieving its goal of diversifying its workforce, and
recommended that CRS continue with these actions or programs: focusing
on a ``promotion without competition'' philosophy \18\; streamlining
the application process; creating relationships with professors; using
internet and mail for schools that CRS was unable to visit; and
expanding the functions of the Office of Workforce Development. The
team also cited additional CRS actions such as using analysts as
recruiters; participating in minority career fairs, conferences and
symposia; and conducting outreach to minority fellowship organizations,
as actions that should be encouraged and supported by CRS as an
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Ellen Rubin, et al. ``CRS Succession Planning: Diversity and
Reform'', a research study conducted by students of the Maxwell School
at Syracuse University, June 9, 2000.
\18\ CRS analysts are placed in a career ladder that runs up to GS-
15. The ``ladder'' allows analysts to be promoted without having to
compete against colleagues, which not only provides attractive upward
mobility potential, but also promotes team work and collegiality in the
workplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Forging Special Connections with Minority-Serving Organizations
In addition to the recruitment efforts outlined above, CRS has, as
part of its ongoing recruitment and hiring activities, conducted
extensive outreach to organizations that promote diversity in higher
education. These organizations include Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs), national minority organizations and education
associations such as the United Negro College Fund, and congressional
organizations such as the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. The nature and scope of these
relationships are described below.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
Over the past several years, CRS has worked with HBCU
administrators and faculty in pursuit of three objectives: (1) to
promote CRS as a potential employer of HBCU students; (2) to encourage
HBCU students to consider public service as a career option; and (3) to
encourage undergraduate HBCU students to consider graduate study as a
means to fulfilling their long-term career objectives.
For example, CRS has undertaken efforts to recruit at the Atlanta
University Center (AUC), made up of Clark Atlanta University, Morehouse
College, Spelman College, and Morris Brown College, to develop a
program for providing paid summer work experiences for students with
outstanding academic credentials and to explore the feasibility of a
faculty sabbatical program with the Service. Several visits to these
schools by the Director, the Deputy Director, and an Associate Director
resulted in an inaugural program for the summer of 2001.
The first student nominated by the AUC for the intern program has
now completed his work experience with the CRS American Law
Division.\19\ Feedback from the student, his CRS mentor, and his
supervisor indicates that the program was highly beneficial to both the
student and CRS. Based on this feedback, the Service will continue to
work with the AUC schools to develop and potentially expand the program
for the coming academic year. The AUC program is a direct outgrowth of
the recruiting efforts CRS has undertaken at Clark Atlanta University,
Morehouse College, and Spelman College over the past several years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ A graduating senior at Morehouse College worked with CRS over
the summer of 2001, before going on to graduate work in education at
Columbia University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the AUC program, the Service has also conducted
extensive outreach with Howard University, both through the Ralph J.
Bunche International Affairs Center and the Patricia Roberts Harris
Public Affairs Program. Specifically, CRS has provided internship
opportunities to Howard University students, and participated in career
fairs and made presentations to various student groups and
organizations on campus.\20\ In addition, CRS has made available to the
Bunche Center a senior CRS librarian who was instrumental in helping
the University establish and organize an international affairs library.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ CRS has established personal relationships with both past and
present Howard University administrators, including the current
President, H. Patrick Swygert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Minority Organizations and Education Associations
In establishing recruiting relationships with various universities,
CRS was made aware of several groups that offer valuable perspectives
and networks for minority recruiting. One such group is the Institute
for International Public Policy (IIPP). Administered by the United
Negro College Fund, the IIPP is a fellowship program designed to
identify, recruit, and prepare under-represented minority
undergraduates for careers in international service. Working with the
Director of the IIPP, CRS developed a program for providing paid summer
work experiences to qualified IIPP Fellows. CRS selected its first IIPP
Fellow in the spring of 2001.\21\ Based on the initial success of this
program, CRS is currently considering options for expanding its
relationship with the IIPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ A Morehouse graduate, returning from work in China, worked as
an IIPP Fellow in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of
CRS for the summer of 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS has also regularly attended recruiting events and annual
conferences of minority organizations such as Blacks in Government
(BIG), the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education (NAFEO), the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), and the National Urban League.
Similarly, CRS has taken an active role in higher education
associations such as the Association for Public Policy and Management
(APPAM), the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and
Administration (NASPAA), and the Association of Professional Schools in
International Affairs (APSIA), as well as professional associations
such as the American Bar Association, the American Library Association,
the American Political Science Association, etc. Specifically, CRS has
participated in annual career fairs and job expos sponsored by these
organizations, attended meetings with key organization representatives
and affiliates, participated in various panels and symposia, and
delivered speeches and presentations on diversity-related topics.
Congressional Organizations
CRS has established recruiting relationships with both the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) and the Congressional
Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF). CRS's involvement with the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute has centered around the CHCI
Public Policy Fellows Program. The CHCI Fellowship Program accepts up
to 20 promising Hispanics each year from across the country, Puerto
Rico, and Guam. The purpose of the program is to provide Fellows with
hands-on experience at the federal level in the public policy area of
their choice. For the past several years, CRS has participated in the
formal orientation program for CHCI Fellows by making a presentation
about career opportunities in Washington, DC. This year, CRS is seeking
to expand its relationship with the CHCI program by serving as a job
placement site for one or more CHCI Fellows.
CRS is working to develop a similar relationship with the
Congressional Black Caucus Foundation in the near future. The CBCF
sponsors a number of internship and fellowship programs for both
undergraduate and graduate students. CRS has traditionally been
involved in providing legislative training for these interns and
fellows, but has not served as a job placement site for CBCF Fellows.
Discussions are currently underway with the CBCF to determine whether
CRS might be included as a placement site for CBCF Fellows during
congressional recesses. CRS is also working with the CBCF to expand the
training opportunities available to CBCF Fellows.
crs internal diversity programs and initiatives
In addition to recruitment and outreach efforts directed at outside
institutions and organizations, CRS has developed programs and career
development opportunities for its own staff. This section of the report
highlights those programs, opportunities, and activities.
Project Management Coordinators
Over the past five years, CRS has undergone a number of
organizational reviews. One such review resulted in the elimination of
the senior level position of Coordinator of Research. This was followed
by an examination of the administrative \22\ and managerial support
provided to senior managers throughout the Service to determine their
needs in this area. As a result of this examination, the Project
Management Coordinator position was created in 1997. This position, in
a promotion plan to the GS-15, was made available to each office and
division and was posted limited to the Service as a means of providing
CRS staff with an opportunity to compete for it. As a result, out of
the 14 project management coordinator positions filled, five (36
percent) were filled by minorities (4 African-American and one
Hispanic).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The term ``administrative positions'' is also based on OPM's
PATCO definition. For CRS this consists of certain senior managers,
technical information specialists, computer specialists, information
specialists, administrative officers, management specialists, project
management coordinators, and certain other administrative positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Support Assistants
In early 1995, CRS determined that there was a need for mid-level
computer specialist assistance not only in its Technology Office, but
also in its 12 divisions and offices. As a result, a GS-12 was added to
the GS-7 to GS-11 Technical Support Assistant career ladder to meet
this need. Subsequently, in March 1995 CRS began posting these
administrative positions at various grade levels. To provide
advancement opportunities for its non-professional staff, most of the
vacancy announcements were posted under the Library's Affirmative
Action Intern Program, the CRS Career Opportunity Program, or through
vacancy announcements limited to Library or CRS staff. Since that time,
16 appointments have been made to these positions, 11 (69 percent) were
filled by minorities.
Detail Opportunity Program
In May 1996, with the cooperation and agreement of the
Congressional Research Employees Association (CREA), CRS began a
process under which it posts throughout the Service notices of detail
opportunities. This program was designed as a means of increasing the
Service's capacity to shift resources quickly and effectively in order
to meet the ever increasing and changing needs of Congress. Through
this program, CRS provides employees at various levels within the
organization an opportunity to fill a temporary need (not to exceed one
year) within a division or office while at the same time providing them
with work experience in an area of interest. Since this program was
launched, out of the 32 selections made, 17 (53 percent) were
minorities.
Volunteer Intern Program
The Volunteer Intern Program was developed in June 1994 by a
committee tasked by the Director to explore the possibility of
expanding the gratuitous services program as a way to bring in
volunteers to supplement the work performed by the permanent staff
during a period of budgetary constraints. While intern opportunities
are available to professionals at all levels, the primary focus of this
program is to recruit undergraduate and graduate students from
institutions with programs that reflect the work we do at CRS and that
have a diverse student enrollment. By recruiting students from diverse
social and cultural backgrounds, CRS has been able to identify a
broader pool of volunteers and to build strong relationships and
partnerships with participating colleges, universities and
organizations. During fiscal year 2001, the Service brought in 17
student volunteers under this program. Three of these students (18
percent) were minorities.
Career Opportunity Plan (COP)
COP is a career development program that is part of the Collective
Bargaining Unit Agreement between the Library and the Congressional
Research Employees Association (CREA). It was developed to provide CRS
non-professional staff with the opportunity to use their knowledge,
skills and abilities to compete for professional opportunities. There
are two primary components, the position component and the detail
component. Under the position component, selectees participate in the
program for two years, during which they receive on-the-job training
and assignments designed to provide them with ample opportunity to
demonstrate their capacity to perform professional work. Following
successful completion of the two year program, participants remain
permanently in the new professional positions. The detail component
involves the announcement of a competitive six-month detail to a policy
analyst or legislative attorney position for the purpose of enabling
detailees to gain creditable research experience. Since its inception,
17 CRS staff have been selected under this program, four of whom (24
percent) were minorities.
Recruitment and Mentoring Working Groups
In an effort to further the Service's goal of enhancing diversity
in implementing its succession initiative, in March 1998, the Director
established two diversity working groups, one on recruitment and one on
mentoring. The recruitment working group focused on reviewing and
strengthening the Service's processes to attract a diverse applicant
pool for permanent professional positions. The mentoring working group
focused on exploring ways to incorporate mentoring of new staff into
the Service's work environment as well as identifying ways to mentor
current staff who move into different areas of responsibility. Upon
completion of their work, these groups provided a report to the
Director that included a number of recommendations. Many of the
recruitment recommendations are currently being implemented. While
mentors are assigned to staff hired under special programs, because of
staff shortages, most of the recommendations of the mentoring working
group will not be implemented until additional staff are hired.
ongoing participation in library-wide diversity activities
While succession planning provided a strategic framework in which
to focus on diversity during the past five years, CRS also regularly
participates in Library-wide workplace diversity programs and
activities.\23\ These programs include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ While not discussed explicitly, CRS has supported and made
every effort to comply with all Library and government-wide policies
and procedures designed to ensure fairness and equity. Such policies
and procedures include: diversity training, procurement regulations,
bestowal of awards, promotions, professional development opportunities,
and formulation of recruiting plans for each hire. In addition, CRS is
represented on the Diversity Advisory Council and has supported staff
participation in minority sponsored activities such as Blacks in
Government, the Black Caucus, and Hispanic Leadership Conference, as
well as efforts to celebrate diversity such as Heritage Month
activities. CRS also regularly hires high school students under the
Work Study Program and as provides work opportunities for students
under the Summer Youth Program. Work Study is a progressive, career-
development effort that combines on-the-job training with classroom
instruction and training. The Summer Youth program also provides on-
the-job training to students. Over 90 percent of the students who
participate in these programs are minority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HACU National Internship Program (HNIP)
The Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) is a
non-profit organization that sponsors an internship program for
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), with a minimum of 25 percent
Hispanic enrollment. This program, the HACU National Internship Program
(HNIP), provides undergraduate and graduate students with an
opportunity to serve as paid interns at federal agencies and private
organizations. Through the Library's agreement to serve as a sponsoring
agency for this program, since 1996 CRS has provided one to two HACU
interns a year with an opportunity to gain professional work experience
in a variety of areas.
Affirmative Action Intern Program
The Library's Affirmative Action Intern Program is a two-year
program designed to further the career development of Library staff in
clerical or technical positions by providing them with training and
experience for placement into permanent professional or administrative
positions. (CRS selected 3 under the fiscal year 1994-96 program.)
Affirmative Action Detail Program
The Library's Affirmative Action Detail Program is designed to
encourage the interest of talented and motivated staff, especially
women, minorities and persons with targeted disabilities in
administrative or managerial work. The experience gained through the
detail can be used as qualifying experience for positions in the
administrative/managerial field. (CRS participated in the 2000
Affirmative Action Detail Program, the first such program.)
Leadership Development Program
The Leadership Development Program is designed to develop future
leaders for the library profession in the Library of Congress or other
libraries, to expose Fellows to cutting-edge technology and information
systems, to increase the number of minorities who are prepared to
assume leadership positions in the library, and to prepare them for the
next generation of librarianship in an expanding electronic
environment. For the 1999-2000 program, the most recent program year,
CRS submitted nine possible projects for consideration of the ten
fellows chosen under this program as part of their one year assignment
to this program.
Executive Potential Program
The Executive Potential Program (EPP) is a 12-month nationwide
career enhancement program that offers training and development
experiences for high-potential GS 13-15 employees who wish to move into
managerial positions. EPP provides managerial needs assessment,
individual development plans, developmental work assignments and
residential training that address the competencies necessary for
executive-level positions. Participants are required to complete a
minimum of four months of developmental work assignments away from the
position of record. Since 1996, CRS has provided developmental
assignments for eight people.
composition and diversity of crs workforce
Since the beginning of fiscal year 1994, CRS has lost more staff
than it has been able to replace, suffering a net loss of total staff
on board (from 753 on September 30, 1993 to 690 on August 31, 2001) and
professional staff on board (from 450 on September 30, 1993 to 407 on
August 31, 2001). For both total staff and professional staff, however,
CRS has been able to hire minorities in a greater proportion than it
has lost. Thus the percent of minorities among total staff has
increased from 30 percent to 33 percent and the percent of minorities
among professional staff has increased from 14 percent to 16 percent.
During the same period, despite overall staff losses, CRS has increased
the number of staff in the administrative category from 143 to 168 and
increased the percent of minorities in that category from 33 percent to
44 percent.
The first chart presented below, based on Library of Congress data,
shows the status of the CRS professional staff as of June, 2001, in
terms of underrepresentation index (UI) scores. The underrepresentation
score, calculated for each protected class, shows the percentage of
that class in the CRS workforce compared to the percentage in the
civilian labor force to which the CRS workforce is compared. (The
Library compares its professional workforce to the national
professional civilian labor force.) A score below 100 indicates
underrepresentation. The lower the score, the higher the
underrepresentation. A score of 100 indicates that the class in CRS is
at or above parity with the relevant civilian labor force, that is, it
is at least as well represented in the CRS workforce as it is in the
relevant civilian labor force. Thus it is not underrepresented. Indeed,
in several categories CRS is well above parity. For example, the UI
scores for Black men, Black women, and Native American women among CRS
professionals are considerably above parity. See Appendix, CRS
Professional Staff as of June 30, 2001, for a breakdown of these
numbers.
The next chart, based on the same table in the Appendix, shows the
number that CRS would need to hire for each currently underrepresented
group among CRS professionals to achieve parity with the professional
civilian labor force.\24\ While CRS will continue to recruit to
increase diversity among all groups, it is clear that CRS should direct
its recruitment most urgently to Hispanic men and Asian-American/
Pacific Island men.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Note that each additional hire (or each loss) changes all the
UI scores because it changes the ratio of each group to the whole.
While the CRS staff can be broken down in any number of ways to
calculate underrepresentation,\25\ two categories that are often
examined are senior level staff and senior level manager positions. The
Research Policy Council--the top senior level managers consisting of
the Director, the Deputy Director, and Assistant and Associate
Directors--are 23 percent minority (3 of 13) and 46 percent female (6
of 13). All senior level managers, which includes Deputy Assistant
Directors and others besides the members of the Research Policy
Council, are 16 percent minority (6 of 38) and 37 percent female (14 of
38). All senior level staff, including senior level managers, are 15
percent minority (8 of 54) and 35 percent female (19 of 54). This chart
shows underrepresentation scores for professional senior level staff,
whether managers or not.\26\ The most severely underrepresented groups
are Hispanic men and women and Native American men. The Appendix, CRS
Professional Senior Level Staff as of June 30, 2001, provides a
breakdown for these numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ For example, one could examine the scores of specific
occupational groups such as social science analysts, or of grade
groupings either for total staff or for an occupational group such as
GS-13-15 social science analysts.
\26\ Six other senior level staff, including 3 white women and 1
black woman, are in the administrative category.
conclusion
CRS has redoubled its diversity efforts in recent years, utilizing
a wide variety of programs and initiatives--both CRS-specific and
Library-wide. Indeed, it has become clear that success in this regard
is dependent on such a multi-faceted approach that relies on a variety
of hiring practices, recruiting strategies, and communication
techniques. These efforts have been an integral part of succession
planning. The impending large turnover of CRS personnel provides the
opportunity to address goals in a comprehensive way that will help
guarantee the diversity of the next generation of staff.
What this report describes is only an overview of what has been
accomplished, and that picture clearly demonstrates the commitment of
the CRS Director, managers, and staff to the principles of diversity as
they carry out the Service's programs, policies and procedures. CRS
remains fully committed to diversity both in its substantive research
perspectives and in the makeup of its staff--diversity that mirrors
that of the Congress and its constituencies. And while its diversity
efforts will always be a ``work in progress,'' the Service has had a
high degree of success in recent years and is determined to see that
trend continue.
Appendix 1
The following tables illustrate the breakdown of CRS professional
staff and senior level staff compared to the national professional
civilian labor force (CLF). Note that UI Scores are capped at 100 and
do not reveal whether the group exceeds parity, although that can be
seen where the percent in CRS exceeds the percent in the CLF. The
number needed to achieve parity is always rounded up to the next whole
number.
CRS PROFESSIONAL STAFF AS OF JUNE 30, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percent of Percent of UI Score (B/ No. Needed
Group group in group in group in C to achieve
CRS (A) CRS (B) CLF (C) 100) parity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White men...................................... 203 51.39 54.70 ........... ...........
White women.................................... 127 32.15 30.30 100 0
Black men...................................... 16 4.05 2.40 100 0
Black women.................................... 25 6.33 3.20 100 0
Hispanic men................................... 2 0.51 2.10 24 7
Hispanic women................................. 5 1.27 1.40 90 1
Asian/Pacific men.............................. 7 1.77 3.50 51 7
Asian/Pacific women............................ 7 1.77 1.90 93 1
Indian/Alaskan men............................. 1 0.25 0.20 100 0
Indian/Alaskan women........................... 2 0.51 0.20 100 0
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 395 ........... ........... ........... 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS PROFESSIONAL SENIOR LEVEL STAFF AS OF JUNE 30, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percent of Percent of UI Score (B/ No. Needed
Group group in group in group in C to achieve
CRS (A) CRS (B) CLF (C) 100) parity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White men...................................... 29 60.42 54.70 ........... ...........
White women.................................... 12 25.00 30.30 83 3
Black men...................................... 3 6.25 2.40 100 0
Black women.................................... 1 2.08 3.20 65 1
Hispanic men................................... 0 0.00 2.10 0 2
Hispanic women................................. 0 0.00 1.40 0 1
Asian/Pacific men.............................. 1 2.08 3.50 59 1
Asian/Pacific women............................ 1 2.08 1.90 100 0
Indian/Alaskan men............................. 0 0.00 0.20 0 1
Indian/Alaskan women........................... 1 2.08 0.20 100 0
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 48 ........... ........... ........... 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED MATERIAL
[Clerk's Note.--The subcommittee received a letter from
James H. Billington requesting that several statements and
letters relating to the Center for Russian Leadership
Development be included in the record.]
Letter From James H. Billington
April 17, 2002.
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Committee on
Appropriations, United States Senate, 115 Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I was grateful for the opportunity to appear
before your subcommittee last month to present testimony about the
Center for Russian Leadership Development (CRLD). I would be glad to
supply additional information for the record or in person if that would
be helpful.
Meanwhile, members of the CRLD Board of Trustees and others who
have organized significant programs for the Open World Program have
asked that their testimony be submitted for the record. I am enclosing
statements from the Honorable James W. Symington and the Honorable
James F. Collins, members of the CRLD Board of Trustees. I am also
enclosing a statement from Mr. Lee Boothby, vice president of the
International Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief. Finally, I am
enclosing a copy of recent correspondence from Judge Michael Mihm of
Peoria, Illinois, who has previously corresponded with you about the
partnership between the Open World Program and the United States
Judicial Conference.
I would be grateful if these statements could be made part of the
official hearing record, since this was the first chance to testify
about the program and its new structure, and there was no opportunity
for outside witnesses to appear before the subcommittee.
Sincerely,
James H. Billington,
Chairman of the Board of Trustees.
______
Prepared Statement of Honorable James W. Symington, Member, Board of
Trustees, Center for Russian Leadership Development
It is my great honor and pleasure to submit testimony in support of
the fiscal year 2003 appropriations request for the Center for Russian
Leadership Development submitted to the members of this subcommittee by
the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, who testified in
support of the Center's request on March 13, 2002. The Center is now a
distinct entity in the Legislative Branch, housed at the Library of
Congress, and charged with managing the largest exchange program the
United States maintains with Russia--the Open World Program.
I am pleased to serve on the Board of Trustees for the Center, with
Jim Billington (Chairman), Senator Ted Stevens my good friend, who
serves as Honorary Chairman, Senators Carl Levin and Bill Frist;
Representatives Amo Houghton and Bud Cramer; former Ambassador Jim
Collins, and philanthropist and financier George Soros.
My involvement with the Center is almost as long as that of Senator
Stevens and Jim Billington. When Jim Billington first proposed the idea
of a large-scale effort (modeled on the Marshall Plan's success after
World War II in rebuilding Germany by allowing young German political
leaders to visit the United States to observe democracy in action)
Senator Ted Stevens moved quickly to give this bold idea a chance to
demonstrate its worth.
The fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations request for Kosovo
contained $10.0 million to give the Library of Congress the opportunity
to launch a pilot effort to bring up to 3,000 young Russian leaders--
with no English language skills--to the United States for short-term
stays in American homes and communities. Senator Stevens, whom I am
honored to have as my friend, was familiar with my lifelong interest in
and passion for Russian culture and forging ties between Russia and the
United States. I have continued to work to bring major exhibitions to
both the United States and Russia through the Russian-American Cultural
Foundation, which I chair. Senator Stevens asked me to serve as
Executive Director for the program--launched as the Russian Leadership
Program but known throughout Russia as ``Open World.'' Jim Billington
arranged to have experienced staff at the Library loaned to the program
for six months. I worked day-to-day with Gerry Otremba, whom the Board
has asked to serve as Executive Director for the Center, and Aletta
Waterhouse from the Congressional Research Service, who had worked on
the Frost Task Force some years earlier. We had our work cut out for
us.
We found ourselves with scarcely seven months to create the first
grant-making program in the Legislative Branch; find partners who would
help us ensure home stays in American communities for our guests; put
arrangements in place in Russia to nominate, screen, and obtain visas
for participants; develop appropriate local programs; arrange
international and domestic travel; and find and train escort-
interpreters to accompany the delegations during their typically 10-day
visits in the United States.
The Open World Program was a resounding success: in just seven
months, the program brought 2,045 young Russian leaders to 48 states
and the District of Columbia. We at the Library did not produce this
miracle alone. Our key partner was the American Councils for
International Education, led by Dan Davidson, which handled all of our
Russian and U.S. logistics, including travel. Our major hosts were the
Russia Initiative of the United Methodist Church, Rotary International,
and the Friendship Force.
Jim Billington, in his testimony before this subcommittee,
presented powerful and persuasive thoughts on why our relations with
Russia three years later are even more dependent on large-scale
exchanges such as the Open World Program. Jim is a world-renowned
scholar of Russian history and culture and has advised many Members of
Congress and, indeed, U.S. presidents on Russia's political history and
culture. Jim's original idea was simple and direct and it remains vital
three years later. Let me add a very personal perspective on the impact
the program can have--both for its Russian participants and its
American hosts.
The very first summer, Open World brought as many as 400 young
Russians per month to the United States. We wanted, quite naturally, to
see and evaluate their experience firsthand, rather than rely solely on
second hand reports. So we visited delegations during their stay in
America to meet them, meet their U.S. local hosts, and determine
firsthand the impact of the program. Let me hasten to add that our
informal on-the-ground evaluation was supplemented at the conclusion of
the program with a systematic evaluation and debriefing of all the
returning Russian participants.
I mentioned that the Methodist Church's Russia Initiative was one
of our host partners. I traveled to Lee's Summit, Missouri--my home
state--in July 1999 to meet the delegation being hosted by Steve
Whitehurst, Patty Sents, Bob Farr, and others of Grace Methodist Church
in Lee's Summit. The program was a typical mix of activities designed
to show America--its people, values, culture, and volunteer spirit--to
young Russians who had come of age in the Soviet era and live today in
Russia surrounded by images of the United States drawn almost
exclusively from American popular culture: films, television, music,
and advertising. I can assure members of the subcommittee that Lee's
Summit, Missouri, is a far cry from reruns of ``Dallas''.
The delegation's two newspaper editors, one journalist, and one
professor had a 10-day visit that featured meetings with Kansas City
mayor Kay Waldo-Barnes and U.S. Representative Ike Skelton, a meeting
of the town council, and visits to the Truman Library, television and
radio stations, a hospital, a school, and Jefferson City, the state
capital. A highlight of their visit was being hosted by the man who was
both the Methodist minister and the volunteer fire chief for the town.
The wide variety of civic endeavors that Americans take in stride
provides an astonishing spectacle to the foreign visitor. Lee's Summit,
a vibrant community close to Kansas City, presented this delegation
with a slice of all-American life they will not likely forget. Bob
Farr, their robust host, after taking them on a wave-splashing
motorboat tour of Lake Lotawana, where they also fished and swam,
welcomed them into a comfortable, rambling home that could have been
the subject of a Norman Rockwell illustration, complete with two
teenagers doing their homework on the living room floor, a sleeping
pup, and a mountainous dinner for 18 beckoning in the next room.
Dinner had been prepared by Mrs. Farr's mother, since Mrs. Farr had
just completed her first day as a seventh-grade teacher in the local
high school. Mr. Farr, having preached the previous day as Minister of
the Methodist Church, had doffed his robes, and donned his gold-braided
uniform as the community's fire chief. He then escorted the somewhat
bewildered Open World delegation to the firehouse, where they witnessed
a dazzling demonstration of planned pyrotechnics. An old car was set
aflame, setting the stage for the arrival of a gleaming, fully equipped
yellow fire truck that disgorged about two dozen masked firefighters.
The hose was rolled out, the flames were doused, and a dummy ``victim''
was pulled to safety. This done, the brigade removed their masks to
reveal the jovial faces of young men and women in their twenties.
One Russian tentatively inquired ``How much make?'', ``Nothing,
we're all volunteers.'' ``Well, how you life?'' They described their
several ``day'' jobs and obligations. Volunteerism was an integral part
of the life and times of Lee's Summit. Earlier, the Russians had been
introduced first to the Police Chief, a retired Kansas City cop who
enjoyed the quieter life of a city jail with one empty cell to keep him
company, then the Mayor, a charming lady who proudly introduced her two
employees, including the Treasurer, another lady, slowly counting out
greenbacks. ``She collects the money,'' said the Mayoress. ``I spend
it.'' The Russians smiled at this division of labor.
Back at the fire station, the Russians were so delighted with their
new and multitalented young friends that they suggested a beer in the
local tavern. The invitation was enthusiastically accepted. The party,
unimpeded by normal language barriers, went on into the small hours. At
the next day's farewell the lead spokesman for the visitors told their
host, The Reverend Fire Captain Farr, that his imaginative hospitality
topped an already burgeoning list of happy and instructive experiences.
--Open World provides precisely the elements we have been told
repeatedly that first-time visitors find immensely valuable;
--Open World makes possible direct observation of our political
process--usually at the town or county level, where the level
of citizen involvement and relations with the business and
volunteer sectors are very apparent;
--Open World introduces American culture, values, and customs through
attendance at community events--baseball games, Fourth of July
parades and picnics, barbecues in American backyards with
friends and neighbors, and the like;
--Open World builds mutual understanding: our delegations meet with
the local newspaper editor, are interviewed on the local
television station, and meet leaders and citizens of
communities large and small who are involved with the PTA, the
local Rotary Club, the Methodist Church, and other civic,
religious, and voluntary organizations like the Lee's Summit
Fire Brigade.
At the hearing on March 13, Senator Stevens particularly praised
the Open World Program for its success in involving nongovernmental
organizations in hosting our Russian guests.
A week earlier, the Board of Trustees voted overwhelmingly for a
2002 program and budget that will allow Open World to invite 2,500
participants--the largest number since the program's first pilot year
in 1999. We on the board made that decision with the full understanding
that the program's carry-over funds would be needed to supplement the
$8.0 million Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2002. The Center's
full $10.0 million request for fiscal year 2003 will allow the program
to plan and execute a program of equal scope next year. I urge the
Chairman and members of the Subcommittee to support the full request.
As a former member of the House of Representatives, I know full
well the difficult funding decisions that you as members of the
Appropriations Committee must make. The Open World Program is a modest
investment in supporting Russia's dramatic transformation from
Communism to democratic and market principles in the space of 10 brief
years. The investment from the Federal government of approximately
$6,000 per participant is matched by hundreds of hours of volunteer
time provided by mayors, ministers, and state and federal judges. Home
stays replace expensive and isolating hotel stays. American hosts
provide entertainment and cultural activities greatly valued by first-
time visitors. The home stays also provide a unique view of everyday
American life from the inside, instead of a view from the outside in.
The Russian participants want to interact with the Americans they meet
and be able to ask questions freely and exchange views. They want to
see the infrastructure of everything, know its practical application
and experience it from top to bottom.
In conclusion, it has been my pleasure to serve as the Open World
Program's first Executive Director and, now three years later, as a
member of its Board of Trustees. I pay tribute to the two visionaries--
Ted Stevens and Jim Billington--who made Open World a reality. I
strongly encourage members of the subcommittee to meet delegations when
they travel to your home states--as they surely will this year--and see
for yourselves the profound impact the Open World Program has on both
its Russian and American partners.
______
Prepared Statement of Honorable James F. Collins, Member, Center's
Board of Trustees and International Advisor, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer
and Feld, L.L.P.
I am pleased to submit a statement in support of the fiscal year
2003 appropriations request from the Center for Russian Leadership
Development to the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the United States
Senate.
I am submitting this testimony wearing, if you will, multiple hats:
as a member of the Board of Trustees appointed by the Librarian of
Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, in accordance with the terms of
Public Law 106-554, and also as ambassador from the United States to
Russia from 1997 to July 2001. I would like to share my impressions of
the need and value associated with the ``Open World'' Russian
Leadership Program managed by the Center. I have been associated with
the program since its inception and I have enjoyed a unique perspective
because I have had the opportunity to gauge the need for and efficacy
of the program in Russia and to contemplate its long-term effect since
my return to the United States last summer.
I have known Jim Billington for many years. During this time we
have been colleagues and friends with a shared, deep interest in
improving relations between the United States and Russia--through the
Cold War, glasnost, perestroika, and the current period exemplified by
burgeoning ties between the two countries nurtured by an interest in
promoting democracy and market economy in Russia. I will not here
review all the reasons why I believe these ties are important--my
career commitment and Jim Billington's own testimony on this subject
are sufficient. Rather I want to focus on my own role in shaping the
first pilot Open World exchange in 1999 and how I have already seen the
results of that effort and succeeding years.
As a career State Department official, I have been intimately
familiar with the full-range of exchange efforts that the U.S.
government has conducted with Russia for many years. Programs such as
the International Visitors Program have been instrumental in bringing
educators, scientists, government officials, and cultural leaders to
the United States for extended stays of a few weeks' time. These
programs were the mainstay of maintaining important ties to key opinion
leaders in the former Soviet Union, particularly through the Cold War
era. Few such programs were available to non-English-speaking leaders
far from the power centers of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Numbers of
visitors also fluctuated with funding for such activities as U.S.
foreign policy priorities dictated.
Had the Cold War lingered on and Russia not begun a series of
remarkable transitions in the late 1980's, such an approach would
probably have been sufficient. With the collapse of Communism in Russia
and that nation's completely unanticipated turn toward democratic
principles and processes, a more dramatic effort--in both scope and
size--was clearly needed. Jim Billington was a direct observer of what
he correctly calls ``the greatest political transformation in the late
twentieth century'': the final overthrow of Communist rule in Moscow in
1991. Perhaps no other living scholar/statesman--for that truly is Jim
Billington's calling--was better poised to comprehend both the promise
and danger that lay ahead for Russia and its people. Jim is hard-nosed
about the lingering threat that Russia's vast stores of nuclear weapons
and materials pose for the West. He is simultaneously poetic about the
long history of the Russian people's struggles to survive their
leaders.
It is our country's good fortune that Jim Billington's
understanding of Russia's politics and her people collided, so to
speak, in April 1999 with the collective political insight and will of
the many Members of Congress gathered early one morning to discuss the
state of U.S.-Russian relations at an Aspen Institute breakfast. Jim
has escorted many CODELS and even Presidential Summit delegations to
Russia. He offers guidance when asked and informs whenever and wherever
possible about Russia's complex and remarkable history and culture.
Fluent in its language and familiar with its far reaches, Jim keeps a
steady eye on and ear to the Russian citizen's attitudes toward the
West and the United States in particular.
When asked about Russian views toward the U.S. engagement in
Kosovo, Jim provided both an important history lesson and a note of
concern about the deterioration of the average Russian's views of U.S.
foreign policy. When asked what could be done, Jim offered a dramatic,
but certainly not new proposal: a large-scale program modeled on that
portion of the Marshall Plan that brought thousands of young Germans to
the United States for essential training to rebuild their shattered
nation and its economy. Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the
Marshall Plan. Even after 50 years, numerous participants spoke at
celebrations, symposia, and reminiscences of the power and efficacy of
the U.S. investment in guaranteeing the democratic future of the German
Federal Republic.
Jim and I had discussed such an approach many times. I am certain
that he raised it to many senior Members of Congress or presidential
advisors. In April 1999 the time and place had come together. With the
strong backing of Members of Congress--Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska,
then-Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Senator Carl Levin of
Michigan, Representative David Obey of Wisconsin, to name but a few who
involved themselves in the first discussions of launching and funding
such a program--the ``Open World'' Russian Leadership Program was
launched in May 1999. The Open World Program was tasked with bringing
up to 3,000 of Russia's future political leaders to the United States
to see democracy and a market economy for themselves, all in a scarce
five-month period.
In all candor, I must tell the members of this subcommittee that I
was pleased to be involved in shaping the program, its goals, and its
management. As Ambassador in Moscow, I knew that this program would
affect official relations with all levels of the Russian government and
that the embassy's own resources of staff would be greatly strained--if
only by the unprecedented number of visas we would be processing.
I had already had the opportunity to travel widely throughout the
Russian Federation and knew firsthand the tremendous reserves of
political talent dedicated to building democracy in Russia and eager to
understand options open to Russia from American experience. I also was
well aware of a whole generation of emerging leaders faced with the
daunting challenges of a virtually-ruined economy and collapsing social
infrastructure. Like Jim Billington, I shared a belief that a program
of the size and scope we were proposing had to reach deep into every
area of Russia--over thousands of miles--to introduce a shock wave of
direct experience with the country that had so long been identified in
the minds of every Russian as Russia's principal adversary.
If invited, would they come?
If they came, what benefit could be derived in 10 days?
I will not dwell very long on the first question. The record of
achievement speaks for itself; Jim Symington's and Jim Billington's
testimony amply cover the challenges of mounting such a large-scale
program. We had heroic partners in both Russia and the United States.
In Russia, the U.S. consulates and a score of organizations including
the Open Society Institute, IREX, and others, including leading Russian
government and non-government organizations, provided a superb pool of
nominees from 86 Russia's 89 regions. In the United States, voluntary
organizations such as Rotary International, Peace Links, and the Russia
Initiative of the Methodist Church became the program's partners and
made it possible for over 2,000 young Russian leaders to experience the
political ideals and American hospitality of over 500 American
communities. Jim Symington's heartwarming experience in Lee's Summit,
Missouri, was repeated hundreds of times as young Russians shared
volunteerism, political debate, barbecues, sports events, American
music, and Fourth of July picnics and parades.
I would like to devote the balance of my testimony to the second
question. We know the Russian have come to the United States under the
aegis of the ``Open World'' Program--nearly 4,000 leaders from 88
regions. What has the experience meant to them and what does that
experience offer to persuade members of this subcommittee to support
its continuation and growth?
The facilities at Spaso House offer the U.S. Ambassador to Russia a
wonderful place to engage continually Russian leaders and citizens.
Virtually all receptions held after September 1999 included Open World
alumni. I also met groups in Samara, Saratov, Tomsk, Tolyatti, and
Novosibirsk at locations where the United States launched American
Corners and Centers to house much-needed information resources about
the United States. Let me describe what I think is important about the
experience the Open World Program provides from the impressions I
gained at these meetings and alumni conferences:
--The program is reaching not only a large number of young Russians--
the average age is 38--but Russians involved in town, city and
regional non-governmental organizations, and regional and city
Dumas--who would not be invited to the United States under any
other circumstances. These are the future leaders of a civil
society in Russia's regions.
--The Open World Program does not require English speakers and gives
priority to first-time visitors to the United States. In
hundreds of communities, the Open World Program is providing
the first contact with America--with the real America, not
reruns of Dallas.
--Unlike virtually all other exchange programs, Open World guests
stay in American homes. Direct contact with American families
in your home states is the most powerful public diplomacy tool
that America possesses. Open World has fully capitalized on
that possibility--nearly 4,000 Russians have stayed in over 700
communities in 48 states and the District of Columbia. The
photo albums that document each visit and return to Russia with
our guests capture memories and experiences that will be
discussed around kitchen tables in both countries for years to
come.
--Each participant returns home with new insight into American values
and an understanding of just what we means by accountable
government. Participants also told me repeatedly--judges,
nurses, city councilmen, etc.--how much they valued the
exchanges they had with American counterparts.
When the Board of Trustees met recently for the first time, we were
given the opportunity to scale back the program or expand it. We voted
overwhelmingly to expand the scope and debated the desirability of
allowing return visits to Russia by American hosts. We were fortunate
the first year to have the opportunity to bring newly elected State
Duma Deputies--nearly 25 percent traveled to the United States and were
hosted by Members of Congress.
As new leadership enters the Duma and Federation Council and they
are tasked with enacting significant legislation dealing with trade and
security issues, it is more important than ever to continue to expand
these ties. I am particularly pleased that the Congressional members of
the Center's Board of Trustees want to be fully engaged with their
counterparts. This aspect of the Open World Program--direct and
sustained legislature-to-legislature relations--is of the utmost
importance. As Ambassador, I worked with scores of CODELS, but I must
emphasize how important it is for Russian legislators to meet their
American counterparts on American soil and to participate in the
informed and transparent work of the U.S. Congress.
In closing, I urge you to support the Center's fiscal year 2003
request for $10.0 million. The members of the board are committed to
assisting with private fundraising but results cannot be expected
overnight. Meanwhile, the continuing support of the U.S. Congress for
this program--or the lack thereof--will be noticed in Russia. I can
assure members of this subcommittee that senior Russian officials in
all three branches of their government are keenly aware of it and
appreciative of the opportunities the Open World Program affords
Russian political leaders of all parties and points of view.
______
Prepared Statement of Lee Boothby, Vice President, International
Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief
I submit this written testimony before this Subcommittee as Vice
President of and on behalf of the International Academy for Freedom of
Religion and Belief. The Academy has a membership of approximately 100
experts in the fields of religious freedom and human rights drawn from
many countries and different faiths. The Academy provides technical
assistance on issues of freedom of religion and human rights, and its
work has included conducting several conferences in the New Independent
States and Central and Eastern Europe.
Our organization hosted a delegation from Russia under the 2000
Open World Russian Leadership Program. We also received a small grant
from Open World to support alumni participation in a conference on
``Freedom of Conscience and Ensuring Interreligious Understanding''
that we conducted in Moscow in June 2001, and we have recently been
awarded another grant from the Center for Russian Leadership
Development to host fifty Open World participants in June 2002.
Since 1992 our Academy has regularly conducted seminars,
conferences, and consultations in the Russian Federation, often with
the Russian Academy for State Service Under the Presidency as our host.
These meetings focus on problems relating to religious human rights,
and the attendees are usually federal and regional officials who
oversee religious matters.
We have extensive contacts with Russian religious affairs
officials, the people who make the decisions that affect the decisions
impacting on religious organizations present throughout the Russian
Federation. Although most of these officials are conscientious in
carrying out their responsibilities, because of the past they do not
fully appreciate the positive benefits of religious tolerance and the
right of people individually and in community with others to practice
their religious beliefs without official discrimination and free from
state interference. Although the Academy conferences have helped reduce
the problems that foreign religious organizations operating in Russia
and others face, there is always substantial resistance to change.
The experience we had with the delegation of Russians brought to
the United States under the Open World Russian Leadership Program was
both astonishing and gratifying. Although their visit was brief (five
days in Washington, D.C., and five days in Utah), it was apparent from
these officials' comments that their rigid attitudes were changed
almost overnight by their experience in the United States. One
participant later wrote: ``The realization of the program of the
Library of Congress was not only unique, but also actualized at a high
level. In the process of open dialogue with our American colleagues,
we, the Russian participants of the program, were able not only to
exchange information and the experience of our work, but also to
develop close working contacts and establish opportunities and main
directions for future joint projects.''
It has always been difficult to communicate the concept that the
state should be neutral toward all religions and should not erect
impediments to the free exercise of religion, free from bureaucratic
imposition. We addressed these issues through programs and activities
such as a mini-conference at George Washington University on the
International Religious Freedom Act; sessions at Catholic University
School of Law on key U.S. Supreme Court cases on freedom of religion
and registration and tax policy; and discussions with Utah governmental
officials on practical issues such as zoning, governmental regulation
of religiously affiliated educational institutions, and governmental
funding of religious social service activities. The Russians' visit to
the United States seemed to erase many of their preconceived attitudes.
I recall several of them commenting on how well the religious
communities got along together, seeming to fight only about parking
spaces on Sunday morning.
More importantly, even though our new Russian friends spent only a
brief time here, it still allowed them and Americans with similar
interests to get to know one another on a personal basis and to bond.
These experiences, we found, continued to be remembered and to have an
abiding, salutary effect after these participants returned to Russia to
carry out their responsibilities. Now they have an altogether different
attitude toward foreign religious organizations and missionaries.
Our Academy has two basic objectives in hosting the people visiting
the United States through the Open World Russian Leadership Program:
(1) to introduce key Russian leaders responsible for shaping and
implementing religion policy in Russia to the institutions of religious
freedom in the United States and to U.S. experts on these themes; and
(2) to acquaint U.S. political, academic, and church leaders with
Russian concepts of religious freedom. It continues to be our
experience that all program participants come away with greater
appreciation of: the importance of religious freedom; problems with
implementing this ideal in both countries; and ways it can be better
implemented in practice. We expect that our Russian guests and their
counterparts in the United States will maintain the working
relationships established through Open World.
In relation to the latter point, our Academy has been able to
continue contacts and discuss matters of mutual concern with the alumni
of the Open World Program, which extends the benefits of the visit of
these Russians to the United States. In this regard, I want to express
how valuable we have found the staff carrying out the Open World
Program at the Embassy in Moscow to be. Allison Hawley and Alexander
Khilkov multiply the benefits of the program by holding alumni meetings
throughout this vast country.
Our Academy has also found the staff of the program here in the
United States to be most helpful. I know the officers and members of
the Board of the Academy believe that the expenditures made in
connection with the Open World Program are the best dollars ever spent
in American-Russian relations. We are certainly getting our money's
worth in the results obtained.
______
Center for Russian Leadership Development,
Open World,
April 8, 2002.
The Honorable Michael M. Mihm,
Judge of the U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, 204
U.S. Courthouse, 100 Northeast Monroe Street, Peoria, IL 61602.
Dear Judge Mihm: Thank you for your letter of March 27, 2002, and
your previous correspondence. We are honored that you and so many of
your fellow judges across the Unites States have worked so diligently
to make Open World's rule of law component a success. I have also read
the letter that you sent Senator Richard Durbin last October, and I
appreciate your remarks about Open World's impact.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the key to Open World's
effectiveness is the person-to-person aspect of the exchanges, as
exemplified by the judge-to-judge relationships the rule of law program
fosters. Only when former Cold War adversaries sit around a table
together can the process that you describe in your letter begin. Open
World's colleague-to-colleague approach also ensures that these
relationships are meaningful and sustainable. Our American host judges'
commitment to making return visits to Russia and to establishing
``sister court'' relationships demonstrates this.
Russia is at a crucial stage in its transition to democracy, with
judicial reforms providing, possibly, the critical hinge. The American
judiciary's active engagement with its Russian counterpart through the
Open World Program helps make me optimistic about the direction this
reform process will take.
The staff of the Center for Russian Leadership Development and I
appreciate your kind words about their efforts and professionalism. I
look forward to working with you in the future on this exciting
program.
Sincerely,
James H. Billington,
Chairman of the Board of Trustees.
______
United States District Court,
Central District of Illinois,
Peoria, Illinois, March 27, 2002.
Dr. James H. Billington,
The Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington,
D.C. 20540.
Dear Dr. Billington: The last time I wrote you was in August of
2001, soon after the visit to my home in Peoria of four judges from the
Russian Federation who were here as part of the Russian Leadership
Program (Open World). I dug that letter out yesterday and reread it to
assess where we have progressed since then. In that letter, a copy of
which I attach to this letter, I was very exuberant about the wonderful
experience that the visit had been, both for the Russians and for all
of the people here in Peoria. I ended the letter by saying that more
delegations were on the way and that we would be meeting to discuss how
we could make the program even better for the delegations coming to
America in 2002.
Representatives of the federal and state judiciary did in fact meet
in Washington in mid November with all of the staff people involved and
with representatives of Rotary International. It was a good meeting and
fine tuning of program details (the devil is always in the details)
followed. Now we are into 2002, and the first delegations have already
come and gone. The first delegations this year have visited Tampa, FL,
Eugene, OR, Nashville, TN, Ann Arbor, MI, Louisville, KY, and
Rochester, NY. All reports that I have received indicate that the
visits were very successful. We hope to bring over this year a total of
around 200 judges. Since the beginning of our involvement 18 judges (14
federal and 4 state) in 18 states have hosted delegations. Of course,
many more federal and state judges have been actively involved in the
programs and other hosting activities.
I'm sure you are aware that there is significant judicial reform
underway in the Russian Federation. Major legislation, including a new
Criminal Procedure Code and three bills dealing with a variety of
matters (everything from mandatory retirement age for judges to new
judicial disciplinary procedures and new powers for judges in the areas
of arrest, search and seizure, and pretrial detention) passed the State
Duma and Federation Council in December and were signed by President
Putin. These major reforms, most the result of significant debate, are
changing the whole equation of judicial performance and judicial
accountability in Russia. Not surprisingly, the judges strongly
supported some of these changes and resisted others. All of this
change, taken in conjunction with the other demands on a judiciary
which will be celebrating only the 10th anniversary of its Council of
Judges early next month, makes the Open World Program just that much
more important, because the visits to the local communities give the
Russian judges involved a new strength to face those challenges when
they go home.
Under the new laws jury trials in certain serious criminal cases,
which had been an option for a defendant in only selected experimental
locations until now, will be extended to the entire Russian Federation.
That change alone is of epic proportions. As a result, one of the major
focuses of the local visits this year will be on the jury trial system
in this country. Visiting judges will be exposed as much as possible to
the variety of issues, problems, and solutions that we encounter here
in jury cases. I believe this exposure will be of substantial
assistance to them as they go about the task of establishing a
tradition of jury trials in their communities. This move toward jury
trials is in direct response to the recognition of the need to address
the historic lack of trust of the Russian people in their court system.
No matter how much fine tuning to the Open World Program occurs,
the most important product of the exchange will always be the person to
person contact leading to life long communication and friendship. One
of the judges who visited in our home in Peoria last summer was Chief
Judge Alimzhan Shaymerdyanov. While he was here we came to realize the
relative similarities of our respective communities. He is from the
Vladimir Oblast. We have remained in communication since then. We have
decided that there is much to be gained from the creation of a ``sister
court'' relationship between his court and the federal and state courts
here in central Illinois. Through a sister court relationship we will
continue to exchange information and answer questions about how our
systems operate. This will include not just judges, but also lawyers
and court administrators.
I will be in Moscow early next month along with Judge Lloyd George
of the District of Nevada to represent the American federal judiciary
at the 10 year anniversary of the Council of Judges. I am going to use
that opportunity to meet with Open World Alumni, and also specifically
to meet with Judge Shaymerdyanov and the judges of his court in his
home town to firm up the details of our sister court relationship.
If the Open World Program meant only that the Russian judges would
come here and spend 10-12 days totally immersed is our legal and social
culture, that would be a worthwhile project. If the visit here by the
Russian judges leads to continued communication and dialogue, then the
visit was not only an event, but the first step in a PROCESS, a
partnership if, you would, a partnership committed to the establishment
and enrichment of the Rule of Law.
By the way, in terms of ongoing communications, the alumni
publication is wonderful. It is not only informative but also acts as a
kind of ``glue'' or ``cement'' to the concept of long term
relationships.
I work on a regular basis with many staff people who make the Open
World Program a reality. I have yet to encounter any person who has not
been highly professional, competent, and committed to ever improving
the program. I believe that my brother and sister judges have all had
the same experience. The superlative quality of the staff is,
ultimately, a credit to you, because the positive attitude they display
had to begin with you.
I came in very early this morning to write this letter, since I am
in the middle of a jury trial. I tell you that not to make myself a
better person than I really am, but rather to make the point that all
of the judges who have been, are, and will be involved in this Open
World Program, are judges first. If we did not believe that this
program was an important one, we would not devote our time to it. Thank
you for all of your efforts in regard to the Open World Program. I'll
give you another report as circumstances warrant. If you have any
questions of me regarding the program, please contact me at your
convenience.
Warm Regards,
Michael M. Mihm.
______
Russian Leadership Program,
Open World 2000,
September 18, 2001.
The Honorable Michael Mihm,
Judge of the Central District of Illinois, 100 North East Monroe,
Peoria, IL.
Dear Judge Mihm: Thank you for your remarkable letter and all the
time and attention you devoted to planning and hosting the first of our
2001 rule of law judges' delegations. You and your wife have set a
standard for hospitality that was deeply appreciated by the Russian
judges. The follow-up debriefing among all the July and September
hosting judges has been invaluable for all involved with the pilot
program. Your personal commitment to the effort has been outstanding
and somewhat contagious among your fellow judges--much to our delight.
You are very kind to have noted the role played by the Russian
Leadership Program and American Councils for International Education
staff. We in turn are extremely grateful for the partnership with the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the contribution,
in particular, of Ms. Karen Hanchett, Ms. Mira Gur-Arie, and Mr. Peter
McCabe. I am very pleased that the interest among your fellow judges is
high and that we have been able to plan for another group of judges for
November. Meanwhile, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you
later this fall to discuss what we have learned from the pilots and how
to proceed with a program for 2002.
Sincerely,
James H. Billington,
The Librarian of Congress.
______
Judicial Conference of the United States,
Committee on International Judicial Relations,
August 23, 2001.
Dr. James H. Billington,
The Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington,
D.C.
Dear Dr. Billington: I wanted to share with you, briefly, my
personal account of the recent visit to Peoria by four judges from the
Russian Federation. All four of the judges and the non-judge
facilitator stayed with my wife and me in our home. While we had
volunteered to host the group in our home, I must confess that by the
day they were due to arrive, Judy and I were more than a little
apprehensive, given the language and cultural barriers. We found out
later from our new Russian friends that they were even more
apprehensive than we had been. In fact, when they arrived in Peoria,
they believed that staying at our home was going to be a major problem.
Well, all of our apprehensions were unfounded. The eight days that
we spent together were truly some of the most enjoyable of our lives.
The morning that they left to fly back to Russia we had a private
ceremony in my front yard, where we planted a young fir tree to
commemorate their visit and to symbolize that our friendship would
continue to grow long after they left. In fact, they vehemently
resisted my efforts to pay for the tree the day before at the nursery
and successfully argued that it wasn't, in fact, my tree--it was
theirs.
My wife also gave each of them a key to our house with the
admonition that, now that they had become part of our family, they
would always be welcome in our home as family.
On the Tuesday night of their visit, Judge Astanin (from western
Siberia) cooked a Russian meal. This followed a trip to the grocery
store with my wife and the facilitator. Upon their return, proper
ingredients were mixed together, and then we spent the next three hours
standing around the kitchen counter manufacturing for immediate
consumption the most incredible ``Siberian dumplings'' which have ever
been made. Add to that small amounts of Russian vodka and appropriate
Russian folk songs, and you have a priceless memory.
I could go on for pages about our other activities, and I haven't
even mentioned the formal programs in Washington and Peoria, which were
superb. I think you get the idea.
My wife was so taken with the entire experience that she may now
accompany me to Russia next April for the celebration of the 10-year
anniversary of the new Russian judiciary. That would give us the
opportunity to meet at least some of the families of the judges who
stayed with us. We have already established email contact with two of
our guests.
Geraldine Otremba and Aletta Waterhouse from the Library and Lewis
Madanick and Jeff Magnuson of the American Councils for International
Education all performed their duties in a super manner and were very
easy to work with. They are decent people who perform their jobs very
professionally.
Now we are looking forward to three more groups coming over early
in September. Preparations for that visit are well under way. I expect
that after the September visits we will meet to discuss what we have
learned from the six pilot visits and make decisions regarding the
future course of the project.
Thank you for the vision to create this program and for providing
my wife and me with an opportunity to be a part of it.
Warm regards,
Michael M. Mihm.
______
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, November 6, 2001.
Honorable Michael M. Mihm,
Chief U.S. District Judge, Central District of Illinois, 100 N.E.
Monroe Street, Peoria, IL.
Dear Judge Mihm: Thank you for your thoughtful letter and kind
wishes. I appreciate knowing your insights on and favorable views of
the Russian Leadership Program. Given your role in developing this
program with the Library of Congress, it is helpful to learn about your
personal experiences with the Russian participants.
As chair of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, I am familiar with this program and its
merits. The conference committee crafting the details of the
Legislative Branch appropriation bill recently approved an $8 million
payment to the Russian Leadership Development Center Trust Fund for the
Center for Russian Leadership Development. These funds will help enable
emerging political leaders of Russia, including judges, to gain
significant, firsthand exposure to the American free-market economic
system and the operation of American democratic institutions. I will
continue to support funding for this important program.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin,
United States Senator.
______
United States District Court,
Central District of Illinois,
October 30, 2001.
Honorable Richard Durbin,
United States Senator, 332 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Durbin: I hope this letter finds you and your family
well in these perilous times.
I almost never contact you about pending legislation, but I just
learned this morning that an appropriations bill involving the Library
of Congress Russian Leadership Program is presently under
consideration. I write to offer my unqualified support for the program.
About a year ago Chief Judge Paul Magnuson of the District of
Minnesota and I were contacted by James Billington, the Librarian of
Congress, to ask for our support in putting together a program which
would bring a large number of Russian judges to this country for a
period of total immersion in our judicial and social culture. He
contacted us because Judge Magnuson is the present head of the
Committee on International Judicial Relations of the U.S. Judicial
Conference, and I am the past chair of that Committee, a present
member, and the person who has the primary responsibility for
coordinating Rule of Law projects for the Committee involving the
Russian Federation.
We met with Dr. Billington and others from the Library of Congress
in Washington early this year. They explained that Congress had already
approved funds for the purpose of bringing a wide variety of emerging
Russian leaders from various walks of life to this country for a 10 day
stay. The idea was that this would be the modern version of the
Marshall Plan (where large numbers of emerging German leaders were
brought here after the second world war). At the time of our meeting
over 2,000 Russians had already taken advantage of this program. They
indicated to us at that meeting that it had become clear to them how
critically important it was to focus the program in part on the Russian
judiciary, because without an honest, professional, and independent
judiciary, it would be next to impossible to create and maintain a true
Rule of Law in the Russian Federation.
To make a long story short, our Committee agreed to fully cooperate
on this project. In March of this year I traveled to Moscow with two
other judges, and while there we met with leaders of the Russian
judiciary to seek their support for the program. They were very
supportive of the project and promised their full cooperation.
In late July of this year the first contingent of Russian judges
arrived in Washington. I was at the airport to greet them. We presented
an intense two day orientation for them at the Thurgood Marshall
Building on the American judicial system, state and federal. These
presentations were made by both federal and state judges. On the third
day the group split up into smaller delegations which traveled to local
communities for full 7 day visits. I hosted one of the groups here in
Peoria. In fact, the Russian judges stayed in our home with Judy and me
for the entire week. During the week we presented a full program of
judicial programming in the federal and state courts and also a variety
of social events. The entire community became involved in the project.
In fact, on one day we had a special setting of the Third District
Appellate Court convene in my courtroom and hear oral argument in a
civil and criminal case. The courtroom was filled to capacity with
lawyers and judges from the entire area. Supreme Court Justice Tom
Kilbride was instrumental in making that event possible, and personally
attended and conferred with the Russian judges. We also had meetings
with state legislators, representatives of the news media, prosecutors
and defense attorneys, etc.
I could go on for pages. The bottom line is that the visit was very
meaningful for the Russian judges. It made them fully understand what
the Rule of Law means in reality in this country. Everyone who was
involved in this program was touched, moved, and changed by it. I have
maintained contact with the judges after their return to Russia. This
same scenario played out at the same time in Oklahoma City and
Baltimore, and since then delegations have traveled to Minneapolis,
Denver, Nashville, and Boston. Tomorrow the next group arrives in
Washington, and they will go to Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and
Albuquerque.
I would not presume to tell you that the continued funding of this
program takes precedence over other budget demands. I have the greatest
respect for your judgement. I can tell you that the program has been an
unqualified success in each city where a delegation has visited, and
that the emerging Russian judicial leaders who have participated in the
program went home with a new vision of what a true Rule of Law
environment could mean for the people of the Russian Federation. If
funding is available we plan to bring over 400 Russian judges here in
the year 2002. Many district courts around the country have expressed
an interest in hosting a delegation in their community.
I believe that, if Russia succeeds in establishing a maintaining a
meaningful democratic system, there is hope for many of the fledgling
democracies of Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. If Russia
fails in its democratic experiment, that failure will almost inevitably
extend to those other new democracies. This program seems to be making
a difference. A small, incremental difference that hopefully will grow
with time.
I would be remiss if I did not also say that the people we have
worked with on this project from the Library of Congress and their
support staff are superlative in every respect. We have never worked
with a better group of people on an international Rule of Law project.
I remember reading the transcript of your eloquent words in defense
of the professionalism and in defense of our federal judiciary at a
hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This program exposes the
Russian judges to that model as it performs in practice--in the big
towns and small towns of America--made real for them by the men and
women who serve the law in each local community.
I know there are demands on your time and attention. That is why I
have written this letter instead of trying to contact you by phone. If
you have any questions concerning this matter I would be happy to try
to answer them at your convenience.
Please stay safe and continue your important work.
Warm Regards,
Michael M. Mihm.
subcommittee recess
Senator Durbin. The subcommittee is going to stand in
recess now until Wednesday, March 20, at 10:30 a.m. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Wednesday, March 13, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, March 20.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:31 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Reed, and Bennett.
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF JERI THOMSON, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
BARBARA TIMMER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
TIM WINEMAN, FINANCIAL CLERK
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Good morning. I would like to convene the
subcommittee. Today we will take testimony from the Secretary
of the Senate and the Architect of the Capitol on the fiscal
year 2003 budget request. Our first witness is Jeri Thomson,
Secretary of the Senate, who will be accompanied by Assistant
Secretary of the Senate Barbara Timmer and the Senate Chief
Financial Clerk, Tim Wineman. We certainly welcome you this
morning.
SEPTEMBER 11TH
Before we review your budget, Jeri, I think it is
appropriate to extend our sincere appreciation for your hard
work and continuing efforts since last September 11. Most of
the people who are viewing this hearing on C-SPAN do not
realize what you have been through, and your family, I might
add, since September 11, along with so many other dedicated
people who work in the Capitol Building.
This subcommittee has a general responsibility, as the
legislative subcommittee, and of course has major assignments
when it comes to the continued operations, successful
operations, of the United States Senate. But it also has a
special obligation to the people who work as part of this
operation and to our great legacy, these buildings which
represent, not only to the United States, but to the world, a
true symbol of freedom and democracy.
On September 11, a day which none of us will ever forget,
you were called on, as many were, to do heroic things to
protect this building. You had wonderful help in that regard.
The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate Al Lenhardt and you were
inseparable for months, as you both worked together to make
certain that the buildings were secure and safe.
I cannot give enough praise today, or ever, to the Capitol
Police for what they have done. I do not think any of us can
really appreciate the sacrifices that were made by these men
and women in an effort to keep all of us who work here safe and
all who visit this great Capitol Building.
ANTHRAX INCIDENT
You and your staff then on October 15 faced a new challenge
with the anthrax threat, which closed down a major portion of
Capitol Hill. It was a threat that was unprecedented. The best
experts in America came together and said, ``We have never
faced anything quite like this.'' And you were in the middle.
You were in the eye of that storm, as we tried to bring
business back to usual.
You faced a lot of pressure from members who wanted to be
back in their offices, from staff, some of whom wanted to be
back in their offices and others who did not want to go back in
their offices. And you handled it with grace and real
dedication.
I will just tell you that on behalf of all of the Members
of the United States Senate--and I am sure I speak for both
parties--that we want to give you, as well as the Architect's
Office, the Capitol Police, the Sergeant at Arms, all of you,
special commendation for the extraordinary and historic efforts
that you made to keep the Senate in operation. It is a credit
to you and your commitment to this institution that it was as
successful as it was.
We understand that the countless hours that you put in on
those days have diminished some, but are still being invested
in preparedness and planning efforts to protect this great
institution and all who work and visit here. We thank you so
much for that critical work.
With respect to your budget, the request totals roughly $24
million, close to the fiscal year 2002 total budget. The
request includes a one-time $5 million series of disbursing
office initiatives aimed at improving financial management and
the efficiency with which the Senate offices conduct resource
tracking and reporting.
Senator Bennett will be joining us in a few minutes. But if
I could ask you at this point--here he is, on cue. At this
point, I would be happy to turn to my ranking member, Senator
Bennett, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I read your
opening statement and want to join in expressing my gratitude
to the Secretary and her staff for the work that has gone into
the activities surrounding September 11 and October 15. October
15 is not a date that is burned into the consciousness of the
country. But certainly here in the Senate with the anthrax
scare, it is a date that I am sure the Secretary of the Senate
will never forget.
So, Jeri, we are very grateful to you for your leadership
and your diligence and your dedication to lead us through that
very difficult time.
Your budget request at $24 million does not seem
unreasonable. I will be happy to have you tell us about the new
initiatives that you are trying to bring on and the significant
increase for the expenses of the Office of the Secretary. I am
sure you can justify them. But for the record, we will go
through that and I look forward to understanding them better.
We welcome you here, and I express my thanks and gratitude
for the job you have done.
Jeri Thomson knows, Mr. Chairman, how she is referred to in
our household as a term of endearment as she is herding
Senators around to an event. My wife, who did not know her
exalted title and position, referred to her as the ``den
mother'' that was trying to see that all the Cub Scouts got to
where they needed to be at the proper time and not get lost, so
that she did not have to report to their mommies that they had
wandered away.
It is a term of affection and admiration.
We are glad to have you here.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
The Secretary of the Senate, Jeri Thomson.
Ms. Thomson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Bennett, for all of those kind words. I think the praise of the
staff and the Capitol Police is really warranted for their
efforts during the extraordinary events of last fall.
I thank you for this opportunity to present testimony in
support of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate's budget
request for fiscal year 2003. I am requesting $24,156,000. That
is an increase of $161,000 over last year's budget request.
LIS AND FMIS
Although the fiscal year 2003 budget request is essentially
the same as last year's, there are some important differences
in how next year's money will be spent. The Secretary's Office
has responsibility for two critical systems that are mandated
by law. They are the legislative information system, known as
LIS, and the financial management information system, known as
FMIS.
Historically, the development of these systems has been
funded by the Appropriations Committee through multiyear
appropriations, which has enabled this office to plan, develop,
and install these large and complex systems in a systematic and
cost-effective way. Funding for the LIS augmentation project,
which is known as LISAP, began in fiscal year 2000.
As former Secretary Gary Sisco noted in his testimony in
May of 2001, the overall objective of LISAP is to implement
extensible markup language or XML as the data standard to
author and exchange legislative documents among the Senate,
House of Representatives, the Government Printing Office, and
other legislative agencies.
Our program carries out the December 2000 mandate to the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House from the
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the House
Committee on House Administration. Last year the committee
appropriated $7 million to fund LISAP. The Secretary's Office
is leading a team that includes staff from the Senate Sergeant
at Arms, the Government Printing Office, the Library of
Congress, Senate Legislative Counsel, and our own enrolling
clerk. And we are working closely with the Clerk of the House
so that the authoring tool that we develop is compatible with,
and we hope identical to, the authoring tool developed by the
House of Representatives.
This year I am recommending an appropriation of $5 million
for a multiyear program to upgrade and expand the financial
management information system of the Senate. The explanation
and specific components of this project are described in my
written testimony and in the much more detailed briefing book
that has been provided by the disbursing office to the members
of this subcommittee.
Briefly, with these funds our disbursing office will
continue to modernize processes and applications to meet the
continuing requests from Senate offices for efficiency,
accountability, and ease of use. And in addition, with this
funding the Senate will essentially complete the process of
preparing the Senate to produce financial statements that can
be audited, as mandated by the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration.
The multiyear funds appropriated by this committee in 1995
for the FMIS project have been spent. It is appropriate now to
request another multiyear funding installment for this critical
project, so that we can continue FMIS development in a
strategic and orderly way. This approach is the same one this
subcommittee used in 1995, when it appropriated $5 million for
a multiyear financial modernization effort. Although that
appropriation ended in 2000, the Secretary's Office funded
additional contracts from our salary and expense budgets.
A piecemeal approach to financial management modernization
is less efficient and less cost effective than the kind of
long-term planned initiative that this committee put in place
in 1995 and that we propose starting again next year.
STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
There are five strategic initiatives the disbursing office
will implement, if this $5 million request is granted. And very
briefly, they are: Moving to a paperless voucher processing
system, improving the web FMIS function, making payroll system
improvements; improving and integrating accounting subsystems,
and, finally, being able to produce the financial statements.
The flexibility of multiyear funding assists the Secretary
and the disbursing office in providing the long-range planning
necessary to implement initiatives of this size and complexity.
The previous similar FMIS funding strategy approved by this
committee was a key factor in its successful execution.
DEPARTMENTAL OPERATIONS
While the overall budget request increase of the
Secretary's Office is only $161,000, reallocation of funds
within the office will result in an increase of $506,000 in the
Secretary's departmental operations budget. Beginning with the
fiscal year 1997 budget, the Secretary's departmental operating
budget has remained essentially static at $1.5 million, with
the one-time exception in fiscal year 2001, when the committee
added approximately that same amount for an FMIS contract.
So for at least 6 years, the Secretary's operational
systems, those systems that are a critical part of the
infrastructure of the legislative and administrative services
provided by the Secretary's Office, have had minimal or no
upgrades. And as we know, 6 years is many lifetimes in
information technology.
So I am recommending approximately $506,000, the same
amount that was spent on the FMIS contract in fiscal year 2001,
be available in fiscal year 2003, which would return the
department's expense budget to about $2 million, which is the
same that it was in fiscal year 2001.
The explanation of what needs to be done to bring the
Secretary's departments the training, equipment, and systems
they need to do their jobs is provided in detail in my written
testimony. These new funds will begin to pay for new systems
and upgrades that we have identified as critical to the Senate.
And briefly, the $506,000 in funds that I have recommended for
the departmental operations budget includes both recurring and
nonrecurring costs.
The recurring costs are for the Secretary's annual
continuity of Government/continuity of operations training and
preparation. And we estimate that the initial expenditure for
next year to be about $20,000.
The nonrecurring expenses are outlined in detail in my
written testimony. But very briefly, it includes new hardware
and software for the gift shop and the stationery room. The
Senate curator needs to create microfiches of collection
records to document the history and value of all the objects
and to authenticate ownership and meet our COOP obligations. We
have an obligation to take the same care that museums would of
the Senate's art and antiquities, such as the Senate desks that
are under the care of the Commission on Art. The approximate
cost there is about $50,000. Our Official Reporters of Debate,
who prepare the Congressional Record, need new computers. That
is approximately $20,000. The Senate Library's catalog should
be available online to every Senate office. The current catalog
system has that capability, but the implementation was delayed
pending release of a new Oracle-based software and scheduled
replacement of an operating system. We are ready now. We would
like to proceed. That approximate cost is $25,000.
CAPTIONING SYSTEM
And finally, the Senate's captioning system is now more
than 10 years old. The system software is outdated. The
computerized stenotype machines are the original machines
purchased in 1991, when I was Assistant Secretary, and they are
no longer manufactured. Replacement parts for the stenotype
machines have become scarce.
And the present captioning system lends itself to possible
errors that are mechanical in nature, rather than being caused
by the captioners themselves. There is a critical need to
upgrade the Senate's captioning system simply because we have
an obligation to get it right. And the approximate cost there
is about $100,000.
COOP AND COG PLANNING
Our response to the September 11 and October 15, 2001
events took the form of a direct, sustained, and now a
permanent partnership between the offices of the Secretary of
the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms. During and after the two
biggest challenges of last year, the Senate's two principal
officers have worked together seamlessly, both in coordinating
continuity of Government planning efforts after the September
11 attacks and in managing the Senate efforts to reopen the
Hart Building after the anthrax contamination.
After the events of the fall of 2001, it was obvious to the
Sergeant at Arms and me, as newly sworn officers of the Senate,
that more needed to be done in every Senate office to prepare
for continuing Government functions during an emergency. The
Senate's officers have been working together since that time to
accomplish an extensive list of projects.
The Sergeant at Arms, as the Senate's lead officer in COG
COOP planning, will brief the committee during his testimony.
I, however, would like to brief you on what has been done in
emergency planning in the Office of the Secretary.
Shortly after I took office on July 12, 2001, I tasked each
department to complete their COOP plans by August 31. When I
was Assistant Secretary, we had a small emergency planning
process and I have remained convinced of the importance of
emergency preparedness. As Secretary, I wanted to be assured
that each department had the ability to perform essential
functions in the event of the disruption of normal business
operations.
Now all departments have finished their COOP plans. We have
met in and tested off-site facilities. We have ordered
equipment that departments will need to assist the Senate in
session, in any location, in almost any circumstance. With the
help of Senate legal counsel and the General Accounting Office,
we are preparing a manual that will describe the process State
by State for replacement of Senators, should that be necessary.
Each department has outlined a plan for the gradual
restoration of operations, which might be interrupted or
postponed by an event. They have identified requirements for
operation at an alternative work site, which records,
databases, equipment, and supplies are necessary to conduct
essential functions. Each department has made arrangements to
duplicate and store essential items offsite or has made sure
adequate arrangements are in place to ensure timely replacement
of those items.
COOP plans include maintenance schedules for records and
databases, as well as a copy of the plan itself. Information
from all final departmental plans was integrated into a
Secretary of the Senate plan. And following the creation of
this document, a comprehensive inventory of all space under the
control of the Secretary of the Senate was undertaken. A vital
records program, a training and testing exercise program, and a
maintenance schedule were developed and included in a final
three-volume comprehensive Office of the Secretary COOP plan.
And, of course, seven departments in the Secretary's Office
were able to fully exercise those COOP plans when the Hart
Building was closed for 3 months. I am pleased to report that
all statutory responsibilities and obligations of the Office of
the Secretary were met during that time, including meeting
payrolls, paying bills, and receiving campaign and lobbying
reports.
In coordination with the Sergeant at Arms, we are assisting
the bipartisan Senate leadership, Senate committees, and 100
Senate offices in the development of their own COOP plans.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Capitol Police officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson died
during the summer of 1998. And their tragic deaths focused
attention on Capitol security and the need for a Capitol
Visitor Center. The 105th Congress appropriated $100 million
for the Capitol Visitor Center and directed that the remaining
required funds be raised by the private sector. The Fund for
the Capitol Visitor Center, a 501(c)(3) organization, was
formed and successfully raised $35 million for this project
before the events of September 11 and the anthrax bioterrorism
attack.
I would like to commend Chairman Marilyn Ware and the board
of the Fund for the Capitol Visitor Center for their essential
contributions and their individual dedication in helping the
Nation build a visitor center which will improve security while
providing a much better educational opportunity for students
and others who visit the Capitol Building.
To assist in funding the visitor center, Congress
authorized the Capitol Visitor Center commemorative coins. Over
360,000 coins have been sold, and over $3.3 million has been
raised for the purpose of constructing the Capitol Visitor
Center.
For nearly 200 years the Capitol Building has stood as the
greatest visible symbol of our representative democracy. It is,
and will remain, the workplace of our elected representatives,
as well as a museum and a major tourist attraction. Since 1859,
when the present House and Senate wings were completed, our
country has undergone tremendous growth. Citizens of the United
States, and now the world, visit the Capitol in increasing
numbers. And even though the events of the fall of 2001
resulted in a decrease in visitors, we already see that
visitors will soon be at their highest levels once again.
The 19th century design of the Capitol Building does not
easily lend itself to tourists and cannot safely accommodate
the numbers of visitors we are again expecting to experience.
The Capitol Visitor Center will provide a safe, comfortable,
and educational introduction to the Capitol Building.
Following the World Trade Center and Pentagon tragedies,
Congress appropriated sufficient funds to fully finance the
construction of the Capitol Visitor Center. The Fund for the
Capitol Visitor Center has ceased operation. And with full
funding, the Capitol Preservation Commission has authorized
construction. Pre-construction activities have been underway
for several months. Excavation of the east front site will
begin in mid-June 2002. The Capitol Visitor Center will be
completed by January 2005.
The Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate continue
to chair weekly meetings of leadership staff, who are
informally charged, on behalf of the joint leadership of
Congress, with overseeing this project. Project staff,
representatives of the Architect, the Capitol Police,
contractors, and others, as appropriate, attend these meetings.
And while construction of the visitor center will be
disruptive, dirty, and noisy, we are confident that the
American public and visitors and Congress will be proud of the
new facility and pleased with the educational opportunities,
the enhanced security, and the amenities it will provide
everyone who visits the Nation's Capitol Building.
STAFF OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
And finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word about
the staff of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. The
events of last fall illustrated once again how valuable these
people are to the Senate. The Secretary's legislative staff are
almost irreplaceable in that one cannot just hire a legislative
clerk or a parliamentarian or a bill clerk or an enrolling
clerk. These people have years of training and experience. And
the Senate would be hard pressed to conduct its business
without them.
The same is true for the staff of the disbursing office,
the Office of Public Records, Interparliamentary Service, the
Official Reporters of Debates, and the captioners. We all
depend each day on the services provided by the document and
printing services staff and those who work in the stationery
and gift shops. We need to hire qualified people who are
willing to make a career here in the Senate. And then we need
to have personnel policies, a salary schedule, and benefits
that will keep them here.
Throughout the day on September 11, the Secretary's staff
assumed responsibilities and helped out in any and every way
they were asked. And during the anthrax incidents, those who
were displaced went about their jobs and fulfilled the
statutory obligations of this office without question and with
a can-do spirit that I found quite remarkable.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
They have earned recognition and thanks from the Senate and
from me for their unwavering dedication to the United States
Senate.
Thank you.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Jeri Thomson
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett 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 2003.
I am pleased to provide this statement to accompany the budget
request and I am particularly pleased to be able to highlight the
achievements of this Office during the past year.
fiscal year 2003 budget request
The Appropriations Request
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the budget request
from the Office of the Secretary for fiscal year 2003 is $24,156,000,
an increase of $161,000. Although the budget request for fiscal year
2003 is essentially the same as the amount requested last year, there
are some important differences in how next year's monies will be spent.
These differences reflect several significant initiatives that
ultimately will benefit every Senate office, and, I believe, the Senate
as an institution.
The Mandated Systems: LIS and FMIS
The two major mandated systems, the Legislative Information System
(LIS) and the Financial Management Information System (FMIS),
historically have been funded through multi-year appropriations. The
funding for the LIS Augmentation Project began in fiscal year 2000. As
former Secretary Sisco explained in his statement prepared for this
Subcommittee in May of 2001, the overall objective of the Legislative
Information System Augmentation Program (LISAP) is to implement
Extensible Markup Language, or XML, as the data standard to author and
exchange legislative documents among the Senate, the House, the
Government Printing Office and other legislative agencies. Our program
carries out the December 2000 mandate to the Secretary of the Senate
and Clerk of the House from the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration and the Committee on House Administration.
Last year, this Committee appropriated $7 million to fund LISAP. We
are leading a team that includes staff from the Sergeant at Arms, the
Government Printing Office, the Library of Congress, Senate Legislative
Counsel, and our own Enrolling Clerk and we are working closely with
the Clerk of the House so that the authoring tool we develop is
compatible with, and hopefully identical to, the authoring language
being developed by the House. The LISAP XML project is historic. I was
Assistant Secretary when we embarked upon similar projects: automation
of the production of the Congressional Record and electronic filing
with the Government Printing Office, and automating the production of
enrolled and engrossed bills. Like those projects, the LISAP project
will change the legislative operation of the Senate.
This year I am recommending an appropriation of $5 million for a
multi-year program to upgrade and expand the Financial Management
Information System (FMIS) of the Senate. The explanation and specific
components of the project are described below, and in much more detail
in the separate briefing book that the Disbursing Office has prepared
for each Member of the Appropriations Committee. Briefly, with these
funds our Disbursing Office will continue to modernize processes and
applications to meet the continuing requests from Senate offices for
efficiency, accountability, and ease of use. In addition, with this
funding the Senate will essentially complete the process of preparing
the Senate to produce financial statements that can be audited, as
previously mandated by the Rules Committee.
The multi-year funds appropriated in 1995 for the FMIS project have
been spent and it is appropriate to request another funding installment
for this critical Senate project. I believe it is very important once
again for this Subcommittee to put into place a planned, strategic
multi-year initiative for FMIS--and we have prepared a separate
proposal for your review that outlines the goals of this initiative and
the benefits to the Senate. This is the same process this Subcommittee
used in 1995, when it appropriated $5 million for a multi-year
financial modernization effort. Although that appropriation ended in
2000, the Secretary's Office funded additional contracts each of the
last two years from our salary and expense budget. A piecemeal approach
to financial management modernization is less efficient and less cost
effective than the kind of long term planned initiative that the
Subcommittee put in place in 1995 and that we propose starting again
next year.
These are the five strategic initiatives the Disbursing Office will
implement if the $5 million request is granted:
--Paperless Vouchers--Imaging of Supporting Documentation and
Electronic Signatures.--Beginning with a feasibility study and
a pilot project, we will implement new technology, including
imaging and electronic signatures, that will reduce the
Senate's dependence on paper vouchers. This will enable
continuation of voucher processing operations from any
location, in any situation;
--Web FMIS--Requests from Accounting Locations.--We will respond to
requests from the Senate's many accounting locations for
additional functionality in Web FMIS. We have several specific
requests from the Rules Committee; we anticipate additional
requests from Senate offices for security management; and, we
have requests from Senate Offices for a series of new monthly
reports;
--Payroll System--Requests from Accounting Locations.--We will
respond to requests from the Senate's accounting locations for
on-line, real time access to payroll data, the capacity to
project payroll more than twice a month, and the ability to
submit payroll actions online;
--Accounting Sub-system Integration.--We will integrate Senate-
specific accounting systems, improve internal controls, and
eliminate errors caused by re-keying of data. This includes
updates to the approval process, the ability to track not-to-
exceed budget amounts, and contract tracking; and
--CFO Financial Statement Development.--We will provide the Senate
with the capacity to produce auditable financial statements
that will earn an unqualified opinion.
Each of these initiatives and the specific projects composing these
initiatives is described more fully in the separate briefing book we
have prepared for the Members of the Committee. The flexibility of
multi-year funding assists the Secretary and the Disbursing Office in
providing the long-range planning necessary to implement initiatives of
this size and complexity. The previous similar FMIS funding strategy
approved by this Committee was a key factor in its successful
execution.
The Operating Budget
I am recommending an increase of $506,000 in the Secretary's
departmental operating budget. Beginning with the fiscal year 1997
budget, the Secretary's departmental operating budget has remained
static at $1,571,000, with a one-time exception in fiscal year 2001
when the Committee added approximately $506,000 for an FMIS contract.
For at least six years the Secretary's office operational systems, the
critical infrastructure of the legislative and administrative services
provided by the Secretary, have had minimal or no upgrades, and, as we
know, six years is more than a lifetime in information technology. I am
recommending approximately $506,000 (the same amount as was spent on
FMIS in fiscal year 2001) be available in fiscal year 2003.
The explanation of what needs to be done to bring the Secretary's
departments the training, equipment and systems they need to do their
jobs is detailed below. Having had static operating budgets since 1996
has actually meant that the resources available to support the
infrastructure of the Secretary's legislative, financial and
administrative responsibilities have dropped, year-by-year, in real
terms. These funds will begin to pay for the new systems and upgrades
we have identified as critical for the Senate.
The $506,000 in funds that I have recommended for the Secretary's
operating budget include both recurring and non-recurring costs:
The recurring expenses are for the Secretary's annual COOP training
and preparations, estimated to be approximately $20,000 each year.
The non-recurring expenses include the following:
--New software (with accompanying hardware) for the Gift Shop. The
current software is so old it meets few, if any, of the current
standards for a point-of-sale retail business. Inventory
control, and therefore accountability, would be next to
impossible except for the extraordinary efforts of dedicated
staff. The Senate Gift Shop is a real business, supplying items
for Senate offices and staff, as well as visiting constituents
and the public. Senate offices, here and in the states, have
requested the ability to purchase online, both from the Senate
Gift Shop and the Stationary Store. The current systems in both
places do not have the capacity to meet the demand. Approximate
cost, including training, installation, integration of online
sales capacity, and a year of support, is $240,000.
--The Stationary Room, like the Gift Shop, currently depends upon an
outdated computer program and hardware. The Stationary Room,
like the Gift Shop, should meet current sales, inventory and
accounting standards. After we upgrade the Gift Shop, we will
upgrade the Stationary Room software and hardware. By building
on our evaluation of the Gift Shop and using the same vendors,
we anticipate that the Stationary Room upgrade will cost less
than the Gift Shop's new system, approximately $75,000 during
the coming fiscal year.
--The Curator needs to create microfiches of collection records, to
document not only the history and value of each object, but to
authenticate ownership and meet our COOP obligations. Standard
museum practices require archival copies for storage and
preservation. We have a fiduciary duty to and should be taking
the same care of the art and objects entrusted to the Senate,
and meeting the same standards of care applicable in any modern
museum. Approximate cost: $50,000.
--The Official Reporters need new flat computer screens, which we
estimate will cost approximately $20,000.
--The Senate Library's catalog should be available online to all
Senate offices. The current catalog program has this
capability, but implementation was delayed pending release of
new Oracle-based software and the scheduled replacement of the
old operating system. Approximate cost: $25,000.
--The Senate's captioning system is now more than ten years old. The
system software is outdated, the computerized stenotype
machines are the original machines purchased in 1991, and are
no longer manufactured. Replacement parts for the stenotype
machines have become scarce and the present captioning system
lends itself to possible errors that are mechanical in nature.
There is a critical need to upgrade the Senate's captioning
system. There are only a small number of companies designing
and manufacturing equipment and software products for the
industry. It is the intent of the Secretary's office this year
to complete a study regarding the possible replacement of the
current Senate captioning system with a next generation system
and implement its recommendations. Approximate cost: $100,000.
We will search for the most efficient and cost effective ways to
meet each of these needs. We have set high standards for ourselves, as
we do with each of our departments. This office has been a good
steward, as shown with the previous FMIS funding and with the current
LIS funds, we will continue to be careful with the taxpayer's monies
and mindful of the Committee's trust.
Members of the Subcommittee, this list is not exhaustive. Each
department has been asked to review every system and process to
determine what could be done better. This extensive review was delayed
by September 11 and the anthrax incident, but we have continued the
process. As this year progresses we may find more work that needs to be
done to modernize those parts of the Senate's infrastructure for which
the Secretary is responsible. We will not hesitate to bring that
information to this Committee's attention, and seek the guidance of
this Committee and the Committee on Rules and Administration.
legislative services
september 11, 2001, evacuation and october 15 anthrax attack:
continuity of operations planning
Partnership with the Sergeant at Arms
Our response to September 11 and October 15, 2001, took the form of
a direct, sustained and now permanent partnership between the Offices
of the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms. During and after the two
biggest challenges of last year, the Senate's two principal officers
have worked together, seamlessly, both in coordinating continuity of
operations planning efforts after the September 11 attacks, and in
managing Senate efforts to reopen the Hart Senate office building after
the anthrax contamination.
Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP)
After the events in the fall of 2001, it was obvious to us, as
newly sworn officers of the Senate, that more needed to be done by
every office of the Senate to prepare for continuing government
functions during an emergency. The Senate's officers have been working
together since that time to accomplish an extensive list of projects.
The Sergeant at Arms, as the lead officer, will brief the Committee
more thoroughly in his testimony. I will, however, brief the Committee
on the status of emergency planning in the Office of the Secretary.
Immediately after I took the oath of office, on July 12, 2001, I
tasked the twenty-one individual departments within the Secretary of
the Senate's operation to develop their Continuity of Operations Plans
(COOP plans). A small emergency preparedness project was completed when
I was Assistant Secretary and I have remained convinced of its
importance. As Secretary, I wanted to ensure that each department had
the ability to perform essential functions in the event of a disruption
in normal business operations.
The Departments in the Secretary's Office have finished their COOP
plans. We've met in and tested offsite facilities. We have ordered
equipment that the Departments of the Secretary's Office will need to
assist the Senate in session in any location. With the help of Senate
Legal Counsel and the General Accounting Office, we are preparing a
manual that will describe the state-by-state replacement of Senators,
should that be necessary.
Each department has outlined a plan for the gradual restoration of
operations which might be interrupted or postponed by an event, as well
as identify requirements for operation at an alternative work site. The
departments also were required to identify records, databases,
equipment and supplies necessary to conduct essential functions and to
make arrangements to duplicate and store essential items offsite or to
make certain adequate arrangements were made to ensure timely
replacement. COOP plans include maintenance schedules for records and
databases, as well as a copy of the plan itself. The review of the
departmental plans began in September, and every plan had been reviewed
at least twice before the final departmental plan was approved.
Information from all final departmental plans was integrated into a
Secretary of the Senate plan by mid-February 2002. Following the
creation of this document, a comprehensive inventory of all space under
the control of the Office of the Secretary was undertaken and a vital
records program, a training and testing exercise program, and
maintenance schedule were developed and included in the final,
comprehensive Office of the Secretary COOP plan. In coordination with
the Sergeant at Arms, we are also assisting the bipartisan Senate
leadership, Senate committees, and the 100 Senate offices in the
development of COOP plans.
Let me describe in detail some of the steps we have taken to put
COOP training and plans in place:
Template/Standard Document
--Starting with the standard document that had been created for the
use of the SAA and SOS COOP planning, a Senate leadership
template, a committee specific template, and a personal office
template were created for use in the development of office COOP
plans.
Training
--Committee staff directors have been briefed on COOP goals and COOP
plan author training has been provided for all committee staff.
This training includes continuing validation and gap analysis
of all plans, which is essential prior to final integration
into the Senate-wide Operational Recovery Program. We are
working with the Joint Office of Education and Training (JOET),
to develop Senate wide COOP awareness and training capability.
Coordination
--Our goal is to complete the initial COOP process for all identified
Senate entities prior to the Memorial Day Recess 2002. An
August 2002 tabletop exercise has been scheduled to train staff
of the Secretary and SAA.
Ongoing Projects
--COOP briefing materials will be provided for Senator-Elect
Orientation for early December 2002.
legislative services--department reports
Duties of the Secretary of the Senate
As each of my predecessors has said in prior testimony before the
Members of this Subcommittee, the Secretary's Office is directed by the
Constitution, statutes, the rules, resolutions and precedents of the
Senate, the directives of the Senate leadership, oversight and
appropriating committees, and by the Office's own rich traditions and
history. The Office, which began April 8, 1789, now employs
approximately 230 employees in almost two-dozen departments.
Today, an analyst might describe the Secretary as the Chief
Information Officer of the Senate, responsible for disseminating
legislative and administrative information.
The Secretary also might be described as the Chief Operations
Officer, responsible for the day to day financial and administrative
operations of the Senate, from the parliamentarian to payroll, art in
the Capitol to the Senate's Web site, the library to the historian, but
always focused on the ability of the Senate and the Senators to carry
out their constitutional duties.
But perhaps the most important function of the Secretary is as
Chief Legislative Officer, responsible for everything necessary to
support the legislative activities of Senators and the Senate, the
activities that make this democracy work, and the work that makes this
democracy a model for the world.
CHART ONE: YEARLY COMPARISON OF THE SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Convened....................... 1/25 1/3 1/23 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/25 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/27 1/6 1/24 1/3
Senate Adjourned...................... 10/21 11/21 10/28 1/3/92 10/9 11/26 12/01 1/3/96 10/4 11/13 10/21 11/19 12/15 12/20
Days in Session....................... 137 136 138 158 129 153 138 211 132 153 143 162 141 173
Hours in Session...................... 1,12648" 1,00319" 1,25014" 1,20044" 1,09109" 1,26941" 1,24333" 1,83910" l,03645" 1,09307" 1,09505" 1,18357" 1,01751" 1,23615"
Average Hours per Day................. 8.2 7.4 9.1 7.6 8.5 8.3 9.0 8.7 7.8 7.1 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.1
Total Measures Passed................. 814 605 716 626 651 473 465 346 476 386 506 549 696 425
Roll Call Votes....................... 379 312 326 280 270 395 329 613 306 298 314 374 298 380
Quorum Calls.......................... 26 11 3 3 5 2 6 3 2 6 4 7 6 3
Public Laws........................... 473 240 244 243 347 210 255 88 245 153 241 170 410 136
Treaties Ratified..................... 15 9 15 15 32 20 8 10 28 15 53 13 39 3
Nominations Confirmed................. 42,317 45,585 42,493 45,369 30,619 38,676 37,446 40,535 33,176 25,576 20,302 22,468 22,512 25,091
Average Voting Attendance............. 91.58 98.0 97.47 97.16 95.4 97.6 97.02 98.07 98.22 98.68 97.47 98.02 96.99 98.29
Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon..... 120 95 116 126 112 128 120 184 113 115 109 118 107 140
Sessions Convened at 12 Noon......... 12 14 4 9 6 9 2 15 12 31 17 25 10 12
Sessions Convened after 12 Noon...... 5 27 17 23 10 15 17 12 7 7 2 19 24 21
Sessions Continued after 6 p.m........ 37 88 100 102 91 100 100 158 88 96 93 113 94 108
Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight.. 7 9 13 6 4 9 7 3 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... 2
Saturday Sessions..................... 0 1 3 2 2 2 3 5 1 1 1 3 1 3
Sunday Sessions....................... ......... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... 3 ......... 1 ......... ......... 1 .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by the Senate Daily Digest--Office of the Secretary.
