[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-264
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2209/S. 1019
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Architect of the Capitol (except House items)
Capitol Police Board
Congressional Budget Office
General Accounting Office
Government Printing Office
Joint Committee on Printing
Joint Committee on Taxation
Joint Economic Committee
Library of Congress
Nondepartmental witnesses
Office of Compliance
U.S. Senate
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINING OFFICE
39-862 cc WASHINGTON : 1997
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CONRAD BURNS, Montana TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BARBARA BOXER, California
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Christine Ciccone
James H. English (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, May 6, 1997
Page
Joint Committee on Printing...................................... 1
Joint Economic Committee......................................... 7
Joint Committee on Taxation...................................... 13
Tuesday, May 20, 1997
Capitol Police Board............................................. 45
Congressional Budget Office...................................... 91
Thursday, June 5, 1997
Library of Congress.............................................. 105
Government Printing Office....................................... 199
General Accounting Office........................................ 227
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 243
Tuesday, June 10, 1997
Office of Compliance............................................. 249
U.S. Senate:
Office of the Secretary of the Senate........................ 265
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper................ 299
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 315
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room S-128, the
Capitol, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Bennett and Dorgan.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY ERIC C. PETERSON, STAFF DIRECTOR
opening statement of hon. robert f. bennett
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will come to order. This
is the first of four hearings that the Legislative Branch
Subcommittee will hold on the budget request for the fiscal
year 1998.
I am the new chairman of this subcommittee. I welcome the
opportunity to participate in the oversight responsibilities of
the committee as they pertain to the appropriations programs
and activities of the legislative branch of our Government. I
understand Senator Dorgan, who is the new ranking member, will
be along shortly. I have been privileged to serve on this
committee under the chairmanship of Senator Mack, and will do
my best to carry on in his tradition.
We welcome Senator Warner here. He is chairman of the Joint
Committee on Printing, and our first subject this morning is
the budget request of the Joint Committee on Printing.
The request in fiscal 1998 is $804,000, which is a $27,000
increase from the 1997 level of $777,000. Senator Warner, we
welcome you, and we will be happy to receive your testimony.
introduction of staff
Senator Warner. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
May I first introduce Col. Grayson Winterling, who is staff
director of the Rules Committee, which has sort of ancillary
responsibility, and Mr. Eric Peterson, who is the staff
director of the Joint Committee on Printing. I will submit my
entire statement for the record, Mr. Chairman, and cover some
of the high points.
opening statement
The point I wish to make is under the leadership of Senator
Stevens, my predecessor on the Rules Committee as chairman, we
have been looking at title 44. Title 44 is an interesting piece
of legislation. However, over a period of years there has been
a creeping tendency on the part of a number of departments and
agencies of the Federal Government to violate it.
Now, the degree to which it is violated, that is maybe lost
in semantics, but I say there is certainly a technical
violation. It is not good, honest Government employees trying
to break the law, but for various reasons practices have grown
up whereby the departments and agencies have made in-house
printing facilities which now serve their needs and have not
gone through the Government Printing Office, so I am continuing
the work started by Senator Stevens on what we call title 44
reform.
legislative proposal to revise title 44
From a concept paper, a legislative proposal has been
drafted, and that proposal has been the subject of one hearing
before the Rules Committee, and there is another one planned
here in a few days. Based on the recommendations received
during these hearings and other comments submitted for the
record, the staff of the Joint Committee on Printing in
cooperation with the Senate Rules Committee will redraft the
legislative proposal.
It is my hope to introduce a reform bill in a matter of
months, and do it on a bipartisan basis. There is really no
politics at all involved in this thing. It is just a question
of what is the intent of the legislative branch and the
executive branch to solve the problem. That problem is a
constitutional one that is involved with the separation of
powers. It stems from a 1983 Supreme Court decision in the case
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha.
I mention that because it is quite well-known through
Government circles, and everybody sort of looks the other way,
but it is the responsibility of both the legislative and
executive branches to solve this tough problem.
Now, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel wrote
an opinion last year which construed the committee's
involvement with the Government Printing Office to be the
equivalent of exercising a legislative veto over the printing
activities of executive branch agencies and thus a violation of
the separation of powers doctrine.
In the face of that opinion, it is difficult for the
committee to obtain executive branch compliance with title 44.