Offices in the Legislative Department
The Legislative Department of the Office of the Secretary of the
Senate provides the support essential to Senators in carrying out their
daily chamber activities as well as the constitutional responsibilities
of the Senate. The department consists of eight offices, the Bill
Clerk, Captioning Services, Daily Digest, Enrolling Clerk, Executive
Clerk, Journal Clerk, Legislative Clerk, and the Official Reporters of
Debates. Today, the Legislative Clerk acts as supervisor for the
department providing a single line of communication to the Assistant
Secretary and Secretary, and is responsible for overall coordination,
supervision, scheduling, and cross training.
The Legislative Department is fully staffed and employee morale is
high. Each of the eight offices within the Legislative Department is
supervised by experienced veterans of the Secretary's office. The
average length of service in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate
for legislative supervisors is 18 years. There is not one supervisor
with less than 11 years of service. The experience of these senior
professional staff is a great asset for the Senate.
In managing legislative personnel, emphasis is continually placed
on training for succession and continuity of the Senate's legislative
business. Whenever and wherever possible, cross training is implemented
among staff. For example, members of the Bill Clerk's office are cross
training on the Senate floor with the Legislative Clerks. Instead of
having three clerks who can call the roll and so forth, there are now
four employees capable of performing at least the basic
responsibilities of the Legislative Clerk on the Senate floor. At a
minimum eight staffers will be involved in cross training throughout
the legislative department this year.
Legislative Information System (LIS).--The first session of the
107th Congress was the second operational year for the new Legislative
Information System (LIS). LIS is a mandated system (2 U.S.C. 123e) with
the objective of providing desktop access to the content and status of
all Senate legislative information and supporting documents. LIS now
provides Senate users with immediate access to accurate and timely
legislative information from a single source. The legislative clerks,
working with staff from the technical operations staff of the Sergeant
at Arms, have helped plan, design, test, and implement phases of LIS.
During the past year, the legislative staff continued to monitor and
evaluate data input screens, and provide valuable feedback to the
technical operations staff of the Sergeant at Arms. The Bill Clerk,
Daily Digest Editor, Executive Clerk, and Legislative Clerk devoted
many hours to documenting over 200 ``Change Requests'' to enhance the
new system with the intent of providing accurate, precise, timely, and
user-friendly information to the LIS users.
The excellent working relationship between the legislative clerks
and the Sergeant at Arms' technical operations staff illustrates the
working partnership we have developed with the Sergeant at Arms and
contributes to the overall success of the project.
Continuity of Operations Planning.--An overall COOP plan involving
every legislative office is complete. The objective of such planning is
to provide the legislative support required for the Senate to carry out
its constitutional responsibilities should it become necessary for the
Senate to conduct business in a location other than the Senate Chamber,
and if necessary, with a new legislative staff. The legislative staff,
like every other department in the Secretary's Office, will continue to
review and update these COOP plans on a regular, annual basis. In fact,
we have made it a part of each manager's annual review.
Each legislative office has established and practiced emergency
evacuation procedures. Each office has assembled emergency ``Fly-Away
Kits'' containing materials that would allow for immediate continuity
of Senate operations. Examples of some of the items contained in Fly-
Away Kits are roll call tally sheets, forms for various types of
legislation, stenotype machines, audio recorders, and electronic discs
containing information pertinent to the operations of the Senate.
Vital Record Preservation.--The Secretary's overall COOP plan
identifies data and information produced by the legislative staff as
essential to the Senate's vital record preservation program. Today,
data produced by each supervisor is included in a dual nightly
replication process. The data is stored in two separate offsite
facilities. Every two weeks a copy of the data is stored to a third
offsite location. A major concern in developing a replication process
was to secure engrossed and enrolled legislative data produced by the
Senate Enrolling Clerk.
Bill Clerk
The Bill Clerk records the official actions of the Senate, keeps an
authoritative historical record of Senate business, enters daily
legislative activities and votes into the automated legislative status
system, and prints all introduced, submitted and reported legislation.
In addition, this office assigns numbers to all bills and resolutions.
The Bill Clerk's Office is generally regarded as the most timely
and accurate source of legislative information in the Senate. The Bill
Clerk's ledgers, or ``Bill Books'', contain information on the
legislative activity of the Senate, recorded directly from the Senate
floor within minutes of Senate action. The ``Bill Books'' are part of a
continuous historic record of Senate business, dating back to the 3rd
Congress. Currently, the Office of the Bill Clerk, in conjunction with
the technical operations staff of the Sergeant at Arms and the GPO, is
working to apply technology to modernize the ``Bill Books'' process by
developing a touch screen electronic bill ledger that will improve data
entry and retrieval, increase portability and information security, and
facilitate the production of a bound archival volume at the end of a
Congress.
Captioning Services
Real-time captioning began in the Senate in response to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The Office of the Secretary began
providing real-time captioning of Senate proceedings in 1991, ahead of
the January 1992 deadline of the ADA, and continues to do so today. The
Senate is fortunate to have a staff of five of the best and most
experienced captioners in the country. Senate captioners are all
Registered Professional Reporters (RPR) and have been certified to
write testimony at 225 words per minute with 97 percent accuracy.
Currently, the Senate captioners have an office accuracy rate average
of above 99 percent.
However, the Senate's captioning system itself is now more than ten
years old. The system software is outdated, the computerized stenotype
machines are the original machines purchased in 1991, and are no longer
manufactured. Replacement parts for the stenotype machines have become
scarce and the present captioning system lends itself to possible
errors that are mechanical in nature. There is a need to begin the
process of upgrading the Senate's captioning system. The captioning
industry is very small. There are approximately 300 real-time
captioners working in the United States. There are only a small number
of companies designing and manufacturing equipment and software
products for the industry. It is the intent of the Secretary's office
this year to complete a study and begin implementing the
recommendations of that study regarding the replacement of the current
Senate captioning system with a next generation system.
Closed captioning gets that name because the caption text is
``closed'' or hidden within the broadcast signal. It is hidden and
carried (encoded) on Line 21 of the Vertical Blanking Interval until it
is detected and displayed for viewing by a closed caption decoder in
the television set. The VBI is the black bar seen on older televisions
when the picture would lose vertical hold. Beginning in 1994,
television sets 13 inches and larger sold in the United States must
have caption decoder technology built in. There are two basic ways a
program is closed-captioned. Real-time, using specialized court-
reporting technology for live, televised events, and Off-Line, a post-
production method of captioning used for movies, documentaries, sit-
coms and other pre-recorded programs.
Real-time is the method used to caption Senate Floor Debates. The
Senators speak; the captioners listen with comprehension to understand
what is being said contextually, and then write on a stenotype machine
phonetic outlines of what they hear. The output of the stenotype
machine is transmitted to a computer where the steno outlines are
matched with a dictionary that outputs word parts, whole words or
complete phrases that match the corresponding steno. This occurs with
not only remarkable accuracy but with remarkable speed as well.
Captions can be written, translated, inserted for broadcast,
transmitted, decoded and displayed on a viewer's television set with a
minimal delay, usually less than 1.5 seconds. Most of this delay is
because the captioner is trying to understand what is being said so it
can be written correctly in context.
Real-time captioning is now 20 years old. It is the primary method
of captioning television news and sports programming. FCC requirements
for broadcasters to caption most of their daily schedule will be fully
in place in 2006. These requirements impact broadcasters in large
markets. These requirements have been phased-in beginning January 2000.
Even with the increased number of hours of real-time captioning, the
number of captioners has not increased in any significant way. There
are still only about 150 people who real-time caption full-time in the
English-speaking world, compared to the 35,000 people who are court
reporters in the United States alone.
Daily Digest
The Daily Digest section of the Congressional Record provides a
concise accounting of all official actions taken by the Senate on a
particular day. All Senate hearings and business meetings (including
joint meetings and conferences) are scheduled through the Daily Digest
office and published in the Congressional Record.
Enrolling Clerk
The Enrolling Clerk prepares, proofreads, corrects, and prints all
Senate passed legislation prior to its transmittal to the House of
Representatives, the National Archives, the Secretary of State, the
United States Claims Court, and the White House.
Technology continues to change the work of the Enrolling Clerk. In
1998 new computers doubled the speed at which bill pages were composed.
The data retrieval system was changed during that year so the office
could (1) pull bill files from the Government Printing Office by FTP
(File Transfer Protocol) via the Internet, and, (2) rather than going
through GPO for Legislative Counsel files, retrieve bill files directly
from the Legislative Counsel computer with a direct internet
connection. For the past year, the Enrolling Clerk has been an active
and important participant in the LISAP/XML team and in the current
phase of the XML project, development of an XML-based authoring
application. The team believes that the Senate Legislative Counsel and
the Enrolling Clerk are the first two offices that will be actually
using the new authoring language that is being developed.
Executive Clerk
The Executive Clerk prepares an accurate record of actions taken by
the Senate during executive sessions (proceedings on nominations and
treaties), which is published as the Executive Journal at the end of
each session of Congress. The Executive Clerk also prepares the daily
Executive Calendar as well as all nomination and treaty resolutions for
transmittal to the President.
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 Senate Journal as required by Article
I, Section 5 of the Constitution. The Senate Journal is published each
calendar year.
Legislative Clerk
The Legislative Clerk reads aloud bills, amendments, the Senate
Journal, Presidential messages, and other materials when directed to do
so by the Presiding Officer of the Senate. The Legislative Clerk calls
the roll of members to establish the presence of a quorum and to record
and tally all yea and nay votes. This office prepares the Senate
Calendar of Business, published each day that the Senate is in session,
and prepares additional publications relating to Senate class
membership and committee and subcommittee assignments. The Legislative
Clerk maintains the official copy of all measures pending before the
Senate and must incorporate into those measures any amendments that are
agreed upon by the Senate. This office retains custody of official
messages received from the House of Representatives and conference
reports awaiting action by the Senate.
Official Reporters of Debate
The Official Reporters of Debate prepare and edit for publication
in the Congressional Record a substantially verbatim report of the
proceedings of the Senate, and serve as liaison for all Senate
personnel on matters relating to the content of the Record. The
transcript of proceedings, submitted statements and legislation are
transmitted, in hard copy and electronically, throughout the day to the
Government Printing Office.
Parliamentarian
I am pleased to report that the Parliamentarian's Office is now
fully staffed with four well-qualified employees.
Last year, with the assistance of the Information Systems/Computer
support staff of the Secretary, the Office of the Parliamentarian
completed a project to electronically scan more than 11,000 documents
that record precedents of the Senate that had existed only in paper
format. This year, at our request, the GPO scanned and put into an
electronic PDF file Riddicks' Senate Procedures. This PDF file and the
documents scanned the year before greatly enhance the Senate's ability
to operate at another location in the event of an emergency.
The Parliamentarians advise the Chair, Senators and their staff as
well as committee staff, House members and their staffs, administration
officials, the media and members of the general public on all matters
requiring an interpretation of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the
precedents of the Senate, unanimous consent agreements, and the
provisions of public law affecting the proceedings of the Senate. The
Office of the Parliamentarian is responsible for the referral of all
legislation introduced in the Senate, all legislation received from the
House, as well as all communications received from the executive
branch. The office works extensively with Senators and their staffs to
advise them of the jurisdictional consequences of particular drafts of
legislation, and evaluates the jurisdictional effect of proposed
modifications in drafting.
The office continued to work with other Senate offices throughout
the year in developing a COOP plan to guarantee that the work that the
office provides to the Senate will continue under any circumstances.
The essential materials on which the work of the office depends have
been identified and duplicate sets are available to cover any future
contingencies. The office has prepared material outlining how the
Senate would operate if it had to meet in emergency session.
Counsel
The General Counsel advises the Office of the Secretary and its
departmental directors on a diverse array of issues ranging from
contracts and torts to legislation and appropriations. Additionally,
the General Counsel currently serves as the Senate point of contact for
issues related to the Capitol Visitor Center, including the Fund for
the Capitol Visitor Center and the Capitol Visitor Center Commemorative
Coin. Beginning in mid-May, Counsel also will take on the
responsibility, along with the Secretary's Security Office, for COOP
planning and implementation.
This past year, the General Counsel advised my office on the
conduct of two GAO audits: one conducted on the Senate Gift Shop
operations and another conducted on the Stationery Room operations.
Both audits revealed generally good financial accounting, with some
minor recommendations for improvements that have already been
implemented.
Senate.gov
Overview: The Redesign Project.--One of the top priorities
identified by the current Senate leadership is to redesign and greatly
enhance the Senate's official Web site with the goal of making it the
foremost site for educating the world about the Senate and its
activities in our system of representative democracy. In September 2001
we entered into a contract with >design, Inc., to provide an action
plan and cost estimate for redesigning the site. After considering the
amount of current content on the Web site, and the anticipated addition
of extensive educational content, the report recommended the
installation of a Web Content Management System.
We have begun a major project, in partnership with the Sergeant at
Arms, to implement the report's recommendations. This project can be
considered part of the LISAP project; a major component of the upgrade
will be the ability, through the Content Management System, of the site
to read and search XML-tagged content, including the legislative
documents that Senate offices will be creating with the new XML-based
authoring tool under development. Senate.gov should be one of the best
government Web sites in the world. Senate.gov should be the first stop
the public makes when seeking information about the Senate. But just as
important, Senate.gov should have information that every Senate office
can use--to help constituents learn about legislation, the Senate, or
plan their trip to Washington, D.C., contact their Senator, and
eventually through video, experience the Senate.
The Webmaster for the Office of the Secretary designs, develops and
maintains Senate.gov, our public site, the Secretary's pages on
Webster, and the Secretary's intranet, to provide Senate staff, and to
a lesser degree the general public, access to those administrative,
legislative, and financial services that are the responsibility of the
Secretary of the Senate. Senate.gov is already a key component of
communication in the Senate and was one of the principal Senate staff
communication tools post-September 11 and post-October 15, with
continually updated Hart building information, medical updates, and
meeting notices.
The Senate.gov Team.--A team of Senate staff led by the Office of
the Secretary, in partnership with the Office of the Sergeant at Arms,
and with the assistance of the Rules Committee, developed a Statement
of Work to be used in a solicitation for a Web Content Management
System. On December 10th, 2001, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was
published in Commerce Business Daily. An evaluation team consisting of
staff from the Office of the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms spent
four weeks evaluating the responses. Technical and managerial
representatives read the top contenders and oral presentations were
scheduled and held with vendors.
After an extensive procurement process, the Office of the Secretary
has recommended to the Rules Committee that we enter into a contract
with Headstrong Public Sector, Inc. to build a Web Content Management
System (WCMS) for the Senate Web site. Headstrong can build the WCMS
using a Documentum product that meets our current requirements and will
scale to accommodate future enhancements. Headstrong has extensive
experience in the government sector and Documentum is a leader in
providing content management solutions. The Senate's Legislative
Information System (LIS) is based on Documentum.
The new Web Content Management System will allow content providers,
primarily, but not exclusively, in the Office of the Secretary, to
author and post content to the Web site with little or no knowledge of
the Web formatting language, HTML. The Senate also included in the RFP
a required option to have the vendor describe, analyze and price
formatting or recognizing the structure of Senate Web content using
XML. Headstrong's proposal included an excellent response to this
option and that work has been included in the scope of the project.
Having content in an XML format provides maximum flexibility;
information can be posted to the Web site, printed in a brochure or
report, or sent to a wireless device, without having to change the data
for each event. Structured data, like XML-tagged data, is also easier
to import or migrate to new systems if the need arises at a future
time. Headstrong also will provide the Senate with graphical and
navigational design assistance to create a new look and feel to the
Senate Web site. Developing the Web site design requires conducting
extensive usability testing and Headstrong can provide expertise in
this area as well.
Using www.senate.gov As A Communication Tool
On October 17th, 2001, the Hart Senate Office Building was closed
due to anthrax contamination. Thousands of Senate staff were displaced,
many working from home or other off-the-``Hill'' locations. Under these
circumstances, the normal methods of Senate internal communication were
no longer viable. www.senate.gov was identified as an acceptable means
of communicating important medical and logistical information to staff.
The first notice to Senators and staff was posted on October 17th.
Almost 50 notices were posted over the following weeks assuring that
Senate staff had important information they needed as soon as it was
available.
Many areas of the Web site were updated and new information added
as the 107th Congress unfolded. The public was very interested in
following the decisions being made as the Senate organized based on a
50/50 party split. All existing Web pages in the Senate History section
of Senate.gov were updated in January 2001, and then again in June
2001, to reflect the changing division of parties in the Senate.
Several new statistical tables were added and the ``Senate History
News'' feature was created and updated regularly to bring an historical
context to current events, and to guide visitors to relevant pages on
www.senate.gov. Finally, the Historical Office created a ``Quick
Reference'' page to help visitors more rapidly locate the information
they seek.
Additional Enhancements to www.senate.gov
Nearly all of the 1,864 Senate entries included in the Biographical
Directory of the U.S. Congress now include a photo or other image of
the member. A new photo exhibit--``Breaking New Ground: Women in the
Senate''--chronicles key moments in the history of female senators, and
accompanies the Arthur Scott photo exhibit. The transcripts of
additional oral history interviews were included on the web site,
bringing the total to fifteen (consisting of a total of 3,980
transcript pages). New features have been added as well, including the
extensive Institutional Bibliography of the U.S. Senate, a compilation
of more than six hundred citations of scholarly books and articles
about the U.S. Senate, 1789 to the present. Improvements to the Roll
Call Vote Feature were completed in April 2001. New procedures were
developed to allow the generation of the Roll Call Vote menus and
individual vote pages directly from the LIS/DMS for posting on
www.senate.gov. Improvements also were needed in the formatting and
descriptive information provided for the votes. The Roll Call Vote
tables list votes in chronological order by vote number with links from
the vote number to the tally for that vote. Users could not tell from
the vote table or the vote tally page what the vote was about.
Improvements were made to the individual vote tally pages by adding the
``Measure Title'' for Bills and the ``Statement of Purpose'' for
Amendments and linking the measure number to the Thomas Bill Summary
and Status File. In late 2001 development began to improve the
information provided in the Vote Tables as well. Descriptions of the
measure as well as links to the Bill Summary and Status file were
added, and the formatting of the tables was changed to enhance
readability.
E-Mail Statistics
Mail to the Webmaster has increased from 250 messages a month in
previous years to an average of 450 messages a month. The majority of
the mail to the Webmaster contains questions on where to find
information on the web site and on search strategies for tracking
legislation online. The number of queries from students continues to
increase, as does the number of messages from outside the United
States, particularly foreign students studying the United States
Government.
Secretary Staff Intranet (Secretary's Office Only)
An intranet for the Office of the Secretary is being developed. The
intranet will provide a secure place for disseminating information and
services to all staff of the Office of the Secretary, as well as serve
as a ``meeting place'' for staff to share information and ideas. Each
Department will be able to ``post'' information. A prototype of the
Secretary's intranet has been developed and content of interest to
Secretary staff has been identified for initial deployment. This
content includes: information on computer support and support staff
contact information; training resources for Secretary employees; a link
to the Library's collection catalog; an area for staff to post reports
on conferences and seminars they've attended; job vacancy
announcements; emergency planning information; links to reference
materials; scheduling information; and, messages to staff from the
Secretary. Most of this information is already in electronic format and
therefore requires minimal development effort. Prior to web site
deployment, policy guidelines on posting to the Web site will be
written, approved and disseminated. The first release of the
Secretary's intranet site will be available in April.
administrative services--department reports
Conservation and Preservation
The Conservation and Preservation office develops and coordinates
programs directly related to the conservation and preservation of the
Senate records and materials for which the Secretary of the Senate has
statutory authority. Current initiatives include deacidification of
paper and prints, phased conservation for books and documents,
collection surveys, and exhibits. This office continues to assist
Senate offices with conservation and preservation of documents, books,
and various other items. As mandated in the 1990 Senate Library
Collection Condition Survey, the Department continues to conduct an
annual treatment of books identified by the survey as needing
conservation or repair. In 2001 conservation treatments were completed
for 110 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 also assisted the Senate
Library with five exhibits located in the Senate Russell building
basement corridor.
The Department works on special projects in addition to ongoing
conservation and preservation requirement. For example, the office
fabricated speech holder boxes, leather notebooks and framed items for
the Leader's Lecture Series, matted and framed items for the Inaugural
Committee, and embossed more than 1,000 Impeachment Books. The office
assisted the Senate Curator's Office with the measurement, custom
fitting, and installation of heavy-gauge plastic for 10 Senate Chamber
desks, in order to protect the historic signatures inscribed in each
drawer. And for more than twenty-one years the office has bound a copy
of Washington's Farewell Address for the annual Washington's Farewell
Address ceremony, in 2001 a volume was bound and read by Senator George
Allen; in 2002 a volume was bound and read by Senator Jon Corzine.
During 2002, the office will continue with the preservation work on
the approximately 4,372 remaining volumes of the Senate Library
collection of House Committee Hearings. They will also monitor the
temperature and humidity in the Senate Library storage areas and other
Senate collection storage areas. Beginning this year that latter task
will be organized with written schedules and checklists. The Office is
also working on preserving the Appropriation Bills from 1877-1943.
Approximately 65 books are done; some 200 books remain to be repaired.
We will finish this project this year. The office will also continue
deacidifying the Office of the Senate Curator print collection.
Curator
The Office of Senate Curator, under the direction of the Senate
Commission on Art, administers the museum programs of the Senate for
the Capitol and Senate office buildings. The curator and staff suggest
acquisitions, provide appropriate exhibits, engage in research, and
write and edit publications. In addition, the office studies,
identifies, arranges, protects, preserves, and records the historical
collections of the Senate, including paintings, sculpture, and
furnishings, and exercises supervisory responsibility for the chambers
in the Capitol under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commission on Art.
All records of research and documentation related to these areas of
responsibility are available for use by Members' offices, the media,
scholars, and the public. With the establishment of the United States
Capitol Preservation Commission, the Senate Commission on Art has
become the designated recipient of objects with Senate association
received by the Preservation Commission. The Commission is tasked to
``provide to the Capitol Preservation Commission such staff support and
assistance as the Preservation Commission may request.''
Collections: Commissions, Acquisitions, and Management
The Senate Commission on Art approved the commissioning of several
significant portraits of Senators for the Senate Collection in 2000,
and in 2001 artists were selected for four of these images: Senators
Arthur Vandenberg (Republican-Michigan, 1928-1951) and Robert Wagner
(Democrat-New York, 1927-1949) for the Senate Reception Room, and
Senators Bob Dole and George Mitchell for the Senate Leadership
Portrait Collection. Portraits of Senators Blanche Kelso Bruce and
James Eastland, previously approved by the Commission, were completed
and will be hung in the Senate wing of the Capitol. The portrait of
Senator Margaret Chase Smith is scheduled to be completed in 2002.
In addition to these commissioned portraits, a number of
significant works were acquired for the Senate Collection. These
included eight prints for the Senate's collection of historical
engravings and political cartoons. Among the most important works
purchased was a rare 1848 engraving by Augustus Kollner of the Senate
Chamber, and an 1852 engraving of Andrew Jackson by Thomas Welch
related to the Thomas Sully painting in the Senate Collection. The
Senate's study collection of nineteenth and early twentieth century
images of the Senate and Capitol comprises over 1,260 prints; it is one
of the most extensive collections on the subject in the country. In
addition, the Senate acquired two historic cast iron urns for Room S-
219, and two porcelain platters and a plate used by the Senate
Restaurant around 1920. The 2001 Presidential Inauguration provided an
opportunity to continue the active collecting of items from
contemporary Senate events; the Curator's Office acquired copies of
invitations, menus, official badges, glassware, and china from the
inauguration. The Senate has preserved little from past inaugurations,
and thus it is important to save such objects for future generations.
In the area of museum automation, all collections data was
successfully migrated into a new collections management database
system. Data clean up and reconciliation began in 2001, and continues.
Additionally, the process of evaluating fields in the Senate Collection
database was initiated in order to provide field definitions and data
standards. Future database work will include creating reports and
viewing screens for use by all staff in the office.
Renovations to the office's archival storage areas were completed.
Staff worked with the Architect of the Capitol's Paint Shop and an
outside contractor to prepare the floor and apply a durable epoxy floor
paint; install and test a new fire suppression system; and purchase
museum quality metal cabinets for the storage of objects not on
permanent display. These items were placed in the cabinets using a
systematic methodology so that location and retrieval is effortless. A
complete inventory was conducted for these approximately 2,000 objects.
The museum quality cabinets now installed in the rooms provide the
proper environment for preservation and protection of the Senate
collections.
Emergency Preparedness
In the area of emergency preparedness for the Senate's historic
collections, the Curator's Office continued to work closely with the
U.S. Capitol Police and has become an active participant in their
Critical Incident Command Group. A preliminary draft for an Emergency
Preparedness Plan for the collection was prepared and will be revised
annually. The plan outlines a series of actions and regular monitoring
to reduce the risk of a disaster and damage to the Senate collections
in the Capitol and Senate Office Buildings, and establishes procedures
for salvaging Senate art, historic objects, and significant materials
damaged as the result of a disaster.
With the discovery of anthrax in October in the Hart Senate Office
Building, the Curator's Office worked closely with EPA officials and
museum curators from the Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of
Art, and Library of Congress to determine the most appropriate care for
cultural property located in the building during the chlorine dioxide
gas remediation process. Many of these cultural artifacts were on loan
from museums, public institutions, and private individuals and required
a high standard of care, which included consideration of environmental
conditions, security, and protection from all possible damaging
materials. Tests were conducted by EPA using the chlorine dioxide gas
on a variety of art and organic materials, and conservators carefully
considered the issue. To protect and isolate the objects during
remediation, some were carefully moved by members of the Secretary's
Security Office and Coast Guard Strike Team.
The Curator's Office worked closely to train the team in museum
standards for the handling of art. The objects underwent
decontamination, cleaning, and testing before being placed in specially
built storage spaces located in the Dirksen Senate Office Building for
protection during the remediation process. Following the remediation
and rehabilitation of the building, the objects were reinstalled by the
Curator's Office. The Curator's staff also participated in training
sessions for the Capitol Police regarding the care and protection of
art in the Capitol. The staff continues to educate the housekeeping
personnel on maintenance issues related to the fine and decorative arts
collections.
Conservation and Restoration
A total of 23 objects received conservation treatment in 2001.
These included two historic clocks, six 1909 Russell Senate Office
Building chairs, and fifteen Senate Chamber desks. The treatment of the
six historic chairs from the Russell Building is nearly complete. The
chairs will serve as prototypes to demonstrate original finish and
upholstery methods, and the refinishing process will produce a detailed
protocol treatment for use by the Senate in restoring all 1909 Russell
chairs to their historic appearance. The office continued with the
Senate Chamber desk restoration program, which began in 1997, and 15
additional desks received conservation treatment. To date, nearly one
half of the Chamber desks have been professionally restored.
Research continues on the furniture in the Old Supreme Court
Chamber, now under the jurisdiction of the Curator. While the chamber
was restored in 1975, new information and knowledge of period
furnishings and decorative arts has led to a reevaluation of the
restoration. Part of this five-year project is to review the current
furnishings in the Court, undertake appropriate and necessary
conservation of these objects, and locate any missing items.
Approximately half of the furniture in the room is original to the 1837
period.
Historic Preservation
The addition of an Historic Preservation Officer to the staff in
October 2000 allowed the Office of Senate Curator to make significant
advancements in the development of a Senate Preservation Program. In
order to initiate such a program, the Curator's Office contracted with
an historical architect to develop a series of preservation program
recommendations. His assessment was circulated along with a
Preservation Program Development Plan, drafted by the Curator's Office.
Many of the substantial, program-defining documents have been completed
and the others are currently under review.
Publications and Exhibitions
The text for the Senate's extensive catalog entitled, The U.S.
Senate Fine Art Collection was completed, and material for the
conception and layout stages of the publication process was submitted
to the graphic design section of the Government Printing Office. We
expect to receive the preliminary design concept back from GPO this
month (April). Several brochures were reprinted during 2001, including
The Old Senate Chamber, The Old Supreme Court Chamber, The Vice
Presidential Bust Collection, and The Senate Vestibule. In addition,
the office published a new brochure, The U.S. Senate Leadership
Portrait Collection. The Office of Senate Curator also continued to be
a significant contributor to Unum, the Secretary of the Senate's
newsletter.
In January the Office of Senate Curator installed I Do Solemnly
Swear, an exhibition of presidential inauguration images. One half of
the exhibit features images drawn from the Senate's collection of
historic engravings, and illustrates the history of presidential
inaugurations from the 1850s to the early twentieth century. The second
half of the exhibit features a photographic diary of Inauguration Day
2001, and re-creates a table at the Inaugural luncheon using actual
artifacts collected from the 2001 luncheon.
Policies and Procedures
Working in conjunction with the Secretary's General Counsel, the
Office of Senate Curator developed rules governing the functions of the
Senate Commission on Art. These rules, authorized by the Commission's
enabling legislation, help to codify policies and streamline the
functions of the Commission by establishing lines of authority and
managerial practices. In addition to the Commission rules, the
Commission's legislation was updated to properly reflect legislative
history, and to place the Old Supreme Court Chamber officially under
the jurisdiction of the Commission on Art. The legislation has been
adopted as part of the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill in 2001.
A draft Collections Management Policy governing the museum
practices of the Office of Senate Curator has been completed. Through
the Collections Management Policy, existing procedures for
acquisitions, preservation, documentation, loans, security, inventory,
and access are incorporated into a cohesive structure will form the
basis for the Office of Senate Curator's stewardship of the Senate
collections under its care. The office also drafted and circulated a
Preservation Policy, Preservation Plan, and Preservation Procedures.
These documents were created in partnership with the Office of the
Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Office of the Architect
of the Capitol.
The Preservation Policy defines the stewardship role,
responsibilities, and preservation philosophy regarding the
preservation of the Capitol and Congressional Office Buildings. The
policy applies to the decorative, historical, and architectural
elements of those buildings. The Preservation Plan interprets the
Preservation Policy and applies its philosophy and principles to
individual spaces and objects. The Preservation Procedures document
details the chain-of-command, decision-making authority, and
responsibilities employed in all interventions at the Capitol and
Congressional Office Buildings.
Senate Art on the Web
The Senate Art Web site was expanded to include a section on
``recent acquisitions,'' and the site as a whole continued to be
updated and improved. New efforts in 2001 focused on expanding office
participation in providing content for the site. To this end, several
additional staff members began training in HTML and Web posting. Work
on the Senate Art Web site was facilitated by the installation of a new
Macintosh G-4 workstation that upgraded the office's ability by
providing for photonegative and transparency scanning. The Curator's
office is also an active participant in the redesign efforts for the
Senate Web site, www.senate.gov. Additionally, the Prints and
Photographs section of the Senate Art Web site was redesigned to
provide easier access, more flexible, systematic organization, and to
prepare the information for efficient incorporation in the redesigned
Senate.gov site.
Objectives for 2002
Projects in 2002 include continuing the restoration of the Senate
Chamber desks, with an additional 15 desks to be completed during the
August and fall recess periods, and survey and treatment
recommendations for the historic over-mantel mirrors on the Senate side
of the Capitol. The Office of Senate Curator will work to fully develop
a Collection and Historic Structures Care Manual. The manual will
provide basic, practical information needed to enable non-curatorial
staff within the Capitol complex to plan and implement sound
collections care and building maintenance programs. The primary purpose
of the manual is to teach specialized handling practices, identify
acceptable repair, maintenance, and care treatments, and establish
necessary monitoring and maintenance schedules. Additionally, the
office will work to update the Disaster Preparedness Plan. Together
these two manuals will serve as a front-line defense against damage or
misuse of collections objects and historic structures.
The registrar and associate registrar will continue efforts to
reorganize and edit the collections management database so that the
office will have a user-friendly database tailored for multiple users.
In addition, digital images of objects in the collection will be added
to the database for reproduction and reference purposes, which will in
turn help protect and preserve the objects for posterity. A new system
for registering all objects that come into the Curator's Office will be
instituted to record and track objects regardless of their accession
status. Work will continue on streamlining data collection during the
inventory process and to implement a regular inventory schedule.
The Curator's Office will work toward the approval and
implementation of the Preservation Policy and Preservation Procedures.
This includes the establishment of an in-house Preservation Team and a
Preservation Advisory Panel. The office will complete the final draft
of the Preservation Plan, and outline a strategic plan for its
implementation. The Curator's Office will continue to provide
assistance with preservation issues related to several Architect of the
Capitol Senate projects. The office will also develop a plan and
approach for generating a comprehensive Historic Structures Report (to
be completed in phases), and work to accomplish the top priorities
identified in that plan. Work will continue on the re-examination of
the restoration of the Old Supreme Court Chamber and, in conjunction
with other policy-making efforts, a standard policy governing the use
of the two historic chambers will be implemented.
Publications scheduled for 2002 include The U.S. Senate Fine Art
Collection, and brochures on the history of the Democratic and
Republican Leadership Suites, the Appropriations Committee, Room S-219,
and Isaac Bassett, a nineteenth-century Senate employee who served for
more than 60 years. Reprinting of publications scheduled for 2002
include The Senate Vestibule, The Leadership Portrait Collection, and
The United States Congress and Capitol, A Walking Tour Handbook, Volume
I and II. The upcoming year will also see the installation of the
Constantino Brumidi exhibit in the Brumidi Corridors of the Capitol.
CHART TWO: OFFICE OF THE CURATOR PUBLICATION PRINTING SCHEDULE
(Revised: April 11, 2002)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLICATIONS TO BE PRINTED EXPECTED DELIVERY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Leadership Portrait Delivered on February 15, 2002
Collection.
The Senate Vestibule................ Delivered on March 20, 2002
The United States Congress and May 2002
Capitol, A Walking Tour Handbook,
vol. 1.
The United States Congress and May 2002
Capitol, A Walking Tour Handbook,
vol. 2.
The Republican Leadership Suite..... June 2002
Room S-219.......................... June 2002
The Senate Appropriations Committee. August 2002
The Democratic Leadership Suite..... August 2002
Isaac Bassett....................... September 2002
The U.S. Senate Fine Art Collection. October 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education and Training Office
The Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the Senate share
responsibility for the Joint Office of Education and Training. The
Sergeant at Arms and I agree on the importance of ongoing training and
education programs for our staff and for all Senate offices and I share
his pride in the quality of the staff in our office. The Joint Office
of Education and Training provides employee training and development
opportunities for all 7,000 Senate staff both in Washington D.C. and in
the states. There are three branches within the department. The
technical training branch is responsible for providing technical
training support for approved software packages used in either
Washington or the state offices. The computer training staff provides
instructor-led classes; one-on-one coaching sessions; specialized
vendor provided training; computer based training; and informal
training and support services. The professional training branch
provides courses for all Senate staff in areas including: management
and leadership development, human resource issues and staff benefits,
legislative and staff information, new staff and intern information. In
addition, the Health Promotion branch provides seminars, classes and
screenings on health related and wellness issues. This branch also
coordinates an annual Health Fair for all Senate employees and two
blood drives each year.
Training Classes
The Joint Office of Education and Training offered 612 classes in
2001. More than 4,900 Senate employees participated in these classes.
Of the above total, in the Technical Training area, 291 classes were
held with a total attendance of 1,638 students. An additional 461 staff
received coaching on various software packages and other computer
related issues. In the professional development area 321 classes were
held with a total attendance of 3,292 students. Individual managers and
supervisors are also encouraged to request customized training for
their offices on areas of need. The Office of Education and Training is
available to work with Senate office teams on issues related to team
performance, communication or conflict resolution. During 2001, the
office filled 51 requests for special training or team building. These
special sessions were attended by more than 500 Senate staff.
Professional development staff traveled to seven State offices to
conduct specialized training/team building during the year. Technical
training staff also traveled to seven State offices to conduct computer
training. In the Health Promotion area, more than 600 Senate staff
participated in Health Promotion activities throughout the year. These
activities included: cancer screening, bone density screening and
seminars on health related topics. Additionally, 843 staff participated
in the Annual Health Fair held in October. More than 300 Senate staff
participated in two blood drives.
State Training
Since most of the classes that are offered are only practical for
D.C.-based staff, the Office of Education and Training worked with the
Office Manager's Council and selected State Directors to develop a
curriculum for Senate staff from state offices. This training, entitled
``State Fair'', began in March 2000. This year's program was open to
any staff member in a state office and the program was divided into
four tracks: Casework, Outreach, Management Development and Computer
Skills. Topics included: Public Speaking; Motivation; Managing Change;
Ethics; Legalities of Casework; Letter and Report Writing; Delegation
Skills; Stress Management; Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; Developing a
High Performing Teams; Conflict Management and Performance Management.
The program was expanded to four days in length in 2001. One hundred
and sixty-four State office staff participated in the three State Fairs
that were held in March, June and September of 2001.
Response to Special Events
As a result of the terrorist attack in September and the anthrax
incident in October, the office provided Senate staff with special
briefings and educational sessions. We coordinated 16 special briefings
and educational programs during October and November of 2001 to answer
the many questions staff had about personal safety and health. These
sessions included medical briefings, individual coping skills
briefings, sessions for managers to help their staff cope and safe mail
handling sessions.
Employment Counsel
The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (SCCE) is a
non-partisan office established at the direction of the Joint
Leadership of the Senate in 1993 after enactment of the Government
Employee rights Act, which allowed Senate employees to file claims of
employment discrimination against Senate offices. With the enactment of
the Congressional Accountability Act in 1995, Senate offices are
subject to the requirements, responsibilities and obligations of eleven
employment laws. The SCCE is charged with the legal representation of
Senate offices in all employment law matters at both the administrative
and court levels. In addition, on a day-to-day basis, the SCCE provides
legal advice to Senate offices about their obligations under the
employment laws.
The SCCE has implemented two electronic systems that put the office
at the forefront of electronic offices. First, the SCCE has installed
and implemented a comprehensive document management system. The system
profiles and indexes every document in the office, regardless of
whether the document was created internally or received from an outside
source. Thus, the office maintains all-electronic files. Documents can
be quickly located by conducting searches by, e.g., date, author, or
subject matter, as well as by conducting Boolean searches in full text.
The system saves hours of time by eliminating electronic directory/
folder-type searches, and filing cabinet searches. It also is
instrumental in preserving institutional knowledge. Second, the SCCE is
converting to a ``paperless'' office. It has completed Phase I and part
of Phase II of the 3-phase process, which involves scanning and the use
of an Optical Character Recognition system for every document the
office receives from an outside source. The use of OCR technology
allows for computerized searches of documents.
The reasons the SCCE is converting to a paperless office are
fourfold. First, the SCCE saves a significant amount of office space
and copying time because it no longer copies, distributes and stores
numerous hard copies of documents for the use of a staff member. If an
employee needs a document, he/she accesses it electronically. Second,
documents can be located easily through a word search, which saves
time. Third, staff members are able to access documents from remote
locations, such as a courtroom. Fourth, staff members are able to file
documents electronically with the courts, which several courts,
including those in D.C., now require. In addition to these advantages,
an unanticipated advantage of the system occurred during the closing of
the Hart building, which is where the SCCE is located. Because the
office maintains electronic files, staff was able to access all office
files electronically, even though the staff could not physically enter
the office. This allowed the office to remain fully operational during
the Hart closing.
Gift Shop
I am pleased to inform this Committee that the Gift Shop has
completed its first business plan. The business plan development
process identified the immediate and critical need to upgrade the Gift
Shop's automated retail systems. The plan also includes an analysis of
the benefits of online sales which would be made available, first
through an internal intranet, to staff and state offices, and, if
authorized, via the Internet, on www.senate.gov, to the public.
The Gift Shop provides products and services to Senators, staff,
constituents, and the many visitors to the U.S. Capitol complex.
Products include a wide variety of souvenirs, collectibles, and fine
gift items created exclusively for the U.S. Senate. Services include
special ordering of personalized products and hard-to-find items,
custom framing, gold embossing, engraving, and shipping. Additional
special services include the distribution of educational materials to
tourists and constituents visiting the Capitol Building and Senate
Office Buildings.
The Senate Gift Shop was established under administrative direction
and supervision of the Secretary of the Senate in October 1992,
(U.S.C., Title 2--Chapter 4). The Administrative and Special Order
Office is located in the Dirksen Building. The main Senate Gift Shop
store is located near the Senate Subway. A smaller Gift Shop counter is
located in the Capitol Building. The on-site warehouse and the
engraving department are located in the Hart building. The Gift Shop
warehouses much of its overstock in two off-site storage facilities.
The Capitol Gift counter will relocate to a new site in the Capitol
Visitor Center in 2005 and be renamed the Capitol Visitor Center Senate
Gift Shop. This will not affect the Gift Shop outlet located in the
basement of the Dirksen Building. The CVC Senate Gift Shop will be
located on the main level of the CVC.
Replacing Aging Computer System
One of our primary goals is to purchase a system to replace the
current software/hardware operating and retail systems used by the Gift
Shop. Our current software application, Basic Four (shared with the
Stationery Room) is more than 20 years old and no longer meets the
increasingly complex needs of the Gift Shop. We are currently working
with the Customer Support Division within the Office of Support
Services under the Sergeant at Arms to identify the most appropriate
``shelf package'' available that can be tailored to meet the special
technical requirements of Senate Gift Shop operations. This ``shelf
package system'' not only will need to meet the Gift Shop's current and
near-future requirements, but also will be capable of accommodating
add-on features that could include sales activities at free-standing
kiosks and from an E-Commerce Web site. I would like to thank the
Sergeant at Arms for his support of this project. SAA staff is finding
the software products that would be compatible with hardware the Senate
already uses, setting up the demonstrations, and continues to provide
invaluable expert advice.
A Summary of Gift Shop Accomplishments:
The 2001 Official Congressional Holiday Ornament.--The sale of the
2001 Official Congressional Holiday Ornament was a great success. This
most recent addition to our unique set of collectibles features ``The
United States Capitol in Summer 2001,'' an original oil painting by
artist Frank Morgan. As with Official Holiday Ornaments in years past,
the authentic colors of the original oil painting were reproduced onto
white porcelain stoneware and set with a brass frame finished in 24kt
gold. ``The United States Capitol in Summer 2001'' was the final
ornament in a four-year series (1998-2001) depicting Early Meeting
Places of Congress. The four-piece collectible set is available for
purchase, as are individually packaged ornaments from the set. Revenue
from the sale of more than 35,000 individual 2001 Official
Congressional Holiday Ornaments generated more than $40,000 in funding
for the Senate Child Care scholarship program.
Minton Tiles/Trivets.--Reproductions of the ``Minton Tiles'' of the
Capitol Building were created as trivets and made available for sale in
the Senate Gift Shop and at the Gift Counter. These richly patterned
and colored trivets are modeled after one of the most striking features
of the United States Capitol, its tiled floors. The original encaustic
tiles laid in the Capitol extensions were manufactured at Stoke-upon-
Trent in England, by Minton, Hollins and Company. The hand-painted
trivets carried by the Senate Gift Shop are manufactured in the United
States by a small family-owned Company, Besheer Art Tile, located in
Bedford, New Hampshire.
Publications.--The book entitled The United States Capitol is one
of the Senate Gift Shop's best sellers. This book is an unparalleled
volume of architectural photography revealing the majestic interiors,
both public and private, and the breathtaking exterior of this American
landmark building. With the cooperation of the author and his wife,
Fred and Susie Maroon, we recently had 6,000 copies of a newly revised
edition of this book published, all of which are in possession of the
Senate Gift Shop. Work on the revised edition of this book began in
Spring 2001. Each of the many photographs underwent a time-consuming
process to enhance the colors--making them more vibrant and closer to
natural. Unfortunately, Fred was diagnosed with a critical illness in
the Fall of 2001 and passed away within a few months. The final stages
of preparing the book for publication were undertaken by Fred's widow,
Susie Maroon. The book was completed in December 2001. It is gratifying
to know that this great work, The United States Capitol, can and will
be made available to the many visitors of the Capitol complex for years
to come.
The Historian of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol,
William C. Allen, completed his work on the book History of the United
States Capitol: A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics. This
voluminous hardback book covers the construction of the Capitol
building that George Washington approved in 1793 and follows the
Capitol's architectural metamorphosis over the next 200 plus years. The
book concludes with the mention of congressional approval for the
construction of the Capitol Visitor Center, which, coincidentally, has
just begun! The Gift Shop secured 3,000 copies of this book, thus
ensuring that this beautiful volume chronicling the rich history of the
architecture of the Capitol building can be made available to visitors
for years to come.
Early in 2001 the Gift Shop developed an original concept for a
children's book--How American Citizens Elect Their Leaders. Nancy Ann
Van Wie, a noted author and publisher of children's educational books,
agreed to write the book. The book was delivered to the Gift Shop April
9 and is now available for purchase. The receipt of this children's
work is timely considering 2002 is an election year. The Gift Shop has
secured 2,000 copies of the book, thus ensuring that this wonderful
children's book can be made available to teachers and visitors for
years to come. It should be noted that Ms. Van Wie authored and
published an earlier book, How a Bill Becomes a Law. The concept for
this work was developed at the Senate Gift Shop as well. This book,
along with the accompanying teacher's planning guide (also published by
the author), has proven to be an important educational tool used by
many elementary school teachers. We look forward to making these
publications available to educators and younger customers for years to
come.
107th Congressional Plate.--Tiffany and Company completed the 107th
Congressional Plate in late 2001. This plate was made available for
sale in mid-December 2001. The elegant motifs selected for this plate
pay tribute to the rich frescoes of the Brumidi Corridors, considered
the decorative gem of the United States Capitol. A patriotic star
motif, found in the center of the plate, is patterned after a design
found throughout the Capitol in Brumidi's frescoed ceilings and walls,
in his elaborately designed bronze staircases, and in the building's
historic Minton Tile floors. A red, white and blue shield used in the
parameter design of the plate is adapted directly from the roundels in
the Patent Corridor at the east end of the Brumidi Corridors.
Patriotic Merchandise.--After the tragic events of September 11,
2001, the Senate Gift Shop immediately purchased and made available to
its customers a countless number of patriotic materials. These items
allowed many to display their American spirit and enthusiastic support
for the country in these unsettling times. We were especially pleased
to provide to the White House staff the flag pin that President George
W. Bush wore on his lapel during his first post-9/11 addresses to the
nation. We were informed by the President's staff that the thousands of
pins that we had provided to them were distributed to many of the
people with whom the President was meeting in the Oval Office, as the
President kept a generous supply of these flag pins in a bowl
prominently displayed on his desk.
CVC Gift Shop.--One of the most important projects in the works for
this year is preparing the groundwork for the Senate Gift Shop's
participation in the ``soon-to-be-constructed'' Capitol Visitor Center.
As stated, the Gift Counter in the Capitol building will relocate to
the CVC where the Senate Gift Shop has been allotted 2,150 square feet
of retail space. This allotment of space is significant in that it will
allow the Gift Shop the opportunity to showcase its ability to provide
unique souvenirs, collectibles, and historic and educational products
to the numerous visitors to the Capitol Building and, of course, the
new CVC.
Online Sales.--The ``E-Commerce Business Plan'' for the Senate Gift
Shop was developed and presented to the Secretary of the Senate in
2001. The plan addresses the Gift Shop's need to better serve its
customers in this new era of retail. There is an ever-growing
constituency of Gift Shop customers, most important of all Senate
staff, here in D.C. and in the state offices, who expect and anticipate
the eventuality of making purchases from the Senate Gift Shop online.
We know that a strong multi-channel consumer retail strategy enhances
growth in both online and offline commerce, promotes high levels of
customer satisfaction, and increases operational efficiency
Warehousing.--Less-than-adequate warehousing is another issue to be
addressed during 2002. Departments of the Secretary of the Senate are
working closely with offices under the Sergeant at Arms to find better
and additional shared off-site warehousing for the Gift Shop inventory.
Current warehousing conditions in both Alexandria, Virginia, and Fort
Meade, Maryland, lack basic environmental and security needs required
for the types of products stored in them. It is our sincere hope that a
solution for better off-site storage of product will be identified and
implemented this year.
Other Projects.--
--Tree Recovery Program.--The Gift Shop has approval to recover
usable wood from the felled trees on Capitol grounds to produce
authentic and historic gift items made exclusively for sale in
Senate Gift Shop retail locations. The cut wood has been
recovered and is in the process of being milled.
--Senate Children's Calendar.--The Gift Shop is working on its
proposal for a children's artwork contest. The winning
selections will be showcased in the first annual Children's
Congressional Calendar. A percentage of the proceeds may be set
aside to benefit both the Capitol Preservation Commission and
the CVC.
The Historical Office
I am most pleased to tell the Committee that the Society for
History in the Federal Government selected the publication, Capitol
Builder: The Shorthand Journals of Montgomery Meigs, 1853-1861, a
project of the Senate Historian, for its ``Pendleton Prize.'' This
prize honors ``the outstanding major publication on the federal
government's history produced by or for a federal history program
during the year 2001.'' This prize is well deserved by the Senate
Historian, Dr. Richard Baker, and his staff, who conceived of and
nurtured this project through to publication.
Serving as the Senate's institutional memory, the Historical Office
collects and provides information on important events, precedents,
dates, statistics, and historical comparisons of current and past
Senate activities for use by members and staff, the media, scholars,
and the general public. The Office advises Senators, officers, and
committees on cost-effective disposition of their non-current office
files and assists researchers in identifying Senate-related source
materials. The Office keeps extensive biographical, bibliographical,
photographic, and archival information on the more than 1,760 former
senators. It edits for publication historically significant transcripts
and minutes of selected Senate committees and party organizations, and
conducts oral history interviews with key Senate staff. The Photo
Historian maintains a collection of approximately 35,000 still
pictures, slides, and negatives that includes photographs and
illustrations of most former senators, as well as news photographs,
editorial cartoons, photographs of committees in session, and other
images documenting Senate history. The Office develops and maintains
the historical sections of the Senate Web site.
A Summary of the Historical Office Accomplishments
Leader's Lecture Series.--The Lecture Series provides outstanding
former Senate leaders and other distinguished Americans the chance to
share their insights about the Senate's recent history and long-term
practices. Beginning in 1998, the lectures have been held in the
Capitol's historic Old Senate Chamber before an audience of current
senators and specially invited guests from the executive branch, the
diplomatic corps, the media, and private enterprise. The Historical
Office, in coordination with other offices under the Secretary's
jurisdiction, provided editorial and production support for the May 23,
2001, lecture of former President Gerald R. Ford. Text and streaming
video of all eight lectures in the series are now available on the
Senate's Web site.
Publication: The Journals of Montgomery Meigs, 1853-59.--Captain
Montgomery Meigs (1816-1892), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, supervised
construction of the Capitol dome and the Senate and House wings from
1853 to 1859. During this period, he kept shorthand journals with
detailed accounts about his work on the Capitol, congressional
operations, and political and social life in Washington. In 1991 the
Office arranged for the translation of the journals. This project
concluded in September 2001 with the publication of a 900-page volume,
which includes approximately 40 percent of the total manuscript. The
selected text highlights portions of the journal most relevant to the
Capitol and congressional history.
Editorial Project: Executive Session Transcripts of the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, 1953-1954.--The Office is editing the
executive session hearing transcripts produced by the Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations under the chairmanship of Senator Joseph
R. McCarthy (1953-1954). The resulting multi-volume edition will be
available for release in 2003 and 2004 to coincide with the expiration
of the fifty-year closure period for these hearings. This publication
will allow researchers nationwide to have equal access to these highly
sought historical documents. During 2001, staff scanned, converted, and
edited 124 transcripts for 1953 and surveyed 400 witnesses to determine
whether they subsequently testified in public and to develop relevant
biographical information.
Editorial Project: Executive Session Transcripts of the Committee
on Foreign Relations, Historical Series: 1967.--To assist the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee in its efforts to identify, declassify, and
publish its previously closed executive session transcripts for
historical research, the Office provided the committee with an edited
manuscript and corrected the galleys of the volume covering its 1967
proceedings, soon to be published. Editorial work on the volume for
1968 is in progress.
Editorial Project: The Documentary History of the United States
Senate.--The Office is conducting an ongoing documentary publication
program to bring together fundamental source materials to explain the
development of the Senate's constitutional powers and institutional
prerogatives. Currently in production are volumes on Senate impeachment
trials, the Senate's consideration of controversial treaties, and the
evolution of the Senate's standing rules. For the impeachment trial
volume, working drafts have been prepared to summarize each case, with
selection of key documents and writing of textual notes underway. For
the controversial treaties volume, much of the research has been
completed and several major chapters have been drafted. Work on the
rules volume has proceeded to provide coverage from 1789 through the
1850s.
Editorial Project: Administrative History of the Senate.--During
2001, the assistant historian revised an earlier chapter structure and
focused on the years 1789 to 1861 in 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 nineteenth and twentieth-century reform efforts that resulted
in reorganization and professionalization of Senate staff, and looks at
how the Senate's administrative structure has grown and diversified
over the past two centuries.
Editorial Project/Data Base: Biographical Directory of the U.S.
Congress, 1774-present.--Since the most recent printed edition of the
Biographical Directory of the United States Congress appeared in 1989,
the assistant historian has added dozens of new biographical sketches
and has revised and updated a majority of the database's 1,864 Senate
entries. A current version of the database is available online at
http://bioguide.congress.gov. The photo historian completed a multi-
year project of adding photographic images of former senators to this
electronic database. Work is also proceeding on the next print edition,
planned for publication in 2003.
Data Base: ``Idea of the Senate'' Project.--This project identifies
spoken and written remarks encapsulating changing concepts of the
Senate from the institution's inception through the mid-twentieth
century. The initial survey of approximately one hundred primary and
secondary sources for appropriate materials was completed in May.
Notebooks contain quotations, articles, and chapters directly related
to the Senate's institutional operations.
Data Base: ``Origins of the Senate'' Project.--This project
examines state constitutions prior to 1787 to identify their influence
on the framers of the Constitution as they shaped the Senate's
structure and determined its functions. The project director has
produced seventeen essays, each fully describing an essential feature
of Senate operations.
Data Base: Senate Topical Bibliography.--Two years in preparation,
this bibliography presents citations for approximately seven hundred
major books and articles related to the Senate's institutional
development and operations. The first of its kind, this comprehensive
subject listing is now accessible on the Senate website and is updated
periodically.
Oral History Program.--The Office concluded its series of
interviews with staff involved with the 1999 presidential impeachment
trial and continued life-review interviews with three key Senate
observers. It also placed on the Senate website the complete
transcripts of fifteen earlier interviews. The associate historian
interviewed selected Senate floor staff to document the impact of the
September 11, 2001, Pentagon and World Trade Center bombings on Senate
legislative operations.
Member Services: Members' Records Management and Disposition
Assistance.--The Senate archivist continued her program of assisting
members' offices with planning for the preservation of their
permanently valuable records, with special emphasis on archiving
information from computer systems and transferring records to a home
state repository. A team approach involving customer support service
staff from the Sergeant at Arms was implemented with particular
success. The archivist devised a ``checklist of management goals'' in
setting up an office and updated the electronic records section of the
Records Management Handbook. In August, she organized and conducted a
session at the Capitol for eighty-five congressional archivists,
representing thirty-eight states, who were attending the annual meeting
of the Society of American Archivists. That session focused on
recommendations related to the papers of members contained in the
December 2000 report of the Advisory Committee on the Records of
Congress.
Member Services: Committee Records Management and Disposition
Assistance.--The Senate archivist provided each committee with staff
briefings, record surveys, and 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. She oversaw the transfer to the Archives of three thousand
feet of records. Despite the loss of the room used for processing
committee records, the Office's archival staff continued to provide
processing assistance to committees in need of basic help with
noncurrent files from temporary quarters at the National Archives
building on Pennsylvania Avenue. The archivist worked with the Senate's
Legislative Information System's project team to develop archival
applications for that system. She also initiated a review of records
disposition guidelines for offices of the Secretary and assisted with
compilation of a draft records disposition schedule for all offices of
the Senate Sergeant at Arms.
Member Services/Educational Outreach: ``Senate Historical
Minutes''.--At the request of the Senate Democratic Majority Leader,
the Senate historian prepared and delivered a ``Senate Historical
Minute'' at each of thirty-five Senate Democratic Conference weekly
meetings during the first session of the 107th Congress. These four-
hundred-word Minutes are designed to enlighten members about
significant events and personalities associated with the Senate's
institutional development, and with familiar objects and places within
the Capitol The more than 175 Minutes prepared since 1997 are available
as a feature on the Senate Web site.
Photographic Collections.--The photo historian continued to expand
the Office's 35,000-item photograph collection by creating a
photographic record of historically significant Senate events,
including hearings of one-third of all Senate committees. She also
actively sought images of former senators not represented in the
collection. The photo historian catalogued approximately 3,000 35 mm
negatives into an image database and completed a multi-year project to
create digitized images of 1,800 current and former Senators for the
on-line edition of the Biographical Directory of the United States
Congress. She continued to create digital images of frequently used
photographs to promote their use and safeguard the originals. A large
portion of the Office's photographic collections can now be viewed in
electronic format and transmitted via e-mail.
Educational Outreach: Senate Staff Lecture Series.--In coordination
with the Senate Office of Education and Training, Historical Office
staff provided seminars, both formal and informal, drawn from more than
a dozen topics related to the Senate's constitutional role,
institutional development, and internal administrative functions.
Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress.--This eleven-member
permanent committee, established by Public Law 101-59, meets twice a
year to advise Congress and the Archivist of the United States on the
management and preservation of the records of Congress. Its Senate-
related membership includes the Senate historian, appointees of the
majority and minority leaders, and the Secretary of the Senate, who
chairs the committee during the even-numbered sessions of Congress. The
Senate Archivist complied, edited, and contributed to the Third Report
of the Advisory Committee, which was distributed early in the year.
Capitol Visitor Center Exhibition Content Committee.--The Senate
Historian assisted this committee in developing a mission statement and
preparing detailed exhibit plans for this 20,000 square-foot facility,
which is scheduled to open in January 2005.
Human Resources
The Office of Human Resources implements and coordinates human
resources policies, procedures, and programs for the Office of the
Secretary of the Senate, including hiring, training, performance, job
analysis, compensation planning and administration, leave
administration, records management, recruiting and staffing, employee
handbooks and manuals, internal grievance procedures, and employee
relations and services.
The Office of the Secretary worked on two legislative changes that
were implemented in 2001: (1) lump-sum payments for unused, accrued
annual leave upon termination of employment and (2) an increase in the
amount of the Public Transportation Subsidy. The lump-sum payment
authority not only promotes administrative economies and efficiencies
but also gives employees equal access to unused annual leave even if
transferred to another federal agency. We anticipate that the added
financial encouragement for Senate employees to use public
transportation will help reduce traffic congestion and pollution and
improve Senate parking capacity. This new incentive should also help us
attract and retain personnel in the highly competitive Metro Washington
labor market. The Office also assisted in the implementation of the
Senate Student Loan Repayment Program. We are confident that this new
incentive, sponsored by key Members of the Appropriations Committee and
mandated by Public Law 107-68, will complement and improve the Senate's
recruiting and retention goals and have a positive impact on employee
morale.
The Secretary's General Counsel and the Chief Counsel for
Employment, in coordination with the Disbursing Office and the Rules
Committee staff, crafted Senate Resolution 193, which was passed by the
Senate on 18 December 2001. This resolution recognized a ``leave
without pay status'' for those employees called to serve in the
uniformed services. This status ensures that such employees retain the
same benefits while serving in the uniformed services, as an employee
from the executive branch who is called to serve in the uniformed
services.
Merit Review
We conducted an in-depth merit review this past fall. A fair and
balanced merit compensation system is a key management tool to improve
work processes and reward top performers and will be even more
important in the future as the competition for highly skilled employees
continues to intensify. Funds have not been requested for a true merit
raise program since 1996. We have requested funding this year and,
after a complete review of our job classifications by the new Director
of Human Resources, we plan to use these funds to reward high
performing staff and encourage valuable employees to remain in the
Senate. These are the people who help keep the Senate functioning and
we want to keep them.
Automated Capabilities Improve
Employee information became easier to manage in 2001 with the
implementation of a new data base system called People-Trak. The
information available for management decision-making also became more
plentiful and easier and faster to produce. Individual pay change
notices for the merit review (discussed above) were produced in minutes
versus hours under the previous system. A new upgrade to this
economical and yet robust software package will soon give supervisors
the capability of automatically accruing and tracking leave taken.
COOP Implementation
Even though the Human Resources office in the Hart building was
closed, the office was able to perform all essential operations during
the more than three months that the building was closed, including data
base maintenance, appointments and other salary changes, time
reporting, overtime calculations and payments, new employee
orientation, transportation subsidy program administration, recruiting,
and employee and management advisory services. Documents contained in
the office's flyaway kit prepared for just such an emergency were used
extensively. We have since fine-tuned information to be maintained in
the HR flyaway kit and expanded our electronic capabilities.
Office of the Secretary Staff Intranet
Phase I of the Human Resources page for this intra-office Web site
has been completed and will become operational this year. The goal of
this initiative is to provide a mechanism for continuous on-line
communication with employees and facilitate response to various
personnel programs. The initial design includes a ``vision-oriented''
cover page and site index and a Job Opportunities section where
employees will be able to complete a new Career Opportunities
Application on-line and electronically transmit it to each level of
review. We view this as a very important and critical process
improvement for the Secretary's Office because it gives our employees
equal access to job announcements and prompt feedback regarding
eligibility. Plans for Phase II include a Benefits Summary page, Office
Policies (from the Employee Handbook), and an interactive Management
Development section.
Information Systems/Computer Support
The staff of the Secretary's Department of Information Systems
provides technical hardware and software support, and computer related
support for the all LAN-based servers for the Office of the Secretary
of the Senate. Information Systems staff also interface closely with
the application and network development groups within the SAA's office,
the Government Printing Office, and outside vendors on technical issues
and joint projects. Information Systems staff provides direct
application support for all software installed workstations, evaluates
new computer technologies, and continually implements next generation
hardware and software solutions.
Although staffing levels remained unchanged, functional
responsibilities for support in other departments were expanded.
Information System staff responsibilities were expanded to backfill the
retirement of Senate Library technical personnel. Improved procedures
were adopted to stretch support across all Secretary departments. The
Disbursing, Office of Public Records, Chief Counsel for Employment,
Page School, Senate Security, Stationery Room and Gift Shop have
dedicated information technology staff. Information Systems personnel
continue to provide first level escalated hardware and software support
for these office staff members.
For information security reasons, Secretary departments implement
isolated computer systems, unique applications, and isolated local area
networks. The Secretary of the Senate network is a closed local area
network within the Senate. Information Systems staff continue to
provide a common level of hardware and software integration for these
networks, and for the shared resources of inter-departmental
networking. Information System staff continue to actively participate
in all new project design and implementation within the Secretary of
the Senate operations.
Improvements to the Secretary's LANs
The Senate chose Windows NT as the standard network operating
system in 1997. The continuing support strategy is to enhance existing
hardware and software support provided by the Information Systems
Department, and augment that support with assistance from the Sergeant
at Arms whenever required. The shaded area in Chart Three highlights
the installation and upgrades for Office of the Secretary server
installations. The Secretary's Network supports approximately 300 staff
users and patron accounts in the Capitol, the Senate Hart, Russell,
Dirksen, and the Page School locations.
The Information Systems Office:
--Installed Optical Character Recognition hardware/software solution
in Enrolling Clerk's office. Some committees continue to
provide the office of the Enrolling Clerk with hard copy
legislation. The installation of network scanning techniques
vastly improved the legislation process by reducing the amount
of clerical work required to manually type the documents.
--Added Quantum Snap Server for Senate Library Oracle database.
--Designed and implemented Office of Public Records Lobby Web site
hardware configuration. Installed (2) raid-compliant (redundant
array of independent disks, a data security standard),
redundant servers at PSQ (http://sopr.senate.gov). In
accordance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, the
Secretary of the Senate has initiated this program to allow the
public to view filings received by the Office of Public
Records.
--Retired and replaced DOS-based applications with Windows-compliant
Client/Server hardware and stenograph software for Official
Reporters; Migrated the Official Reporters of Debate ``out of
the Dark Ages into the Information Age.''
--Replaced and Upgraded NT Server and all Page workstations In
Webster Hall.
--Relocated the original server to the Capitol for use as a Backup
Domain controller.
--Replaced older Senate Security servers and added OCR scanning
capability for archiving certain documents.
--Installed redundant off-site backup servers (for our COOP plans)
for the Secretary's LAN at Postal Square and in Hart Office
Locations. This facilitates smaller, lighter-weight storage
units that can be transported at a moments notice.
Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
The Office of Information Systems began disaster planning for the
Secretary's office in June of 1998. In January of 2001, this planning
process had evolved to include other working groups within the Senate.
Working with the Office of Senate Security, SAA, GSA, and GAO
personnel, the initial Information Systems COOP plan was developed in
March 2001. Initial emphasis was placed on the continuation of
legislative and financial functions within the Senate. In retrospect
after the September 11th 2001 events, early evaluation and pre-
September 11 implementation of redundant server storage arrays
dramatically reduced the risk of data loss within the Secretary's
Office. Three of the six Secretary domains were affected with the Hart
incident, yet no data loss occurred.
Let me emphasize these two points: We were ready for September 11.
We transformed the backup capacity and portability of the Secretary's
computer infrastructure, the critical infrastructure that supports the
Secretary's offices and departments.
COOP Planning/Data Migration
Beginning in January 2001, new technology was implemented to
migrate and store legislative data off-line. This success of the
initial pilot project was used to facilitate solutions in other
Secretary offices. The same technology was applied to provide the
department of Public Records with off-line storage capabilities in July
2001. Near-line server storage solutions augment the normal tape
archival process. Individual server data continues to be backed up each
night. The implemented solution utilizes a product manufactured by
Quantum, and is a fault-tolerant, raid storage server, with a small
footprint. The reduced size makes the product attractive when a major
evacuation is required. At present there are three Secretary-of-the-
Senate Snap Servers deployed in key locations on the Capitol complex.
Two smaller units are located off-site and rotated on a bi-monthly
basis. In early November this office demonstrated the near-line storage
solution for staff of the Sergeant at Arms. Their response was
immediately positive, and our understanding is that SAA is making
available smaller Snap server products for personal and committee
offices.
Interparliamentary Services
The Office of Interparliamentary Services (IPS) has completed its
20th year of operation as a department of the Secretary of the Senate.
IPS is responsible for administrative, financial, and protocol
functions for all interparliamentary conferences in which the Senate
participates by statute, for interparliamentary conferences in which
the Senate participates on an ad hoc basis, and for special delegations
authorized by the Majority and/or Minority Leaders. The office also
provides appropriate assistance as requested by other Senate
delegations.
The statutory interparliamentary conferences are: NATO
Parliamentary Assembly; Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group;
Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group; and British-American
Parliamentary Group.
Foreign travel authorized by the Leadership is arranged by the IPS
staff. In addition to delegation trips, IPS provided assistance to
individual foreign trips as requested. Several trips were scheduled,
but canceled or postponed after most of the advance work had been
completed. Also, 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
has purchased currency converters for use on overseas trips.
Known by many in the Senate as the ``protocol office'',
Interparliamentary Services maintains regular contact with the Office
of the Chief of Protocol, Department of State, and with foreign embassy
officials. Official foreign visitors are frequently received in this
office and assistance is given to individuals as well as to groups by
the IPS staff. The staff continues to work closely with other offices
of the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms in arranging
programs for foreign visitors. In addition, individual Senators'
offices frequently consult IPS on a broad range of protocol questions.
On behalf of the Leadership, the staff arranges receptions in the
Senate for Heads of State, Heads of Government, Heads of Parliaments,
and parliamentary delegations.
Planning is underway for the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S.
Interparliamentary Group to be held in the United States in 2002.
Advance work, including site inspection, will be undertaken for the
42nd Annual Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group Meeting, to be held in
the United States in 2003. Preparations are also underway for the
spring and fall sessions of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. This year,
IPS has begun the process of converting to a paperless office system.
The Senate Library
The Senate Library provides legislative, legal, business, and
general reference services to the United States Senate. The
comprehensive legislative collection consists of congressional
documents dating from the Continental Congress. In addition, the
Library maintains executive and judicial branch materials and an
extensive book collection on politics, history, and biography. These
sources plus a wide array of online systems assist the Library staff in
providing nonpartisan, confidential, timely, and accurate information
services to the Senate.
Summary of Senate Library Achievements:
--Presidential Vetoes, 1989-2000 published
--Senate Library Brochure published
--Information Resources in the United States Senate Library published
--Librarians served as Legislative Information Service (LIS) training
instructors
--United States Serial Set inventory completed
--UNUM published by Library staff
--Significant portions of the book collection reclassified
--Government document collection reviewed and 4,715 items removed
--Budget review returned significant saving
Patron Services
The Library's Information Services responded to 38,596 requests
during 2001, a 4 percent increase from 2000. This total included 27,472
phone, fax, and e-mail requests and 11,124 Senate staff who used
resources in the Library. The Senate Library's request totals have
remained fairly constant for the past three years while other
information centers and libraries, including those serving the
Congress, have witnessed declines in request levels. A reason for the
decline is the increased availability of Internet resources to Senate
staff, particularly Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw. The Senate Library
responded to this trend by offering the Senate staff new services and
products. These new offerings include providing training on commercial
and congressional databases, publishing resources tailored to Senate
research needs, creating a Web site focused on core reference sources,
and continuing a very active public support program.
CHART FOUR: SENATE LIBRARY 2001 INFORMATION STATISTICS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone, FAX, E-Mail Inquiries............................ 2,689 2,094 2,552 2,139 2,489 2,506 2,643 2,205 2,164 2,130 2,038 1,823
Walk-in Inquiries....................................... 982 922 1,079 833 970 1,179 968 743 693 804 1,111 840
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly Totals.................................... 3,671 3,016 3,631 2,972 3,459 3,685 3,611 2,948 2,857 2,934 3,149 2,663
===============================================================================================
Total Inquiries (Includes 27,472 telephone, fax, e-
mail and 11,124 walk-in inquiries)............... 338,596
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most other activity indicators also reflect increases: 4,791 items
delivered (+11.4 percent); 2,148 items loaned (+44.7 percent); 477 new
patrons; 4,552 faxes sent (-1 percent); and 168,769 photocopies
produced (+9.2 percent). In addition, Senate staff used the
Micrographics Center to reproduce 7,810 pages from congressional
documents and news articles. These favorable statistics are impressive,
particularly when considering the curtailed October to December work
schedule for many Library patrons due to the anthrax situation.
The Library's 125-year presence in the Capitol ended when the
Reading Room, S-333, was transferred to the Secretary's personal staff.
The Library's February 1999 Russell Building relocation limited the
practicality of a Capitol site and permitted the reassignment. This
change was accomplished without comprising information services to the
Capitol offices.
CHART FIVE: SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS DOCUMENT DELIVERY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micrographics Photocopiers
Volumes Materials Facsimiles Center Pages Pages
Loaned Delivered Printed Printed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January..................................... 139 459 480 838 18,296
February.................................... 120 523 380 550 10,067
March....................................... 169 584 346 835 12,530
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Quarter........................... 428 1,566 1,206 2,223 40,893
===================================================================
April....................................... 246 360 395 632 16,594
May......................................... 236 456 511 461 12,184
June........................................ 284 357 588 797 18,725
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Quarter........................... 766 1,173 1,494 1,890 47,503
===================================================================
July........................................ 204 376 433 832 17,251
August...................................... 102 366 298 711 15,813
September................................... 187 337 329 487 11,747
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Quarter........................... 493 1,079 1,060 2,030 44,811
===================================================================
October..................................... 127 286 307 614 12,941
November.................................... 185 431 262 448 12,006
December.................................... 149 256 223 605 10,615
-------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Quarter........................... 461 973 792 1,667 35,562
===================================================================
2001 Total.................................. 2,148 4,791 4,552 7,810 16,8769
2000 Total.................................. 1,485 4,299 4,600 4,391 15,4554
===================================================================
Percent Change.............................. 44.65 11.44 -1.04 77.86 9.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
News, Legal, and Legislative Systems
The Library provides a critical link between the Legislative
Information System (LIS) and Senate staff. Two recent roles assumed by
the Library include being the official LIS telephone Help Line and
teaming with the Senate Computer Center as LIS training instructors. In
both roles, Senate staff greatly benefit from the Library's unmatched
online searching skills and extensive legislative experience.
Previously, the Senate Computer Center was solely responsible for
training functions, but the Library requested the transfer and the
training programs have significantly improved.
The Library's online training responsibilities also include Lexis-
Nexis and Westlaw, the primary news and legal databases provided to all
Senate staff. The commercial database instruction is provided by
telephone or through training sessions in the Library. The high number
of new Senate staff makes effective training programs, particularly
database training, a critical responsibility. The goal is to ensure
that the transition of new and inexperienced Senate staff into
productive staff is accomplished as quickly as possible. In addition,
Library staff participated in several LIS user groups and committees.
Currently, the Library is testing a proposed LIS e-mail alert system.
The alert is triggered when legislative activity occurs on pre-selected
legislation and the subscribing Senate office is notified via e-mail.
Electronic notification of legislative activity will significantly
improve accuracy, timeliness, and efficiency.
The ability to fax news articles and legal materials directly from
personal computers is an added service to Senate staff. PC faxing
significantly reduces response time as needed materials are received
virtually instantaneously. At this time, only a limited number of
commercial databases offer the fax function, but the initial response
from Senate staff has been favorable.
Public Support and Services
Library staff conducted more than 50 tours and demonstrations on
Library services during 2001. Services of the Senate Library Seminars
are offered quarterly and staff receives a personalized Library tour
and database demonstrations. The two State Fairs and five District-
State Seminars offered presentations on the wide variety of Senate
services available to state office staff, including Library services.
In addition, the Library participated in eight New Staff Seminars and
also held special seminars for office managers and the Senate Page
School.
The corridor display cases remain very popular with staff and
Capitol Hill visitors and during 2001 four new cases were installed:
Capitol Visitor Center Coins, Women in the Senate, History of the
Capitol Police, and the Burning of the Capitol. Black History Month was
honored with a Dirksen cafeteria book display highlighting African
American history, biography, literature, and poetry. The displays would
not be possible without the guidance and artistic talents of Carl
Fritter and Steve Rye, Office of Conservation and Preservation.
This last point is an important one: the various departments of the
Secretary's Office continue to support each other, just as they provide
support for the broader Senate community.
Publications
The Library documents the histories of cloture motions and
presidential vetoes. In 2001, we compiled and distributed Presidential
Vetoes, 1989-2000 (Sen. Pub. 107-10), which supplements Presidential
Vetoes, 1789-1988 (S. Pub. 102-12). The two volumes provide the
definitive documentary history for every veto from the First Congress
through the 106th Congress. Vetoes was distributed to congressional
offices and to the 1,350 libraries in the government depository library
program.
We have reformatted the Hot Bills List, the Library's most popular
publication. Hot Bills is updated several times a week and lists
current legislation that is of concern to Senate staff, important to
constituents, and the subject of press reports. The value of Hot Bills
is in its timeliness and that it captures the legislation of vital
interest to Senate staff. The quick guide is available through Webster
and is sent electronically to every Senate office and to the
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. The Hot Bills List
will be available to all Capitol Hill offices when it is added to the
LIS main page during 2002.
One of the Senate librarians authored the Annotated Bibliography of
Selected Resources on Government and Politics, which describes more
than 200 essential reference and research sources. The Annotated
Bibliography benefits from years of research and editing experience and
is specifically tailored to Senate staff needs. We have also revised
the informative Library brochure. The tri-fold brochure profiles
Library services, describes the collections, and includes a laminated
bookmark and telephone card. We also compile the monthly New Books
list, which details new acquisitions and is distributed to Senate
offices.
Library's Intranet Site on Webster (http:webster/library)
The Library's Web page on Webster contains an electronic reference
collection of valuable research tools and the 2001 improvements and
enhancements include: Presidential Vetoes, 1989-2000 by Zoe Davis, Hot
Bills List by Jennifer Casey, Books by Sitting Senators by Jean
Keleher, Information Resources in the U.S. Senate Library by Nancy
Kervin, Appropriations Table, Fiscal Year 1988 to Fiscal Year 2002 by
Brian McLaughlin, Presidential Cabinet Nominations: President Carter to
President George W. Bush by Meghan Dunn, Congressional Committee
Bibliography of Public Law Compilations, by Lauren Gluckman, Works
Progress Administration State Guides, A Bibliography, by former
Reference Librarian Rick Ramponi, and Hornbook Series and Other Legal
Works by Lauren Gluckman.
Web site innovations also allow Senate staff to schedule a Library
tour, order books, and place reference requests. Book ordering is
linked our New Books page, where reviews accompany the latest
acquisitions. New hyperlinks were also added that access the roll call
votes provided on www.senate.gov and the wealth of information located
on FirstGov.gov.
Acquisitions
The Library received 9,465 new books, government documents, and
microforms during 2001. This included 347 books and reference volumes;
4,963 congressional documents; and 4,155 executive branch publications
in paper or microfiche. Significant additions of older congressional
materials were received from the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee,
Senate Budget Committee, Towson State University, and a local law firm
library. The two major purchases from Congressional Information Service
were Presidential Executive Orders and Proclamations, 1789-1921, which
provides more than 35,000 executive documents; and Unpublished House
Committee Hearings, 1965-1968, which includes 1,950 hearing
transcripts. These microfiche collections with accompanying indexes
provide invaluable resource materials previously unavailable in the
Library.
CHART SIX: SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS ACQUISITIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Books Government Documents Congressional Publications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports/ Total
Ordered Received Paper Fiche Hearings Prints Bylaw Docs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January.............................................. 38 41 397 117 290 20 18 104 987
February............................................. 20 30 423 28 312 24 22 58 897
March................................................ 34 24 434 112 351 26 52 59 1,058
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Quarter.................................... 92 95 1,254 257 953 70 92 221 2,942
==================================================================================================
April................................................ 25 43 361 12 209 33 24 95 777
May.................................................. 30 27 292 8 234 51 27 107 746
June................................................. 22 42 375 56 288 38 46 142 987
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Quarter.................................... 77 112 1,028 76 731 122 97 344 2,510
==================================================================================================
July................................................. 46 31 244 38 261 23 39 109 745
August............................................... 23 46 259 44 263 34 30 182 858
September............................................ 11 15 253 246 255 22 30 129 950
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Quarter.................................... 80 92 756 328 779 79 99 420 2,553
==================================================================================================
October.............................................. 28 12 174 33 265 11 37 77 609
November............................................. 16 20 179 13 258 11 37 123 641
December............................................. 28 16 40 17 68 0 29 40 210
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Quarter.................................... 72 48 393 63 591 22 103 240 1,460
==================================================================================================
2001 Total........................................... 321 347 3,431 724 3,054 293 391 1,225 9,465
2000 Total........................................... 341 426 4,971 4,589 3,642 241 211 1,441 15,521
==================================================================================================
Percent Change....................................... -5.87 -18.54 -30.98 -84.22 -16.15 21.58 85.31 -14.99 -39.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cataloging
Cataloging staff added a total 5,825 bibliographic records to the
online catalog in 2001. They continued to focus their considerable
skills on the Senate's exceptional collection of historic committee
hearings. This ambitious retrospective project is significantly
increasing access to these unique congressional publications. Their
work will be available not only to the Senate, but also to libraries
worldwide through an international database. Our cataloging of
contemporary hearings produced a total of 3,668 hearing records. In
addition, we added 942 bibliographic records of federal agency
documents to the catalog and reclassified major portions of the
international law and literature sections to comply with the Library of
Congress's revised classification schedules.
CHART SEVEN: SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS CATALOGING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCLC Records Produced
Hearing --------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers Government Congressional Publications Total New
Added to Documents -------------------------------- Records
LIS Books -------------------- Docs./ Cataloged
Paper Fiche Hearings Prints Pubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January...................... 25 145 51 149 539 8 23 915
February..................... 22 312 44 85 293 2 6 742
March........................ 0 49 77 130 273 9 1 539
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Quarter............ 47 506 172 364 1,105 19 30 2,196
==================================================================================
April........................ 0 62 29 50 448 14 43 646
May.......................... 12 29 33 11 386 74 1 534
June......................... 0 23 28 4 358 45 11 469
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Quarter............ 12 114 90 65 1,192 133 55 1,649
==================================================================================
July......................... 6 34 43 32 264 0 0 373
August....................... 0 21 32 42 211 3 30 339
September.................... 0 48 24 24 208 18 61 383
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Quarter............ 6 103 99 98 683 21 91 1,095
==================================================================================
October...................... 8 22 26 2 230 13 9 302
November..................... 5 18 11 1 261 13 10 314
December..................... 25 9 13 1 197 37 12 269
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Quarter............ 38 49 50 4 688 63 31 885
==================================================================================
2001 Total................... 103 772 411 531 3,668 236 207 5,825
2000 Total................... 387 750 703 1,982 6,476 96 89 10,096
==================================================================================
Percent Change............... -73.39 +2.93 -41.54 -73.21 -43.36 +145.83 +132.58 -42.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Library.Solution, the Library's Integrated Library System
The Library's integrated library system, Library.Solution, which
facilitates control over acquisitions, cataloging, check-in, and
circulation of the Library's collections, was purchased from The
Library Corporation (TLC) and installed in January 2000.
Library.Solution is the Library's third catalog and with each
generation the sophistication and functionality has significantly
increased. However, the Senate Library's 97,000 cataloged titles and
148,000 associated volumes still present challenges to system designers
in terms of collection size, complexity, and our demanding technical
requirements. After completely rebuilding the local authority files and
the installing an updated national authority database, the catalog
performance improved to permit the loading of more than 8,000
bibliographic records from back files and the standardization of local
subject headings.
A major Library goal is to provide the online catalog to the entire
Senate community. The current catalog provides this capability, but
action was delayed due to the estimated $25,000 cost, the pending
release of new Oracle-based software, and the 2003 replacement of the
current operating system. Access to library catalogs is a standard
patron service and the Library will continue to work to make the
catalog available to every Senate office.
Collection Maintenance, Preservation, and Binding.--Maintenance and
preservation projects produced a better-organized and environmentally
protected collection. The historic collection of more than 125,000
volumes requires constant monitoring of the critical environmental
conditions. Mold is prevented by maintaining temperatures below 70
degrees and humidity levels below 50 percent. However, these levels can
be very difficult to achieve in the Russell Building location.
Dehumidifiers operate 24 hours a day and satisfactorily control the
humidity, but the ventilation system is not always capable of
maintaining acceptable air quality and temperature levels. Another
major concern is the crisscrossing maze of century-old water pipes
hovering just a few feet above the historic collection.
At some point, the Secretary's Office may be faced with a major
water incident that will compromise and possibly destroy thousands of
these irreplaceable volumes. We have already taken the pro-active step
of contacting two different document [resurrection] companies, each of
which would be in effect on call.
Two major collection maintenance projects were undertaken during
the year. The Reference Librarians reviewed the 25,000 volumes in the
book collection and removed duplicates and dated materials. The second
project is ongoing and is a comprehensive review of the government
documents collection and the Library's depository library selections.
The Library joins more than 1,350 libraries nationwide in the
Depository Library Program and automatically receives preselected
documents from the Government Printing Office.
The Library's United States Serial Set is recognized as the most
complete in existence, surpassing the collections in the Library of
Congress and the National Archives. The Serial Set is the nation's most
important document collection and contains more than 350,000
congressional documents that trace America's history from 1817 to the
present. The Library conducted a comprehensive inventory of the first
13,000 volumes (1817-1969), and it revealed that only 41 volumes were
missing. Fortunately, 14 of the missing 41 volumes were acquired from
rare book dealers and the search will continue for the remaining
volumes.
Library Budget.--The fifth year of aggressive budget reviews
delivered reductions totaling $7,051.04. The targeted expenditure
categories were newspaper and journal subscriptions ($2,572.74) and
online service contracts ($4,000.00). A review of the microform
collection resulted in the cancellation of twelve magazine
subscriptions received on microfiche. Restructuring database contracts
garnered a $4,000.00 savings. The Senate's ever-changing information
needs require a comprehensive annual collection and expenditure review.
The reductions for the past five years total $46,693.82 and these
efforts have been critical in offsetting continuing cost increases for
core materials.
Senate Hart Building Closing.--The Senate Library provided
temporary office space to three offices under the Secretary following
the anthrax contamination at the Senate Hart Office Building. The three
displaced offices were the Office of Public Records, Senate Historical
Office, and Human Resources. The displaced offices arrived October 25
and were provided with workspace, telephones, terminals with printers,
office supplies, and access to fax machines and photocopiers. The
accommodations were not spacious, but all of the offices were able to
conduct their daily activities. After three months, the offices
returned to the Hart Building on January 22, 2002. Throughout the three
months of physical and work flow disruption, the cooperation, patience,
and professionalism displayed by all those involved was a tribute to
all the employees of the Secretary's Office.
UNUM, Newsletter of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.--
UNUM, Newsletter of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate was
published six times during 2001. Chief Editor Kimberly Ferguson
continued to lead the team of talented volunteers. She is joined by two
experienced co-editors, Senior Reference Librarian Nancy Kervin and
Reference Librarian Jennifer Casey. Head of Technical Services Leona
Faust continued to author profiles of offices and individuals within
the Secretary's Office in her series titled UNUM Focus. These excellent
articles are often the first institutional histories for many of the
offices under the Secretary. Coping with constant deadlines, revised
text, and printing delays, they have created a superb newsletter that
is informative, educational, and entertaining.
Friends of Tyler School.--The Library developed a cooperative
relationship with the Friends of Tyler School, a tutoring program from
Capitol Hill's Tyler Elementary School. Many of the tutors and
volunteers are congressional staff. The Library sends unneeded
magazines and also donated a superseded encyclopedia set. These
donations provide basic educational resources that would otherwise be
unavailable to the children.
Major Goals of the Library for Calendar Year 2002
Answer 40,000 Reference Requests.--This has been a long-term goal
that will require a 4 percent increase over 2001 requests totals.
Cross-Training Program.--The Library's ongoing cross-training
program will focus on improving the reference skills of the Library
Technicians. They will be instructed on basic reference skills to aid
them in their front-desk duties.
Reduce Fiscal Year 2002 Purchases by 5 percent ($7,500).--Fiscal
year 2002 will be the Library's sixth year of aggressively reviewing
expenditures. Total reductions in purchases through fiscal year 2001
were $46,693.82, and these efforts have offset cost increases in core
materials.
Micrographics Center Reorganization.--The Library's collection of
over 1,000,000 microfiche and 8,000 microfilm reels will be completely
reorganized. This major project will improve accessibility and
accommodate future growth.
Document Recovery Program.--To ensure that all materials under the
Secretary of the Senate are adequately protected from the lasting
effects of fire and water damage, the Library has established working
relationships with two document recovery firms.
Retrospective Hearing Project.--The ten year project of cataloging
the Library's 18,000 House and Senate committee hearings is in its
sixth year. The collection is matched and dates to the 1880s. Once
completed the detailed bibliographic records will be available for the
first time to libraries nationwide. The database will provide an
exceptional and historic look into the work of the Congress.
Office of Public Records
The Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains
records, reports, and other documents filed with the Secretary of the
Senate involving the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended; the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995; the Senate Code of Official Conduct:
Rule 34, Public Financial Disclosure; Rule 35, Senate Gift Rule
filings; Rule 40, Registration of Mass Mailing; Rule 41, Political Fund
Designees; and Rule 41(6), Supervisor's Reports on Individuals
Performing Senate Services; and Foreign Travel Reports.
The Office provides for the inspection, review, and reproduction of
these documents. From October, 2000, through September, 2001, the
Public Records Office staff assisted more than 3,100 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 116,747 photocopies and 25 rolls of
microfilm 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 House of Representatives
concerning the filing requirements of the aforementioned Acts and
Senate rules.
Achievements in 2001
The Office established the first governmental Web site allowing the
public to examine federal lobbying documents from their own home or
office. The site has received many commendatory comments from the
public since inception; and compares very favorably with other similar
sites, even as an initial offering. A survey was conducted on behalf of
the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws of 58 Canadian and American
entities that receive lobbying disclosure reports at the federal,
state, provincial, and local levels. Of the 42 responders, 7 American
(including the Senate) and 2 Canadian jurisdictions reported having
Internet public access to the documents. In comparing the other 8
sites, the Public Records site is easy to access, easy to use and
brings the researcher to the source documents as filed by the
registrants (see below in Automation Activities).
The electronic filing pilot for lobbying documents substantially
expanded as the staff tutored those registrants who indicated interest
in e-filing. The Office worked throughout the year to enhance the
program by making it easier to use and by training those responsible
for filing lobbying documents. Over 350 lobbying filers attended two
``How to E-file'' seminars that were held in November of 2000. By the
end of fiscal year 2001, 9 percent of all lobbying reports and
registrations were e-filings.
The Public Records Office also prepared a disaster recovery plan in
fiscal year 2001. We had an opportunity to compare our template with
the plan of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, which was
displaced for seven weeks after 9/11. Our templates were very similar
and validated our preparations. Based upon the review of that plan and
our own ``look backward'' to see how the plans worked well or less
well, we have identified some enhancements to allow us to be even
better prepared the next time disaster strikes.
Plans for 2002
The Public Records Office plans to enhance the new lobbying web
site by increasing the selection criteria to enable it to be even more
widely used, and by allowing the printing of documents from the site in
alternative formats. The Office also is working to make the e-filing
site even more user-friendly by resolving some navigating and data base
construction issues that will allow a more intuitive approach by the
user. Additionally, there are plans to offer more seminars to increase
the percentage of e-filing. With respect to our disaster recovery
planning, the Office is proceeding to establish an off-site scanning
station in order to fully implement the plan, and not to be without
essential hardware in the event of another evacuation.
Automation Activities.--The Senate took a significant step toward
the goal of making the work of the Senate more accessible and applying
the resources of technology in ways that benefit the American people.
As of September 6, 2001, documents filed under the Lobbying Disclosure
Act may be researched on the Internet. The site allows researchers to
search the Public Records database using five selection criteria chosen
based upon public inquiries received by the office over the last five
years. The researcher may then select the document that he or she
wishes to view. The Public Records Office staff is delighted with the
public comments on the site and will be working with interested parties
in making any improvements that allow for greater public access. This
achievement fulfills the initial commitment made by the Office of the
Secretary, which has been highlighted in the Secretary's testimony
before this Committee each year since 1997. Also during fiscal year
2001, the Public Records office expanded participation in the
electronic filing pilot program. In fiscal year 2001, the office
received 2,561 electronic documents, as compared to 300 the previous
fiscal year.
Federal Election Campaign Act, as Amended.--The Act required Senate
candidates to file semi-annual reports in a non-election year. Filings
totaled 3,656 documents containing 104,418 pages.
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.--The Act requires semi-annual
financial and lobbying activity reports. As of September 30, 2001,
5,160 registrants represented 15,941 clients and employed 18,854
individuals who met the statutory definition of ``lobbyist.'' The total
number of lobbying registrations and reports were 21,192.
Public Financial Disclosure.--The filing date for Public Financial
Disclosure Reports was May 15, 2001. The reports were available to the
public and press by Thursday, June 14th. Copies were provided to the
Select Committee on Ethics and the appropriate State officials. A total
of 2,500 reports and amendments were filed containing 13,579 pages.
Senate Rule 35 (Gift Rule).--The Senate Office of Public Records
received over 1,180 reports during fiscal year 2001.
Page School
The United States Senate Page School exists to provide a smooth
transition from and to the page students' home schools, providing those
students with as sound a program, both academically and experientially,
as possible during their stay in the nation's capital, within the
limits of the constraints imposed by the work situation.
I am very proud to tell this Subcommittee that Accreditation has
been continued until December 31, 2008. The Middle States Commission on
Secondary Schools reviewed the progress report filed By the U.S. Senate
Page School and notified the school that no further reports are
required before the next evaluation year.
Summary of accomplishments:
--Evacuation of pages was successful. Effects of the tragic events
that occurred on September 11, 2001, were significant but
controlled. School and residential staff immediately evacuated
pages to a Maryland shore location. Pages were lodged in a
hotel overnight and returned for work by 7:00 A.M. on September
12, 2001. Parents were immediately notified of the location and
safety of their children via telephone calls made by the
principal. Pages were allowed to use the telephone to speak
with family members as often as they felt the need to do so.
Telephone updates continued throughout September and October in
the aftermath of the contaminated mail. Sessions were conducted
by psychologists from the APA and attended by both staff and
pages. Mail sent to pages was addressed to the principal's home
and delivered each morning. Staff exercised vigilance to
monitor any negative reaction by pages. An evacuation plan and
COOP have been completed.
--Extended educational experiences were provided to pages. Seventeen
field trips, eight guest speakers, opportunities to compete in
writing contests, to play musical instruments, and to continue
foreign language study with the aid of tutors were all afforded
pages. National tests were administered for qualification in
scholarship programs as well.
--Pages and staff embraced a community Service project. LTC Brian
Birdwell, a burn victim of the Pentagon tragedy was ``adopted''
and various forms of support to Col. Birdwell and his family
were supplied. Forms of support included visits to the
hospital, sending cards and letters, creating and delivering a
gift basket with an item from every state, and taking his son
with the pages to the Army/Navy football game. The Birdwell
family was invited to and attended the Closing Ceremony as
guests of honor.
--Purchases have been made to update materials. These included
calculators, new history and government texts and support
materials, and Advanced Placement manuals for Calculus AB and
BC, as well as Advanced Placement Calculus software.
Replacement copies of paperback novels for English classes were
purchased as well as the MLA Handbook (style manual).
--Faculty has pursued learning opportunities. Math and science staff
members attended Advanced Placement seminars in calculus,
chemistry, and physics.
--Pages successfully completed the semester curriculum. Closing
Ceremony was conducted on January 18, 2002, the last day of
school for the semester.
--Orientation and course scheduling for the second semester pages was
conducted on Tuesday, January 22, 2002. Classes began on
Wednesday, January 23, 2002. The needs of the incoming students
determined the second semester schedule.
Summary of future goals:
--Extended day schedules, tutoring by teachers on an as-needed basis,
and individualized small group instruction will be offered.
--Foreign language tutors will provide instruction in French,
Spanish, German, and Latin.
--The focus of field trips will be historically and politically
significant sites and events. We will add trips to the National
Building Museum, the National Postal Museum, Gettysburg and the
Eisenhower National Historic Site.
--Staff development opportunities for 2002 include the option of
additional computer training for all staff, as well as seminars
conducted by Education and Training. Subject matter conferences
conducted by national organizations supporting the various
academic disciplines will be considered.
--A new chemistry text and supporting software to provide students
the ability to conduct simulated experiments will be purchased
for use in the Fall, 2002. Additionally, a telescope will be
purchased for use in the physics course.
--Evacuation procedures and safety seminars will be planned for all
tutors.
--Coordination of communication among SAA, SOS, Page Program, Page
School, and Cloakrooms will be worked into written procedure,
as will be emergency protocol for psychiatric/psychological
care for pages.
--Creation of curriculum to support a summer academic session will be
completed.
Printing and Documents
The Office of Printing and Document Services is responsible for
managing the printing and/or distribution of the Senate's official
Title 44, U.S. Code printing requirements. The office manages Senate
Printing expenses, and functions as the Government Printing Office
liaison to schedule and/or distribute Senate bills and reports to the
Senate Chamber, staff, and the public. The department provides page
counts of Senate hearings to commercial reporting companies and Senate
committees; orders and tracks all paper and envelopes provided to the
Senate; provides general printing services for Senate offices; and
assures that all Senate printing is in compliance with Title 44, U.S.
Code, as it relates to Senate documents, hearings, committee prints,
and other official publications.
In the previous two years the OPDS staff was downsized by 25
percent. During this time, the office has also implemented efforts to
consolidate duties and cross-train personnel. In 2000, the office began
a ``cross-working'' program in an effort to maintain office continuity
through unforeseen events. A staff member from the printing department
would spend a certain amount of time each week performing the duties of
a document specialist, including ``counter time'' and/or answering
legislative inquiries. A document specialist, on the other hand, would
process printing and binding requisitions--completing a given number
per week to fulfill a minimum ``cross-working'' requirement. The
advantages to having this multi-trained staff are (1) quick response
capability to changes within the department and (2) the flexibility to
reduce overall staffing through better human resource management.
During 2001, OPDS provided commercial reporting companies and
corresponding Senate committees a total of 1,004 billing verifications
of Senate hearings and business meetings. Billing verifications are how
the reporting committees request payment from a Senate committee for
transcription services. Although some hearings are cancelled or
postponed, they still require payment to the reporting company. This is
an average of 48 hearings/meetings per committee, and a 10.3 percent
increase over 2000.
The OPDS utilizes a program developed in conjunction with the
Sergeant at Arms Computer Division that provides more billing accuracy
and greater information gathering capacity, while adhering to the
guidelines established by the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration for commercial reporting companies to bill the Senate
for transcription services.
CHART EIGHT: HEARING TRANSCRIPT AND BILLING VERIFICATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENT
1999 2000 2001 CHANGE 2001/
2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billing Verifications....................................... 1,214 910 1,004 10.3
Average per Committee....................................... 58 43 48 11.6
Total Transcribed Pages..................................... 80,228 61,898 72,799 17.6
Average Pages/Committee..................................... 3,820 2,814 3,467 23.2
Transcribed Pages Cost...................................... $508,815 $401,231 $479,921 19.6
Average Cost/Committee...................................... $24,229 $18,238 $22,853 25.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During fiscal year 2001, the OPDS prepared 5,359 printing and
binding requisitions authorizing the GPO to print and bind the Senate's
work, exclusive of legislation and the Congressional Record. This is an
increase of 9.1 percent over the number of requisitions processed
during fiscal year 2000. In addition to processing requisitions, the
OPDS also coordinates job scheduling, proof handling and job tracking
for stationery products, Senate hearings, Senate publications and other
miscellaneous printed products.
The Service Center within the OPDS is staffed by experienced GPO
detailees that provide Senate committees and the Secretary of the
Senate's Office with complete publishing services for hearings,
committee prints, and the preparation of the Congressional Record.
These services include keyboarding, proofreading, scanning, and
composition. The Service Center provides the best management of funds
available through the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation
because committees have been able to decrease or eliminate additional
overtime costs associated with the preparation of hearings.
The Document Services Section coordinates requests for printed
legislation and miscellaneous publications with other departments
within the Secretary's Office, Senate committees, and the GPO. This
section ensures that the most current version of all material is
available, and that sufficient quantities are available to meet
projected demands.
In 2001, a total of 25,051 pages were printed in the Congressional
Record. Of this total, 14,084 pages were printed for the Senate, and
10,967 pages were printed for the House of Representatives. These page
counts are comprised of the Proceedings of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, Extension of Remarks, Digest and miscellaneous pages.
A total of approximately 1.3 million copies of the Congressional Record
were printed and distributed in 2001. The Senate received 318,572
copies, the House 459,477, with the remaining 492,915 delivered to the
Executive Branch agencies and the public at large.
CHART NINE: DOCUMENT SERVICES--CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Pages Printed............................................. 32,184 28,232 25,051
For the Senate.............................................. 15,867 12,469 14,084
For the House............................................... 16,317 15,763 10,967
Total Copies Printed & Distributed.............................. 1,500,000 1,300,000 1,300,000
To the Senate............................................... 340,709 450,842 318,572
To the House................................................ 483,034 308,842 459,477
To the Executive Branch and the Public...................... 629,787 540,316 492,915
Total Production Costs.......................................... $17,400,000 $14,966,755 $15,428,530
Senate Costs................................................ $8,100,000 $6,364,265 $7,452,933
House Costs................................................. $8,300,000 $7,920,490 $7,333,134
Others' Costs............................................... $1,000,000 $682,000 $642,462
Per Copy Cost................................................... $11.63 $11.51 $12.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OPDS continually tracks demand for all classifications of
Congressional legislation. Twice a year the office adjusts the number
of documents ordered by classification (example: Introduced in the
Senate). The goal is to adjust numbers ordered in each classification
to closely match demand and thereby reduce waste. In recent years, OPDS
has taken a more aggressive approach to reducing waste of less
requested legislation. The office supplements depleted legislation
where needed by producing additional copies on the DocuTech machine
located in the OPDS office. While OPDS curtails waste, at the same time
the office pledges never to run out of copies of legislation.
The primary responsibility of the Documents Services Section is to
provide services to the Senate. However, the responsibility to the
general public, the press, and other government agencies is virtually
indistinguishable from those services provided to the Senate. Requests
for material are received at the walk-in counter, through the mail, by
fax, by telephone, and email. Recorded messages, fax, and email operate
around the clock and are processed as they are received, as are mail
requests.
CHART TEN: SUMMARY OF ANNUAL STATISTICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESS/ CALLS COUNTER
CALENDAR YEAR SESSION RECEIVED PUBLIC MAIL FAX REQUEST EMAIL REQUEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.............................. 105/1st 60,926 12,739 7,261 N/A N/A
1998.............................. 105/2nd 35,116 8,131 5,162 N/A 113,862
1999.............................. 106/1st 27,570 6,872 4,036 N/A 156,454
2000.............................. 106/2nd 17,356 4,066 3,129 112 95,186
2001 \1\.......................... 107/1st 16,186 3,449 2,093 621 88,769
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From October 17, 2001 until January 22, 2002 the Document Room was displaced to the Capitol (Room S-333 and
operated with one telephone and one computer, thereby limiting capabilities.
The OPDS Response to the Events of September 11, 2001
The events of October 15, 2001 compelled the OPDS to be relocated
to the Capitol building. The OPDS began operations in Room S-333 of the
Capitol on Monday, October 22, 2001, and returned to the Hart Building
(Room SH-B04) Tuesday, January 22, 2002.
Despite space limitations and having the access to just one
telephone and one computer, the OPDS managed to fulfill all its
obligations to the Senate Chamber, staff, committees, and the public
with minimal delays. OPDS processed 979 printing and binding
requisitions (an average of 17.18/day) during this time. This was
actually 19 more than for the same period last year. Also, during the
period from November 15th, when a computer with duplicate programs from
OPDS was installed in S-333, OPDS processed 201 Hearing Billing
Verifications--this was about 20 percent of the total for the entire
year.
On November 28th, the GPO delivered the Report of the Secretary of
the Senate (April 1, 2001 through September 30, 2001) to the Senate
Library, where it was met by OPDS staff. The report was then packaged,
labeled, and delivered on time.
With space at a premium, OPDS stored only the documents that were
to be taken up on the Senate floor, reported on the Senate Calendar or,
any appropriation conference reports. The balance of Bills, Public
Laws, Resolutions were held at the GPO. Documents of all types, and
from various Congresses, were requested by both the Senate staff and
the public. Efforts were made to have the staff or public utilize the
Webster or Thomas Web site to obtain a given document. Generally, the
better response came from the public. At least once during the day, a
list would be faxed to GPO and they would fulfill requests. GPO
delivered most of the documents directly to the requesting offices, and
the balance to S-333. OPDS would then either mail them or package them
for public pick up at the Appointment Desk on the first floor of the
Capitol. SAA employees at the Appointments Desk in the Capitol provided
invaluable assistance during this time which we wish to recognize.
Despite being removed from its normal location for a period of
time, the OPDS met its obligations. Printing requests from Senate
offices were processed and delivered, and documents were delivered to
the Senate Chamber and were made available to Senate staff and the
public. Daily Legislative and Executive Calendars were delivered with
the morning newspapers.
Online Ordering
The OPDS is constantly seeking new ways to use technology to assist
Members and staff with added services and enhancements to current
methods. Beginning in late 2000, Senate offices, by way of a link to
the Secretary of the Senate's home Web page, could order legislative
documents online. Via the same link, a Legislative Hot List Link was
launched shortly afterwards. At this site, Members and staff can
confirm arrival of printed copies of the most sought after legislative
documents. The site is updated several times daily--each time new
documents arrive from GPO in the Document Room. And OPDS has
implemented a new ``Printed Legislative Inventory System'', or PLIS.
This system tracks all legislation as to its location and availability.
Stationery Room
The Senate Stationery Room's principal functions are: (1) to sell
stationery items for use by Senate offices and other authorized
legislative organizations, (2) to select a variety of stationery items
to meet the needs of the Senate on a daily basis and maintain a
sufficient inventory of these items, (3) to purchase supplies utilizing
open market procurement, competitive bid and/or GSA Federal Supply
Schedules, (4) to maintain individual official stationery expense
accounts for Senators, Committees, and Officers of the Senate, (5) to
render monthly expense statements, (6) to insure receipt of all
reimbursements for all purchases by the client base via direct payments
or through the certification process, (7) to make payments to all
vendors of record for supplies and services in a timely manner and
certify receipt of all supplies and services, and (8) to provide the
deliver of all purchased supplies to the requesting offices.
CHART ELEVEN: STATIONARY ROOM 2001 AND 2000 OPERATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2001 2000
Statistical Statistical
Operations Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross Sales................................... $3,610,804 $3,227,951
Sales Transactions............................ 62,970 56,972
Purchase Orders Issued........................ 6,770 6,132
Vouchers Processed............................ 7,951 6,412
Metro Fare Media Sold......................... 19,621 17,232
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Stationery Room provided each Senator-elect participating in
the Senators Orientation Program in December 2000 with a Welcome
Package. This package contained useful information relating to the
operation of the Stationery Room, its services and products and
suggestions to help each new office become operational. The Stationery
Room assisted the Senators-elect staff by providing them with initial
supplies, stationery letterheads, business cards and helped them
transition from the election to a Senate employee on January 3, 2001.
The accounts receivable interface between the Stationary Room and
the Disbursing Office was finalized after development and testing.
Initially started in fiscal year 2000, the interface imports
expenditure information from each customer account that is certified
for reimbursement in a Disbursing Office system format. It is then
transmitted via e-mail to the Disbursing Office system for
reimbursement to the Stationery Room Revolving Fund. This process has
eliminated the need for issuing paper checks, a labor-intensive process
for all offices involved.
At the request of the Secretary of the Senate, the General
Accounting Office was requested to conduct a Financial Audit of the
Stationery Room during fiscal year 2001. This audit consumed
approximately twenty-five percent of the Stationery Room staff and
resources, in order to provide the GAO with the necessary information
and documents to conduct their audit of the operation. The GAO findings
were finalized and published in January 2002.
During last quarter of fiscal year 2001, the Stationery Room
implemented a new interface with the Disbursing Office to improve the
workflow of vouchers submitted to the Disbursing Office for processing.
This process allows for the Stationery Room to submit electronically
via e-mail, spreadsheet files that have information imported into it
from the Stationery Room system to a format that is then uploaded to
the Disbursing Office system. This has eliminated the need for
Disbursing Office staff to manually enter the data for payment
generation. The finalization of this project, which will involve the
Disbursing Office returning this electronic file with their data
included for reconciliation of the Revolving Fund, should be concluded
in the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2002. The last month of fiscal year
2001 was extremely demanding on the Stationery Room operation and its
staff. This period is always the busiest because of heavy year-end
purchases by Senators, Committees and Leadership offices. During this
period, sales activity generated was five-fold in comparison to prior
months.
The Stationery Room is investigating the feasibility of creating an
on-line intranet desktop ordering system for Senate users. We are
currently analyzing cost, security, confidentiality, interface
obstacles, the type of products that might be included, user
friendliness, definitions of who the users would be, and possible
staffing requirements. Our goal is to have this in place by the end of
fiscal year 2003. The Web FMIS access for the Stationery Room was
installed for testing during March 2002. This project allows for key
Stationery Room staff to access the Disbursing Office via the Web to
perform a number of management operations.
Effects of the Hart Building Closure
The Stationery Room operation adjusted its methods of operation
when the Hart building was closed. All inbound mail, including
invoices, destined for the Stationery Room was halted along with all
other offices. Mail was then and now continues to be hand-delivered by
vendors, e-mailed and faxed to the Stationery Room so that prompt
payment for goods and future shipments of product can continue in a
timely manner.
The Hart-Dirksen loading dock was closed to all delivery traffic.
Deliveries were met on the street by Stationery Room staff. Merchandise
was then moved utilizing borrowed equipment. During the loading dock
closure, a staff member was permanently stationed on the street, to
insure deliveries were not turned away or missed.
Since all of the Stationery Room material handling equipment was
sequestered in the Hart Building, staff had to constantly borrow
equipment that was in short supply to move pallets of product from and
to various locations. On one specific occasion, we had a forty-foot
tractor-trailer containing twenty-seven pallets of flags to be
delivered to the Stationery Room. Stationery Room staff had to manually
unload the tractor trailer carton by carton, and re-palletize the
cartons on the street. Staff relied on some of our vendor sales
representatives to hand carry product to our location, or to an office
in critical need. Stationery Room staff met vendors at various
locations to take possession of critical products to insure timeliness
of deliveries to the customer. Stationery Room staff also were
dispatched to various vendor locations in the metropolitan area to pick
up products. In addition, with the closing of the Hart Building and, in
notably our warehouse, the Stationery Room was faced with the dilemma
of where to store products. We solved this problem by developing a plan
to institute JIT (Just In Time) ordering and delivery capabilities.
As yet another example of the Secretary's departments helping each
other, office space, supplies and equipment were provided by the
Stationery Room to the Disbursing Office during this period to help
them provide services to Senators and their staffs. This arrangement
created substantial traffic in the administrative offices of the
Stationery Room due to the Open Enrollment of Health Plans and the TSP
Plan open seasons managed by the Disbursing Office staff.
Student Loan Program
The new student loan repayment program is operational. The Office
of the Secretary was tasked with drawing up the required documents,
which has been done. We have also held a series of briefings, first for
Office Managers and staff responsible for implementing the program in
each office, and more recently for any staff interested in learning
more about the program. We have also arranged with the joint Office of
Education and Training to build in a segment about the new program for
all new staff orientation. And the Disbursing Office has designated a
lead person to handle staff calls to provide consistent answers and
schedule additional briefings as necessary. The first information we
have from the Disbursing, as of April 12, 2002, shows 25 staff from 10
different Senate offices are now enrolled in the program.
mandated systems and financial services
Legislative Information System Augmentation (LISAP) and the XML
Authoring Application
We are in the midst of an historic transformation of how
legislation is authored in the Senate. The Appropriations Committee
dedicated $7 million in fiscal year 2002 so that development of our own
authoring language, based on the new XML data standard, could begin. We
have contracted for the beginning of the project, but of more
importance, we have hired our own staff, as has the Sergeant at Arms,
so that the Senate is building its own internal XML expertise. This is
cost effective, and it builds an infrastructure that will benefit the
Senate for years to come.
Mr. Chairman, I am very proud of this project and very proud of the
LIS/XML team and the productive partnership we have formed with the
Sergeant at Arms. The team includes, in addition to staff from the
Sergeant at Arms, employees of the Library of Congress and the GPO. Our
two most important clients during the current phase are the Senate's
Legislative Counsel and our own Enrolling Clerk. By the beginning of
the next Congress, the 108th, we will produce our very first Resolution
using the new tool.
History and Background: LIS
The Legislative Information System (LIS) is a mandated system
(Section 8 of the 1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2 U.S.C.
123e) that provides desktop access to the content and status of all
Senate legislative information and supporting documents. The 1997
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (2 U.S.C. 181) also established a
program for providing the widest possible exchange of information among
legislative branch agencies.
The long-range goal of the LIS Project is to provide a
``comprehensive Senate Legislative Information System'' to capture,
store, manage, and distribute Senate documents. Several components of
the LIS have been implemented, and the project is currently focused on
a Senate-wide implementation and transition to a system for the
authoring and exchange of legislative documents. The authoring and
exchange systems will create standard authoring processes and document
exchange formats that will greatly enhance the availability and re-use
of legislative documents within the Senate and with other legislative
branch agencies. The LIS Project Office manages the project and
oversees the Senate's current contractor.
An April 1997, joint Senate and House report recommended
establishment of a data standards program using the Standard
Generalized Markup Language (SGML) as ``an appropriate technology on
which to base the preparation of legislative information and document
management systems.'' The report further noted that ``. . . standards
will evolve over time as technology and the capacity of offices and
agencies to adopt these technologies evolves.'' Since that time, as
anticipated, a subset of SGML known as the eXtensible Markup Language
(XML) became an industry standard, and in December 2000, the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House
Administration jointly accepted XML as the primary data standard to be
used for the exchange of legislative documents and information.
Following the January 2000 implementation of the Legislative
Information System (LIS) in January 2000 and the transfer of operations
and maintenance of the LIS to the Office of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA)
in March 2000, the LIS Project Office shifted its focus to procuring
system development services in support of an LIS Augmentation Project
(LISAP). In July 2000, the Committee on Rules and Administration
directed that the scope for the LISAP procurement should include the
data standards project, a document management system for the Senate
Legislative Counsel (SLC), and an LIS security assessment. On October
25, 2000, the procurement under a General Services Administration
schedule was awarded to IBM Global Services to provide the LISAP System
Requirements Specification for the following:
--A Senate-wide implementation and transition to the XML data
standard for the authoring and exchange of legislative
documents
--A document management system (DMS) for the Office of the
Legislative Counsel
--A development facility for implementation of the above
--A security assessment of the LIS.
The XML data standard component focuses on providing a Senate-wide
implementation and transition to XML for the authoring and exchange of
legislative documents. This component of the LISAP also includes the
review and update of existing document type definitions (DTD),
development of new DTDs, the conversion of legacy documents to XML
formats, and conversion of documents in other formats to XML.
LISAP: First Phase 2001
The first phase of the LISAP identified the stakeholders,
documented the processes, and defined the system requirements for the
authoring and exchange components. The phase concluded in August 2001
with the contractor delivering the following: (1) the operational
concept document, (2) the system requirements specification, (3) system
test and deployment plan, (4) user interface prototype, (5) systems
requirements review, and (6) the security assessment report. Project
activities and progress were reported to project participants in a bi-
weekly status meeting. The system requirements review, conducted over
two days in mid August for all stakeholders, provided an opportunity
for a question and answer session with IBM as they reviewed the events
and deliverables of the first phase.
LISAP project activities included interviews with the Senate Office
of the Legislative Counsel, House Office of the Legislative Counsel,
committees who draft their own legislation, committees who use
Legislative Counsel for drafting services, clerks in the Office of the
Secretary of the Senate, staff of the Senate Sergeant of Arms, Library
of Congress and the Congressional Research Service, Government Printing
Office, and Office of the Clerk of the House. Interview questions
focused on legislative document types and the processes for authoring/
editing, exchange, storage and retrieval, printing and distribution and
also inquired about the use of legacy documents, workflow, archiving,
and reports. The information gathered in the interviews was documented
and used as input in producing the deliverables for this phase.
With the exception of the LIS Information Security Review Report,
which had a select distribution, all of the LISAP deliverable documents
can be found on the LISAP website at http://156.33.247.66/lisap/
basedocuments.html. The products from the first phase will be used in
later phases to develop the detailed requirements, overall system
design, and implementation strategy for building the Senate-wide XML
authoring and exchange capability.
A database of documents created in the XML format and an improved
exchange process will result in quicker and better access to
legislative information and will provide documents that can be more
easily shared, re-used, and re-purposed. Parts of one XML document can
be re-used in another XML document because the document structure is
similar and the format of the data (XML) is standard. As more and more
documents are created in the XML format, the necessity for re-keying or
converting from one type of format to another (HTML to WordPerfect or
XyWrite locator to Word or Word to WordPerfect, et cetera) will
disappear.
Midway through the first phase, at the request of the Committee on
Rules and Administration, the scope for subsequent phases of the
project was narrowed to concentrate on the XML solution for those
offices currently using XyWrite to author legislative documents. The
Office of the Legislative Counsel and the Office of the Enrolling Clerk
produce approximately 90 percent of bills, resolutions, and amendments,
and our effort is now concentrated on these offices.
A Description of XML
For many years, the Legislative Counsels, Enrolling Clerks, several
Committees, and the Government Printing Office have been using a
proprietary, DOS-based system (Xywrite) for legislative drafting.
Xywrite provides a workspace to enter text and the typesetting codes
(referred to as locator or bell codes) that drive GPO's Microcomp
composition software. Other offices that draft legislation use various
word processing software, and these documents must be re-keyed or re-
coded into the present Xywrite system in order to be used, printed, and
exchanged. The embedded typesetting codes are specific to paper output
only and provide minimal information for formatting documents for the
Web or for building useful searchable databases. The Xywrite/Microcomp
system has been customized by GPO and the Senate and House Legislative
Counsels.
Although the present Xywrite system is reasonably efficient for
long-time users, for new users it is a cumbersome, difficult-to-learn
system that runs on an unfamiliar, out-of-date DOS platform. The
XyWrite system also presents file size and memory problems that inhibit
production and occasionally cause system failures.
XML also uses embedded codes (called tags) in the document, but
these codes describe the content of the document, not how it should be
formatted. For example, in an introduced bill prepared with ``bell''
codes, the Congress, session, sponsor and all co-sponsors are preceded
by the same code that indicates that the text should be printed in a
large and small caps font. The data looks something like this (codes
are bold):
I41107T4th CONGRESS
I421T4st Session
I47Mr. T4BYRDT1 (for himself and Mr.
T4STEVENST1) introduced the following bill
This same data, tagged in XML, looks like this (tags are bold):
107th Congress
1st Session Mr. Byrd
(for himself and Mr. Stevens) introduced the
following bill
The XML tags and the text of the document are stored together as an
ASCII text file; however, the tags can be hidden from view and the text
can be formatted for display on the screen. The XML tags in the
document are read by computer software that formats the text (changing
fonts, indentation, etc.) for printing to paper or displaying to the
screen. XML tags also provide more precise information for search and
retrieval. For example, the XML tagging above would provide a way for a
computer search to distinguish between the bills sponsored by Senator
Byrd and those co-sponsored by him. XML uses a document type
description (DTD) to specify the rules concerning the content and
structure of the document. A DTD would describe the hierarchical
structure of section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clause,
subclause, item and specifies that a bill may contain only one sponsor,
but may have multiple cosponsors. This ``rules-based'' authoring/
editing provides many potential benefits for automating drafting
functions. The DTD enforces the rules during document creation, which
provides a consistent document structure.
Framework, Timetable, Deliverables of the LIS Project
In October 2001, the Secretary's LIS Project Office added a
software engineer and provided oversight for two consultants from IBM
to conduct an 8-week evaluation of an XML authoring application being
built by the Office of the Clerk for the House Office of the
Legislative Counsel and the House Enrolling Clerk. The application,
which is built in XMetaL, is in limited use for House simple
resolutions, and the Senate contract looked at its applicability for
Senate simple resolutions, as well as its potential for use for larger,
more complex documents.
Progress and findings were reported to representatives from the
Senate Legislative Counsel, the Offices of the Secretary and the
Sergeant at Arms, the Government Printing Office, and the Library of
Congress in bi-weekly status meetings. In addition to the evaluation,
this contract phase produced a comprehensive list of requirements for
the SLC editorial system, an examination of the feasibility of
developing an automated conversion from GPO locator codes to XML tags
for legacy data, and a review of the resolution DTD in use by the
House.
Although the House application proved to be a very ambitious, well-
conceived effort that provided most of the high priority requirements
identified by the SLC, it did not support the general editing
activities of the Senate Legislative Counsel in an easy,
straightforward manner. Two different XML editors and alternative
application approaches were considered. The abbreviated evaluation of
alternatives concluded that no product has a decisive advantage in
resolving all of the issues. Following a briefing for the Clerk and
House developers, the Senate chose to move forward with XMetaL as the
XML editor on which the authoring/editing application for bills is to
be built.
In February 2002, an additional systems analyst from the Office of
the Sergeant of Arms was added to the project team. Under a new
contract with the outside contractor, two consultants returned to
assist in the creation of use cases and the design and development of
several functions within the editor to address the general editing
requirements. Use case analysis is a software engineering technique for
codifying the behavior of computer systems in order to make explicit
the expectations from all parties. Use cases define a sequence of
interaction between those people and other entities that interact with
the system and the responses that the system should make. This serves
to define the external interfaces of the system and provides functional
acceptance tests to verify that the functions have been developed
correctly.
An XML authoring application will begin to emerge from this phase
and several SLC users will be recruited to participate in
demonstrations, provide feedback, and assist in the development of
training materials and classes. A select number of SLC users could
begin testing a beta version of the software by mid-summer.
Development, implementation and training will continue through the end
of the year. We have targeted the beginning of the 108th Congress for
the first rollout and use of the application by the Senate Legislative
Counsel and the Senate Enrolling Clerk. During this time the Office of
the Secretary will work closely with the Senate Sergeant at Arms, the
Office of the Clerk, the Government Printing Office, and the Library of
Congress to establish a technical working group and a coordinated
development effort for the authoring, printing, and exchange of XML
documents.
Completion of the XML authoring application for bills, resolutions,
and amendments will establish a framework on which to build
applications for other legislative documents. Bills are the first
document type to be implemented because many elements in bills are
common to other legislative document types including resolutions,
amendments, conference reports, compilations, committee reports, the
U.S. Code, and the Congressional Record.
Financial Services: The Disbursing Office
The Senate paid its bills in a timely and thorough manner following
the events of September 11 and October 15, 2001. We did not miss a
payroll. Senate invoices were paid by creating a duplicate system,
paying particular attention to smaller vendors who may have been more
dependent upon timely payments.
The Financial Management Information System (FMIS)
Strategic Initiative
We have requested $5 million to continue the modernization of the
Senate's Financial Management Information System. With these funds the
Secretary will pursue the following five strategic initiatives within
the Disbursing Office:
--Paperless Vouchers--Imaging of Supporting Documentation and
Electronic Signatures.--Beginning with a feasibility study and
a pilot project, we will implement new technology, including
imaging and electronic signatures, that will reduce the
Senate's dependence on paper vouchers. This will enable voucher
processing operations from any location, in any situation;
--Web FMIS--Requests from Accounting Locations.--We will respond to
requests from the Senate's Accounting Locations for additional
functionality in Web FMIS. We have several specific requests
from the Rules Committee, we anticipate additional requests
from Senate offices for security management, and we have
requests from Senate Offices for a series of new monthly
reports;
--Payroll System--Requests from Accounting Locations.--We will
respond to requests from the Senate's Accounting Locations for
on-line real time access to payroll data, the capacity to
project payroll more than twice a month, and the ability to
submit payroll actions online;
--Accounting Sub-system Integration.--We will integrate Senate-
specific accounting systems, improve internal controls, and
eliminate errors caused by re-keying of data. This includes
updates to the approval process, the ability to track not-to-
exceed budget amounts, and contract tracking; and,
--CFO Financial Statement Development.--We will provide the Senate
with the capacity to produce auditable financial statements
that will obtain an unqualified opinion.
Each of these initiatives and the specific projects composing these
initiatives is described more fully in the separate briefing book on
the Strategic Initiative. The flexibility of no year funding assists
the Secretary and the Disbursing Office in implementing initiatives of
this size and complexity. The previous FMIS funding of $7 million in
multi-year funding was a key factor in successful execution of the
long-term initiatives proposed when that funding was requested and
granted.
Background and Report of the 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 distributed, individually managed
offices, and to Members and employees of the United States Senate. To
accomplish this mission, the Senate Disbursing Office manages the
collection of information from the distributed accounting locations in
the Senate to formulate and consolidate the agency level budget,
disburse the payroll, pay the Senate's bills, prepare auditable
financial statements, and provide appropriate counseling and advice.
The Senate Disbursing Office collects information from Members and
employees that is necessary to maintain and administer the retirement,
health insurance, life insurance, and other central human resource
programs to provide responsive, personal attention to Members and
employees on a non-biased and confidential basis. The Senate Disbursing
Office also manages the distribution of central financial and human
resource information to the individual Member Offices, Committees, and
Administrative and Leadership offices in the Senate while maintaining
the appropriate control of information for the protection of individual
Members and Senate employees.
To support the mission of the Senate, the Disbursing Office is
structured to provide quality work, maintain a high level of custom
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 comprehensive institutional knowledge, sound
judgment, and interpersonal skills that reflect the unique nature of
the United States Senate.
Deputy for Benefits and Financial Services.--This Deputy serves as
the Senate's expert on Federal retirement and benefits as well as
payroll and front office processes and coordinates the interaction
between the Financial Services, Employee Benefits and Payroll sections.
Ensuring that job processes are efficient and up to date, modifying
computer support systems, planning and project management of new
computer systems, implementing regulatory and legislated changes,
designing and producing up to date forms for use in all three sections
are additional areas of responsibility.
Front Counter--Administrative and Financial Services.--The Front
Counter is the main service area for all general Senate business and
financial activity. And maintains the Senate's internal accountability
of funds used in daily operations. Training is provided to newly
authorized payroll contacts along with continuing guidance to all
contacts in the execution of business operations. It is the receiving
point for most incoming expense vouchers, payroll actions, and employee
benefits related forms, and is the initial verification point to ensure
that paperwork received in the Disbursing Office conforms to all
applicable Senate rules, regulations, and statutes. The Front Counter
is also the first line of service provided to Senate Members, Officers,
and employees. All new Senate employees (permanent and temporary) who
will be working in the Capitol Hill Senate offices are administered the
required oath of office and personnel affidavit and provided verbal and
written detailed information regarding their pay and benefits.
Authorization is certified to new and state employees for issuance of
their Senate I.D. card.
During the Hart Building closure, Front Office operations were
continuously maintained. At first, operations were move to the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of the Senate in S-319. After six weeks, the
need for limited computer access and the increased number of Senate
staff conducting official business prompted a move to the Keeper of the
Stationery's offices in SDB-42. Both the FEHB and TSP Open Seasons
overlapped the closure period. Inconveniences to all Senate staff were
kept to a minimum while maintaining a high level of customer service.
Payroll Section.--The Payroll Section maintains the Human Resources
Management System and is responsible for the following: processing,
verifying, and warehousing all payroll information submitted to the
Disbursing Office by Senators for their personal staff, by Chairmen for
their committee staff, and by other elected officials for their staff;
issuing salary payments to the above employees; maintaining the
Automated Clearing House (ACH) FEDLINE facilities for the normal
transmittal of payroll deposits to the Federal Reserve; distributing
the appropriate payroll expenditure and allowance reports to the
individual offices; issuing the proper withholding and agency
contributions reports to the Accounting Department; and transmitting
the proper Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) information to the National
Finance Center (NFC), while maintaining earnings records for
distribution to the Social Security Administration, and maintaining
employees' taxable earnings records for W-2 statements, prepared by
this section. The Payroll Section is also responsible for the payroll
portion of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
The events of September 11, 2001 set in process the review of our
Payroll Disaster Recovery Processing. Before the review could be
completed, the closing of the Hart Building forced the implementation
of the existing plan. Following the evacuation of the Hart Building on
October 17, 2001, the Payroll Section successfully procured an ACH
processing agreement with a local financial institution; arrangements
were made with other Government institutions to have reports, computer
tapes and paper checks sent to Disbursing Office Managers' homes to
ensure the proper delivery of information to the Disbursing Office; and
ACH transmittal procedures were set up and tested with the surrogate
bank. The Payroll Section processed and checked all transactions
received at the remote site using creative methods of receiving the
information. With the processing procedures in place, the Section was
able to process six payrolls at the remote site.
Employee Benefits Section.--The primary responsibilities of the
Employee Benefits Section (EBS) are administration of health insurance,
life insurance and all retirement programs for Members and employees of
the Senate. This includes counseling, processing of paperwork,
research, dissemination of information and interpretation of benefits
laws and regulations. In addition, the section's work includes research
and verification of all prior federal service and prior Senate service
for new and returning appointees. EBS provides this information for
payroll input and once Official Personnel Folders and Transcripts of
Service are received, verifies the accuracy of the information provided
and reconciles as necessary. Transcripts of Service including all
official retirement and benefits documentation are provided to other
federal agencies when Senate Members and staffers are hired elsewhere
in the government. EBS processes employment verifications for loans,
the Bar Exam, the FBI, OPM, and the Department of Defense, among
others. Unemployment claim forms are completed, and employees are
counseled on their eligibility.
The primary challenges EBS faced this year were a result of the
terrorist activities in September and October. As a result of 9/11 and
the subsequent call-up of military reservists, EBS worked with the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and other Senate entities to
evaluate and interpret the rights of reservists and the
responsibilities of the Senate under the provisions of USERRA in
conjunction with their Senate employment, retirement and benefits. EBS
counseled and educated office administrators and Senate employee
reservists on their entitlements and options and assisted in providing
a smooth transition to active duty. EBS assisted the Senate in
developing legislation to provide a ``leave without pay'' status.
Implementation of this new legislation is in progress.
The closure of the Hart Building forced EBS to set up shop in a
small space in Postal Square. EBS worked together to establish
procedures for accepting and processing all the various benefits'
forms, requests and retirement claims to provide information in a
timely manner and maintain records while without most of our resources.
Extensive access to information and forms were made available to Senate
employees via the Intranet and Internet. The Disbursing Office Webster
site was modified and publicized. DO established database access and
continued to modify procedures and established flexible solutions so
that there was no interruption to employee benefits or the ability to
meet employee needs. Working with OPM, temporary procedures were
established and implemented so that employees wishing to retire could
do so and receive benefits without additional waiting time even though
many of their records were locked in the Hart Building. While working
in extremely limited space and with very limited resources, EBS
continued to respond to employees, office and outside inquiries with
their usual speed and effectiveness.
Retirement case processing was heavy in 2001 due to the retirement
of 11 Senators and the Vice President and the dissolution of their
staffs as well as the resulting changes to committee staffs. Unique
committee changes occurred due to the Senate's 50/50 make-up and
subsequent midyear change of Senate majority. Retirement planning and
counseling including extensive research and calculation of tentative
retirement computations were at our normal level for the year.
EBS worked with the Payroll Section and the Computer Center to
develop and implement new procedures for the processing and reporting
of health insurance enrollments and changes. Implementation occurred
just prior to the October displacement, and proved to be extremely
effective during the displacement. Reporting time has been
significantly decreased, resulting in a higher level of enrollee
satisfaction and a reduction in related phone inquiries. The annual
FEHB Open Season was held during the displacement from Hart. Despite
the inability to receive usual deliveries of Open Season materials,
alternate means were developed to provide information and notify staff
of their Open Season options. The Senate FEHB Open Season Health Fair
was ``merged'' with the House of Representatives Health Fair due to the
closure of the Hart Building. The successful merged Health Fair was
attended by over 500 Senate employees in addition to employees of the
House, Capitol Police, Architect of the Capitol and Senate Restaurant.
The continued development of the Disbursing Office Webster site was
essential as the usage and employee awareness greatly increased during
the Open Season. A great number of FEHB plans changed or ceased
participation. These required additional notifications and computer
support.
There were two TSP Open Seasons in 2001. Extensive changes to the
TSP program required major computer modifications and education that
were implemented from May to July 2001. This new information was
disseminated to staff during the midyear TSP Open Season. The result
was an excessively high number of inquiries as well as an extremely
high volume of enrollments/changes. The second TSP Open Season occurred
during the displacement. Two detailed retirement seminars on CSRS and
FERS were conducted for interested Senate staff. The seminars were well
attended and well received. Additionally, EBS staff regularly provided
a panel participant for the monthly New Staff Orientation seminars and
quarterly Senate Services Fairs held by the Office of Education and
Training.
Disbursing Office Financial Management.--Directed by the Deputy for
Financial Management, the mission of Disbursing Office Financial
Management (DOFM) is to coordinate all central financial policies,
procedures, and activities to produce an auditable consolidated
financial statement for the Senate and to provide professional customer
service, training and confidential financial guidance to all Senate
accounting locations. DOFM is segmented into three functional
departments: Accounting, Accounts Payable, and Budget. The Deputy
coordinates the activities of the three functional departments,
establishes central financial policies and procedures, acts as the
primary liaison to the HR Administrator, and carries out the directives
of the Financial Clerk of the Senate.
Financial Reporting Requirements--External.--Monthly financial
reporting requirements to the Department of the Treasury 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. All activity by appropriation account is
reconciled with the Department of the Treasury on a monthly and annual
basis. The annual reconciliation of the Treasury Combined Statement is
also used in the reporting to the Office of Management and Budget as
part of the submission of the annual operating budget of the Senate.
The Accounting Department also transmits all Federal tax payments
on a monthly basis 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 on a monthly basis. The Department also performs quarterly
reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and annual reporting
and reconciliation with the IRS and the Social Security Administration.
Payments for Senate employees withholding for state income taxes are
reported and paid on a quarterly basis to each state with applicable
state income taxes withheld. Monthly reconciliations are performed with
the National Finance Center regarding the Senate's employee withholding
and agency matching contributions for the Thrift Savings Plan. All
employee withholdings and agency contributions for life and health
insurance, and federal retirement programs are transmitted to the
Office of Personnel Management on a monthly basis. Any adjustment to
employee contributions for any of the health, life, and retirement
plans from previous accounting periods are also processed by the
Accounting Department.
Financial Reporting Requirements--Internal.--The Accounting
Department prepares and transmits ledger statements monthly to 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 regards to official
expenditures in detail and summary form. Substantial effort has been
done in reformatting the monthly ledgers to comply with the requests
and requirements of the Senate Offices.
Report of the Secretary of the Senate.--On a semiannual basis, the
Accounting Department prepares necessary reports and information to be
included in the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. During this past
year the Report of the Secretary of the Senate was redesigned. The
Detailed and Summary of Statement of Expenditures section was modified
to summarize information, based on OMB object code classification, and
sort by voucher number within object code class, conforming more
appropriately with the reporting requirements of the rest of the
federal government. The Report of the Secretary, which has a statutory
requirement to be made available to the public 60 days after the close
of the reporting period, was published and delivered within the
prescribed time even though the anthrax attack required that the work
had to be done from the Postal Square facility.
Financial management policies and procedures.--The Accounting
Department has completed documenting the accounting policies and is
preparing a procedures manual which will consist of detailed
documentation of key procedures and flowcharts of system transactions.
The customized documentation provides a good mechanism for staff
training and identifies any information gaps in the day-to-day
operations of the Disbursing Office.
Accounts Payable.--The Accounts Payable Audit Section of the
Accounting Department is responsible for auditing vouchers and
answering questions regarding voucher preparation, answering questions
concerning the permissibility of the expense, providing advice and
recommendations on the discretionary use of funds by distributed
accounting locations, identifying duplicate payments vouchered by
offices, monitoring payments related to contracts, training new Office
Managers and Chief Clerks about Senate financial practices, training
Office Managers in the use of the Senate's Financial Management
Information System, and assists in the production of the Report of the
Secretary of the Senate. The Section also maintains the Senate's
central vendor file that includes the addition of approximately 2,000-
3,000 new vendors per year to an existing vendor file of over 30,000
vendors added and the collection of information to provide for EFT
payments to them. Accounts Payable Disbursements is responsible for the
receipt of over 124,000 individual expense vouchers and the writing and
delivery of the resulting 60,000 checks. This office also prepared the
monthly ledger statements for delivery to the 160 accounting locations
throughout the Senate.
Budget Department.--A key component of the continued restructuring
of DOFM is the development of a Budget Department. The primary
responsibility of the Budget Department is to compile the annual
operating budget of the United States Senate for presentation to the
Committee on Appropriations. The development of specialists in the
budget area has allowed current staff with dual responsibilities in
Accounting to focus their efforts on general ledger activity.
Policy and Procedures Manual.--The objective of this project was to
prepare an accounting policy and procedures manual to document the
current policies and related processes that are part of the DO's
Financial Management Group. The project started in December of 2000 and
was completed in March 2001 with the final copies of all manuals
delivered to the DO during June 2001 in hardcopy and electronic format.
The manual documents the methodology used in the processing of vouchers
and other accounting transactions and documents in the Accounts Payable
Audit and Disbursement Sections as well as in the Accounting
Department. The creation of this manual was the first step the DO has
taken toward the documentation of information that would be necessary
to engage in a financial statement review. Now the policy and
procedures manual is maintained and updated by DO's Accounting
Department.
Fiscal year-end Closing.--After all activity for the fiscal year
has been processed, a year-end close must be performed in the FMIS
system. This process has to be completed every year after the Report of
the Secretary for the period end September 30th is issued. The year-end
closing process is tested during December and completed in the
production region in January. The FMIS system has the capability of
performing the year-end closing rules in an automated format.
Disaster Recovery.--The Senate Sergeant at Arms currently maintains
a contract for backup services in case of a disaster affecting the
Senate's main data center. Every night, data and software from the
Senate's mainframe computer systems are backed up to a magnetic
cartridge and taken to a secure, off-site facility. This contract and
back-up activities have been in effect since 1995. In the event of a
disaster in the Sergeant at Arms' computing facilities at Postal
Square, the technical staff would immediately arrange to have the data,
software, and appropriate operating instructions forwarded from the
off-site facilities. All software and data would be restored to the
contractor's computer facilities. The restoration of all facilities can
be completed within 24 hours of starting the jobs and the systems would
be available to users at that time.
Since the contract's inception, the Senate has tested its ability
to restore systems and perform normal activities at least once, and
often twice a year. Two systems for the Secretary of the Senate that
are included in this recovery process, including regular testing, are
the Senate's Payroll System and the Senate's Financial Management
Information System. During 2002, there are two tests planned: one which
occurred in late February and one scheduled for the fall. Disbursing
Office staff and Sergeant at Arms functional staff are active
participants in the planning and execution of these tests.
The Disbursing Office has participated in disaster recovery testing
of mainframe FMIS facilities since the system was implemented in
October 1998. After being notified that the system has been restored,
Disbursing Office and SAA Procurement staff tested the various modules
of the mainframe application to ensure they were functioning correctly
at the back-up site. Using workstations connected to the Senate's fiber
network as well as laptop computers dialing into the site, users have
tested various types of document preparation, printing, and posting to
the financial system. In addition, system inquiries into both the
procurement and financial modules have been tested. Finally, various
batch-processing tasks have been tested to ensure that they perform as
expected.
Financial Statement Development.--One of the initial strategic
objectives of FMIS is to provide the Senate with the capacity to
produce an annual financial statement. In line with 1998 FMIS Project
strategic plan, a contract was initiated in 2001 to develop the
capacity for the first U.S. Senate-wide consolidated financial
statement. Our proposed strategic initiative will complete the project.
The initiative is based on the desire to adopt to the extent
possible the financial reporting requirements of the Government
Management Reform Act of 1996 (GMRA), the Chief Financial Officers
(CFO) Act of 1990 and comply with the Statements of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards (SFFAS) promulgated by the Federal Accounting
Standard Advisory Board (FASAB). It should be noted that the U.S.
Senate is not subject to the requirements of these Acts.
The main objectives of this FMIS initiative were to:
--Develop pro-forma financial statements of the United States Senate
as required by the Executive Branch in OMB Bulletin No. 01-09,
``Form and Content of Agency Financial Statements''. The
statements prepared will consist of the management discussion
and analysis and principle statements that includes the
following: Balance Sheet; Statement of Net Cost; Statement of
Changes in Net Position; Statement of Budgetary Resources;
Statement of Financing; Notes to the Financial Statements;
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (RSSI); and
Required Supplementary Information (RSI)
--Develop a crosswalk table between the U.S. Senate's trial balances
and the consolidating statements and document the procedures
used to compile the consolidating statements, footnotes and
supporting schedules to serve as documentation for the
development of future statements.
--Provide recommendations on how to further automate the process and
provide suggestions for corrections actions and improvements
based on feasibility and cost effectiveness.
--Assess the staffing levels needed to prepare the annual financial
statements and maintain the financial information required for
the statements and,
--Adopt the financial reporting requirements of the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA) and the Federal
Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) to the
extent they are applicable.
This exercise requires a great deal of coordination with various
departments within the Secretary's Office as well as the Office of the
Sergeant at Arms. It also needs the compilation of financial
information from all the Senates' revolving funds. This project did not
include a review of internal control procedures or an assessment of the
Senate's compliance with laws and regulations. These last two aspects
of a full financial statement audit will be performed at a later date
as part of the future FMIS strategic initiative described in this
testimony.
Disbursing Office Information Technology Office
The Disbursing Office Information Technology staff provides both
functional and technical assistance for all Senate Financial Management
activities. This includes production support for the entire Senate
community of users, system administration and support, application
development oversight and support, as well as support for the Senate's
contracting office and Project Manager for the Senate's Financial
Management Information Systems (FMIS). The staff also provides the
liaison between the users, both in the DO and the Senate Offices, and
the technical staff in the Sergeant at Arms offices, as well as the
contracting staff from KPMG. Furthermore, the staff perform the system
administration activities on the DO's LAN.
A research and query capability was defined and implemented for use
by DO Information Technology staff that allows the generation of
special one-time and/or ongoing ad hoc queries to respond to specific
requests for information or research data. This project continued the
development of reports for various users in the Disbursing Office and
the Office of the Sergeant at Arms which will be generated on a regular
production or ad hoc basis.
Imaging and Digital Authentication
One of the initial FMIS objectives was to advance the Senate into a
paperless or reduced paper environment in which accounting items and
supporting documentation are stored and transmitted in digitally
authenticated image format. Through the implementation of Web FMIS and
the interface to mainframe FMIS, the Senate is well positioned to
utilize this technology. Products for reliable, secure digital
authentication that is based upon industry standards are also now
available. Once documents are scanned the workflow and security profile
for the images could be similar to that which is performed in today's
paper-based environment. Retrieval and research tasks would require far
less effort than that required in a paper-based operation.
Office Administrative Functions on the Web
The Senate may desire to move some procurement, requisitioning and
other activities that are currently performed by the SAA in ADPICS to
the Web. These requirements will have to be analyzed and prioritized.
It is envisioned that the additional requested functionality will be
provided in multiple releases, similar to the development and
deployment methodology that was used during the first phase of the
project. Each of these releases will require design, development,
testing and implementation tasks. Depending on the functionality
provided in a given release, training also may be required.
Date Storage
Long-term data archival storage is required to maintain the
capability to retrieve historical data for accounting documents no
longer maintained at a detailed level in storage. In addition to the
transaction processing data, the Senate maintains several data marts to
support various reporting requirements. Data for monthly reports are
supported through a data mart that was initially created for the ledger
reports. The Web FMIS data mart is refreshed on a nightly basis.
Web FMIS
FMIS celebrated another major milestone toward the Senate's goal of
using an integrated paperless financial management system. In July
2001, offices began using the ``submit'' feature of Web FMIS, which
allows offices, with the press of a single button, to send voucher data
electronically to the Disbursing Office (DO), thus eliminating the need
for the DO to rekey the data into the Senate's Financial Management
Information System. The submit feature enables offices to interact with
the Senate's general ledger system, FAMIS, and thereby receive
immediate feedback on whether the office has a sufficient fund balance
to pay the voucher, whether the voucher is a duplicate payment, and
whether the office is using an expired expense category or vendor.
Additionally, the submit process enables the DO to review the voucher
electronically and communicate changes to the voucher electronically to
the offices.
To minimize burdens on the offices displaced from the Hart
building, three original releases planned for Web FMIS were
restructured. Under the new plan, one ``update'' was done in December
2001 to address additional functionality and problems affecting office
users that could be easily added or fixed. A similar ``update'' was
done in February 2002 to address additional functionality and problems
affecting DO users that could be easily added or fixed.
The March 2002 release addressed new functionality requested by the
Office Managers and Chief Clerks including reports that show all
documents, including documents created in the last minute (current
reports include data as of COB the prior night), a variety of ease-of-
use features for creating vouchers, a pilot of importing (rather than
retyping) ESR-Travel information, the ability to unsubmit vouchers
before the DO has acted on them, the ability to create records that
void other records, and features to improve management of the inbox
(i.e., communication with the DO regarding voucher changes).
The June/July 2002 release will address additional new
functionality requested by the Office Managers and Chief Clerks
including reports that show travel advances, the ability to submit
travel advance documents, including the obligation of advances, and
credit documents, and enhanced record search capabilities.
Additionally, this release will provide additional functionality for DO
users including inboxes to consolidate voucher changes authorized by
the office and awaiting additional action by A/P staff. As these
releases are completed, we will begin investigating additional projects
planned as part of the integrated paperless financial system, including
imaging of supporting documentation and electronic signatures, adding
functionality required to bring on offices, adding additional reports
as requested by users, and develop interfaces to/from other systems
such as the Asset Management System.
The Office of the Secretary and the Disbursing Office will continue
to build upon the technical improvements made during the FMIS
implementation to date and will continue to work directly with the
Senate community, particularly the Senate's Office Managers, to enhance
FMIS functionality and accountability. Concurrent with the March 2002
release, the Disbursing Office staff demonstrated the new functions at
a meeting of the Joint Office Managers and Chief Clerks, and offered
one hands-on class and one seminar for those Web FMIS users who wanted
to learn more about the new functions.
As these releases are completed, we will begin investigating
additional projects planned as part of the integrated paperless
financial system articulated in the FMS Conceptual Design document,
approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration. These projects
include imaging of supporting documentation and electronic signatures,
adding functionality required to bring on offices such as the
Secretary's Office onto Web FMIS, adding additional reports as
requested by users, and develop interfaces to/from other systems such
as the Asset Management System.
the capitol visitor center
Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson died during the summer of
1998. Their tragic deaths focused attention on Capitol security and the
need for a Capitol Visitor Center. The 105th Congress appropriated
$100,000,000 for a Capitol Visitor Center and directed that the
remaining required funds be raised by the private sector. The Fund for
the Capitol Visitor Center was formed and successfully raised
$35,000,000 for this project before the events of September 11 and the
anthrax bio-terrorism incident that resulted in the closing of the Hart
Senate Office Building for over three months. I would like to commend
Chairman Marilyn Ware and the Board of the Fund for the Capitol Visitor
Center for their essential contributions and their individual
dedication in helping the Nation build a visitor center which will
improve security while providing a significantly better educational
opportunity for students and others who visit the Capitol Building.
To assist in funding the Visitor Center, Congress authorized the
Capitol Visitor Center commemorative coins. Over 360,000 coins have
been sold and over $3.3 million was raised for the purpose of
constructing the Capitol Visitor Center.
For nearly 200 years, the Capitol has stood as the greatest visible
symbol of our representative democracy. It is, and will remain, the
workplace of our elected representatives as well as a museum and a
major tourist attraction. Since 1859, when the present House and Senate
wings were completed, our country has undergone tremendous growth.
Citizens of the United States and the world visit the Capitol in
increasing numbers and even though the events of the Fall of 2001
resulted in a decrease in visitors, we already see that visitors will
soon be at their highest levels once again.
The 19th century design of the Capitol Building does not easily
lend itself to tours and cannot safely accommodate the numbers of
visitors we are again expecting to experience. The Capitol Visitor
Center will provide a safe, comfortable and educational introduction to
the Capitol Building and will allow management of the tour experience
to enhance the safety of all visitors and those who work in the Capitol
Building.
Following the World Trade Center and Pentagon tragedies, Congress
appropriated sufficient funds to fully finance construction of the
Capitol Visitor Center. The Fund for the Capitol Visitor Center has
ceased operation. With full funding, the Capitol Preservation
Commission has authorized construction. Pre-construction activities
have been underway for several months. Excavation of the East Front
site will begin in mid-June 2002. The Capitol Visitor Center is
expected to be completed by January 2005.
The Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate continue to
chair weekly meeting of leadership staff who are informally charged on
behalf of the Joint Leadership of Congress with overseeing this
project. Project staff, representatives of the Architect of the
Capitol, the Capitol Police, contractors, and others as appropriate
attend these meetings. While constructing the Visitor Center will be
disruptive, dirty, and noisy, we are confident that the American
public, visitors, and the Congress will be proud of the new facility
and pleased with the educational opportunities it will provide, the
enhanced security, and the amenities it will offer all visitors to the
Nation's Capitol Building.
______
Prepared Statement of Timothy S. Wineman
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present to your
Committee, the Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 2003.
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2003 budget estimates for the Senate
have been included in the Budget of the United States Government for
Fiscal Year 2003. 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
$802,244,145 which reflect an increase of $67,518,145 or 9.19 percent
over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002 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 2002 are $734,726,000. 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 2003 are divided into three
major categories as follows:
Senate Items............................................ $130,331,000
Senate Contingent Expense Items......................... 576,398,000
Senate Joint Items...................................... 95,515,145
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL............................................. 802,244,145
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2003 budget estimates
reflect increases over the fiscal year 2002 enacted levels as a result
of: (1) the anticipated 4.3 percent cost-of-living adjustment for
fiscal year 2003, and the annualization costs of the fiscal year 2002
4.77 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, and 2002; (3) personnel adjustments,
other than the cost-of-living, attributable primarily to the budget
request of the Capitol Police; (4) increases in agency contributions
applicable to the cost-of-living adjustments and other personnel
increase requests; (5) the OMB proposed CSRS full cost accrual and FEHB
costs; and (6) 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 2003.
PREPAREDNESS FOR EMERGENCIES
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Ms. Thomson. We have
talked a lot about the response and the recovery from September
11 and October 15. I would like to address the issue of
preparedness, not to analyze what happened on that day and what
we could have done better, but to look forward. We were
fortunate in this respect, on September 11, the operations of
the Senate were closed down for all but 1 day, perhaps. And you
have addressed the Capitol Visitor Center, which I will get to
in a minute.
But in terms of the actual operations of the Senate,
without disclosing anything that may be of a sensitive nature,
would we be prepared if another emergency were to arise that
would force the closure of the Senate Building, the Senate
Chamber, for more than 1 day? Would we be prepared with an
alternate site to maintain the business of the Senate?
Ms. Thomson. The short answer is yes. And even on September
11, not only could we have operated the Senate in another
location, but we would have. And that is largely because of the
dedication of the staff, both in the Secretary's Office and the
Sergeant at Arms' office. And that dedication was really
illustrated when we closed the Hart Building, because we were
able to relocate 50 Senators and several committees and
subcommittees essentially over a 3-day period.
In the Secretary's Office, as I said earlier, we had our
COOP plans done. And we knew what we needed to do. So we could
have set up a Senate chamber anywhere. Could we do a better job
today? Yes.
Senator Durbin. In terms of preparedness, looking back to
September 11, aside from an alternate site, are there things
now that we are doing or need to be doing to prepare ourselves
for some other eventuality that is currently unforeseen?
Ms. Thomson. The breadth and scope of the planning that is
underway is comprehensive and inclusive of almost any scenario
that you could come up with. If you think of COG COOP planning
as a pyramid, the top part of that pyramid is the Secretary of
the Senate. And the three essential responsibilities of the
Secretary are, first, to determine the membership of the Senate
at the moment and make whatever arrangements are necessary to
ensure that we have 100 Senators as quickly as possible.
The second responsibility is to make sure that the Senate
can pass legislation. The third responsibility is financial
management. The Secretary of the Senate cannot do any of these
things without all the rest of that pyramid. And the rest of
the pyramid is the Sergeant at Arms responsibility:
communications, transportation, offsite facility setup, et
cetera. Plans are well underway and we would be happy to brief
this committee on the details at your convenience.
Senator Durbin. On September 11--I do not know Senator
Bennett's experience--but I was rushed out of the Capitol and
stood on the grass outside. And as I reflect on that, I do not
know what I was waiting for. But I was standing there with a
large crowd of people, Members of the Senate and the House, a
lot of staff people, and a lot of tourists and visitors,
waiting for the all clear, the next set of instructions, when I
suppose what we heard next was a sonic boom. I guess now--we
thought it was an explosion. It was probably a sonic boom and
everybody was told to leave the grounds as quickly as you can.
That was the moment when it suddenly dawned on me, as I
walked past a lot of people, tourists and families who were in
the Capitol, that there was nowhere to go. There was no place
to turn to. There was an elderly couple and they asked me,
``Where are we supposed to go? Is the Metro running? What's the
next thing we should do here?'' I did not know the answers.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
I did know, after reflecting on it, that the idea of a
Capitol Visitor Center was even more urgent and critical after
that experience, not only for the security and safety of the
building and people that work there, but also so that there
might be someplace to turn when an emergency arises.
Now I know there are other offices like the Architect of
the Capitol that are uniquely involved in this. But I also know
that you have taken a personal interest in monitoring the
progress of this project. You said something which bears
repeating. There are a lot of people working around the Capitol
and visiting the Capitol who do not know what we are in for
when they start digging the hole in June. To put it in simple
parlance, it is going to be a mess.
But it is going to be worth it because by 2005 we will have
probably the largest investment on Capitol Hill in 30 or 40
years in terms of construction and one that will serve us well
for decades to come.
Tell me, if you can, what your role has been in monitoring
the progress on this Capitol Visitor Center?
Ms. Thomson. When Congress appropriated the first $100
million for this project, an advisory group representing the
joint leadership was formed. I have been a part of that group
since the beginning, initially representing Senator Daschle and
now, as Secretary of the Senate, informally co-chairing this
group with the Clerk of the House. We have worked very closely
with the Architect and the membership and staff who represent
the membership of the Capitol Preservation Commission.
The Capitol Preservation Commission has the oversight
responsibility for the project. And we have, I think it is fair
to say, shepherded this through as a team, a bipartisan and
bicameral team, that has worked very effectively together.
You are correct when you say it is going to be a mess. We
are going to need the indulgence of the members of the Senate
so that we do not delay the project. We cannot afford delays.
We must have the project completed by January 2005. The
construction schedule has been adjusted so that we can
accommodate certain Senate schedules. But it will be noisy, and
there will be inconvenience to members.
Senator Durbin. But ultimately what we will have in place
is a staging area for visitors to the Capitol----
Ms. Thomson. Right.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. Which is secure.
Ms. Thomson. Right.
Senator Durbin. Currently, or at least before September 11,
people would literally walk into the building, at which point
someone would search their backpacks.
Ms. Thomson. Right.
Senator Durbin. From a security viewpoint, that is totally
unacceptable. What we are trying to do is to have a staging
area where people can be, if not searched, at least monitored
as they visit the Capitol, a place where they can gather and
perhaps see a movie about the building itself and the history
of Congress.
Ms. Thomson. The educational opportunities will be
extensive. And this team has been working closely with the
Smithsonian, the National Archives, and the Library of
Congress, to catalog documents and other materials that should
be displayed. The Architect can better address the consultant,
Ralph Applebaum, who has been hired to oversee the development
of the exhibitry. We think members will be pleased with it.
The security issue should best be addressed by the Sergeant
at Arms. But you are correct in stating that the initial
screening of visitors will be away from the building. And that
will make everyone safer, including those who are visiting.
STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM
Senator Durbin. Good. Let me talk to you about an issue
near and dear to me, which we have conversed about, and that is
the question about student loan repayment. The Executive Branch
has had the authority to forgive student loans in an effort to
retain good employees, maintain morale, and to recruit new
employees with special skills.
We have now put in your lap a law that gives that
opportunity to Senate employees. Can you tell me in this, the
first year, what the experience has been with that program?
Ms. Thomson. Well, the Assistant Secretary really led this
effort. The law directed, gave me an administrative directive
to see that the program was implemented. The Secretary's Office
has drafted the service agreements and prepared all of the
other documentation required. We have briefed all the offices,
Senators' offices, as well as committees. The program is
underway. We have something more than 15 offices participating
at this point.
It appears to us in this early stage that it is going to be
a very effective recruitment and retention tool. We look
forward to reporting back to the committee, as we get a little
bit more experience. We are pretty early in the game on this.
But I think the team, which included the Senate chief
employment counsel and the Senate financial clerk, did an
outstanding job. We have had a very positive response from
Senate offices.
Senator Durbin. I think that we are going to find that
different offices have come at this a little differently. At
the end of 1 year or so, I would like to ask Senator Bennett to
join me and the subcommittee to review how each office has
dealt with this, what they have achieved, and to see if we need
to address any changes in the law. This is a big experiment. I
think it is along the right lines, but we may modify it as time
passes.
SENATE WEB SITE
Address for a minute the Senate Web site. You have told me
of your feelings about that. I wish for the record,
particularly since C-SPAN is covering this, if you could tell
people where they can find it and when they log on what they
are likely to find, and what your hope is for the development
of this Web site.
Ms. Thomson. The Senate's Web site is senate.gov, and one
can just go into www.senate.gov and find it. When the site was
first put up in 1998, it won some awards for its graphics
display. It is a good site. It has good content. We think it
can be better. We have a wonderful team of people working on
this. And I am very excited about it.
My challenge to them was to make senate.gov the best Web
site in the world. That may sound odd, but this is the United
States Senate and we should have the best Web site in the
world. It should be the go-to site to find out information
about representative democracy, about what the Senate is and
how it was formed, about what the Senate is doing now, about
the Senate's history.
You should be able to get a tour of the Capitol Building
and the Senate Chamber. You should be able to find out
information on what Senators have served when. Students all
across this country and all around the world should be able to
go to this site to find information to write their reports and
be able to use it as a major research and resource tool.
So, that is our goal. We are in the process right now of
recommending to the Rules Committee a new content management
system. We expect to have the prototype up in September, and we
would love to show it to you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Bennett?
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have covered
all of the issues that I had in mind. So I have no additional
questions.
INCREASE IN EXPENSES
But I will give you the opportunity to talk about the
increase in expenses, $500,000 above a budget that has been
constant for many years, at $1.6 million. $500,000 is not a big
item here, but there may be some that would question it. Give
us a quick explanation on that one.
Ms. Thomson. Well, let me run back through what we are
hoping to do here. The first item is that we need new software
and hardware for the Senate gift shop. And the current software
is----
Senator Bennett. I am sorry. This is in the disbursing
office.
Ms. Thomson. Oh, the disbursing office. I thought you were
talking about operating expenses.
Senator Bennett. I apologize. I did not make that clear.
Ms. Thomson. In the disbursing office, let me run through
those details. We are, beginning with the feasibility study and
a pilot project, we are going to implement new technology,
which includes imaging and electronic signatures, so that we
can move to a paperless voucher processing system. And we need
to reduce our dependence on paper vouchers. This is part of the
COOP effort to make sure that we can continue paying bills
under almost any circumstance.
The second major item is Web FMIS improvements. We want to
respond to requests that we have in hand right now from the
Senate's many accounting locations for additional
functionality. That includes being able to develop a whole new
series of monthly reports. We have some very specific requests
from the Rules Committee that we need to respond to. And we
anticipate that we are going to get some additional requests
from Senate offices on security management and other issues.
On the payroll improvements piece, we want to respond to
requests that we have from Senate offices right now for online,
real-time access to payroll data and the ability to submit
payroll actions online. Again, this is part of COOP planning.
We want to make sure that we can continue payroll operations
from any location under almost any circumstances.
On the accounting subsystem integration, this is within the
disbursing office itself, but we still need to integrate some
Senate-specific accounting systems and improve some internal
controls and eliminate the errors that are inevitably caused by
rekeying of data, including updating the approval process, the
ability to track not-to-exceed allowances, contract tracking,
those kinds of things.
And the final item is the CFO financial statement
development. We are going to provide the Senate the capacity to
produce financial statements, which can be successfully
audited. So those are the five principal components.
Senator Bennett. Fine. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the inevitable conflict in
the Senate. I take my duties as ranking member here very
seriously. But I also take my duties as ranking member on the
JEC very seriously. The Joint Economic Committee is listening
to Mr. Greenspan at this very moment talk about the future of
the world. He is in charge of that.
I will have to ask your indulgence, and that of the other
witnesses, to go to my other assignment. But I do not want
other witnesses to think I am flagging in my interest in what
they are doing.
I have sufficient confidence in your ability to ask all the
right questions that I am happy to turn whatever
responsibilities I have over to you temporarily.
Senator Durbin. Well, Senator Bennett, your absence will be
certainly excused. I will try to press on with this
responsibility, if you will promise to turn the economy around
and----
Senator Bennett. I will mention that to the Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Thomson, for your testimony and your service
to the Senate.
Ms. Thomson. Thank you.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN M. HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL
ACCOMPANIED BY:
AMITA POOLE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
LARRY STOFFEL, SUPERINTENDENT, SENATE OFFICE BUILDINGS
MICHAEL G. TURNBULL, ASSISTANT ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
GARY GLOVINSKY, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OPENING STATEMENT
Senator Durbin. We will now turn to Mr. Alan Hantman,
Architect of the Capitol, who is accompanied by the Assistant
Architect Michael Turnbull, the Administrative Assistant Amita
Poole, Chief Financial Officer Gary Glovinsky, and the Senate
Superintendent Larry Stoffel.
The Architect of the Capitol's fiscal year 2003 budget
proposal totals $395.6 million, $30.4 million below the current
year budget. The decrease is attributable to $106 million in
supplemental spending for security projects approved in
December of last year. This budget includes seven major
projects totaling close to $150 million, the largest being
almost $82 million for the Capitol Power Plant modernization.
In addition, the budget proposes 43 additional full-time
equivalent employees.
Mr. Hantman, as you are aware, the General Accounting
Office has been reviewing your agency's operations as part of a
general management review, which this committee requested. We
asked them to look specifically at worker safety and the
recycling program as illustrations of management issues. We
have asked that they provide testimony for the record today on
their findings to date.
[The information follows:]
Architect of the Capitol--Management and Accountability Framework
Needed to Lead and Execute Change
(gao report gao-02-632t)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to
respond to your request that we provide preliminary observations from
our ongoing general management review of the Architect of the Capitol
(AOC). As you know, the Senate and House Appropriations Committees
mandated this review for completion in November 2002. At that time we
will provide our final observations and recommendations. Upon
completion of our review, AOC is to develop a management improvement
plan to address our recommendations. You asked us to focus on certain
management shortcomings at AOC that needed attention--strategic
planning, organizational alignment, strategic human capital management,
financial management, and information technology (IT) management. You
also asked us to assess two key program areas--worker safety and
recycling--both to illustrate the management issues we are addressing
and to help AOC identify best practices and areas for improvement in
these important programs. We plan to explore project management and
budgeting, among other issues, in greater depth in the next phase of
our review. We have briefed AOC on the preliminary observations in this
statement and the accompanying appendix, which provides additional
details on the results of our work.
We have been working constructively with AOC managers to understand
their complex operating environment and the long-standing challenges
they must address. Our observations today are based on a review of
AOC's legislative authority and internal AOC documents, including
policies and procedures, AOC consultant reports and internal studies on
AOC management issues, as well as GAO and other reports on best
practices for management functions and worker safety and health and
recycling programs. We also interviewed senior- and mid-level AOC
managers for each of the management functions and programs we reviewed.
AOC has demonstrated a commitment to change through the management
improvements it has planned and under way. For example, AOC has
--established routine management meetings to help improve
communication across organizational boundaries;
--established and implemented basic policies and procedures in human
capital, such as a performance evaluation system for non-union
AOC employees up to GS-15;
--recently drafted a senior executive performance evaluation system--
informed by our human capital policies and flexibilities--and
established an employee awards program;
--added to its professional workforce ranks by hiring new
jurisdictional superintendents and deputy superintendents and
budget and accounting officers and creating and filling new
positions, such as chief financial officer (CFO), facilities
manager, worker safety specialists, and a facilities planning
and development manager;
--reorganized and took actions to improve worker and fire safety
programs; and
--upgraded and filled key recycling program positions.
AOC is also revisiting its strategic planning efforts, working with
a consultant to implement best practices for project management, and
implementing a new financial management system.
AOC recognizes that because of the nature of the challenges and
demands it faces, change will not come quickly or easily. AOC therefore
must ensure that it has the policies, procedures, and people in place
to effectively implement the needed changes. That is, to serve the
Congress, central AOC management needs the capability to define goals,
set priorities, ensure follow through, monitor progress, and establish
accountability. Our observations today all focus on this basic issue--
building the capability to lead and execute change. Therefore, we
believe that as a first priority, AOC should establish a management and
accountability framework by
--demonstrating top leadership commitment to change;
--identifying long-term, mission-critical goals through a re-
invigorated strategic planning process tied to serving the
Congress;
--developing annual goals and a system for measuring progress; and
--establishing individual accountability and commensurate authority
for achieving results.
We recognize that this statement outlines a large and complex
agenda for change at AOC, and that AOC cannot possibly tackle all these
changes at once. Nonetheless, this agenda provides the broad landscape
of issues confronting AOC and is therefore important to crafting a
comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing AOC's challenges
and setting appropriate priorities, even though by necessity it will
have to be phased in over time. By drawing on the full potential of its
management team, AOC can begin to take immediate steps on a number of
actions, although we recognize that AOC will be able to implement some
of these actions more quickly than others. Key actions that AOC can
consider are highlighted in the following sections and detailed in
appendix I.
aoc-wide communications strategy is needed to achieve mission-critical
goals
AOC must develop a communications strategy as an integral part of
its strategic planning and change management initiatives. Such a
strategy will be important to providing AOC with the customer and
employee information and perspective it needs to strike a balance
between the competing priorities it faces and the results it seeks to
achieve. In building a communications strategy AOC should consider
taking the following actions:
--Provide opportunities for routine employee feedback.
--Develop congressional protocols.
--Publicize the impact of highly visible projects.
--Improve accountability reporting.
--Measure customer satisfaction.
strategic human capital management can improve organizational
accountability to mission-critical goals
Strategic human capital management can transform AOC into a
results-oriented organization by aligning employee performance with AOC
goals and by providing the tools to better plan its workforce needs. In
1994 we reported that AOC's personnel management system did not follow
many generally accepted principles of modern personnel management.\1\
In our current review, we found that AOC has made progress in
establishing a modern personnel system that is meeting the guidelines
set forth by the AOC Human Resources Act of 1994 and the Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995.\2\ AOC has developed basic personnel
policies and procedures and streamlined certain human resource
processes, and has continued to add to its professional workforce
ranks. These efforts are helping AOC to construct a sound foundation on
which to build a high-performing organization. As AOC moves forward
with its human capital efforts, it has opportunities to make additional
important improvements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Personnel: Architect of
the Capitol's Personnel System Needs Improvement, GAO/GGD-94-121BR
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 1994).
\2\ See Public Law 103-283, Sec. 312, Architect of the Capitol
Human Resources Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Develop capacity to collect and analyze workforce data.
--Identify current and future workforce needs and develop strategies
to fill gaps.
--Establish agencywide core and technical competencies.
--Link proposed senior executive and existing employee performance
management systems to mission-critical goals.
aoc needs to continue and expand efforts to improve financial
management
In recognition of the critical role a chief financial officer (CFO)
plays in achieving financial accountability and control, AOC
established a CFO position and, in January 2002, filled the position.
The new CFO is a member of the Architect's executive council and
reports directly to the Architect. Organizationally, the CFO is
responsible for the activities of AOC's Budget Office, Accounting
Office, and Financial Systems Office. Included among the many
challenges facing the new CFO are his responsibilities for (1)
implementing AOC's new financial management system (Momentum), (2)
implementing applicable accounting and operational policies and
procedures, and (3) preparing a complete and auditable set of AOC
financial statements.
Among his first actions, the new CFO recently hired staff members
to fill key budget and accounting officer positions, including
additional accounting staff members with the general ledger accounting
experience needed to maintain AOC's new general ledger. He has also
focused his efforts on bringing AOC's new financial management system
on-line. While these steps are critical and represent the initial steps
to improving AOC's financial management and budget functions, much work
remains to be done. The CFO has also recognized or started work on
other key issues that need to be addressed in the near term. Building
on the progress already under way, the new CFO needs to take the
following actions:
--Ensure effective implementation of new financial management system.
--Continue and expand ongoing efforts aimed at strengthening AOC's
budget formulation and execution and financial accounting and
reporting across AOC.
--Model AOC efforts on established best practices of leading
organizations.
aoc needs to adopt an agencywide approach to it management
Our research of private and public sector organizations that have
effectively leveraged IT shows that these organizations' executives
have embraced the central role of IT to mission performance. As such,
they have adopted a corporate or agencywide approach to managing IT
under the leadership and control of a chief information officer (CIO),
who is a full participant in senior executive decision making.
Additionally, these organizations have implemented certain corporate IT
management controls such as using a portfolio-based approach to IT
investment decision making, using an enterprise architecture or
blueprint to guide and constrain IT investments, following disciplined
IT system acquisition and development management processes, and
proactively managing the security of IT assets.
Our preliminary work shows that AOC has yet to adopt such an
approach. AOC could greatly benefit from an agencywide approach to
managing IT under the leadership and control of an empowered CIO. Such
an approach should, at a minimum, include each of the above IT
management controls as defined in relevant federal guidance and proven
best practices. AOC's top leadership will need to consider carefully
its environment and the scope of its IT investments to determine how
best to apply this guidance and the best practices to its specific
situation. The following are the key steps that AOC needs to consider
as it seeks to more effectively leverage use of IT to improve mission
performance:
--Appoint a CIO to manage IT across the agency.
--Establish and implement a portfolio-based approach to IT investment
management.
--Develop, maintain, and use an enterprise architecture consistent
with federal guidance and recognized best practices.
--Establish and implement disciplined processes for managing the
development and acquisition of information systems.
--Establish and implement an information security program.
aoc could make worker safety program improvements more effective by
adopting certain best practices
Because of the concerns that the Congress and others raised about
worker safety at AOC, in 2001, the Architect issued a statement that
safety is his highest organizational priority. To effectively implement
the Architect's commitment to safety, and consistent with best
practices for health and safety programs as described in the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's guidance and our work,
AOC must develop comprehensive and reliable data, provide a clear
understanding of what the program is trying to accomplish, and how it
will evaluate results. AOC also needs to examine strengthening the
accountability relationships between the various safety program
officials. Best practices also indicate that standardized and
agencywide policies and procedures must be in place--such as procedures
that encourage employees to report incidents, accidents and unsafe
conditions (often called hazards), and procedures to investigate causes
of accidents to identify why accidents occurred. By gathering more
comprehensive and reliable data, and developing and consistently
applying policies and procedures for reporting and investigating
accidents, injuries, and illnesses, AOC can begin to take a more
strategic approach to addressing safety issues. For example, better
information about the type and frequency of injuries and the hazards
that contribute to them could help AOC establish a risk-based approach
for addressing the most significant worker safety issues that are
occurring and for allocating resources. Key actions that AOC should
consider on worker health and safety can be summarized as follows:
--Develop more comprehensive and reliable data to set goals and to
track program improvements.
--Assess accountability relationships of the safety specialists at
the central and jurisdictional levels to carry out their work.
--Establish agencywide policies and procedures for reporting,
investigating, and tracking worker safety incidents, accidents,
and hazards.
aoc needs to build on current efforts by adopting a strategic approach
to recycling
Programs that separate and collect recyclable materials from the
waste stream produce numerous benefits. It is estimated that recycling
1 ton of paper saves 17 mature trees, 3.3 cubic yards of landfill
space, 7,000 gallons of water, 380 gallons of oil, 4,100 kilowatt hours
of energy, and 60 pounds of air pollutants. AOC is responsible for
operating recycling programs for much of the Capitol complex.\3\ In
recent years, AOC, both centrally and at the jurisdiction level, has
taken steps to improve the overall effectiveness of its recycling
programs. To maximize the benefits derived from its recycling program,
AOC must build on the steps it has taken to improve the effectiveness
of its programs by taking a more strategic approach:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ AOC operates all aspects of the recycling programs in the House
and Senate Office Buildings, except for the Ford building, which is
operated by a custodial contractor. In addition, the House jurisdiction
picks up recyclable materials collected by the House side of the
Capitol building, the Botanic Garden, the page dorm (501 1st St.), and,
most recently, the Capitol Power Plant. On the Senate side of the
Capitol building, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms operates the recycling
program, and AOC transports the materials to its collection site in the
Hart Office Building. The Supreme Court and the Library of Congress
operate their own recycling programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Revisit and clarify recycling mission and goals.
--Develop a performance measurement, monitoring, and evaluation
system that supports accomplishing recycling mission and goals.
--Reexamine roles and responsibilities of AOC recycling program staff
members.
--Implement best practices to improve performance.
key management options require further exploration
Adopting a vigorous approach to strategic planning and holding
managers and employees accountable for achieving organizationwide goals
will go a long way toward helping AOC become a high-performing
organization. However, further measures may be needed; we plan to
explore other options with AOC and its key congressional customers in
the next stage of our management review. To strengthen AOC's executive
decision-making capacity and accountability, we are exploring options
to better define the roles and responsibilities for certain key
functions and to clarify some accountability relationships. For
example, a chief operating officer could be responsible for major long-
term management, cultural transformation, and stewardship
responsibilities within AOC. Additional options are discussed in
appendix I.
We look forward to continuing our constructive relationship with
AOC. In the worker safety and recycling areas, we will continue to
provide on-the-spot advice on safety hazards and recycling practices
observed on our site visits. For example, we identified several safety
hazards at the Capitol Power Plant. We brought these potential hazards
to the attention of the acting chief engineer of the plant, who said
that he would act upon our advice. We also suggested to him that the
power plant could start a recycling program for its office waste
consistent with the Botanic Garden's program, which the plant is
starting to implement. To support management improvements that we are
recommending or options we plan to explore, we have provided best
practices guidance and we will, at the invitation of AOC, brief AOC's
senior managers on best management practices in the public as well as
private sectors.
In summary, we recognize that AOC faces long-standing management
challenges to becoming a high-performing organization, and that it has
many initiatives under way for improvement. As a first step in
addressing these challenges, AOC must create a management and
accountability framework that provides a foundation of mission-critical
goals from which other efforts can flow, and clarifies organizational
lines of authority and accountability. We will continue to work
constructively with AOC, this subcommittee, the House Committee on
Appropriations and its Subcommittee on Legislative, and other
congressional stakeholders to support this framework, as well as to
help AOC identify other priorities for improvement.
Appendix I.--Management and Accountability Framework Needed to Lead and
Execute Change
This appendix discusses our preliminary observations on strategic
planning, organizational alignment, strategic human capital management,
financial management, and information technology (IT) management. It
also discusses two key program areas--worker safety and recycling--both
to illustrate the management issues we are addressing and to help AOC
identify best practices and areas for improvement in these important
programs.
aoc facing long-standing management challenges in complex operating
environment
AOC's general mission is to maintain and care for the buildings and
grounds located in the Capitol Hill complex. The historic nature and
high-profile use of many of these buildings create a complex
environment in which to carry out this mission. For example, the U.S.
Capitol building is, at once, a national capitol, museum, office
building, ceremonial site, meeting center, media base, and tourist
attraction. In making structural or other physical changes, AOC must
consider the historical significance and the effect on each of these
many uses. Further, AOC must perform its duties in an environment that
requires balancing the divergent needs of congressional leadership,
committees, individual members of the Congress, congressional staffs,
and the visiting public. The challenges of operating in this
environment are compounded by the events of September 11, 2001, and
their aftermath, especially the October 2001 discovery of anthrax
bacteria on Capitol Hill, and the resulting need for increased security
and safety.
In fiscal year 2002, AOC operated with a budget of $426 million,
which included $237 million for capital expenditures. Organizationally,
AOC has a centralized staff that performs administrative functions;
what AOC refers to as ``jurisdictions'' handle their own day-to-day
operations. These jurisdictions include the Senate Office Buildings,
the House Office Buildings, the U.S. Capitol Buildings, the Library of
Congress Buildings and Grounds, the Supreme Court Buildings and
Grounds, the Capitol Grounds, the Capitol Power Plant, and the U.S.
Botanic Garden. There are over 2,300 employees in AOC; nearly one out
of every three employees is a member of a union.
New requirements to meet long-standing labor and safety laws have
added to the complexity of AOC operations. For example, the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) applied 11 civil rights,
labor, and workplace laws to AOC as well as other legislative branch
agencies. In particular, meeting the obligations of labor laws, such as
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Federal Service Labor-
Management Relations Statute, while overcoming a history of poor labor-
management relations has been a struggle. CAA also requires AOC to meet
standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which
applied new life and fire safety codes, as well as other building
codes, to the agency. CAA established the Office of Compliance (OOC) to
enforce the provisions of the act through inspections, investigations,
and prosecution of potential violations. In addition, OOC provides
education to employees and employing offices, and administers dispute
resolution procedures if violations are found.
aoc has taken steps to begin addressing challenges
AOC has a number of initiatives completed and under way to begin
addressing its challenges and improving its performance and customer
and client satisfaction. The following points highlight some of these
initiatives. For example, AOC has
--established routine management meetings to help improve
communication across organizational boundaries;
--established and implemented basic policies and procedures in human
capital, such as a performance evaluation system for AOC's non-
union employees up to GS-15;
--recently drafted a senior executive performance evaluation system--
informed by our human capital policies and flexibilities--and
established an employee awards program;
--added to its professional workforce ranks by hiring new
jurisdictional superintendents and deputy superintendents and
budget and accounting officers and creating and filling new
positions, such as chief financial officer (CFO), facilities
manager, worker safety specialists, and a facilities planning
and development manager;
--reorganized and took actions to improve worker and fire safety
programs; and
--upgraded and filled key recycling program positions.
AOC is also in the process of
--revisiting its strategic planning efforts,
--working with a consultant to implement best practices for project
management, and
--implementing a new financial management system.
The initiatives provide important aspects of a needed foundation
for AOC to address its current and emerging challenges. To be
successful, AOC needs to continue these efforts and take a number of
other steps to become a high-performing organization committed to
results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.
building management and accountability framework to lead and execute
change
AOC needs to build on its current efforts to create a management
and accountability framework and establish priorities for action. This
framework involves (1) continuing to demonstrate top leadership
commitment to change, (2) integrating and building on existing
strategic planning efforts to identify and communicate AOC's long-term,
mission-critical goals to external as well as internal stakeholders,
(3) developing annual goals and measuring performance, and (4) creating
clear lines of accountability for achieving results, including
satisfying customers. AOC performs its activities without the guidance
of an agencywide strategic plan for serving the Congress or means to
hold individuals accountable for accomplishing its mission-critical
goals. AOC also operates without written standards or policies and
procedures in critical areas, such as financial management, IT
management, and facilities management. The absence of clearly defined
goals and performance measures at AOC hampers the Architect's efforts
to send clear and consistent messages throughout the organization about
his priorities and performance expectations. Likewise, it hinders the
Architect's ability to communicate in a transparent way to the Congress
what the agency is doing, how well it is performing, and where it can
improve.
Demonstrate Top Leadership Commitment to Change
One of the most important elements of successful management
improvement initiatives is the demonstrated, sustained commitment of
top leaders to change.\4\ Top leadership involvement and clear lines of
accountability for making management improvements are critical to
ensuring that the difficult changes that need to be made are
effectively implemented throughout the organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Management Reform: Using the
Results Act and Quality Management to Improve Federal Performance, GAO/
T-GGD-99-151 (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In looking at the experiences of leading organizations that were
successfully pursuing management reforms, we found that top leadership
practices were critical to making needed changes. For example,
successful leaders create a set of mission-related processes and
systems within which to operate, but they give their managers extensive
authority to pursue organizational goals while using those processes
and systems. They also integrate the implementation of separate
organizational improvement efforts into a coherent unified effort. The
unwavering commitment of top leadership in an agency is especially
important to overcoming natural resistance to change, marshaling the
resources needed in many cases to improve management, and building and
maintaining an organizationwide commitment to new ways of doing
business.
Refocus and Integrate Strategic Planning Efforts to Identify and
Implement Mission-Critical Goals for Key Results
Since 1997, AOC and a number of its subsidiary offices and
jurisdictions have attempted to implement strategic planning processes.
In 1997, the Architect led the first effort to produce an AOC-wide
strategic plan that laid out AOC's mission, vision, core values,
strategic priorities, and goals and objectives. According to AOC
officials, turnover in key staff and inability to reach agreement on
how to measure performance led AOC management to discontinue that
effort. More recently AOC has shifted to a scaled-back approach that
focuses on tasks to be completed in a number of key priority areas: (1)
develop a process and establish realistic goals and priorities, (2)
improving employee support by, for example, improving communications,
(3) safety, (4) project delivery, and (5) quality assurance. Similarly,
a number of business units within AOC, such as the human resources
division, the inspector general, and the House Office Buildings
jurisdiction have developed their own strategic plans, and the Capitol
Buildings jurisdiction is developing a new master plan for the Capitol,
but these plans do not flow directly from an AOC-wide plan. According
to senior AOC managers, AOC plans to place renewed emphasis on
organizationwide strategic planning beginning immediately.