Some executive branch agencies either are procuring printing
without going through the GPO, or doing printing for other
agencies, or doing theirs in-house, and a mix of all of the
above.
As I say, at the moment I describe these practices as a
technical violation of title 44.
Now, the question before the Rules Committee is whether
these are violations costing the taxpayers added dollars? Are
they costing the taxpayers a reduced accessibility to a lot of
the information created by the Government?
So I just urge the committee to approve this budget.
Hopefully, we will answer these questions this year, Mr.
Chairman. I am determined to do so. I view this budget as in
the public interest because it funds the committee that must
resolve this public policy question between the legislative and
executive branches. It cannot go on.
prepared statement
So with that, I will just submit the balance of my
testimony and I will be happy to respond to your questions, Mr.
Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator John Warner
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Joint Committee
on Printing, and its budget request of $804,000 for fiscal year 1998.
Rather than reiterate the testimony I provided the House Legislative
Branch Appropriations Subcommittee in February, I will give you an
update on the Joint Committee's initiative to reform Title 44.
title 44 reform
The Joint Committee on Printing has adopted by consensus a concept
paper on Title 44 reform. From this concept paper a legislative
proposal has been drafted. That proposal has been the subject of one
hearing before the Senate Rules Committee. A second hearing is planned
for May 8th. Based on the recommendations received during these
hearings, and other comments submitted for the record, the staff of the
Joint Committee on Printing, in cooperation with the Senate Rules
Committee, will redraft the proposal for submission as a bill. It is my
hope to be able to introduce a reform bill this spring on a bicameral,
and bipartisan basis with the support and participation of the
Administration. The legislation will address two key policy issues.
The first is the constitutional separation of powers issue which
stems from the 1983 Supreme Court decision in the case of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha. Those of you familiar
with the Joint Committee on Printing know that the Committee acts like
a board of directors over the operations and activities of the
Government Printing Office. The Justice Department's Office of Legal
Counsel wrote an opinion last year which construed the Committee's
involvement with the Government Printing Office to be the equivalent of
exercising a legislative veto over the printing activities of Executive
Branch agencies, and thus a violation of the Separation of Powers
doctrine. In the face of that opinion it is difficult for the Committee
to obtain Executive Branch compliance with Title 44. Some Executive
Branch agencies either are procuring printing without going through
GPO, or doing printing for other agencies. Both of these practices are
a violation of Title 44, and are costly to the American taxpayer.
The second key issue is to ensure that Title 44 provides for
permanent public access to government information and publications.
Because agencies in all three branches of the Federal government are
violating the procurement provisions of Title 44, they are also
violating the public access provisions as well. Government information
produced at taxpayer expense must go to the Federal Depository Library
Program.
I want to make clear at the outset that this proposal is only a
starting point. Therefore, it is premature to suggest that any of its
provisions reflect how the bill ultimately will be drafted. The
Committee will work closely with this Subcommittee to ensure that all
appropriate budgetary considerations are made, and that you have
appropriate opportunity to comment and prepare for whatever changes the
bill ultimately authorizes.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague Mr. Ford has a statement he wishes
entered in the record.
I thank the Committee for its attention.
costs relating to Title 44 violations
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
May I ask if you have any kind of sense on the issue of
cost with respect to these technical violations of title 44
that you referred to?
Senator Warner. So far as I know, we have not got any
costs.
Mr. Peterson. We do not have any firm, reliable data. The
Government Printing Office estimates the Government spends
approximately $1.2 billion a year, and of that amount about
$494 million does not flow through the GPO.
Senator Bennett. But do they have any general sense that,
in fact, this is costing more, or that there are savings and
that the only issue is a turf issue, and I understand the Rules
Committee has not completed its work, but do you have any sense
on this?
Mr. Peterson. The general sense we have is that again,
based upon GPO's analysis of this matter, that those printing
costs could probably be reduced by about 25 percent overall.
Senator Bennett. So if that number is right, that would be
roughly $100 million.
Mr. Peterson. The savings would be approximately $300
million. The total cost would come to $900 million.
Senator Bennett. It would be one-quarter of that which is
not being done by GPO, and that's only $400 million.
Mr. Peterson. No; one-quarter of the Government's total
printing cost, $300 million.
Senator Warner. Let me describe to the chairman an example
quite apart from the dollars, and I will not mention the
agency's name, but it is a clearly documented case.
The agency has employees whose salary is paid by the
taxpayer. They do a body of research. That body of research is
incorporated into a very important written report. This agency
then sends that written report to a private sector company
which publishes that report, and sells that report.
Now, the taxpayer does not have access to that report
unless he or she goes out and buys a copy of the private
sector-produced journal, and we think that is wrong. That is
basically what we are trying to fix.
Now, that cannot be extrapolated into dollars and cents,
but that is probably the more serious problem, as I see it.
GPO's revolving fund
Senator Bennett. OK. You testified on the House side that
the GPO's revolving fund is at a dangerously low level. Can you
give us, either now or for the record, what the balances of
that revolving fund are?
Senator Warner. I do not have that figure.
Mr. Peterson. We can provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
GPO's cash balances in the revolving fund fluctuate every
day and the amount the Agency has on-hand depends on a number
of variables. Because GPO spends approximately $3 million every
working day, a $30 million cash reserve would fund their
operations for just 10 days, which in the past, has resulted in
very low cash balances. GPO reported the following cash
balances as of September 30 for the last three fiscal years:
Fiscal year 1994, $64 million; fiscal year 1995, $36 million;
and fiscal year 1996, $46 million.
My testimony before the House Legislative Branch
Appropriations Subcommittee wherein I spoke of the low level of
financial reserves in the revolving fund, was made in reference
to the funding of a study GPO was directed to conduct to
determine if cost effective opportunities exist to privatize
certain Congressional publications. My point was that GPO would
have to fund the study out of its financial reserves even when
they have been struggling for several years to achieve a break-
even financial status in their operations. If GPO were required
to spend an estimated $600,000 for a private consultant, it
would result in an increase in their operating expenses and
make it even more difficult to achieve a break-even status.
Congressional printing and binding appropriation
Senator Bennett. The House, as I understand, is irritated
that excess money given by Congress for congressional printing
and binding each year gets transferred to the revolving fund
and then used to pay salaries, and overtime--now, the GPO
clearly has the authority to do this, but the House believes
that the money is used to offset the cost of executive branch
funding.
We have submitted questions to the GPO to flesh this out.
Do you have any preliminary understanding about this, or any
comment about it at this point?
Senator Warner. I do not.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman, the GPO cannot utilize any of
the appropriations unless there is work against which the GPO
can bill. There is a period of time in which the money sits in
the revolving fund, and if it is not expended for printing
ordered by the Congress it eventually is returned to the
Treasury.
I believe that the perception is a misperception.
JCP budget increase
Senator Bennett. As I understand it, the increase you have
asked for is entirely due to COLA's.
Senator Warner. That is correct. It is civilian salaries.
I might mention to the Chair it is this Senator's intention
to explore the need for this committee altogether if we can do
a proper job of title 44 reform. I am fortunate to have Mr.
Peterson, with whom I have had a long professional association
over many years in many different capacities, and he has
devoted 5 days each week of his life to studying this issue,
and he is an authority on it.
Senator Bennett. If Congress were to abolish the Joint
Committee, would we save the full $804,000?
Senator Warner. Well, I would assume some added
responsibilities might go to the Rules Committee, but I would
hope the current budget of the Rules Committee could absorb
that.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
prepared statement of senator ford
Senator Warner. We thank the Chair very much for this
opportunity, and forgive me for a raspy voice, and we have a
statement here by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
Ford, who is the ranking member of the Rules Committee, and I
think it reflects the coordination with what I have said, and
it is very short. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Wendell H. Ford
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to make my position known.
I support the $804,000 request of Chairman John Warner to
operate the Joint Committee on Printing for fiscal year 1998.
As a former Chairman of this Committee I believe the funding is
minimal to carry out the statutory requirements assigned to
this group.
Chairman Warner tells us he intends to vigorously enforce
Title 44 as long as it remains the law of the land. In my two
terms as Chairman, JCP pursued that course. The savings were
remarkable. We were able to show cost avoidance and expense
containment throughout the government worth well over $50
million in each of my four years. With the Committee's
attention diverted over the past two years, I am sure Chairman
Warner will now find savings a plenty in the Executive Branch.