We strongly endorse AOC's renewed emphasis on strategic planning.
However, in revisiting strategic planning, it is crucial that AOC move
beyond a focus on actions to be completed to a broader focus on the
mission-critical, long-term goals needed to serve the Congress. These
long-term goals should also provide the starting point and serve as a
unifying framework for AOC's various business unit and jurisdictional
planning efforts. Such an effort would position AOC to answer questions
such as what fundamental results does AOC want to achieve, what are its
long-term goals, and what strategies will it employ to achieve those
goals.
Because a major focus of AOC's mission is the stewardship of
existing Capitol complex facilities and the design and construction of
new ones, another important planning initiative that should flow from a
strategic plan is a strategic facilities plan, which is the standard
industry best practice. A strategic facilities plan would capture in
one document all the preventive maintenance, renovation, and
construction activities needed to accomplish AOC's facilities goals.
The document would also show the timetable, staffing, and budget needed
to implement the plan. In addition, a strategic facilities plan would
provide AOC an important tool for communicating to its congressional
stakeholders and others the resources needed to accomplish its
facilities goals and better illustrate, for example, the effect of
undertaking new projects on the accomplishment of the goals.
Although a variety of management activities, such as project
management and budgeting, are needed to develop and support a strategic
facilities plan, an important first step is to perform a condition
assessment of all facilities maintained by AOC. According to industry
guidance,\5\ organizations use condition assessments to identify
existing deficiencies they need to address. Although AOC has begun to
assess the condition of the Capitol building, we encourage AOC to
complete this assessment and then to begin assessments of the remaining
buildings as soon as resources are available. We plan to explore
project management and budgeting in greater depth in the next phase of
our review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Harvey H. Kaiser, Ph.D., The Facilities Manager's Reference
(Kingston Mass.: R.S. Means, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop Annual Goals and Measure Performance
Another key action AOC needs to take is developing annual
performance goals that provide a connection between the long-term
strategic goals in the strategic plan and the day-to-day activities of
managers and staff. Measuring performance allows an organization to
track the progress it is making toward its goals, gives managers
crucial information on which to base their organizational and
management decisions, and creates powerful incentives to influence
organizational and individual behavior.
Leading organizations we have studied that were successful in
measuring their performance generally had applied two practices.\6\
First, they developed measures that were (1) tied to program goals and
demonstrated the degree to which the desired results were achieved, (2)
limited to the vital few that were considered essential to producing
data for decision making, (3) responsive to multiple priorities, and
(4) responsibility-linked to establish accountability for results.
Second, the agencies recognized the cost and effort involved in
gathering and analyzing data and made sure that the data they did
collect were sufficiently complete, accurate, and consistent to be
useful in decision making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Effectively
Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118
(Washington, D.C.: June 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developing measures that respond to multiple priorities is of
particular importance for programs operating in dynamic environments
where mission requirements must be carefully balanced. This is the case
for AOC where the role of protecting and preserving the historic
facilities under its control may occasionally conflict with its role of
providing maintenance and renovation services to occupants who use the
facilities to conduct congressional business. For example, according to
AOC officials, following elections, new members of the Congress may ask
AOC to modify office suites containing historic, architectural
features. In those cases, AOC must balance the members' needs for
functional office design with its responsibility for protecting the
architectural integrity of the rooms. Consequently, organizations must
weigh their mission requirements and priorities against each other to
avoid distorting program performance. AOC could better gauge its
success in this environment by first employing a balanced set of
measures that encompasses its diverse roles, such as maintaining
historic facilities and satisfying customers and then benchmarking its
results both internally--across its jurisdictions--as well as against
other leading organizations with comparable facility management
operations.
Provide Results-Oriented Basis for Individual Accountability and
Authority to Act
The danger to any management reform is that it can become a hollow,
paper-driven exercise when management improvement initiatives are not
integrated into the day-to-day activities of the organization. We
recently testified that a critical success factor for creating a
results-oriented culture is a performance management system that
creates a ``line of sight'' showing how individual employees can
contribute to overall organizational goals.\7\ Agencies that
effectively implement such systems must first align agency leaders'
performance expectations with organizational goals and then cascade
performance expectations to other organizational levels. These agencies
must also seek to ensure that their performance management systems are
not merely once or twice yearly expectation-setting and appraisal
tools, but help manage the organizations on a day-to-day basis. Thus,
an effective performance management system provides a vehicle for top
leadership to translate its priorities and goals into direct and
specific commitments that senior managers will be expected to meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Building
on the Momentum for Strategic Human Capital Reform, GAO-02-528T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC has taken an important first step in this regard by drafting a
set of policies and procedures for managing the performance of its
senior executives.\8\ Completing and implementing this effort will be
critical to the success of AOC's strategic planning initiative and
would be in line with recent executive branch reforms. Five of the six
critical job elements that form the basis of the senior performance
management plan are structured around the Office of Personnel
Management's (OPM) Executive Core qualifications, which OPM encourages
for government executives. The five critical job elements corresponding
to OPM's core qualifications are results driven, leading change,
leading people, business acumen, and building coalitions/
communications. AOC has added equal employment opportunity as a sixth
critical job element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Architect of the Capitol, Managing Senior Management
Performance for Exempt Employees Serving at the Pleasure of the
Architect, Draft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, AOC's proposed ``results driven'' job element would
provide the basis for the results-oriented individual accountability
that we discuss. The first part of this job element generally deals
with achieving agency and organizational objectives, while the second
part requires each senior manager to identify individual areas of
accountability for the accomplishment of agency goals and objectives.
One component of AOC's draft senior executive performance
management system is the use of performance agreements. These
agreements provide an unparalleled opportunity for AOC to drive the
strategic and program performance goals it sets directly into daily AOC
operations. For example, the individual performance agreements of AOC
facility managers could explicitly reflect AOC-wide goals for service
quality, worker safety, and customer satisfaction flowing from its
strategic plan, thus allowing for unambiguous links between
organizational goals and individual performance, accountability,
bonuses, and other rewards.
We have evaluated the experience of several executive branch
agencies with the use of performance agreements to align executive
performance with agency goals and found a number of benefits of direct
importance to achieving improved performance at AOC:
--Strengthened alignment of results-oriented goals with daily
operations.--Performance agreements define accountability for
specific goals and help to align daily operations with
agencies' results-oriented, programmatic goals.
--Fostered collaboration across organizational boundaries.--
Performance agreements encourage executives to work across
traditional organizational boundaries or ``silos'' by focusing
on the achievement of results-oriented goals.
--Enhanced opportunities to discuss and routinely use performance
information to make program improvements.--Performance
agreements facilitate communication about organizational
performance, and provide opportunities to pinpoint improved
performance.
--Provided results-oriented basis for individual accountability.--
Performance agreements provide results-oriented performance
information to serve as the basis for executive performance
evaluations.
--Maintained continuity of program goals during leadership
transitions.--Performance agreements help to maintain a
consistent focus on a set of broad programmatic priorities
during changes in leadership.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Emerging
Benefits from Selected Agencies' Use of Performance Agreements, GAO-01-
115 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A results-oriented approach to accountability with the use of
performance agreements that are directly tied to AOC goals can serve as
a basis for considering the authorities and resources managers and
their teams need in order to achieve results. We have reported that
high-performing organizations seek to involve and engage employees by
devolving authority to lower levels of the organizations. Employees are
more likely to support changes when they have the necessary amount of
authority and flexibility--along with commensurate accountability and
incentives--to advance the agency's goals and improve performance.
Allowing employees to bring their expertise and judgment to bear in
meeting their responsibilities can help agencies capitalize on their
employees' talents, leading to more effective and efficient operations
and improved customer service.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Management Reform: Elements of
Successful Improvement Initiatives, GAO/T-GGD-00-26, (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 15, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
management and accountability framework provides context for addressing
other major management challenges
The management and accountability framework we have described
provides a context for addressing other long-standing management
challenges AOC faces. These include (1) communicating and obtaining
buy-in on AOC's mission, goals, and strategies from key internal and
external stakeholders, (2) strategic human capital management, (3)
financial management, and (4) IT management.
AOC-Wide Communications Strategy Is Needed to Achieve Mission-Critical
Goals
For successful implementation of strategic planning and change
management, AOC must develop a communications strategy for its internal
and external customers. Communications is an integral part of striking
a better balance between the results AOC is trying to achieve and
improving its employee and customer communication and participation.
AOC recognizes the need to strengthen its communications and has
several efforts under way. In a May 2001 discussion among senior
managers on AOC's planning and priority setting, the senior managers
discussed the need to broaden and improve internal communications. As a
result, the Architect implemented a series of regular meetings for
decision making and routine sharing of information. These meetings
include regular staff meetings, management council meetings (quarterly
meetings of AOC's senior managers to address agency business issues and
priorities), and superintendent meetings (monthly meetings of AOC's
superintendents who discuss common issues and experiences across AOC's
jurisdictions). In addition to these routine meetings, we believe that
AOC could strengthen its internal communications by developing a
communications strategy that will help AOC's line employees understand
the connection between what they do on a day-to-day basis and AOC's
goals and expectations, as well as to seek employee feedback and
develop goals for improvement. One way of implementing such a strategy
is to conduct routine employee feedback surveys and/or focus groups. In
addition, AOC could adopt a ``lessons learned'' and internal best
practices approach, to encourage and reward AOC employees who share and
implement best practices across the various jurisdictions, teams, and
projects. For example, we found that the safety specialist for the
Capitol Buildings jurisdiction prepares a monthly newsletter that
provides a summary of the accidents and injuries that have occurred in
the jurisdiction and provides guidance on how to avoid the most
prevalent injuries, but the practice had not been shared outside the
jurisdiction. AOC management should actively encourage the sharing of
such practices to determine if AOC could achieve greater performance by
duplicating them in other jurisdictions.
AOC also must improve its external communications and outreach in a
number of areas, including (1) developing congressional protocols, (2)
publicizing the impact of highly visible projects, (3) improving its
accountability reporting, and (4) measuring customer satisfaction with
its services. As a first step, we would encourage AOC to consider
developing congressional protocols, which would document agreements
between the Congress and AOC on what committees and members can expect
when they request AOC's services. The protocols would ensure that AOC
deals with its congressional customers using clearly defined,
consistently applied, and transparent policies and procedures.
Congressional protocols would also enable AOC to better cope with the
competing demands for its services by helping the organization set
priorities for allocating its resources. As you know, working closely
with the Congress and after careful pilot testing, we implemented
congressional protocols in 1999. Our experience using them as a
transparent, documented, and consistent way to set priorities has been
very positive for us as well as our clients.
AOC could build on its communication efforts in high profile and
other key projects that affect the broader community of AOC customers.
AOC has recently expanded its efforts to keep its external customers--
including the Congress, the Capitol Hill community, the public, and the
media--routinely informed and educated on the planning, design, and
construction of some high-visibility projects. For example, AOC hired a
communications officer and developed a communications plan for the
construction of the Capitol Visitors Center (CVC). AOC is employing a
variety of informational tools to achieve its communications goals on
this project. In addition to developing a Web site, the communications
officer circulates a weekly summary of the status of construction work
on the CVC project to AOC's key congressional customers. Because
maintenance work on the Capitol Dome will also be highly visible, the
status of this project was recently added to the summary.
AOC also needs to identify and address expectations gaps in the
type of information and frequency of accountability reporting that
would be most useful to its congressional customers. Since 1965, AOC
has reported semiannually to the Congress on its detailed expenditures,
such as for salaries and maintenance supplies. As directed by the
Senate Appropriations Committee, in February 2002, AOC provided the
committee the first of its quarterly reports indicating the status of
all ongoing capital projects. One option that we are considering to
make AOC's accountability reporting more useful is to require AOC to
notify the Congress if certain predefined, risk-based ``reportable
events'' occur that require prompt attention. Reportable events
notification is not intended to be a substitute for a more
comprehensive periodic reporting of financial and program performance,
but rather is to draw attention to specific events needing immediate
attention. In such an approach, AOC and its congressional customers
would reach agreement on the type of information needed on key projects
and on what events would warrant reporting, such as percentage of
milestones slipped, percentage over budget, or both.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia:
Oversight in the Post-Control Board Period, GAO-01-845T (Washington,
D.C.: June 8, 2001) for more information on reportable events as an
approach to assisting congressional oversight and decision making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC's communications strategy should also include tools for gauging
customer satisfaction with its services. AOC should develop a more
comprehensive and routine approach to obtaining customer feedback. For
example, AOC is working on a customer feedback survey for custodial
services. But we believe AOC could broaden and deepen these efforts to
address all services provided by its jurisdictions. AOC could also
learn from the efforts of the chief administrative officer of the House
of Representatives who told us that he recently hired a consulting firm
to develop a uniform customer satisfaction survey for his customers.
Consistent with an effort to develop congressional protocols, AOC could
also develop protocols for customer service so that customers know whom
to contact for services and what to expect.
Strategic Human Capital Management Can Improve Organizational
Accountability to Mission-Critical Goals
Strategic human capital management can transform AOC into a
results-oriented organization by aligning employee performance with AOC
goals and by providing the tools to better plan its workforce needs. In
1994 we reported that AOC's personnel management system did not follow
many generally accepted principles of modern personnel management.\12\
In our current review, we found that AOC has made progress in
establishing a modern personnel system that is meeting the guidelines
set forth by the AOC Human Resources Act of 1994 and CAA.\13\ AOC has
developed basic personnel policies and procedures and streamlined
certain human resource processes, and has continued to add to its
professional workforce ranks. These efforts are helping AOC to
construct a sound foundation on which to build a high-performing
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Personnel: Architect
of the Capitol's Personnel System Needs Improvement, GAO/GGD-94-121BR
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 1994).
\13\ See Public Law 103-283, Sec. 312, Architect of the Capitol
Human Resources Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, AOC has made the following improvements in its
management of human capital:
--Created and administered a formal written, performance appraisal
system for its General Schedule (up to GS-15) and Wage Grade
employees (non-union) and, as noted elsewhere, drafted
performance appraisal policies for its senior executives.
--Implemented an employee rewards and recognition program
(Architect's Awards program) and dedicated additional resources
to its employee training programs.
--Established (1) procedures intended to produce a competitive merit-
based system for hiring, promoting, and assigning employees,
(2) Equal Employment Opportunity, Conciliation, and Employee
Assistance programs, and (3) a position classification system.
--Streamlined its job recruitment and hiring processes, and is
currently refining certain personnel action processes.
--Added to its professional workforce ranks by hiring new
jurisdictional superintendents and deputy superintendents, and
creating new positions, such as a CFO, a facilities manager,
worker safety specialists, and a facilities planning and
development manager.
AOC can build on the progress it has made in human capital
management by incorporating the principles embodied in our Model of
Strategic Human Capital Management.\14\ We designed this model based on
the human capital practices of leading public and private organizations
to help agency leaders manage their people and integrate human capital
considerations into daily decision making to help achieve program
results. AOC should especially consider applying the practices
contained in two of the four cornerstones of the model: strategic human
capital planning and results-oriented organizational cultures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human
Capital Management, Exposure Draft, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collecting and analyzing data are fundamental building blocks for
measuring the effectiveness of human capital approaches in support of
the mission and goals of an agency. AOC needs to develop a fact-based,
electronic approach to its management information systems and data
sources to allow for accurate and reliable information across a range
of human capital activities. The ability to gather reliable data will
greatly enhance AOC's ability to acquire, develop, and retain talent,
while allowing it to effectively plan for workforce needs.
Based on mission-critical agency goals, AOC also needs to identify
its current and future workforce needs and create strategies for
filling any gaps. As part of this workforce planning effort, AOC should
conduct an employee skills inventory to determine a baseline and to
address gaps in skills needed and skills available. This workforce
analysis will also help AOC to create a succession planning program.
For instance, if AOC is to develop reliable project cost estimates to
support budgeting and financial and project management, the designated
workforce must have the necessary skills to complete these functions.
AOC would then need to
--determine how many project management employees it needs to
accomplish its project management goals,
--assess the skills of the employees currently available to do this
work,
--determine the gap in the number of skilled employees needed to do
this work,
--develop a training and recruitment plan for filling the gap, and
--create a succession plan to manage project management employees
exiting the organization.
We also suggest that AOC establish agencywide core and technical
competencies--reflecting its core values \15\--that would form the
basis of a best-in-class facilities management environment. The
competencies would also relate to mission-critical goals that should be
cascaded throughout AOC in its performance management system. AOC
competencies can also help to provide the direction for future employee
selection, promotion, training initiatives, and succession planning
efforts. For example, AOC's Human Resource Management Division (HRMD)
has made progress in developing a competency model for its own staff.
HRMD intends to use this competency model to ``reinforce its strategic
focus'' and to outline ``the workforce requirements necessary to
develop a highly competent cadre of HR [human resources] staff
dedicated and committed to providing high-quality, timely and
responsive human resources services to managers and employees of the
AOC.'' \16\ Like HRMD, other AOC units need to adopt competency models
reflecting their own individual needs, thus enabling the agency to
align its workforce skills and behaviors with the its mission-critical
goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ AOC's core values are professionalism, respect and diversity,
integrity, loyalty, stewardship, teamwork, and creativity.
\16\ Architect of the Capitol, HRMD's Model for Success, Oct. 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed elsewhere, once AOC has developed mission-critical
annual goals it should incorporate them into the ``results driven'' job
element AOC has proposed as part of its new senior executive
performance management system. The existing staff-level performance
appraisal system, Performance Communication and Evaluation System
(PCES), consists of four evaluation areas: work results, interactions
with others, judgment, and safety; a fifth evaluation area for
supervisors is supervision and management. As an interim step, the four
evaluation areas could be linked to overall agency goals to increase
assurance that AOC's mission will be met. In the longer term, AOC could
strengthen individual accountability for achieving organizational goals
by thoroughly reexamining PCES to incorporate core and technical
competencies that would be linked to these goals.
AOC Needs to Continue and Expand Efforts to Improve Financial
Management
AOC faces significant challenges in building sound financial
management and budget functions. Accurate and reliable budget
formulation and execution and financial accounting and reporting are
key functions that form the foundation of financial control and
accountability. Historically, the AOC has lacked reliable budgets for
both projects and operations and has not prepared auditable financial
statements.
In recognition of the critical role a CFO plays in achieving
financial accountability and control, AOC established a CFO position
and, in January 2002, filled the position. The new CFO is a member of
the Architect's executive council and reports directly to the
Architect. Organizationally, the CFO is responsible for the activities
of AOC's Budget Office, Accounting Office, and Financial Systems
Office. Included among the many challenges facing the new CFO are his
responsibilities for (1) implementing AOC's new financial management
system (Momentum), (2) implementing applicable accounting and
operational policies and procedures, and (3) preparing a complete and
auditable set of AOC financial statements.
Among his first actions, the new CFO recently hired staff members
to fill key budget and accounting officer positions, including
additional accounting staff members with the general ledger accounting
experience needed to maintain AOC's new general ledger. He has also
focused his efforts on bringing AOC's new financial management system
on-line. While these steps are critical and represent the initial steps
to improving AOC's financial management and budget functions, much work
remains to be done. The CFO has also recognized or started work on
other key issues that need to be addressed in the near term, including
the following:
--Providing continued training and support for using the new
financial management system, which began operating AOC-wide on
April 2, 2002.
--Developing procedures and controls to ensure that accurate and
reliable data are produced by the new financial management
system.
--Addressing systematically recommendations made by the AOC inspector
general and various consultants for improving internal
controls, as we recommended during our review.
--Establishing a credible budget formulation and execution process
that includes an effective acquisition strategy to develop
operating and capital budget information and to help ensure
reliable project cost estimates (including 100 percent design,
current working estimates, and reliable full-time equivalent
information).
--Developing and implementing policies and procedures needed to
properly account for and report financial information,
especially accounting policies needed to properly report and
control AOC's assets.
--Establishing inventory management and control policies and
procedures that help ensure accurate and useful information,
provide adequate safeguards over inventory, and facilitate an
annual inventory and financial reporting.
--Assessing human capital needs, which includes identifying the
skills and competencies needed for AOC's financial management
workforce and providing for continuing training to ensure a
financial team with the right mix of skills and competencies.
--Integrating project-related financial information from the new
financial management system with the related financial
information maintained in the Project Information Center system
to enhance completeness and accuracy of financial and budget
information on AOC's projects.
The AOC's CFO has endorsed the use of our executive guide on best
practices in financial management as a road map for these and other
needed improvements.\17\ The CFO acknowledges the challenges that lie
ahead and has established a goal for AOC to prepare auditable
agencywide financial statements for the first time in fiscal year 2004.
As we continue to review AOC's financial management and budget
formulation and execution, we plan to look more closely at the
processes and usefulness of AOC's financial and budget information, as
well as project cost estimation to complement our assessment of project
management at AOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Creating
Value Through World-class Financial Management, GAO/AIMD-00-134
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC Needs to Adopt an Agencywide Approach to IT Management
IT can be a valuable tool in achieving an organization's mission
objectives. Accordingly, in fiscal year 2001, AOC obligated about $7.9
million for IT-related activities. For example, AOC uses the Computer
Aided Facilities Management System (CAFM) to automate work order
requests and fulfillment for ongoing maintenance of the Capitol and the
surrounding grounds. Moreover, the Records Management System archives
available architectural drawings pertaining to the U.S. Capitol,
Library of Congress, Botanic Garden, and other buildings.
Our research of private and public sector organizations that have
effectively leveraged IT shows that these organizations' executives
have embraced the central role of IT to mission performance. As such,
they have adopted a corporate or agencywide approach to managing IT
under the leadership and control of a chief information officer (CIO),
who is a full participant in senior executive decision making.
Additionally, these organizations have implemented certain corporate IT
management controls such as using a portfolio-based approach to IT
investment decision making, using an enterprise architecture or
blueprint to guide and constrain IT investments, following disciplined
IT system acquisition and development management processes, and
proactively managing the security of IT assets.
Our preliminary work shows that AOC has yet to adopt such an
approach. AOC could greatly benefit from an agencywide approach to
managing IT under the leadership and control of an empowered CIO. Such
an approach should, at a minimum, include each of the above IT
management controls as defined in relevant federal guidance and proven
best practices. AOC's top leadership will need to consider carefully
its environment and the scope of its IT investments to determine how
best to apply this guidance and the best practices to its specific
situation.
CIO.--Our research of private and public sector organizations shows
that instituting an effective CIO organization begins with
understanding IT's vital role in accomplishing mission objectives and
positioning the CIO for success.\18\ It also identified a number of
practices and strategies that senior managers in leading organizations
use to establish their CIO positions to effectively meet business
needs. These include establishing the CIO as a full participant in
executive decision making; clearly defining the roles,
responsibilities, and accountabilities of the CIO; matching the CIO
position to the specific needs of the agency, as determined by the
agency head based on the agency's mission and strategic plan; and
ensuring that the CIO has the right technical and management skills to
meet business needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Maximizing the Success of
Chief Information Officers: Learning From Leading Organizations, GAO-
01-376G (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC does not have a CIO or senior-level executive to manage IT
across the agency. AOC has a director of information resources
management who is neither a full member of the executive management
team nor a participant in senior executive decision making. Without a
CIO or other senior-level executive to manage its IT, AOC's IT does not
have the substantive leadership, full-time attention, and consistent
direction to effectively optimize mission performance across the
agency.
To address AOC's need for an effective CIO, we recommend that the
Architect establish a CIO and position the CIO for success by
implementing the practices referenced in this testimony and further
discussed in our best practices guide.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ GAO-01-376G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment Management.--Our best practices guide, based on research
of private and public sector organizations that effectively manage
their IT investments, outlines a portfolio-based approach to IT
investment decision making that includes processes, practices, and
activities for continually and consistently selecting, controlling, and
evaluating competing IT investment options in a way that promotes the
greatest value to the strategic interest of the organization.\20\ The
first step toward establishing such an approach is putting in place
foundational, project-level control and selection processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology
Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process
Maturity, version 1, GAO/AIMD-10.1.23 (Washington, D.C.: May 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To do this, the organization needs to establish and implement
processes and practices for (1) operating an IT investment board
responsible for selecting, controlling, and evaluating IT investments,
(2) providing effective oversight for ongoing IT projects throughout
all phases of their life cycles, (3) identifying, tracking, and
managing IT resources, (4) ensuring that each IT project supports the
organization's business needs, and (5) establishing criteria for
selecting new IT proposals. Once the organization has established these
project-specific control and selection processes, it should move to
considering each new investment as part of an integrated portfolio of
investments that collectively contribute to mission goals and
objectives. To do this, the organization needs to establish and
implement processes and practices for (1) developing and implementing
criteria to select investments that will best support the
organization's strategic goals, objectives, and mission, (2) using
these criteria to consistently analyze and rank all IT investments, (3)
ensuring that the optimal IT investment portfolio with manageable risks
and returns is selected and funded, and (4) overseeing each IT
investment within the portfolio to ensure that it achieves its cost,
benefit, schedule, and risk expectations.
AOC has not implemented a portfolio-based approach to IT investment
management. The director of information resources management proposed a
high-level committee structure for selecting IT investments across AOC
about 2 years ago. The proposed structure included an AOC IT Strategy
Council, composed of the director and AOC executive management, to rank
and approve agencywide IT investments, as well as an IT Business
Planning Committee, composed of both IT and business representatives,
to evaluate IT projects based on financial, business, and risk factors
and recommend projects to the IT Strategy Council for investment.
However, the director stated that AOC leadership has yet to adopt the
proposal. While the proposal is a positive first step, it does not
address many of the critical elements of an effective IT investment
management process, as outlined in our best practices guidance. Without
an effective investment management process, AOC does not know whether
its IT investments are commensurate with cost and risk and whether they
are superior to alternative investment alternatives.
To strengthen its investment management capability, we recommend
that AOC develop and implement an IT investment management process. In
doing so, we recommend that the Architect develop a plan for developing
and implementing the investment management processes we describe and
that are also outlined in our IT investment management guide.\21\ At a
minimum, the plan should specify measurable goals and time frames, rank
initiatives, and define a management structure for directing and
controlling the improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ GAO/AIMD-10.1.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Architecture.--As defined in federal guidance, and as
practiced by leading public and private sector organizations, an
enterprise architecture, or blueprint, guides and constrains IT
investments and defines, both in logical terms (including business
functions and applications, work locations, information needs, and
users and the interrelationships among these variables) and in
technical terms (including IT hardware, software, data communications,
and security) how the organization operates today, how it intends to
operate tomorrow, and a road map for moving from present to future.\22\
This guidance also defines a set of recognized practices for
developing, implementing, and maintaining an enterprise architecture
that includes, among other things, developing a clear enterprise
architecture policy statement, creating a steering committee or
executive body to oversee the development and maintenance of the
enterprise architecture, designating a lead individual responsible for
developing the enterprise architecture, establishing a program office
with appropriate resources, and selecting a framework and tool for
developing the architecture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Chief Information Officers Council, A Practical Guide to
Federal Enterprise Architecture, version 1.0 (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC does not have an enterprise architecture consistent with
federal guidance and recognized best practices and does not plan to
develop one. However, the director of information resources management
has some information that would be useful in developing some elements
of such an architecture, such as existing network topology maps and
server hardware and software descriptions. By not having and using a
complete enterprise architecture, AOC lacks an effective means for
promoting integration of, and avoiding duplication and inconsistencies
in, business operations and supporting system investments.
To develop, implement, and maintain an enterprise architecture, we
recommend that the Architect implement the practices we discuss, which
are outlined in the CIO Council's architecture management guide.
System Acquisition/Development.--The use of disciplined processes
and controls based on well-defined and rigorously enforced policies,
practices, and procedures for system acquisition and development can
greatly reduce the risk that IT systems do not perform as intended, are
delivered late, and cost more than planned. Such processes for managing
system acquisition/development are defined in various published models
and guides, such as Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering
Institute's (SEI) Capability Maturity ModelSM.\23\ Key processes such
as requirements management, risk management, test management, and
contract oversight and tracking are important for ensuring that systems
are delivered on time, within budget, and perform as intended.
Additionally, configuration management and quality assurance processes
are critical to ensuring the integrity of the products and processes
used to develop the products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, CMMISM
for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and
Process Development, Continuous Representation, version 1.02
(Pittsburgh, Pa.: Nov. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC has not implemented agencywide, disciplined processes for
managing the development and acquisition of systems. In 1995, AOC's
Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM) developed its
Information Systems Life Cycle Directive (ISLC) that defines policies
and procedures for software development and acquisition. Based on our
preliminary review, ISLC addresses some, but not all, of the key
process areas that are considered critical to successful system
development and acquisition. For example, it defines processes for
requirements management that include, among other things, the
definition, documentation, and validation of requirements. ISLC also
includes processes for test management that include such important
areas as development of a test methodology, test plan, and test
environment and documentation and reporting of test results and
deficiencies. However, it does not include processes for two key areas:
risk management and contract tracking and oversight. More important,
ISLC is not being used to guide AOC system development and acquisition
projects. Without a complete and enforced system development and
acquisition life cycle process, AOC risks investing in systems that do
not perform as intended, are delivered late, and cost more than
planned.
To strengthen AOC's system acquisition and development controls, we
recommend that the Architect introduce rigorous and disciplined
processes for risk management and contractor oversight into OIRM's
ISLC. We also recommend that the Architect ensure that OIRM's ISLC is
implemented throughout the agency to guide systems development and
acquisition projects, as appropriate.
Information Security.--Our research of public and private sector
organizations recognized as having strong information security programs
shows that these organizations have implemented information security
programs that include continual cycles of assessing business risks,
maintaining policies and controls, promoting awareness, and monitoring
and evaluating policy and control effectiveness.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Information
Security Management, Learning From Leading Organizations, GAO/AIMD-98-
68 (Washington, D.C.: May 1998) and Information Security Risk
Assessment: Practices of Leading Organizations, A Supplement to GAO's
May 1998 Executive Guide on Information Security Management, GAO/AIMD-
00-33 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC does not have an information security program, although the
director of information resources management has recently initiated
some efforts to establish one. For example, the director has designated
an IT security officer whose responsibilities include developing IT
security policies, planning and coordinating security risk assessments,
conducting security training, and evaluating IT security effectiveness.
Also, the security officer has recently completed a risk assessment of
AOC's general support system and some key intellectual property, and
has begun developing policies outlining the security officer position's
roles and responsibilities as well as a security plan to address
vulnerabilities identified in the risk assessment.
Nevertheless, several critical areas related to implementing
leading security management principles, as outlined in our best
practices guide, warrant attention. For example, AOC has not (1)
developed and implemented policy and guidance for performing periodic
risk assessments, (2) provided the security officer the authority and
resources to implement an agencywide security program, and (3)
developed policies for such areas as security training and awareness,
incident response, and program monitoring and evaluation. Without
effective information security practices in place, financial and
sensitive information contained in AOC's systems may be at risk of
inadvertent or deliberate misuse, fraud, improper disclosure, or
destruction--possibly without detection.
To strengthen AOC's information systems security, we recommend that
the Architect follow the steps detailed in our information security
guide \25\ to establish an information security program, including (1)
providing the security officer with the authority and resources to
implement an agencywide security program, (2) developing and
implementing policy and guidance for performing periodic risk
assessments, (3) using the results of the risk assessments to develop
and implement appropriate controls, (4) developing policies for
security training and awareness and providing training, and (5)
monitoring and evaluating policy and control effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ GAO/AIMD-98-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC Could Make Worker Safety Program Improvements More Effective by
Adopting Certain Best Practices
Because of the concerns that the Congress and others raised about
worker safety at AOC, in 2001, the Architect issued a statement that
safety is his highest organizational priority. The maintenance, repair,
and renovation of the Capitol complex is potentially dangerous work
that exposes AOC employees to a variety of hazards related to the
carpentry, electrical, painting, construction, custodial, and other
work they perform. The types and severity of injuries and illnesses AOC
employees could face range from injuries to the back, hand, and head to
more life-threatening accidents. To effectively implement the
Architect's commitment to safety, and consistent with best practices
for health and safety programs as described in OSHA guidance and our
work, AOC must develop comprehensive and reliable data, provide a clear
understanding of what the program is trying to accomplish, and how it
will evaluate results. AOC also needs to examine strengthening the
accountability relationships between the various safety program
officials. Best practices also indicate that standardized and
agencywide policies and procedures must be in place--such as procedures
that encourage employees to report incidents, accidents and unsafe
conditions (often called hazards), and procedures to investigate causes
of accidents to identify why accidents occurred. By gathering more
comprehensive and reliable data, and developing and consistently
applying policies and procedures for reporting and investigating
accidents, injuries, and illnesses, AOC can begin to take a more
strategic approach to addressing safety issues. For example, better
information about the type and frequency of injuries and the hazards
that contribute to them could help AOC establish a risk-based approach
for addressing the most significant worker safety issues that are
occurring and for allocating resources.
AOC Has Taken Significant Steps to Address Worker Safety
and Health
AOC has taken and is in the process of implementing many
significant steps that demonstrate its commitment to improving worker
safety. For example, AOC has done the following:
--Developed a high-level 5-year approach to worker safety and health
and is developing a 5-year worker safety master plan. This plan
will be used as a road map for AOC to identify its safety
philosophy, establish priorities, assign responsibilities, and
identify project and funding needs.
--Reorganized its Office of the Executive Officer for Facilities
Management to increase the emphasis on safety, hired a new
facilities manager, and increased the staff from 5 to 10
professionals in the Safety and Environmental Health Division.
--Hired eight safety specialists who oversee the safety programs for
the six jurisdictions and one division--the House and Senate
Office Buildings, Capitol Buildings, Library of Congress,
Capitol Power Plant, Botanic Garden, and Construction
Management Division.
--Implemented 11 of 41 pending safety programs that will comply with
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
regulations, and are aimed at reducing the risk and rate of
illnesses and injuries. The programs cover policies such as
handling hazardous materials, working in confined spaces, using
safety equipment, and wearing respiratory protection.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ AOC has contracted out with the Department of Labor's Public
Health Service to write these programs at a cost of about $166,000. AOC
plans to have these 41 programs developed by fiscal year 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Established safety and health committees at the executive and
jurisdictional levels.
--Purchased protective equipment for employees to help reduce many of
the common work-related injuries.
--Provided over 13,000 hours of formal training to employees on
safety and health issues to raise awareness, decrease work-
related accidents, and maintain a safer work environment.
--Contracted or is in the process of contracting for outside
experts--including technical assistance from the Public Health
Service, Dupont, and OSHA through the Office of Compliance--to
assist in establishing worker safety policies and procedures
and best practices and to provide additional health and safety
training.
Effective Safety and Health Programs Depend on Establishing
Goals and Key Policies and Procedures for Reporting
and Abating Hazards
Implementing the six core components of an effective worker safety
program, as shown in table 1, is critical for instilling an
organizational focus on safety and for helping reduce injuries,
illnesses, and fatalities. Together, these components help an
organization outline what it is trying to achieve, assess its progress,
and ensure that it has the proper policies in place. After evaluating
AOC's worker safety and health program, our analysis focused on four of
the six components that we believed were the most important initially
for AOC to address. These four core components of an effective worker
safety and health program are management commitment, employee
involvement, identification of problem jobs, and analysis and
development of controls for problem jobs. In the next stage of our
review, we plan to assess AOC's education and training and medical
management components.
TABLE 1.--CORE COMPONENTS OF AN EFFECTIVE SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component \1\ Ways in which the component can be demonstrated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management commitment............... Establish goals for the program, collect reliable data, and evaluate
results.
Establish program responsibilities of managers and employees for safety
and health in the workplace and hold them accountable for carrying out
those responsibilities.
Communicate to the staff the program's importance.
Employee involvement................ Establish mechanisms to get employees involved in the program, such as
creating committees or teams to receive information on problem jobs or
areas.
Establish procedures for employees to report job-related fatalities,
injuries, illnesses, incidents, and hazards; ensure that employees are
not discouraged from reporting accidents, injuries, illnesses, or unsafe
conditions.
Establish regular channels of communication with employees regarding
worker safety issues.
Identification of problem jobs...... Follow up on employee reports of injuries, symptoms, or hazards.
Review injury logs or other data to identify problem areas.
Conduct inspections of the workplace to identify hazards causing injuries,
illnesses, or fatalities.
Analysis and development of controls Through investigation or other analysis, identify hazards present in
for problem jobs. problem jobs.
Develop controls for problem jobs by brainstorming with employees or other
methods.
Follow up to ensure that hazards are abated and controls are effective.
Education and training.............. Provide general awareness training to all employees so they can recognize
hazards and risks, learn procedures for reporting injuries, and become
familiar with the program.
Provide targeted training to specified groups of employees because of the
jobs they hold, the hazards they face, or their roles in the program.
Medical management \2\.............. Encourage early reporting of symptoms and ensure that employees do not
fear reprisal or discrimination.
Ensure a prompt evaluation by a medical provider.
Provide employees who have work-related medical conditions with restricted
or light duty employment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Different terminology is often used to describe these components. For example, identification of problem
jobs is sometimes referred to as hazard identification and assessment. Analysis and development of controls
for problem jobs is sometimes referred to as hazard prevention and control. The terms used here are identical
to those used in our prior work.
\2\ Organizations may have medical management programs without necessarily having safety and health programs.
Sources: OSHA, Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines, Issuance of Voluntary Guidelines, Federal
Register 54:3904-3916 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 26, 1989) and U.S. General Accounting Office, Private Sector
Ergonomics Programs Yield Positive Results, GAO/HEHS-97-163 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 27, 1997).
Management Commitment: AOC Must Develop Program Goals Based
on Reliable Data and Strengthen Accountability
Relationships
Management commitment requires establishing program goals,
collecting reliable data, and assessing progress towards those goals.
It also involves establishing program responsibilities of managers and
employees for safety and health in the workplace and holding them
accountable for carrying out those responsibilities, and communicating
to the staff the program's importance. AOC, with the personal
involvement of the Architect, has communicated to managers and staff
members that it must become a safer organization and is working on
changing the organizational culture to focus on safety and health. As a
clear sign of that commitment, in June 2001 AOC established a goal of
reducing the rate of worker injuries and illnesses by 10 percent per
year for 5 years, starting from the fiscal year 2000 rate of 17.9 per
100 workers.
AOC is measuring its progress in achieving its injury and illness
reduction goal using OSHA's published measure of total injuries and
illnesses, which provides the total number of cases and the rate of
injuries and illnesses that incur costs under the federal workers'
compensation program. The OSHA measure is important to show the extent
to which those injuries and illnesses that could include the most
severe--that is, those in incurring medical expenses or lost time--are
increasing or decreasing. According to this measure, both the number
and rate of these injuries and illnesses at AOC showed an overall
increase from fiscal years 1997 through 2000.\27\ In fiscal year 2000,
according to this measure, the rate of injury and illness was 17.9 per
100 workers. Although OSHA has not published these data for fiscal year
2001, OSHA officials told us that for AOC both the number and rate of
injury and illness declined in 2001. At the same time, however, AOC has
been tracking the total number of injuries and illnesses occurring at
AOC, regardless of whether the injury or illness incurred costs under
the federal workers' compensation program. These data show a decline in
the total number of recorded injuries and illnesses from fiscal years
1999 (the first year the data were available) through 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ OSHA did not publish these data prior to 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC and OSHA's data provide valuable information for AOC. However,
neither of these data is directly comparable to key measures used in
the private sector, so AOC has been missing the opportunity to compare
itself to--and learn from--the application of industry standards.
According to private sector best practices, organizations should rely
on a more precise measure of severe injuries and illness than either
the OSHA or AOC total injury and illness data provide. The private
sector generally uses a measure called ``OSHA recordables,'' which
include any work-related injury or illness that requires more than
first aid or leads to lost time. As a result, tracking OSHA recordables
allow an organization to identify the most severe injuries and
illnesses occurring in the workplace. To be more consistent with
industry standards, in 2001, AOC began to collect on a limited basis
OSHA recordables, which we believe will help AOC create a more accurate
picture of its injuries and illnesses.
At the same time AOC is developing more comprehensive illness and
injury data, AOC needs to ensure that the data it gathers are reliable.
For example, although AOC has established policies and procedures that
require reporting of all workers' compensation claims, it does not have
policies and procedures in place for reporting the more comprehensive
data on injuries and illnesses consistent with industry best practices.
The partnership that the AOC is developing with the Office of
Compliance and OSHA and the contract with Dupont to provide technical
assistance in the area of worker safety could help AOC make progress on
assessing is policies and procedures for collecting injury and illness
data and help ensure their completeness and reliability.
Management commitment also dictates that an organization put the
right people in place with the authority to make the program work. As
we mentioned, AOC reorganized its Executive Office of Facilities
Management to increase its emphasis on safety. The office includes the
Safety and Environmental Health Division, which includes the safety
officer and the central safety specialist positions. This office has
recently increased its staffing from 5 to 10 safety and health
professionals. In addition, AOC has hired eight safety specialists for
six of its jurisdictions and one division. As these safety specialists
assume their full responsibilities, AOC needs to ensure that it has
clearly defined their roles, responsibilities, and authorities at the
central and jurisdictional levels so that they can carry out their
work. Implementation of the worker safety program occurs at the
jurisdictional level. In the next stage of our review, we plan to
explore which of the safety program responsibilities would be best
carried out by central AOC staff and which would best be carried out by
the jurisdictional staff.
Employee Involvement: AOC Should Strengthen Employee
Involvement with Reporting Incidents, Accidents, or
Hazards
As noted above, AOC has established mechanisms to get employees
involved in the worker safety program and has established regular
channels of communication with employees through the safety and health
committees and through formal training. Employee involvement also
includes establishing procedures for employees to use in reporting job-
related incidents, accidents, and hazards, and ensuring that they are
encouraged to do so. AOC should develop such procedures to encourage
and reward employees for reporting these situations. For example, AOC
could develop procedures along with awareness training that clearly
articulate the steps employees should take to report all job-related
incidents, accidents, and hazards and ensure they are followed
consistently. AOC could also recognize employees for following these
procedures through the Architect's new employee rewards and recognition
program. Another way to increase employee involvement is to have
employees serve on teams responsible for identifying and ranking
problem jobs as well as developing controls for those jobs, which
several of the jurisdictions have initiated. Finally, AOC should hold
top managers, frontline supervisors, and employees accountable for
ensuring that this process is followed. In the next stage of our
review, we plan to explore these reporting and accountability issues
further through a series of focus groups with AOC employees.
Identification, Analysis, and Development of Controls for
Problem Jobs: AOC Needs Consistent Policies and
Procedures for Conducting Investigations and
Abating Hazards
Leading organizations systematically seek to identify why injuries,
illnesses, and accidents occur or why hazards exist and eliminate
underlying conditions as part of a risk-based approach to creating safe
and healthy work environments. In that respect, it is vital to have
adequate processes to investigate problem areas, develop controls for
those areas, and follow up to ensure that hazards are abated.
Furthermore, staff members conducting these investigations should have
the knowledge and authority to remedy the situations. In 1998, the
Office of Compliance recommended that AOC develop a system to routinely
investigate accidents or hazardous situations and ensure that hazards
are corrected. In response, AOC has placed safety specialists in
several of the jurisdictions, which provides greater assurance that an
effort is being taken to investigate accidents, incidents, or
identified hazards.
However, there is still no consistent AOC-wide system for
conducting investigations and follow-up to ensure that corrective
actions have been taken. Such a system is critical to providing AOC
with the assurance that its efforts are risk-based--targeted directly
toward identifying and abating those factors leading to the most severe
and frequent incidents, accidents, and hazards. To illustrate, some of
the jurisdictions have (1) developed their own investigation
procedures, (2) involved different staff members in the investigations
(e.g., a safety specialist in one case, a safety and health committee
representative in another case), and (3) developed their own forms to
gather accident or incident data. Another important component is
follow-up, and we found that only two of the five jurisdiction safety
specialists we interviewed were tracking resolution of hazards
identified. AOC has procured a data system--Facility Management
Assistant--that is to include inspection data and provide risk analysis
and hazard abatement assessment and follow-up, which we think is a
positive step.\28\ According to the director of AOC's Safety and
Environmental Health Division, this system is expected to be
operational by July 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ This system will be integrated with AOC's financial management
tracking system for processing work orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC Needs to Build on Current Efforts by Adopting a Strategic Approach
to Recycling
Programs that separate and collect recyclable materials from the
waste stream produce numerous benefits. It is estimated that recycling
1 ton of paper saves 17 mature trees, 3.3 cubic yards of landfill
space, 7,000 gallons of water, 380 gallons of oil, 4,100 kilowatt hours
of energy, and 60 pounds of air pollutants. To maximize the benefits
derived from its recycling program, AOC must build on the steps it has
taken to improve the effectiveness of its programs by taking a more
strategic approach. Such an approach would include revisiting and
clarifying recycling mission and goals, measuring and monitoring
performance against goals to gauge and improve program effectiveness,
and reexamining the roles and responsibilities of the recycling program
staff to ensure accountability for achieving recycling goals. We
provide observations on how AOC could improve recycling results by
replicating its own and others' best practices.
AOC Has Taken Steps to Improve Effectiveness of Recycling
Programs
AOC is responsible for operating recycling programs for much of the
Capitol complex.\29\ In recent years, AOC, both centrally and at the
jurisdiction level, has taken steps to improve the overall
effectiveness of its recycling programs. Some of the steps include
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ AOC operates all aspects of the recycling programs in the
House and Senate Office Buildings, except for the Ford building, which
is operated by a custodial contractor. In addition, the House
jurisdiction picks up recyclable materials collected by the House side
of the Capitol building, the Botanic Garden, the page dorm (501 1st
St.), and, most recently, the Capitol Power Plant. On the Senate side
of the Capitol building, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms operates the
recycling program, and AOC transports the materials to its collection
site in the Hart Office Building. The Supreme Court and the Library of
Congress operate their own recycling programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--formalizing the positions and responsibilities of the AOC resource
conservation manager and the House and Senate recycling program
managers to include activities such as planning, policy and
program development, monitoring, and evaluation of recycling
operations;
--filling the Senate recycling program manager position, which was
vacant for a number of months;
--suggesting that the Senate adopt a consultant's recommendation to
simplify the recycling program to improve participation and
increase effectiveness;
--developing a draft set of performance indicators and starting to
collect data; and
--reworking the recycling program for the House Office Buildings
jurisdiction to increase promotion and education and reequip
participating offices with new recycling containers.
Recycling Program Design Depends on Desired Goals
There are a variety of environmental and financial benefits to be
derived from an office recycling program, and program designs will
differ depending on the goals selected. A typical goal is reducing to
the extent possible the amount of solid waste sent to landfills.
Another goal is generating as much revenue as possible from the sale of
the recyclable materials collected. A key to achieving either goal is
making the recycling program as easy as possible for employees to use.
Generally, the less sorting, decision making, and walking required by
individual participants, the more successful the program will be. And
although the two goals of waste reduction and revenue generation are
not mutually exclusive, the designs of each would differ.
Specifically, a recycling program with the goal of generating
revenue, commonly referred to as a source separation program, is more
complicated, expensive, and difficult to implement than a program
designed for waste reduction. This is because separating a greater
variety of recyclable materials at the source requires more resources
for educating clients and the recycling staff, collecting recyclable
materials, and monitoring for compliance. The complexity of source
separation, unfortunately, increases the likelihood of contamination of
the recyclable materials collected, reducing their value and increasing
the volume of waste sent to landfills. Given the complexity and
potential performance problems with a source separation program, an
organization needs to analyze the costs and benefits of such a program
compared to other, simpler options to determine whether such a program
will be cost-effective.
AOC Needs to Revisit and Clarify Recycling Mission and
Goals
High levels of contamination have prevented the House and Senate
recycling programs from achieving either of the two goals. AOC's
recycling contractor does not pay for high grade (e.g., white copy)
paper with greater than 5-percent contamination or mixed grade (e.g.,
glossy or colored) paper with greater than 10-percent contamination.
However, in fiscal year 2001, over 60 percent of about 650 tons of
recyclable paper collected from Senate Office Buildings and more than
70 percent of about 1,720 tons of recyclable paper collected from the
House Office Buildings were contaminated. Although AOC avoided the cost
of disposing of the waste, the collected materials generated no
revenue. The recycling contractor may sort and recycle some of this
contaminated waste, but the rest ultimately will go to a landfill.
AOC needs to clearly define the overall mission and goals of its
recycling programs to assess whether it has the right program design,
organization, and implementation strategies in place to achieve desired
results. AOC's goals for its recycling programs are unclear. The House
and the Senate have directed their respective jurisdictions to
implement source separation recycling programs. Furthermore, the
position descriptions for the House and Senate recycling program
managers state that these managers are responsible for, among other
things, increasing the financial returns of their programs. However,
other documents we reviewed, such as the position description of the
AOC resource conservation program manager and a 1999 audit by the AOC
inspector general, indicate that AOC is also pursuing the goal of waste
reduction. If AOC's goal is to generate as much revenue as possible
through a source separation program, then based on the high rate of
contamination it will need to design a program that is much more
aggressive in terms of the education, training, and equipment it
provides to participants and the collection staff. However, if the goal
is reducing the volume of waste sent to landfills, then AOC should
implement a simpler program, requiring as little separation as possible
to increase participation and compliance.
Cost-benefit analysis could help AOC strike the right balance in
its recycling program. For example, the recently completed study of the
Senate's source separation recycling program requested by the Senate
Appropriations Committee shows that AOC could lower contamination and
therefore increase revenues by simplifying the program. Not addressed
in the study is whether this type of program would also reduce the
amount of waste sent to landfills.
Furthermore, other than coordination to remove recycling materials
at the Botanic Garden and--in response to our recent suggestion--the
Capital Power Plant, AOC has no formal plans to implement a Capitol
complex-wide recycling program. For example, AOC could expand its
recycling programs to include waste from its landscaping or
construction activities. Incorporating these materials into its overall
recycling program could improve AOC's overall performance in reducing
waste sent to landfills.
Consistent with the communication strategy we outline in this
statement, AOC needs to seek input from its stakeholders to determine
the most appropriate mission and goals for its recycling program(s).
Whether the resulting program is Capitol complex-wide or is tailored to
meet the specific requirements of the House or Senate, AOC needs to
clarify whether the primary focus of the recycling program is to reduce
the total amount of waste sent to landfills, to generate a desired
level of revenue, or both.
AOC Needs to Develop a Performance Measurement, Monitoring,
and Evaluation System That Supports Accomplishment
of Recycling Mission and Goals
In response to a Senate Appropriations Committee request for a
quarterly report on the recycling program in the Senate, AOC has
proposed a performance measurement system that it will use to monitor
both the Senate and the House recycling programs. The data and
indicators they will collect include, among other things, revenue
generated from the sale of recyclables, customer satisfaction,
education of participating offices, status of equipping offices with
recycling containers, rate of office participation, and training of
recycling collection staffs.
AOC's proposed performance system is a promising first step. In
revisiting its program mission, goals, and design, AOC should also
reexamine and refine this system to improve its usefulness for program
monitoring and decision making. As discussed elsewhere in this
statement, AOC's performance measurement system should (1) show the
degree to which the desired results were achieved, (2) be limited to
the vital few measures needed for decision making, (3) be responsive to
multiple priorities, and (4) establish accountability for results.
Also, as part of its responsibility for handling waste from government
facilities, including recyclable materials, the General Services
Administration (GSA) has developed a guide that describes a number of
steps an agency can take to measure and monitor recycling efforts that
could be useful to AOC in developing its system.\30\ These steps are
listed in table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ U.S. General Services Administration, Recycling Program Desk
Guide (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2001).
TABLE 2.--TEN STEPS IDENTIFIED BY GSA FOR BEST ADMINISTERING A RECYCLING PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steps Purpose and example
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining the building profile.... Purpose: To ascertain the types of materials to be recovered in a
recycling program and identify any special restrictions or requirements.
Example: Does the storage space have sprinklers or will special containers
be required?
Determining the waste stream size... Purpose: To manage and reduce a building's waste stream data on the total
size of the waste stream are compiled.
Example: Obtain monthly reports showing the amount of waste hauled.
Analyzing the waste stream.......... Purpose: To determine the quantity of various types of recyclable
materials included in the waste stream.
Example: Develop an estimate of the quantity of recyclable material
collected daily.
Determining the amount recycled..... Purpose: To show how much is being diverted from the waste stream.
Example: The recycling contractor provides a monthly report showing the
amounts and types of materials recycled.
Tracking the information............ Purpose: To determine the percentage of the total waste stream diverted by
recycling.
Example: Data are entered on a regular basis, for example, monthly, and
totaled at the end of the fiscal year.
Reporting the information........... Purpose: To report status of the program to management and to offices
participating in the program.
Example: Reports to offices keep employees informed about how their
efforts are helping the environment and measuring progress and goals.
Reducing the waste stream........... Purpose: To determine whether trash includes recyclable materials that are
improperly discarded and opportunities to recycle other materials (e.g.,
construction debris, discarded/leftover carpeting, or scrap metal).
Example: Meet with office representatives to ascertain their container
needs and find out what types of waste they generate.
Assessing the program............... Purpose: To determine how well the program is working.
Example: Observe whether employees understand how the program works or
modifications that might be necessary.
Educating employees................. Purpose: To provide employees with reasons for recycling and a description
of how the program works; to reduce the container contamination by giving
detailed instructions on what is and is not acceptable.
Example: An environmental team consisting of building management and
participating offices would promote and educate employees.
Monitoring and evaluating program... Purpose: To be aware of fluctuations in the volume of recycled materials
collected in an effort to identify the cause and determine whether
associated waste disposal costs can be reduced.
Example: Periodically review waste disposal costs and assess whether the
program implemented has had an impact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. General Services Administration, Recycling Program Desk Guide (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2001).
AOC's proposed recycling program goals are not linked to a desired
level of performance and therefore cannot demonstrate the extent to
which performance is achieved. For example, AOC seeks to decrease
contamination rates for recyclable materials collected, but does not
state a goal for a desired level of contamination against which to
measure progress. As shown in table 2, steps 2 and 3, AOC should
determine how much waste the Capitol complex generates overall and
analyze how much of that waste could be recycled. Such information
could form the basis of AOC's overall waste reduction goals.
Furthermore, AOC should develop its performance measurement system with
input from recycling program staff members to ensure that the data
gathered will be sufficiently complete, accurate, and consistent to be
useful in decision making. As AOC clarifies its goals and performance
measures for its recycling program, it will likely identify
opportunities to reduce the recycling data currently collected.
After establishing an organizational mission and goals and building
a performance measurement system, the next key step is to put
performance data to work. As shown in table 2, steps 4 through 8 and
step 10 provide guidance on ways to monitor and evaluate program
performance. AOC has proposed a quarterly monitoring system. Such
monitoring of performance against goals will enable AOC program
managers to identify where performance is lagging, investigate
potential causes, and identify actions designed to improve performance.
AOC should also obtain periodic feedback from its customers/
stakeholders to obtain their views about the quality of the program,
ease of participation, and other areas for improvement. AOC has
proposed a recycling program customer survey as part of its performance
measurement system. We believe AOC should develop this survey as part
of an overall communication strategy for external stakeholders, as
discussed earlier in the statement.
Reexamine Roles, Responsibilities, and Number of AOC
Recycling Program Staff Members
The roles and responsibilities of AOC's recycling program staff
members have evolved in recent years, without the guidance of a clearly
defined mission and goals. In revisiting its recycling program mission
and goals, AOC should also reexamine the roles and responsibilities of
its program staff members to ensure that they are performing the right
jobs with the necessary authority. AOC recently changed the
responsibilities of its recycling program management positions to
incorporate a greater focus on program planning and evaluation.
However, according to these staff members, much of their time is spent
in day-to-day program implementation activities, leaving little time to
fulfill their expanded roles.
The AOC resource conservation manager, originally responsible for
only the AOC hazardous waste program, currently is responsible for
planning and developing policies and programs for an AOC-wide approach
to waste management, analyzing waste removal programs, developing and
presenting briefing and training materials on agency recycling efforts,
and serving as the administrator and technical representative for the
recycling collection contract. However, according to the resource
conservation manager, about half of her effort is devoted to hazardous
waste management activities. She has little time and no staff to carry
out the broad, agencywide planning and evaluation activities required
by the position.
In fiscal year 2001, AOC replaced its recycling coordinator
position with a recycling program manager position in the House and
Senate jurisdictions. These positions are responsible for working with
other Capitol complex recycling specialists to carry out agencywide
recycling, planning and developing recycling policies and programs,
reviewing program effectiveness and monitoring implementation (e.g.,
compliance inspections), and analyzing the financial returns of waste
recycling contracts. However, the House recycling program manager told
us that the current focus is primarily on implementation activities,
such as program promotion and education and providing recycling
equipment to offices, limiting the time available to focus on other
responsibilities, such as program monitoring and evaluation.
As previously stated, AOC needs to provide a results-oriented basis
for individual accountability. With respect to recycling, AOC has
neither established clear goals nor assigned accountability for
achieving results. Because program implementation occurs in the House
and Senate jurisdictions, AOC needs to incorporate its desired
recycling goals into its performance management system and cascade
those goals down through the jurisdictions to the individuals
responsible for program implementation.
In our opinion, overlapping responsibilities for planning,
education, monitoring, and evaluation between the resource conservation
manager and jurisdiction recycling program managers raise questions
about the appropriate number of staff members and mix of
responsibilities needed to carry out AOC's recycling programs at the
central and jurisdictional levels. In the next stage of our review, we
plan to explore with AOC which responsibilities would be best carried
out by a central AOC staff and which would be best carried out by
jurisdiction staffs. For example, the focus of the central staff could
be on planning, developing educational materials, monitoring, and
evaluating recycling from an AOC-wide perspective. In contrast, the
focus of the jurisdiction staffs could be on implementation of the
recycling program, including equipping offices, educating participants,
and collecting recyclable materials.
Implementing Best Practices Can Help Improve Performance
In addition to addressing strategic program management issues, AOC
could implement best practices that may provide immediate improvements
to its recycling program results. For example, AOC could do the
following:
--Take advantage of intra-agency best practices by sharing ideas
across jurisdictions. For example, the House jurisdiction has
already developed promotional materials that can be shared with
the Senate jurisdiction to avoid duplication of effort.
--Expand on House efforts to promote the reuse and sharing of office
materials by listing available excess materials.
--Create greater incentives to recycle by providing participants
feedback on the results of their recycling efforts, such as
trees saved, landfill space not used, or revenues generated for
employee programs, such as a day care or fitness center. (See
table 2, step 6.)
--Provide information and solicit feedback using electronic means,
such as e-mails with links to an AOC recycling Web site.
--Continue to work with participating offices to select recycling
containers designed to reduce contamination. For example, AOC
could make greater use of containers with lids designed to
prevent the disposal of inappropriate materials (slots for
paper, can-shaped holes, etc.).
key management options require further exploration
Adopting a vigorous approach to strategic planning and holding
managers and employees accountable for achieving organizationwide goals
will go a long way toward helping AOC become a high-performing
organization. However, further measures may be needed; we plan to
explore other options with AOC and its key congressional customers in
the next stage of our management review. These proposed options aim to
strengthen AOC's executive decision-making capacity and accountability,
so that the right senior executives are making important operating and
investment decisions, and that these decisions are based on solid
financial, budget, and performance information. We also plan to explore
opportunities for further improving labor-management relations, worker
safety, and project management and budgeting at AOC. As we move
forward, we will support AOC in exploring these management options
through on-the-spot advice, best management practice briefings for
AOC's senior managers, focus groups for AOC's employees, and outreach
to AOC's labor unions and key congressional customers.
Key Management Options We Plan to Explore with AOC
To strengthen AOC's executive decision-making capacity and
accountability, we are exploring options to better define the roles and
responsibilities for certain key functions and to clarify some
accountability relationships. For example, executive-level decisions on
issues such as major capital investments could be made by an executive
committee consisting of these top managers, in addition to the new CFO.
A chief operating officer (COO) could be responsible for major long-
term management, cultural transformation, and stewardship
responsibilities within AOC. In March 2002, we testified on the
potential for creating statutory COOs within major executive branch
agencies, who could provide the continuity that spans the tenure of
political leadership and helps ensure that long-term stewardship issues
are addressed and change management initiatives are successfully
completed.\31\ As we discussed above, a CIO could lead and manage
policies and procedures for making agencywide IT investment decisions.
In addition, to develop and implement congressional protocols and
strengthen AOC's communications and outreach with its congressional
customers, AOC may want to consider assigning full-time responsibility
for its congressional relations functions to a senior manager. We will
also assess whether AOC should clarify organization lines of authority
and accountability to improve program management in areas such as
worker safety, recycling, and facilities and project management. Such
comprehensive organizational changes should only take place within the
context of decisions made by AOC as it implements the framework for
management and accountability that we discuss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Building
on the Momentum for Strategic Human Capital Reform, GAO-02-528T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To support improving AOC's executive decision-making capacity, we
will continue to review the processes and usefulness of AOC's financial
and budget information, and explore the use of performance information.
In the next stage of our review, our analysis of project cost
estimation will complement an assessment of overcoming challenges to
effective project management at AOC.
To improve labor-management relations, we will look at best
practices in alternative dispute resolution in the workplace and
explore the relationships between AOC's Equal Employment Opportunity
and Conciliation Program Office, Employee Advisory Council, and newly
created Office of the Ombudsperson--formerly the Employee Advocate--and
the Office of Compliance. We have supported using ombudsmen in dispute
resolution and believe that this office can be an integral part of an
organization's human capital management strategy to create a fair,
equitable, and nondiscriminatory workplace.\32\ We plan to assess the
new role of the ombudsperson in AOC and whether it will adhere to the
standards of practice for ombudsmen established by professional
organizations. These standards revolve around the core principles of
independence, neutrality, and confidentiality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: The Role of
Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution, GAO-01-466 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We Are Helping Assess These Options and Recommending Needed Management
Improvements
We are exploring these management options in several ways. In the
worker safety and recycling areas, we will continue to provide on-the-
spot advice on safety hazards and recycling practices observed on our
site visits. For example, we identified several safety hazards at the
Capitol Power Plant. We brought these potential hazards to the
attention of the acting chief engineer of the plant, who said that he
would act upon our advice. We also suggested to him that the power
plant could start a recycling program for its office waste consistent
with the Botanic Garden's program, which the plant is starting to
implement.
To support management improvements that we are recommending or
options we plan to explore, we have provided best practices guidance
and we will, at the invitation of AOC, brief AOC's senior managers on
best management practices in the public as well as private sectors,
potentially including the following topics:
--strategic planning and performance measurement;
--our congressional protocols and the role of our Congressional
Relations Office;
--human capital management, including our guidance on strategic human
capital management and our human capital policies and
procedures; \33\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ GAO-02-373SP and U.S. General Accounting Office, Human
Capital: A Self Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, Discussion
Draft, GAO/GGD-99-179 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--IT management, financial management, and worker safety.
To identify opportunities to further improve AOC's internal
communications, we will be holding a series of focus groups with AOC's
employees to obtain employee feedback on AOC's organizational culture,
morale, management support, and worker safety issues, and meeting with
officials from AOC's labor unions. To assess AOC's communications with
its external customers, we will contact key congressional staffs to get
feedback on the types of AOC services most important to them, their
satisfaction with these services, and suggestions for management
improvements.
contact and acknowledgments
For further information about this statement, please contact J.
Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-6806. Individuals making key
contributions to this statement included Thomas Beall, Justin Booth,
Carole Cimitile, Kevin J. Conway, Elizabeth Curda, Deborah Davis,
Terrell Dorn, Elena Epps, V. Bruce Goddard, Christina Quattrociocchi,
Benjamin Smith Jr., Lori Rectanus, John Reilly, William Roach, Kris
Trueblood, Sarah Veale, Michael Volpe, and Daniel Wexler.
AOC MANAGEMENT
Senator Durbin. According to the GAO, there is good news
and there is bad news. Some improvements have been made in your
organization in the last year. Most notably, you have hired a
Chief Financial Officer to improve financial management and
accountability. Some critical initial steps have been taken to
improve financial management and budget functions. And the CFO
has begun work on other key issues, such as developing
procedures and controls to ensure that reliable data are
produced by the new financial management system.
GAO also found that the Architect of the Capitol has made
some management improvements, such as establishing routine
management meetings to help improve communication. In addition,
the Architect's track record on work safety has improved
considerably, with a drop of 38 percent in the injury rate from
last year's very bad 17.9 injuries per 100 workers, as reported
to OSHA.
We also acknowledge that your office has been given
tremendous additional responsibilities for executing a myriad
of security-related projects funded in the supplemental
appropriation last year. This has added considerably, I am
sure, to your workload.
Still, there is a lot that needs to be done. The
improvements cited by GAO are mostly in the early, early
stages. Basic strategic planning, performance management, and
accountability for senior managers must still be addressed very
seriously and very quickly.
The GAO found that the ``Architect of the Capitol performs
its activities without the guidance of any agency-wide
strategic plan for serving the Congress or means to hold
individuals accountable for accomplishing its mission-critical
goals. The Architect also operates without written standards or
policies and procedures in critical areas, such as financial
management, information technology management, project
management, and facilities management. The absence of clearly
defined goals and performance measures at the Architect of the
Capitol hampers the Architect's efforts to send clear and
consistent messages throughout the organization about his
priorities and performance expectations.''
These are very basic systemic deficiencies, which have
resulted in unacceptable project schedule slippage, substantial
cost overruns, poor communications, and facilities management
which does not meet the standard of excellence which we expect
for the U.S. Capitol. These problems are manifest in this
year's budget request.
Most notable is the fact that the Architect is requesting
$82 million for the expansion of the West Refrigeration Plant,
double, double what we were told we would need to spend 1 year
ago. Another illustration is the lack of a funding request for
the Library of Congress storage modules at Fort Meade and,
clearly, slippage in this project.
As you know, the GAO will continue its general management
review, which is to be completed by November of this year. We
will be tracking this effort closely and anticipating a
response from you which will hopefully begin to reverse the
problems which have been identified.
At this point, Mr. Hantman, we welcome your opening
statement.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Hantman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your overview. And much of what you said clearly is very fair.
And quite frankly, the GAO report hits on a lot of issues that
we are working together to try to resolve.
I do appreciate the opportunity to meet today to discuss
the fiscal year 2003 budget for the Office of the Architect of
the Capitol and the unprecedented and historic challenges the
agency and the Congress face today and in the near future.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of what the AOC has accomplished
in the last year. And I look forward to significant additional
accomplishments this year and in the years ahead. Our employees
have responded magnificently to developments beyond their
control. And they have successfully adapted to circumstances
that were undreamed of at our last budget hearings.
We have all shed much of our innocence since September 11.
However, our staff's ability to successfully function under
extraordinary circumstances is a credit to them and befits our
agency's proud tradition of service to the United States
Congress.
The budget request for fiscal year 2003 totals $412 million
and 1,958 full-time equivalent employees. This request includes
$222 million for operating expenses and $190 million for
capital improvements. This budget addresses the most critical
requirements for the Capitol Campus, and it builds on our
successes and addresses those areas where we surely do need to
improve.
The past year has been a very busy and productive year for
the AOC. There is a historic amount of work currently on our
plates, as you noted, Mr. Chairman. And much more needs to be
accomplished over the coming years. The events of September and
October 2001 greatly added to this workload. As a result of
these events, the AOC received over $200 million in emergency
funding for 38 new security projects, including enhanced
perimeter security considerations.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Mr. Hantman. Funding was also provided for the Capitol
Visitor Center, as Secretary Thomson testified, and for which I
am very grateful to this committee and for which, quite
frankly, future Congresses and generations of the American
public will be even more grateful. I certainly echo the
comments that Secretary Thomson made in her testimony. And I
look forward to continuing to work together with this committee
as the project progresses.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned something about a mess
being certainly something we have to look forward to over here.
And I would welcome the opportunity to take you and any other
members of the committee who are interested to the World War II
memorial construction site right now. They are using the same
slurry wall construction technique that we will be using on the
visitor center. And you can get a sense of the timing of the
activities that need to occur to have those foundation walls
put in. And whatever your convenience might be, we would
welcome the opportunity to show you that.
So this work, along with my continued emphasis on
modernizing our buildings, updating the infrastructure to meet
contemporary safety and technological standards, necessitated
that we reexamine our budget request and include only those
items that were deemed to be of the highest priority and could
be implemented in the current environment.
LIFE SAFETY
Mr. Chairman, as you know, last year I made the fire and
life safety program the top priority for AOC. And as you
mentioned, we have a good report on that. We placed major
emphasis on the important issue, because we need to reduce our
injury and illness rate. So the recent OSHA statistics, as you
indicated, are 38 percent below the prior year. And our current
records show that that decline is continuing this year, as
well.
I will continue emphasizing this area because the safety
and well-being of AOC employees and of all Capitol employees
and visitors are of the utmost importance. And I thank this
committee for its support and strong guidance in this area.
FINANCIAL SYSTEM
Another area that this committee has demonstrated great
interest and support in over the past several years has been in
financial management systems. I am also pleased to report that
the budget execution, purchasing, accounts payable,
disbursement, and accounts receivable modules went live this
month. The fixed asset module will be coming up and running
this October.
All of this builds on the standard general ledger module
that we implemented in September of 2000 and gives us the
foundation for an FMS system that the Legislative Branch
Financial Managers Council is considering modeling theirs
after. In this budget we are requesting $1.6 million to
continue the process by implementing the contracting module and
an inventory system necessary for efficient operation.
HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE
As important as financial and physical improvement are,
however, there is nothing more important than the investment in
our human infrastructure. We are a service organization. And
without a dedicated and safety-conscious staff little could be
accomplished. I continue to strengthen and modernize our
present workforce by bringing people on board with new skills
and abilities, as well as to build the processes, the
procedures, and the quality standards that you referred to as
necessary to ensure consistent, high-level service to the
Capitol complex.
To this end, we have filled numerous, very critical
positions over the past year by external recruitment and
internal promotion numbering in excess of 400 positions. And we
ask your support for the additional staffing requests we have
submitted this year so that we can effectively help turn around
this agency in the areas where it is weakest.
GAO REPORT
You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the GAO report. Now clearly, I
have not had full time to review it in great detail, as it was
submitted this morning. But I have seen drafts of it. And I
believe, Mr. Chairman, their overview is constructive, and it
is important to my ongoing efforts to improve the services we
render to the Congress. The GAO reports states that the AOC has
demonstrated a commitment to change through the management
improvements it has planned and underway.
It also states that the AOC recognizes that because of the
nature of the challenges and demands it faces, change will not
come quickly or easily.
Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with these statements. And I am
committed, as we work with the GAO over the coming months, to
continue to investigate best practices and implement the
necessary changes to serve the needs of the Congress.
I am committed to the GAO agenda of ``crafting a
comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing AOC's
challenges and setting appropriate priorities,'' even though by
necessity it will have to be phased in over time. Our current
day-to-day activities are very heavy. Our people are running at
full tilt now to keep up with them. And we are working to
implement the changes that will allow us to more effectively
control and produce the type of quality projects that the
Congress deserves.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this year, as we continue to
reorganize and strengthen our staff, the AOC will also be
focusing on strategic and master planning initiatives, project
management, quality of service and employee support, so that
the delivery of projects and communications at all levels are
better accomplished. No question about that. We have room to go
in that in spades.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I ask that my full opening statement be accepted for the
record. And I look forward to responding to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
overview
I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss the
fiscal year 2003 budget for the Office of the Architect of the Capitol
(AOC), as well as discussing the accomplishments of the recent past,
and the unprecedented and historic challenges the agency and the
Congress face today and in the near future.
I am proud of what the AOC has accomplished in the last year, and
look forward to significant additional accomplishments in the years
ahead. Our employees have responded magnificently to developments
beyond their control, and they have successfully adapted to
circumstances that were not only entirely missing from our last budget
hearing discussions, but were undreamed of at that time. We have all
shed much of our innocence since last we met. However, the history of
AOC is a history of flexibility and meeting unexpected and sometimes
rapidly evolving demands. Our workers' ability to successfully function
under extraordinary circumstances is a credit to them, and befits our
agency's proud tradition of service to the United States Congress.
The budget request for fiscal year 2003 totals $412,253,000 and
1,958 full-time equivalents. This request includes $221,966,000 for
operating expenses and $190,287,000 for cyclical maintenance and
important infrastructure and capital improvements. This budget
addresses the most critical requirements for the Capitol Campus--it
builds on our successes and addresses those areas where we need to
improve.
The past year has been a very busy and productive year for the AOC.
There is a historic amount of work currently on our plate and much more
needs to be accomplished over the coming years. The events of September
and October 2001 greatly added to our work load. As a result of these
events AOC received over $200 million in emergency funding for 38
security projects. Funding was also provided for the Capitol Visitor
Center, for which I am grateful to this Committee, and for which future
Congresses and generations of the American public will also be
thankful. This is a project that will greatly enhance the security of
the Capitol and serve our visitors well for generations to come. This
work--along with my continued emphasis on modernizing our buildings and
updating the infrastructure to meet contemporary safety and
technological standards--required us to re-examine our budget request
and include only those items that were deemed to be of the highest
priority and that could be implemented in the current environment. This
has not been an easy task to complete or to communicate to our
customers. We have fallen short on occasion, but this should not
overshadow the significant number of successes that we have delivered
on time and on budget.
I have made the fire safety program the top priority for AOC, and
we have made significant progress on this effort. Last year we placed
emphasis on the very important issue of employee safety to reduce our
injury and illness rate, which was at an unacceptable level. While we
have had much success, I will continue emphasizing this area because
the safety and well being of AOC employees and of all Capitol employees
and visitors are of the utmost importance. The AOC will also continue
to focus on strategic and master planning initiatives, project
management, quality of service and employee support so that
prioritization, delivery of projects and communications are better
accomplished.
As important as physical improvements are, there is nothing more
important than the investments in our human infrastructure. We are a
service organization, and without a dedicated and safety-conscious
staff, little could be accomplished. I continue to support and
strengthen our present workforce by bringing people on board with new
skills and abilities, as well as to build the processes, procedures and
quality standards necessary to ensure consistent service to the Capitol
complex. Adding these new eyes and expertise to our existing dedicated
staff will continue to leverage the abilities of the entire agency. To
this end we have filled numerous very critical positions over the past
year both by external recruitment and internal promotion and
reassignment.
recent accomplishments
As we look to the future, I believe it important to note that over
the past year the AOC has accomplished much, as evidenced by progress
on the following:
The first, and most significant phase of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building renovation project, and renovation in Senators' suites and
Committee spaces, was completed in 14 separate increments on schedule
and to the satisfaction of virtually all involved. The next phase will
complete upgrades and renovations in corridors on the basement and
ground floors, replace electrical equipment, and upgrade numerous
heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems. The remaining work
is scheduled to begin this summer and will take approximately three
years to complete. This work will have very limited adverse impact on
the occupants of the building but, when complete, will markedly improve
the functionality of the building. This project provides what is
essentially a contemporary building interior with an intact exterior at
about one-third the cost of constructing a new building, and with all
work being accomplished in an occupied structure.
The U.S. Botanic Garden Conservatory opened in December and has
continued to have record attendance even with the downturn in tourism
during the past fall and winter. The public response to this facility
has far exceeded our expectations. The ability to control the
greenhouse environments with state-of-the-art technology allows us to
create unique habitats and maintain healthy and diversified plant
collections from around the world. Awards from the Art Deco Society of
Washington, American Society of Horticultural Science, and the
Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects will be
presented shortly. The contiguous privately funded National Garden
project will be complete in approximately two years after receipt of
funds. This new garden with its interpretive learning center and other
special features should add to public interest as well as provide a new
venue for botanical education and Congressional events.
The fully renovated and upgraded Cannon Garage was completed on
schedule and came in under budget in correcting structural problems and
life safety deficiencies.
Preconstruction work for the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) started
last fall and continues. The relocation of water, sewer, steam and
electrical utilities and the relocation of trees is the prelude to the
mobilization of heavy equipment and the major construction work that
will begin in earnest this summer. We have a full time project manager
on board and a senior management team solely dedicated to this project
that is aggressively communicating the status of this project;
addressing parking, traffic and noise issues; and ensuring that we are
looking ahead, and working with, the appropriate staffs on space issues
as well as the art work and educational opportunities that will be
available in the CVC. The CVC team is using a best value, source
selection process, open to all contractors qualifying to meet the
project's construction experience criteria and technical requirements.
The selection process is being conducted in partnership with the
General Services Administration (GSA). The best value process evaluates
proposals with predefined criteria, which mandates much more than
consideration of price alone, and is used by GSA, Department of Defense
(DOD) and others. This process provides a standard to differentiate and
rank competitors by analyzing past performance and technical management
abilities to solve specific CVC needs, thus allowing selection of a
contractor who will give the AOC the best value to construct the CVC.
The Government Accounting Office (GAO) is partnering with us to help
ensure that all prudent steps are taken to minimize the risks inherent
in a project of this magnitude.
We have made significant progress in advancing business and human
capital management within the agency as follows:
--developed and implemented an employee performance management
system;
--developed and implemented an awards program;
--implemented financial management systems improvements with a
standard general ledger, budget execution, purchasing, accounts
payable, disbursement and accounts receivable modules. The new
system will allow us to be compliant with federal accounting
standards;
--developing a performance management system for senior management;
--working to align several of our organizations to better meet our
business needs to be more responsive to our customers
(finalizing organizational options and program functions for a
Chief of Staff and Congressional Relations function, work is
also underway to restructure delivery of architectural,
engineering and construction support services based on
completed best practices studies);
--developing an AOC Strategic Plan that focuses on the mission
critical goals (preservation and maintenance of the grounds and
buildings entrusted to our care, campus security initiatives,
service excellence, strategic management and care of human
capital). We will link measurable goals, management
accountability, and a communications strategy to ensure input,
buy-in, and goal based performance expectations.
Significant progress has been made in filling necessary positions
and reducing the recruit time. Our current payroll projections indicate
we are within one percent of our personal service budget. The top
financial positions have been filled including a new Budget Officer and
a new Accounting Officer, and for the first time a Chief Financial
Officer. Sixteen safety positions have been filled, including the Fire
Protection Division Director, Safety and Environmental Division
Director, three Fire Protection Engineers, one Industrial Hygienist,
nine Safety Specialists and one Fire Inspector. Fourteen of the sixteen
positions are new employees to the AOC. Other new staffs include a
Quality Assurance Analyst, Director of Construction Management, and
Director of Human Resources. By bringing in new staff from outside the
AOC for the majority of these positions we are broadening our
experience base in these critical areas that formerly did not have
dedicated experts devoted solely to them. Times change, and as they
change our processes and priorities must change in accordance with
contemporary expectations and practices.
Congress has been generous with the resources provided in recent
years for fire safety and those resources are providing tangible
results. Fire safety awareness and protection have never been higher in
the Capitol Complex. Improvements have been made in the areas of fire
detection, fire suppression and egress. More smoke detectors have been
installed. More areas are covered by sprinkler protection. More doors
have been equipped with panic hardware. Revolving doors have been
replaced with code compliant hardware. And fire protection system
inspection, testing, and maintenance are at the highest levels ever.
Fire safety awareness has increased as evidenced by the obvious renewed
interest and participation from all occupants of our buildings during
the recent evacuation drills. There are a number of fire projects in
the design stage and there will be significant future budget requests
to construct these improvements.
AOC worker safety has improved measurably. Injury rates have
decreased dramatically--from 17.9 per hundred workers in fiscal year
2000 to 11.02 per hundred workers in fiscal year 2001--a 38 percent
reduction. Statistics indicate that the decline is continuing this
year. The decline is due to the fact that we have made safety a
priority, we have set a high goal, improved measurement of those goals,
implemented new policies and procedures, set up safety committees in
every jurisdiction, hired more safety staff, partnered with outside
experts (Dupont and OSHA), and have instituted unannounced safety
visits. Safety training has increased; more than 16,000 hours of
training were provided in fiscal year 2001. New safety programs have
been prepared with the help of the Public Health Service and
implementation has begun. The quick fixes are being made. Emphasis in
fiscal year 2003 will shift toward reinforcing and sustaining changes
in culture with safety integrated into all facets of work and
throughout all levels of the Agency. The emphasis has shifted from
reactionary--investigating an injury--to proactive--preventing an
injury by investigating near misses and correcting safety problems
before injury can occur. Across all our fire, occupational, and
environmental safety programs, emphasis is on coordinated, consistent
application of standards and self identification and correction of
deficiencies; and this is being reinforced.
It is important to address at this point one area where we've been
less than successful. My staff has been working for some time
coordinating projects and activities for the Library of Congress
facilities. We recently failed to inform them of changes in our budget
request for several new projects they requested. Additionally, a
project for a new storage facility under construction at Fort Meade has
fallen behind schedule. We had design and construction management
issues, and insufficient internal communication on project status.
Clearly this is unacceptable and I'm working with the Library of
Congress to implement a plan to move forward positively and quickly.
This includes tapping into on-site capabilities of the Corps of
Engineers at Fort Meade to assure the necessary day to day project
management and quality control for the future Library of Congress
projects. With the assistance and concurrence from this Committee, I
will amend my fiscal year 2003 budget request to address these issues.
summary of fiscal year 2003 request
Our overall fiscal year 2003 request of $412,253,000 includes
$221,966,000 for ongoing operations and maintenance and $190,287,000
for the capital budget to meet cyclical maintenance and infrastructure
improvements. Excluding the House Office Buildings, the amounts are
$362,329,000 in total comprised of $186,252,000 for operating expenses
and $176,077,000 for capital improvement items.
The operations and maintenance budget request reflects a 17 percent
increase of $32,747,000. Over 50 percent of the increase or $16,605,000
is to fund the accrued retirement and health benefit costs of employees
as proposed by the President. Other significant items include:
$3,239,000 to fund 43 essential positions needed to carry out programs
required throughout the AOC; $7,632,000 for COLAs and other mandatory
pay items including increased transit subsidy and award levels;
$10,325,000 for items related to other workload increases (major items
in this area are for Information Resource Management--$2,781,000,
renewal of warehouse space--$2,400,000, election year moves--$1,250,000
and financial management and audit--$865,000); and $344,000 for price
level increases. For the first time in many years, operating savings of
approximately $5 million have been reflected in the budget. The
majority of these savings are a result of reduced utility and lease
costs.
The capital budget request includes 80 projects identified for
funding in fiscal year 2003. Seven projects, which total $149,800,000,
account for approximately 80 percent of the capital budget request. One
of the most critical and essential projects in the budget, the West
Refrigeration Plant Expansion ($81,800,000), by itself accounts for 43
percent of the capital budget request. The other six projects are; the
Off-Site Delivery/Screening Center for the U.S. Capitol Police
($22,000,000); design to Replace Windows throughout the complex to meet
the General Services Administration level ``D'' standard ($11,400,000);
Repair of the South Capitol Street Steam Line ($11,000,000); Upgrade
Air Conditioning--East Front of the Capitol ($9,600,000); Repair of the
Constitution Avenue Utility Tunnel ($8,500,000); and matching funds for
the new Library of Congress Audio Visual Conservation Center, Culpeper,
VA ($5,500,000).
major capital requests for fiscal year 2003
Major capital requests:
--Our most critical project included in the fiscal year 2003 request
is $81.8 million for the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion.
This project must proceed or there will be a critical shortfall
in chilled water capacity and the Plant will not have the
ability to serve the campus with reliable chilled water. Based
on the April 2000 Capitol Power Plant Utility Master Plan it
was determined that the best approach to provide sufficient
chilled water capacity for the Capitol complex was to expand
the West Refrigeration Plant. The 50 year old equipment in the
East Refrigeration Plant is insufficient, unreliable,
inefficient, and it uses R-12 refrigerant. This refrigerant is
an ozone depleting substance, which was banned from production
in 1995 and will be banned from use in the near future. The new
chillers will meet environmental standards with a new
refrigerant. We currently have the 100 percent design documents
for the West Plant expansion, which were completed in November
2001. In December 2001, the House Office Building Commission
approved proceeding with the project. This project will provide
for three new chillers and space for additional chillers in the
future. Additional chillers will be added as demand requires
and to replace chillers in the existing West plant which are
also nearing their normal life expectancy of 25 years.
Following the model being used for the CVC and other
significant projects, we have a dedicated project manager who
is responsible for overseeing this project and we have selected
a project management firm to assist in running the project day
to day. Their task is to keep the project on schedule and
within budget.
--The South Capitol Street steam lines that supply steam to the
Capitol are unreliable and have been patched and replaced in
various segments. In fact, this winter, funds had to be
reprogrammed to replace a rusted out segment of this line.
Based on a 100 percent design a total of $11 million is
requested to replace this line.
--A total of $8.5 million has been requested to repair the
Constitution Avenue Utility Tunnel based on 100 percent design.
In several sections of the tunnel, the concrete ceiling has
already spalled and fallen and wooden timbers are presently
supporting the ceiling. Life safety concerns regarding the
structural integrity of the tunnel have been identified by the
Office of Compliance in a citation.
--Insufficient air-conditioning in sections of the East Front of the
Capitol has been an ongoing problem. The current systems are
approximately 40 years-old and in general have served their
function well. However, due to age and the ever increasing
demands resulting from the increases in occupancy and equipment
in these areas these units need to be replaced. This project
has been coordinated with the Capitol Visitor Center project
and installation at this time in conjunction with that project
will result in cost savings. Delays will drive costs up.
--In the Hart Senate Office Building, we are asking for $1.6 million
to continue renovations to public restrooms, $1.95 million to
replace electrical bus ducts and switchgear and $1.5 million
for elevator modernization.
--$1.6 million is requested for the next phase of implementation of
our new Financial Management System. We successfully
implemented the initial standard general ledger module in
September 2000 and the budget execution, purchasing, accounts
payable, disbursement and accounts receivable modules went live
in April 2002. This new funding will allow us to implement the
contracting module and an inventory system, both important for
better productivity and accountability.
As in past years, the budget request reflects a listing of 164
projects that will require funds over the next several years--fiscal
years 2004 through 2007. This forecast is for planning purposes only.
Some of these projects are designed or are currently in the design
phase, some are the results of studies that have been performed while
others are only conceptual in nature. The work identified for this four
year period of time totals approximately $1 billion. This indicates
that our additional capital project workload will average around $235
million each year. In life safety projects alone, the budget reflects
$54 million in fiscal year 2004. To better schedule and plan for this
work, I am working with GAO on implementation strategies and continuing
the development of improved master planning activities.
Concerning master planning there are two initiatives that are
currently well under way that deserves mentioning. On June 6 of this
year we expect to receive a significant update to the original 1999
U.S. Capitol Police Master Plan. This update will provide us, in
partnership with the Capitol Police, information that will enable the
team to move forward with a number of projects. In November of this
year we plan to receive the Master Plan for the U.S. Capitol Building,
which is vital to solving a variety of issues, especially code
compliance.
staffing requests
The fiscal year 2003 request includes funding for an additional 43
positions. These positions were deemed to be the most critical of the
116 positions requested by our managers. Five of the positions are
related to fire and life safety. Fourteen positions support facilities
management including five planners and estimators who will develop and
oversee the scope of construction projects, five additional positions
in the Engineering Division, two Computer Aided Facilities Management
(CAFM) managers, an Assistant Director for our Architecture Division
and a technician for our Facility Management Division. Eight labor
positions are requested for the Senate Office Buildings to support
customer services needs and to provide assistance in other areas. Eight
positions have been requested to support organization and workforce
management, and our legal and human resources staffs. Four positions
are for the campus energy savings program required by Section 310 of
the 1999 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. Four positions are
requested to support and re-staff the newly opened U.S. Botanic Garden
Conservatory.
restructuring
The AOC faces many challenges and demands on its time and
resources. Some of these challenges have been longstanding and are
significant in nature. The current work load is surely an issue. We
recognize the Congressional Accountability Act has changed not only our
facilities requirements but also how our staff works and how we support
employee efforts and needs.
To improve our service delivery, we are evaluating how we currently
do business and how we are structured. I've initiated a strategic
planning process, held management off-sites, established new employee
orientation sessions and provided informational notebooks, set up
modern personnel policies, kicked off a stronger awards program, and
created a project management information system as part of this
improvement. Although we have made much progress, we still have further
to go. We are exploring additional options for improvement including
investigating other mechanisms for better controlling and implementing
projects. In fact, we have recently signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Navy to utilize services they can provide. We
are exploring various options for the reconfiguration of management. As
you are aware, the GAO has been reviewing our organization and we
welcome their input into this process and view them as a partner in
implementing changes that will make the AOC a model federal agency. The
AOC is full of talented, hardworking employees who support our vision
of being ``an innovative and efficient team dedicated to service
excellence and to preserving, maintaining, and enhancing the national
treasures entrusted to our care.''
conclusion
Once again, I am proud of how our employees responded to the events
of this past September and October and our accomplishments during the
past year in so many critical areas. We continue to make progress in
reducing the unprecedented work load and backlog of maintenance, safety
and security improvements that are required to maintain our facilities
and bring them up to current operational and safety standards. We look
forward to working with you as we successfully face those challenges
and continue to provide strong support to the Congress and build an
even stronger and more responsive AOC.
I thank you for your support and welcome whatever questions or
comments you might have.
GAO MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Hantman.
Let us go to the GAO review first. In their work for this
committee, to date GAO has found some major deficiencies in the
management and organization of your office. I would like to ask
you to respond to several of their observations.
First, do you believe a management overhaul of the
Architect of the Capitol's office is warranted?
Mr. Hantman. I certainly do see that we need an overhaul of
our office for organizational change as well. We have been
actively studying a number of organizational alternatives. And
we have as a goal improving customer service, project
management, managerial span of control, staff accountability,
all of the issues that GAO is talking about.
This effort, in conjunction with a significant number of
management changes that have occurred the past year, are going
to help us further tune our overall organization. While we are
working on this, clearly we are working with GAO to continue to
cooperate with them, as they build on the preliminary findings
they have submitted today. Their report is due in November. And
we are working with them during that time frame.
And we look forward to incorporating the recommendations
that they have into a full-blown comprehensive organization
that makes sense from their perspective, as well as from our
perspective.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Hantman, this is a blunt question, but
I have to ask it. You have been the Architect of the Capitol
for 5 years. Why at this point in time would you be doing
something that most people would assume would be the first
thing that you would have achieved, to try to put a management
plan in place as you started in the office?
MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, clearly we are not where we want
to be. When I came into this office, it had been called the
last plantation. There were no management techniques. There
were no types of procedures that would really allow people to
plan and move forward. We have made very significant progress
in the interim.
The GAO indicates that the AOC has demonstrated a
commitment to change through the management improvements it has
planned and underway. We have established routine management
meetings to help improve communication, established and
implemented basic processes and procedures in human capital.
And our reality, Mr. Chairman, is--as an analogy, this is a
bus that is moving along the highway at 65 miles an hour. And
we are changing all the tires while we are responding to very
heavy day-to-day issues.
In terms of excuse, there is no excuse for not having this
done at this point in time. Our reality is, it is a very
complex job. There are issues that we are continuing to learn
about. And new responsibilities are being placed upon us, as
you noted earlier.
We certainly welcome the overview and the input and
expertise of the General Accounting Office in taking a look at
what we have done, what we are looking at doing right now, and
getting a better sense and overview in terms of where we need
to go from here.
MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Senator Durbin. When will you have in place, as other
Federal agencies do, performance standards to which you hold
senior managers accountable?
Mr. Hantman. We have developed performance standards for
all of our basic standard employees. These are in place, and
they include 6-month reviews. For our specific senior staff, we
will have this in place by mid-summer, so that we can actually
have evaluations at that point in time.
Senator Durbin. And what are the ramifications for senior
managers who currently fail to meet those expectations?
Mr. Hantman. The basic program we have corporate-wide
basically, as I started saying before, talks about a mid-year
review to discuss employees' level of performance, improve the
communications, provide the guidance to improve performance and
to avoid misunderstandings at the end of the review period.
Our exempt personnel in the senior positions are staffed at
the pleasure of the Architect. And as such, the Architect,
myself, will have to decide appropriate actions regarding each
individual senior manager's performance and employment.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Senator Durbin. You say your highest priority management
challenge is project management. It is my understanding that
there are some 200 projects underway in your office. What
specifically are you going to do to improve project management?
Mr. Hantman. Mike, could you respond to that?
Mr. Turnbull. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, we had hired an outside consultant to work
with us on project management and develop a matrix formation
for better handling of the workload. We are also continuing to
look at following best practice approach models that we have
set up in the CVC and other projects, in which we would have
separate teams dedicated to those projects.
And following on that basic model, we will continue to
implement other--on major projects teams to handle those major
efforts.
Senator Durbin. Did I understand you to say that there
would be outside advisors or consultants as part of this?
Mr. Turnbull. Yes. Absolutely.
Senator Durbin. And teams for each project?
Mr. Turnbull. For major, major projects, such as the CVC.
Senator Durbin. CVC was obvious.
Mr. Turnbull. Yes. Right.
PAY FLEXIBILITY
Senator Durbin. And that was, I think, is one that was
certainly warranted.
Last year one of your highest priorities was legislation
providing flexibility for salary adjustments for senior
management. We were reluctant to provide that authority prior
to a management overhaul but did, in the end, agree to it. What
has been accomplished as a result of this pay flexibility that
you were provided?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, I do thank you for having
provided that flexibility to us last year. It is very important
to us.
With this tool, we have been able to hire, as you mentioned
earlier, a new CFO at the SES level. We had been looking for a
CFO for the past several years and had only been able to
advertise it at a budget/CFO level, which did not compete
effectively with any of the Federal agencies that were out
there in terms of remuneration at the SES level that we could
do.
So we went out there. We were competitive. And we hired a
person who is helping turn around our entire financial picture.
We are also currently interviewing quality candidates for
key security and major project management positions under this
flexibility. Candidates, I do not believe, would have applied
for these positions or been attracted at all before this
flexibility.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, as the GAO has indicated
before, there is a crisis in retention of good Government
employees. With this tool, we are going to be able to adjust
pay, so appropriately managers can have an actual gap between
them and the people who report to them, which was really
narrowing to virtually nothing before.
So our issue of retention of key people, not only
attracting key people, is really contingent upon this pay
flexibility. And I do thank you for that.
LONG TERM CAPITAL PLAN
Senator Durbin. Let me read to you, Mr. Hantman, a section
of the committee report language from last year's
appropriation.
``In addition, the Architect does not have a long-term
capital plan, despite its reference to its capital budget as a
5-year plan. In reality, the projects and associated funding
change dramatically from year to year, leaving the Congress
without a clear vision of its long-range capital requirements
and priorities.'' And I quote, ``The Architect is directed to
contract within 30 days of enactment of this act for necessary
expertise to develop a 5-year master plan for the Capitol
complex.''
Did you do that?
Mr. Hantman. No, Mr. Chairman, we did not. And admittedly,
we are very late on that process. Recognizing the fact that we
did not have the in-house necessary expertise, such as a
facilities planner on board, we went about to try to form that
group. We advertised for the position.
And due to the events of 9/11 and October with our HR
process being shut down, we have been very--it has taken awhile
to bring our new--the head of that department on board. That
did not happen until February of this year.
We now have a director of planning and programming on
board. She was the former director of the Connecticut State
University system. And it is her mission within the next month
now to complete that directive.
Senator Durbin. The language asks you to contract this
responsibility. Did you do that, or will you do that?
Mr. Hantman. Yes, we will. Yes, we will, Mr. Chairman. The
issue is, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated before, we just got
several hundred million dollars more in additional work. We do
not have--we did not have until Alex Roe was brought on, the
capability to run a project like that. So the concept was to go
out and find somebody who could run the project, hire the
consultants, and make it happen.
Originally, it was anticipated that Ms. Roe would be on
board in September. We were basically shut down. There were
issues in hiring. And it was our fault for not notifying this
committee that, in fact, we would not be able to meet the 30-
day time frame. But the issue is, as soon as she came on
board--and again, the issues of September 11 and the problem of
hiring and bringing people to Capitol Hill in this atmosphere
have complicated our lives.
In terms of that, it is not an excuse. She has been on
board since February. And she has been actively working to
develop a baseline of a program to bring on a consultant and
begin to formulate the overall program for a grand master plan.
Senator Durbin. You and your office are entitled to some
flexibility and leeway because of these unforeseen events of
September and October; and I certainly understand that. But I
wish the communication had been better.
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
Senator Durbin. And secondly, again, I have to say, we are
asking you for the preparation of a 5-year plan so that we do
not lurch from year to year with ideas being replaced by new
ideas, without any kind of an idea of the overarching scheme or
plan or what is on the horizon.
It goes back to the GAO report. It is a matter of stepping
back from the immediacy of your office and taking a long-term
view of management, and in this case taking a long-term view of
the capital needs that we face here on Capitol Hill.
I am brand new to this committee. And I faced on the
appropriation bill some suggestions that came from the House
side and from other sources which were extremely expensive--and
we will get to some of them in a minute here--which might have
been dismissed on their face if we had an idea of what the
long-term plan was for Capitol Hill. But because there was not
one, you know, we have a lot of people now who are involved in
a ``free skate'' here. They feel they can just come up with any
idea and throw it at us and ask for millions of dollars to have
it funded.
We need some guidance. I hope this new person who arrived
in February will take to heart language calling on your office
to deal with this within 30 days of enactment.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, we have people, and we are
hiring two people to support her. And we want to have full
attention. The last master plan was done back in 1980. We want
to take a look at that, reverify that, make changes as
appropriate, and build on that, so we can actually look at
appropriation type of needs going forward in real time.
Senator Durbin. I would like to at this point to yield to
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Hantman----
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Senator.
INDOOR AIR QUALITY
Senator Reed [continuing]. And your colleagues for your
testimony today. Just very quickly, there has been some concern
about the air quality within the Senate office buildings, and
some testing has been underway. Do you have any results that
can be released today or any comments?
Mr. Hantman. We certainly can get back to you with more
detail for the record. We have been actively involved in
looking at the air quality, the outside air intake, the cycling
of the air in different intermittent seasons. And we will get
back to you, if that is all right, for the record to give you a
report on a building-by-building basis.
WASTE RECYCLING
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Hantman.
There is another issue that comes up perennially, and that
is the recycling program.
Mr. Hantman. Yes.
Senator Reed. How it could be more effective? Frankly, we
should be the model in the nation for effective, efficient,
comprehensive recycling, and I suspect we can work a little
harder to be that model. Can you comment?
Mr. Hantman. You are absolutely correct, Senator. Our
recycling performance improved only slightly in 2001 over
fiscal year 2000. We collected 740 tons instead of 693 tons.
That was a 6.8 percent increase. But we can certainly do better
than that. We also cut down on the amount of contaminated
recyclables, down to 457 versus 522 tons.
Due to the recent 9/11 and anthrax closures, we
essentially--our recycling program works out of the Hart truck
dock. And we were shut down for a period of months on that. So
we lost several months in that process. But we did install in
July the first cardboard bailer in the Senate office building.
And we have recycled something like 36 tons, exceeding the
amount that was recycled in all of 2000, by--it was only some 3
tons back then. And we expect perhaps 100 tons of recycling. So
that is a brand new initiative that we are taking right now.
And we have made minor progress. But the overall
improvement has certainly not been as great as we expected and
we wanted. The contaminated material is still too high. And
with the help of our new AOC personnel that have been brought
on this--and we have a new manager for that program, and also
our consultant, Solid Waste Solutions--we now understand the
root causes of the shortcomings of the Senate office recycling
program. And we have proposed changes in line with that
consultant's recommendation to the Senate Committee on Rules
and Administration.
And we are in the process of obtaining the committee's
approval, and we look forward to making major changes in the
program in the coming months. To succeed, the existing
recycling program needs further improvement. And it needs to
have an emphasis on simplification, on education, on training,
and improved participation by people. So we are actually
working very closely on that right now.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Hantman.
One final issue--the Capitol Visitor Center. It is one of
the most ambitious programs that has been underway here for
many, many years. At this juncture, there is the physical
infrastructure that you are preparing and also the supportive
services, educational, as well as basic accommodations for
tourists visiting the Capitol.
My presumption is that the team is in place, that the
project manager is in place, and that you are moving forward
optimistically and confidently. Is that correct?
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely, Senator. We have got a belt and
suspenders trip on this one. Because of the heavy workload we
have internally, what we have done is we have hired, and we
have on staff, a team of dedicated people who are being charged
to the project. Our project managers and all are full time on
that project for its duration. And they have no other
responsibilities.
We have also, Senator, gone out and we have, with the help
of the General Services Administration, had a nationwide
solicitation for a construction manager to work day to day, a
private sector construction manager. And we have one of the
best in the country working with us, Gilbane Construction, who
have a team. And we can certainly bring you to their trailers
on the Senate side of the Capitol right now.
They are fully staffed. They are moving ahead. They, in
fact, are some of the same people who are working on the World
War II memorial and can explain to you what that process is all
about in terms of the slurry wall construction, as I discussed
earlier.
So we are fully staffed on the Gilbane side, on our
internal side. And we are moving ahead with a project that is
very exciting, but it is a difficult project.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Hantman.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kindness.
CAPITAL PROJECTS
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Mr. Hantman, the Architect's Office currently has over 200
major projects underway, including the Capitol Visitor Center,
which is very visible and very challenging, and 60 security-
related projects. What percent are behind schedule or over
budget by 10 percent or more?
Mr. Hantman. It is a question of how you cut them down.
What we would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is take a look at those
projects, categorize them, because some of the projects that
may be considered behind schedule would be listed as a Senate
recarpeting program, where we are waiting for a member of that
staff to make a decision on a carpet color. So it is behind
schedule, perhaps, because of something like that. And I do not
think that is the kind of information you would like.
What I would like to do is go back to that full listing of
projects, break it down by the categories of these smaller
things, for the major projects that really make sense, and be
able to report to you more intelligently.
Senator Durbin. I am going to put carpeting in a separate
category. Let us talk about the projects that are substantial,
and if you could give us a report on those in terms of the
current progress that you are making----
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. And whether there is any
anticipated increase in cost beyond what you suggested to us
earlier.
Can you assure us that you will be able to implement on
time, and within budget, the additional capital budgets you are
requesting in this year's appropriation, including seven major
projects totaling about $150 million?
Mr. Hantman. Of those seven major projects, two of them
essentially have been moved from what was the emergency
supplemental that was requested. There were several hundred
million dollars again appropriated for that purpose actually
through the emergency supplemental.
And two of the projects in that budget were deleted because
of the necessity to pay for the anthrax remediation. This was
the offsite delivery program of $22 million and the window
examination program of $11 million.
Mr. Chairman, those are place markers. There has been no
design done, no site selected. We are waiting for a master plan
to be agreed to by the Capitol Police Board so that we can
really look at the hard numbers. When that emergency
supplemental budget was prepared, it was done within a matter
of a couple of weeks, taking a look at all potential areas of
security enhancement that we needed. And information was coming
from the Senate Sergeant at Arms, from the House Sergeant at
Arms, from the Capitol Police, and from all the consultants
that we had.
So those numbers for those particular projects are
basically place markers, Mr. Chairman, which we need to--which
were brought into this budget because it was bounced out for
the other supplemental. So in terms of the----
Senator Durbin. One hundred fifty million dollars worth of
place markers?
Mr. Hantman. No. That was those two projects.
Senator Durbin. Those two projects.
Mr. Hantman. The third project in there is for the
Culpepper program for the Library of Congress. That was $5.5
million, I believe. And Congress has committed to some $16
million to supplement the donation of the Packard Foundation on
that project. And they are putting some $100 million into the
project. So that is just an ongoing accumulation of dollars for
that.
So that is real, and it just goes in the pot to the point
where we can transfer the money to Packard when they have
turned the facility over to the Congress.
CAPITOL POWER PLANT
Senator Durbin. Now how were the seven major capital
projects selected, the largest being the $81.8 million for the
Capitol Power Plant? What were the criteria for including
projects? Are they all needed in the next fiscal year? Can we
be confident of the cost estimates? How did you prioritize
these projects?
Mr. Hantman. The largest one, of course, Mr. Chairman, as
you mentioned, is the Capitol Power Plant, West Refrigeration
Plant Expansion. We are in a critical situation now in terms of
chilled water capacity. The East Plant, the existing East
Plant, is 50 years old at this point in time. We also are using
R-12 refrigerant in it.
Half of the machines in the East Plant are no longer
functioning. We have been pirating parts from one that is no
longer functioning to keep the others in place. Also, as you
may be aware, in 1995 the use of R-12 refrigerant was outlawed.
It is no longer being produced. And in just a short period of
time, we will no longer be able to operate those facilities at
all.
Plus, the need for chilled water is growing at the Capitol.
And in terms of real time, we need to get this facility open
and running by the year 2005. So the $81 million that we talked
about is truly a necessary project.
Now in your introductory remarks, you talked about the
issue of going from $40 million to $80 million. Part of the
issue over here is, at the time that the $40 million marker was
put in place, there was no design. It was based on a per unit
industry type of average cost for chiller units. It did not
take into account the individual site-located needs.
Originally, those chiller units were planned to be put as
replacements in the east chiller plant itself. Further
investigation found out that the foundations could not take it.
The size of the chillers required could not fit into it. Those
kind of design issues had not been factored in at the
essentially placeholder level of $40 million.
Also, there is a legacy plan in the District of Columbia,
which is concerned with the aesthetics and how the community
interfaces and how South Capitol Street looks. So there were
additional dollars that were put into that project to clean up
the plant, to reface the existing west chiller plant and the
new chiller plant to make it look more in scale with the
community and more friendly to visitors who are coming up from
South Capitol Street.
So all of these issues, in fact even the relocation of a
major sewer line which is under that site, had not been done
and known, because there was--again, no design at that level
had been completed at that point in time. And that is a
fundamental problem whenever you do place markers or try to
plan for future years. Unless you do serious design, it is
really impossible to get a real number.
So what we are doing right now in terms of that $81 million
is, we had hired a specialist in refrigeration plants. They had
done the estimate. We have a second estimate, which is due in
by the end of next week, to confirm the validity of the
estimate. And basically, we are learning from the Capitol
Visitor Center because on that project we had two estimates
made, and we tried to reconcile the differences between the two
to make sure that we were, in fact, covered and that the budget
would adequately be used.
WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT ESTIMATE
Senator Durbin. I guess what I find stunning here, Mr.
Hantman, is that in the period of 1 year you have doubled your
estimate of the cost of this project. That is something which
is really hard for me to understand. I think even with your
explanation as we go through the items, the summary of the cost
changes in this plant, it is hard to imagine that the people
who came up with the $40 million figure ignored some of these
obvious things.
Now so-called site improvements account for $15.6 million.
Now I do not know if this is for the aesthetic value that you
talked about so that the District of Columbia thinks that the
power plant looks more pleasing in its Capitol Hill
environment. I do not know if that is what is driving this. But
it is just hard for me to sit here and understand how the
Architect of the Capitol could miss it by $40 million and, in
the course of 1 year, doubling the cost of this project.
Mr. Hantman. Again, it was without significant design work
at that point in time. You are perfectly right. We did not
anticipate moving from the East Plant to the West Plant,
changing the location. The nature of the industry and the type
of costs that we have for equipment out there, the cost of the
equipment in this budget alone is some $30 million.
Senator Durbin. I guess it really calls into question a lot
of other estimates that you are giving us. I mean, you are
asking us for substantial investments of millions of dollars. I
have some skepticism, based on this experience, as to whether
any of these figures can be trusted.
Mr. Hantman. Which is exactly why, Mr. Chairman, we are
going out for the second estimate to confirm the first one. We
have stopped doing internal estimates for these projects, and
we are going out to professional estimators to look at them.
And this is--the numbers will vary based on the construction
market, the availability of staff. It is a very fluid
situation. And that is why, essentially, they are called
estimates.
But no question about that, the concept of doubling an
estimate in that period of time is difficult to explain.
Senator Durbin. The estimates may be fluid, but the tax
dollars involved are very real and solid.
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
CAPITOL POLICE
Senator Durbin. Before we can make commitments to your
office for substantial investments here on Capitol Hill, which
many are very necessary, I think we have to improve the level
of confidence here in your operation.
Let me tell you another problem that I have run into, and
it relates to the Capitol Police. As I said earlier, like many
people in your office, the Capitol Police have just done heroic
work here and are unheralded for what they have been through
since September 11. But I am really at a loss to explain to
anyone what the ultimate plan is for the Capitol Police when it
comes to, not the force itself, but how we are going to
accommodate their needs for office space and command centers.
It got so bad that during the course of deliberation with
the House, people were clearly doing a windshield tour of
Capitol Hill looking for empty buildings on the House side.
They came up with one and said, ``For a mere $40 million to $70
million, we can give you an empty storage building over on the
House side of the Capitol. And then for another $50 million to
$70 million, we are going to bring it up to what you might
need.''
And it was rolling forward. It looked to me like this was
really going to happen. Finally I said, ``No way, this
conference committee will never report. We are just not going
to be buying real estate in that manner. It is totally
irresponsible.''
That suggestion is still out there, and very much alive.
Now comes your request for $22 million for an off-site delivery
center for the Capitol Police. I still do not know if we have a
master plan that really talks about what the Capitol Police
truly need and how they are going to be organized on Capitol
Hill. How can we send you $22 million, or seriously consider a
House suggestion of spending $50 million to $100 million on
building on the House side, without some notion about a master
plan for the Capitol Police and their structure and
organization?
Mr. Hantman. I fully agree with you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. But you asked for $22 million.
Mr. Hantman. Again, that is something that was in the
original recommendation through everybody involved in the
emergency supplemental. It is a place marker. It is essentially
not dropping that project.
We had a meeting the week before Friday with a master plan
design team, meeting with the Capitol Police Board and the
Capitol Police to do just what you are talking about, to take a
look at the options, to look at all the components and the
pieces of the puzzle to see if, in fact, we should be reusing
the existing police headquarters and creating a similar one on
the House side, how the police should be best arrayed to serve
their multiple functions up here on the Hill.
A decision, Mr. Chairman, has not been made on that yet.
The report should be submitted, I believe, next month to the
Capitol Police, to the Capitol Police Board, so they can take a
look at the options and make a decision and bring those
recommendations forward to the Senate and the House.
PLACE MARKERS
Senator Durbin. Mr. Hantman, we are going to need a special
item under your budget for place markers and puzzle pieces. I
am not going to sit here, as chairman of this subcommittee, and
give you $22 million with the possibility that it may fit into
some master plan. That just does not work. I think I would be
remiss in my responsibility, if I did that.
I am going to ask you to take another look at this budget,
the appropriation request that you have submitted. I want you
to send me a list of the so-called place markers, which are
just theories that ``We may be spending money in the next
fiscal year.'' I am not buying into it.
Mr. Hantman. I understand.
Senator Durbin. There needs to be a master plan. If it
makes sense, that is fine. But to have windshield tours of
Capitol Hill and people identifying buildings, ``Here is an old
one. Let us see what this one costs. You know, let us put $50
million to $100 million in this one. Oh, let us put $22 million
in here for an off-site delivery, even though we do not have
any master plan for the Capitol Police''--that is not fair to
the Capitol Police. It is not fair to the taxpayers. I do not
think it meets the responsibilities that you have been asked to
assume here.
I am going to ask you to be very specific with me on what
you consider to be ``place markers.''
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely. As far as the other major projects
are concerned, Mr. Chairman, the steam tunnel updates on South
Capitol and on Constitution, those are real numbers with 100
percent design estimates. And we are hoping those move ahead.
Senator Durbin. Okay.
EAST FRONT
Mr. Hantman. The last major project is the East Front of
the Capitol, which is proposed to be done in concurrence with
the Capitol Visitor Center so we do not come back after that
building is done and rip up the building again. It is the best
way to do it, the most cost effective. We are coming up with a
second estimate to confirm the first estimate. We should have
that in a matter of weeks. And we will share that with you and
confirm that estimate.
NEW POSITIONS REQUEST
Senator Durbin. You are requesting funding for 1,958 full-
time equivalent employees, an increase of 43 positions at a
cost of $3.2 million. What has changed in your operations that
will require this increase?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, so much is changing. We are
trying to bring this organization into the 21st century. As you
indicated, as the GAO report indicates, there are abilities,
professional capabilities that do not exist in this agency
right now that we need to have filled, so that we can in fact
perform the type of functions that are necessary.
Based on some of the GAO comments and the recognized needs,
we are emphasizing better organizational planning, project
management within the AOC, et cetera. In fact, four of the
positions we are requesting are for organization and workforce
management, people who are management analysts, organizational
development specialists, so that we can actually look at every
aspect of our agency and say, ``Is it staffed appropriately? Is
it not staffed appropriately?'' We do not have the expertise
in-house right now to do that. So----
Senator Durbin. Let me interrupt you for a second.
Mr. Hantman. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. You have requested the additional employees
before you have developed a plan. Does that not sound
backwards? Would you not want the plan first and then determine
the personnel needs from that plan?
Mr. Hantman. When we are talking about individual
particular areas, such as fire and life safety, facilities
management, we recognize that there are specific needs that we
have for those. Whether or not we have enough people now or if
this will give us enough people totally is hopefully what these
management analysts will be able to do for us.
We are just not able to stand still and not react to actual
needs. For instance, there is energy management, legislation
that we need to conform to. And we need to hire some people to
be able to monitor energy management throughout the campus.
There is human resources management people that we are asking
for. And we just got legislation on Federal benefits to almost
400 additional new employees, and we need people to be able to
service those 400 additional employees.
So the reality is, the people that we have requested really
have been culled down from a request of some 128 people that
had been requested campus-wide. So we met together with all of
our senior management. We looked at it. We culled it down and
came down to a list of the things that we believe we can
justify now that are needed to carry our mission forward and to
be more responsive to the needs of the Congress.
The big picture, in terms of the agency as a totality, is
what in effect the workforce management people will be
addressing in a professional and orderly manner.
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Senator Durbin. I still think you have it backwards. As I
look at the list for 43 additional employees. Those related to
fire and life safety you need. And I think you can have perhaps
a dozen of them. But you have also requested gardeners,
mechanics, attorneys, planners and estimators, clerk typists,
laborers. I just think you have it backwards. I suggest you
start with a plan, the capital plan that we asked you for last
year, a plan for your office consistent with the GAO. Then you
come in and tell us what your personnel needs are.
I do not think it makes sense for us to be sending you
place marker money for projects that may never happen or 43 new
FTEs, when you clearly have not defined your management goals
in your office. I think you are coming at this backwards.
Let me ask you about the laborers in the Senate. Let us
just get down to something basic. Do you have anyone who looks,
for example, at the laborers in the Senate, compares their
productivity to any standard either inside or outside of
Government?
Mr. Hantman. The workload for the laborers in the Senate
has gone up. In terms of comparing it to outside functions, I
am not sure that there is the function of a laborer that really
is totally comparable on the outside. What we are looking at--
--
OFFICE CLEANING
Senator Durbin. Well, let us talk about something basic.
Mr. Hantman. Yes.
Senator Durbin. Cleaning an office.
Mr. Hantman. Right.
Senator Durbin. I believe that most people who clean
offices here are employees of your office, the Architect's
Office.
Mr. Hantman. Correct.
Senator Durbin. Interestingly enough, in Chicago they
apparently have contracted that out. There is a group that is
doing that kind of work. Do you take a look at their
productivity here in the Senate compared with either
contractors who serve other Government offices or people in the
private sector?
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely. In fact, we did a full report,
which we can certainly share with you--I am not sure if the
staff has it yet--which looked at the productivity in the
private sector, in commercial office buildings, and other
governmental office buildings, what the General Services
Administration is doing.
And we came up with a cleanable area of some 15,900 square
foot per person, based on the fact of there are a significant
numbers of private bathrooms, carpeting, things of this nature.
All of those elements were factored into the report. And we, in
fact, reorganized the number of custodial workers at the Senate
and in the House based on the cleanable square feet that we
thought was a fair organizational agreement.
And we talked to the Building Owners and Managers
Association and got their statistics. And at that point in
time, we transferred 20 people from the House over to the
Senate to help fulfill the need for those specific work areas.
So each work area has been defined. It is fair per
individual. And it takes all of those issues into account.
Senator Durbin. And do you have oversight management, for
example, in the common and public areas that the visitors to
the Capitol are going to see, to make certain that things are
done on a regular basis? If you walk into any major restaurant
in the city of Chicago or most of them in Washington, you will
see a checklist where every 1 or 2 hours somebody comes in and
takes a look around to make sure that things are as they should
be. Do you do that?
Mr. Hantman. We are doing that with a private contractor.
We are about to let a contract for day cleaning, which had not
happened before on a large scale. So that contract is about to
be let for people to come in and continue the work. We had
started that in the Dirksen Building on a preliminary basis
with an outside contractor. And it is beginning to work out
very well.
Senator Durbin. And yet you still need more FTEs, as you
are contracting out that responsibility?
Mr. Hantman. These laborers' functions are talking about
special events and other needs that specifically the laborers
relate to. For instance, there were some 6,000 work orders in
the year 2000 that the laborers responded to. In 2001, there
were 6,900 specific work orders that they responded to. And we
are proceeding at about pretty much that same rate today.
So it is a question of being able to satisfy the needs and
the time frames of our clientele. The concept there is to be
able to eliminate some of that overtime, to turn it around more
quickly, to react to the increased workload that the laborers
are having.
BOTANIC GARDEN
Senator Durbin. Let us talk about the Botanic Garden for a
minute. I had a chance to visit it. It is beautiful. It took a
little longer to complete than we had anticipated. Can you tell
me if it came in on budget?
Mr. Hantman. We are currently working with the contractor
right now, the general contractor, negotiating the change
orders that are still outstanding. We are making progress on
that. The total appropriated funds of $35.5 million is still
intact. We are still working off and paying off change orders
that the contractor can verify and give us the type of
documentation that makes sense for us to say, ``Yes, this is a
legitimate change order.''
Senator Durbin. Of the $35 million cost of the project, how
much is in dispute at this point?
Mr. Hantman. There is a series of change orders. I will
have to get back to you with a number on that, Mr. Chairman. I
am not----
Senator Durbin. Is it over $1 million?
Mr. Hantman. I would think so, yes.
Senator Durbin. But you do not know the exact figure. So I
am not going to put you on the spot here. But I would like you
to get back to me in terms of what the cost overruns, or at
least the disputed areas, are at this point.
Mr. Turnbull. Mr. Chairman, there has been no official
claim filed by the contractor. There are separate change
orders. And we are going through with him on a case-by-case
basis reviewing his view of it and our view of it. And that is
an ongoing process.
WORKER SAFETY
Senator Durbin. Let me talk to you for a moment about
worker safety, which is an issue I raised last year. As a
result of our hearing last year, I called the Secretary of the
Treasury, Paul O'Neill, who had had quite a successful
experience in the private sector in reducing worker injuries.
And I just said to him, point blank, ``Where should I turn
to bring someone in who can take a look at the Architect of the
Capitol's Office?''
And he said, ``I would suggest Dupont. I think they have a
great approach to this. And they can take a fresh look at this
and take what is the highest incidence of worker injuries in
the Federal Government and perhaps suggest ways to reduce
that.''
Now there has been a reduction of some 38 percent over last
year. It is still an extraordinarily high rate of injury in the
Architect of the Capitol's Office. Can you tell me what
progress has been made in working with Dupont in assessing
worker safety in the Architect's Office?
Mr. Hantman. Yes, Mr. Chairman. They have completed a
safety baseline assessment that benchmarked our Agency's safety
management structure against Dupont's proven best safety, best
practices. Their draft report indicates the emphasis is
required in the areas of establishing and communicating the
safety program direction, clarifying program roles and
responsibilities across the agency.
We have scheduled for April 30 of this month one of the
workshops--one of the two workshops that Dupont is going to be
promoting with us. All our AOC safety professionals will be at
that meeting. And the second meeting is for all AOC senior
management, so that we can develop action plans for further
improvements in our program as a result of this assessment.
WORKPLACE INJURIES
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you, you testified last year
that your goal was to reduce injuries on the job by 10 percent
a year. Is that still your goal?
Mr. Hantman. That was my goal last year. And clearly, we
exceeded it. Our challenge for next year is to reduce it.
Ultimately our goal is to reduce it to zero for any avoidable
injuries or illnesses. That is what we would like to have. In
terms of implementing the program and moving it down, our goal
certainly is at least to do 10 percent more next year. And that
is where we are going.
Senator Durbin. I think what you will find, and what I have
read, is that most people who come into this do not start with
the idea of a 10 percent reduction, but start with a zero goal
and how quickly it can be achieved. Can you tell me, what is
the most frequently occurring type of injury for workers in
your office?
Mr. Hantman. It is basically backaches, back injuries. And
what we have tried to do is try to minimize back injuries. We
have gone out and instead of trying to be reactive, we try to
be proactive, to try to take a look at the type of injuries
that do occur and how we can train people to avoid that.
I think the back injuries have been very significant in
both the custodial area, and that has gone down something like
38 percent this year in terms of those back injuries for that
particular group.
The major injuries to the electricians have gone down 50
percent. We are going in there and trying to come up with
methodologies that avoid the necessity to lift; for instance,
new equipment that will do the lifting instead of people doing
the lifting. We are telling people not to do things alone that
you cannot rationally do alone.
So we are embarking on a very aggressive method of trying
to take a look at where the injuries occurred, how they
occurred, and how do we prevent them from happening in the
first place, rather than just counting beans.
Senator Durbin. As I look at the injury and illness report
that you submitted from the Architect's Office, it appears that
the custodians and laborers are most frequently injured. Is
that correct?
Mr. Hantman. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. Okay. It also appears from your comments
here that a lot of it has to do with basic slip and fall,
exposure to chemicals, for example, that may be hazardous.
These sorts of things, I would assume, could be analyzed and
dealt with, sort of low-hanging fruit in terms of reducing
injuries and illnesses. What are you doing to make that happen?
Mr. Hantman. That is exactly what we have been doing, Mr.
Chairman. And that is why the injury rate has come down. Some
of this has been low-hanging fruit. And what we need to do is
put the processes and procedures in place.
And it is really a shift in attitude on the part of our
employees. Some employees are used to not working with a
construction helmet when they should, or steel-toed shoes or
gloves. And our Director of Safety Programs and I make
unannounced walk-arounds.
We go to shops. We go to work sites to make sure that
people are, in fact, wearing their protective gear and that
they understand that, ``Yes, you are your brother's keeper. If
somebody is not working with it, it is up to you to tell them
to work with it,'' and make sure that the supervisors
understand that part of their evaluation is that they are
responsible for the safety and security of those people who are
reporting to them, and they will be evaluated on that.
And they are also responsible for making sure that the
appropriate reports are filled out, so that people report them,
when they need to be reported, that we understand it, that we
can follow through on it and make sure that we can cut down as
close to zero. And clearly, that is certainly our goal.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER EXCAVATION
Senator Durbin. Let us talk about the Capitol Visitor
Center for a minute. And I think Ms. Thomson mentioned
excavation to begin in June. Is that correct?
Mr. Hantman. We will be letting the contract in June for
the excavation contract. We expect that they will be mobilizing
for the next month. And we will probably see them on site, if
not at the end of July, early August, actually doing the
excavation work.
Senator Durbin. And this week your office went out with
requests for proposals for the first phase of construction.
Given the current construction market in Washington, do you
perceive any problems in bidding the visitor center in terms of
obtaining competitive and reasonable bids?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, I think the timing for our
project is good. There is not a lot of other new construction
starting up over here. The convention center and other major
things no longer have the foundation issues under control. So
we are pleased with the bidding interest that we have had. The
information is out to a good list of bidders. And we feel very
good about getting good numbers.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER DISRUPTION
Senator Durbin. Once excavation begins, can you give me the
period of time you estimate for, I guess, the greatest impact
on Senate operations?
Mr. Hantman. This goes back, Mr. Chairman, to perhaps
visiting the World War II memorial site again. The messiest
part of it, of course, is going to be the foundation work. When
we get the foundation walls in, when we get the top slab--it is
a top down construction, where the top slab will be put in,
then we will be excavating down below and doing the rest of the
work. That is when the most serious disruptions will be
occurring.
But the reality is, we are going to have trucks and workers
in the hundreds on the East Front of the Capitol virtually up
to and involving the completion of the building. And we will
have this building totally complete with all visitors and
exhibits and everything by the end of the 2005 time frame. But
we are going to have most of it done by the inaugural in
January of 2005, so that we can support the inaugural. But it
will not be open to the public at that point in time.
Senator Durbin. And you have made plans to accommodate the
people that will be displaced during construction?
Mr. Hantman. We are working with the Senate and with the
House on people from the East Front of the Capitol and others
who are being displaced. And specific space allocations are
being worked on right now, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. What is the General Services Administration
doing as part of this?
Mr. Hantman. One of the things we wanted to make sure, Mr.
Chairman, was that we were being as fair as possible in the
procurement process. General Services Administration operates
something like 340 million square feet of space around the
country for the Federal Government. They have an excellent
procurement division. They have lots of experience in
contracts. So we have retained them to help us in the
procurement process. We used them to help select Gilbane
Construction. We went out again to the entire country to do
that. And they will be helping us in terms of selecting the
contractors for the two major pieces of the work.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS BOOK STORAGE MODULES
Senator Durbin. Let me talk for a minute about the Library
of Congress book storage module. As you know, the Library of
Congress is concerned about the slow progress at Fort Meade
completing the first of at least 12 storage modules for their
growing collection. We were disappointed to learn that the
funding for the second and third modules was dropped from your
budget request.
This project was initiated over 10 years ago and the first
module was to have been completed in 1995. What is the status
of completing that first module?
Mr. Hantman. We are currently commissioning the major
building systems within the facility. And we expect the general
contractor to complete his work next month. We will then have
several additional items of work remaining, which we expect to
be complete in July. And I talked to the Librarian and
indicated that the occupancy of the building should be turned
over to him after that.
We also agreed that we need, frankly, to sit down and talk
on a more regular basis in terms of the issues and the needs of
the Library, not only at the mid level and lower level
management in terms of coordinating projects, but the Librarian
and myself agreed that we should be doing that.
I also indicated to him that I would be submitting a
request for dollars to fulfill the needs for module two, three,
and four to the committee and apologized to him for dropping
that out without adequate communication.
And what we plan to do for him, and I indicated as well,
was--Fort Meade is quite a distance away. Our lines are pretty
well stretched thin. We have a memorandum of understanding with
the Corps of Engineers, who has a staff of 30 people out at
Fort Meade. What we plan to do is have them work directly with
the Library, talking about their programs, and us certainly
overseeing the construction on a day-to-day basis so that this
does not occur again.
Senator Durbin. So what are you going to do to accelerate
the efforts for additional modules?
Mr. Hantman. We will be coming back to you, Mr. Chairman,
with a request for the funding to essentially do the
construction of module two in 2003 and the planning for modules
three and four going forward, so that we can meet the schedule
that the Librarian has set out for the load of books that he
constantly has coming in.
WASTE RECYCLING REVIEW
Senator Durbin. Let us talk about the recycling program for
a minute. According to GAO, there is no clear mission or goals
in this program, nor accountability for achieving results. This
is an item, if I am not mistaken, that we have been raising as
a committee with your office for a number of years. So clearly
you know that members of the Senate have been asking why
nothing is happening here.
Almost two-thirds of the material that is deposited in
recycling containers here in the Senate is contaminated, which
means it is not recycled but sent to landfills. Now that is
poor performance, clearly. Last fall you contracted with a
company, Solid Waste Solutions, to review the recycling
program. And that company recommended the combined office paper
approach.
Will you be implementing this approach?
Mr. Hantman. We have a submitted a report to the Senate
Rules Committee recommending that we do this approach. And, in
fact, GAO has recommended that, in fact, again keeping the
program as simple as possible is the best way to do that. So we
are waiting for guidance and approval from the committee to
implement that approach. We think it makes an awful lot of
sense. And that certainly is our recommendation.
Senator Durbin. You are waiting for guidance from this
committee?
Mr. Hantman. No from the Rules and Administration
Committee.
Senator Durbin. From the Rules Committee.
Mr. Hantman. That is correct.
Senator Durbin. In terms of how you are going to implement
it?
Mr. Hantman. We have submitted a report to them and a
recommendation. And we have been meeting with them over the
last several months.
Senator Durbin. What are the major problems that you want
to correct?
Mr. Hantman. Well, the major problems are, right now we
have a staff that collects recycled materials from central
locations in each of the offices. That is a problem for people
who do not want to get up from their desks and walk over to
recycle things. So they will throw things in their baskets,
along with the garbage and the lunch and things of that nature.
What this new procedure would involve would be having
recycling bins at each desk, so that people are able to put in
mixed papers. And we would then collect from each desk, as
opposed to from a central location in each of the offices, and
make sure that we have better material and less contamination.
WASTE RECYCLING CHANGES
Senator Durbin. Mr. Hantman, with all due respect, these
are not breakthrough ideas. In fact, you submitted to us in
1999 your findings about the inadequacy of this program. And it
virtually is a repetition of what you just said. So for 3
years, the problems have been there unresolved and unsolved.
What kind of assurance can you give us that this time you
are going to try to actually implement changes in the program?
Mr. Hantman. We have the right people on board right now.
We are a service organization, Senator. And we have difficulty,
and that is no excuse, finding the right people, bringing them
up, attracting them. We raised the grade level to get the right
people over here in terms of management. It has not been
properly managed either. I take responsibility for that.
In terms of getting a specific program approved, getting
the training going, these are things that we are committed to.
And we have some confidence that this time around we are going
to be able to come back to you next year and show you
tremendous progress.
CLOSING STATEMENT
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much for your testimony and
for being with us today. We have requested during the course of
this hearing a lot of information from you about specifics in
your appropriation.
I just want to make one thing clear, and that is, I am
learning on the job. In the first year, I saw the train moving
along as it had for many years. I made a few observations about
changes.
I am not going to sit by and watch a repetition of last
year's appropriation when it comes to your office. You are
going to have to really come through with some solid
information backing up your request. There is no room for place
markers, no room for puzzle pieces, no room for speculation and
guessing here.
I understand that when you make an estimate, it cannot
always be 100 percent right. Everybody has human frailty and
limitations in this business. But at this point in time, many
of the major projects which you are asking us to fund cannot be
justified. That is unfortunate because there are many
substantial capital needs on Capitol Hill.
So I am certainly hopeful that we can see some more
information from your office and some more justification and in
a timely manner, because the appropriation process will be
moving along very quickly.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, on page six of our testimony we
do list the place markers. But we will go back over that list
and further clarify that. And we will get you the backup
estimates to the $81 million, as well as the East Front, so we
can verify the estimates that we have.
Senator Durbin. And the 5-year capital plan.
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
Senator Durbin. And master plan for the Capitol Police and
review of the people working in the office, the basic
management studies that have been asked for the GAO, the list
is pretty long, Mr. Hantman. I certainly hope that you can
address them on a timely basis.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
At this point, the subcommittee is going to stand in recess
until May 1 at 10:30 a.m., when we will take testimony from the
Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police Board. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., Wednesday, April 17, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
May 1.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:26 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Reed, and Bennett.
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
STATEMENT OF HON. ALFONSO E. LENHARDT, SERGEANT AT ARMS
AND DOORKEEPER
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. At the risk of violating every Senate
tradition, we are going to start early in the hopes that we can
let busy people return to their important work.
The subcommittee will come to order. Today we meet to take
testimony from the Sergeant at Arms of the United States
Senate, Al Lenhardt, and the U.S. Capitol Police Board, chaired
by House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood, on the fiscal year
2003 budget request.
We will hear first this morning from Mr. Lenhardt in his
first appearance before the subcommittee. Let me welcome you.
You came to this post with extraordinary credentials, having
served as the highest ranking officer in charge of all police
and security operations for the United States Army. That
experience has served you and the Senate very well.
You started in the Senate days before the tragic events of
September 11th. That event was followed closely by the
discovery of anthrax in Majority Leader Tom Daschle's office in
the Hart Senate Office Building. Over the past 8 months you and
your staff have put in incredibly long hours responding to
those events and ensuring that we are prepared for avoiding
them in the future.
Immediately after the September 11th incident, you went
about assessing our evacuation and communication procedures and
looking at what needed to be done to respond more effectively.
After the October 15th anthrax crisis, you and your staff,
along with the employees of the Secretary of the Senate, the
Architect of the Capitol, the Attending Physician, and the U.S.
Capitol Police, helped manage an unprecedented remediation
effort--literally unprecedented in history--the relocation of
50 Member offices to temporary space, the development of new
mail-handling protocols, and the assessment of health concerns
associated with the irradiation of mail.
We often take for granted that the phones, voicemail, data
processing, and the other services we rely on are always going
to be there, and are always going to work. But this was no
small feat in the relocation of 50 Member offices to temporary
space, and it could have not been possible without your work
and the work of your dedicated staff. In addition, you have
established an Office of Emergency Preparedness and countless
hours have been invested in additional planning efforts.
We thank you, your deputy Ann Harkins, whose first day of
work we understand was October 15th, Liz McAlhany,
administrative assistant Rick Edwards, and everyone else
involved for your service to the Senate and to America.
With respect to your budget, you are requesting roughly
$162 million and 50 additional staffers. The budget would
increase 20 percent under your proposal, more than half of
which is associated with security-related needs such as new
mail-handling protocols and the Office of Emergency
Preparedness. There are also increases associated with bringing
online the new Senate e-mail system, which we are looking
forward to having in place.
Mr. Lenhardt, before I turn it over to you let me
personally thank you, because I know, having seen just a small
part of the time and dedication that you extended during the
crises that we faced, what a debt of gratitude we owe you and
everyone in your office. There were some real heroes and
sheroes in this particular experience, and you certainly rank
up there in my estimation in terms of your continued service to
your country and particularly now to the United States Senate.
I am going to invite Senator Bennett to speak when he
arrives, but in the meantime I would like to welcome you and
give you an opportunity to make your opening statement.
Mr. Lenhardt. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate very much
your very kind comments.
I am pleased to appear before you and the subcommittee
today to present the Office of the Sergeant at Arms budget
request for fiscal year 2003. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my
written testimony and the fiscal year 2003 budget request be
submitted for the record.
Senator Durbin. Without objection.
SAA BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Lenhardt. I am respectfully requesting a total budget
of $162.094 million, which is an increase, as you have already
indicated, of 20 percent compared to the original fiscal year
2002 budget. Of the $27 million increase, approximately $15
million is requested for security improvements; $8 million will
fund implementation and completion of the Senate Message
Infrastructure Project previously authorized, and for
additional technology services for Members, such as PCLAN,
mainframe, video teleconferencing, and $1.5 million in support
of LIS and FMIS projects for the Secretary of the Senate, which
provides legislative and financial support for Member offices.
Sir, as you already indicated, I took the oath of office on
September 4, 2001. My 8th day with the Senate was September
11th and on my 42d day the largest act of domestic bioterrorism
occurred in Senator Daschle's suite in the Hart Office
Building. Those two incidents set in motion a remarkable series
of events and activities which challenged the Congress, the
Senate, the United States Capitol Police, and especially the
men and women of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms.
Mr. Chairman, as you have already indicated, I have spent
nearly 32 years serving in the United States Army and have
considerable experience in law enforcement and security. On the
11th of September, I had not been here long enough to identify,
let alone evaluate, areas where my training and experience
might be beneficial to the Senate. But I quickly saw on that
day that the men and women of the Capitol Police had all the
courage and determination needed to get the job done. I also
saw where improvements in emergency preparedness, incident
response, and command and control were sorely needed.
BIOTERRORISM INCIDENT
The anthrax bioterrorism incident gave our office an
opportunity to illustrate to the Senate community the
extraordinary dedication of the Sergeant at Arms' men and women
who work at our task daily. Over the course of a weekend,
literally a weekend, the staff relocated 50 offices to new
quarters assigned by the Rules Committee and provided basic
computer and telephone services. They also relocated 15
committee offices and other offices and provided basic
telephone and computer services. They also relocated seven
departments of the Secretary of the Senate, including the
Disbursing Office, and provided telephone and specialized
computer services and support. Finally, they relocated several
Sergeant at Arms offices from the Hart Senate Office Building
while simultaneously providing essential support to the rest of
the Senate community.
I can say without bias that this was a truly remarkable
achievement in any environment, government, corporate, or
military, and I commend each and every member of my staff for
their extraordinary service to the Senate and for their can-do
attitude in everything that they undertake.
PARTNERSHIP WITH SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
The serious threats to the people who work in the Senate
and to the Senate as an institution highlight as never before
the role of the Sergeant at Arms in ensuring the security and
safety of the entire Senate, every person and every visitor to
the Senate itself. In carrying out this charge, I am fortunate
to have a true partnership with the Secretary of the Senate.
This partnership includes our extensive efforts in planning
the continuity of operations and continuity of Government
programs. Jointly, our offices have worked with the Senate
leadership to identify alternate chamber locations and briefing
centers. In addition, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms
supports all of the Secretary of the Senate's major systems:
the Legislative Information System, the Financial Management
Information System, the Financial Disclosure and Reporting
Systems, and the Payroll System.
Mr. Chairman, when the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
position was established in 1789 it was never envisioned that
the office would be faced with the security challenges we face
today, with threats of biological, chemical, nuclear,
radiological, and conventional weapons. As the Senate's chief
law enforcement officer charged with maintaining security in
the Capitol and all Senate buildings, as well as the protection
of Senators, staff, and the visiting public, I am pleased to
report to you that my staff is decisively engaged in all
aspects of carrying out our important mission.
BALANCING SECURITY WITH ACCESS TO THE CAPITOL
To do this effectively, we must constantly balance the need
for essential security with the need for free and open access
for the American people and other visitors to see
representative democracy at work.
The United States Capitol is the most recognized symbol of
democracy in the world. This historic building represents the
United States of America and our democratic form of Government
to freedom-loving people around the world. This is the most
important building, not just in America, but to America. Of
greater importance, the Congress represents the democratic
principles which are at the heart of our form of Government.
My career has been devoted to protecting and defending
these principles and my military experience is the fundamental
reason why I feel so strongly that we cannot turn the Capitol
Building and surrounding grounds into a military base look-
alike, or allow a bunker mentality to develop here. The Capitol
Building is the people's house. Our obligation and our duty is
to ensure that all who visit and work here are safe and that
our institutions continue to function in any circumstance. That
is my guiding principle as the Sergeant at Arms of the United
States Senate.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TASK FORCE
After September 11th, we immediately identified security
deficiencies in our emergency planning. Initially, we formed
the Legislative Branch Emergency Preparedness Task Force to
zero in on the immediate actions needed to increase the safety
and security of the congressional community. The report of the
task force is available for review. We have created the Office
of the Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and Emergency
Preparedness and hired staff focused specifically on security
and the protection of the people and the institution of the
Senate.
We now have the processes and procedures in place for
Members and staff to follow in case of an emergency, which
includes assigned assembly areas and procedures for safety and
accountability purposes. We also have identified briefing
centers for Senators where information can be provided and can
serve as a secure place for Senators to discuss the developing
situation.
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SERGEANT AT ARMS FOR SECURITY AND EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
The Office of the Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security
and Emergency Preparedness is the permanent management
structure to oversee and integrate security and emergency
preparedness planning, policies, and programs within the
Senate. This office, working in close cooperation with the
Office of the Secretary of the Senate, also is responsible for
continuity of operations training and assistance provided to
Member and staff offices, as well as integrating Senate
security plans.
As we move forward, our goal is to be aware of the threat
environment facing the Senate, and continue to upgrade and
improve protection and preparedness measures that safeguard the
Senate, the people who work and visit here, the institution,
and the property that supports them. We will coordinate our
security operations and plans with other legislative, judicial,
and executive branch offices and we will prudently implement
those actions and procedures that improve our security
environment.
BUDGET BUILT ON BUSINESS MODEL
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett, Senator Reed, in
constructing this budget request I instructed the staff to use
the business model instituted by my predecessor. The top-down,
bottom-up review is still mandated for each department during
construction of its long-range program and budget planning
activities. Each department director and manager is expected to
seek program efficiencies and cost-cutting savings in all
mission areas. Program managers are also challenged to evaluate
and eliminate, where necessary, duplication and dysfunctional
redundancy in all activities. We will leverage the use of
technology wherever possible to achieve greater efficiencies
and improve program effectiveness.
Our business principles and practices have improved Senate
services and enabled us to reduce full-time employees by 11 in
our staff and salaries by $452,000 so far this year. This
spirit of innovation was also evident when our team devised
procedures for processing over 90,000 items of mail received
daily at one-third the cost of contractors doing the same work
with other legislative branch offices.
Our business model is applied to all programs to achieve
the best bang for the buck. We will be especially mindful of
this when considering improvements to security programs. We
must resist any temptation to buy a product or service simply
because it looks good or may satisfy an immediate need. All
security equipment and services will be subjected to the same
requirements-based and life cycle acquisition model used to
evaluate all other programs.
We believe the fiscal year 2003 budget reflects the
resources to meet the needs and requests for services expressed
by the Senate community. The Sergeant at Arms staff is
committed to providing services of the highest quality in the
most efficient manner possible. This budget will achieve the
services, security improvements, communications and technology
projects contained in our proposals. As an effective steward of
our budget, I pledge to you that the staff will spend these
precious resources wisely.
prepared statement
Thank you for the opportunity to present this request to
the committee.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alfonso E. Lenhardt
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear
before you today to present the fiscal year 2003 Budget Request for the
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper.
I am respectfully requesting a total budget for the Sergeant at
Arms' Office of $162,094,000, which is an increase of approximately 20
percent compared to the fiscal year 2002 budget. The fiscal year 2003
budget request accelerates improvements to security and reflects the
increased costs of equipment, services and support required to ensure
the protection of people and other critical assets of the Senate.
Before I begin my budget presentation, I would like to salute the
men and women of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA) organization. Over the last
year, this team of 779 professionals has performed exceptionally well
in response to the unusual challenges faced by the United States
Senate.
In the last six months, our staff met the significant challenges
presented by two terrorist attacks on the Nation. After the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks, this Office immediately began working with
the United States Capitol Police and the Senate Leadership to develop
more comprehensive and detailed evacuation procedures for the Senate.
After the anthrax incident on October 15, 2001, this office worked
closely with the Rules Committee to identify space and then relocate
Senate offices and quickly retooled our important telecommunications
and computer infrastructure. The task was enormous and unusually
challenging, but it gave me the opportunity to take the measure of the
Sergeant at Arms' staff. I am pleased to tell you that the staff's
performance was beyond my expectations and I am proud to serve with
each and every one of them.
Mr. Chairman, the United States Capitol Building is the most
recognized symbol of democracy in the world. This historic building
represents the United States of America and our democratic form of
government to freedom loving people around the world. This is the most
important building not just in America, but to America. And, of greater
importance, the Congress represents the democratic principles which are
at the very heart of our form of government. My career has been devoted
to protecting and defending these principles and my military experience
is the fundamental reason why I feel so strongly that we cannot turn
this Capitol Building and surrounding Grounds into a military base
look-alike, or allow a bunker mentality to develop here.
The Capitol Building is the people's house. Our obligation and our
duty is to ensure that all who visit here are safe and that our
institutions continue to function in any circumstance. That is my
guiding principle as the Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate.
Another principle is service to the Senate community. Right now, as
we begin the 21st century, much of that service comes in the form of
new technologies which we strive to provide to Senate offices promptly
and efficiently. And, we in the SAA organization serve as the stewards
of $193,251,000 consisting of the fiscal year 2002 appropriation of
$134,986,000 and the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation of
$58,265,000 which this Subcommittee has entrusted to us. I pledge to
you that we will spend these precious resources wisely.
Twice since my arrival in September of last year have we faced
serious threats to the safety and security of the people who work in
the Senate and to the Senate as an institution. As never before, the
role of the Sergeant at Arms Office is to ensure the security and
safety of every Member, every staff person and every visitor to the
Senate. This effort extends beyond my position as a member of the
United States Capitol Police Board, since it also includes the Senate
imperative to make available to the Members the capability for them,
for you, to conduct the legislative business of the Senate.
In carrying out this charge, I am fortunate to have a true
partnership with the Secretary of the Senate. As you know, this
partnership includes our extensive efforts in the Continuity of
Operations Planning and Continuity of Government programs. It is in
this Continuity of Government effort that my office must and will work
continually and closely with the Office of the Secretary. Jointly, we
have worked with the Senate leadership to identify alternate chamber
and briefing center facilities. In addition, the Office of the Sergeant
at Arms supports all of the Secretary of the Senate's major systems:
the Legislative Information System; the Financial Management
Information System; the financial disclosure system; and the payroll
system.
security
Security of the United States Senate
The Joint Bipartisan Leadership issued a directive on September 6,
2000 to the U.S. Capitol Police Board to ensure that the constitutional
functions of the Congress could be performed under any circumstance.
The Leadership also directed that a comprehensive Legislative Branch
emergency preparedness program be developed. The terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001, and the anthrax incident on October 15, 2001,
reinforced the need to plan for the protection of Senators, staff, and
visitors to the Capitol; to safeguard the institution; and to have
effective evacuation and Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP).
To address these current and emerging security concerns, the
position of Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security was created to
oversee the new Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness and its
staff of professionals. The Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security is
responsible for physical security, continuity of operations, emergency
preparedness, and personal protection matters affecting the Senate.
This office will provide facilities and back-up services to ensure
the timely reconstitution of Senate services in the event of a major
incident. The office will immediately respond to incidents of a
nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological or conventional nature with
either in-house experts or outside assistance. Policies and procedures
are being established and tested for relocating the Senate Chamber and
offices to alternate locations on or off the Capitol Hill complex in an
emergency.
Our security strategy establishes a layered defense consisting of:
intelligence-based analysis of vulnerabilities; security plans and
actions to prevent an incident from occurring; preparedness measures if
an incident does occur; and finally, implementing plans, training and
resources to manage the consequences and respond appropriately to
ensure the Senate's continuity of operations.
Prevention is the first responsibility. However, we must be
prepared in the event an incident does occur. If an incident forces us
to relocate, we must have the ability to manage the incident, sustain
services and, if necessary, to disperse to other locations and
reestablish the Senate's legislative functions. This strategy
establishes a robust response that does not allow the possibility of
single-point failures by over-reliance on any single element.
Another way to look at the mission of the Office of Security and
Emergency Preparedness is that it creates concentric circles of
security and response that integrate security, preparedness and
continuity plans to provide a redundant, layered defense to a variety
of threats for the protection of the Senate.
The Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness is also
responsible for continuity of operations (COOP) training and assistance
and coordination with the House, the Capitol Police, and other entities
within the legislative branch and external agencies.
Most importantly, the office gives the Senate a core incident
response management team under the direction of the Leadership and
supervision of the responsible officer. Our team is fully knowledgeable
about the Federal and civil emergency response agencies, their
capabilities and procedures, and has established relationships with
those agencies so that the Senate can tap into their expertise in an
emergency.
We have already addressed many of the needs the events of last fall
brought to my attention. We have identified emergency briefing centers
for Senators and Senators have been informed of procedures and
locations. We have streamlined emergency notification procedures at
Capitol Police Headquarters. We have issued BlackBerry devices to be
used for emergency notification. And, we are upgrading whip pagers with
an emergency message capability.
Further, we are working closely with the Secretary of the Senate
and the Architect of the Capitol to establish an Alternate Senate
Chamber in the event the Capitol is denied to us because of a minor
incident or a major threat. We are also proceeding jointly with the
House and the Architect of the Capitol to establish an Alternate
Computer Facility that, while serving both Chambers, will maintain the
necessary separation of systems and information and provide space for
back-up Senate telecommunications assets.
The Capitol Police conducted an initial security assessment of
Senators' home state offices. We will use these assessments and other
tools to establish minimum security requirements for State offices. We
hope to be able to provide funds to each office to upgrade office
security based on security assessments and needs. The fiscal year 2002
appropriation for this purpose was $1,744,000. We have requested an
additional $2,744,000 for fiscal year 2003.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Senate has already
demonstrated its ability to maintain operations in difficult
circumstances. The Senate Disbursing Office's continuity plans were a
key element in maintaining financial services during the period that
the Hart Building was closed due to the anthrax contamination. The
Office of the Sergeant at Arms planned and executed the provision of
services for 50 Senators and their staffs and 15 committees and other
offices which were relocated for a period of 96 days while the anthrax
attack was being remediated.
IT Security
A software package that allows monitoring of unauthorized intrusion
attempts to our data network has been installed. This new technology
already has proven to be an asset to Senate offices in correcting the
effects of widespread internet-based attacks such as Nimda, an e-mail
virus. We need to ensure that our data networks are as secure as
today's capabilities allow so we are contracting for additional expert
data security consulting service which will address ongoing
vulnerability analysis of our network and measures implemented to guard
against a security violation of our network.
Mail Security
Following the anthrax incident, the Senate Post Office implemented
new processing procedures to ensure that mail introduced to the Senate
community is free of biological hazards.
Shortly after October 15, we sealed mailing chutes and removed
unmonitored mail boxes in the Senate Office buildings and the Capitol
to eliminate the possibility of a harmful agent being deposited in
these areas. We conducted briefings and prepared materials for Senate
offices to ensure staff knew how to identify suspicious mail and report
it to officials. Additionally, we advised Senate office managers to
accept letters and packages from only uniformed Senate Post Office
employees displaying a valid ID or from bonafide couriers.
Our Senate Postmaster actively monitors the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the United States Postal
Service (USPS), as they fine-tune procedures to deliver to governmental
offices mail that is safe from biological pathogens.
The procedures that the Senate developed for ensuring the delivery
of safe letters and packages have become the model for other agencies
in the Legislative Branch. We leveraged our existing human and physical
plant resources in crafting our mail testing program, enabling the
Senate to perform these tasks for several million dollars less than
other similar governmental agencies.
Our Senate offices are customers of the United States Postal
Service and commercial delivery services such as UPS and FedEx. When
Senate staff indicated that they were experiencing health-related
symptoms, the SAA office established the Legislative Mail Task Force.
The Centers for Disease Control; White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy; Office of the Attending Physician; United States
Postal Service and others comprise this task force.
The SAA tasked the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) to conduct a Health Hazard Evaluation of all buildings
in the Capitol complex. The NIOSH industrial hygienists performed
extensive testing in all Senate buildings and the Capitol Building.
Medical officers from NIOSH interviewed 389 Congressional staff
employees. Corrective action was taken where necessary in response to
the NIOSH findings and guidelines were issued to staff who handle
irradiated mail. The report was released in April 2002, and NIOSH
representatives conducted briefings for Senate staff, reported their
findings and answered staff questions. The SAA staff will work closely
with the Office of the Attending Physician as the Senate continues to
monitor this important issue.
The Legislative Mail Task Force was instrumental in driving process
improvements in the irradiation of mail. For instance, irradiation
levels have been reduced twice since December 2001, without having a
detrimental effect on the kill rate for biological contaminants. The
result has been that the mail today approximates the appearance of mail
that is not irradiated, and staff health concerns have been
dramatically reduced.
The Legislative Mail Task Force continues to seek improvements in
reducing delivery time of processed mail to Senate offices. Last fall,
United States Postal officials stated that processed mail would be
delivered between seven and ten days from mailing. Currently, processed
mail is delivered on average in sixteen days. On-site visits to the
Brentwood Postal Facility and other USPS distribution points were
conducted to identify causes of delays. United States Postal Service
authorities have stated that all the mail that was backlogged in the
Brentwood facility has been processed and delivered to the Senate.
While the SAA is not pleased with the average sixteen-day delivery
time, our analysis indicates Senate mail is being delivered in a more
timely manner than that of other Legislative Branch agencies.
I have directed that the Mail Task Force remain operational with
its next goal to work with the U.S. Postal Service to reduce the
excessive delay of the mail from the current 16-day average for
delivery.
Until October 18, 2001, the P Street warehouse was the receiving
and inspection point for Senate mail delivered from the Brentwood Post
Office. The P Street warehouse was closed in October 2001 after the
discovery of anthrax spores on pieces of equipment (believed to have
been caused by cross-contamination of the mail). The FBI, as part of
its investigation, took custody of Senate and House mail contained
within the P Street warehouse. Following its return by the FBI, the
mail had to be decontaminated using the irradiation process and was
released for distribution on April 12, 2002. Similarly, tens of
thousands of pieces of cross-contaminated mail contained within the
Brentwood facility had to be decontaminated and most was delivered to
the Senate in March 2002.
Packages quarantined in the P Street warehouse since October 2001
were recently released by the FBI and are being processed for delivery
to the Senate in May 2002.
The SAA staff worked with Senate office managers, and the Committee
on Rules and Administration in developing procedures that would allow
for the delivery of safe packages. Packages were reintroduced for
delivery during the first week of February 2002 and since that time
over 13,000 packages have been delivered.
SAA Service to the Senate Community after the October Anthrax Incident
The SAA staff was committed to maintaining Senate operations after
the October 2001 bio-terrorist attack. Working with the Rules Committee
and the Office of Secretary of the Senate, the SAA staff provided the
infrastructure to support the temporary office locations in the
Capitol, Russell and Dirksen Senate Office Buildings as well as in the
Postal Square Building for Hart Building offices. Within a few days of
the incident, SAA staff had installed hundreds of telephones, data
network connections, microcomputers, copiers, facsimile machines, and
other equipment in dozens of locations, many of which never housed
staff before. Additional equipment and services in those spaces were
continually provided until the Hart Building reopened on January 22,
2002. More than 3,000 items of Senate-owned, newly-acquired, or rented
equipment were installed during the period, and most were installed
within the first few days of the relocation. In addition to the
installation work, thousands of logistical tasks, such as forwarding
telephone numbers and creating new voice mail boxes were completed to
ensure that offices could continue functioning as normally as possible.
All of the offices affected by the closure of the Hart Building
required continued reliable access to the information stored on their
networks and constituent correspondence management system servers
located in the Hart Building. The SAA staff worked with the
Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that the equipment was
maintained and serviceable throughout the Hart Building decontamination
process.
In thirteen offices, contamination was found in the vicinity of
data processing equipment. SAA staff provided and configured a complete
replacement of the general application and constituent correspondence
management system servers in those offices, with little disruption to
the work of each office. These servers, installed at the SAA facility
at Postal Square, completely replaced the in-office servers in the Hart
Building. Additionally, since staff from uncontaminated offices lacked
access to their servers to verify regular data backup, the SAA staff
installed and configured 50 network storage devices and created a
software routine to provide backup services to each of those offices.
We were able to access the servers in the Hart Building over our
recently upgraded data network, the first time such a large-scale
action was undertaken. The SAA staff monitored all of the devices and
the related software to ensure that each office's data was regularly
backed up, so data could be reconstructed quickly if a server failed in
the Hart Building. We provided these services until the devices were
returned to the control of the Senate offices after the Hart Building
reopened in January.
After reopening the Hart Building, the SAA staff restored services
and removed all of the over 3,000 items of equipment and the supporting
services that had been installed in temporary locations, and returned
those areas to their pre-October 15th use. We also worked closely with
the Superintendent's office to rehabilitate all of the areas that were
affected by the remediation and clean-up process. Our costs were
approximately $1.8 million for the relocation and restoration of
Sergeant at Arms services.
From October 2001 through January 2002, the Offices of the Sergeant
at Arms and the Secretary of the Senate worked with the Leadership,
your staff, the Rules Committee, the USCP, and the Incident Command
Team (particularly EPA and CDC/NIOSH), to communicate with the Senate
community, the city, and the country about anthrax and the remediation
of the Hart Building. We provided regular written updates and together,
we held many briefings for Senators and staff.
In addition, in an effort to answer the many questions about
personal safety and health, the SAA staff in the Joint Office of
Education and Training coordinated sixteen special briefings for Senate
staff between October and December. These sessions included medical
briefings, individual coping skills sessions, sessions for managers to
assist staff with related stress, and mail briefings. The sessions were
attended by 740 Senate staff members.
In January, eight special sessions were offered to help staff deal
with issues regarding the return to the Hart Building. Most recently,
in March, we held four sessions for staff who open mail in their
offices entitled ``Response to Hazardous Substances in the Mail Room.''
These sessions have been attended by 159 Senate staff. We plan to do a
video taped version of this program to send out to Senators' state
offices.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 and October 15, 2001 events,
the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) staff met numerous evolving needs
following these traumatic events. For example, the EAP worked with the
medical staff of the Office of the Attending Physician to facilitate
the screening program and offered direct counseling services to many of
those tested for anthrax exposure.
Following the September 11th attacks through the end of the 4th
quarter, fiscal year 2001, 375 staff were processed through the EAP
system for Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD). Private
counseling sessions were given to 267 of the individuals.
During the first quarter of fiscal year 2002, Employee Assistance
Program staff assisted approximately 600 staff members. Private
counseling sessions were given to 128 individuals. The total number of
sessions for both CISD and individual counseling was 886.
Throughout this unprecedented and extraordinary time, the American
Psychological Association Disaster Response Network Team partnered with
the Employee Assistance Program staff and facilitated 32 group sessions
with Senate staff, Postal workers, Senate pages, and Senate offices.
The SAA Employee Assistance Program staff continue to be present
and available to all Senate staff, asking how they are doing, providing
seminars and workshops, and offering a sympathetic ear to create an
atmosphere of acceptance and stability in the Senate community.
technology to better serve the senate community
BlackBerry Devices
In response to the communications difficulties experienced during
the events of September 11, 2001, we expedited the deployment of
BlackBerry wireless messaging devices in advance of our deployment of
Microsoft Exchange and Outlook. The Capitol Police now have the ability
to broadcast an emergency text message quickly to each Senator, and
track the message to see whether it has been delivered and read. The
services available through this platform will be expanded to make it
even more useful to the Members and their staff.
Senate Recording Studio
The Senate Recording Studio is being converted to a digital format.
The broadcast industry has been mandated by the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 and the Federal Communications Commission to provide a digital
feed by 2006, and we, as the content provider, want to continue
providing high quality feed to the broadcasters. Digital format also
provides flexibility, a better way of storing the Chamber video record
and other data. And the ability to maintain the studio because, as the
industry moves to the digital format, it becomes more difficult to
obtain parts for an analog system. The five-phase upgrade plan began in
fiscal year 2000 with the conversion of Senate television to high
definition television and the design and integration of an audio/video/
text browsing system on the intranet. Major installation phases took
place in the spring and summer of 2001. The system that provides
broadcast of Senate sessions was completely rebuilt using digital
technology. On September 4, 2001, the Senate became the first
legislative body in the world to televise in HD format.
The second phase will focus on the deployment of digital studio
cameras, retrofit and networking of edit suites, conversion of video
tape operations to video servers, as well as the design and
construction of the centralized control room facility that supports
committee broadcasts. The third phase will convert the Senate radio
operation to digital technology, upgrade field operations with digital
cameras and peripherals, and the initial installation of the
centralized control room facility. The fourth phase will be for the
final stage of the centralized control room deployment and the design
and purchase of equipment for the studio control rooms and core
facility. The fifth phase will be the installation of the studio
control rooms and core facility and will be finalized after completion
of the Capitol Visitors' Center (CVC).
Over the past year, the SAA staff also developed and deployed the
systems and communications necessary to allow committees and Senators,
in conjunction with the Senate Recording Studio, to deliver an audio/
video feed of hearings and studio productions over the internet to the
public. This eliminated the need to use expensive commercial companies
to provide this service. The SAA staff plans to expand this service in
the coming year to increase the number of viewers and the number of
simultaneous events.
Senate Switch Network (SSN) Upgrade
The SAA staff improved network communications response time at each
desktop, by recently completing an upgrade to the Capitol Hill network.
This multi-year project was completed on schedule and provides high-
speed data transmission for all Senate network connections on Capitol
Hill. Its modular design was a critical factor in our ability to
rapidly reconnect displaced Senate staffers to their respective local
area networks during the closure of the Hart Building. We completed the
installation of data network switches in every Senate office local area
network (LAN), that supports all workstations, printers and servers.
This technology upgrade allows each workstation network connection to
transmit and receive data at 10 megabits per second rather than sharing
data transmission capacity with all users on the same office LAN. The
Senate Switch Network (SSN) is a state-of-the-art, high performance
network with high reliability through redundancy and increased
transmission speeds at all levels of the network infrastructure.
Response time for the State Office Wide Area Network has
substantially improved. Our new network provides much faster access to
Correspondence Management and internet/intranet applications. As the
Senate Messaging Infrastructure is deployed to state offices, the SAA
staff will monitor network performance to ensure continued high-speed
capacity.
By processing a record 52 million electronic mail messages this
past year without encountering delivery delays or backlogs, the
Sergeant at Arms staff demonstrated that previous architecture upgrades
to mail services performed as planned. The electronic mail message
volume increased 30 percent over last year with our overall capacity in
the range of 30,000 to 40,000 messages per hour.
Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail
The conversion of our Printing, Graphics and Direct Mail (PGDM)
Branch from analog to digital technology is near completion. Despite an
8 percent increase in orders, we reduced FTEs by four and reduced
salary expenses by $150,000 a year through the utilization of more
efficient and versatile equipment placed in all Senate office
buildings, the Capitol and Postal Square. We expect this trend to
continue as we build our network of strategically located devices,
designed to allow Senate offices to order printed material from the
convenience of their desktop PCs. This network proved essential with
the loss of the Hart Senate Office Building copier center, and with the
elevated demand in printed material after September 11. Despite this
significant spike in on-demand printing, PGDM was able to disperse the
print and photocopy jobs, normally produced at the Hart Building copy
center, to idle electronic printers located in the other Senate
buildings via the network. This capability enabled Senate offices and
the United States Capitol Police to receive high quality printed
material in a timely manner.
Many of these requests were for bound booklets, such as The United
States Capitol Police Guide to Security Awareness, for which we were
tasked to produce over 5,000 booklets in less than 24 hours. We would
have been unable to complete this request in previous years. However,
the new book binding technology installed last year enabled us to meet
the demand. This new binder reduced production time by 77 percent and
reduced the labor needed to operate the equipment from six to four
FTEs.
We installed an additional high production color printer to
accommodate the 43 percent increase in color copy volume. The demand to
immediately provide evacuation maps and security documents that
required the use of color to highlight critical information became
essential after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
We estimate we will be able to reduce maintenance costs by $105,000
during 2002 as a result of programmed equipment investments in PGDM.
Additionally, we saved 29 Member offices over $21,000 in office
expenses by introducing a more flexible method for creating digital
signatures on letters.
Senate Messaging Infrastructure (SMI)
The SMI project is a major multi-year initiative to replace the
Senate's electronic mail system, Lotus cc:Mail, which is no longer
supported by its parent company, with a new system based on Microsoft's
products Exchange and Outlook. We are working closely with the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, the Committee on Appropriations,
and a number of Senate offices to ensure that implementation of the new
system is completed as effectively and efficiently as possible.
Currently, we are conducting a pilot project in five offices. We expect
to begin Senate-wide implementation in June 2002.
Overall, we have received positive feedback about the new system,
and staff indicate that the system offers more capabilities that are
far easier to use and integrate into other program applications in
their offices. We have also learned that the preparation time for an
office to effectively plan for such a major service upgrade is time-
intensive, particularly for the System Administrator. Additionally, due
to the complexity of the installation and the variety of personal
computer configurations in the offices, installations are taking longer
than expected which may delay the full implementation within Senate
offices. We will endeavor to minimize delays and resolve any issues to
successful completion.
We are about to begin working with the Senate offices in seniority
order now so that in June we can begin the full implementation of the
system. Depending on the Senate office schedules, we are planning to
have all installations done by the end of this calendar year and are
prepared to continue the installation into 2003 if the Senators'
schedules require an extension.
process improvements
We have made a number of process improvements during the past year
and I expect the SAA team to continually seek methods--borrowing from
the private and public sectors as appropriate--to perform tasks more
quickly, accurately and cost effectively in achieving our mission for
the Senate. Four examples that I would like to share are:
--Printing, Graphics and Direct Mail saved Senate offices $951,000 in
postage expenses during fiscal year 2001. We established cross-
functional teams tasked with improving outgoing mail delivery,
concurrent with reducing costs. Sergeant at Arms staff worked
proactively with Senate offices in suggesting methods to
prepare letters for mailing, thereby reducing processing and
handling expenses. Outgoing mail qualifying for discounts
increased by 14 percent.
--Consolidated Parking and Identification Administration improved
office through-put by 33 percent, thereby minimizing customer
wait time. We were able to save $197,000 in salaries and
reduced FTEs by five people despite a 40 percent increase in
the number of IDs produced and a 15 percent increase in parking
permits.
--The Photo Studio developed a cross-functional team that provided
additional photographers during peak request periods, enabling
a 10 percent increase in photograph processing and one less
FTE.
--Our parking team has worked collaboratively with the Architect of
the Capitol, the United States Capitol Police and private
contractors as we accommodate Senate staff whose parking spots
were, or soon will be, displaced because of the Capitol Visitor
Center construction project. This team has analyzed virtually
every square foot of the Capitol complex in seeking safe,
secure and proximate parking for Senate staff. The tenets of
our parking team are: Security, proximity to the Capitol,
convenience to staff, best use of existing resources, using
taxpayer dollars judiciously, and friendly Customer Service.
We recently relocated 71 senior Senate staff from Northeast Drive
to spaces within a short walk to the north door entrance to the
Capitol. Senate staff response to this change has been highly
favorable. We have already defined the 255 spaces for those being
displaced during the next three years. Much of our success has come
from the creative reconfiguration of existing parking spaces, (i.e.,
converting parallel parking spaces to diagonal spaces). In the past,
large scale parking space relocations were contracted out to private
vendors located considerable distances from Capitol Hill. We estimate,
based on previous expenditures, we saved $1 million for the duration of
CVC construction projects. We are requesting six FTEs to facilitate
parking during fiscal year 2003. We estimate that our parking plan will
be about one-third the cost of renting spaces from a private vendor.
services to the senate
IT Services and Support
Another initiative that increased our productivity and service to
customers includes a new contract for the support of the SAA
microcomputer and local area network hardware and software. The new
contract provides: A more experienced and qualified staff, greater
financial leverage over the contractor's performance, reduced prices
for hardware and software, and a modern Web storefront to streamline
purchasing.
We expect the new vendor to significantly reduce wait times for
repair or restoration services, thereby improving productivity.
Help Desk
Our new Help Desk system effectively supports Senate offices by
enabling closer tracking of customers' problems and improving SAA
oversight capability. We replaced the former system, Tivoli Service
Desk, because the company was sold and no longer provided long-term
support. In a very short time, we selected, procured, designed,
installed, tested, and implemented a new Help Desk system. Despite the
very aggressive schedule, we were able to complete the implementation
on time and within budget.
Customer Service
To provide excellent customer service to the Senate, the SAA has
implemented a program to ensure the full range of services. The
Customers Always Require Excellent Service (C.A.R.E.S.) program ensures
that every SAA employee is trained in customer service and every
department has a strategy for how it will manage and continually
improve service to our customers. All employees attended SAA C.A.R.E.S.
training tailored to the services their departments provide to the
Senate. Follow-up training is offered on topics such as ``Service
Recovery'' and ``Teleprofessionalism.'' Additionally, each department
developed a comprehensive service strategy with input from the
employees in the department. This strategy includes the customer
service standards for the department and the methods to be used to
recognize and reward outstanding service.
better communications to enhance the legislative process
Our fiscal year 2003 budget request includes a development strategy
for modernizing the Senate's telecommunication systems located in the
Hart, Dirksen, Russell, Postal Square, and U.S. Capitol buildings. We
are preparing a plan on the life-cycle, maintenance requirements,
anticipated services, and support issues for the systems. The fiscal
year 2002 emergency supplemental appropriation included funding to
provide some immediate improvements to our telecommunication services.
However, we also need to build on those immediate actions to construct
an infrastructure that will serve the Senate reliably for years to
come.
emergency supplemental appropriation
Our funding for fiscal year 2002 was augmented by the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriation (Public Law 107-38) which provided $58
million to respond to the September 11 and October 15, 2001 terrorist
attacks. This funding will assist in improving security preparedness
and responsiveness to such attacks. A high priority initiative is the
alternate off-site computer center. This facility, entirely redundant
with the Postal Square facility, will ensure corporate and enterprise
computing services provided to the Senate can continue in the event an
incident renders the primary facility unavailable. The staff at the
alternate computer facility will work in concert with SAA staff located
in Postal Square providing day-to-day support to all Senate offices.
Other high priority projects included in the emergency
communications program include: An enhanced cellular network, redundant
facilities for the main telephone switch, backup telecommunications
equipment, audio teleconference upgrade, satellite dish and services,
and television production/satellite uplink hybrid vehicle.
The final item, the television broadcast production vehicle, will
enable the Senate Recording Studio to continue functioning wherever the
Senate Chamber is located. The vehicle allows for quick deployment and
setup at an alternate location, and provides a satellite uplink for use
as a primary or redundant transmission system.
With the completion of these initiatives, the Senate will have the
ability to provide far more effective, real-time communications to
Members and staff in the event of an emergency situation.
fiscal year 2003 budget request
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett, in constructing this budget request,
I instructed the staff to use the business model instituted by my
predecessor, Jim Ziglar. As in prior years, the fiscal year 2003 Budget
Request was constructed from the bottom up with every line item
examined in detail. We view the budget as an active management tool to
help us achieve our broader financial and operating goals. We have
instituted a budget process that requires SAA directors to forecast
expenses and future needs for each of the next five years. We want to
be able to identify for the Senate in advance systems to be modernized;
the costs of, and the priorities for, modernization; and the schedule
for implementation.
The total budget request for fiscal year 2003 is $162,094,000, an
increase of $27,108,000 or 20.1 percent over fiscal year 2002. The
salary budget request is $44,661,000, an increase of $5,579,000 or 14.3
percent, and the expense budget request is $117,433,000, an increase of
$21,529,000 or 22.4 percent. The staffing request is 829, up 50 FTEs.
This budget request accelerates improvements to physical security
and reflects the increased costs of equipment, services and support
required to ensure the security of information and communications
assets of the U.S. Senate. The total request to fund security
initiatives is $18,522,000. The most significant requests are for the
alternate computing facility (18 FTE, $1,146,000 in salaries and
$4,790,000 in expenses); more secure mail and package processing
protocols (13 FTE, $520,000 in salaries and $1,035,000 in expenses);
personnel and operating expenses requested to set up the Office of
Security and Emergency Preparedness (8 FTEs, $730,000 in salaries and
$2,850,000 in expenses); and upgraded communication capabilities (4
FTEs, 235,000 in salaries and $3,287,000 in expenses); and funding for
security upgrades for Member state offices ($2,744,000).
Also included in the fiscal year 2003 request is $9,570,000 of
three-year funding for the purchase of computer equipment; $5,924,000
of no-year funding for Member Mail System purchases, $4,906,000 of no-
year funding to complete Phase Four of the digital technology migration
for the Recording Studio and $2,744,000 of no-year funding to enhance
the security of Member state offices.
To help us understand and manage our cost structure and operations,
we divided the budget into four types of costs: General Operations and
Maintenance, Mandated Allowances & Allotments, Technology Capital
Investment, and Nondiscretionary Items. Each of these budget areas
covers a distinct component of SAA operations.
In conclusion, we believe our fiscal year 2003 budget reflects the
resources to meet the needs and requests of the Senate community. We
are committed to providing services of the highest quality in the most
efficient manner possible. The budget will effectively achieve the
security and technology projects contained in our proposals. In
addition, Members of the Senate, individually and collectively,
continue to make clear to us that they require a modern technical
infrastructure to support the operations of their offices. We believe
this budget will achieve that result. I appreciate the opportunity to
present this budget request to the Committee.
Attachment I.--Financial Plan for Fiscal Year 2003
office of the sergeant at arms--united states senate
executive summary
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals Variance fiscal year
-------------------------- 2003 vs. fiscal year
2002
Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
2002 budget 2003 Percent
request Amount Incr/(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations and Maintenance:
Salaries................................................ $39,082 $44,661 $5,579 14.3
Expenses................................................ $21,687 $35,644 $13,957 64.4
---------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations and Maintenance.............. $60,769 $80,305 $19,536 32.1
===================================================
Mandated Allowances and Allotments.......................... $51,365 $56,399 $5,034 9.8
Technology Capital Investment............................... $19,860 $20,872 $1,012 5.1
Nondiscretionary Items...................................... $2,992 $4,518 $1,526 51.0
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. $134,986 $162,094 $27,108 20.1
===================================================
Staffing.................................................... 779 829 50 6.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total budget request for fiscal year 2003 is $162,094,000, up
$27,108,000, or 20.1 percent. The salary budget request is $44,661,000,
up $5,579,000 or 14.3 percent and the expense budget request is
$117,433,000, up $21,529,000 or 22.4 percent. The staffing request is
829, up 50 FTEs.
This budget request reflects the increased costs of the equipment,
services and support required to improve the security of the physical,
information and communication assets of the U.S. Senate. The most
significant requests are for personnel and operating expenses for the
Alternate Computing Facility (18 FTEs, $1,146,000 in salaries and
$4,790,000 in expenses); costs of more secure mail, courier and package
processing protocols (13 FTEs, $520,000 in salaries and $1,035,000 in
expenses); The Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness (8 FTEs,
$730,000 in salaries and $2,850,000 in expenses); and upgraded
communication capabilities (5 FTEs, $313,000 in salaries and $3,287,000
in expenses). Funds for initiatives to improve archiving and back-up
capability for documents and to upgrade security for Member state
offices also are requested.
Included in the fiscal year 2003 request is $9,570,000 of three-
year funding for the purchase of computer equipment; $5,924,000 of no-
year funding to support the procurement and maintenance of Members'
constituent mail systems; $4,906,000 of no-year funding to complete
Phase 4 of the digital technology migration for the Recording Studio;
and $2,744,000 of no-year funding to enhance the security of member
state offices.
We present our budget in four categories: General Operations and
Maintenance (Salaries and Expenses), Mandated Allowances and
Allotments, Technology Capital Investment, and Nondiscretionary Items.
--General operations and maintenance salaries is $44,661,000, an
increase of $5,579,000 or 14.3 percent. The increase is
attributable to funding a 4.2 percent COLA, $1,749,000; merit
funding of $1,010,000; and to add 50 new positions, $2,820,000.
Staffing will increase from 779 to 829.
--General operations and maintenance expenses for existing and new
services is $35,644,000, an increase of $13,957,000 or 64.4
percent. Major factors contributing to the increase are
operations and support costs for the alternate computing
facility, $4,290,000; PC/LAN installation and support contract,
$3,193,000; funding for the Office of Security and Emergency
Preparedness, $2,350,000; Senate mail handling and processing
costs, $1,035,000; and software/equipment maintenance on
digital equipment, $209,000.
--Mandated allowances and allotments for computers, mail systems,
copiers, telephones and state offices is $56,399,000, an
increase of $5,034,000 or 9.8 percent. Major factors
contributing to the increase are for new telecommunications
services, $2,587,000; federal and commercial office rents,
$1,082,000; rent for a new, more secure and climate-controlled
warehouse for, $1,000,000; state office security enhancements,
$1,000,000; computer equipment for members, committees,
officers, and leadership, $916,000; and member mail systems
maintenance, $474,000; and local and long distance services for
DC and state offices, $404,000. Projects completed in fiscal
year 2002 included the Democratic Policy Committee and
Republican Policy Committee studio upgrades. We acquired
broadcast and video equipment to enable the studios to comply
with future digitalization requirements. The completion of
these projects results in reducing the budget request for
fiscal year 2003 by $1,800,000.
--Technology capital investments is $20,872,000, an increase of
$1,012,000 or 5.1 percent compared to the fiscal year 2002
budget of $19,860,000. Funding for the Senate Messaging
Infrastructure project (SMI, new e-mail system) increases
$2,965,000 to $4,742,000 to fund the final implementation and
post-deployment support of the project. Full deployment of
video conferencing capabilities for each member is funded at
$1,200,000, an increase of $1,100,000 over fiscal year 2002 to
provide each Senator with two high-end video conferencing
systems, one for the D.C. office and one for a state office.
Further refinements to our communication strategy plans and
alternate computing facility operations are funded at
$1,000,000 and $500,000, respectively. The communication
strategy plan will refine long-term needs for the Senate's
telecommunications systems and services. Other initiatives
include replacement of obsolete printing and document archiving
equipment for $1,050,000; enhancements to the CMS applications,
$775,000; and acquisition of a contract management system,
$450,000 that will replace a four-year old local database with
a system accessible by all appropriate program and project
managers. Offsetting these increases is a reduction in funding
for the Recording Studio Digital Upgrade, $4,348,000. In
addition, the Recording Studio Relocation Project, $2,100,000,
the Dirksen Building re-wiring project, $250,000 and the
Emergency Response Plan, $150,000 were funded fully in fiscal
year 2002 and no additional funds are requested.
--Nondiscretionary items is $4,518,000, an increase of $1,526,000 or
51.0 percent. The increase is due to projects that support the
Secretary of the Senate: contract maintenance for the
Legislative Information System, $808,000, Senate Payroll
System, $498,000, and the Secretary of the Senate's Financial
Management Information System, $220,000.
Attachment II.--Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request by Department
The following is a summary of the SAA's fiscal year 2003 budget
request on an organizational basis.
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals Variance fiscal year 2003
-------------------------- vs. fiscal year 2002
Fiscal year --------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 Percent
2002 budget request Amount Incr/(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Division........................................... $25,174 $24,983 ($191) 0.8
Central Operations......................................... $10,298 $12,311 $2,013 19.5
Technology Development..................................... $25,164 $33,721 $8,557 34.0
Senate Messaging Infrastructure Project.................... $2,187 $5,190 $3,003 137.3
IT Support Services........................................ $39,741 $48,307 $8,566 21.6
Office Support............................................. $26,381 $30,557 $4,176 15.8
Staff Offices.............................................. $6,041 $7,025 $984 16.3
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ $134,986 $162,094 $27,108 20.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each department's budget is presented and analyzed in detail
beginning on the next page.
capitol division
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals Variance fiscal year 2003
-------------------------- vs. fiscal year 2002
Capitol Division \1\ Fiscal year --------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 Percent
2002 budget request Amount Incr/(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations and Maintenance:
Salaries............................................... $11,719 $13,823 $2,104 18.0
Expenses............................................... $1,451 $5,599 $4,148 285.9
----------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations and Maintenance............. $13,170 $19,422 $6,252 47.5
====================================================
Mandated Allowances and Allotments......................... $0 $0 $0 0.0
Technology Capital Investment.............................. $12,004 $5,561 ($6,443) 53.7
Nondiscretionary Items..................................... $0 $0 $0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ $25,174 $24,983 ($191) 0.8
====================================================
Staffing................................................... 284 306 22 7.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Capitol Division consists of the Executive Office, Facilities, Galleries, Recording Studio, Post Office,
Information Technology Advisor and the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness.
Operations and maintenance salaries increase $2,104,000, or 19.7
percent, to $13,823,000. In fiscal year 2003, the Capitol Division is
adding 22 additional FTEs, $1,176,000; budgeting for an expected 4.2
percent COLA, $497,000, and merit funding for fiscal year 2003,
$431,000. Executive Office staffing increases by four FTEs to provide
additional support to the office. The Post Office is required to add 13
FTEs to implement new mail and package processing protocols. Facilities
will reduce its administrative staff by one FTE in fiscal year 2003.
The Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness requires six FTEs to
direct, develop and monitor the processes and procedures needed to
ensure security on Capitol Hill and to work on the Continuation of
Operations Plan (COOP).
Operations and maintenance expenses increase $4,148,000, or 285.9
percent, to $5,599,000. The Office of Security and Emergency
Preparedness is requesting $2,350,000 primarily to fund physical and
information security initiatives. The budget request for the Post
Office increases $1,037,000 to support increased mail and package
handling and processing costs. The Recording Studio budget request is
$894,000, an increase of $345,000 or 62.8 percent due to funding for
software and equipment maintenance on its new digital equipment. The
Facilities budget request of $648,000 is an increase of $54,000 or 9.1
percent, primarily due to rising costs of supplies, materials and
uniforms.
The technology capital investments budget request for fiscal year
2003 is $5,561,000, a decrease of $6,443,000 or 53.7 percent compared
to fiscal year 2002 of $12,004,000. The Recording Studio requests
$4,906,000 in no-year funding to continue with the Digital Technology
Upgrade. Phase four will proceed with the construction and installation
of a control center as well as the initial design and layout for studio
control rooms and a terminal control center. Funding for the Continuity
of Operations Plan, $500,000, is to maintain and enhance SAA plans for
providing services to Senate offices in the event of a major incident.
The Alternate Senate Chamber project, $155,000, is to prepare lighting
and cable in a single alternate site to relocate the Senate Chamber in
the event an incident forces evacuation of the Senate Chamber in the
Capitol.
central operations
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals Variance fiscal year
-------------------------- 2003 vs. fiscal year
2002
Central Operations \1\ Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
2002 budget 2003 Percent
request Amount Incr/(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations and Maintenance:
Salaries................................................ $7,855 $8,346 $491 6.3
Expenses................................................ $2,443 $2,729 $286 11.7
---------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations and Maintenance.............. $10,298 $11,075 $777 7.5
===================================================
Mandated Allowances and Allotments.......................... $0 $0 $0 0.0
Technology Capital Investment............................... $0 $1,236 $1,236 0.0
Nondiscretionary Items...................................... $0 $0 $0 0.0
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. $10,298 $12,311 $2,013 19.5
===================================================
Staffing.................................................... 181 183 2 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Central Operations Department consists of the Printing, Graphics and Direct Mail, Parking Office, ID
Office, Photo Studio, and Hair Care Services branches.
Operations and maintenance salaries will increase by $491,000 or
6.3 percent to $8,346,000. This increase is due to the addition of 2
FTEs, a net decrease of $23,000; budgeting for an expected 4.2 percent
COLA, $332,000; and merit funding of $182,000. Printing, Graphics and
Direct Mail is decreasing its staff by four FTEs. Improved technology
in Printing and Mailing and in Publishing Services will enable a
reduction of two employees in each area. The Parking Office will add
six new FTEs in fiscal year 2003. Parking space will be reduced by the
construction of the Capitol Visitors Center requiring labor-intensive
stack parking and additional security in lots 11 and 12, creating a
need for additional employees.
Operations and maintenance expenses increase $286,000 or 11.7
percent to $2,729,000. This increase is due to funding of security
proximity cards for Senate building access for staff, small equipment
replacement (large paper cutter, warehouse jack, ID hardware) and
maintenance on prior year technology investments which had been covered
under first-year warranties.
The technology capital investment budget request is $1,236,000 for
fiscal year 2003. $500,000 is requested to upgrade the document
archiving system allowing archiving of both paper and electronic
images. PGDM is requesting $300,000 to replace two pieces of outdated
photocopy and two pieces of networked electronic printing equipment
with one up-to-date, high volume, networked printer. Additionally, PGDM
is requesting $250,000 to replace a ten-year old outdated laser
printing system with new technology. Replacement equipment will ensure
parts availability, lower maintenance costs, produce a higher quality
product, improve backup capability, and allow for networking between
machines within the department. The Parking Operations request of
$186,000 is to improve safety and security of Senate staff by
installing parking lot video cameras; acquiring bar code readers for
parking permit stickers providing more efficient enforcement of parking
regulations; and installing an automated pedestrian gate at lot 12.
technology development services
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals Variance fiscal year
-------------------------- 2003 vs. fiscal year
2002
Technology Development Services \1\ Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
2002 budget 2003 Percent
request Amount Incr/(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations and Maintenance:
Salaries................................................ $7,599 $9,231 $1,632 21.5
Expenses................................................ $9,744 $14,714 $4,970 51.0
---------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations and Maintenance.............. $17,343 $23,945 $6,602 38.1
===================================================
Mandated Allowances and Allotments.......................... $0 $0 $0 0.0
Technology Capital Investment............................... $4,829 $5,258 $429 8.9
Nondiscretionary Items...................................... $2,992 $4,518 $1,526 51.0
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. $25,164 $33,721 $8,557 34.0
===================================================
Staffing.................................................... 108 128 20 18.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Technology Development Services Department consists of the Systems Development Services, Network
Engineering, Enterprise IT Operations, Internet/Intranet Services, and Information Systems Security.
Operations and maintenance salaries will increase $1,632,000, or
21.5 percent, to $9,231,000. This increase is due to the addition of 20
FTEs, $1,287,000; budgeting for an expected 4.2 percent COLA, $327,000;
and merit funding for existing staff, $27,000. Eighteen new FTEs are
required to manage, operate and administer the alternate computing
facility. Systems Development is adding one FTE to serve as a senior
software specialist supporting the increased number of databases.
Internet/Intranet Services will add one FTE as a web development
specialist responsible for providing web-site support for Senate
offices.
Operations and maintenance expenses increase $4,970,000, or 51.6
percent, to $14,714,000. In fiscal year 2003, $4,290,000 is required
for maintenance and licensing on software purchases for the alternate
computing facility. Increases in software maintenance and support
services, $627,000, SAA data warehouse, $505,000, and e-mail list
management, $150,000. These increases are offset by a reduction in
outside vendor support, $545,000.
Technology capital investments decrease $429,000, or 8.9 percent,
to $5,258,000. The investments are accounted for in the major data
network infrastructure projects, the State Office wide area network
upgrade, the data security projects, and other technology capital
investment projects. Major data network infrastructure investment
projects include the Data Network Upgrade, $1,500,000, to support new
applications such as SMI, and provide increased capacity for the
future; and the Data Network Engineering Upgrade, $1,060,000 to support
a virtual private network to enable remote access to the network, an
emergency backup communications systems, and support for SMI. The State
Office Wide Area Network upgrade, $950,000, will ensure that each state
office has improved access to all Senate applications. Data security
projects include the Enterprise Disaster Recovery project, $498,000, to
provide on-site data backup and off-site data recovery for all
mainframe applications.
Other technology capital investment projects include the Voice and
RF Systems project, $400,000, to purchase, configure and install lab
equipment capable of supporting both voice and data communications, and
the equipment and software to support testing of limited radius
wireless networks. The infrastructure to support both voice and data
communications, called voice over IP, offers several benefits including
the potential to allow the Senate phone system to operate over the
existing data network in the event of a failure of the telephone
switch. The ultimate deployment of limited radius wireless technology
supports the expansion of Senate network access throughout the campus
without requiring local area network or other hard wired connections.
The www.Senate.gov data source project, $225,000, provides for the
acquisition and integration of ``user friendly'' database resources
requested by numerous Senate offices to operate in conjunction with the
Senate's public web server. The availability of this data source will
provide more customizable, flexible and reliable content on many Senate
offices' public web sites. The Newswire Project, $125,000, is intended
to enhance the current electronic news feeds by supporting multimedia
news content and providing an improved user interface.
Nondiscretionary items increase $1,526,000, or 51.0 percent, to
$4,518,000. The request consists of three projects which support the
Secretary of the Senate: contract maintenance for the Financial
Management Information System (FMIS), $2,410,000; enhancements to the
Legislative Information System (LIS), $1,610,000; and requirements
definition for replacement of the Senate Payroll System, $498,000.
senate messaging infrastructure project
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals Variance fiscal year
-------------------------- 2003 vs. fiscal year
2002
SMI Project Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
2002 budget 2003 Percent
request Amount Incr/(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations and Maintenance:
Salaries................................................ $410 $448 $38 9.3
Expenses................................................ $0 $0 $0 0.0
---------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations and Maintenance.............. $410 $448 $38 9.3
===================================================
Mandated Allowances and Allotments.......................... $0 $0 $0 0.0
Technology Capital Investment............................... $1,777 $4,742 $2,965 166.9
Nondiscretionary Items...................................... $0 $0 $0 0.0
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. $2,187 $5,190 $3,003 137.3
===================================================
Staffing.................................................... 5 5 0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and maintenance salaries increase $38,000, or 9.4
percent, to $448,000. This increase is due to the budgeting for an
expected 4.2 percent COLA, $21,000, and merit funding, $17,000.
Technology capital investments increase $2,965,000, or 166.9
percent to $4,742,000. This increase will fund the final implementation
and post-deployment support of the Senate Messaging Infrastructure
project.
it support services
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals Variance fiscal year
-------------------------- 2003 vs. fiscal year
2002
IT Support Services \1\ Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
2002 budget 2003 Percent
request Amount Incr/(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations and Maintenance:
Salaries................................................ $4,987 $5,606 $619 12.4
Expenses................................................ $6,790 $11,326 $4,536 66.8
---------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations and Maintenance.............. $11,777 $16,932 $5,155 43.8
===================================================
Mandated Allowances and Allotments.......................... $26,714 $27,750 $1,036 3.9
Technology Capital Investment............................... $1,250 $3,625 $2,375 190.0
Nondiscretionary Items...................................... $0 $0 $0 0.0
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. $39,741 $48,307 $8,566 21.6
===================================================
Staffing.................................................... 93 98 5 5.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The IT Support Services Department consists of the Desktop/LAN Support, IT/Telecom Support, IT Research and
Deployment, and Equipment Services branches.
Operations and maintenance salaries increase $619,000, or 12.4
percent, to $5,606,000. This increase is due to the addition of five
FTEs, $313,000; budgeting for an expected 4.2 percent COLA, $211,000;
and merit funding for existing staff, $95,000. Telecom Services will
add one FTE to support the additional equipment and services acquired
to enhance communication capabilities. IT Research and Deployment will
add four FTEs to identify, test and support new equipment and
technologies and their application in the Senate.
Operations and maintenance expenses increase $4,536,000, or 66.8
percent, to $11,326,000. The increase is mainly attributable to rising
contract costs for providing help desk, PC/LAN installation and support
functions to the Senate, $3,193,000.
Allowances and allotments will increase $1,036,000, or 3.9 percent
to $27,750,000 in fiscal year 2003. This budget request will support
voice and data communications for D.C. and state offices, $15,517,000;
maintenance and procurement of Members' constituent mail systems,
$5,924,000; procurement and maintenance of office equipment for
Members' D.C. and state offices, $3,359,000; and Desktop/LAN
installation and specialized support, $2,450,000; and the
Appropriations Analysis and Reporting System, $300,000. The DPC and RPC
studio upgrades will be completed in fiscal year 2002. The budget
request for these projects is reduced by $1,800,000, resulting in a net
increase of $1,536,000 or 5.9 percent over fiscal year 2002. The
$5,924,000 requested for the maintenance and procurement of Members'
constituent mail systems consists of no year funds.
Technology capital investments increase $2,375,000, or 190.0
percent to $3,625,000. These investments will provide the Senate with
high-resolution videoconferencing capabilities, $1,200,000. The
proposal provides each Senator with two high-end (near television
quality) TCP/IP video conferencing systems, one for the D.C. office and
one for a state office. Telecom Modernization Planning, $1,000,000, is
a project to refine and set a long-term strategic plan for the Senate's
telecommunications systems and services. This request also supports new
projects that will redesign and enhance members' current constituent
mail systems, $775,000. Other ongoing projects supported in this
request are the Enterprise Storage Area Network, $150,000; Workflow
Technologies, $150,000; Senate Application Service Provider, $100,000;
and Streaming Media Upgrade, $100,000.
office support services
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals Variance fiscal year
-------------------------- 2003 vs. fiscal year
2002
Office Support Services \1\ Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
2002 budget 2003 Percent
request Amount Incr/(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations and Maintenance:
Salaries................................................ $1,693 $1,871 $178 10.5
Expenses................................................ $37 $37 $0 0.0
---------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations and Maintenance.............. $1,730 $1,908 $178 10.3
===================================================
Mandated Allowances and Allotments.......................... $24,651 $28,649 $3,998 16.2
Technology Capital Investment............................... $0 $0 $0 0.0
Nondiscretionary Items...................................... $0 $0 $0 0.0
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. $26,381 $30,557 $4,176 15.8
===================================================
Staffing.................................................... 28 28 0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Office Support Services Department consists of the Customer Support, and IT Request Processing, and
State Office Liaison branches.
Operations and maintenance salaries will increase $178,000, or 10.5
percent, to $1,871,000. This increase will fund an expected 4.2 percent
COLA, $72,000; and fund merit increases all positions, $106,000.
Operations and maintenance expenses will remain flat at $37,000.
Allowances and allotments increases to $28,649,000 due to projected
increases in rent for federal and commercial office space, $1,082,000;
warehouse rent, $1,000,000; state office security enhancements,
$1,000,000; and funding for computer allocations, $916,000. No-year
funding totaling $2,744,000 is required to continue acquisition and
maintenance on state office security enhancements. In addition,
$9,570,000 is requested as three-year funding to purchase computer
equipment for Members, committees, officers, and leadership.
staff offices
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals Variance fiscal year
-------------------------- 2003 vs. fiscal year
2002
Staff Offices \1\ Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
2002 budget 2003 Percent
request Amount Incr/(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations and Maintenance:
Salaries................................................ $4,819 $5,336 $517 10.7
Expenses................................................ $1,222 $1,239 $17 1.4
---------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations and Maintenance.............. $6,041 $6,575 $534 8.8
===================================================
Mandated Allowances and Allotments.......................... $0 $0 $0 0.0
Technology Capital Investment............................... $0 $450 $450 0.0
Nondiscretionary Items...................................... $0 $0 $0 0.0
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. $6,041 $7,025 $984 16.3
===================================================
Staffing.................................................... 80 81 1 1.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Staff Offices Division consists of Education and Training, Human Resources, Administrative Services,
Financial Management and Special Projects.
Operations and maintenance salaries increase $517,000, or 10.7
percent, to $5,336,000. This increase is due to the addition of one
FTE, $67,000; budgeting for an expected 4.2 percent COLA, $294,000; and
merit funding for existing staff, $156,000. Administrative Services
will add one FTE as a technical writer to develop and draft technical
policy and procedure manuals.
Operations and maintenance expenses increase $17,000, or 1.4
percent, to $1,239,000. The growth in Administrative Services is due to
an anticipated increase in metro subsidies ($160,000), the upgrading of
equipment for Postal Square conference rooms, and supplying of the
Senate transition office. This increase is partially offset by a
decrease in Human Resources due to the completion of the physical
abilities/medical guidelines project ($200,000).
Technology capital investments budget request is $450,000 in fiscal
year 2003. Financial Management will acquire and implement a contract
management system to replace a four-year-old local database with a
system accessible by all appropriate program and project managers. The
new system will provide contract tracking functionality of: value;
modifications; terms and conditions; as well as notification of
critical dates with e-mail notifications to the concerned parties.
Report generation will bring significant efficiency gains.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Lenhardt.
Senator Bennett has indicated that he does not have an
opening statement and I will defer to questions from my
colleagues in just a moment.
SECURITY MEASURES
Let me ask initially, you were kind enough to give me a
closed briefing, a classified briefing about security measures
that are being considered and undertaken to deal with any
future crises. Can you tell us outside of that context in this
open testimony what measures or what progress has been made in
preparing the Capitol complex for any challenge that we might
face in the future?
Mr. Lenhardt. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of work
done. To cite just a few things in terms of response to 9/11,
we now have intelligence coordination established with the FBI,
Department of Defense, the Metropolitan Police Department, and
other agencies to provide information about what is going on,
identifying specifically the potential threat to the Capitol.
Plans and policies have been developed, including evacuation
plans, COOP plans, business models, and alternative facilities
for various and sundry support services. Training of the
Capitol Police and staff has been undertaken. We also have
specialized equipment planned that we cannot go into in this
session. Evacuation drills and rehearsals have been undertaken
for the staff and for the Capitol Police.
In the area of COOP and of COG, continuity of Government
planning is well underway between the Offices of the Sergeant
at Arms and the Secretary of the Senate. We have certainly
expressed those plans and the need for those plans to all
Senate offices and all committees and staff offices. As a
matter of fact, this August the Secretary of the Senate and the
Sergeant at Arms staff will undergo a tabletop exercise to test
the validity of our plans.
We have done, as I mentioned, evacuation drills and
rehearsals. We have better communications. We have upgraded the
Senate pagers, Senators' pagers rather, and BlackBerry devices.
Coordination with national telecommunications service providers
has been effected and established to give us a better
continuity of services in what we can expect.
We are working with the House in a cooperative arrangement,
a task force as a matter of fact, looking at autonomous Hill-
wide communications and a system that will be dedicated to the
Hill. We have made additional authorizations, as you know, for
the Capitol Police in terms of increased number of officers. We
have coordinated with early responders across the board in
terms of other agencies that might assist in the event that we
had a crisis.
As you know, we have already established the Office of the
Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and Emergency
Preparedness. As I briefed you 1 week ago, we have concentric
circles of security, as we term it, that identify possible
alternate locations in the event we had to evacuate the
Capitol. These locations correspond to our response to a threat
here at the Capitol. The relocation might be here in the local
area, or it might be outside the local area. Our planning
considers how we might relocate the Chamber and continue the
activities and business of the Senate.
Senator Durbin. Can I ask you one basic question? Since
1983 we have had the placement of these huge concrete planters
all around the Capitol.
Senator Bennett. Sewer pipes.
TEMPORARY SECURITY BARRIERS
Senator Durbin. Sewer pipes, pardon me, as Senator Bennett
refers to them. Is there any chance that, in your vision of the
future of Capitol Hill, they may be taken out and replaced with
something else?
Mr. Lenhardt. Yes, Senator. We are actively engaged in that
process and working with the Architect of the Capitol. All of
the concrete, the sewer pipes and the other temporary conduits
that you see, the large jersey barriers, as they are termed,
will eventually be removed. The plan is to remove them once we
have bollards in place, and I think you have seen some of the
bollards. They are attractive, aesthetically pleasing, and
conducive to the environment that we find ourselves in this new
threat scenario.
So all of the concrete barriers you now see are expected to
be replaced.
DELIVERY OF MAIL
Senator Durbin. Good. Let me ask one last question before I
turn it over to Senator Bennett. The mail, we know what a mess
it was because of the anthrax and the fact that it had to be
shipped off for inspection, irradiation, and the like. What is
the time now between the delivery of mail to the Sergeant at
Arms and the actual delivery of mail to our offices, and is
that likely to improve over time?
Mr. Lenhardt. Thank you, Senator. Yes, in fact the delivery
of mail is averaging at this point in time about 16 days. By
the way, that has been reduced by at least 1\1/2\ weeks.
Delivery used to be a much longer period of time. We
established a Legislative Mail Task Force to look at the whole
issue of mail, and how it might be affecting members of the
staff in terms of handling the irradiated mail.
I am very much concerned about the tardiness of the mail.
We have been working with the U.S. Postal Service to drive down
the time that it is taking for the Senate to receive mail. From
the U.S. Postal Service, we are receiving their mail, from
postmark date to the time that we actually receive it in our
facilities here in the Senate, in about 14 days.
We then have a process on top of that that seeks to
guarantee the safety of the mail before it is delivered to the
staff. So hence you get the 16 days. We think we can do much
better than that.
Initially the U.S. Postal Service advertised that they
could do their process, the irradiation process, in 7 to 10
days. We want to hold them to that so that we can drive down
the time that it takes to deliver the mail.
EFFECT OF IRRADIATED MAIL
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you about that irradiation
process. In my office and many others, there was a sensitivity
to the mail when it first arrived. The interns and people who
were working with the mail, some, but not a lot, experienced
some personal health problems. Has that continued? What do you
see in terms of that challenge?
Mr. Lenhardt. Sir, the Legislative Mail Task Force did in
fact undertake the investigation of that, and we brought in the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to look at
the whole issue of mail and its effect: the irradiated mail,
and its effect on the staff. NIOSH issued its report last week
and that report did not find any harmful effects of the mail to
people handling the mail.
Now, obviously we all are sensitive to various and sundry
factors, dust in the air and other factors that might have
contributed to people having rashes on their fingers, dryness
or, for that matter, runny nose, dryness of the eyes and the
like. But NIOSH has concluded that there is nothing wrong with
the mail that would cause any of the ill effects people were
suffering.
Now, as a matter of fact the task force was also successful
in working with the U.S. Postal Service to drive down, to
reduce, the irradiation of the mail by two levels. That now has
caused what we consider to be this beneficial effect of the
mail not having the harmful effects that it previously had.
You may have also noticed that the mail is no longer as
discolored or as brittle to touch and feel.
Senator Durbin. It is not as crispy as it used to be.
Mr. Lenhardt. Sir, I have heard it defined as being cooked.
So it is no longer cooked as heavily as it once was.
All of this, again, was revealed to the staff in terms of
informing them of the NIOSH examination results. So at this
point in time we feel confident. The other point I would make,
the Attending Physician's Office has also reported that the
number of people who have come forward complaining of rashes
and runny noses and soreness of the eyes and other parts of the
body no longer are coming in at the same numbers. In fact, last
week those numbers were near zero. I say near zero because
someone is always coming forward saying they are feeling
something, and so we respect that.
But the task force that we established continues to monitor
all of the conditions of the mail, to include the timeliness of
the mail. So, until such time as we are satisfied that task
force will remain operational.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I did not interrupt with an opening statement, but I do
want to thank you, Mr. Lenhardt, along with Ms. Harkins, Ms.
McAlhany, Mr. Edwards, and the rest of your team, for the
superb job you have done under very difficult circumstances.
You came on board to what looked like a smooth-running
operation with plenty of time for you to get yourself
acclimated and suddenly found yourself in the middle of a true
whirlwind. I congratulate you and your team for the way you
reacted to that and the steps that you have taken.
HILL-WIDE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
Now, a very minor issue just came out of your answer to the
chairman. You talk about the pager and the BlackBerry. Can you
put those together? I carry a pager, I carry a cell phone. I
refuse to carry a BlackBerry. Two is enough.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Robert F. Bennett
Good morning, Mr. Lenhardt, Ms. Harkins, Ms. McAlhany, Mr.
Edwards, and the rest of the Sergeant at Arms team. Along with
the chairman, I wish to thank everyone as well as others who
aren't here today, for the incredible dedication that has been
shown over the 8 months in responding to the devastating events
of last September and October. We couldn't have gone on with
our responsibilities had it not been for the work of the
Sergeant at Arms and all the others involved.
As the chairman noted, most of us do take for granted the
day-to-day workings of your department, which make the Senate
function with phones, computers, e-mail, the delivery of mail,
and security protections. Having experienced such severe
disruptions to our normal operations last fall, today we are
more aware of the importance of your work than ever.
The $162 million budget request before us represents a
sizable increase of 20 percent, but in these times perhaps such
an increase is warranted. As I understand it, the largest staff
increases are security related, including 18 FTE for a new
alternate computer facility.
Other increases are requested for mail processing,
emergency preparedness, and such projects as the Senate
Messaging Infrastructure--the new e-mail system--a project your
office has been involved in for some time and I look forward to
getting an update on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lenhardt. Senator, I understand. We are working. Part
of what we are trying to look for in this Hill-wide
communications system is a way that we can combine several of
the features of the pager, the BlackBerry, as well as the
cellular telephone, into at most two instruments. I say two
because to put them all into one instrument would put us in
danger of having a single point failure.
Senator Bennett. Yes, I understand that, and I am willing
to carry two, but I draw the line at three. So if you want me
to use my BlackBerry you better tie it to the pager that tells
me when there is a vote, so I am not fumbling to see which one
is buzzing.
Mr. Lenhardt. Senator, we are working on that mightily. I
want to get rid of the notion of people wearing bandoliers with
all the kinds of devices contained in pouches.
5-YEAR EVERGREEN PLAN
Senator Bennett. Okay. Now, you made reference to the 5-
year evergreen plan that Jim Ziglar put in place and said you
were following that. Last year he brought a chart to this
hearing representing what he called the evergreen budget, the
5-year budget by category. Your request is $32 million more
than that, and I recognize that a good portion of that, $15
million, is security initiatives.
But even though I recognize this was not your budget, you
have embraced it in your comment and at least the process in
your comment. I would appreciate your telling us what accounts
for the additional nonsecurity money, over and above that which
Jim Ziglar laid out for us in the budget that you have
indicated you have adopted.
Mr. Lenhardt. Thank you, sir. In addition to the security
items, sir, we have an increase also for accelerating funding
for the recording studio upgrade, which is $5 million; $4
million for phase-in of increased----
RECORDING STUDIO UPGRADE
Senator Bennett. Let me interrupt you there. You say
recording studio upgrade. That is separate and apart from
moving the recording studio in preparation for the Capitol
Visitor Center?
Mr. Lenhardt. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator Bennett. So that is something that Jim Ziglar did
not have in his budget?
Mr. Lenhardt. That is correct.
Senator Bennett. Okay.
BUDGET INCREASES
Mr. Lenhardt. $4 million for phase-in of increased Member
computer allocations, approved in January 2001, but not funded
in 2002; increased State office rents due to higher market
rents; video conferencing equipment which is now included in
this budget which was not in the former budget; $3 million in
funding for post-implementation of the Senate Messaging
Infrastructure Project; $3 million in increased costs for the
computer support contract that was recently recompeted; and $2
million in new FTEs, the funding for higher COLA and other
miscellaneous items, accounts for that amount.
VIDEO CONFERENCING
Senator Bennett. Talk to me about video conferencing. How
is that going to work? Who is going to use that? Is that
between State offices and the Washington office?
Mr. Lenhardt. Yes, Senator, it is between the Senator's
Washington office and one State office at this point in time.
We do not have enough to move it to all 435 State offices, so
we are putting our first effort into establishing the fact that
it will work and then see how we will extrapolate from that
point to other offices statewide.
Senator Bennett. So in my State the three, or we hope four,
Members of the House would come to the same location as my own
Senate staff? We would just have one per State?
Mr. Lenhardt. Sir, I am not sure what the House is doing.
This is a Senate project. But it seems to me in terms of
economy that you would allow them to use the process in some
fashion.
Senator Bennett. But your budget is projecting one per
State?
Mr. Lenhardt. One per State, plus the Senator's office here
in the Capitol or wherever it might be among the other Senate
office buildings.
Senator Bennett. Has there been a lot of demand for that?
Have people said they want to do that? It strikes me as kind of
a nice-to-have rather than a vital.
Mr. Lenhardt. Sir, we have had requests for that
capability. Additionally, in thinking about how it would defer
and reduce transportation costs, of Members moving from the
Capitol, say, to their State offices, we think that it would
pay for itself in a very short period of time. The state of the
art is such that it is used in a number of other venues--the
Government, corporate world, it is used in the military. So we
think that this is a viable program that will expand and will
prove to be a boon at some point in time to the Senate. Again,
we can defer and reduce costs for transportation alone.
Senator Bennett. Well, I think it is probably a good idea,
but I would not get too excited about it reducing costs for
transportation, because Senators do not go home to confer with
their staff. They go home to campaign, and they are going to
continue to go home to campaign whether the video conferencing
is there or not, unless you can get the town meetings to come
to the video conference. Then that might help.
Mr. Lenhardt. Sir, I was thinking more in fact in terms of
not necessarily Members going home, but staff who perhaps may
have occasion to go out for various and sundry reasons. So this
would affect the coordination and save costs and perhaps add to
the effectiveness of our interaction with the staff members.
Senator Bennett. Okay. I am glad to hear about the speeding
up of the mail, although it has been a nice excuse whenever you
miss an event to blame it on the mail rather than your own lack
of desire to be at that particular event.
Mr. Lenhardt. Sir, it is my wish to have to take that alibi
away from you.
Senator Bennett. I think that is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by commending you, General, for your
performance. You came in, as Senator Bennett pointed out
earlier, at an extraordinarily critical moment and your
professionalism and your skill and your personal qualities
enabled you and your team to do a remarkable job. So thank you
for that.
SECURITY OF STATE OFFICES
Let me follow up on some of the thoughts that Senator
Bennett was expressing. What about the security of State
offices right now? Are you dealing with that in any systematic
way?
Mr. Lenhardt. Sir, we are. As you know, our focus has been
the Capitol and the Capitol complex, but in terms of the
continuity of operations plans we are encouraging Senate
offices to certainly fold in the State offices. So we are
making that effort in terms of understanding and causing
sensitivity to be understood for State offices. We have not
collected any of the plans thus far that do, in fact, address
the State offices, but we are encouraging Member offices now to
reach out to State offices.
You know, the COOP plan is nothing more than a business
plan. What will you do, what would you do, in the event of some
unforeseen circumstance? How would you maintain your
operations? So that is the theme that we are trying to express
and communicate across the entire Senate. We think State
offices are picking up on that. From time to time we do talk
with State offices. We do get some feedback that people are
considering that.
Certainly in terms of Member offices here, I do know that
they are reaching out. Now, I have not done a collective effort
in terms of pulling all those plans together. At some point we
may want to think about that. I am not sure what we would be
able to do because, again, it is the Member office that has to
reach out to the State offices. But I think we can look at it
from the standpoint of completeness, the comprehensiveness of
the plan, and make some recommendations certainly about how the
plan might be shored up.
Senator Reed. I think that would be very useful. There is a
great deal of attention and emphasis on the offices in the
Capitol complex, but we all have at least one office, and some
have several offices, in the State. This was demonstrated a few
weeks ago when Governor Ridge announced or the Attorney General
announced targeting banks in the Northeast region. My office is
on the second floor of a bank in the Northeast region. So you
wonder what you should do.
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
I think the other point, too, is it might be useful to
ensure that there is some coordination with local law
enforcement offices, Federal agencies, et cetera. That might be
something that you could initiate right away. I know the
physical improvements are very expensive, complicated, and hard
to do. But having some type of coordination with local, Federal
and law enforcement officials would be good.
SENATE MESSAGING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
Let me raise another issue. Senator Durbin spoke about the
mail. I am younger and more up to date. Let us talk about the
Internet. One of the facts is that it is a steadily rising
portion of the communications we are getting from constituents.
It turns out that last year there was a proposal to do a pilot
program for moving from the current system to the Microsoft
Exchange-Outlook program. Do you have any results yet from the
pilot, and is there any sort of firm proposal to migrate the
entire system to this new approach?
Actually, I am not any younger than Senator Durbin. I am
just being smart.
Mr. Lenhardt. Yes, sir. The SMI project, as you have
already identified, is to migrate from the current cc:Mail to
Microsoft Exchange and Outlook. We have now installed the pilot
program into five offices and we have a commitment from three
other offices to do it within the next few weeks. During this
pilot we have been testing our installation procedures, the
conversion issues going from cc:Mail to Outlook, and the
training and what would be required to move this out through
the entire Senate community.
We are also incorporating our BlackBerry devices, so that
the BlackBerry then would use as its operating system Microsoft
Outlook and Exchange.
Overall, we have received feedback about the new system. It
has been positive. We have identified some minor issues at this
point in time, but the plan is to, in fact, export this to the
entire Senate community. We expect that by the end of the year
we will have had installed throughout the Senate all devices,
all computers with the new Microsoft Outlook and Exchange.
At this point in time, I am very, very much encouraged by
the progress that has been made. Beginning in June is when we
will start the full implementation.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
BLACKBERRY RESPONSE TIME
We had an occasion to speak just briefly this morning about
the BlackBerry response time. For the benefit of my colleagues,
can you respond to that issue? As I indicated, it is becoming
very useful, but sometimes you send a message and you assume
because it is electronic that it is instantaneous
communication, and then you discover it arrives 30 minutes
later.
Mr. Lenhardt. Yes, Senator. I am concerned about the delay.
I am also concerned about a couple of occasions when the system
was actually down. We met 2\1/2\ weeks ago with the chief
operating officer of one of the Internet or the BlackBerry
exchange providers. We got a commitment from the chief
operating officer for us to have our own base station, which
would then give us more control over the timeliness of the
message receipt as well as some assurance that the message or
the system would not be as often unavailable to us.
Now, I think the system still has a great deal of worth and
I am encouraged that you use the system. But the assurance that
we have at this point in time in pressing it back to the
service provider, I think will result in the kind of response
that we need.
I am hoping that more Members use the system as well and as
often as you do. But again, we have got to show where the
confidence is there in the system for them to use it. So that
it is very critical to us to solve this particular problem. I
expressed that in a very forthright and a very positive way to
the chief operating officer and got a commitment that they
would in fact respond to our need and solve this problem. I
think they understand also it is in their best interest to do
so.
Before we can say that the BlackBerry system is truly an
emergency system for us, a backup system, we have got to have
the capability to have it available to us when we need it.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Senator Durbin. I want to thank the senior Senator from
Rhode Island. I would just like to make a point here before
returning to Senator Bennett for another question. I am taking
this opportunity in this series of hearings and each meeting to
remind everyone that we are going to have a big hole in our
front yard for a long time due to the construction of the
Capitol Visitor Center. It has been my experience, in politics
and life, that just about the time the hole is dug, some people
are going to look around and say, ``What is this all about?''
This has been underway for many years. A commitment was
made after September 11th for security reasons. It will be
dirty, it will be inconvenient, it will be a problem for each
and every Member of Congress and all of our visitors for some
time. But when it is completed, I am confident that we will all
conclude it was the right thing to do, and the only thing that
we could do to really give our visitors to the Capitol the very
best treatment, the very best experience in meeting here, and
also the very best in security for all visitors and everyone
who works here.
I noted that when our counterparts in the House sat down to
consider this possibility and what it meant, their first
concern was very predictable. Next to reelection, most Members
are concerned about parking. I know this falls under your
jurisdiction and that the construction of the Capitol Visitor
Center will displace parking on the east side of the Capitol.
Can you tell us what we can expect and what you have
planned to deal with this?
Mr. Lenhardt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have developed a
good plan. We did take into account the issues you mentioned:
security, proximity to the Capitol, convenience of the staff,
the best use of existing resources, and, certainly, friendly
customer service.
Our plan is to move the staff only once. Right now we have
identified 255 members of the staff who will in fact be
affected by the Capitol Visitor Center project. That means that
already we have moved 89 people and we have identified for them
parking spaces that are within close proximity to their former
space, so no one is moving and walking any great distance from
where they formerly parked.
Senator Durbin. So when you say moving staff, you mean
moving their parking spaces?
Mr. Lenhardt. I am sorry, moving the parking space itself.
PARKING
So from that standpoint I think we are addressing this in a
very positive way. The feedback we are getting is a very
positive one from the staff. We have created--we have made this
opportunity available through a number of ways in terms of
creating the 255 spaces: by being more innovative and creative
about how we configure the parking space itself. Rather than
having parallel parking, we are now diagonally parking, so that
you can get more spaces in the same area.
In addition to that, on New Jersey Avenue--and I think you
have seen it by now--New Jersey and Constitution, we created a
parking plaza, a parking lot, essentially built right there on
the side of the sidewalk, that will accommodate some 58 parking
vehicles. That has already filled up. People are appreciative
of the fact that again they do not have to walk great distances
in order to get to the Capitol or, for that matter, Senate
office buildings.
In addition to that, I will say that we are working plans
to have available parking, as much as can be made available, on
the East Front right there near the Senate steps for Members at
a critical time when they need to come to the Capitol to vote.
So we are planning for that, Senator. At this point in time I
cannot give you the exact number of spaces, but we are working
that very feverishly, trying to make sure that we have got all
of those things taken into account. Even with all the positive
aspects of the Capitol Visitor Center that you mentioned, we
must not lose sight of the fact that at the same time we have
to accommodate some inconvenience or to expect some
inconvenience for the good that we will realize 3 or 4 years
from now.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lenhardt. All of that being said, I think we have got
parking covered and that we will have sufficient areas there
for people to accommodate their vehicles.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
CYBER SECURITY
Going back to one of my obsessions, this was triggered by
Senator Reed's comments about the warning of cyber attacks
against banks. We have had some cyber attacks against the
Senate computers, people breaking in. We have been able to
handle those without a whole lot of difficulty. But I think we
are a prime target.
We went through the Y2K experience creating redundancy,
updating, so that we did not have any Y2K problems. I have
found since September 11th a number of people have said if we
had not done the Y2K remediation we did, we would not have been
able to operate after September 11th. Without our Y2K
remediation and planning, the whole command center would have
been paralyzed for a long period of time. And as it was, we
were back up within a matter of minutes.
Are you seeing any indication of cyber attacks, hackers or
hacktivists, others, trying to get into the Senate computers
and, if so, do you have some plans to try to deal with that?
Mr. Lenhardt. Yes, Senator, we have seen where people have
attempted to breach our security. But the firewall that we have
established, the security firewall between the public and the
Senate system, has been very, very good in thwarting and
preventing any outside attacks. So we feel confident that that
is there.
But we are not resting on that fact alone. We continually
monitor the system. We have a security specialist whose job it
is to keep constant vigil on our system. We are constantly
upgrading to the latest virus protectors that are out on the
market. In addition to that, we are looking at an alternate
computing facility that would give us a backup of the present
center that we use, so that in the event that something did
happen untoward, we would have the capability to very quickly
switch over to the alternate computing facility. That, too, is
contained in this budget.
So everything is being done to prevent the kind of
disruption and certainly down time that might be experienced as
a result of someone successfully getting into our system. I do
not think it is possible at this point in time, with everything
that we are doing to monitor, to contain, and to certainly
prevent an outside intrusion, of that happening. And the backup
and the alternate computing facility would give us that much
more, in terms of an ability to continue operations in the
event that something did happen.
Senator Bennett. Well, I applaud you for that and for your
diligence in pursuing it. I just share with you the information
that comes into my office as I focus on this question over the
entire economy, that the level of sophistication on the part of
the attackers is going up exponentially and a firewall that
existed, that was more than adequate 12 months ago, is now
obsolete.
As the level of sophistication goes up, the dissemination
of those tools also increases, which means that the level of
expertise required by the hacker goes down, that someone with
very little expertise can now get very sophisticated attack
weapons off the Internet, download them, and then go exploring.
So I appreciate what you are saying. It is exactly the
right posture to maintain. My only other comment would be that
as you deal with this you might consider red team, blue team
kinds of exercises where you hire a hacker for a day and say,
how long would it take you to get in? Overall, we have found in
hearings in other committees I have been involved in that you
can get into the average corporation in about 6 hours, you can
get into the average university in 45 minutes. I would hope
that the Senate would be a little more difficult to get in than
that, by virtue of the vigilance you have just described to us.
So I applaud you and your approach there and simply urge
you to keep it up.
Mr. Lenhardt. Thank you, Senator. I would like to thank
this committee for appropriating moneys for us to continue that
process. In the past, we have been able to use the resources
that were given to the Office of the Sergeant at Arms to do
just that, to hire contractors who are in fact current and
remain current. So the idea of a blue-red team is a very good
one and I am sure that that is already underway.
What we will do is make sure that contractors are
continually upgrading their systems and that they understand
our sense of urgency about this. But you are exactly right in
terms of the attacks out there and the sophistication of the
attacks. As those attacks mount, we have got to be smarter and
we have got to be more proactive and ahead of potential
hackers.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
Thank you very much, Mr. Lenhardt.
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
STATEMENT OF WILSON LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND CHAIRMAN,
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ROBERT HOWE, ACTING CHIEF, CAPITOL POLICE
ALFONSO E. LENHARDT, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. SENATE, MEMBER,
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, MEMBER, CAPITOL POLICE
BOARD
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. We will now turn to the Capitol Police
Board which is chaired by the House Sergeant at Arms, Bill
Livingood. Welcome to this side of the Rotunda. And also the
Acting Chief of Police Robert Howe. We want to welcome Mr.
Livingood, Chief Howe, and board members Alan Hantman and Al
Lenhardt.
The Capitol Police have really been the front line heroes
since September 11th. Before September 11th, we recall the fact
that two of our very best, Officers Gibson and Chestnut, gave
their lives in defense of the people working in the United
States Capitol and those visiting.
Since September 11th, those of us who have watched closely
understand the personal and family sacrifices that have been
made by the Capitol Police. This has been an extraordinary
burden that they have carried on our behalf for a long, long
period of time. I have made a point of stopping and saying
hello and commiserating from time to time. I understand that it
has not been easy for them. We owe them a great debt of
gratitude, not just Members of Congress but all of the staff,
all the visitors, and everyone in America who treasures this
great Capitol complex. The force has performed tirelessly,
putting in 12-hour days week after week, month after month,
working diligently to protect us.
So we will start this portion of the hearing by thanking
all of the officers and their leader, Acting Chief Howe, for
his dedicated service. I think it bears repeating that these
men and women risk their lives for us every single day. They
get up in the morning and put on that badge, hoping that they
will come home safely. We should never forget that, in our way
that we view them as people, and certainly as an integral part
of the Capitol Hill family.
The budget request this year for the Capitol Police totals
$212.6 million. It is an increase of roughly 35 percent over
the current budget, including $31 million appropriated in
supplemental funds in December last year. The increase would
support the goal that has been established of attaining a total
personnel level of 1,981 FTEs by the year 2004. This is an
ambitious goal and we want to be sure that we have the
resources and the approach that we need to achieve it.
Senator Bennett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply want to
echo your comments in support of the Capitol Police and
indicate that I, too, discover a very high level of morale as I
visit with police officers wherever I go. Maybe that is just
because they recognize that I am on the committee that controls
their budget, but I think not. I think they do have a sense of
pride and satisfaction in a job well done.
We recognize that you face a time of some uncertainty now.
You have to hire new officers, which means a lot of training
time. You are suffering some attrition as people want to take
to the skies and become sky marshals. I am not quite sure what
the attraction of that is. I spend enough time on airplanes
that I welcome the opportunity not to. But as people move along
to other opportunities, that creates more vacancies that have
to be filled.
You are in the process of trying to finalize a permanent
chief and all of this circumstance does create a situation of
some uneasiness. But it has not in any way been translated into
a deterioration of the services that they perform. We recognize
that and are grateful to the police for that.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
Mr. Livingood and Acting Chief Howe, your written
statements will be made part of the record. At this point we
invite you to summarize them and thank you for joining us
today.
STATEMENT OF WILSON LIVINGOOD
Mr. Livingood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
those comments on behalf of the Capitol Police. They have done
an outstanding job and thank you for recognizing that.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: We are pleased
to appear before you, all of us, the three members of the
Board, to present the fiscal year 2003 budget estimate for the
Capitol Police. I would like to officially introduce Acting
Chief Robert R. Howe. Chief Howe is serving as interim Chief,
as you are aware, until the Board completes its search process
to name a new chief of police. Chief Howe's 31 years of
experience with the U.S. Capitol Police has been and continues
to be invaluable. Thank you, Chief Howe.
Mr. Chairman, the events on September 11th and the
subsequent anthrax attack on October 15th had a profound effect
on security within the Capitol complex. In the past, we have
testified before this and other committees regarding the
terrorist threat we face on a daily basis. The attacks that
occurred last fall have only deepened our concern. Regrettably,
it is no longer a question of if a terrorism act will again
occur on U.S. soil, it is now a question of when and where.
It is for this reason that the Capitol Police must continue
to receive the funding required to ensure its continued
viability to serve and protect the people of the Capitol
complex, and to safeguard the institution of this great
Congress.
BUDGET REQUEST
The budget submission for the U.S. Capitol Police for
fiscal year 2003 is $220.4 million, which is a 40 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2002 base amount. Of the total
request, $192.305 million is for salaries and $28.1 million is
for general expenses.
Mr. Chairman, we have identified two areas within the
budget that are critical to the department in meeting its
mission and achieving organizational goals: staffing and police
facilities. The issues are inter-related. The annual budget for
the Capitol Police is primarily driven by the staffing level
required to provide Congress, the public, and the buildings
with the requisite level of security and protection in an open
threat potential environment.
In the fiscal year 2001 budget cycle, the Capitol Police
Board began a major staffing initiative that will increase the
number of FTEs to a level commensurate with the mission of the
department. Over the course of the next 3 years, we will
incrementally increase FTEs until the revised optimum number of
1,981 FTEs is achieved. We are requesting funding for 1,810
FTEs in the fiscal year 2003 budget.
FACILITY NEEDS
With regard to police facilities, I am pleased to report,
with the committee's support, we have recently moved our
vehicle maintenance operation to 67 K Street, Southwest. The
facility is modern, well equipped, and provides a safe work
environment for all our personnel. Likewise, steady progress is
being made to open a new Capitol Police training facility at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Cheltenham,
Maryland. I would really, particularly on behalf of the entire
Board and the Capitol Police, like to thank the committee for
your support on these projects. It has made a difference.
There are, however, several police facilities that must be
addressed. As we add more officers to the department during the
staffing initiatives, the space requirements in the Capitol,
and the House, and Senate office buildings will exceed our
current allocations. Likewise, the Eney, Chestnut, and Gibson
Building, which serves as Capitol Police headquarters, can no
longer support the growing administrative and operational
functions of the department.
In addition, as we learned during the September 11th
incident response and the response management and mitigation of
the anthrax attack, it is imperative that the police obtain a
state of the art command and control facility. These factors,
combined with health and safety concerns on certain assigned
space, have compelled the Architect of the Capitol to hire a
consultant to update the Capitol Police facilities master plan,
to determine the comprehensive facilities needs of the U.S.
Capitol Police.
Working with the Board, the Architect and the police
command staff, the consultant will determine space requirements
for the department and locate properties in the vicinity which
may be obtained to co-locate police operational and
administrative services.
The issue of facilities is imperative to the successful
performance of the department's law enforcement, security, and
protective missions. Therefore, the consultant's report will be
submitted to the committees of jurisdiction for review and
approval of funding requests.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND
The Board received $110.75 million from the Legislative
Branch Emergency Response Fund. For the 21 projects that are
funded, we have started work on 8 and have cancelled 1 project.
Three await the formation of our Office of Emergency Planning
and Chem-Bio Strike Force. The remaining are in support of
future Architect of the Capitol projects.
A major security project is the Senate Office Buildings
Perimeter Security. The conceptual design has been completed
that will put into place vehicle-rated barriers and provide
increased standoff from a vehicle attack. We look forward to
meeting with the committees to present these ideas.
Mr. Chairman, as you can see, the U.S. Capitol Police is an
agency which is once again in transition. The future of the
department is contained in the U.S. Capitol Police strategic
plan, which is currently being updated in view of changing
priorities. Likewise, several recent security studies of the
Capitol complex are being reviewed and condensed into one
comprehensive plan.
DEDICATION OF PERSONNEL
However, the most important asset of the United States
Capitol Police is its personnel. We, the Capitol Police Board,
would like to commend the men and women of the department for
continually performing their duty in a diligent and
professional manner. The past 7 months have been one of the
most challenging periods in the department's history. In the
face of increased terrorist threats and in spite of a
bioterrorism attack, the personnel of the United States Capitol
Police ensured that the national legislative process proceeded
uninhibited. They took extraordinary measures, working
additional duty hours for extended periods of time, to provide
security and protection to the Congress, the congressional
community, and visitors.
I know that I speak for all my colleagues when I say that
we are proud to be associated with such a fine group of men and
women, and we thank them for their service, dedication, and
patriotism.
We look forward to working with you to ensure the Capitol
Police receive the funding and support required to meet their
mission. A detailed budget of the U.S. Capitol Police has been
submitted to the committee. We will be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wilson Livingood
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are pleased to appear
before you today to present the fiscal year 2003 Budget Estimate for
the United States Capitol Police.
I would like to formally introduce Acting Chief Robert R. Howe.
Chief Howe is serving as interim chief until the Board completes the
selection process to name a new Chief of Police. Chief Howe's thirty-
one years of experience with the United States Capitol Police have been
invaluable.
Mr. Chairman, the events of September 11th and the subsequent
anthrax attack on October 15th had a profound effect on security within
the Capitol Complex.
In the past, we have testified before this and other committees
regarding the terrorist threat we face on a daily basis. The attacks
that occurred last fall have only deepened our concerns. Regrettably,
it is no longer a question of if a terrorist incident will again occur
on U.S. soil, it is now a question of when and where. It is for this
reason that the U.S. Capitol Police must continue to receive the
funding required to ensure its continued viability to serve and protect
the people of the Capitol Complex and to safeguard the institution of
the Congress.
The budget submission for the U.S. Capitol Police for fiscal year
2003 is $220,405,000, which is a forty percent increase over the fiscal
year 2002 base amount. Of the total request, $192,305,000 is for
salaries and $28,100,000 is for general expenses.
Mr. Chairman, we have identified two areas within the budget which
are critical to the Department in meeting its mission and achieving
organizational goals: staffing and police facilities. These issues are
inter-related. The annual budget for the U.S. Capitol Police is
primarily driven by the staffing level required to provide Congress,
the public, and the buildings with a requisite level of security and
protection in an open, threat potential environment. In the fiscal year
2001 budget cycle, the U.S. Capitol Police Board began a major staffing
initiative that will increase the number of FTEs to a level
commensurate with the mission of the Department. Over the course of the
next three years, we will incrementally increase FTEs until the revised
optimum number of 1,981 FTEs is achieved. We are requesting funding for
1,810 FTEs in the fiscal year 2003 budget.
With regard to police facilities, I am pleased to report that, with
the committee's support, we have recently moved our vehicle maintenance
operation to 67 K Street, SW. This facility is modern, well-equipped,
and provides a safe work environment for our personnel. Likewise,
steady progress is being made to open a new U.S. Capitol Police
training facility at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in
Cheltenham, Maryland. I would like to thank the Committee for your
support of these projects.
There are, however, several police facility issues which must be
addressed. As we add more officers to the Department during the
staffing initiative, the space requirements in the Capitol and the
House and Senate Office Buildings will exceed our current allocations.
Likewise, the Eney, Chestnut, Gibson Building, which serves as police
headquarters, can no longer support the growing administrative and
operational functions of the Department. In addition, as we learned
during the September 11th incident response, and the response,
management, and mitigation of the anthrax attack, it is imperative that
the police obtain a state-of-the-art command and control facility.
These factors, combined with health and safety concerns on certain
assigned space, have compelled the Architect of the Capitol to hire a
consultant to update the Capitol Police Facilities Master Plan to
determine the comprehensive facilities needs of the U.S. Capitol
Police. Working with the Board, the Architect, and the police Command
Staff, the consultant will determine the space requirements for the
Department and locate properties in the vicinity which may be obtained
to co-locate police operational and administrative services. The issue
of facilities is imperative to the successful performance of the
Department's law enforcement, security, and protective mission.
Therefore, the consultant's report will be submitted to the Committees
of jurisdiction for review and approval of funding requests.
The Board received $110,750,000 from the Legislative Branch
Emergency Response Fund. For the 21 projects that are funded, we have
started work on eight and have canceled one project. Three await the
formation of our Office of Emergency Planning and Chem/Bio Strike
Force. The remaining are in support of future Architect of the Capitol
projects.
A major security project is the Senate Office Buildings Perimeter
Security. The conceptual design has been completed that will put into
place vehicle rated barriers and provide increased standoff from a
vehicle attack. We look forward to meeting with the Committees to
present these ideas.
Mr. Chairman, as you can see, the United States Capitol Police is
an agency which is once again in transition. The future of the
Department is contained in the USCP Strategic Plan which is currently
being updated in view of changing priorities. Likewise, several recent
security studies of the Capitol Complex are being reviewed and
condensed into one comprehensive plan.
However, the most important asset of the United States Capitol
Police is its personnel. I would like to commend the men and women of
the Department for continually performing their duty in a diligent and
professional manner. The past six months have been one of the most
challenging periods in the Department's history. In the face of
increased terrorist threats and in spite of a bio-terrorism attack, the
personnel of the United States Capitol Police ensured that the national
legislative process proceeded unhindered. They took extraordinary
measures, working additional duty hours for extended periods of time to
provide security and protection to the Congress, the Congressional
community, and visitors. I know that I speak for my colleagues when I
say that we are proud to be associated with such a fine group of men
and women and we thank them for their service, dedication, and
patriotism.
We look forward to working with you to ensure the police receive
the funding and support required to meet their mission. A detailed
budget for the U.S. Capitol Police has been submitted to the Committee.
We will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining
us here today.
STATEMENT OF ACTING CHIEF ROBERT R. HOWE
Chief Howe, if you would like to make a statement at this
time. Your entire written statement will be made part of the
record, and if you would like to summarize we would appreciate
it.
Chief Howe. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Bennett. Thank you especially for those most generous remarks.
I will ensure that those are passed along to the men and women
of the force and I am sure they will appreciate them as well.
I am pleased to appear before you today to present the
fiscal year 2003 budget request for the United States Capitol
Police. As you said, the bulk of my statement has been
submitted for the record, so I would like to abbreviate my
remarks.
POLICE PRIORITIES
We have made it a priority to improve the capabilities of
the U.S. Capitol Police to deter, detect, and respond, contain
and mitigate threats ranging from a single armed individual to
an organized terrorist attack. Overall, the department's
capabilities are based on four primary factors: adequate
staffing, adequate training, adequate facilities, and adequate
funding.
It is clear that, given the responsibilities of the United
States Capitol Police, it has been understaffed for a number of
years, given the physical environment of the Capitol complex
and the multitude of duties needed to fulfill our mission. In
fiscal year 2001, with your support, we began an initiative to
incrementally increase the number of officers each year until
we have reached an optimum number of FTEs which is commensurate
with our mission. In view of recent events, we have updated
that optimum number to a total of 1,981, which we plan to reach
by the year 2004. This FTE level will allow us to staff each
access point with a minimum of two officers, staff all other
police posts, and provide civilian technical and administrative
support.
STAFF RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
As you can see, the annual budget for the department is
primarily driven by required staffing levels. The majority of
the requested increase can be attributed to salaries and
associated personnel costs. The fiscal year 2003 request for
1,810 FTEs is based on our ability to recruit, hire, and retain
and train additional personnel. It should be noted that we are
losing officers to other law enforcement agencies at an
increasing rate. Likewise, we are competing against those same
agencies to attract qualified personnel to increase the
staffing level and overcome attrition.
The pay adjustment and recruiting and retention incentives
you approved last year will help stem the tide. I am confident
that the pay adjustment included in the fiscal year 2003 budget
request will allow us to continue to remain competitive with
other law enforcement agencies regarding recruitment and
retention of personnel.
TRAINING
The capability of any organization is dependent upon the
level of training, knowledge, and skill of its personnel. That
is why I have made training a priority issue in the fiscal year
2003 budget request. We must provide our personnel with high
quality training in a myriad of operational, administrative,
and management functions. Our employees must receive intensive,
realistic, and demanding training that supports our mission. We
must take steps to train our officers and civilians so that
they are capable of performing their duty at peak
effectiveness.
The funds requested will allow us to implement a robust
training program for all of our personnel. Funding is also
included which will allow our personnel to complete continuing
education and certification programs which enable them to
maintain mandatory certification requirements.
I would like to thank the committee for your support in
enabling us to move the training bureau to the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center in Cheltenham, Maryland. This
facility represents a significant step in the professional
development of the department and will have a long-lasting
positive effect on our ability to train our personnel.
SPACE NEEDS
While the issue of training facilities has been resolved,
we still have concern regarding other police facilities and
space for police use. As we increase the number of FTEs, we
will require increased space for lockers and equipment storage,
rollcall rooms, and administrative operations. Moreover, recent
events have underscored the need for a secure command and
control facility for the Capitol Police to manage emergency
situations and monitor special events. Clearly, we have already
maximized the space that is available to us. In some cases,
assigned space presents health and safety concerns for our
personnel. A revision of the 1999 USCP master plan is currently
underway to address these and other issues.
CHEM-BIO STRIKE TEAM
With regard to improving our current ability to respond to
chem-bio incidents, we have made significant progress in
defining the mission, function, and organization of the Office
of Emergency Management and the Chem-Bio Strike Team.
While a significant amount of attention has been given to
the emergency situations we handled last year, we also continue
to provide routine law enforcement, security, and protective
services to the United States Congress, its staff and visitors.
I have included in my written testimony the crime statistics
for fiscal 2001. These statistics are indicative of the threat
management and law enforcement responsibilities we carry on on
a daily basis.
STAFF RECOGNITION
I am very proud of the level of service, sacrifice, and
dedication displayed by the men and women of the department
over the course of the last year. Under extremely difficult
circumstances, they once again answered the call of duty and
took extraordinary effort to protect and serve our community.
They do this day in and day out with the knowledge that
protecting the Congress, the staff and visitors in these
buildings against those who wish to commit acts of violence is
in the interest of the Nation.
I would also like to express my appreciation for the
support and acts of kindness of the Senate and House staff that
they demonstrated to our personnel during the September and
October incidents. Many offices provided food and refreshments
to our officers who were working extended duty hours, even
through the holidays. Others wrote letters or simply said thank
you as they passed an officer standing on post. Those acts of
kindness and recognition are what bind us to our community and
we thank them for their display of concern and support.
In closing, I would like to again thank the committee for
the support you have provided to the Capitol Police over the
past year. There are many challenges that still lie before us.
We all shoulder the responsibility to ensure the safety and
security of all those who work and visit within these symbolic
and historic buildings. Clearly, the ability of the Congress to
fulfill its constitutional responsibility is directly linked to
the ability of the Capitol Police to meet its mission.
This budget request is integral to ensuring continued
development and operational readiness of the department. With
the continuing support of this committee and the Congress, we
can ensure the United States Capitol Police remain strong and
up to the challenge.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert R. Howe
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you today to present the fiscal year 2003 Budget Request for the
United States Capitol Police.
As Mr. Livingood stated, the events of September 11th and October
15th have increased the challenges the Department faces. However, it is
important that the Congressional community and the American people
understand that our mission, and our commitment to accomplishing our
mission, remains steadfast. We will continue to take measures to
provide a safe and secure environment which enables Congress to fulfill
its Constitutional responsibilities and protects all those who work and
visit the Capitol Complex.
We have made it a priority to improve the capabilities of the U.S.
Capitol Police to deter, detect, respond to, contain, and mitigate
threats ranging from a single armed individual to an organized
terrorist attack. Overall, the Department's capabilities are based on
four primary factors: adequate staffing, adequate training, adequate
facilities, and adequate funding.
It is clear that, given our responsibilities, the U.S. Capitol
Police has been understaffed for a number of years given the physical
environment of the Capitol Complex and the multitude of duties required
to fulfill our mission. In fiscal year 2001, with your support, we
began an initiative to incrementally increase the number of officers
each year until we have reached an optimum number of FTEs which is
commensurate with our mission. In view of recent events, we have
updated that optimum number to 1,981, which we plan to reach by fiscal
year 2004. This FTE level will allow us to staff each access point with
a minimum of two officers, staff all other police posts, and provide
civilian technical and administrative support.
As you can see, the annual budget for the Department is primarily
driven by required staffing levels. The majority of the requested
increase can be attributed to salaries and associated personnel costs.
The fiscal year 2003 request for 1,810 FTEs is based on our ability to
recruit, hire, and train additional personnel. It should be noted that
we are losing officers to other law enforcement agencies at an
increasing rate. Likewise, we are competing against those same agencies
to attract qualified personnel to increase the staffing level and
overcome attrition. The pay adjustment and recruiting and retention
incentives you approved last year will help stem the tide. I am
confident that the pay adjustment included in the fiscal year 2003
budget request will allow us to continue to remain competitive with
other law enforcement agencies regarding recruitment and retention of
personnel.
The capability of any organization is dependent upon the level of
training, knowledge, and skills of its personnel. That is why I have
made training a priority issue in the fiscal year 2003 Budget Request.
We must provide our personnel with high-quality training in a myriad of
operational, administrative, and management functions. Our employees
must receive intensive, realistic, and demanding training that supports
our mission. We must take steps to train our officers and civilians so
they are capable of performing their duties at peak effectiveness. The
funds requested will allow us to implement a robust training program
for all of our personnel. Funding is also included which will allow our
personnel to complete continuing education and certification programs
which enable them to maintain mandatory certification requirements.
I would like to thank the Committee for your support in enabling us
to move the Training Bureau to the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center in Cheltenham, Maryland. This facility represents a significant
step forward in the professional development of the Department and will
have a long-lasting positive impact on our ability to provide training
to our personnel.
While the issue of training facilities has been resolved, we still
have a concern regarding other police facilities and space assigned for
police use. As we increase the number of FTEs, we will require
increased space for lockers, equipment storage, roll call rooms, and
administrative operations. Moreover, recent events have underscored the
need for a secure command and control facility for the U.S. Capitol
Police to manage emergency situations and monitor special events.
Clearly, we have already maximized the space that is currently
available to us. In some cases, assigned space presents health and
safety concerns for our personnel. A revision of the 1999 USCP Master
Plan is currently underway to address these and other issues.
With regard to improving our current ability to respond to chem-bio
incidents, we have made significant progress in defining the mission,
function, and organization of the Office of Emergency Management and
the Chem/Bio Strike Team.
While a significant amount of attention has been given to the
emergency situations we handled last year, we also continued to provide
routine law enforcement, security, and protective services to the
United States Congress, its staff, and visitors. The following are
crime and operational statistics for fiscal year 2001:
--3 assaults occurred in our jurisdiction; 127 in Extended
Jurisdiction Zone (EJZ)
--8 robberies occurred in our jurisdiction; 198 in the EJZ
--4 burglaries occurred in our jurisdiction; 189 in the EJZ
--5 autos were stolen in our jurisdiction; 222 from the EJZ
--125 thefts occurred in our jurisdiction, 1,048 occurred in the EJZ.
In fiscal year 2001, the United States Capitol Police made 985
arrests; 576 for traffic offenses, 293 for misdemeanors, and 116 for
felony offenses. We also recovered 61 weapons within the Capitol
Complex. Attachments A and B provide depictions of the specific areas
where we have responded to specific crimes, on the Capitol Hill
Complex, against both persons and property.
Also during fiscal year 2001, the U.S. Capitol Police:
--Provided 1,070 protective escorts for visiting dignitaries.
--Conducted 135 security and protective operations for visiting heads
of state.
--Provided police services for 606 special events, including 275
demonstrations.
--Conducted 35,744 K-9 explosives searches.
--Conducted 300 protective operations for Members of Congress and
Congressional delegations.
--Handled 1,557 threat assessment cases against members of Congress.
--Conducted 1,342 bomb searches and responded to 251 suspected
explosive devices or suspected hazardous substances.
These statistics are indicative of the threat management and law
enforcement responsibilities we carry on a daily basis.
I am very proud of the level of service, sacrifice, and dedication
displayed by the men and women of the Department over the course of
last year. Under extremely difficult circumstances, they once again
answered the call of duty and took extraordinary efforts to protect and
serve our community. They do this day in and day out with the knowledge
that protecting Congress, its staff, visitors and these buildings
against those who wish to commit acts of violence is in the interest of
the nation.
I would also like to express my appreciation for the support and
acts of kindness the staff gave our personnel during the September and
October incidents. Many offices provided food and refreshments to our
officers who were working extended duty hours, even through the
holidays. Others wrote letters or simply said ``thank you'' as they
passed our officers standing post. Those acts of kindness and
recognition are what bind us to the community we serve and we thank
them for their display of support.
In closing, I would like to again thank the Committee for the
support you have provided to the United States Capitol Police over the
past year. There are many challenges that still lay before us. We all
shoulder the responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all
those who work and visit within these symbolic and historic buildings.
Clearly, the ability of Congress to fulfill its Constitutional
responsibility is directly linked to the ability of the United States
Capitol Police to meet its mission. This budget request is integral to
ensuring the continued development and operational readiness of the
Department. With the continuing support of this Committee and the
Congress, we can ensure the United States Capitol Police remains strong
and up to the challenge.
OFFICER RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Senator Durbin. Thank you much, Chief Howe.
Let us go to the numbers here and I want to hear your
response to what I consider to be a major challenge that we
face. Let us start with the premise that 1,981 FTEs by the year
2004 is the right number. We can argue about that a few here,
there, or the other place, but if we want to reach a point
where the men and women working here have a normal life to
lead, I think we understand that we need to have substantially
more people on the job.
Now, because the attrition rate, those who have left the
Capitol Hill Police over the last year, has been higher than
normal, that becomes an even greater challenge. The normal
attrition rate I understand is about 10 percent of the force.
We have lost about 18 percent in the last few months. It is
understandable. There is extreme hardship that is being placed
on individuals and some cannot continue meeting their family
responsibilities and other needs, and they have made that
decision to try something else.
Now let us take another factor into consideration here. Our
goal then over the next 2\1/2\ years is to find 800 new
qualified members for the force to fill the new slots and those
that we lose by attrition. We also know that only 1 out of
every 10 applicants to become Capitol Hill Police is
successful. According to the information we have, about 30
percent do not pass the test, another 14 percent decline to
continue with the process after they are told what is involved,
about 36 percent are eliminated by background, either by
physical, psychological, polygraph, or criminal background
test, and then 10 percent decline.
So ultimately, it means that for every officer, our
experience has been that we have to have 10 applicants. I hope
that changes, but let us assume it does not. As I understand it
then, it means in the next 2\1/2\ years we need 8,000
applicants for U.S. Capitol Police posts to net 800 officers at
the end of this process.
That is an extraordinary challenge for us to face. It has
been tough for the Capitol Police to fill 48 slots a year and
now we are talking about filling 800 slots over 2\1/2\ years.
How are we going to do this?
Chief Howe. One of the biggest challenges we face right at
this point is the hiring and retention of individuals qualified
to carry out the responsibilities of a Capitol Police officer.
We are competing with Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies throughout the country who are rapidly recruiting
officers, some of ours in fact. But even with those challenges,
we remain cautiously optimistic that we are going to be able to
meet our recruiting goals.
So far in fiscal year 2002, actually since January, we have
been able to hire officers as programmed. We need a net hire
this year of 218 officers and an increase of 171 officers in
fiscal year 2003. We have established a very aggressive
recruiting program. Our recruiters are going out to job fairs
in multiple States to attempt to attract officers. We have had
4,000 people fill out the initial application so far and of
that we have gotten 1,800 people into the process.
Now, some of those are going to fall out along the way, as
you mentioned. We anticipate to hire 1 in 10 of those 1,800
people.
Senator Durbin. Chief, when you say that you have
competition for men and women, what do you think is the
attraction of other service compared to the Capitol Police
force?
Chief Howe. There are a number of individuals who come to
work here, Senator, who use this as a training bed to make
themselves more attractive to, what we call in the business,
1811s. That is, Federal criminal investigators. An opportunity
to become a criminal investigator with the Capitol Police is
very limited because our criminal investigation staff is very,
very small, and some people have these as their career goals,
and we are going to lose these people anyway.
In almost every year, there is one organization or another
who is trying to hire large numbers. In this particular year it
happens to be the sky marshals. I agree with Senator Bennett, I
do not see the attraction to this employment except maybe large
sums of money.
But we have expanded our recruiting effort. We have added
additional people. We have done an incredible amount of
advertising. We have been very successful in getting
applications in, and we have hope that we can meet our hiring
goals.
MINORITY RECRUITMENT
Senator Durbin. Minority recruitment for the Capitol
Police, what type of effort is being made to focus on that?
Chief Howe. We have targeted job fairs at predominantly
African-American colleges and places of that nature to ensure
that our minority recruitment goals remain high. The United
States Capitol Police is the second largest employer of
African-Americans among Federal law enforcement agencies and we
are just slightly behind the Federal Protective Service in that
regard. So we have a history of doing well in that particular
arena, and we intend to maintain the standard that we have set
in the past.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
Senator Bennett.
FACILITIES
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to talk about facilities because a large portion of
your budget deals with new facilities. Mr. Livingood told us
that the present buildings simply do not house what you need
and certainly will not house what you are looking at as you
make these additional hires.
Could you describe for us the additional space requirements
that you have, and prioritize these requirements? What are
they? I used to work with a company that talked about vital,
important, and nice to have. I would recommend those categories
to you. Tell us what is vital in terms of space and what is
important in terms of space, and then the nice to haves, so
that if we do find we have to cut back a little on the funding,
we are cutting back on the nice to haves rather than the
vitals.
I understand there is examination of the old Washington
Post building as one possibility, but that you probably would
not fill it up, which would mean that other people would have
to lease there. Just spend a little time in this whole area
with me.
Chief Howe. I'd be happy to, Senator. As Mr. Livingood
mentioned in his opening statement, we are engaged in updating
our facilities master plan in cooperation with the Board, the
Architect of the Capitol, and an outside contractor. I think
the prime driver for space in the organization at this point is
facilities to house and support the additional officers we
intend to hire.
The second critical issue is a command and control
facility. Currently our present command and control structure
is fragmented. Half of it is in one place and half of it is in
another place. We need to unify those in one single facility,
and space is needed for that.
The study that is ongoing right now has identified two
primary concepts for housing the department. One of them is a
consolidated concept where everything would be housed in one
facility. The other is a dispersed concept where we would put
portions of the department in one facility and portions of the
department in another facility. Each of those operational
concepts has two sub-options for housing the department.
The department is currently looking at its own operational
requirements in the context of the concepts that the contractor
has provided, and we will submit those to the Board very soon.
The due date for that plan is June 6, 2002. Our operational
requirements will be incorporated into the plan when it is
submitted to the Board for its final review.
Senator Bennett. Let me understand. The assumption of the
consolidated says it is easier to have everything together; the
assumption of dispersion, we are less of a target?
Chief Howe. That is correct, Senator. You are right on the
money.
Senator Bennett. You have not yet made a decision as to
which of those you favor?
Chief Howe. We have to evaluate our operational
requirements against those two options and look at the real
estate opportunities and other factors that will drive this
thing. Without trying to get too far out in front of the
planning process, the dispersed option is attractive to us, but
we have to weigh our operational requirements against that
particular option and see what is available and see what will
work.
Senator Bennett. Well, you are making a decision that will
have a very long-lasting impact, so I hope you are thinking not
in terms of this is what would work really well right now, but
in terms of what makes the most long-term sense for the next 5,
10, 15 years as to how the Capitol Police will operate.
OLYMPICS SECURITY
I just have one other observation. Having just come out of
the Olympics, your comments about how attractive a target the
Capitol Building is--there was actually some consideration
given to cancelling the Olympics because of how attractive a
target it would be. Terrorists would love to have 3.8 billion
people watching on television while they achieved their goal of
blowing something up.
As I stood in the command post with the various agencies
involved in security for the Olympics, they said to me:
Senator, this is boring; absolutely nothing is going on. In the
security business, boring is good. The gentleman who headed
that said: We believe that the Olympics have been scoped out by
potential terrorist groups, who have now said to their members:
Do not bother; they are ready for us.
Part of the security came from an advertisement of that
fact, that we made it very clear and very public where we were.
Indeed, there was one activist group that had targeted a
particular event in the Olympics, not a terrorist group--I want
to make that differentiation, but they were an activist group
that was very upset with a particular part of the Olympics and
had announced that they were going to disrupt it. They were not
going to blow it up, they were not going to kill anybody, but
they were going to demonstrate and disrupt it.
In the week before the Olympics, they put on their web site
to all of their members: Do not bother to go to Salt Lake City.
Again, they are ready for us and they are so well organized and
so prepared that you would just be wasting your time.
There were, I think, four people arrested the night of the
opening ceremonies, all four of whom showed up wanting to be
arrested. And the dialogue went something like this: You are
doing something that is improper. Yes, we know. If you continue
doing it, we will have to arrest you. Yes, we know; we are
going to continue. All right, I now arrest you. Thank you. And
it was taken care of very quickly. They made their political
statement by getting themselves arrested and there was no
disruption whatsoever of the opening ceremonies or the
transportation to and from the opening ceremonies.
I share that with you because I think sometimes in our
desire to keep all of our security activity confidential and
classified, which clearly is a logical thing to do, we
sometimes overlook the potential of making the overall impact
of our classified actions public. The statistic I quoted on the
Senate floor: In the Atlanta Olympics they had an average of
200 bomb scares a day, which they were constantly running down
to determine whether they were legitimate or not, and of course
one of them turned out to be very real and the perpetrator
still has not been apprehended. In the Salt Lake City Olympics,
there were less than 100 for the entire 17 days of the
Olympics. People just knew, they are ready for us. And even the
hoaxes did not occur.
So as you make your long-term plans and look at this
question of dispersion and how visible it might be in terms of
projecting preparedness, I think the Olympics experience is one
that could be very helpful and I share that with you.
VISIBILITY
Chief Howe. Thank you very much, Senator. Visibility plays
a big role in what we do in terms of providing security. As
everyone knows, there are no fences around the Capitol. There
is an utter absence of physical barriers, to attacks on the
building. It is one of the principal drivers of the number of
people that we need in order to effectively secure the place
while maintaining an open environment without fences.
So visibility plays a very important part in what we do. If
we are visible and we appear to be ready for any event, it
helps protect the place.
Senator Bennett. I recognize that very much in terms of
visibility of the officers, but suggest that you take it into
consideration, as you look at this question of dispersion, that
you might have visibility of facilities also as part of the
consideration. Having everybody in a single place may make for
a more efficient operation, but also, frankly, may make a real
attractive target for somebody coming along.
But you are the experts. I simply share that experience
with you from the Olympics experience, which we found very,
very useful and very expensive. So we recognize the need for
the budget that you have asked for.
Senator Durbin. Senator Reed.
MILITARY RECRUITMENT
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As I did with General Lenhardt, let me commend all of you
for your extraordinary service. It is good to see Bill
Livingood again from my previous experience on the Hill. Chief,
if you can commend individually or collectively all your men
and women, they do a great job every day for us and thank you
very much.
Just let me follow up on this issue of recruiting. This is
an obvious question, Chief, since you are sitting next to
General Lenhardt. Have you been actively recruiting from the
military?
Chief Howe. Yes, sir. Actually, that is one of our primary
sources. The military runs a great number of job fairs for
departing personnel, as well as placement programs. We have
linked up with the military and we are very actively hunting
for those people who are exiting out of the military and
looking for employment.
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION INCENTIVES
Senator Reed. We all understand that one of the great
incentives to do any type of work is what you get paid, but
there is a certain limit about how much you can pay, which
forces you to consider other aspects for recruitment and
retention and traditional quality of life issues. Have you
developed, if not a formal plan, an appreciation of what things
you have to do within the force to make it more appealing in a
non-monetary way? And can you share some thoughts?
Chief Howe. We have, Senator. We have a much-improved
benefits package, thanks to the committee. We will have tuition
reimbursement coming on line very soon as well as recruiting
incentives and retention incentives. We are looking very
aggressively at a rotation policy among our personnel so that
senior officers do not lock down the good jobs and we can
retain the younger officers, which are the ones that we have a
tendency to lose. The training program has targeted these
activities as well.
Senator Reed. Bill or General Lenhardt, any comments about
this issue?
Mr. Lenhardt. Thank you, Senator. I do have a few things. I
think returning to as normal a shift rotation as we can will
improve morale. Training is certainly key to that as well,
because the professional image of the department goes a long
way to saying to folks, this is the place you want to be. This
will attract potential candidates to the U.S. Capitol Police.
I think the department is doing a great deal to think about
how it reinvents itself, how it gets ready for the 21st
century. The pay increase that the committee approved certainly
was part of ensuring the effective recruitment and retention of
officers and it went a long way to boosting morale as well. It
caused the U.S. Capitol Police to be in a position where other
departments are following our example. That was very
beneficial. I still hear from officers about the benefits of
the recent pay raise.
In addition to that, in terms of just thinking about how do
we expand the recruiting area; we now can reach out to other
States--Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York. So that, too, in
terms of the population we can draw from, is being worked very
diligently by the enhanced recruiting effort that is underway
that Chief Howe certainly was instrumental in making all of
this possible.
All of that is very beneficial. And in terms of whether or
not we can get to this large number of potential applicants to
draw from, I think we are going to go a long way to doing that.
I think at some point in time we are going to be in such a good
position that we will challenge the Federal law enforcement
training people to come up with more allocations for us, in
order to train the numbers of officers that we will be able to
supply.
I have a beneficial prediction of success for the
department's recruiting efforts. As you know, my background was
in recruiting, recruiting for the U.S. Army, and the things
that I see in the department go a long way to addressing many
of the ills we saw in the Army that eventually we overcame,
resulting in a well-ordered recruiting effort.
Senator Reed. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Livingood. I would just like to say I think we are on
the right track, as Al said, and we are moving ahead in
recruitment. I think we have done very well considering the
competition. We are always going to have that competition, but
it has gotten a lot more, a lot of increase in the last 4
months. The training, too, is something we have been trying to
do for I guess 6 or 7 years now. The department and Jim Varey,
the former Chief, started an initiative and now we have a
training facility, thanks to you, at Cheltenham. I think that
is going to make a big difference in morale and readiness both.
I agree with everything else that Al said. I think one
other thing that maybe we can look at would be other possible
pay initiatives somewhere down the line here. That would be
possibly additional pay if you stay x years and it builds up
each year you stay and you get a lump sum payment, or something
like that. I was just thinking about that the other day and I
was going to explore that possibility, something to give them
over and above other people's benefits.
NATIONAL GUARD
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Just one final question. The National Guard came in here to
assist the Capitol Police and now have left. Can you give us a
quick evaluation of their participation? The presumption is
that you still have an ongoing relationship with the Guard as a
major contingency force to call in. If you could elaborate on
that, whoever wants to do that. Chief?
Chief Howe. Certainly, Senator. I cannot say enough about
the Guard. The Guard came in, they were all volunteers. They
left their families in many cases, showed up, worked shoulder
to shoulder with us through the middle of winter in dismal
weather, stood side by side with our officers, and did an
incredible job. I cannot tell you how much we appreciate the
work that the Guard did.
We do have a continuing relationship with the D.C. National
Guard and I think, if the circumstances warranted it, they
would be happy to come back again.
Senator Reed. Just a final point, Mr. Chairman. I do not
think--and correct me if I am wrong--that we have done enough
formally to thank the Guard for their participation in an
official way. Have we done that?
Mr. Lenhardt. I can speak to that. Through the commander,
General Freeman, we submitted a recommendation that the Guard's
unit be cited for a superior unit award, which, as you know, in
the military is quite a plum. The paperwork is underway and I
am monitoring closely to make sure that it goes through the
various wickets in the Department of Defense and the National
Guard Bureau.
I think also there was a resolution passed as well that
recognized the Guard and their participation----
Senator Reed. Yes.
Mr. Lenhardt [continuing]. As well as a number of other
certificates and letters of appreciation that were extended to
the various individual members of the Guard. We also had a
ceremony----
Senator Reed. A going-away ceremony.
Mr. Lenhardt [continuing]. Yes, a send-off for them, as
they departed. So I think the relationship is a very solid one
and we have those established connectivities now between the
Capitol Police and the Guard that will last us well into the
future.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, General.
Bill?
Mr. Livingood. Comments I heard from the Guard--and this
was not one; this was probably about 90 percent--was: We really
enjoyed being here, wish we were staying. That is the way to
leave, with your head high like that.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Mr. Livingood. They were outstanding and we thank you for
allowing us to bring them in.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Senator Reed, my understanding is that the
resolution was a House resolution. If you would like to
initiate a Senate resolution, Senator Bennett and I would be
happy to join you.
Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, I think you should initiate and
I will join you.
PREMIUM PAY ISSUE
Senator Durbin. Great. I will be glad to do that.
A few weeks ago I read in the paper about this premium pay
issue and it kind of bothered me, because the story was that
the Capitol Police men and women who were working were being
paid for overtime, but there was a limitation to how much they
could get paid for premium pay, that is for Sundays and
holidays, and it had something to do with a statute and a
limitation based on someone else's salary.
Do we need to change the law or have you found a way to
work this out so that the people who actually work are
compensated for the time they have worked?
Chief Howe. Mr. Chairman, there is draft legislation before
the authorizing committees to change that regulation and lift
the cap to provide for times of emergency. The executive branch
had a similar problem and a similar provision was adopted to
allow the lifting of the cap during times of emergency. We now
have pending a provision to reimburse people back to September
11th for any money they might have lost.
I think the aggregate amount is somewhere in the
neighborhood of $400,000, which we intend to find a way to
absorb in our budget.
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
Senator Durbin. That is fine. Glad that is happening,
because a lot of us were prepared, if necessary, to change the
law. Whatever we need to do, they should be compensated for
time actually worked, period. There should not be any
artificial limitation on that, because they were performing
above and beyond the call of duty.
Let me address for a moment here the whole question about
buildings. Senator Bennett has already raised this. I will tell
you that I come to this with some concern. There was a force at
work, and I do not know where it started, during the last
appropriation discussion to move through in short order,
without much debate, this Washington Post facility on Virginia
Avenue. It came from the House side, but I do not know if that
is where it started, whether it was from some of the people who
are here today or from some other source, to move this building
through quickly.
I tried to send the message to them that I was not going to
let that happen. I think that is a serious mistake. Like I have
said to others who have appeared at this table--and I think my
colleagues agree--we should think this through before we turn
around and build or buy a building in terms of what we need for
the long term.
The idea of taking this Washington Post building and buying
it for $50 to $75 million and then putting another $50 to $75
million in it is a major commitment. It is also a major
decision about the future of the Capitol Police command.
Now, Mr. Hantman, your office was involved in the 1999
master facilities plan for the U.S. Capitol Police, is that
correct?
Mr. Hantman. That is correct.
CURRENT SPACE REQUIREMENTS
Senator Durbin. How does that 1999 plan compare with the
current request? For example, on square footage I think the
Capitol Police, today, have about 150,000 square feet of space
available to them. What did the 1999 plan envision?
Mr. Hantman. The 1999 plan, Mr. Chairman, talked about
putting the General Services Administration-DOD type standards
on the type of space that the police had at that point in time.
The magnitude of the space requested at that point in time was
314,000 square feet. Post-9/11, the type of issues that were
discussed by the Chief earlier, the new command center,
operational services bureau, all of those issues basically have
created a delta because of the ramping up of staff as well as
these new functions, of going from 314,000 square feet as a
need to about 518,000 square feet. This is a change of some
200,000 square feet from what had been envisioned in the 1999
plan.
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you about that, just that simple
statistic. From 150,000 square feet that was envisioned in the
1999 plan, we would move to double the space, slightly more.
Now the suggestion is we would more than triple the space that
is going to be used for the Capitol Police. What kind of
analysis has gone into that? Has there been a similar study as
there was in 1999 to justify that kind of square footage?
Mr. Hantman. The analysis was based upon interviews with
the Capitol Police and the Police Board and again using the
type of standards that DOD and GSA have for similar functions.
Each of the functions that the Capitol Police currently has in
their 150,000 square feet is basically below what those
standards call for. So even if we did not grow the force, which
we are, as you mentioned earlier, there would be a need for
additional space just to house it in an appropriate manner.
Senator Durbin. I might concede, for those who do not know,
that if you will go to some of the Capitol Police facilities
now, you will see some very serious overcrowding. The men and
women who work out of the Capitol Building, for example, I see
them stacked up on top of one another with their rollcalls
trying to do their job and do it effectively. Clearly, there is
a need for a substantial change in the quantity and quality of
space.
I am not a manager. I am trying to look at this from the
outside. When you have these dramatic deltas as you mentioned,
Mr. Hantman, from doubling the space to more than tripling the
space, many of us want to step back and say, now, slow down
here; are we doing this in a fashion that we can justify?
Because it will involve a pretty substantial investment. So I
hope we can work with you in that regard.
Let me just go to the point, though, of the Virginia Avenue
building, because if this comes back again at us, the same
message, I am going to deliver it for myself, and that is that
I am going to resist any effort to have a windshield drive-by
meeting with a realtor and the purchase of a major building
without some thought as to whether or not this is the right
thing to do. There are realtors anxious to sell buildings all
over the place, but we ought to be purchasing what is good for
the long-term needs of the Capitol Police.
Has a decision been made by the Capitol Police Board on
this one facility on Virginia Avenue in this appropriation
process?
Mr. Livingood. No, Mr. Chairman, it has not. We are looking
at a list of about 8 to 10 buildings and, depending on the
scenario that we go to, no one building sticks out or has been
talked about at all in Board meetings.
Senator Durbin. What process will you use and what
timetable will you follow to reach that decision?
Mr. Livingood. We intend to, hopefully by June 6th, when
the master plan is due--to have a concept to present to the
committee, either the dispersal from the one building or a
combination, and be able to say these buildings fit into these
concepts.
FUTURE FACILITIES
Senator Durbin. In terms of the request for the next year's
appropriation relative to that building, will that be included
in your appropriations request?
Mr. Hantman. The analysis has been done, Mr. Chairman, of
the alternative sites that would be available for different
scenarios around the Capitol Building and within a reasonable
traveling distance, once again depending on the type of
operational profile that the Chief talked about earlier.
Mr. Livingood. I think one of the hardest things is we do
not want to have all the police change in one location and we
have to bus them or drive them to the Capitol or other
locations. Hopefully, we will find nearby facilities or more
space in the Capitol or other buildings. It looks like we are
going to have to have buildings nearby, smaller places to
change and hold rollcall. We are bursting at the seams today,
sir.
Senator Durbin. Maybe more than one building ultimately
will serve.
Mr. Livingood. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. I can see that.
Mr. Lenhardt. Which then supports the dispersal model as
opposed to having a single structure.
So I think, Senator, in terms of the Board's action, we are
looking at that and trying to decide what is the best, along
with the Chief, operational model to consider for housing the
police force and specialized equipment.
CHEM-BIO STRIKE FORCE
Senator Durbin. There has been a request in the budget for
60 FTEs for a chem-bio ``strike team'', and we do not have any
details on that proposal. What can you tell us today and when
will you have a final proposal?
Chief Howe. A final proposal will be coming by July 1. But
in essence, the chem-bio strike team spun out of the October
15th anthrax attack. We had a modest chemical-biological
response team in place that were stretched to their capacity.
We discovered in hindsight, if you will, that we could have
done a much better job had we had the right resources and
staff, had the right resources trained and prepared to respond
to those incidents.
I think it is a critical element of the overall security
posture, given the advent of anthrax and the potential for
chemical-biological incidents ranging from toxic industrial
chemicals to anything else, that we have the capability to get
on top of those immediately, because time is critical.
Senator Durbin. Does it make sense to have our own
dedicated strike team? It would seem that perhaps this could be
a resource that would be shared by other law enforcement,
either in the Federal Government or with the D.C. Police.
Chief Howe. The resource actually is not there, Senator.
The D.C. Fire Department is not prepared to respond. The only
similar operation that we are aware of, at this point, is one
dedicated to the White House that the Secret Service maintains.
Senator Durbin. Has any thought been given to sharing this
resource, both its expense as well as its availability in an
emergency, with other law enforcement?
Chief Howe. We have not had any formal discussions in that
regard, but certainly that could be a consideration.
Senator Durbin. Well, I do not question the need for it,
but I think that it might be something like a bomb squad that
comes in in a situation, a rare but very important situation,
and is available to a number of different law enforcement
agencies.
Chief Howe. As part of the overall program, we do have an
outreach to other assets, to include the Marine Corps'
Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force and other elements.
But competing priorities become a problem. Depending upon the
breadth of the incident, other priorities may negate their
ability to respond. So I think we have to be really prepared to
do the best we can with our own internal assets.
Mr. Lenhardt. Mr. Chairman, what we discovered during the
anthrax incident and the response to it was that these
specialized units were in fact occupied doing other duties. The
request process was very tedious and time-consuming. So by the
time we actually got the asset on board to do what we wanted
them to do, it was delayed by as much as 1 week.
To say that we would be able to tie into those assets on a
regular basis, does not address the timely response needed for
an incident here at the Capitol.
The other thing we discovered during the anthrax incident
was that there are not a lot of specialized units out there. So
at a position--the Capitol Police--where we would be able to
lend assistance to others, the rest of the community would also
benefit. We would be a source of help in responding to the
Capitol itself, and we would have cooperative arrangements with
other departments to assist them as well.
That was one of the experiences that led to our thinking
about how we develop our own capability. Now, we could debate
the number of people. And, we can debate many other things
related to the issue. But in terms of having the ability,
having the capability, I think it is very critical to us to
have it here on Capitol Hill.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Bennett.
POLICE FORCE MERGER
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have one last item to raise with you. As you know,
for some time I have been interested in the possibility of
merging various police forces here on Capitol Hill. The GAO is
conducting a study on that, which I understand will be
available fairly soon, and I would appreciate it if you pay
close attention to what the GAO study says, because it may well
be that in the process of merging, it becomes easier to take
existing officers and raise their training to the level that
they could be synergistic with the present Capitol Police
rather than starting completely fresh.
We do have other police forces on the Hill with overlapping
jurisdiction, so I just raise the issue one more time and ask
you to pay attention to the GAO reactions to it as it comes
along.
Mr. Livingood. We were given a briefing yesterday, just a
short briefing, before it was finished. Very definitely, we the
Board, are going to look at that very seriously.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
subcommittee recess
Thank you all for your testimony. The subcommittee stands
in recess until May 8 at 10:30 in Dirksen 116.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., Wednesday, May 1, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
Thursday, May 8.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:38 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senator Durbin.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GENE DODARO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
SALLYANNE HARPER, CHIEF MISSION SUPPORT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER
RICHARD L. BROWN, CONTROLLER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. The subcommittee will come to order. This
morning we meet to take testimony from three agencies, the
General Accounting Office, the Government Printing Office, and
the Congressional Budget Office. We are going to hear first
from David Walker, our Comptroller General. Mr. Walker is
accompanied by his Deputy, Mr. Gene Dodaro, Ms. Sallyanne
Harper, and Mr. Dick Brown, Controller of GAO. Welcome to all
of you this morning.
GAO's budget request is $458 million, including offsetting
collections of $3 million, and excluding the President's
accrual proposal for retirement and health benefits. This is an
increase of 6 percent, $26 million over the current fiscal
year. The budget includes $22 million in so-called mandatory
pay and price level increases. It does not accommodate any
additional staffing, but does provide for some enhancements in
training and other employee benefit programs.
I would like to thank Mr. Walker for the help the GAO has
provided this subcommittee. In particular, we have given you a
lot of assignments, and you have responded quickly and
professionally. You continue to be of great service to us in
dealing with some of the challenges we face here on the Hill. I
appreciate the work the GAO has done to look at the Library of
Congress retail activities and Capitol Police issues. I welcome
you, and at this point would entertain your opening statement
and may have a few questions to follow.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. You have
already acknowledged for the record my colleagues who are
joining me, and I would just like to supplement the record by
noting that this is Dick Brown's 27th appropriations hearing
and will be his last. We just cannot say enough good things
about Dick Brown, about what he has been able to do for GAO and
for the country, and I know he has been a tremendous help for
this committee and also on the House side over the years, and I
want to acknowledge that for the record.
Senator Durbin. Well, thank you, Mr. Brown, for your
patience, and I am sure you have seen a lot of people come and
go in this chair and other chairs at the table, and thank you
for your service, not only to the GAO but to the Nation.
PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
Mr. Walker. Just a few highlights, Mr. Chairman. As you
know, we published our annual performance and accountability
report, which has been provided to the committee, which
summarizes what we accomplished last year and what we plan for
the next several years. Fiscal year 2001 was, in fact, a very
productive year. For that year, we achieved $26.4 billion in
financial benefits. That is a return on investment of $69 to
each dollar appropriated to GAO. There were a number of other
nonfinancial benefits. We also published a number of important
reports dealing with things like voter access and election
reform, as well as an updated high-risk list. We added two new
areas to the high-risk list, first the U.S. Postal Service and
its transformation effort, which is a major challenge, and
frankly a microcosm of some of the challenges that Government
faces elsewhere, and second our human capital crisis across the
Federal Government, the lack of a strategic approach to dealing
with the Government's most important asset, namely its people.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUEST
As you have noted, our request for the next fiscal year is
a modest one. We are asking for about a 5.9 to 6 percent
increase. A vast majority of that deals with mandatory items
such as inflation. We are asking for some targeted investments
in the area of human capital--education loan reimbursement,
transit subsidy, performance-based rewards and recognition, and
training. In addition to that, we are asking for $4 million for
security enhancements.
As you know, undoubtedly, Mr. Chairman, for the first time
since the early 1800s the House of Representatives was required
to relocate to alternative facilities, and they relocated to
the GAO building. We, therefore, have not only to be able to
maintain the security and safety of our building for our own
employees and the employees of the Corps of Engineers, which is
headquartered in our building, but we also have to consider the
fact that we are a contingency site for the House of
Representatives and potentially for the Senate from time to
time, depending upon whatever events might transpire. So as a
result, we are working very closely to make sure that any
planned actions meet not only our needs, but also potentially
the needs of our clients.
PREPARED STATEMENT
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to any
questions that you may have. I know we have already given you
plenty of information, and I will not be redundant by repeating
it here.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David M. Walker
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to
appear before the Subcommittee today as the Comptroller General of the
United States and head of the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to
report on GAO's fiscal year 2001 performance and results, current
challenges and future plans, and budget request for fiscal year 2003 to
support the Congress and serve the American public.
Fiscal year 2001 was characterized by a series of unprecedented
challenges for the federal government. After a lengthy waiting period
to decide the results of the Presidential election, the year began with
a new administration and a new policy agenda. Within a short time, the
leadership of the Senate changed as well. Although the year began with
the nation at peace and with modest economic growth, by year's end, the
nation was at war and the economy was in recession. Fortunately, the
war is going well and the economy seems to be improving.
Against this backdrop, GAO served the Congress and the American
people in a variety of ways. Early in the year, we conducted an
extensive analysis of voter access and election reform. Our work was
instrumental in enabling the House and Senate to develop election
reform proposals and also yielded a series of reports and
recommendations upon which the Departments of Defense and State have
pledged to act to improve their voting assistance programs for
Americans living abroad. In addition, our 2001 Performance and
Accountability Series and High-Risk Update identified close to 100
major management challenges and program risks at 21 federal agencies
and highlighted actions needed to address these serious problems. The
series proved useful in carrying out our responsibility under the
Presidential Transition Act to serve as a key source of information for
the incoming administration and members of the 107th Congress. Among
the issues we brought to the Congress's attention was the importance of
addressing the future human capital needs of the federal government.
This high-risk issue is being triggered by the impending retirements of
the baby boom generation, the knowledge and skills gap engendered in
part by our changing economy, and the advent of new technologies.
Another new issue added to the high-risk list is the Postal Service's
transformational efforts and long-term outlook.
Citizens benefited directly from GAO's work as federal agencies and
the Congress took a wide range of actions based on our analyses and
recommendations. The results ranged from improving services to low-
income children and disabled veterans, to protecting consumers from
insurance fraud, to identifying billions of dollars in savings and
resources that could be reallocated. In total, GAO's efforts helped the
Congress and government leaders to save $26.4 billion--a $69 return on
every dollar invested in GAO. This is number one in the world for
organizations like GAO.
Because of our past work and work in progress, we also were able to
provide timely, rapid assistance on the issues raised by the tragic
events of September 11. In numerous congressional hearings, GAO's
witnesses offered suggestions for strengthening the security of the
nation's airports and air traffic control system, for protecting
critical information technology infrastructure, and for enhancing
government's ability to analyze and manage security risks, including
bioterrorism. We also were able to highlight a number of safeguards
that could be used in structuring financial assistance to the airlines,
several of which were incorporated in the emergency $15 billion
financial aid package that was enacted. In addition, soon after the
release of our report recommending that the President appoint a single
focal point within the Executive Office of the President to oversee the
collective efforts of the many agencies involved in combating
terrorism, the President announced the creation of the Office of
Homeland Security. This office possesses many of the functions and
responsibilities that we had advocated for improving interagency
coordination.
Closer to home, 2001 was a significant year for GAO because it
marked the 80th anniversary of our agency and 50th anniversary of our
headquarters building. It also was a year marked by important changes
designed to better position our agency for the future.
GAO's mission is to support the Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of
the American people.
GAO is an independent, professional, nonpartisan agency in the
legislative branch that is commonly referred to as the investigative
arm of the Congress. Created in 1921 as a result of the Budget and
Accounting Act, we have seen our role evolve over the decades as the
Congress expanded our statutory authority and called on us with greater
frequency for oversight, insight, and foresight in addressing the
growing complexity of government and our society.
Today, we examine a broad range of federal activities and programs,
publish thousands of reports and other documents annually, and provide
a number of other services to the Congress. We also look at national
and international trends and challenges to anticipate their
implications for public policy. By making recommendations to improve
the practices and operations of government agencies, we contribute not
only to the increased effectiveness of federal spending, but also to
the enhancement of the taxpayers' trust and confidence in their federal
government.
For us, achieving our goals and objectives rests, for the most
part, on providing professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan,
nonideological, fair, and balanced information. We develop and present
this information in a number of ways to support the Congress, including
the following: evaluations of federal policies and the performance of
agencies; oversight of government operations through financial and
other management audits to determine whether public funds are spent
efficiently, effectively, and in accordance with applicable laws;
investigations to assess whether illegal or improper activities are
occurring; analyses of the financing for government activities;
constructive engagements in which we work proactively with agencies,
when appropriate, to help guide their efforts toward positive results;
legal opinions to determine whether agencies are in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations; policy analyses to assess needed
actions, develop options, and note the implications of possible
actions; and additional assistance to the Congress in support of its
oversight and decisionmaking responsibilities.
GAO's strategic plan for serving the Congress: Our first strategic
plan for the 21st century, covering fiscal years 2000-2005, was an
important milestone, providing a framework for how we would support the
Congress and the American people in the coming years. To develop this
plan, we worked closely with committee leadership and individual
members and their staff, as well as with agency inspectors general, our
sister agencies, and numerous other interested organizations and
parties. With the plan as our blueprint, we realigned GAO's structure
and resources to better address our long-term goals and objectives for
helping the Congress in its legislative, oversight, and investigative
roles.
We have committed to updating our strategic plan every 2 years,
coinciding with each new Congress, to make sure our efforts remain a
vital and accurate reflection of the important issues facing the
Congress and the nation. The world has changed considerably since our
last plan. Two years ago, we were at peace and the economy was growing,
with large budget surpluses projected into the future. Today, the
country is at war, addressing threats both within and outside our
borders. The economic outlook, uncertain before September 11, 2001,
continues to be very difficult to predict but seems to be improving.
This changing environment has enormous ramifications for national
policymaking and, consequently, for GAO. Accordingly, we have prepared
a draft strategic plan for serving the Congress during fiscal years
2002-2007, that we will be using to help solidify how we will support
congressional needs. The draft is now being discussed with our
congressional clients and being made widely available for comment to
ensure that we meet the Congress's needs and address the most critical
issues.
While the overall framework of our first strategic plan is still
valid, we propose placing greater emphasis on the following areas in
particular to reflect the altered agenda of policymakers:
--Recognizing that the Congress and the federal government will focus
considerable effort and resources on homeland security, we are
proposing to increase our emphasis on overseeing the efficiency
and effectiveness of efforts across the federal government to
protect against and respond to various forms of terrorism.
--In light of changing public expectations and needs, as well as
fiscal pressures, we have redefined one of our strategic goals
to focus on helping to transform the federal government's role
to meet the challenges of the 21st century--what it does and
how it does business.
--Because of the emerging serious, long-term, and far-reaching
fiscal, demographic, technological, scientific, and other
trends affecting our society and the economy, we anticipate
assisting the Congress in addressing the effects of these
trends on program priorities and budget decisions in both the
short and long terms.
Our draft strategic plan takes into account the forces that are
likely to shape American society, its place in the world, and the role
of the federal government over the next 6 years. As illustrated by the
strategic plan framework that follows, we have identified seven themes
that have implications for congressional decisionmaking and, therefore,
underlie our strategic goals and objectives:
--Security and preparedness: the national and global response to
terrorism and other threats to personal and national security;
--Globalization: the increasing interdependence of enterprises,
economies, civil society, and national governments;
--The changing economy: the global shift to market-oriented,
knowledge-based economies;
--Demographics of an aging and more diverse population;
--Science and technology and the opportunities and challenges created
by the rapid changes in both of these areas;
--Quality of life for the nation, communities, families, and
individuals;
--Governance: the diverse and evolving nature of governance
structures and tools.
In light of recent trends and in keeping with our mission and
responsibilities, we have identified four strategic goals and related
objectives that will guide our work to serve the Congress in fiscal
years 2002-2007. Our four strategic goals are as follows:
--Provide timely, quality service to the Congress and the federal
government to address current and emerging challenges to the
well-being and financial security of the American people;
--Provide timely, quality service to the Congress and the federal
government to respond to changing security threats and the
challenges of global interdependence;
--Help transform the federal government's role and how it does
business to meet 21st century challenges;
--Maximize the value of GAO by being a model federal agency and a
world-class professional services organization.
Benefits Resulting From GAO's Work
During fiscal year 2001, GAO recorded hundreds of accomplishments
providing financial and other benefits that were achieved based on
actions taken by the Congress and federal agencies, and we made
numerous other contributions that provided information or
recommendations aiding congressional decisionmaking or informing the
public debate to a significant extent. Our contributions to legislative
and executive actions included: strengthening national security and
combating terrorism; advancing and protecting U.S. interests abroad;
better targeting defense spending; helping the Congress reduce or
better target budget authority; ensuring public health, safety, and
welfare; protecting the environment; addressing national election
issues; safeguarding government information systems; highlighting
management challenges and risks for the new Congress and
administration; and fostering more efficient and effective government
services and operations.
Our recently issued performance and accountability report and a
compact highlights version of it combine an assessment of our
accomplishments in fiscal year 2001 with our plans for continued
progress through fiscal year 2003. The following is a sampling of GAO's
fiscal year 2001 accomplishments.
Financial Benefits Exceeding $26 Billion
For fiscal year 2001, GAO's findings and recommendations to improve
government operations and reduce costs contributed to legislative and
executive actions that yielded over $26.4 billion in measurable
financial benefits. We achieve financial benefits when our findings and
recommendations are used to make government services more efficient,
improve the budgeting and spending of tax dollars, or strengthen the
management of federal resources. As illustrated in the following
graphic, the financial benefits achieved in fiscal year 2001 exceeded
our $23 billion target for the year, as well as last year's results of
$23.2 billion. These financial benefits are equivalent to about $69 for
every $1 that was appropriated to GAO for fiscal year 2001.
As described below, our work on military base realignments and
closures, restructuring the defense acquisition workforce, and
recapturing unexpended balances in a major federal housing program, for
instance, together yielded more than $12 billion of the year's
financial benefits.
--Contributing to the Military Base Closure and Realignment
Process.--GAO has issued a number of reports since 1979
documenting excess infrastructure within the Department of
Defense and supporting the need for a base closure and
realignment process. After the Congress's authorization of such
a process, GAO was legislatively required to provide the
Congress with a series of reports and testimonies validating
Defense's implementation. GAO monitored and assessed all phases
of the decisionmaking process, including executive-level
sessions, for compliance with congressional requirements. In
addition, GAO provided staff to each commission established to
recommend base closures and realignments for rounds held in
1991, 1993, and 1995. The staff helped shape the commissions'
decisions through analysis of issues associated with closing or
realigning specific installations. GAO estimated $6 billion in
net savings in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for the three base
closure rounds.
--Cutting the Cost of Defense's Acquisition Infrastructure.--In a
series of reports and comments on legislation for the House
National Security Committee beginning in the mid-1990s, GAO
examined numerous facets of the Department of Defense's
acquisition infrastructure, of which its acquisition workforce
is a major component. GAO's primary messages were that
acquisition infrastructure reductions had not kept pace with
reductions in other areas of Defense's operations and that the
acquisition workforce needed to be consistently defined to
effect appropriate reductions. Consequently, Defense redefined
the workforce and the Congress directed the department to
develop specific plans for reducing its acquisition workforce.
These workforce reductions totaled $3.32 billion and freed the
funds for other high-priority items.
--Recapturing Unexpended Balances in a Federal Housing and Urban
Development Program.--GAO reviewed the unexpended balances in
the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8
program, in which the department contracts with property owners
to provide housing for low-income families. GAO recommended
that the department revise the procedures used to review
unexpended balances and ensure that excess balances were
recaptured from this program. Subsequently, the department
recaptured nearly $3 billion of unexpended balances from prior
years' budgets. According to the department's officials, the
savings directly resulted from their implementation of GAO's
recommendation.
Nearly 800 Actions Improving Government Agencies'
Management or Performance
Not all actions on GAO's findings and recommendations produce
measurable financial benefits. As illustrated below, in fiscal year
2001, we recorded 799 actions that the Congress or executive agencies
had taken based on our recommendations to improve the government's
accountability, operations, or services. Our audit and evaluation
products issued in fiscal year 2001 contained over 1,560 new
recommendations targeting improvements in the economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness of federal operations and programs that could yield
significant financial and other benefits in the future. At the end of
the year, 79 percent of the recommendations we made 4 years ago had
been implemented. We use a 4-year interval because our historical data
show that agencies often need this time to complete action on our
recommendations.
The actions reported for fiscal year 2001 include actions to combat
terrorism, strengthen public safety and consumer protection, improve
computer security controls, and establish more effective and efficient
government operations. Following are a few examples of GAO's work that
led to improvements in government management and performance:
--Improving Department of Defense antiterrorism efforts.--At the
request of the House Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism, GAO
reviewed the Department of Defense's antiterrorism efforts at
domestic installations. GAO identified shortcomings that needed
to be addressed to provide installation commanders with the
necessary information to effectively manage the risk of a
terrorist attack and develop an effective antiterrorism
program. The department agreed with GAO's findings and has
begun implementing all of the GAO-recommended corrective
actions. GAO also worked with the department to update and
improve antiterrorism standards and the secure communication
capabilities between some Navy facilities. This work provided a
foundation for developing a risk management approach that can
be applied to other government operations. GAO presented
information about this management approach to various
congressional committees and other organizations.
--Strengthening nuclear nonproliferation and safety efforts.--
Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and
ensuring the safety of Soviet-designed reactors are important
national security concerns. GAO's work in this area continues
to have major impacts, including the implementation of GAO's
recommendations designed to strengthen the Department of
Energy's program to secure nuclear materials in Russia and
sustain the improvements. In addition, Energy has implemented
GAO's recommendations to fund only those safety projects that
directly improve the operation of Soviet-designed reactors and
to focus its Nuclear Cities Initiative funding on only those
projects designed to employ Russian weapons scientists. These
changes will result in better targeting of limited resources by
eliminating projects that did not meet mission goals.
--Improving food safety.--Over the years, public awareness of
foodborne illness outbreaks has heightened concerns about the
effectiveness of the federal system for ensuring the safety of
the nation's food supply. GAO has served as an honest broker of
information on the shortcomings of the federal food safety
system. In particular, GAO's work has been used extensively in
congressional deliberations and by federal program mangers to
improve the food safety system. For example, GAO's work on
seafood safety identified several important weaknesses that
compromised the overall effectiveness of the Food and Drug
Administration's newly implemented science-based system for
seafood. In response, the agency made improvements in 2001 to
the science-based system. GAO's work identifying shortcomings
in shellfish safety was instrumental in the 2001 adoption of
the first national plan to reduce pathogenic bacteria in
oysters.
--Creating a focal point for combating terrorism.--GAO identified
fragmentation among federal efforts to combat terrorism, as
several key interagency functions were spread across various
agencies and sometimes overlapped. During the summer of 2001,
GAO recommended that the President appoint a single focal point
within the Executive Office of the President to oversee the
collective efforts of the many agencies involved. Soon after
the release of GAO's September 2001 report, the President
announced the creation of the Office of Homeland Security
within the Executive Office of the President. The executive
order establishing the office provided it with many of the
functions and responsibilities that GAO had advocated for
improving interagency coordination.
Over 150 Testimonies Contributing to Public Debate on
National Issues
GAO officials were called to testify 151 times before committees of
the House and Senate in fiscal year 2001, as illustrated in the
following graphic. In addition, we provided nine statements for the
record. Our number of appearances for fiscal year 2001 was lower than
for previous years because external factors such as the extended
Presidential transition, a new Congress and administration both
beginning work, and the unprecedented mid-session shift in control of
the Senate reduced the number of congressional hearings and, therefore,
occasions for GAO to testify. Nonetheless, we testified on a broad
range of subjects, including combating terrorism, energy prices, the
federal budget, and September 11 issues.
Maximizing GAO's Effectiveness, Responsiveness, and Value
In addition to the financial and other benefits resulting from our
work over the past year, we continued to make great progress toward
achieving our fourth strategic goal of maximizing the value of GAO by
being a model organization for the federal government. We strive to
ensure that GAO's operations reflect the highest standards. As
discussed in the following sections, we expanded congressional outreach
efforts to ensure our responsiveness to client needs. We also
implemented numerous human capital initiatives following best
practices, to ensure that GAO has the appropriate mix of staff and
skills needed to address issues of interest to the Congress. In other
areas, such as information technology, financial management, and
security and safety, our operations also reflect prevailing best
practices. Following are some examples of the key efforts we have taken
to strengthen GAO and maximize our productivity.
Cultivating and Fostering Effective Congressional and
Agency Relations
In fiscal year 2001, we continued our efforts to strengthen
relationships and improve communications with our congressional
clients, federal agencies, and other key stakeholders. For example, we
implemented a set of congressional protocols--policies and procedures--
to guide our interactions with and ensure our accountability to the
Congress. In addition, we drafted similar protocols to guide our
interactions with federal agencies, foreign ministries and governments,
and international organizations, and we plan to pilot the federal
agencies and international protocols in fiscal year 2002.
We also began efforts to revamp our communications strategy to
better meet the needs of our clients. In fiscal year 2001, we developed
a new reporting product line entitled Highlights--a one-page summary
that provides the key findings and recommendations from a GAO
engagement. We plan to examine other means during fiscal year 2002 to
better communicate the results of our work.
During fiscal year 2001, we also expanded and improved access to
GAO information for our congressional clients and other stakeholders.
We implemented a Web-accessible active assignment list for
congressional clients, established a transition Web site to assist the
new administration in learning about GAO's work and to facilitate key
contacts, enhanced the search capability for GAO products on our
external Web site, and expanded electronic access to GAO reports issued
since 1985.
We also worked with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
Cabinet-level officials to assist in the congressional and Presidential
transitions and to provide new legislators and officials with
information about the challenges facing them. These and other
constructive engagement efforts are helping focus increased attention
on major management challenges and high-risk issues, leading to good
government. For example, the President's recently issued management
agenda for reforming the federal government mirrors many of the
management challenges and program risks that GAO reported on in its
2001 Performance and Accountability Series and High-Risk Update,
including a governmentwide initiative to focus on strategic management
of human capital. We also continue our efforts to work across
boundaries and encourage knowledge sharing by networking through
various boards and panels, including the Comptroller General's Advisory
Board, the Educators' Advisory Board, the Accountability Advisory
Board, and other global and domestic accountability organizations.
We continued to look for more efficient ways to obtain systematic
feedback from congressional members and key staff. In fiscal year 2001,
we developed a Web-based process to more effectively collect feedback
from congressional clients on our reports and products. This new
system, which we plan to pilot in fiscal year 2002 and implement in
fiscal year 2003, uses E-mail and a Web site to obtain client feedback
on (1) product timeliness and (2) communications and professional
conduct during an engagement for a sample of recently issued products.
In addition to working with accountability agencies and
organizations in the United States, we continued to work with our
counterparts in other countries and with international organizations to
strengthen accountability around the world. We are working with the
International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions to help combat
government-related corruption around the world. For example, we plan to
support a multilateral training effort with Russia, other former
Eastern bloc countries, and selected South and Latin American countries
on audit standards, policies, and methodologies. In addition, we are
working to provide bilateral technical assistance with the Russian
Chamber of Accounts to collaboratively undertake a joint audit of the
program to dispose of Russia's chemical weapons.
Implementing a Model Strategic and Annual Planning and
Reporting Process
GAO's strategic plan continues to be a model for aligning our
organization and resources, and for ensuring that we remain responsive
to the needs of the Congress. Our strategic planning process provides
for updates every 2 years with each new Congress, ongoing analysis of
emerging conditions and trends, extensive consultation with
congressional clients and outside experts, and assessments of internal
capacities and needs. In addition, the plan has become the basis for
allocating resources and managing organizational performance.
Our strategic plan also has helped serve as a model in providing
clearer accountability to the Congress and the American people. In
fiscal year 2001, we published our first Performance and Accountability
Report, combining information on performance in achieving the plan's
goals and objectives with financial information on the costs of
achieving results. The report also included GAO's performance plan for
fiscal year 2002, linking planned activities and performance with the
resources requested in our annual appropriation.
Aligning Human Capital Policies and Practices to Support
GAO's Mission
Over the past 3 years, we have made great progress toward
addressing a number of human capital issues that GAO was facing when I
arrived at the beginning of fiscal year 1999. At the time, our
workforce was sparse at the entry level. We faced major succession-
planning issues with a significant percentage of our senior managers
and evaluator- and related workforce becoming eligible to retire by the
end of fiscal year 2004. The development and training of our senior
executives in key competencies, such as leadership, communications,
project supervision and conflict resolution, had been at drastically
reduced levels since 1993. In addition, new technical skills were
unavailable in needed quantities within the agency, especially
actuarial and information technology skills, to effectively assist the
Congress in meeting its oversight responsibilities.
We have confronted these issues through a number of strategically
planned human capital initiatives that have begun to yield results. For
example, we have intensified our recruiting efforts targeted at the
entry level and areas requiring specialized skills and expertise;
enhanced our recruitment and college relations programs; implemented
our early-out authority, recently acquired through GAO's human capital
legislation; enhanced our training programs; revamped and modernized
the performance appraisal system for analysts; enhanced performance
rewards and employment incentives to attract and retain high quality
staff with specialized skills; implemented a succession-planning
program; conducted an agencywide assessment and inventory of our
workforce's knowledge and skills; established an office of opportunity
and inclusiveness, whose head reports directly to the Comptroller
General, to oversee GAO's efforts to foster a work environment that
ensures that all members of its diverse workforce are treated fairly
and their differences are respected; and completed an organizational
realignment and resource reallocation.
As illustrated in the following graphic, by the end of fiscal year
2002, we will almost double the proportion of our workforce at the
entry-level (Band I) as compared with fiscal year 1999. Also, the
proportion of our workforce at the mid-level (Band II) will have
decreased by about 9 percent. In addition, we are steadily increasing
the proportion of our staff performing direct mission work.
We also have taken steps to better link compensation, performance,
and results in achieving our strategic plan and goals for serving the
Congress. In fiscal year 2001, we developed a new performance appraisal
system for our analyst and specialist staff that links performance to
established competencies and results; this system is being implemented
in fiscal year 2002. We also have begun creating similar performance
systems for our attorneys and mission support staff. Also during fiscal
year 2002, we plan to assess our pay systems and structures to identify
ways to increase the percentage of our staff's compensation that is
tied more directly to performance and results. Currently, levels of
annual compensation increases are automatic, as is required by law.
Developing Efficient and Responsive Business Processes
We completed a number of major initiatives in fiscal year 2001
directed at enhancing our business operations and processes. For
example, we implemented a major organizational realignment to increase
our ability to achieve the goals and objectives of our strategic plan.
The realignment provides for a clearer and more transparent delineation
of responsibilities for achieving our strategic goals and meeting the
needs of the Congress. We also centralized certain administrative
support services to more efficiently provide human capital, budget and
financial management, information systems desk-side support, and other
services to agency staff. The centralization will allow us to devote
more resources to GAO's mission work and to obtain economies of scale
by providing central and shared services.
To facilitate our staff's efforts in conducting engagements, we
developed a comprehensive desktop tool--an Electronic Assistance Guide
for Leading Engagements (EAGLE)--that provides immediate access to
GAO's most current policies and procedures and eliminates the need to
print and distribute documents. We also developed a new engagement
database to track congressional requests, monitor their status, and
provide information on engagement reviews and results. In addition, we
are reviewing our job management processes to identify opportunities
for improvement based on best practices of other organizations.
Building an Integrated and Reliable Information Technology
Infrastructure
Information technology is critical to our productivity, success,
and viability. As such, we have been working on a number of initiatives
to guide and protect our investments in information technology. In
fiscal year 2001, we completed a comprehensive review of our
information technology; made substantial progress in implementing an
enterprise architecture program--a blueprint for operational and
technological change; expanded information systems security efforts to
protect our information assets; developed an information technology
investment process guide to ensure that our investments are clearly
linked to and support our strategic objectives and business plans;
prepared an information technology plan for fiscal years 2001-2004 that
identifies major initiatives and investments that directly support our
strategic plan; and rechartered and reestablished our Information
Technology Investment Committee to provide high-level vision, review,
and approval of program initiatives to transition from the current
technological environment to the target one.
We also undertook a wide range of other efforts during fiscal year
2001 to improve efficiency by providing new enabling technology to
staff and improving access to GAO resources from any place at any time.
These efforts have included piloting notebook computers; expanding the
availability of cellular phones to GAO's senior management; and testing
new, emerging technologies such as personal digital assistants and
video broadcasts to the desktop. In addition, we upgraded remote access
capability, improving the speed and reliability of dial-up connections
to GAO's information technology facilities; completed communications
upgrades to the field to provide high-speed, reliable connectivity to
the GAO network; replaced aging videoconferencing equipment with
current technology; and began planning communications upgrades to
support evolving video technologies.
Fiscal Year 2002 Plans and Future Challenges
During fiscal year 2002, we will continue focusing our work on
issues of national importance facing the Congress, including homeland
and national security, Social Security solvency, education, economic
development, Medicare reform, international affairs, government
management reforms, and government computer security. Other issues
about which we will contribute to the national debate include the
concerns emanating from the sudden collapse of Enron and other
corporate failures: the determination of what systemic reforms are
needed regarding accounting and auditing issues, regulatory and
oversight matters, pensions, executive pay issues, and corporate
governance.
We also will be working with congressional budget committees and
others on reviewing, reassessing, and reprioritizing what the federal
government is doing in light of the nation's long-range fiscal
challenges. This effort will involve raising key questions about
government programs, tax incentives, regulations, and policies from the
perspective of what works and what does not, as well as examining
selected budget and performance reporting issues. Under a recent
mandate, we have begun pilot testing several approaches for providing
technology assessment assistance to the Congress. In addition, as noted
earlier, we plan to issue two new sets of protocols governing our
relations with executive branch departments and agencies, and with
international organizations.
Internally, we must continue our efforts and initiatives to address
human capital and information technology challenges at GAO. While we
have made good progress in addressing many of these issues, we continue
to view them as significant challenges. We also are reassessing our
security and safety issues, in light of the far-reaching effects of the
September 11 terrorist attacks.
After a decade of downsizing and curtailed investments in human
capital, it became increasingly clear that GAO needed new human capital
strategies if we were to meet the current and emerging needs of the
Congress and the nation's citizens. The initiatives we have in progress
or plan to begin in the coming months should build on the progress we
have made during the past 2 years, yielding further improvements in how
we recruit, develop, evaluate, compensate, and retain our staff. We
will continue to develop a human capital strategic plan that both
supports our strategic goals and ensures that diversity, skills,
leadership, and retention issues are addressed.
As with human capital, information technology investments at GAO
declined significantly during the mid- to late 1990s as a result of
mandated spending reductions. Consequently, information technology
became a management challenge as we entered the 21st century. We have
made progress in building an integrated and reliable information
technology infrastructure that supports the achievement of our goals
and objectives, but we must sustain these efforts and begin others to
ensure that we can continue to provide quality, timely, efficient, and
effective services to the Congress and the public. Our information
technology plan for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 is providing a
foundation for initiatives and investments, and we are expanding and
accelerating our efforts to protect our agency's information assets.
The safety and security of GAO's people, information, and assets
are necessarily a top priority. In the aftermath of the September 11
terrorist attacks and the subsequent anthrax incidents, we designated
safety and security a management challenge for our agency. We are
conducting threat assessments and a comprehensive evaluation of
security that we plan to complete this year. Guided by these
assessments, we will develop an implementation plan to strengthen
security and safety within GAO. We also plan to review and update our
emergency preparedness and response plan and to develop a continuity of
operations plan so that we are prepared for, can respond to, and will
recover from any major threat or crisis.
GAO's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request to Support the Congress
To support the Congress as outlined in our strategic plan and
continue our efforts to strengthen and maximize the productivity of
GAO, we have requested a budget of $458 million for fiscal year 2003.
This funding level will allow us to maintain current operations;
continue initiatives to enhance our human capital and supporting
business processes; ensure the safety and security of our staff,
information, and other resources; and support our authorized level of
3,269 full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel.
Almost 80 percent of our request is for employee compensation and
benefits. The next largest proportion of the budget--about $50
million--is for contract services supporting both GAO's mission work
and administrative operations, including information technology,
training, and building maintenance and operations services. About $12
million is for travel and transportation, critical components to
accomplishing GAO's mission to follow the federal dollar and ensuring
the quality of our work. The remaining funds are for office equipment
and space rentals; telephone, videoconferencing, and data
communications services; and other operating expenses, including
supplies and materials, printing and reproduction, and furniture and
equipment.
During fiscal year 2003, we plan to increase our investments in
maximizing the productivity of our workforce by continuing to address
two key management challenges: human capital and information
technology. On the human capital front, we will target increased
resources to continue initiatives begun in fiscal year 2000 to address
skill gaps, maximize staff productivity, and increase staff
effectiveness; update our training curriculum to address organizational
and technical needs; and train new staff. We also will continue to
focus our hiring efforts in fiscal year 2003 on recruiting talented
entry-level staff. In addition, to ensure our ability to attract,
retain, and reward high-quality staff, we plan to devote additional
resources to our employee benefits and training programs. For example,
we will continue investments in our student loan repayment program,
which we are planning to begin offering in fiscal year 2002, and mass
transit subsidy benefits to enhance our recruitment and retention
incentives. In addition, major efforts are underway to implement our
new performance appraisal system for our analyst staff and to develop
new performance systems for our legal and mission support staff.
On the information technology front, we plan to continue
initiatives designed to increase employees' productivity, facilitate
knowledge-sharing, maximize the use of technology, and enhance employee
tools available at the desktop. We also will devote resources to
reengineering the information technology systems that support job
management processes, such as our engagement tracking system, and to
implementing tools that will ensure a secure network operating
environment.
Finally, we will make the investments necessary to enhance the
safety and security of our people, information, facilities, and other
assets.
Following are additional details supporting the funding increase we
have requested for fiscal year 2003 to cover mandatory and
uncontrollable costs and a few modest, but important, program changes.
Mandatory and Uncontrollable Costs
We are requesting $19,935,000 to cover mandatory pay and benefits
costs resulting primarily from federal cost-of-living and locality pay
adjustments, annualization of prior year salary increases, increased
participation in the Federal Employees Retirement System, and an
increase in the estimated number of retirees. Also included are funds
needed to cover performance-based promotions and merit pay increases.
Most of these increases are automatic, as required by current law. We
plan to review our pay systems and structures during fiscal year 2002
to identify ways to increase the percentage of our employees'
compensation that is tied directly to performance contributions and
results.
We also are requesting $2,090,000 for uncontrollable inflationary
increases in travel and per diem, lodging, postage, printing, supplies,
contracts, and other essential mission support services, based on OMB's
2-percent inflation index and other factors.
Program Changes
A net increase of $3,832,000 is being requested to fund essential
agency programs. This increase includes an overall reduction of
$168,000 in ongoing or recurring programs and a one-time, nonrecurring
request for $4 million to fund critical security and safety
enhancements, as illustrated in the following table and accompanying
narrative.
Requested Program Changes
[Dollars in thousands]
Fiscal year
Budget category 2003 change
Recurring:
Recruitment, retention, and recognition benefits:
Education loan reimbursement.............................. $810
Transit subsidy........................................... 335
Performance-based rewards and recognition................. 114
______
Subtotal................................................1,259
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Training.......................................................... 434
Printing and publishing services.................................. (360)
Contract services................................................(2,000)
Offsetting collections............................................ 499
______
Subtotal.................................................... (168)
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Non-recurring: Security and safety enhancements...................4,000
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Net program changes.........................................3,832
Recruitment, retention, and performance recognition benefits.--
$1,259,000 is requested to maintain and expand current recruitment,
retention, and performance-based recognition programs to levels
comparable to those of the executive branch and to help ensure our
ability to attract, retain, and recognize high-caliber staff. This
requested increase includes:
--$810,000 to fund the second year of benefits under our education
loan repayment program, which increases total funding for the
program to $1.2 million. This funding level will allow GAO to
meet current program commitments, offer benefits to new
recruits, and provide more retention benefits to current staff
in critical skills areas.
--$335,000 to fund the annualized cost of benefits under the transit
subsidy program, which was increased from $65 to $100 a month
during fiscal year 2002, and to extend the program to new
hires. This increase will raise the program's funding level to
$1.5 million.
--$114,000 for performance-based reward and recognition programs to
ensure comparability with public- and private-sector entities.
This represent a 4-percent increase in these programs,
commensurate with the average mandatory compensation increases,
and will raise the program funding level to $2.7 million, which
is less than 1 percent of our total compensation costs.
Training.--We are requesting $434,000 to implement a new core
training curriculum and expand essential training opportunities to
staff at all levels to ensure staff competency in skill areas critical
to achieving our strategic plan.
Printing and publishing services.--During fiscal year 2002, we will
be implementing changes in the distribution and retention of GAO
reports and products. We estimate savings in fiscal year 2003 of
$360,000 in printing, publishing, and related costs and plan to use
these savings to offset other program needs.
Contract services.--During fiscal year 2002, we will be contracting
for expertise not readily available within the agency to respond to
congressional requests related to security and terrorism issues, assess
our internal security and information technology requirements, and
conduct a congressionally mandated technology assessment pilot. As
these contract requirements are nonrecurring, we plan to reduce
contract services in fiscal year 2003 by $2 million and to use these
savings to offset other program needs.
Security and safety enhancements.--We are seeking nonrecurring
funds of $4 million in fiscal year 2003 to implement critical security
and safety enhancements identified through assessments conducted of our
security and potential threats following the September 11 attacks and
subsequent anthrax incidents. This funding will enable us to implement
some of the recommendations made in these assessments, such as
enhancing our building access and perimeter security, expanding
protection against chemical and biological intrusions, and increasing
the number of background checks and security clearances for GAO and
contractor staff. Implementing these measures will help ensure that we
are prepared for, can respond to, and will reduce our vulnerability to
major threats or crises in the future.
Offsetting collections.--We are requesting authority to increase
the use of revenue we receive from rental income and audit work from
$2,501,000 to $3,000,000, to continue renovation of the GAO building.
Finally, if a legislative proposal from the administration to
transfer accountability for retirement costs is enacted, we are also
requesting budget authority of $21,283,000 to cover our related costs
for fiscal year 2003. The President has proposed a governmentwide
initiative to transfer accountability for accruing retirement and post-
retirement health benefits costs from the Office of Personnel
Management to individual agencies. This initiative represents a shift
in the accounting treatment of these costs, which are presently a
component of mandatory costs and in the future will be included in
discretionary budget authority. Implementation of this proposal is
contingent upon enactment by the Congress of authorizing language
submitted by the administration.
Concluding Remarks
As a result of the support and resources that we have received from
this Subcommittee and the Congress over the past several years, we have
been able to make a difference in government, not only in terms of the
financial benefits and improvements in federal programs and operations
that have resulted from our work, but also in strengthening and
increasing the productivity of GAO, and making a real difference for
our country and its citizens. Our budget request for fiscal year 2003
is modest, but it is essential to sustaining our current operations,
continuing key human capital and information technology initiatives,
and ensuring the safety and security of our most valuable resource--our
people. We seek your continued support so that we will be able to
effectively and efficiently conduct our work on behalf of the Congress
and the American people.
As the Comptroller General of the United States on GAO's 80th
anniversary, I take great pride in the many years of service GAO has
provided the Congress and the nation. Building on this legacy, we at
GAO look forward to continuing to help the Congress and the nation meet
the current and emerging challenges of the 21st century.
REORGANIZATION OF GAO
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you a few general questions. In
1998, GAO initiated a reorganization or realignment of the
agency. How has this changed the GAO?
Mr. Walker. The realignment has made a significant
difference, Mr. Chairman. We sought to reduce organizational
layers to make it a flatter organization, to reduce the number
of silos or units that we have, to reduce the number of field
offices, and to end up having a lot more focus horizontally
across the organization and externally with our clients, the
accountability community, and other parties.
It has gone extremely well. Our productivity has been
enhanced within existing staffing allocation levels and, as you
might imagine, any time you go through a major change like
that, there are some people that are concerned about it. But by
and large, I think it has gone extremely well, and it has
certainly improved our efficiency and effectiveness.
STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM
Senator Durbin. You have asked for $810,000 for a student
loan repayment program, which is roughly double the amount
budgeted for the current fiscal year. I am a strong proponent
of this program, and we have basically said to the agencies
that we have the responsibility for, we are going to give you
the resources you need and provide the greatest flexibility
possible in using those for retention, recruitment, and morale.
Could you tell me how you are using current funding, and why
this increase is in your budget request?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, there are many individuals who
want to do public service who at the present time are faced
with a double whammy. On the one hand, they can make more money
by working in the private sector, but in many cases they have a
significant amount of college debt that they have to repay. So
if they choose public service, they are not only going to make
in some cases less money, but they have to be able to deal with
this debt. We want to use college loan repayments as one of a
number of tools that we have in our portfolio to attract and
retain top talent.
Mr. Chairman, 95 percent of the people that we hired in the
last year for our professional staff had masters or doctorate
degrees from some of the top schools in the country. A
significant percent of those individuals have debt. We are
looking to target the loan repayment to critical occupations
initially, areas where we have a supply and demand imbalance,
and where we are having difficulty attracting an adequate
number of qualified candidates. We are going to allocate part
of the money for recruiting, and we will determine the need for
this on a year-by-year basis, depending upon what the market
does and what our experience is. Second, we want to target a
greater proportion of the funds to be able to retain top-
quality professionals, especially during years 1 through 4.
What we find is, if we can get people to stay with GAO for
at least 3 years, then the likelihood that they are going to
stay with the organization increases significantly. So, we will
target funds for retention purposes during that critical time
frame for individuals who are good performers and who have the
skills and knowledge that we need.
Senator Durbin. So you do not look at all of the workforce
and consider how many are facing student loan obligations. You
are really trying to focus in on those two particular areas,
critical need, as well as the early-year retention.
Mr. Walker. That is correct, and as you know, Mr. Chairman,
there are statutory requirements. We do not have total,
unfettered discretion. There are certain statutory requirements
as to how these funds should be used. We want to make sure that
this is not something that we are just using as an across-the-
board increase in compensation. We want to use it in a targeted
fashion. We want to use it in conjunction with other tools that
we have such as hiring or retention allowances in order to
attract and retain top talent.
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you--of course, the GAO has
received more attention than usual over the question of the
National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Vice
President Cheney. What is the status of this issue, and what
specifically do you need to obtain from this effort to feel
that you have met your statutory obligation?
Mr. Walker. Well, first let me say for the record, Mr.
Chairman, I was not pleased with having to file suit. On the
other hand, I believe it was absolutely the right thing to do
under the circumstances. I have to do what I think is right,
irrespective of who the players are.
In this particular case, we tried very, very hard to avoid
litigation. I personally spent about 6 months trying to see if
we could end up getting the administration interested in coming
up with a reasoned and reasonable approach. In the end, they
refused. As a result, we have two principled parties with a
difference of opinion. That is what the judicial system is for.
It is now in the U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C. It
has been assigned to a judge. The judge has approved a
schedule. That schedule calls for various filings with the
court between now and the end of the summer, and oral argument
is scheduled for September 18, 2002. I would expect that a
decision might come this fall. Now, that is at the district
court level, and depending upon what that decision would be,
and if we are not otherwise able to reach an accommodation in
the interim, then the decision could end up being appealed to
the circuit court, and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
The real issue here is the right of the Congress to use the
GAO to obtain facts; to conduct professional, objective,
nonpartisan and nonideological analyses; and to issue reports
to the entire Congress and to the American people. We believe
it is a very important issue with regard to transparency and
accountability for Government, and we are still hopeful we
might be able to work something out with the administration,
but they have to show a willingness to do that.
Senator Durbin. Who represents the GAO as attorneys in
this?
Mr. Walker. The law firm of Arnold & Porter. Carter
Phillips is our lead attorney.
Mr. Dodaro. Sidley, Austin, Brown and Wood.
Mr. Walker. I misspoke. I have got too many things on my
mind. Sidley & Austin. Carter Phillips is our lead attorney.
Carter Phillips, as you undoubtedly know, was a former official
in the Reagan Justice Department. He has appeared before the
Supreme Court 20-plus times, an extremely able professional.
The firm, Sidley & Austin, is a top-quality firm, one of the
top five in the country of its size.
EVIDENCE SOUGHT IN NEPDG SUIT
Senator Durbin. What specific information is GAO seeking?
Mr. Walker. What we are seeking simply is who met with
whom, when, about what, and what did it cost? We are not
seeking deliberative information, we are not seeking what was
recommended to the President, and we are not seeking the notes
and minutes of the meeting. Our view is that if GAO cannot
obtain that type of information for the Congress, then we have
got a real concern, because it is not just the issue of the
energy task force, it is the ability of the administration to
use this type of a vehicle to circumvent oversight.
Senator Durbin. Is there precedent for the administration
providing this information to the GAO?
Mr. Walker. There is. We have throughout various
administrations obtained information on issues such as the
Clinton Health Care Task Force, the Clinton China Trade Task
Force, and the National Performance Review, which was headed by
Vice President Gore, a variety of different things. There are
some similarities and there are some differences between this
circumstance and those.
We have tried very hard to make sure that we are being
reasonable about this and, in fact, we have scaled back the
request from what the original requesters wanted, but as you
know, Senator, we now have a request from four Senate full
committee and subcommittee chairmen for this information, and
under our statute it says we shall do work for a committee, so
we feel compelled to move forward.
Senator Durbin. Now, haven't other groups also sought
information about this task force? Has there been a disclosure
pursuant to other litigation, or other legal action?
Mr. Walker. The Natural Resources Defense Council and
Judicial Watch have both filed separate pieces of litigation in
connection with this matter. In some cases they are seeking
similar information to what we are. In others, they are not
seeking as much as we are.
For example, we are seeking certain information with regard
to the staff that were assigned to the White House on a
temporary basis for the purpose of staffing this task force. At
least one of those suits does not seek that information.
We are also seeking with whom the Vice President and other
members of the task force met. Neither of the other suits is
seeking that information. They are bringing their action
generally under the Freedom of Information Act and, as you
know, Mr. Chairman, our rights extend far beyond the Freedom of
Information Act.
We are, however, coordinating very closely with those two
organizations to the extent that they receive information that
would be helpful in discharging our responsibilities to
Congress. We obtain access to that information from the
relevant agencies such that we can narrow what the differences
are between what has been made available and what we need to do
our job.
FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD [FASAB]
Senator Durbin. There is a little-known organization, the
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, and it is my
understanding that you have been part of an effort to change
the composition of this board. Could you describe that?
Mr. Walker. I would be happy to. I am the chairman of the
Joint Financial Management Improvement Program, which is
comprised of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of
OMB, the Director of OPM, and the Comptroller General of the
United States.
The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board is the body
which has received recognition from the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants as the authoritative standard-
setting body for generally accepted accounting principles for
Federal Government entities. One of the things that we wanted
to try to achieve is to make sure that that board was comprised
of a majority of individuals who did not have to comply with
the rulings that that board makes.
In other words, we believe that it was very important that
a majority of that board be independent, not only in fact but
in appearance, and that there not be individuals who were with
Federal Government entities who had to comply with the
pronouncements that were promulgated by the FASAB. As a result,
we looked to revise the composition to increase to six non-
Federal Government members from three along with the three
Federal Government representatives from GAO, OMB, and the
Treasury Department, which happen to be the three signators of
this document.
We are also looking to have two or three ex officio members
of the board, who would have rights to all the information and
would have the rights to be heard, but they would not be voting
members. We have a meeting next week of the principals, and I
expect at that meeting we are going to discuss this
possibility. I would recommend that CBO, the Department of
Defense, and possibly one civilian agency have an ex officio
capacity. They would have access to all of that information and
would be able to express their views on issues of interest and
concern.
But we believe it is very important that a majority of the
voting members of the board be independent and not be subject
to the standards that are being promulgated.
I might also add that the people who would get appointed
could be former Federal Government employees. They are not
necessarily coming from the private sector, so this is not a
private sector versus Government issue. It is independence from
having to apply the standards versus not being independent with
regard to that.
Senator Durbin. I have two questions. It is interesting
that you have taken this approach at a time when committee
after committee on Capitol Hill is investigating the private
sector accounting profession and whether or not their standards
are sufficient to give, I guess, transparency and credibility
to Corporate America. I went to a hearing yesterday where the
board of directors of Enron, former members and current members
of the board of directors of Enron basically pointed to
everyone but themselves and said, ``they just are not doing
their job.'' Well, that would include the auditors and
accountants.
At a time when people are calling into question as to
whether or not we ought to establish new oversight standards
for the accounting profession, you have decided on this board
to go heavy on the private side, as opposed to public sector
accounting. Why did you do that?
PURPOSE SERVED BY CHANGING FASAB BOARD
Mr. Walker. Well, first, I think it is very important, Mr.
Chairman, that this is not a private sector versus public
sector issue. In other words, we want six individuals who are
not current Federal Government employees who would not have to
comply with the pronouncements of this body. Those individuals
could be former Federal Government employees, and they may not
have ever worked for the private sector, so it is really not
private sector versus public sector. It is six individuals who
are independent from having to comply with the standards.
One of the current board slots is the DOD representative,
in certain situations, he impeded the ability of this body to
improve the transparency and accountability of Federal
accounting and reporting. I am not talking about individuals,
but rather the institution--impeded the ability of the FASAB to
be able to make progress. Part of it was because they had to
comply with the standards, and it was going to be difficult for
them to comply with the standards.
And so, we want knowledgeable professionals, a majority of
whom are independent from having to comply with these
standards. I have already sought to make sure that we look for
former officials, former Federal Government officials, as
candidates for some of these 6 slots.
CBO REPRESENTATION ON FASAB BOARD
Senator Durbin. Let me ask a second question, and that is a
question about the CBO not being on the board. Do you think the
legislative branch is adequately represented?
Mr. Walker. I do. The Comptroller General of the United
States is clearly a legislative branch officer, and GAO will
continue as a voting member of FASAB. I firmly believe that the
CBO ought to have the right to have an ex officio member on
FASAB as well. Ex officio means they are at the table, they
receive the information, just like the other board members do,
in advance. I think that is important. That will enable them to
be able to articulate whatever views they have at the outset of
each meeting and to participate to the extent that they believe
it would be appropriate. So in summary, I do believe the
legislative branch is adequately represented.
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Senator Durbin. We appropriated $500,000 this year to
conduct the pilot to evaluate whether the Senate needs to
expand its technological assessment capabilities. What is the
status of that pilot?
Mr. Walker. Well, as you know, the Senate approved that,
and it was $500,000. We have undertaken a project dealing
with----
Ms. Harper. Biometrics.
Mr. Walker [continuing]. Biometrics at the border. We are
looking at the use of biometrics at the border for security
purposes. We have entered into a cooperative arrangement with
the National Academy of Sciences. That is one example of where
we are trying to have partnerships with other organizations to
try to help get our job done. We expect that we will brief the
appropriate parties by mid-June on the status of that effort,
and then we will issue our report by August.
Gene, is there anything you want to add to that?
Mr. Dodaro. That is correct. We have already had one
discussion with a national panel of experts and are scheduled
to gather information. We are on target to produce the report
later this summer.
Senator Durbin. A question it raises for me is whether or
not we can do this under the current setup. Historically, the
Office of Technology Assessment developed that type of
expertise. They were given that type of assignment, and now
that they are gone, I guess the question presents itself, can
we match their performance with the current cooperative
arrangement that we have described?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the Office of
Technology Assessment obviously did important work, but it was
also a very small office, with a limited amount of resources.
My personal view is that GAO is well positioned in partnership
with other parties such as the National Academy of Sciences to
do this type of work, and that in general it may make sense to
try, to the extent that you can, to utilize existing entities
to accomplish objectives rather than creating new ones.
Mr. Dodaro. Basically, the pilot assessment process
required us to build in an evaluation of how well the pilot
worked. So part of the pilot report that we are going to issue
this summer will include an independent evaluation on how well
this process worked and what alternatives and options could be
pursued to do this on a somewhat broader scale.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND
Senator Durbin. In the fiscal year 2002 supplemental, you
received $7.6 million. Will you be obligating all of those
funds this fiscal year?
Mr. Walker. That is for the security arrangements, as I
recall.
Ms. Harper. Yes, the security enhancements.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, we are putting together a
proposed security enhancement plan. We are in the process of
trying to finalize our consultations with the House of
Representatives. As I mentioned before, we have to consider not
just what GAO's needs are, but also the fact that we may be a
contingency site for the House of Representatives, and even
potentially, on occasion, for the Senate.
We are in the process of finalizing those discussions. If,
after they are finalized, it turns out that we do not need all
of those funds, I commit to you that I will advise you, but we
are not at the point yet that we can give a definitive
statement, because we have not finalized those discussions.
Senator Durbin. I believe you have asked for $3 million
more.
Ms. Harper. Four million dollars more.
Mr. Walker. Right. In other words, if you look at the
supplemental last year plus the $4 million, we are looking at a
total of $11.6 million. If it turns out--and we will finalize
this, I think, within the next month or two--that we do not
need all of that, I can assure you I will not hesitate to tell
you.
CLOSING REMARKS
Senator Durbin. Let me just say for the record that Senator
Bennett had an unavoidable conflict and could not be here
today, but he may have some questions that he wishes to submit
to you and the other witnesses. I want to thank the GAO and all
of you for the good work you are doing, and I appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, PUBLIC PRINTER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ROBERT T. MANSKER, DEPUTY PUBLIC PRINTER
FRANCIS J. BUCKLEY, JR., SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
ROBERT B. HOLSTEIN, COMPTROLLER
WILLIAM M. GUY, BUDGET OFFICER
ANDREW M. SHERMAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS
CHARLES C. COOK, SR., SUPERINTENDENT, CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING
MANAGEMENT
Senator Durbin. Our next witness is Mr. Mike DiMario, the
Public Printer, Mr. DiMario is accompanied by Robert Mansker,
the Deputy Public Printer, Francis Buckley, Superintendent of
Documents, Robert Holstein, Comptroller, William Guy, Budget
Officer, Andrew Sherman, Director of Congressional Relations
and Charles Cook, Superintendent of Congressional Printing
Management.
GPO's budget request is roughly $122 million, $90 million
for the congressional printing and binding appropriation, and
$32 million for the Superintendent of Documents salaries and
expenses.
Mr. DiMario, we expect that this may be your last
appearance with the subcommittee. The President has announced
his intention to nominate Bruce James as Public Printer. I want
to thank you for your many years of public service, including 9
years as the Public Printer. Thank you for coming here today.
We certainly wish you the best, and we invite you at this point
to give your testimony.
OPENING REMARKS
Mr. DiMario. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
GPO's original request for fiscal year 2003 was for a total
of $129.3 million. There is a difference between the number
that you use and the number that I use, and that is because we
included $6.9 million in accordance with the administration's
instruction to charge agencies for the full cost of post-
retirement benefits for the employees covered by these
appropriations. And I put that into the record for those people
who may have read my prepared statement that I gave to you, so
they understand the difference.
Our appropriation request includes $95.3 million for the
congressional printing and binding appropriation and $34.1
million for the salaries and expenses appropriation of the
Superintendent of Documents. Those appropriations have prorated
to them the portion of the $6.9 million that they would be
responsible for. For clarity I make that statement.
Since the time of our original budget request, we requested
a supplemental for $7.9 million. That is to fund a shortfall of
$5.9 million in the fiscal year 2001 congressional printing and
binding appropriation, and $2 million for asbestos abatement in
our central office buildings. If that supplemental
appropriation request is approved, our total requirements for
fiscal year 2002 would be reduced to $123.4 million, a lesser
amount than we originally submitted. If it is not approved, we
will still need the shortfall funding restored in order to have
adequate funding to carry out our mission to support the
Congress.
For congressional printing and binding, the funding level
that we are requesting should be sufficient to ensure that the
cost of Congress's printing and information products are fully
covered. We have received shortfalls in the past, but we are
not anticipating that at this point in time for 2003, assuming
the appropriation is given to us.
In 2002, at the current time, we do not anticipate any
shortfall. 2002 is not a complete year, however, so we just do
not know what the final budget numbers will be, but currently
it appears that we have adequate money in that appropriation.
For the salaries and expenses appropriation we are asking
for an increase to replace obsolete format servers and other
equipment, and for improvements to enhance online services
provided through GPO Access. It is essential that we enhance
our data archiving capabilities, including data migration
activities, to refresh essential legislative and regulatory
online files.
The salaries and expenses appropriation is for the
Superintendent of Documents function, which is our distribution
function.
Online formats are now the primary means of dissemination
in the Federal Depository Library Program. We are continuing to
transition the publications distributed to the depositories to
electronic formats as quickly as we can without jeopardizing
public access to the titles for which there are no dependable
electronic equivalents.
Finally, we are seeking a legislative change to adjust the
statutory pay for the Public Printer and Deputy Public Printer.
This will restore appropriate comparability with other
legislative branch agency heads, senior staff in the House and
Senate, and senior staff in the executive branch. We make this
request for the interests of future GPO leaders. As you noted,
this will be in all likelihood my last appropriation hearing,
so it is certainly not in my interest that I advance that.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks. We have
given you a prepared statement which I ask be placed in the
record.
Senator Durbin. Your statement will be included in its
entirety.
Mr. DiMario. Thank you. We are prepared to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael F. DiMario
Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here
today to present the appropriations request of the Government Printing
Office (GPO) for fiscal year 2003.
fiscal year 2003 appropriations request
For fiscal year 2003, the Government Printing Office (GPO) is
requesting a total of $129.3 million: $95.3 million for the
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation and $34.1 million for
the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of
Documents. At the direction of the Office of Management and Budget, the
request includes $6.9 million in accordance with the Administration's
proposal to charge agencies for the full cost of post-retirement
benefits for the employees covered by these appropriations. It also
includes $5.9 million to cover a shortfall in fiscal year 2001
Congressional Printing and Binding funds.
Exclusive of the amounts for post-retirement benefits and the
shortfall, our requested increase over fiscal year 2002 (including
emergency supplemental funding approved in the wake of the September 11
attacks) is $1.9 million, or 1.7 percent. These funds are primarily to
cover mandatory pay costs and workload changes in congressional
printing, as well as additional capability for the Superintendent of
Documents to provide public access to the growing volume of online
Federal information made available through GPO Access, our online
information service (www.gpo.gov/gpoaccess). Approximately 225,000
titles are now made available through this service, which is used by
the public to retrieve more than 31 million documents every month.
Overall, our request represents an increase of $14.7 million, or 12.8
percent, over the amount approved for fiscal year 2002 (including
emergency supplemental funding), with most of the increase ($12.8
million) for the shortfall and post-retirement benefits.
Fiscal Year 2002 Supplemental.--Last month, I submitted a
supplemental appropriations request for fiscal year 2002. I requested
the $5.9 million for the fiscal year 2001 shortfall and $2 million for
a necessary project to abate asbestos in the buildings comprising GPO's
central office complex on North Capitol Street. If this supplemental
request is approved, the $5.9 million for the fiscal year 2001
shortfall in the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation would
no longer be needed as part of the fiscal year 2003 request.
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation.--The
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation covers the estimated
costs of producing the Congressional Record, bills, reports, hearings,
documents, and related products required for the legislative process.
This appropriation is critical to the maintenance and operation of
GPO's in-plant capacity, which is structured to serve Congress'
information product needs. It also covers database preparation work on
congressional publications disseminated online via GPO Access.
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation.--The Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents pays for documents
distribution programs and related functions that are mandated by law.
The majority of the appropriation is for the Federal Depository Library
Program (FDLP), under which congressional and other Government
publications and information products are disseminated to approximately
1,300 academic, public, Federal, law school, and other libraries
nationwide where they are available for the free use of the public.
While some of the funding for the FDLP is for salaries and benefits,
most is for printing and disseminating publications (including
publications in CD-ROM and online formats, which are now the majority
of items in the program) to depository libraries. Related statutory
functions covered by this appropriation are cataloging and indexing,
by-law distribution, and the international exchange distribution of
U.S. Government publications. Finally, through the FDLP, this
appropriation provides the majority of funding for the operation of GPO
Access. GPO's other major documents distribution functions--the sales
program and agency distribution services--are structured to be funded
by revenues earned and receive no appropriated funds.
congressional printing and binding appropriation
Our request for $95.3 million for the Congressional Printing and
Binding Appropriation includes funding to cover Congress's estimated
printing requirements for fiscal year 2003, a prior year shortfall in
this appropriation, and the Administration's retirement plan, and, as
follows:
Estimated Fiscal Year 2003 Congressional Printing and Binding
Requirements
[In millions of dollars]
Committee hearings................................................ 21.3
Congressional Record (including the online Record, the Index, and
the bound Record)............................................. 20.4
Miscellaneous Printing and Binding (including letterheads,
envelopes, blank paper, and other products)................... 16.8
Bills, resolutions, amendments.................................... 7.4
Miscellaneous Publications (including the Congressional Directory
and serial sets).............................................. 4.5
Committee Reports................................................. 3.4
Documents......................................................... 2.5
Committee Prints.................................................. 2.4
Details to Congress............................................... 2.3
Business and Committee Calendars.................................. 2.3
Document Envelopes and Franks..................................... 1.0
______
Subtotal.................................................... 84.3
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Elimination of the Fiscal Year 2001 Shortfall..................... 5.9
Post-Retirement Benefits.......................................... 5.1
______
Total....................................................... 95.3
Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Requirements.--Exclusive of the amounts
for post-retirement benefits and the fiscal year 2001 shortfall, the
funding we are requesting for Congress' fiscal year 2003 printing
requirements represents a net increase of approximately $3.3 million,
or 4 percent, compared with the approved level for fiscal year 2002. As
our Budget Justification shows, there is an estimated $3.7 million in
price level increases due to contractual wage agreements as well as
higher costs for materials and supplies. These price level increases
are offset by an estimated $400,000 reduction resulting from projected
volume decreases in all production workload categories except for
hearings and committee prints. Estimates of the changes in workload
volume are based on historical data from previous first session years.
Fiscal Year 2001 Shortfall.--In addition to the funding required
for congressional work to be performed in fiscal year 2003, we are
requesting $5.9 million to eliminate a shortfall for work performed in
fiscal year 2001.
Last year, in the fiscal year 2001 Legislative Branch
Appropriations supplemental, Congress provided funding to eliminate a
cumulative shortfall in the Congressional Printing and Binding
Appropriation through fiscal year 2000. At that time, we projected and
disclosed a developing shortfall for fiscal year 2001, but we did not
request funding to cover it because the fiscal year had not concluded.
The $5.9 million we are now requesting will eliminate all existing
shortfalls through fiscal year 2001. At this time, no shortfall is
anticipated for fiscal year 2002.
salaries and expenses appropriation
The programs covered by our request of $34.1 million for the
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents
are as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Estimated
Program Requirements
Federal Depository Library Program................................ 27.3
Cataloging and Indexing Program................................... 4.0
International Exchange Program.................................... .7
By-Law Distribution Program....................................... .3
______
Subtotal.................................................... 32.3
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Post-Retirement Benefits.......................................... 1.8
______
Total....................................................... 34.1
Exclusive of the request for post-retirement benefits, the funding
we are requesting for fiscal year 2003 represents a net increase of
approximately $2.7 million, or about 9 percent, over the approved level
for fiscal year 2002.
The majority of the increase, or $2.6 million, is to replace
obsolete formats, servers, and other equipment and for equipment
improvements to enhance GPO's online services. It is essential that we
enhance our data archiving capabilities, including data migration
activities to refresh essential legislative and regulatory online
files. Several of these files date back to 1994, while generally
accepted practices call for systematic data maintenance on at least a
5-year cycle.
The requested increase also includes $482,000 for mandatory pay
increases, including anticipated COLA's, promotions, within-grade
increases, and transit subsidies for covered employees; $404,000 to
cover price level changes affecting materials and supplies at the
anticipated rate of inflation of approximately 2 percent; $348,000 to
cover depreciation for the modernization of legacy automated systems
supporting the FDLP; and $91,000 for 3 additional FTE's for the FDLP to
assist in the management of the FDLP Electronic Collection. The
additional FTE's are directly related to the increased workload of
managing the expanding range of files available to the public through
GPO Access.
These increases are offset by a projected workload reduction of
approximately $1.2 million, attributable primarily to the continuing
decline of paper copies distributed to depository libraries. The
decline is part of the ongoing migration of the FDLP to a predominately
electronic program.
Transition to More Electronic Dissemination.--The transition to a
more electronic FDLP is continuing, as projected in the Study to
Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More
Electronic Federal Depository Library Program (June 1996) and in
fulfillment of direction from Congress in fiscal year 2001 that
``emphasis should be on streamlining the distribution of traditional
copies of publications which may include providing online access and
less expensive electronic formats.''
Nearly 61 percent of the 37,600 new FDLP titles made available
during fiscal year 2001 were disseminated electronically. For fiscal
year 2002 to date, 66 percent of the new titles made available to the
public through the FDLP have been online. Through its electronic
information dissemination component, the FDLP now delivers more content
to users than ever before. In order to preserve public access, the
distribution of tangible formats continues for those titles for which
there is no acceptable online alternative.
Withdrawal of Publication from FDLP.--In the wake of the September
11 attacks, the Superintendent of Documents requested Federal
depository libraries to withdraw and destroy their depository copies of
a United States Geological Survey (USGS) CD-ROM entitled Source Area
Characteristics of Large Public Surface-Water Supplies in the
Conterminous United States: An Information Resource for Source-Water
Assessment, 1999. The CD-ROM contains information relevant to public
drinking water supplies.
The Superintendent's October 12, 2001, letter was issued pursuant
to a letter from the USGS, dated October 5, 2001, which asked GPO to
``request that depository libraries receiving the [Source-Water CD-ROM]
be instructed to destroy their copies.'' The Superintendent's request
went to the 335 Federal depository libraries which had selected this
document for their collections.
The Superintendent of Documents' request followed established
policy for the withdrawal of documents from the FDLP. The Government
may request the removal of materials from depository libraries since
under Title 44 of the U.S. Code all FDLP materials remain Government
property. Requests to withdraw happen rarely, however. Since fiscal
year 1995, the GPO has distributed 230,019 tangible product (print,
microfiche, and CD-ROM) titles to depository libraries, and recalled
just 20 (16 to be destroyed, 3 returned to the agency, 1 removed from
shelves). Such actions are taken only on the request of the issuing
agency, most commonly because the titles contain information that is
erroneous or has been superseded. The Superintendent has no statutory
ability to deny agency document withdrawal requests, but instead serves
as the statutory conduit for carrying them out. Prior to initiating any
withdrawal request, however, GPO policy is to carefully review each
request and ensure that all such requests are made in writing.
GPO is working closely with the library community on the issue of
withdrawing documents and is keeping the community, as well as the
Joint Committee on Printing, informed. Because our mission is to
promote public access to Government information, we take very seriously
any Federal agency's request to restrict access to Government
information that has been made public. However, we also have a duty
under the law to cooperate with Federal agencies in the appropriate
distribution of the official information they publish. Since the
September 11 attacks, the USGS CD-ROM is the only document that the
Superintendent of Documents has been asked to be withdrawn from
depository libraries. Any future agency withdrawal requests will be
handled in accordance with law and established policy.
revolving fund
Financial Results for Fiscal Year 2001.--GPO's fiscal year 2001
consolidated financial statements were audited by the firm of KPMG LLP.
We have been advised that GPO will receive an unqualified, or
``clean,'' opinion on the statements.
GPO ended the year reporting a loss of approximately $1.6 million
from the results of normal business operations, a margin of two-tenths
of one percent on $712.4 million in total revenues. However, this
figure does not reflect two unusual accounting adjustments: a $12
million write-off of the cost of the Sales Program's Integrated
Processing System (IPS), and a required actuarial increase of $31.4
million in the long-term estimated liability of workers' compensation
benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA).
Altogether, these factors resulted in a reported loss of $45 million.
Our statements have been prepared to reflect the uniqueness of the two
adjustments. The loss will be covered by GPO's retained earnings and
will not require additional appropriations.
The implementation of IPS, which will replace the Sales Program's
legacy automated systems, has been delayed by modification work on the
original off-the-shelf system to make it fit the Program's needs. The
modifications have nearly been completed. IPS has been certified by the
GPO's Inspector General to be capable of operations, and training is
currently being undertaken to implement the system. During the period
in which IPS was under development it was not depreciated, in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
However, for fiscal year 2001, GPO's auditors recommended several
options for making an accounting entry for IPS. A one-year write-off of
IPS' capitalized costs was among the recommended options. We selected
this option because it obviates the need to assign these costs via
depreciation to future years at a time when the Sales Program is
cutting expenses to meet reduced order volume. All of the system's
acquisition costs have been paid for and the one-time write-off causes
no additional reduction of GPO's available funds.
The adjustment to the long-term liability of GPO's workers'
compensation program is based on actuarial assumptions that are
different from those used to compute this liability in prior years. The
difference has arisen due to changes in the assumptions used by the
Department of Labor affecting the computation of this liability
governmentwide, a figure which is currently forecast at $24.7 billion.
The adjustment in GPO's liability conforms to accepted Government
accounting practice. As adjusted, this liability is essentially a 37-
to 55-year forecast of what GPO's responsibility for workers'
compensation could be in view of historical benefit payment patterns,
current information related to benefit claims, and Labor Department
assumptions. The required reporting of this forecast does not cause any
expenditure by GPO, does not affect GPO's printing rates, and does not
reflect a reduction in GPO's available funds. It is important to note
that the FECA adjustment is not indicative of an increase in GPO's
workplace injury and illness rates, which remain comparable to other
Federal agencies with substantially industrial missions, such as the
Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the U.S. Mint.
Effect on Revolving Fund of Funding Post-Retirement Benefits.--The
Administration's proposal to have agencies pay the total cost for their
employees' post-retirement benefits would increase GPO costs by nearly
$17.9 million in fiscal year 2003. Of this amount, $6.9 million has
been included in this request for the two appropriations made directly
to GPO. The balance of nearly $11 million would have to be charged to
GPO's Revolving Fund, which finances operations that provide for the
Government's printing, printing procurement, sales of publications,
agency distribution, and related services. Recovering this cost would
require that GPO's rates charged to Federal agencies and the prices
charged to the public for the sale of publications be significantly
increased. Imposing these price increases would be a heavy burden on
GPO's agency and public customers.
Police Merger.--We are cooperating with the General Accounting
Office in its current review of a proposal to merge the GPO police
force with the Capitol Police. As we have stated previously, our main
concern is that we continue to have effective input into the management
of GPO's unique security needs in the wake of any consolidation that
Congress may decide upon.
Status of Air Conditioning Project.--In the fiscal year 2001
supplemental appropriations act last year (Public Law 107-20), Congress
provided $6 million for more energy-efficient air conditioning and
lighting systems at GPO. The air conditioning project is underway. The
architecture and engineering study, which details the system design and
equipment requirements, has been completed. Bids for the air
conditioning contractor have been solicited and were due to GPO by
March 25. A contract has been awarded and the work schedule calls for
the new system to be installed and operational by the end of March
2003. Work on the lighting improvements will follow.
Emergency Preparedness Projects.--Last fall, Congress provided $4
million to GPO in supplemental transfer authority for emergency
preparedness (Public Law 107-117). As we have communicated to the
Senate and House Appropriations Committees, our plan for spending these
funds includes $1.1 million to replace GPO's ageing fire protection,
signaling, and public address systems to protect GPO personnel and
property. The balance of $2.9 million is to establish a limited remote
printing capability at GPO's Laurel, MD, warehouse, which will provide
for continuity of necessary printing operations in support of Congress.
These funds are also being used to establish a remote mirror site for
GPO Access outside of Washington, DC. We are currently reviewing GPO
field offices for placement of this site. Both Committees have approved
our proposal for spending these funds.
GPO Emergency Support for Congress.--In the wake of the anthrax
attacks last fall, GPO provided temporary work space for personnel from
the Senate Office of Legislative Counsel and some personnel from the
Office of the Clerk of the House. Since that time, as the result of the
closure of the Capitol's off-site delivery center, we have provided
space at our warehouse loading docks off North Capitol Street for use
by the Capitol Police in screening all trucks bound for congressional
offices for the distribution of supplies, equipment, and food. Up to 70
trucks a day have passed through this operation. At the request of the
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, we are providing
space to support off-site computer operations for House Information
Resources.
Sales Program.--In recent years, the volume of sales through GPO's
sales of publications program has the been declining. The free
availability of publications on GPO Access and other Government web
sites has been the primary reason for this decline, although
competition from other Government publications sales outlets has
contributed to it. The losses have been temporarily financed through
GPO's Revolving Fund.
We have taken a number of steps to reduce program costs and
increase revenues. In the past 5 years, we have cut FTE's in the sales
program from 529 to 392, or 26 percent. Further FTE reductions of 25
and 35 are planned for fiscal year 2002 and 2003, respectively,
yielding an additional reduction of 15 percent during that period. We
have reduced warehouse space for the program by closing our Springbelt,
VA, paper warehouse and consolidating paper warehouse operations in our
documents warehouse space in Laurel, MD. We have made across-the-board
pricing adjustments of 20 percent over the past two years. In addition,
we are emphasizing our online ordering service, and we have implemented
an 800-ordering number and expanded credit card payments to include
American Express.
Along with these actions, we have begun closing those GPO retail
bookstores around the Nation that no longer are economically viable.
Closing these stores will reduce costs, and we expect to retain a
substantial portion of store revenues through our online, fax, phone,
and mail order operations served by our warehouse. Quick turnaround
service for purchasers can be provided by express overnight delivery.
At the same time, free public access to Government information will
remain unaffected through local Federal depository libraries as well as
Internet availability.
To date, we have proceeded with the closure of 6 stores: San
Francisco, Boston, the McPherson Square store in Washington, DC (one of
3 in the Washington, DC, area), Philadelphia, Chicago, and Birmingham,
AL. We provided advance notification to the respective House and Senate
delegations for these 6 stores our plans, as well as the Joint
Committee on Printing. Other closures are pending and we will be
providing notification soon to the respective delegations about these
stores.
In spite of the decline in the volume of publications sold, we
believe the continued operation of a sales program that provides the
public with an opportunity to purchase their own copies of Government
documents, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 17 of Title 44, is
justified. Our objective is to reduce the costs of this program to a
level consistent with the program revenues.
However, part of the costs of the sales program are indirect
overhead expenses that impose a proportionally greater burden on the
program as revenues have declined. This overhead includes many expenses
that are unique to Government agencies, such as costs for personnel and
budget offices, EEO and Inspector General operations, security
personnel, and other administrative costs. As GPO strives to find a way
to continue providing the public service afforded by the sales program
while minimizing its costs, it may become necessary to discuss other
funding options for the program. For example, until 1978, the program
received part of its funding from appropriations to cover general and
administrative expenses.
FTE Level.--I am requesting a statutory ceiling on employment of
3,222 FTE's. This is a decrease of 38 from the previous year, and
reflects a reduction of 6 FTE's from printing and binding operations
and 35 from the sales program, offset by the increase of 3 under the
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation. Total GPO FTE's have dropped 39
percent between fiscal year 1990 and fiscal year 2001, 36 percent since
fiscal year 1993 alone, when I first took office. GPO is now at its
lowest employment point in the past century, principally due to our use
of electronic information technology.
additional issues
Legislative Changes.--We are requesting a change to section 303 of
Title 44, regarding the pay of the Public Printer and the Deputy Public
Printer, in order to maintain pay parity with other comparable
legislative branch officials as well as appropriate comparability with
senior staff throughout the Government. Changes in the pay levels for
the Public Printer and Deputy Public Printer have been provided through
the appropriations process, as they last were in the early 1990's.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
ADMINISTRATION'S PRINTING POLICY
Senator Durbin. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. DiMario, the decision last week announced by the Bush
administration in their executive order to permit agencies to
bypass the Government Printing Office will certainly have an
impact on the agency. First, do you question the authority of
the administration to make this decision by Executive order?
Mr. DiMario. I certainly do, because we are dealing with a
statutory provision of law that requires the agencies to
prepare printing requirements by requisition to the Government
Printing Office, subject to certain statutory exceptions that
exist and/or waivers that have been granted to them from time
to time by the Joint Committee on Printing, again based upon
statutory provisions that allow those waivers to be granted. So
to amend the statute, or attempt to, or provisions of a statute
by the issuance, or future issuance, of a regulation which
stems from the statute, seems to me to be inconsistent. You
have to have regulations that follow statutes, that do not
modify statutes.
Senator Durbin. Does the Government Printing Office plan to
take legal action to assert its statutory rights as you outline
them?
Mr. DiMario. Well, at this point in time we are probably
not in a position to take legal action as such. The Office of
Management and Budget has essentially issued to the agencies of
Government in the executive branch a notice stating this is
what their intention is. But for them to accomplish this, which
is to change the Federal Acquisition Regulations, we believe
they have to do so in accordance with the Administrative
Procedures Act.
The Administrative Procedures Act requires that they give
public notice, and that would be in the Federal Register; that
there be comment periods; and that others who are impacted by
the proposed rule may comment as to that impact that they might
have. I cannot speak to the time frame. OMB is talking about
September 2002 implementation. I do not know, given the
Administrative Procedures Act provisions, whether September is
a realistic time to anticipate that. But certainly we would
offer comments during this period of time, and we would also
hope that other affected organizations would do the same, that
they would offer their comments either favorable to what is
being proposed, or from my judgment, unfavorable to it, because
it is an item that has been looked at many, many times, and has
been proposed in the past.
Senator Durbin. Let us assume for a moment that it does go
forward and address that hypothetical. Let me ask you, what
impact would that have on the volume of work done by the
Government Printing Office?
Mr. DiMario. Well, this would have to be speculative on my
part. The way I believe their regulation would be worded is not
to say they could not come through GPO. We would be a voluntary
source for them, but it would not be mandatory to use us.
Currently, we do about 50 percent of all Federal printing.
It comes through the Government Printing Office.
Senator Durbin. Excuse me. Now, when you say 50 percent, is
that actual printing, or printing that you contract out?
Mr. DiMario. That is the portion of all Federal printing
that GPO handles. Of that 50 percent, we contract out
approximately 70 to 75 percent. Virtually the bulk of the
executive branch work that comes to us currently is contracted
out. We have a network of contractors on our bid list, 10,000
or more contractors, including some very active contractors, in
the range of 3,000 or 4,000, that pursue Government contract
work. They are located around the country. It is a program that
was put in place by the Congress many, many years ago. It is
the Federal printing program of the Joint Committee on
Printing. It is about 50 years old.
As I noted, 50 percent of all Federal printing is work that
is currently coming through us. The other 50 percent does not
go through GPO. There are waivers or other provisions of law
that authorize other operations in printing. As an example,
classified printing does not have to come through us, so the
National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and
related agencies have classified printing programs and are
authorized to produce that work without coming through GPO.
Senator Durbin. Let me just try to zero in here, because I
am trying to follow the percentage of a percentage, and I am
losing track of it here. Let me ask you this. If the OMB
regulation, recommendation is implemented, and if you assume
that there is no work that will be coming from the executive
branch then from the Government Printing Office, what impact
does this have on your current work load? What percentage of
your printing, either in-house printing or contracted printing,
would be eliminated?
Mr. DiMario. If no work is coming from the executive
branch, it would eliminate the majority of the work that is
coming to us.
Senator Durbin. Give me a number. Is it 90 percent of the
workload?
Mr. DiMario. It has got to be 80 percent. Currently our in-
plant work is about 50-50 for the executive branch and the
Congress. It would impact virtually all of our procured
printing--I guess $475 million last year, and roughly $80 or
$90 million in plant.
Senator Durbin. So if 80 percent of your printing
responsibility is tied up with executive contracts, executive
assignments, and it could be eliminated on the basis of this
executive order, what percentage of your FTEs would be affected
by that?
Mr. DiMario. It would probably knock out, again, 75, 80
percent. The people that we actually have procuring printing,
as opposed to manufacturing printing, those people would for
the most part be gone, and a lot of those are in the field, and
the central office. If we lost half of the in-house printing,
then the question is, we would have to lose part of that
workforce.
Could we lose all of the workforce one for one? I do not
know. For example, on the same presses we do the Congressional
Record and the Federal Register. Under the assumption that we
lose all executive branch work, there would be an assumption
you would lose the Federal Register, which is a separate
statute altogether, and yet we would still have to maintain a
workforce to keep that press capability for Congress.
So these are numbers that I am picking off the top of my
head with respect to FTEs, but it would be substantial impact
on GPO.
EMPLOYMENT LEVELS
Senator Durbin. And currently you have how many FTEs,
3,000, roughly?
Mr. DiMario. Yes, about 3,000.
Senator Durbin. I want to make certain it is clear for the
record here, and that I understand, I want to give you an
opportunity to look at it more closely and maybe come back with
more precise figures, but your general observation is, if the
OMB recommendation goes through, that 75 percent of this
workforce of roughly 3,000 could be negatively affected?
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir, and I say it that way. Not all the
workforce deals with the printing side, but the Superintendent
of Documents' distribution side would be affected too. If the
agencies are in compliance with the provision in OMB's
suggested regulation, well, they may still furnish documents,
which they are currently required to do, to the Superintendent
of Documents for his decision to distribute them to the 1,300
Federal Depository Libraries. There is a chance that that
portion of the workforce would not be impacted at the same
level as those people who are either procuring printing, who
would be decimated by this, or those people who are producing
work in-plant.
Senator Durbin. I want to follow through on that question.
But so that it is clear for the record, it is your estimate,
and it is only an estimate, and I am going to certainly give
you great accommodation here because you are just trying to be
helpful to the subcommittee at this moment in coming up with an
idea, but if the OMB recommendation goes through, approximately
2,200 of the 3,000 employees at the GPO would be out of work.
Mr. DiMario. It could be that many, yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. I think it is safe to assume that if the
OMB proposal goes through, that each agency of Government then
would have to assign an FTE to assume the new responsibility
when it comes to printing. I do not know how we would avoid
that.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. Some agencies currently have
employees who deal with printing, but they are not procuring
printing, so they would have to take on that burden. We have
people with specialized skill in procuring printing, but the
agencies would have to do that. Currently, the number of
billing address codes, locations throughout the executive
branch and other places of Government that we deal with, is
about 6,300. These are locations from which we are receiving
requests for printing Government documents throughout the
United States Government. Each of these locations in all
likelihood would have to have some administrative burden to be
able to procure their own product, unless they created a series
of centralized procurement activities for printing, or brought
them into an agency already in being.
So yes, there would be duplication and there would be
administrative costs. As a result, in our judgment, the cost
would go up sharply for Government.
Senator Durbin. I think you said earlier, and our staff has
indicated as well, there is still an option under the OMB
proposal where the executive agencies could use the services of
the Government Printing Office.
Mr. DiMario. Well, I believe so, because they are telling
them under the regulation they no longer have to mandatorily
follow the statutory provisions requiring the use of GPO but
they cannot wipe out that statutory provision.
Senator Durbin. It says in the press report that Mr.
Daniels' memo would allow agencies to use GPO services if they
were the cheapest available.
Now, here is the problem we are facing. First, we do not
know if OMB has the statutory authority to make this decision.
Second, we do not know when the decision will be finalized. It
could be September, it could be later. Third, we are being
asked to appropriate a lot of money for the Government Printing
Office to cover your FTE needs which could range somewhere from
800 people to 3,000, depending on how much the OMB circular
ultimately leaves executive agencies to use your services.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. The congressional printing and
binding appropriation would have to cover some of the workforce
that does some executive work, the in-plant work. For procured
printing, we recover moneys by charging a surcharge to the
agencies, including a great deal of the overhead----
Senator Durbin. Transcripts for the agencies coming in----
Mr. DiMario. We charge, roughly a 7-percent surcharge, or a
rush surcharge of about 14 percent.
Senator Durbin. Depending on the OMB recommendation, a
great deal of that is at risk.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. I am not contradicting your
position. I am just saying that it is not this appropriation
that is dealing with the entire impact. The Superintendent of
Documents appropriation again, if they were to continue through
the current requirements of law and agencies make available to
the Superintendent of Documents adequate copies to be
distributed to the Federal Depository Library System, then that
might not impact the Superintendent of Documents' workforce to
the maximum potential extent.
Senator Durbin. I hope you understand the predicament.
Mr. DiMario. I understand it.
Senator Durbin. I am trying to estimate the appropriations
needs of the Government Printing Office in light of this
contingency that could dramatically impact the number of people
actually working.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. I do not believe that any of us want to be
in a position that we are appropriating for FTEs who frankly do
not have work to do, or do not have transfers from other
agencies to cover expenses. I think that would be an
irresponsible approach.
Mr. DiMario. I totally understand that concern. I guess
what I am saying is, the greater impact may be in the areas
that are not currently covered directly by any of these
appropriations. It would be from the surcharge moneys and other
transfers that we receive.
Put it this way, if I may. We are talking about
approximately $32 million of surcharge revenue that we use to
fund the agency in addition to the appropriations that we are
requesting from you, so we would lose right up front that $32
million. We would also lose roughly $80 million for in-plant
work that we currently charge the agencies for products such as
the Federal Register, passports, and postal cards, that kind of
work. That is executive branch work.
Let us say roughly $80 million plus $32 million of our
current funding not coming through this appropriation would be
lost.
PUBLIC ACCESS
Senator Durbin. You have acknowledged in your testimony,
and I have noted for the record here, that there has been a
dramatic increase in online access to publications, lessening
significantly the need for GPO's printed publications. You have
estimated a decline of 25 employees, FTEs this year, an
additional 35 FTEs next year in the sales program. It sounds to
me like this is a resource for the GPO that is diminishing
because of new technology. The receipts from sales and such
have obviously been negatively impacted by online access.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. I made the decision to put the
products up for free online. When Congress passed the 1993 GPO
Access Act, it directed us to put the Congressional Record up
online and also the Federal Register. We have added many
publications. The law would allow us to recover very, very
little money for any additional distribution.
Once we went up with free access, we became victims of our
own success. Our sales program went downhill, especially when
we put the Code of Federal Regulations up online. A number of
regulatory materials which the public needed, the business
community needed, suddenly were available for free access, a
tremendous service. But the success of our online program
undercut sales of printed products, and now we are trying to
recover from that.
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you, yesterday I had a meeting
with the Illinois Library Association, and they were the first
ones to bring this to my attention, because they are concerned
about the impact if the documents, that the GPO has produced
over the years, are not sent to the Federal Depository
Libraries. This is a pretty ambitious undertaking. Is it not,
in terms of what your office does and the number of libraries
that are served?
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. We have currently--and Fran can
speak to this--some 1,300 out there that receive publications.
Not all of them receive every publication. There are 50
regionals, and then there are selective libraries that select
certain publications. They provide free public access to the
American public, a tremendous service.
The business community uses the libraries as much as
researchers, but research libraries and public libraries are
all included in this structure, and it is just one of the great
benefits to the American public that goes unnoticed, for
roughly $30 million each year. It is not a huge sum of money
that goes into it. The program includes cataloging and
indexing, and foreign exchange distribution.
You mentioned the Illinois Library Association. Jean Simon,
Senator Paul Simon's late wife, was one of our great friends,
my personal great friend, was a supporter of that association,
and I know that you worked closely with Senator Simon in your
earlier career. Jean actively supported our depository program,
and she was a great friend of the library community, and just a
tremendous loss to all of us.
Senator Durbin. Yes.
Mr. DiMario. I went out to Carbondale, and Fran went with
me, at Jean's request. She was undergoing her surgery down in
Texas, and she actually introduced me to a symposium at
Carbondale by a telephone connection that we had at the
hospital.
Senator Durbin. Well, let me ask you, what impact would
this OMB order or regulation have on these Federal Depository
Libraries?
Mr. DiMario. Fran can answer it.
Mr. Buckley. Well, as Mr. DiMario has said, currently
agencies, if they produce a publication on their own, are
supposed to provide it to the depository program at their own
expense. That is in the law. Needless to say, the law is
honored more in the breech than in practice, and we have
therefore a great many fugitive documents that we do not have
access to automatically. We have access to those that are
produced through GPO. We can ride those requisitions and obtain
copies of those easily, but if the agency produces publications
themselves, despite laws that they both provide them to us for
cataloging and for depository distribution, they tend not to.
Not long ago, the Inspector General of the Health and Human
Services Department did an audit of publications by the
National Institutes of Health. The research institutes have a
legislative exemption from printing through GPO, but it only
affects the printing, and the IG investigated their compliance
with the cataloging requirements and the depository library
requirements.
This review disclosed that over 78 percent of the titles
that were appropriate for the depository program that they
reviewed were not provided to GPO. Now, it was not that NIH
does not have a tremendous program for disseminating their
information. You know, they mail a lot of things out, but those
things that are not provided to the depository program then do
not go into libraries for permanent retention, and they are not
cataloged into the national bibliography, so it is harder over
time for people to find access to them.
Senator Durbin. Excuse me. Can they meet the requirement by
providing this information online as well?
Mr. Buckley. If they provide it to us. If you just put it
up online, that is fine, but then the agency does not have any
requirement to keep it up online.
Senator Durbin. But I mean, could they transfer it to you,
and could the GPO----
Mr. Buckley. If they notified us, we would then copy it. We
would catalog it and we would then enter it into our digital
archives.
What we are doing currently with agencies who put things up
on their own, if we know about the things, if we find them or
if they notify us, we will catalog the items, because it is,
again, part of the national bibliography. We either will try to
work out a cooperative agreement with them for permanent access
and permanent retention, or we will copy the item into our own
digital archive so if they take it down we would have a backup
copy for the public.
Mr. DiMario. OMB made a little footnote about depository
distribution requirements in their memorandum issued last week.
It is almost an afterthought that they put at the very end of
the requirement.
Let me also note that if the OMB proposal goes through, the
cost of congressional work will go up, and I think that is part
of what I was suggesting to you about the policy. We are doing
the work for Congress in the plant. We would have an impact on
supporting personnel that are important to get the job done, so
there would definitely be an increase that we would anticipate
for congressional work. In the process of producing the
Congressional Record we use vegetable-based inks, soy in
particular. I know you have a personal interest in that aspect.
We have accommodated a range of congressional purposes in
producing the Congressional Record. We use recycled paper, as
an example. We have accommodated a number of issues in the
process. I would anticipate that over time, obviously, the
paper products are going down, and we are not just trying to
preserve things, but we do important work.
COST OF DOWNSIZING
Senator Durbin. If under the worst-case scenario there were
2,000-plus employees who were jeopardized by this OMB order,
this new rule, can you at this moment speculate on expenses of
changing the workforce at the Government Printing Office from
over 3,000 to 1,000? What would be the obligation of the
Federal Government to those employees that have been
terminated?
Mr. DiMario. I really cannot speak intelligently to it in
real numbers, but there are provisions in title V that provide
for severance pay, and you have those kinds of things if people
lost their jobs under a reduction-in-force action, and whether
that would be any kind of adequate compensation would be a real
question of judgment.
We are informed that the average RIF cost is $35,000 per
employee. You are going to have a significant cost. There is a
clear cost, and we would follow the provisions of title V with
respect to any forced downsizing.
Senator Durbin. I am going to ask you, Mr. DiMario, and
this is a tough assignment for you, something you probably did
not want to do at this point in your career, but I am going to
ask you if you could help us by coming back with at least a
realistic scenario, if this goes through, as to what this means
to the Government Printing Office in the next fiscal year, the
employees who would be impacted, those who would have a
continuing obligation regardless of this OMB decision, and
those that might be jeopardized, the impact that it might have
on the cost of congressional work for the Congressional Record,
so we can have some indication there.
I hate to ask you to do this, but I do not know any other
way to approach it. I have to at least consider this
possibility as we try to construct appropriation for the next
fiscal year.
Mr. DiMario. I would be delighted to do it, and I am
certain that my staff will put forward their best effort to do
it.
Senator Durbin. Well, it also is going to give us, I think,
a better opportunity to assess the real impact of this.
According to Mr. Daniels the Government stands to profit by $50
to $70 million a year, a figure which you do not agree with,
and if we make it clear what the cost of this will be, perhaps
it could put it in perspective.
Mr. DiMario. That figure, even arguably taking his figure,
is spread across the entire Government. It is a very, very
minuscule sum of money. I would refute it, as you noted, and I
think we have an analysis of that issue already prepared. It is
preliminary. It is not the final analysis, and I would
certainly like to make it available to you and your staff to
look at.
Senator Durbin. Good. That is great.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Michael F. DiMario
June 5, 2002.
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Room 119, Dirksen Office
Building, Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Durbin: At the hearing of the Government Printing
Office (GPO) before your Subcommittee on May 8, 2002, you asked us to
develop a cost impact scenario of what might happen as the result of
the policy change announced by Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Memorandum M-02-07, ``Printing and Duplicating Through the Government
Printing Office'' (May 3, 2002). The enclosed report responds to your
request.
In our view, significant adverse cost impacts both on GPO and
executive branch agencies would occur if the OMB memorandum is
implemented. While OMB claims there will be savings of $50 million to
$70 million by permitting agencies to perform or procure their own
printing, our analysis shows that if all executive branch printing were
to be removed from GPO, the cost to the Government could potentially
increase over current levels by a range of $231.5 million to $335.2
million in the first year, and from $152.8 million to $256.5 million
annually thereafter.
These increases would include a 60 percent rise in the cost of
printing covered by the Congressional Printing and Binding
Appropriation; a transfer to the executive branch of $4.2 million in
depository printing costs currently covered by the Salaries and
Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents; and $78.7
million in first year costs to cover the expense of downsizing GPO's
staff and paying for close-out costs for GPO facilities nationwide. The
balance would be for potential increases in executive branch printing
costs resulting from inefficient, duplicative printing and printing
procurement operations throughout multiple departments and agencies, as
well as reduced competition in Government printing contracts.
In addition to increased printing costs, the OMB memorandum--if
implemented--would also lead to a number of non-quantifiable cost
impacts on Government printing, as well as economic impacts on the
private sector printing industry, especially the small businesses that
currently handle most of the orders procured by GPO. There are likely
to be serious adverse impacts on the public's ability to access
Government information through Federal depository libraries. The
decentralization of Government printing will also effectively terminate
the ability of GPO's sales program to serve the public for anything
other than legislative branch publications.
As I stated during the hearing before your Subcommittee, the OMB
memorandum contradicts existing law that requires executive branch
agencies to obtain their printing from GPO. As you may be aware, the
most recent addition to this law was enacted at the instance of the
Senate and House Appropriations Committees in 1994, and is currently
codified as a note to section 501 of Title 44, U.S.C.
Observance of the requirements of the public printing and documents
chapters of Title 44 by Federal departments and agencies is necessary
in order to achieve the taxpayer economies that the law is designed to
promote. Compliance with the law is also essential if the system of
public access provided by GPO's documents distribution programs is to
continue to be effective. Both of these sound public policy objectives
will be severely undermined if the OMB memorandum on printing is
implemented.
Mr. Chairman, I genuinely appreciate your interest in this very
serious matter, and I am at your disposal should you require additional
information.
Sincerely,
Michael F. DiMario,
Public Printer.
Cost Impact Scenario: Loss of Executive Branch Work From GPO Under OMB
Memorandum M-02-07, ``Printing and Duplicating Through the Government
Printing Office'' (May 3, 2002)
Background.--Section 501 of Title 44 of the United States Code
requires Federal agencies of the executive branch to use the Government
Printing Office (GPO) for their printing and printing procurement
needs. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-02-07,
``Printing and Duplicating Through the Government Printing Office''
(May 3, 2002), is an attempt to devolve authority for printing
executive branch documents away from GPO and to executive branch
agencies themselves.
The OMB memorandum requests that the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)--the rules under which executive branch agencies procure goods
and services--be revised. Presumably, a revision to the FAR would be
accompanied by a period of public notice and comment, so the policy
announced in the OMB memorandum would not take effect immediately.
However, for those agencies not covered by the FAR, OMB has indicated a
target date of September 1, 2002, for implementation of its printing
policy, near the beginning of fiscal year 2003.
The OMB memorandum echoes earlier efforts to transfer printing
authority to executive branch agencies. This policy was pursued by the
Reagan Administration in 1987 with a proposal to revise the FAR
regarding printing. It was pursued by the Clinton Administration in
1993-94 as part of its ``reinventing Government'' initiative. In the
former case, the FAR revision was withdrawn after Congress enacted a
law requiring executive branch agencies to procure printing for their
publications (including forms) through GPO. In 1994, following hearings
on the issue, Congress declined to take up legislation to effect the
transfer of authority.
Cost Impact Scenario Summary.--There would be significant adverse
cost impacts both on GPO and executive branch agencies if the OMB
memorandum is implemented. While OMB claims there will be savings of
$50 million to $70 million by permitting agencies to perform or procure
their own printing, our analysis shows that the cost to the Government
could potentially increase over current levels by a range of $231.5
million to $335.2 million in the first year, and from $152.8 million to
$256.5 million annually thereafter. These cost increases would result
from:
--$49 million in increased costs to GPO's Congressional Printing and
Binding Appropriation, a 60 percent increase from the current
level of $81 million to $130 million annually, to cover GPO's
fixed costs of maintaining a large printing facility solely to
support congressional printing needs;
--$78.7 million in first year costs to cover the combined expense of
a retirement incentive program and reduction-in-force (RIF) to
reduce GPO's current staffing requirements by half, to fund
approximately 3 months of continued employment for the current
workforce until these reduction actions can take effect, and to
pay for the cost of lease terminations/close-outs in GPO
facilities nationwide; and
--$103.8 million to $207.5 million annually to cover the increased
cost of executive branch printing resulting from the
establishment of duplicative printing procurement operations,
and/or the expansion of duplicative in-plant printing
operations, throughout the executive branch, as well as reduced
competition in contracting.
In addition, assuming that agencies comply with OMB's requirement
that they provide copies of their publications to the Superintendent of
Documents for distribution to depository libraries, there would be a
net transfer of about $4 million in depository printing costs from the
legislative branch to the executive branch (actually, because executive
branch printing costs are likely to be higher under the OMB memorandum,
the cost impact of this transfer may be greater). However, because the
probable level of compliance by agencies with depository distribution
requirements under the OMB memorandum is highly questionable, the
potential extent of this cost transfer is not clear.
If agencies fail to provide printed copies to GPO for depository
distribution, there would be significant adverse impacts on public
access to Government information provided through Federal depository
libraries. There are also likely to be similar impacts on public access
to Government information through GPO's sales program, and there would
be adverse impacts on the small businesses that make up the majority of
the contractors from whom GPO procures Government printing work. These
impacts have not been quantified by this analysis.
Assumption.--The OMB memorandum would permit executive branch
agencies to continue using GPO ``if GPO can provide a better
combination of quality, cost, and time of delivery . . .'' This
provision establishes a ``best value'' standard that makes it difficult
to objectively determine the amount of executive branch work that may
or may not be performed by GPO if the OMB memorandum is implemented.
GPO has many long-term established relationships with executive branch
agencies that would most likely continue based on the efficiency and
effectiveness of the services provided. However, any loss of executive
branch work from the current level of operations will have an adverse
cost impact on GPO. For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed
that all executive branch agency work would be removed from GPO in
order to illustrate the potential impact the OMB memorandum could have
on remaining GPO operations as well as the cost of Government printing
and public access to Government information.
Impact on GPO Staffing and Fixed Cost Requirements.--Excluding the
cost of procured printing that passed through GPO from customer
agencies to private sector printers, in fiscal year 2001 GPO received
over 60 percent of its total revenues (after eliminations), or about
$187.7 million out of $296.9 million, from executive branch agencies.
These revenues were for in-plant printing and printing procurement
services (including sales of blank paper), sales of executive branch
publications to the public, reimbursable distribution services
performed for executive branch agencies, and the distribution of
executive branch agency publications to depository libraries and other
statutory recipients.
Based on the current distribution of GPO's workforce by major
program area, revenues from executive branch agencies support 1,919
employees, or 63 percent of GPO's current workforce of 3,026 full-time
equivalents (FTE's). These employees include those who directly perform
printing, printing procurement, and documents distribution services for
executive branch agency publications, as well as employees indirectly
supporting these services via support functions such as executive
offices (including budget, legal, inspector general, and congressional
affairs), equal employment opportunity, occupational health and safety,
personnel, finance, engineering, security, and information resources
management. Some of these functions are specifically required by
statute, such as GPO's inspector general. Others are required to manage
GPO both as a printing and distribution enterprise and as a Federal
agency. Unlike most Federal agencies, however, GPO does not receive
appropriations to fund these employee costs, but must do so through the
rates and prices charged for printing and distribution services. Both
direct and indirect employee support costs are allocated to GPO's
printing and distribution operations in accordance with relevant
provisions of Title 44 and generally accepted accounting principles.
GPO has 1,095 employees supported by revenues from legislative
branch work, along with an additional 12 employees supported by
judicial branch revenues (which represent about 0.4 percent of total
revenues). These employees would continue at GPO under OMB's policy.
However, we estimate that approximately three-quarters of the employees
currently performing general and administrative functions would still
be required even if all executive branch work were removed from GPO.
They perform functions that would be required regardless of the
workload level. For example, GPO's police force protects all GPO
buildings notwithstanding the amount of printing work GPO performs. In
addition, despite the loss of executive branch agency work, staffing
requirements in GPO's Library Programs Service area would most likely
remain unchanged in order to devote resources to locating ``fugitive''
publications in a decentralized printing system. Retaining all of these
capabilities would lead to a staffing requirement of approximately
1,500, at an annual cost of $100.9 million.
In addition, GPO has other fixed costs for supplies and materials;
rents, communications, and utilities; transportation; and depreciation
of existing equipment. These costs are associated with maintaining a
large printing plant whose primary purpose is to provide for
congressional printing needs. As originally envisioned by Congress, the
plant would produce congressional work when Congress is in session and
executive branch work during congressional recesses. In this manner,
GPO's fixed costs can be covered by maximizing the use of available
plant capacity. In fiscal year 2001, GPO's fixed costs totaled about
$95 million. With the removal of executive branch work, they could be
reduced by about a third due to reduced requirements for materials and
supplies (assuming GPO retains its statutory role in providing blank
paper to Federal agencies in the national capital area), the
elimination of rents for GPO's regional printing procurement offices
and bookstores nationwide, and significant reductions in the cost of
publications sold and surplus publications. Approximately $60.8 million
in these costs would continue.
GPO would also continue to perform a small amount of printing
procurement for legislative and judicial branch entities, at an annual
cost of about $8.3 million.
Impact on GPO Appropriations Requirements.--The annual costs to GPO
of required personnel, fixed expenses, and printing procurement work
that would remain after the loss of executive branch agency work would
total $170 million. GPO would have only three sources of revenue to
cover these costs: the Salaries and Expenses appropriation of the
Superintendent of Documents; miscellaneous revenues; and the
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation.
The Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of
Documents, which is currently about $30 million, would decrease to $26
million. The OMB memorandum requires agencies that print elsewhere than
GPO to supply copies of their publications to the Superintendent of
Documents for distribution to Federal depository libraries. Under
current law, GPO pays for the cost of copies distributed to depository
libraries when the printing is performed through GPO; otherwise,
agencies must pay for the cost of depository copies provided to GPO. In
fiscal year 2001, approximately $4.2 million was spent by GPO on
printing executive branch agency publications for depository
distribution. Assuming that all executive branch agency work is removed
from GPO, the OMB printing policy would transfer responsibility for
this expense from the legislative to the executive branch (and this
cost may increase as the result of increases in overall executive
branch printing costs). However, the remaining level of funding for the
Salaries and Expenses appropriation would still be required to fund
staff capability to track down ``fugitive'' publications in a
decentralized printing system and expand efforts to locate, catalog,
and provide permanent public access to electronic executive branch
agency documents.
Miscellaneous revenues would be about $14 million, primarily
comprising sales of blank paper to Federal agencies (assuming that GPO
would retain this role as provided by section 1121 of Title 44.) In
fiscal year 2001, revenues from blank paper sales totaled $12.3
million. Also, GPO would still generate revenues from the sale of
congressional and other legislative branch publications. In fiscal year
2001, about $2.1 million was generated from such sales. There may also
be miscellaneous revenues from printing procurement for legislative
branch entities, the sale of waste and scrap, and GPO's pay parking
program.
Section 309 of Title 44 requires GPO to recover its costs ``at
rates which include charges for overhead and related expenses, [and]
depreciation of plant and building appurtenances . . .'' Accordingly,
all fixed and variable costs that are not recovered through the
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation and miscellaneous revenues would
have to be recovered through GPO's remaining source of revenue, the
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation. With $170 million in
costs, and $40 million in revenues provided through other sources, the
remaining costs would require an annual appropriation of approximately
$130 million for congressional printing, representing an increase of 60
percent over the current level of $81 million.
Costs of Reducing GPO Staffing Levels.--In addition to increasing
overall funding requirements for GPO's annual appropriations, GPO would
need to request appropriations to cover the cost of downsizing its
workforce by 1,500 staff.
GPO has retirement incentive authority provided by the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. This authority
authorizes ``buy-out'' payments of $25,000 or the affected employees'
severance, whichever is less. It also requires that GPO pay the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) a premium of 15 percent of the affected
employees' salaries to offset reductions in Federal pension programs
resulting from the ``buy-out.'' At an average salary of $55,000 (not
including benefits), reducing the rolls by 1,500 staff using this
retirement incentive authority could cost $33,250 per employee, or
$49.9 million. Currently, slightly more than half of GPO's workforce is
eligible for either optional or early retirement, so a retirement
incentive program may be effective in achieving the necessary
reduction.
However, while such a program can induce retirements, it cannot
force them, and it may be unattractive to younger employees. A ``buy-
out'' also needs to be managed so that GPO does not lose employees who
are essential to continued operations. If a ``buy-out'' does not
achieve the necessary staffing reductions in non-essential areas, GPO
would have to impose a reduction-in-force (RIF). Under Federal law,
employees subjected to a RIF are entitled to accumulated leave and
severance payments. In the mid-1990's, OPM reported that these costs
resulted in an average RIF cost to the Government of approximately
$35,000. Assuming that half of the necessary reduction is achieved
through a ``buy-out,'' the other half would have to be achieved through
a RIF, which alone would cost $26.3 million. Combined with a cost of
$24.9 million from a ``buy-out,'' the total cost could reach $51.2
million. A RIF is enormously disruptive to a workforce, as it forces
out younger employees at the expense of those with more service time.
Also, RIF's tend to fall disproportionately on minority employees.
Currently, minorities comprise 63 percent of GPO's workforce.
Additional First Year Costs.--GPO would likely sustain about $27.5
million in additional first year costs as the result of losing
executive branch work. Apart from the costs of a ``buy-out'' or RIF, it
would take approximately 3 months to implement either program. During
that time, the cost for 1,500 excess employees would be approximately
$25 million.
In addition, GPO would incur costs for early lease termination, or
letting leases run out, for its regional and satellite printing
procurement offices in Atlanta; Charleston, SC; Boston; Chicago;
Columbus, OH; Dallas; New Orleans; Oklahoma City; San Antonio; Denver;
Hampton, VA; Los Angeles; San Diego; New York City; Philadelphia;
Pittsburgh; San Francisco; Seattle; and St. Louis. Leases would also
have to be terminated or allowed to run out for Superintendent of
Documents warehouse distribution facilities in Laurel, MD, and Pueblo,
CO. In addition, leases for bookstores in Atlanta; Dallas; Houston; New
York City; Portland, OR; Seattle; Cleveland; Denver; Jacksonville, FL;
Los Angeles; Columbus, OH; Detroit; Kansas City, MO; Milwaukee; and
Pittsburgh would have to be terminated or allowed to run out (while GPO
has plans to close several of these bookstores, the closures are to be
phased out, not implemented at once.) The OMB policy would also put at
risk a documents sales inventory that currently is valued at
approximately $10 million.
Problems With OMB's Cost Analysis.--The OMB memorandum claims that
$50 million to $70 million would be saved by executive branch agencies
annually if they are permitted to perform or procure their own
printing. OMB appears to base this assessment on the avoidance of GPO's
7 percent procurement surcharge and its 14 percent rush surcharge (and
to a lesser extent, the avoidance of GPO's in-plant rates; however, the
vast majority of executive branch printing sent to GPO is procured).
The memorandum also complains that GPO does not return prompt payment
discounts to customer agencies.
For a surcharge of 7 percent (on jobs worth up to $285,715; the
surcharge declines thereafter), GPO earns revenues that support its
procurement program. A maximum rush surcharge of 14 percent can be
charged, but is rarely used. It was imposed on only 2.9 percent of all
procurement job orders in fiscal year 2001, and virtually always at the
request of the ordering agency in order to move their jobs to the front
of the procurement line. The rush surcharge reflects the cost of the
additional effort to immediately bid rush jobs, sometimes in a matter
of hours.
The surcharge covers the cost of a wide variety of services: GPO
reviews requisitions and offers suggestions for economizing; develops
specifications; competes, awards, and administers contracts; performs
press inspections and other on-site reviews to assure quality; performs
quality control reviews utilizing a unique program that quantifies
quality ranking factors that has become widely recognized throughout
the industry; provides voucher examination and payment services;
provides legal advice on contracting; and makes available a dispute
resolution service through GPO's Board of Contract Appeals. These same
services would have to be provided by every executive agency that opts
to procure printing itself under the OMB memorandum.
No funds are appropriated by Congress to GPO to support its
printing procurement program. Revenues from the surcharge cover the
cost of GPO's 330 procurement personnel, who are located in Washington,
DC, and in 20 regional and satellite procurement offices around the
country to support the printing needs of executive branch agencies
nationwide. The many Federal entities with whom GPO does business are
currently represented by approximately 6,300 billing address codes in
all three branches of Government, with the preponderant number in the
executive branch.
Buying printing is not like buying paper clips. A knowledge of
printing requirements and processes is essential to ensure the
acquisition of the best possible value. GPO printing contracts are
developed and carried out by knowledgeable printing experts via a
package of procurement support services. This package of services is
highly economical. The vast majority of GPO's procured print jobs are
worth $2,500 or less, yielding a surcharge of about $175 to cover all
the services available to support the procurement.
For each job, whether it is worth $100 or $1 million, GPO charges a
nominal processing fee of $7.50 ($15.00 for the rare rush-surcharged
order). This fee helps recover procurement costs on small dollar
orders. For 147,800 orders in fiscal year 2001, this fee recovered a
little over $1 million. For fiscal year 2001, GPO generated total
printing procurement revenues of $431.7 million; total surcharge
revenues (including the revenues from the flat fee per procurement)
were $32.5 million, not $50 million to $70 million.
From its total procurement revenues for fiscal year 2001, GPO
earned prompt payment discounts of $6.6 million (an effective rate of
1.5 percent, not 5 percent as stated by OMB). GPO is able to make
prompt payments usually in 28 days or less due to its specialization in
dealing with private sector printers, a record that is not always
matched in the executive branch. GPO's Revolving Fund benefits
executive branch agencies by operating as a temporary funding
mechanism. GPO pays the contractor promptly upon evidence of
performance. The ensuing collection by GPO from the agency may
sometimes take longer. Because GPO's Revolving Fund is able to make the
payment and finance the lag, there is continuity of printing services
to the agency. In a decentralized system of printing, if there are
delays in payments by agencies, the cost of future printing orders with
contractors could increase.
Significant Cost Increases for Executive Branch Printing Are
Likely.--In addition to cost impacts on GPO itself, which would have to
be borne by legislative branch funding, there are likely to be
significant cost impacts on the executive branch. Previous studies have
indicated that decentralizing authority for printing among executive
branch agencies could lead to significant cost increases in Government
printing. The extent of the cost increases would vary depending on how
agencies decide to handle their work.
The most significant cost increase would occur if agencies produce
their printing work in their own printing and duplicating facilities.
Previous studies by the General Accounting Office, the Office of
Technology Assessment, the Joint Committee on Printing, and various
Inspectors General have shown that it can be has much as 50 percent
more expensive for agencies to print in-house than to procure their
printing through GPO. That alone could result in an annual cost
increase of $207.5 million over current GPO printing procurement costs.
There is a strong potential that agencies will pull work out of the
procurement stream and produce it in their own facilities. Currently,
GPO only sees about half of all Federal printing needs, as itemized in
OMB's object class analysis of the Federal budget. In our view, rather
than establishing the sophisticated print procurement services that GPO
currently provides, there is a strong potential that most agencies
would opt to produce printing in their own facilities. A significant
amount is already produced this way (GPO handles less than half of all
Federal printing).
If agencies procure work themselves from the private sector,
earlier analyses have suggested that they would be likely to pay more
for their own procurement costs. As noted above, agencies would be
required to perform the same contract-support services that GPO
provides. Yet without GPO's economies of scale, agency procurement
costs are likely to be substantially higher than GPO's.
Previous analyses have also indicated that the prices that agencies
pay for printing itself are likely to be higher. Agencies are unlikely
to maintain the same universe of competition among private sector
printers that GPO achieves (10,000-12,000 printers). The resulting
decrease in competition could result in significant price increases, by
some estimates as much as 25 percent, or $103.8 million over GPO's
current printing procurement costs. Private sector firms would have to
deal with procurement process established by the FAR instead of GPO's
Printing Procurement Regulation. Decreased competition could also lead
to increased opportunities for favoritism and corruption.
In addition, with the loss of GPO's one-stop-shopping alternative
for printing contracts, private sector printers would need to increase
their costs to locate contracting opportunities among the multitude of
agencies seeking vendors. They would also lose the standardization for
bidding for printing jobs that currently is available through GPO,
potentially increasing their paperwork costs. For large private
printing firms, these costs may not impact price appreciably, but for
smaller firms there could be a substantial impact. Currently, 77
percent of all GPO printing procurement orders are handled by small
businesses.
Recent Examples of Higher Executive Branch Printing Costs.--Along
with previous studies, two recent real life tests have strongly
suggested the probability of increased executive branch printing costs
in a decentralized system. In 1997, the printing program of the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), which has its own printing
authority by law, was reviewed by the Inspector General of the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), working with GPO's
Inspector General. The review disclosed that NIH internal printing
procurement costs ran between 10 percent and 18 percent of the value of
procured work, more than double GPO's surcharge. It also disclosed that
NIH's printing costs were higher than GPO's.
GPO's recent experience with the loss of the Commerce Business
Daily (CBD) provides another example. When the National Performance
Review was issued in 1993 it contained a section regarding the
executive branch's use of GPO. Like the current OMB memorandum, one of
the ideas advanced was that GPO should compete for executive branch
work; if it was the low bidder, GPO would receive the contract. In
1996, the Commerce Department, acting on OMB's desire to automate the
CBD and make it available in electronic format to private sector
contractors, solicited bids to accomplish the project. GPO bid on and
won the project, and subsequently developed the online CBDNet project
in 3 months at a cost of about $125,000.
CBDNet made it easy for Federal procurement offices to enter
notices into the system and for private sector contractors to find the
notices. The cost of system development and daily operations was
recovered by billing Federal procurement offices $5.00 for each notice
they entered. GPO offered a variety of electronic payments systems and
provided the agencies with detailed reports showing the title of each
notice submitted. GPO operated the system for the Commerce Department
for 5 years without raising the price. Recently, however, the General
Services Administration (GSA) spent millions of dollars to create
FedBizOpps, a system that performed essentially the same functions as
CBDNet plus a few enhancements. There was no bidding or competition for
FedBizOpps by the executive branch, and GPO was not given an
opportunity to compete for this project.
FedBizOpps became fully operational in 2002 and CBDNet was
discontinued. A few months later, GPO received a bill from GSA for
placing procurement notices into FedBizOpps that is 22 percent higher
than what GPO was charged under CBDNet. The bill is an estimate of
future usage and does not contain any specific information about the
notices actually submitted, as was the practice under CBDNet. In
summary, the executive branch spent millions of dollars to develop a
duplicate computer system that provides less billing information to
customer agencies. It now operates FedBizOpps at a cost that is 22
percent higher than the operating cost of the discontinued system.
Other Negative Impacts on Government Printing.--Earlier analyses
have acknowledged that there could be other impacts on Government
printing under a system of decentralized printing authority. While it
is difficult to quantify these impacts in terms of cost, there
nevertheless is a strong potential for these problems to occur. GPO
would no longer be able to apply uniform standards of print quality to
Government work. As a result, it would be difficult to ensure
standardization of quality governmentwide, leading to problems in
contract disputes between vendors and agencies. GPO would be unable to
monitor and enforce the consistent application of requirements for the
use of recycled paper, alkaline and permanent papers, and vegetable
oil-based printing inks, all required by law. With the prospect of
reduced printing jobs flowing to the private sector, or increased costs
for those jobs, the financial stability of many private sector printing
firms could be jeopardized.
Public Access Could be Impaired.--More important than the effects
on the cost of printing would be the impact of decentralizing printing
authority on public access to Government information. All previous
discussions of this issue have focused heavily on the problems that
would arise from breaking the efficient link between production and
distribution of Government documents that currently exists in GPO.
Without this link, the public's access to Government publications and
information would be significantly impaired.
This link currently serves as the source of publications for GPO's
Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), which GPO operates in
partnership with approximately 1,300 academic, public, law, and other
libraries nationwide, and which serves millions of citizens every year.
Also impacted would be GPO's cataloging and indexing program, statutory
distribution program, and international exchange program, as well as
GPO's Internet information service, GPO Access (www.gpo.gov/gpoaccess).
These programs are funded by legislative branch appropriations. Some
observers have suggested that decentralizing printing authority to
executive agencies would effectively transfer the responsibility for
ensuring public access to Government information from the legislative
branch, where this responsibility resides closest to the elected
representatives of the people, to the executive branch.
There are significant concerns that compliance with OMB's
depository distribution policy would be low. Publications that belong
in the FDLP and related programs but are not included are called
``fugitive documents.'' Already, the rate of fugitive documents is
high: prior estimates have placed it in the neighborhood of 50 percent,
which corresponds roughly to the amount of Federal printing not coming
through GPO. With the decentralization of printing authority to Federal
agencies, the rate of fugitive documents would be likely to increase. A
1998 HHS Inspector General review of NIH's publications program found
that 78 percent of NIH's publications qualified as fugitive documents.
The IG's report said: ``NIH did not always provide copies of printed
publications to GPO for distribution to [depository libraries], or
provide single copies to GPO for [cataloging and indexing] . . . By NIH
not providing copies of publications to GPO for FDLP distribution,
depository libraries, and the public who use them, do not have ready
access to documents to which they are entitled, that were being printed
with taxpayer money . . .''
While GPO's distribution programs are increasingly electronic,
print, microfiche, and CD-ROM products continue to play an important
role in providing public access to Government information. There is
still a substantial amount of Government information for which no
reliable online alternative exists, and problems with ensuring
permanence and other issues are still present for many online products.
In fiscal year 2001, GPO distributed a total of 5.9 million copies of
approximately 14,700 tangible titles (from all three branches of the
Government) to depository libraries. GPO achieves important economies
of scale in the distribution of tangible products by combining multiple
products from different agencies in shipments to the libraries. For
thousands of Federal entities to ship thousands of products annually to
1,300 libraries in an organized, cohesive system would be cost
prohibitive, and likely would not be done at all by executive branch
agencies.
The success of GPO Access, which makes available nearly 225,000
Government information titles, and from which the public retrieves more
than 31 million documents per month, is dependent in part on the
centralized system established by Title 44. GPO uses that system to
monitor for new electronic products which can either be loaded on GPO's
servers or to which GPO can link. Without it, the current level of
comprehensive access would likely be diminished.
The public would also lose the convenience of locating and ordering
their own copies of Government publications, which they currently enjoy
through GPO's sales program. Although the scope of this program has
declined markedly in recent years with the introduction of free
Government information via the Internet, it is still a sizable
operation: in fiscal year 2001, the program earned $42.4 million in
revenues. Nearly 95 percent of these revenues were from the sale of
executive branch agency publications, primarily subscriptions. Unlike
the Federal depository library program, there is no requirement in law
that agencies which print elsewhere than GPO supply the Superintendent
of Documents with copies for the sales program. The only authorization
available is one under which agencies may turn over surplus copies of
publications to the Superintendent of Documents for public sale.
Without a system of centralized printing as a source of supply, the
sales program would be restricted to sales of legislative branch
products and whatever could be sold from the existing inventory,
currently valued at approximately $10 million. In fiscal year 2001,
legislative branch products--which include many valuable historical
titles--earned not quite 5 percent of total sales program revenues.
Summary.--The implementation of OMB Memorandum M-02-07 is likely to
lead to significant cost increases in Government printing in both the
legislative and executive branches. There are also likely to be non-
quantifiable cost impacts on Government printing, as well as economic
impacts on the private sector printing industry, particularly the small
businesses that currently handle most of the orders procured by GPO.
Finally, there are likely to be adverse impacts on the ability of the
public to access Government information products through Federal
depository libraries, and the decentralization of Government printing
will effectively terminate the ability of GPO's sales program to serve
the public for anything other than legislative branch publications.
Title 44 of the U.S. Code continues to require that executive
branch agencies obtain their printing and printing procurement needs
through GPO. Observance of the requirements of the public printing and
documents chapters of Title 44 by Federal departments and agencies is
necessary in order to achieve the taxpayer economies that the law is
designed to promote. Compliance with the law is also essential if the
system of public access provided by GPO's documents distribution
programs is to continue to be effective. Both of these sound public
policy objectives will be severely undermined if the OMB memorandum on
printing is implemented.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Durbin. Is there anything else you would like to
add? If not, thank you for joining us today.
Mr. DiMario. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
gpo book stores
Question. There has been a dramatic increase in on-line access to
publications, lessening significantly the need for GPO's printed
publications. This has been felt in the sales program which has been
experiencing significant losses--about $7 million last year. GPO has 24
bookstores and has closed 6 stores to date, including one in Chicago.
Do you need to keep any of the stores open when you have on-line
and telephone ordering?
Answer. GPO had 24 bookstores. With the closing of six stores, we
have 18 remaining. One of these is a retail sales outlet at our
warehouse in Laurel, MD. In addition to on-line, telephone and mail
order capability, the bookstores provide the public with a high level
of customer service and convenience, and they also process local mail
and telephone orders. Some of the stores are economically viable at
this time. The closures are directed at those stores determined not to
be economically viable. Ultimately, however, the sales program may
decide to end all retail bookstore operations.
Question. When do you expect the sales program to be in a break-
even posture? You estimate the decline of 25 FTE this year and an
additional 35 FTE for next year in the sales program. This will bring
down total FTE to 332. Where do you need to be in order to be self-
sustaining? Do you project sales to continue to decline or have they
stabilized?
Answer. Based on current conditions, it would be feasible to
achieve a break-even in two to three years. This assumes that sales
revenue will stabilize at about $35 million, a decline of $7 million
from the fiscal year 2001 level of $42 million, and would require
continued restructuring of program operations and staffing decreases of
one-third to 50 percent below the current level. The major unknown in
projecting a break-even is the volume of sales. Sales volume declined
by about 60 percent over the past four years, and continues to decline
at rates approaching 18 percent per year. If this trend continues for
several more years, it will not be feasible to reach a break-even and
fund the program solely through sales revenue. Alternatives to the
present program and funding structure will be necessary.
It should be noted that implementation of the recently announced
OMB printing policy would negate the possibility of the program
returning to a break-even. It would become difficult for GPO to obtain
copies of executive publications for sale and those that GPO could
obtain would cost substantially more. The public would lose the current
one-stop shopping provided by GPO.
strategic plan
Question. Does GPO have a strategic plan? If so, what are your
vision, goals, and objectives for the next 5 years?
Answer. Yes, GPO has a strategic plan, which has been accessible
online since 1999, at http://www.access.gpo.gov/. An excerpt from the
plan follows:
Vision
GPO will be the primary provider and guarantor of information
creation, replication, and dissemination services for the Federal
Government and the public, into the next millennium.
Mission
GPO's mission is to provide a broad spectrum of cost effective and
timely services to Congress and the various agencies of the Federal
Government in creating, replicating, and disseminating a full range of
Government information products, and to provide the public with
equitable, timely, and reliable access to Government information.
General goals and objectives
To accomplish our mission, GPO must in all circumstances:
A. Emphasize Customer Service
--GPO will produce, purchase, deliver, and disseminate products and/
or services in accordance with standards and schedules agreed
to with our customers.
--GPO will treat customers with courtesy and respect, providing them
with a rewarding and satisfying business experience.
--GPO will ensure that work for its customers is safeguarded and
accomplished under appropriate security conditions.
B. Produce High Quality and Timely Products
--GPO will continue its evolution from an operation based on
traditional print technologies toward an integrated information
processing operation utilizing electronic technologies in the
creation, replication, and dissemination of Government
information products.
--GPO will produce or acquire printed and other products and/or
services in accordance with the highest standards.
--GPO will continue to strive to provide simplified and equitable
access to Government information using the most timely and
cost-effective methods of product and service delivery.
C. Maintain A Sound Financial Structure
--GPO will provide products and services to customers using the most
efficient and economical alternative.
--GPO will continue controlling the cost of its operations to ensure
financial stability.
Question. Throughout the federal government, departments and
agencies are facing many human capital challenges. Have you completed
an assessment of your human capital and what challenges GPO is facing?
Answer. Two studies have been conducted, one by Booz-Allen Hamilton
in 1998 and the other by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in
2001, which reviewed our human resources programs. The Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House directed the 1998 study. We
are implementing or have implemented recommendations from both reports.
GPO faces challenges in the human resources area. As with most of the
rest of the Federal government, we expect to lose a large number of
experienced personnel by retirement over the next five years. We face
challenges in training the workforce in new skills required by evolving
technology. In the Sales Program, we will need to continue reducing the
size of the workforce performing functions, which are impacted by
declining workload and changes in processes, while maintaining adequate
service to the public.
space utilization
Question. What recent assessments has GPO made of its space
utilization, and what have you done about looking for opportunities to
release underutilized space for other uses?
Answer. We have surveyed space to determine what could possibly be
made available. There are small amounts of space available. GPO is able
to assist the Congress in meeting space needs, as we did when anthrax
forced the closure of House and Senate office buildings. GPO provided
temporary space for personnel from the Office of the Clerk of the House
and the Senate's Office of Legislative Counsel to continue their work.
We turned over the loading docks at our paper warehouse on North
Capitol Street for the temporary use of Capitol Police in screening
deliveries to Capitol Hill, with up to 70 trucks a day passing through
this process. In the past, GPO provided temporary offices for small
groups from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Census
Monitoring Board. GPO has reduced facilities. Several years ago, GPO
returned 25,000 square feet of rental space in the Laurel warehouse to
reduce cost. GPO closed the warehouse in Springbelt, VA, and relocated
the paper storage operation to the Laurel warehouse, eliminating about
180,000 square feet. This reduced costs in the sales program, which
gave up 23,000 square feet of its leased warehouse space in Laurel, MD,
to be used for paper storage by GPO. In addition, within the past ten
years, we closed all but one of our six regional printing plants, six
of 24 bookstores, and vacated 61,000 square feet of leased office space
at Union Center Plaza in Washington, DC.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENT
[Clerk's Note.--The subcommittee has received a statement
from the American Association of Law Libraries which will be
inserted in the record at this point.]
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Law Libraries,
American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, and
Medical Library Association
On behalf of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), the
American Library Association (ALA), the Association of Research
Libraries (ARL) and the Medical Library Association (MLA), we write in
support of the fiscal year 2003 budget request of the Government
Printing Office (GPO). Collectively, these three associations represent
thousands of individuals and institutions serving communities
throughout the Nation, including the more than 1,300 federal depository
libraries located in nearly every congressional district.
AALL is a nonprofit educational organization with over 5,000
members dedicated to promoting and enhancing the value of law
libraries, fostering law librarianship and providing leadership and
advocacy in the field of legal information and information policy. ALA
is a nonprofit educational organization of 64,000 librarians, library
trustees, and other friends of libraries dedicated to improving library
services and promoting the public interest in a free and open
information society. ARL is an Association of 123 research libraries in
North America. ARL programs and services promote equitable access to
and effective use of recorded knowledge in support of teaching,
research, scholarship, and community service. MLA is an educational
organization of more than 1,000 institutions and 3,800 individual
members in the health sciences information field.
Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request Essential
We urge your support for the Public Printer's fiscal year 2003
budget request of $129.3 million for the GPO that includes $34.1
million for the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) Appropriation of the
Superintendent of Documents and $95.2 million for the Congressional
Printing and Binding (CP&B) Appropriation. The S&E request includes
$27.3 million to fund the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP),
$4.0 million for the Cataloging and Indexing Program, $.7 million for
the International Exchange Program and $.3 million for the By-Law
Distribution Program. This amount includes necessary increases to
support the continued operation of the FDLP, its continuing electronic
transition plans and the increased demands upon GPO Access. We urge you
to approve the full S&E appropriations request for fiscal year 2003.
Growth of GPO Access and the Electronic Collection Impressive
The FDLP is a unique program and one of the most effective,
efficient and successful partnerships between Congress and the American
public. The FDLP provides your constituents with equitable, ready,
efficient and no-fee access to Federal government information in an
increasingly electronic environment. Today Congress, government
agencies, and the courts increasingly are relying on state-of-the-art
technologies to create and disseminate government information through
the Internet. One of the critical keys to GPO's successful transition
to a more electronic program has been the growth of the GPO Access
system, a central access point within the GPO for electronic government
information that today makes available to the public approximately
225,000 titles. Created by Public Law 103-40, GPO Access has grown into
a unique digital collection of official government databases from all
three branches of government including the Congressional Record, the
Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. Currently an
average of 31 million documents are downloaded by the public each
month, a substantial increase from last year that attests to the
importance and value of this award-winning system to the American
public.
The FDLP and GPO Access are vital to the dissemination and access
of Federal government information to our citizens. We believe that the
fiscal year 2003 S&E budget request is essential to the continued
transition to a more electronic program and the continued success of
GPO Access. We urge you to approve the requested increase that includes
$91,000 to hire 3 additional FTEs to assist in managing the FDLP
Electronic Collection and $2.6 million for equipment and systems
improvements necessary to enhance GPO Access. Since GPO is responsible
for permanent public access to the content of its Electronic
Collection, funding to strengthen digital archiving and migration
capabilities is essential.
GPO has continued to make excellent progress over the past year in
enhancing its Electronic Collection. GPO constantly adds new data and
products to the system, building a current collection of valuable new
electronic resources. At the same time, GPO provides permanent access
to core legislative and regulatory information and to agency
information managed by GPO on GPO servers. Each year, the historic
electronic collection grows, requiring GPO to meet its responsibility
for ensuring permanent public access. This function presents probably
the most difficult challenge of the networked electronic environment.
Just as the government has an affirmative obligation to provide current
access to its information, in the digital arena this obligation extends
to ensuring the preservation of and permanent public access to
electronic government publications.
FDLP Libraries' Significant Services and Investments
FDLP libraries are doing their part by investing in technologies to
assist them in accessing electronic government information. These
investments exemplify the substantial costs that participating
depository libraries incur in order to provide your constituents with
equitable, ready, efficient and no-fee access to government information
in both print and electronic formats. These costs include providing
highly trained staff, adequate space, necessary additional materials,
expensive equipment and Internet connections. The success of GPO Access
cannot be measured without acknowledging the substantial costs covered
by libraries. Depository libraries serve as important channels of
public access to government publications and contribute significantly
to the success of this program. The government's responsibility to make
available to depository libraries government publications in both
tangible and electronic formats is successful because of the necessary
partnerships developed between the Federal government, the GPO, and the
Federal depository libraries. In order for GPO to continue to increase
the amount of government information available for current and future
public access through the Internet and in order for the Federal
government to fulfill its responsibilities of the partnership, it is
critically important that Congress provide adequate funds to support
the transition to a more electronic program.
Importance of Full Funding for the CP&B
We also urge your support for the Public Printer's request of $95.2
million for the Congressional Printing and Binding (CP&B)
appropriation. This amount includes $5.9 million to cover a budget
shortfall in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations that will not be
needed if Congress approves GPO's fiscal year 2002 supplemental
appropriations request submitted last month. Broad public access to
legislative information, including the Congressional Record, the text
of bills, as well as committee hearings, reports, documents and other
legislative materials, is crucial to the ability of our citizenry to
engage in the political process. Indeed, recent polls have demonstrated
the public's increasing awareness of and thirst for information from
their government, including Congress. Full support for the CP&B request
will ensure the necessary electronic infrastructure to make
congressional materials available in a timely manner for permanent
accessibility through GPO Access and will maintain GPO's in-plant
printing operation for Congress.
OMB Memorandum Concerning Procurement through the GPO
Chairman Durbin, we were pleased with the thoughtful questions that
you posed to Public Printer Michael DiMario during the Subcommittee
hearing on May 8, 2002 on the impact of the recent OMB memorandum
regarding the ``Procurement of Printing and Duplicating through the
Government Printing Office'' (M-02-07). The library community has
opposed previous efforts by the Office of Management and Budget to
eliminate GPO's centralized role in the procurement of government
publications because of the negative impact it would have on public
access through the Federal Depository Library Program. The FDLP is
successful in its distribution of tangible government publications--in
print, microfiche, and CD-ROM--because of the transparency that exists
between the procurement functions of GPO and the distribution of
government publications procured or produced by GPO to depository
libraries. While the government has made progress in providing greater
Internet access to online government information, there remains a
sizeable number of materials that continue to be produced by agencies
in tangible formats. According to GPO's fiscal year 2001 statistics,
5.9 million copies of 14,700 titles were distributed in tangible
formats to depository libraries. That figure remains constant for
fiscal year 2002.
To destroy the important link between procurement and distribution
by allowing each executive agency to procure its own printing would
result in a substantial increase in the number of fugitive documents
that already exist because of agency in-house printing and
privatization efforts. While the memorandum includes a footnote that
``Departments and agencies shall continue to ensure that all government
publications, as defined in 44 U.S.C. Part 19, are made available to
the depository library program through the Superintendent of
Documents,'' there is no mechanism for this to occur and past history
tells us it would be ineffective and inefficient.
Indeed, the Department of Health and Human Services' Review of the
National Institutes of Health Printing Program focuses on several
National Research Institutes that in 1988 were given the authority to
publish outside of the GPO but were required to ensure that GPO
received sufficient number of copies of such titles for distribution to
depository libraries and one copy for GPO's Cataloging and Indexing.
Additional, the National Institute of Health (NIH) was to report to GPO
monthly a list of publications that had been published outside of GPO.
The results of the review illustrate a lack of compliance with 44
U.S.C. Chapters 17 and 19 (cataloging and distribution) and the
reporting requirement by these entities at NIH. Thus most publications
of these institutes became fugitive documents and, although created by
government employees and paid for by taxpayer dollars, they were not
made available to the public through the FDLP as required by the
printing waiver.
The transparent link between the procurement and printing of
publications through the GPO and distribution through the FDLP is a
system that has worked efficiently for over 100 years and served the
government, Congress and the American public very well. Destroying this
important link by allowing agencies to procure their publications on
their own as proposed by OMB M-02-07 would decimate the depository
library program and deprive the public of access to tangible government
publications paid for by their tax dollars through their local
depository library. The library community strongly opposes this
proposed change.
We are very grateful to you and to the Subcommittee for your past
support of GPO Access, the Federal Depository Library Program and GPO's
Congressional Printing and Binding services. The investment in systems
and services to provide the public with government publications in all
formats will ensure that valuable electronic government information
created today will be preserved for future generations. We respectfully
urge your continued support by approving the Government Printing
Office's fiscal year 2003 appropriations request in its entirety. We
ask that you please include this statement as part of the May 8, 2002
hearing record. Thank you very much.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
STATEMENT OF DAN L. CRIPPEN, DIRECTOR
ACCOMPANIED BY BARRY B. ANDERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Senator Durbin. Let me invite our final witness this
morning, Dan Crippen--thank you for joining us--Director of the
Congressional Budget Office. I welcome you and your Deputy,
Barry Anderson.
The fiscal year 2003 budget for CBO puts forth totals
roughly of $32 million and 236 FTEs, an increase of $3 million,
or 5.2 percent over the current year, and four additional FTEs.
I invite you to proceed with your statement. Your written
statement will be made part of the record.
Mr. Crippen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not to complicate
your life further, but I understand OMB is thinking up a
proposed regulation that would eliminate CBO.
Senator Durbin. Well, we have to consider that contingency.
OPENING REMARKS
Mr. Crippen. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and before I address
our budget directly, let me say that, as one of your other
witnesses has this morning, this is likely to be my last
appearance before the committee. My term is up at the end of
the year, and unless you call us back for other reasons, this
may well be my last chance to address this committee.
Senator Durbin. Well, thank you for being here today, and
thank you for your service. I have enjoyed working with you.
Mr. Crippen. Thank you, and I want to thank the committee
for all its support, and you in particular. You have been very
helpful to the agency and to me personally, and your recent
help in getting us access to Census data was very important. We
think that is going to be accomplished. We are not there yet,
though we are making progress.
Senator Durbin. Good.
VISITING SCHOLARS' PROGRAM
Mr. Crippen. Mr. Chairman, as you said, our budget request
for this year is a modest, if you will, increase of 5.2
percent, mostly for pay and fringe benefits. The primary
addition is a request for four additional FTEs, which we would
use to establish what I hope to be a more permanent guest
scholar program.
We currently have guest scholars on occasion. We try to
keep one or two around to bring us new ideas, but also to help
us fill gaps in knowledge that we cannot buy. Many of our guest
scholars are chaired professors, who have academic careers, and
they are not willing to chuck all that and come to Washington
and work at CBO, but we can talk them into spending some time
with us. They have been a very valuable addition.
I have created a position called Chief Economist, which is
a rotating position filled by a visiting scholar. Most
recently, this was a woman from Northwestern, who was a chaired
professor there in the Kellogg School, just a terrific
economist and a finance analyst. That kind of talent we could
not attract on a permanent basis. A guest scholar program would
allow us to start what I hope would be a little more
competitive program, something that might have a reputation
such that people would want to come and spend time with us--
rather than having us go searching for them. So that is what
the additional FTEs are for, to begin that kind of program.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Other than that, things are fairly vanilla-flavored in my
submitted request, and I will stop for your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan L. Crippen
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present the fiscal year 2003 budget request for the Congressional
Budget Office. The mission of CBO is to provide the Congress with the
objective, timely, nonpartisan analysis it needs about the economy and
the budget and to furnish the information and cost estimates required
for the Congressional budget process.
Overview of CBO's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2003
Excluding the cost of the Administration's proposal to charge each
agency the full cost of federal retirees, we are requesting $32,390,000
for fiscal year 2003--roughly 5.2 percent over the agency's fiscal year
2002 appropriation. Our budget continues to be driven by the need to be
competitive in a specialized labor market, with nearly all of the
increase going to mandatory increases in personnel costs. Specifically,
we are asking for a 5.8 percent increase in mandatory pay and benefits,
which will allow us to remain competitive in our recruitment and
retention efforts. Other increases--for four additional positions,
inflation in administrative spending, and maintaining a disaster
recovery capability--are largely offset by savings in time-sharing
costs and a year-to-year reduction in technology purchases.
Adding four additional positions would allow us to expand our
visiting scholars' program, with which we appoint postdoctoral and
midcareer economists with highly specialized expertise in areas such as
health, finance, tax, and macroeconomics. This program has proven to be
highly cost-effective in attracting specialists for assignments of 12
to 18 months in areas where we have great difficulty recruiting
permanent employees. In the last three years, the contributions of such
scholars to CBO have been considerable.
We also want to (1) increase slightly our budget for recruitment
bonuses, which is currently limited by report language; (2) begin using
our student loan repayment authority; and (3) establish a new
professional development program to enhance the abilities and
effectiveness of CBO employees through extended study or external work
experiences in specialized areas where we have difficulty recruiting
staff.
As noted above, technology spending will decrease (by $491,000) as
we realize savings in time-sharing costs from replatforming major
analytical programs--the Budget Analysis Data System, SAS, and APT--and
as expenses for software and hardware drop to a more normal level after
increases in 2002 in response to potential data security threats and
disaster recovery needs.
Specifically, the fiscal year 2003 request would do the following:
--Support a workload estimated at 1,960 legislative cost estimates
and mandates cost statements, 30 major reports, 43 other
publications, and a heavy schedule of congressional testimony.
--Provide a pay adjustment of 4.1 percent for staff below the level
of senior analyst, consistent with the increase requested by
other legislative branch agencies.
--Raise our staffing ceiling to 236 full-time-equivalent positions
(FTEs), four more than in fiscal year 2002, to allow us to
appoint academic experts for limited-term research fellowships
in technical areas where we have difficulty attracting
permanent employees. The cost of these positions would be
largely offset by savings in time-sharing and other
administrative expenses, as noted above.
--Fund a combination of within-grades, promotions, and merit
increases for staff below the level of senior analyst and
provide performance-based raises for managers and senior
analysts who no longer receive automatic annual salary
increases.
--Allow us to increase our budget for bonuses (recruitment and
performance) to 1.25 percent of the pay base. This budget has
been limited by report language to 1 percent of the pay base
since we received the authority in fiscal year 2000.
Recruitment bonuses have been helpful in hiring specialists,
but the funding limitation has constrained their use.
--Fund price increases of $131,000 for technology and administrative
support spending and maintain the disaster recovery capability
we are now working to develop in 2002, assuming we receive a
transfer of funds from the emergency supplemental.
We are also requesting two changes in our legislative authority.
The first would allow us to provide employees with advanced training in
difficult-to-acquire specialities, through study or work experiences at
other government agencies or in the private sector. This approach would
allow us to build our capacity in highly competitive disciplines where
recruitment alone has proven insufficient. Such assignments (which are
authorized for all executive branch agencies) would be accompanied by a
substantial service commitment. The other authority would restore an
expired provision that exempted CBO from a burdensome and obsolete
procurement statute, originally enacted in 1861 and from which the
executive branch has been exempted for 50 years. These changes are
explained in greater detail in an appendix at the end of my statement.
Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2001
Fiscal year 2001 presented major challenges for the Congress as it
worked to mitigate the effects of a slumping economy and protect the
country from terrorist attacks. We assisted the Congress as it debated
a variety of legislative responses to the economic and terrorist
threats while we also carried out our core duties under the Budget Act
and continued to build on our long-term estimating capability.
CBO produced 450 bill cost estimates and more than 800 estimates of
the impact of unfunded mandates on state and local governments and the
private sector, experiencing the usual cyclical dip in mandated
workload while the first session of the 107th Congress organized. Major
legislative initiatives in fiscal year 2001 with a significant
budgetary impact included The Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001, the authorization of new education
programs, the Bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights Act, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, the Farm Security Act
of 2001, aviation security measures, federal insurance for future
terrorist attacks, prescription drug coverage for the elderly, and the
taxation of Internet sales.
An important part of the agency's mandate is the preparation of
regular economic forecasts and detailed analyses of the state of the
economy and of the Administration's economic forecast. This effort is
supported by the advice of a distinguished panel of advisers who
represent a wide spectrum of economic views. As the economy slowed in
2001, we devoted significant resources to collecting and analyzing data
bearing on the rate at which the economy was growing and the impact
that would have on the federal budget. We also provided testimony on
reforming the federal budget process and on extending the Budget
Enforcement Act provisions that expire at the end of fiscal year 2002.
Overall, we testified before the Congress 16 times in fiscal year
2001 on a variety of significant budget and economic issues, and we
expect the number of appearances to grow in 2002.
Responding to requests from Congressional committees for analyses
of budgetary and programmatic issues is an important function of the
agency. As the following discussion shows, CBO studied a broad range of
policy initiatives and proposals in 2001.
Social Security.--During fiscal year 2001, a major effort was the
construction of an analytical framework for examining proposals to
restructure Social Security. That framework was utilized in preparing
Social Security: A Primer, which was released early in fiscal year 2002
and which we hope will be useful to the Congress and the public in
understanding the issues and debate regarding Social Security reform.
We also produced estimates of the costs of proposals to eliminate the
retirement earnings test and to make other changes to the program.
During the year, we used our long-term actuarial model of Social
Security to produce new long-term budget projections (75 years) for
CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook. We also devoted significant
resources to a second long-term modeling project--namely, a dynamic
microsimulation model that projects outcomes for a representative
sample of the population. It takes into account how the population
changes over time and could provide more realistic cost projections. We
also extended our long-term models to include the impacts of Medicare
and other significant federal benefit programs, as well as
macroeconomic feedback.
Medicare and Other Health Issues.--Major CBO work efforts provided
analyses and extensive testimony on proposals to add prescription drug
benefits to Medicare. Our staff also worked closely with the House Ways
and Means, Senate Finance, and House Energy and Commerce Committees in
formulating proposed drug benefit bills, providing extensive feedback
and technical advice. With the help of an expert panel of researchers
and private industry experts, we undertook a thorough review of our
methodology for examining and estimating the potential costs of drug
proposals. We also analyzed dozens of specific legislative proposals to
alter how Medicare providers (hospitals and doctors) are reimbursed.
Finally, we analyzed a variety of approaches to increasing the
number of Americans with health insurance coverage and provided
estimates of the budgetary and private sector costs of proposals for a
patients' bill of rights, including analyzing the private health
insurance cost impacts of every provision of all four major bills.
National Security.--In fiscal year 2001, defense-related
accomplishments included support to the Congress through direct
assistance and significant published reports. For example, an overview
study summarized trends in spending by type of operation and
maintenance (O&M) cost, and a related study analyzed the effects of
aging on the O&M costs of maintaining military equipment; a project on
Alternatives for the Future U.S. Navy identified a shortfall between
the long-term costs to support the Navy and present and projected
budgets. In June 2001, we also convened a symposium of experts on how
we could best contribute to the homeland security debate. We were
subsequently asked by the House Committee on Intelligence to identify
the resources being spent on counterterrorism and critical
infrastructure protection by each federal agency and trace those
resources back to the authorizing and appropriating committees. In
addition, we completed two reports on NATO--Integrating New Allies Into
NATO and NATO Burdensharing After Enlargement. Finally, we provided
informal support and information to the Armed Services, Budget, and
Foreign Affairs/International Relations Committees.
Domestic Economic, Tax, and Financial Issues.--Our efforts to
better understand the economy and the economic impact of legislation
included work on the ``New Economy'' and how it has changed the
economic outlook, the effect of an aging population on the long-term
outlook for the budget and the economy, and the effect of taxes on the
macroeconomy. We also published analyses of (1) the multibillion-dollar
financial benefits conferred on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by their
federal affiliation; (2) H.R. 2329, the High-Speed Rail Investment Act
of 2001, which would provide assistance to Amtrak; (3) four proposals
for reducing carbon emissions; (4) the need for better price indices
for communications equipment; and (5) industry estimates of future
investment requirements for waste and drinking water systems.
Work Priorities for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
Significant priorities in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 are (1)
strengthening the resources and level of effort devoted to health care
issues; (2) sharpening our focus in the national security area; (3)
redeploying staff to address budget issues on anti-terrorism and
homeland security; (4) continuing to emphasize our long-term modeling
for Social Security and Medicare; and (5) generally focusing more
attention on how we select, plan for, and manage our major projects.
The year began under difficult circumstances, as CBO staff had to
work in alternate locations and from their homes for about three weeks
during the closure of the Ford House Office Building. During that
shutdown, we were able to continue providing daily assistance to the
Appropriations Committees during consideration of several fiscal year
2002 funding bills and to continue work on a new projection of the
economy. We also completed many formal cost estimates during the
closure, including those for the Aviation Security Act and the Best
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act.
As always, our primary objectives will be to provide technical
assistance and analytical support to the Congress in its work on annual
budgets and to prepare estimates for legislative proposals with
budgetary impact. This will, of course, include the annual preparation
of baseline spending and revenue projections, projections of the
condition of the economy, cost estimates for authorization and direct
spending legislation, and outlay estimates for appropriation bills. We
also plan to issue a comprehensive analysis of budget options in 2003.
Other priorities for the remainder of this year and next will
include work on fiscal stimulus proposals, the extension of farm and
nutrition assistance programs, and the reauthorization of the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families program and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. We also expect to analyze proposals to
change the Medicare program that include its handling of prescription
drugs, managed care, and providers' reimbursement, as well as proposals
for a patients' bill of rights and Medicaid reform.
Another major project on Medicare is examining ``high-cost
beneficiaries''--the most expensive 5 percent--who account for nearly
half of program spending. Using a large database on recipients and
claims, which is now being assembled, we will improve our long-term
estimates of both Medicare spending and the utilization of services by
individuals over time.
Efforts to improve our methods for estimating will continue, as we
reassess the uncertainty of budget projections and work with the Joint
Committee on Taxation and the Department of the Treasury to develop and
implement new methods for both estimating the effects of recently
enacted tax legislation on receipts and projecting the flow of receipts
under existing law.
We will continue development work on our long-term model for Social
Security and Medicare and continue to produce long-term budget
projections. And we expect to publish major studies on issues and
options for funding long-term care for the elderly and trends in the
number of households in the United States without health insurance.
Our work on national security is focused on several broad themes,
including enhancing homeland security, better utilizing defense
resources, achieving defense efficiencies, and transforming forces to
meet 21st century needs. We also anticipate providing support to the
Congress in its consideration of the annual defense authorization bill
and potential additions to foreign assistance spending (for example,
aid to Afghanistan).
Other important work will analyze proposed tax law changes; federal
reinsurance for terrorism insurance; water infrastructure needs;
foreign exposure of U.S. banks; regulation and government intervention
in sectors such as aviation, agriculture, banking and finance, energy;
and the effects of technical progress in computers and communications
on the national economy.
Internal Management Strategy, Progress, and Priorities for Fiscal Years
2002 and 2003
In addition to focusing directly on its mission, CBO, like any
successful organization, must devote resources to attracting talented
people, developing their skills, and properly equipping them. It must
also organize its key work processes to be as efficient as possible.
Enhancing Recruitment and Retention
During fiscal years 2002 and 2003, we will continue to pursue the
goals and initiatives undertaken in the last two years to identify,
hire, and retain a highly talented and diverse workforce.
1. Strengthen Recruitment Strategy.--Our goal has been to focus our
efforts on quickly filling key vacancies, particularly in hard-to-
attract disciplines, while building a more diverse workforce.
In 1998, the agency experienced an unusual number of vacancies and
was unable to quickly replace the individuals lost. Consequently,
staffing dropped from 227 full-time-equivalent positions in 1997 to 205
in December 1998, even though 232 FTEs were funded. We began to recover
in 1999 but still ended the year short of our staffing needs. We met
our mandates, but the shortfall created a hardship for our staff, and
it meant that our ability to produce nonstatutory cost estimates and
major studies suffered. To address this, we developed a comprehensive
recruitment strategy, and specific actions to implement. This strategy
has allowed us to fill vacancies more quickly and to reach our staffing
goals of 225 and 228 in 2000 and 2001, respectively. To achieve this
we:
--Simplified our application process, shortened the time from
application to job offer, and developed new automated systems
to track both job applicants and recruitment contacts;
--Created a high-quality recruitment brochure for our college
recruitment program, strengthened the employment pages on our
Web site, and expanded the number of schools where we actively
recruit, including many with significant minority populations;
--Began the use of recruitment bonuses in hard-to-fill specialities
(these bonuses have been particularly useful, but funding for
this purpose is very limited as compared to what the private
sector and the executive branch can spend);
--Raised offering salaries for new Ph.D. and Master's candidates and
enhanced our internship programs to reach more candidates with
relevant skills, including more minority applicants;
--Attended conferences, symposia, and other functions aimed
specifically at encouraging, developing, and recruiting
minority economists; and
--Implemented an awards program for outstanding performers, which
recognizes roughly a third of our permanent employees each
year.
In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, we will further expand our campus
visits to include more schools with diverse student populations and
provide additional training on effective recruitment techniques. We
also wish to:
--Formalize our effort to attract technical experts in high-demand
disciplines with a competitive visiting scholars' program for
postdoctoral fellows and midcareer academics, and
--Expand our use of recruitment bonuses and develop procedures for
our student loan repayment program as additional recruitment
and retention tools.
2. Improve CBO's Training Program.--Our goal is to improve
management and job skills by investing in our people through training,
education, and professional development.
CBO has always invested in the job skills of its employees, but the
amount spent on job training and professional development has been far
less than that of other high-impact organizations, and much less than
recommended by management experts. CBO spent less than 0.5 percent of
its personnel costs on training in 1999, compared with the 2 to 4
percent typical of high-performing private firms we recruit against. In
fiscal year 2000, we increased our training expenditures by nearly 30
percent while eliminating less cost-effective training and providing
skill training to a much higher percentage of our staff. Training of
CBO employees increased again in fiscal year 2001, with expenditures up
another 10 percent, resulting in 61 percent of CBO employees receiving
training. We also began training managers in leadership and
communications skills. To date, we have provided leadership training to
60 percent of our managers.
During fiscal years 2002 and 2003, we will maintain the higher
level of spending on training, education, and professional development;
provide management training to the remainder of our senior staff;
provide management development to analysts with strong leadership
potential; expand our in-house educational conferences; provide
additional computer training; and enhance our orientation program for
new employees. As noted earlier, we also plan to develop a program for
extended professional development through study or external work
experiences in government or the private sector.
3. Modernize and Revitalize the Working Environment.--Our goal is
to reconfigure and, where necessary, renovate offices to better use our
space and to provide a quality work environment for new employees and
those currently in inadequate space.
Most of CBO's space was configured shortly after the agency's
creation 25 years ago--in a building designed primarily for file
storage, not human occupancy. At that time, there were few desktop
computers, many more support staff, less specialization, and a less
competitive employment marketplace. Consequently, a significant
percentage of our space was configured for clerical staff, and many
analysts had work space that was in passageways or was otherwise
undesirable. Conference space, which is critical to the collaborative
nature of our work, was also in short supply.
In close cooperation with staff of the Architect of the Capitol and
the Superintendent of House Office Buildings, we developed a range of
strategies to address our space problems--primarily the demolition of
existing partitions and replacement with prefabricated movable wall
panels. By the end of December 2001, we had completed the
reconfiguration of roughly 17 small office suites and other areas,
constituting roughly 23 percent of our usable floor space. The result
was about 53 offices renovated, with a net gain of 22 private offices
and three additional conference areas. In the process, we were also
able to reduce wasted space, including inefficient storage.
During fiscal years 2002 and 2003, we will still have a significant
number of employees in unacceptable space. We plan to renovate another
20 small suites. In the process, we will eliminate approximately 25
additional substandard work spaces, while realizing a net gain of
roughly 30 private offices. We will also improve the efficiency of
smaller offices by using systems furniture more suitable to a modern
work environment.
4. Access to Critical Data.--Expand CBO's access to, and use of,
major data sets in its modeling and analytical endeavors.
CBO's ability to carry out its mission relies heavily, and in some
cases, almost entirely on having access to comprehensive programmatic
and economic data. Such data is used to estimate the costs of bills,
make 10-year (and long-term) budget and economic projections, and
analyze other aspects of legislative proposals. In the last two years,
we have more than doubled the amount of storage on our network to 1.5
terabytes, including at least 50 major databases and hundreds of
individual data series. Two major additions to our data access in the
last year have allowed us to:
--Begin using a huge Census ``Matched Data Set'', which combines
Census and IRS data on a large sample of survey respondents to
build a microsimulation that more accurately predicts future
Social Security costs.
--Increase our use of additional Social Security earnings data and
disability and retired worker beneficiary and benefit data.
And we have recently created an inventory of internal and external
data sets which all of our analysts can use to identify information
already available to CBO as they plan or begin new work.
During 2002 and 2003, we will continue to work with the Census
Bureau and Congress in our effort to obtain permanent access to survey
data critical to our ongoing modeling and analysis. We have also just
obtained permission to receive Medicaid data on a recipient basis from
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to be used for the
first time in analyzing proposed legislative changes.
Communications Priorities
The value of CBO's work to the Congress and the public derives from
the quality, readability, and availability of its products. While the
demand for CBO's printed publications remains strong, the use of
electronic versions on the agency's Web site is growing significantly
year to year.
5. CBO's Web Site.--Our goals are to respond to the growing demand
for electronic products and to enhance the site's functionality and
accessibility.
Usage of CBO's Web site is roughly doubling every year and reached
more than 9 million hits and 2.3 million page requests in 2001. To
accommodate the increase in traffic and provide better performance, we
(1) upgraded our Web server; (2) simplified our cataloguing of
publications so that users can browse all documents by subject area
without knowing the type of document; and (3) significantly improved
the search function for publications. To determine what our customers
need from our Web site, we conducted numerous interviews of
Congressional staff, senior policy analysts in think tanks, and current
employees, and we posted a survey on the site that elicited hundreds of
responses.
In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, we will undertake a more
comprehensive redesign of the Web site on the basis of users'
suggestions. The site will incorporate additional functions; more
budget-related links; topical collections of publications and cost
estimates; and research materials, including downloadable spreadsheets.
Given the difficulty involved in promptly delivering our products to
Congressional customers since September 11, we are also experimenting
with e-mailing reports and testimony to Members and Congressional
staff, while urging other recipients to access our products from our
Web site. Meanwhile, a new ListServer is improving our notification to
subscribers when new publications are issued. We will also:
--Complete an on-line archive of all CBO's earlier publications and
--Produce more publications that take advantage of the electronic
environment, specifically, publications that are
``interactive'' and include advanced search capabilities and
links to other information. For example, our last Budget
Options report utilized this capability and we will use this
approach in a study analyzing tax incentives for retirement
savings.
6. CBO's Publications and Production Processes.--Our goals are to
produce high-quality publications that are easily identified as CBO
products and to improve production processes for efficiency.
As usage of CBO's Web site has increased, we have been able to
print fewer reports and keep inventory costs in check. Demand for our
printed reports nonetheless remains strong, so we are improving their
quality and modernizing their look while seeking additional
efficiencies. For example, in fiscal year 2001, we:
--Improved the appearance of reports produced in-house and graphics
used in Congressional hearings to make them more professional
looking and readily identifiable as CBO products and developed
a better capability to produce graphics in-house, saving time
and thousands of dollars;
--Took advantage of new reproduction technology to produce higher-
quality reports more quickly; and
--Established the capability to reproduce high-quality reprints of
most reports, allowing us to reduce the size of initial print
runs and the space devoted to stocking reports.
In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, we will finish modernizing our
remaining report formats and further improve the production processes
underlying our reports. Moreover, we are upgrading our distribution
system to provide a more customized delivery of every report--to put
copies into the hands of policymakers and interested readers but avoid
excess printing. We will also increase reliance on electronic
publishing from CBO's Web site and e-mailing reports to give Members of
Congress earlier access. We also plan a customer survey to determine
how our reports are used and how to improve them.
Technology
As noted earlier, highly effective organizations must provide staff
with the technology they need to do their work. In exit interviews and
focus groups with current staff, technology emerges as an area where
CBO excels compared to other places people have worked. Technology is
also critical to our ability to do the highly complex analyses that
underpin much of CBO's work.
7. Maintain Our Technological Edge.--Our goal is to continue to
provide the best technology systems economically available to support
the agency's mission while constantly improving the performance of
those systems and employee satisfaction.
During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, we upgraded most desktop
computers and, for the first time, achieved an ideal hardware/software
configuration for every employee. In 2001, we improved our network
communications, tightened network security with a firewall and other
hardware, added nearly a terabyte of needed data storage, and
strengthened system reliability. We also began a multiyear project to
reengineer and automate key work processes. This has resulted in the
development or acquisition of many new automated systems, including
ones for job applicant tracking, requisition and procurement, credit
card management, and telecommunications management.
At the insistence of House Information Resources (HIR), we recently
moved our Budget Analysis Data System from the HIR mainframe to the
National Business Center in Denver, Colorado. We also began a major
redesign of the system, which will improve its performance and
usability and achieve significant cost savings. We are also
replatforming our use of SAS, which will yield additional savings.
Finally, we began a complete redesign of our intranet.
Thus, in fiscal year 2002, we will pursue the following:
--Continue design work on a PC-based replacement for our mission-
critical Budget Analysis Data System to improve performance and
further reduce costs.
--Complete automation efforts for project tracking, supply
distribution, and equipment inventory.
--Further develop our intranet as a primary delivery mechanism for
internal communication and service delivery. It will become the
primary repository for policy and guidance, a major source for
research materials, and a launching pad for all internal
administrative systems.
--Update a limited number of network and desktop software packages,
further improve computer system reliability and security, and
bring other analytical time-sharing functions in-house to
reduce costs.
Our major objectives for fiscal year 2003 will be to upgrade older
desktop hardware and software systems; strengthen network security by
updating software and equipment and periodically auditing for
vulnerability; and improve infrastructure reliability by upgrading the
network backbone and aging components.
8. Prepare for Disaster Recovery.--Our goal is to develop plans and
assets that would allow the prompt restoration of CBO's mission-
critical support to the Congress.
In fiscal year 2001, we took significant steps to prepare for
disaster recovery. They included (1) moving CBO's mission-critical
server room to the 6th floor of the Ford building, which has emergency
power, air conditioning, and a higher level of physical security; (2)
backing up network data to tape and storing it in fireproof safes; and
(3) installing redundant computer, network, and communications
equipment to eliminate single points of failure.
Although we were able to rapidly restore our critical functions
when the Ford building closed, the events of September 11 reemphasized
the importance of disaster recovery planning and caused us to reorient
our thinking and reconsider threats that were previously deemed too
remote to worry about.
As a result, we identified vulnerabilities and concluded that more
effort and money needed to be devoted to protecting our mission-
critical systems and data in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Consequently,
we plan to:
--In cooperation with HIR and a legislative branch working group,
establish a secure off-site computer facility to mirror our
most mission-critical systems and formalize our off-site
storage of backup data;
--Provide remote access to important application programs to allow
staff to work at home or at work sites outside the Ford
building; and
--Negotiate reciprocal agreements with other legislative or executive
branch agencies to provide emergency work space and data
communications.
9. Enhance Network Security.--Our goal is to strengthen network
security and establish a separate network for the storage and
processing of sensitive data from the Internal Revenue Service, Social
Security, and Health and Human Services.
Much of the government information that CBO uses for its analysis
and model development is highly sensitive, and we adhere to the strict
security procedures dictated by the agencies providing the data. As the
use of such information has grown, so has our need for information
security measures. As a result, this fiscal year we are installing a
separate local area network to store and access our most sensitive
data. To do so, we are:
--Deploying an independent network server, disk storage system, and
wiring;
--Physically separating the secure network from the Internet to
prevent dial-up or other external access, and encrypting all
sensitive data using a secure algorithm that meets the
Department of Defense's security standards;
--Developing detailed security procedures and internal audit controls
and educating users; and
--Protecting secure workstations with an access control device that
generates a randomly generated password that is virtually
impossible to duplicate.
Streamlining Operations and Redesigning Key Processes
As mentioned before, we have also devoted significant attention to
automating and modernizing our internal processes. Examples discussed
earlier in some detail are our job applicant tracking system, which
allows us to process applications more quickly and efficiently, and
changes in our report production process.
10. Process Redesign.--Our goal is to modernize and automate
internal processes to provide services and information electronically
while reducing the time needed to use and support administrative
functions.
In fiscal year 2001, we began work on a wide range of automated
systems that in essence reengineer our key work processes. Many of
those will provide internal services and information through the
redesigned CBO intranet, including human resources information, library
services and research support, conference room scheduling, technical
assistance services, requisitioning, policy dissemination, travel
administration, and many others. Much of this work will be completed in
2002.
We have also introduced (1) an applicant resume tracking system
that routes electronic resumes to CBO managers and e-mails feedback to
job candidates; (2) a telecommunications database to control our phone
costs, which helped us save $30,000 in fiscal year 2001 and now
generates paper and electronic phone directories and provides employee
data for other systems; and (3) a credit card system used to track
purchases as they are made and assist in fund management. We are now
implementing an on-line project tracking system, which will revamp the
way we select, plan, and manage major projects.
In fiscal year 2003, we plan to further automate administrative
systems, including a human resources information system to manage
personnel information and a service request tracking system to help
manage all internal support services.
11. Streamline Procurement.--Our goal is to modernize our
procurement process so that it is a streamlined, paperless process with
greater emphasis on cycle times, competition, and cost reduction.
In fiscal year 2000, we undertook a major effort to reengineer our
procurement process. We investigated the procedures and supporting
software used by other organizations and redesigned and simplified our
process.
During fiscal year 2001, we reorganized and retrained our
procurement staff and selected and began implementation of a new
automated procurement system, PDT (Procurement Desktop), which is
integrated with our accounting system at the Library of Congress (LoC).
Because we now obligate our own funds, the system has also allowed us
to reduce our payments to the LoC for administrative support while
providing us with better control over financial transactions. We also
streamlined many aspects of our procurement process to save effort and
reduce cycle times. During fiscal year 2002, we will:
--Expand the use of our Web site to communicate with current and
potential vendors and contractors to encourage more
competition;
--Design a system that will use detailed procurement data to assist
in budget preparation and execution processes; and
--Implement an off-the-shelf asset management system to better track,
safeguard, and depreciate fixed assets.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, during the last three years we have worked very hard
to meet the needs of the Congress and to rebuild our staff during a
period of great competition in the labor market. To do this, we have
raised starting salaries for new graduates and undertaken a variety of
efforts to make CBO a more desirable employer for talented economists
and policy analysts. The budget increases provided in 2001 and 2002,
along with extensive efforts to reduce our nonpayroll costs, have
allowed us to return to full strength and make progress in attracting
specialized staff, while modernizing our products, processes, and
infrastructure.
Nonetheless, we continue to have the same concerns of all federal
employers--our salaries are not always competitive, many new graduates
shun government service, anticipated retirements are worrisome, and
replacing staff in high-demand disciplines is not easy or quick. At
CBO, we have particular difficulty attracting and retaining new Ph.D.s
and experienced experts in areas such as finance, health, and
macroeconomics. The new initiatives for which we need your support--for
the visiting scholars' program, additional funding for recruitment
bonuses, and the professional development authority--and our
implementation of a student loan repayment program will provide us with
additional tools we can use in our efforts to attract the best and the
brightest to serve the Congress.
Appendix
Request for Legislative Authorities
With the fiscal year 2003 budget request, CBO is also asking for
legislative authority in the following administrative areas.
Employee Professional Development.--This language would give CBO
authority that executive branch agencies have to establish an
educational program to enhance the abilities and effectiveness of CBO
employees through study or work experiences, including periods of
employment with private sector organizations. The executive branch has
such authority for members of the Senior Executive Service under 5
U.S.C. Sec. 3396. CBO may currently fund with its annual appropriation
a narrower group of activities authorized by the Intergovernmental
Personnel Act, but that authority only applies to work for
universities, nonprofit organizations, states, and local governments.
For example, CBO cannot now adopt the executive branch practice of
detailing employees to other agencies for learning and development. The
provision would provide such authority.
Sec. 102. The Director may, by regulation, make applicable such
provisions of section 3396 of title 5, United States Code, as the
Director determines necessary to establish hereafter a program
providing opportunities for employees of the Office to engage in
details or other temporary assignments in other agencies, study, or
uncompensated work experience which will contribute to the employees'
development and effectiveness.
Reinstatement of Exemption from Advertising.--This language
restores a provision that had been included in the past as a regular
appropriation provision and that CBO mistakenly believed had been
enacted as permanent law. Following establishment of CBO in 1974,
legislative branch appropriation acts for fiscal years 1976 and 1977
exempted CBO from an obsolete procurement statute, originally enacted
in 1861, which effectively prohibits modern acquisition methods such as
competitive negotiations. The executive branch has been exempted for
over 50 years (5 U.S.C. Sec. 260; 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2314), and other
legislative branch agencies, such as the General Accounting Office (31
U.S.C. Sec. 781(c)(1)), the Architect of the Capitol (41 U.S.C.
Sec. 6a-1), and the Government Printing Office (44 U.S.C. Sec. 311(b)),
are exempt. While CBO's exemption was included in the United States
Code (2 U.S.C. Sec. 604), it did not contain language necessary to
establish the exemption as permanent law. Consequently, after the
exemption was omitted from the 1978 appropriation act, it was omitted
from the code, although CBO continued to procure goods and services as
previously authorized. This would restore the original language as a
permanent provision.
Sec. 103. The Director is hereafter authorized to enter into
agreements or contracts without regard to section 3709 of the Revised
Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you about this Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board. I think you may have heard
the questions earlier.
Mr. Crippen. I did.
Senator Durbin. What are your thoughts?
Mr. Crippen. Well, the history of it is, I think, a little
clearer than what he was discussing with you. That is, the
private AICPA, the private accountants, had recommended a
number of things to principals of this board. As I am told, the
Secretary of the Treasury thought it was a good idea to add
more nongovernmental representatives, and as a result they
ended up with an organization that was really not the same as
what the AICPA had recommended.
Indeed, the ultimate organization, as I understand it, is
now six nongovernmental employees--called private in some of
the organization's memos--and three Government employees, three
principals, as Mr. Walker said. I think even the chair is
supposed to be a nongovernmental employee, ultimately.
The concern I have with the current composition is this:
not only are there many issues that private-sector accounting
cannot address, or does not address very well in a Government
setting, but I do believe there is an impact on congressional
representation, let alone governmental representation.
We have a couple of experiences from the last
administration, for example, when the Director of OMB and
Secretary of the Treasury wanted to change, and in some cases
were successful in changing, the accounting of some programs; I
do not want to question their motives, but I do not think the
changes added clarity in what they were endeavoring. In fact,
we argued the opposite, and I think we had some effect, just as
a member of the board.
I also think it would be useful to have more congressional
representation. Whether that is us or somebody else is up to
the Congress, but I know that as in the past administration,
there is no reason to believe that it will not again be
tempting for the OMB Director and Secretary of the Treasury to
change standards to suit a purpose other than clarity of
financial exposition.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYEES' PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Senator Durbin. Last year, you sought authority to develop
an education trust fund financed by outside sources, and this
was not included in the final appropriation bill. You are not
pursuing similar language in this next year's budget.
Mr. Crippen. No.
Senator Durbin. Instead, you requested authority for an
educational program for a study or work experience with
private-sector organizations or other executive agencies. Does
this new proposal fill the need for advanced education
opportunities that CBO sought last year?
Mr. Crippen. I think it does in part. One of the things
that I was looking for last year as well was an advanced or
enhanced guest scholar program, so with the additional FTEs and
this authority, we could accomplish most of what I had in mind.
The executive branch currently can send folks out for
experience in other places, both within the Government and the
private sector, and it is that authority that could be
attractive to some of our folks in both recruiting and
retention. So this does, between the FTE increase and this
authority, pretty much cover what we had in mind.
STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM
Senator Durbin. Do you use student loan forgiveness
programs?
Mr. Crippen. We will. We have not used the authority as
yet, obviously. It is fairly new. We have developed regulations
for how we are going to use it, which I think the committee
has. It was in February that we developed them, so we have in
place the program and regulations. We intend to use it very
much the way the Comptroller General described it, in a
targeted way to attract people in areas where we have
difficulty recruiting, not as a general benefit.
I was up at Syracuse last week recruiting, and many of the
students there, the Maxwell School master's degree students,
are going to come out with $30,000 or $40,000 in debt, so it is
difficult for them to commit to public service, where we
typically pay lower salaries. This would certainly enhance our
ability to attract those kinds of students who would be
otherwise inclined to public service.
Senator Durbin. How about retention? Will you be using it
for retention?
Mr. Crippen. Well, we have written into our regulations,
which may be partly for statutory reasons, I do not recall,
that a 3-year commitment would be required of anyone getting
this benefit. And of course there would be a termination
provision and payback and those kinds of things. So those
requirements clearly would help in terms of locking people in
up front.
We do not worry quite as much about retention as we do
recruitment in a couple of ways. Our Budget Analysis Division,
which does the lion's share of the numbers crunching, is the
largest single division, largely made up of master's graduates
in economics, public administration, statistics, other fields.
It has been true since the beginning that CBO has had little
difficulty recruiting these folks and has been a good training
ground for congressional staff and other governmental staff. So
the fact that someone comes in as a master's degree holder and
does not spend his or her life there is not surprising or of
concern.
We have a relatively high turnover of 10 to 15 percent a
year in that group because it is such a good training ground.
They learn the budget, the budget process, the Congress, and
many of them come over here to work for you all or go downtown.
We would not look at helping with student loans as a way to
make master's students commit their life to CBO, whereas we
would mostly use the authority to help recruit specialized
employees whom we want to stay much longer.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Durbin. Thank you. That is all the questions I
have. I appreciate you being here today, and thank you for the
good work you are doing at CBO.
Mr. Crippen. Thank you, sir.
Senator Durbin. The subcommittee will stand recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, May 8, 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
American Association of Law Libraries, prepared statement........ 300
American Library Association, prepared statement................. 300
Anderson, Barry B., Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office. 305
Association of Research Libraries, prepared statement............ 300
Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah:
Opening statement............................................ 230
Prepared statement........................................... 220
Statements of................................................20, 80
Billington, Dr. James:
Librarian of Congress, Library of Congress................... 1
Letter from.............................................. 66
Prepared statement....................................... 2
Chairman, Board of Trustees, Center for Russian Leadership
Development, prepared statement............................ 10
Boothby, Lee, Vice President, International Academy for Freedom
of Religion and Belief, prepared statement..................... 71
Brown, Richard L., Controller, General Accounting Office......... 253
Buckley, Francis J., Jr., Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office................................................ 277
Collins, Honorable James F., Member, Center's Board of Trustees
and International Advisor, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld,
L.L.P., prepared statement..................................... 69
Cook, Charles C., Sr., Superintendent, Congressional Printing
Management, Government Printing Office......................... 277
Crippen, Dan L., Director, Congressional Budget Office........... 305
Prepared statement........................................... 306
DiMario, Michael F., Public Printer, Government Printing Office.. 277
Letter from.................................................. 291
Prepared statement........................................... 278
Dodaro, Gene, Chief Operating Officer, General Accounting Office. 253
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois:
Opening statements..................................1, 79, 229, 253
Questions submitted by......................................43, 299
Statement of................................................. 197
Glovinsky, Gary, Chief Financial Officer, Architect of the
Capitol........................................................ 143
Guy, William M., Budget Officer, Government Printing Office...... 277
Hantman, Hon. Alan M., Architect of the Capitol, member, Capitol
Police Board.................................................143, 229
Prepared statement........................................... 171
Harper, Sallyanne, Chief Mission Support and Chief Financial
Officer, General Accounting Office............................. 253
Holstein, Robert B., Comptroller, Government Printing Office..... 277
Howe, Robert, Acting Chief, Capitol Police, Capitol Police Board. 229
Prepared statement........................................... 236
Statement of................................................. 234
Lenhardt, Hon. Alfonso E., Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper,
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate,
member, Capitol Police Board.................................197, 229
Prepared statement........................................... 202
Livingood, Wilson, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of
Representatives and Chairman, Capitol Police Board............. 229
Prepared statement........................................... 232
Statement of................................................. 230
Mansker, Robert T., Deputy Public Printer, Government Printing
Office......................................................... 277
Medical Library Association, prepared statement.................. 300
Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Peters, Marybeth, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office,
Library of Congress, prepared statement........................ 16
Poole, Amita, Administrative Assistant, Architect of the Capitol. 143
Scott, General Donald L., Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library
of Con-
gress.......................................................... 1
Sherman, Andrew M., Director, Congressional Relations, Government
Printing Office................................................ 277
Stoffel, Larry, Superintendent, Senate Office Buildings,
Architect of the Capitol....................................... 143
Symington, Honorable James W., Member, Board of Trustees, Center
for Russian Leadership Development, prepared statement......... 67
Tabb, Winston, Associate Librarian for Library Services, Library
of Con-
gress.......................................................... 1
Thomson, Jeri, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Senate... 79
Prepared statement........................................... 86
Timmer, Barbara, Assistant Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Senate.................................................... 79
Turnbull, Michael G., Assistant Architect of the Capitol,
Architect of the Capitol....................................... 143
Walker, David M., Comptroller General, General Accounting Office. 253
Prepared statement........................................... 255
Wineman, Tim, Financial Clerk, Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Senate......................................................... 79
Prepared statement........................................... 136
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Page
Architect of the Capitol:
Management................................................... 167
Management and Accountability Framework Needed to Lead and
Execute Change............................................. 143
Botanic Garden................................................... 189
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................................. 168
Summary of................................................... 174
Capital plan, long term.......................................... 179
Capital projects................................................. 182
Capitol Police................................................... 185
Capitol Power Plant.............................................. 183
Capitol Visitor Center........................................... 169
Disruption................................................... 192
Excavation................................................... 191
Project management........................................... 181
East Front....................................................... 186
Financial system................................................. 170
GAO:
Management review............................................ 176
Report....................................................... 170
Human infrastructure............................................. 170
Indoor air quality............................................... 180
Library of Congress book storage modules......................... 192
Life safety...................................................... 169
Major capital requests for fiscal year 2003...................... 174
Management:
Improvements................................................. 177
Performance standards........................................ 177
Plan......................................................... 187
Office cleaning.................................................. 188
Pay flexibility.................................................. 178
Place markers.................................................... 186
Positions request, new........................................... 186
Project management............................................... 177
Recent accomplishments........................................... 172
Restructuring.................................................... 175
Staffing requests................................................ 175
Waste recycling.................................................. 180
Changes...................................................... 194
Review....................................................... 193
West refrigeration plant estimate................................ 184
Worker safety.................................................... 189
Workplace injuries............................................... 190
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
Budget request................................................... 231
Chem-bio strike force............................................ 250
Chem-bio strike team............................................. 235
Emergency response fund.......................................... 232
Facilities....................................................... 242
Future....................................................... 250
Master plan.................................................. 248
Facility needs................................................... 231
Military recruitment............................................. 245
Minority recruitment............................................. 242
National Guard................................................... 246
Officer recruitment and retention................................ 240
Olympics security................................................ 243
Personnel, dedication of......................................... 232
Police:
Force merger................................................. 251
Priorities................................................... 234
Premium pay issue................................................ 247
Recruitment and retention incentives............................. 245
Space:
Current requirements......................................... 248
Needs........................................................ 235
Staff:
Recognition.................................................. 236
Recruitment and retention.................................... 234
Training......................................................... 235
Visibility....................................................... 244
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
Employees' professional development, opportunities for........... 315
Opening remarks.................................................. 305
Student loan repayment program................................... 316
Visiting scholars' program....................................... 305
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................................. 254
Emergency response fund.......................................... 274
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board [FASAB].............. 271
CBO representation on........................................ 273
Purpose served by changing................................... 273
National Energy Policy Development Group......................... 270
Suit, evidence sought in..................................... 270
Performance highlights........................................... 254
Reorganization of GAO............................................ 268
Student loan repayment program................................... 269
Technology assessment program.................................... 273
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Additional committee questions................................... 298
Additional issues................................................ 284
Administration's printing policy................................. 284
Appropriations request, fiscal year 2003......................... 279
Congressional printing and binding appropriation................. 279
Cost Impact Scenario: Loss of Executive Branch Work From GPO
Under OMB Memorandum M-02-07, ``Printing and Duplicating
Through the Government Printing Office'' (May 3, 2002)......... 292
Downsizing, cost of.............................................. 290
Employment levels................................................ 286
GPO book stores.................................................. 299
Opening remarks.................................................. 277
Public access.................................................... 288
Revolving fund................................................... 281
Salaries and expenses appropriation.............................. 280
Space utilization................................................ 300
Strategic plan................................................... 299
Vision........................................................... 299
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Acquisitions..................................................... 44
Additional committee questions................................... 42
Administrative and technical initiatives......................... 23
Aging of the U.S. population..................................... 39
Assisting the Congress on issues related to the.............. 15
Automated hiring system.......................................... 9
Budget request:
Major elements of the Library's.............................. 20
Summary, fiscal year 2003.................................... 17
Collections security, access, and preservation................... 4
Computer security................................................ 47
Congressional Research Service (CRS)............................. 7, 40
Technology initiative, status of fiscal 2002................. 13
Workforce diversity.......................................... 41
Copyright Office................................................. 7
Fees, proposed adjustment in some............................ 18
Mission...................................................... 17
Digital futures.................................................. 31
Digital materials, acquisition and preservation of............... 28
Director's Report--Diversity in the Congressional Research
Service--November 2001......................................... 51
Diversity report................................................. 50
Fort Meade:
Module one................................................... 42
Modules two and three........................................ 42
Storage facilities........................................... 41
Global legal information network................................. 46
Hiring and Avue system........................................... 48
Hiring system....................................................32, 48
CRS vacancies filled using................................... 34
Implementation problems...................................... 37
Knowledge of problems........................................ 36
Other agencies using......................................... 34
Infrastructure:
And security enhancements.................................... 22
Support...................................................... 6
Inspector General's recommendations.............................. 32
Law Library...................................................... 6
Arrearage.................................................... 45
Library buildings and grounds.................................... 8
Library of Congress today........................................ 3
Mail............................................................. 43
Backlog...................................................... 25
Competitive bidding.......................................... 25
Contracting out.............................................. 24
Impact on Library's operations............................... 35
Processing................................................... 24
Sole source vendor........................................... 25
National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation
Program (NDIIPP)............................................... 28
Strategic funding plan....................................... 30
National Digital Library......................................... 4
National Library in-process arrearage............................ 44
National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped 8
Digital technology........................................... 46
Office work and future plans, review of.......................... 18
Our Nation's challenges.......................................... 21
Photoduplication Service......................................... 26
Retail sales..................................................... 25
Russian Leadership Program....................................... 36
Science and technology, growing capacity for Congress in the
areas of....................................................... 16
Supplemental request, fiscal 2002................................ 17
Terrorism and homeland security.................................. 38
Assisting the Congress on issues related to.................. 13
Terrorism, war on................................................ 21
Travel funding request........................................... 38
Veterans History Project......................................... 45
Workforce diversity.............................................. 37
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Secretary
Administrative services--Department reports...................... 97
Anthrax incident................................................. 80
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................................. 86
Capitol Visitor Center.....................................85, 135, 138
Captioning system................................................ 83
COOP and COG planning............................................ 84
Departmental operations.......................................... 82
Emergencies, preparedness for.................................... 136
Expenses, increase in............................................ 140
Legislative services............................................. 89
Department reports........................................... 90
LIS and FMIS..................................................... 81
Mandated systems and financial services.......................... 125
Office of the Secretary of the Senate, staff of the.............. 86
Senate web site.................................................. 139
September 11, 2001, evacuation and October 15 anthrax attack:
Continuity of operations planning.............................. 89
September 11th................................................... 79
Strategic initiatives............................................ 82
Student loan repayment program................................... 139
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
Bioterrorism incident............................................ 199
BlackBerry response time......................................... 224
Budget:
Built on business model...................................... 201
Increases.................................................... 222
Request, fiscal year 2003.................................... 210
Capitol Visitor Center........................................... 225
Capitol, balancing security with access to the................... 200
Cyber security................................................... 227
Emergency supplemental appropriation............................. 209
5-year evergreen plan............................................ 221
Hill-wide communications system.................................. 220
Interagency coordination......................................... 224
Legislative Branch Emergency Preparedness Task Force............. 200
Legislative process, better communications to enhance the........ 209
Mail:
Delivery of.................................................. 219
Effect of irradiated......................................... 219
Office of Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and Emergency
Preparedness................................................... 201
Parking.......................................................... 226
Process improvements............................................. 208
Recording studio upgrade......................................... 221
SAA budget request............................................... 198
Secretary of the Senate, partnership with........................ 199
Security......................................................... 203
Measures..................................................... 217
Of State offices............................................. 223
Temporary barriers........................................... 218
Senate:
Messaging infrastructure project............................. 224
Services to the.............................................. 209
Technology to better serve the Senate community.................. 206
Video conferencing............................................... 222