Our purpose was never to disrupt the process of government
information distribution, but to the contrary, make it even
more widely available to all segments of the population without
financial discrimination. Chairman Warner is charting a similar
course. I urge you to give him the funds he needs to succeed.
Senator Bennett. We thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being
here. If we have further questions, we will submit them to you
and make them a part of the record, and, of course, Senator
Ford's statement will be a part of the record.
Senator Warner. I thank the Chair for conducting the
hearing in his usual dignity and so forth. Thank you, Bob, very
much.
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY CHRISTOPHER FRENZE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
opening statement
Senator Bennett. We will now hear from the Joint Economic
Committee. I know that is a sterling group, because I have the
privilege of sitting on it. We appreciate Chairman Saxton's
being here to defend the request for fiscal 1998.
Mr. Chairman, we will go directly to your testimony.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
being here this morning. This is my first opportunity to appear
as the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. Last year, as
you know, Senator Mack was the chairman and I was the vice
chairman.
Senator Bennett. Senator Mack last year was chairman of
this subcommittee, too, so we are both sitting in for Senator
Mack. [Laughter.]
Mr. Saxton. This is an exciting 2 years for me as chairman
and, as you know, this chairmanship goes back and forth, and
that is why Senator Mack was chairman last year, and next
Congress it will move back to the Senate.
We have tried to identify an aggressive, assertive agenda
for our research projects for the current term. We have decided
that we wanted to concentrate on monetary policy, tax policy,
spending policy, and regulatory policy, and there are some
other things that from time to time we venture into, but those
are the four main areas.
During the first several months of this year we have moved
quickly to produce a series of what I believe are timely and
high quality studies and reports on these issues along, as I
said, with a couple of other things.
In February, for example, the Joint Economic Committee
released reports on international monetary policy, the
administration's education tax credit proposal, taxes and long-
term economic growth, and the findings of the Advisory Council
on Social Security.
Then in March we released reports on the structure of the
Federal Reserve System and the welfare-to-work tax credit
proposal, and we followed that in April with reports on the
roots of the current economic expansion, which is quite an
interesting report, incidentally, the benefits of auto choice
insurance reform, which is one of the areas that we ventured
off into because it is of quite high interest to the citizens
of the country who pay higher auto insurance premiums, the
efficiency of targeted tax policies such as those the President
has recommended, which is the education tax credit initiative,
and establishing also Federal Reserve inflation goals, an
extremely interesting subject on which we have spent a good
deal of time.
As you may know, Mr. Chairman, from the Joint Economic
Committee hearings that you attended, our country has a
practice of targeting a number of economic goals through the
Fed, and other modern-day countries have chosen to target just
price stability, or inflation, and so the studies address that
issue.
Then, in addition to the monthly hearings on employment
conditions and the Consumer Price Index the Joint Economic
Committee has also held hearings on the ``Economic Report of
the President,'' the President's budget submission, and the
economic impact of the tax system.
Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's appearance before the
Joint Economic Committee in March was widely viewed as
telegraphing an imminent change in Federal Reserve policy just
prior to the short-term interest rate increase.
So I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning to
let you know that we have been extremely active and productive,
and I guess I would say an informative player in the budget
process which is currently unfolding.
prepared statement
We appreciate you taking your time to take our testimony
this morning, and we hope that inasmuch as we voluntary took a
25-percent reduction in our budget the year before last and
held it steady without any increase last year, this request is
also without an increase.
I am sorry, actually we took a $250,000 cut for fiscal 1997
as well.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Saxton
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a
pleasure to present my strong support for the fiscal year 1998
appropriation of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC). As the new
Chairman of the JEC, I anticipate a productive two years of
hearings, studies and reports on the important economic
challenges facing our country.
It is my view that the Congress must have the analytical
capability to provide information to its Members before
important policy decisions are made. The Executive Branch has a
number of agencies with economic and statistical expertise, and
Congress urgently needs to have access to as much similar
information as possible through entities such as the JEC.
Congressional decision-makers would be at a significant
disadvantage without the analytical resources made available by
the JEC.
The JEC has moved quickly in this Congress to produce a
series of timely and high-quality studies and reports on a wide
variety of issues. In February the JEC released reports on
international monetary policy, the Administration's education
tax credit proposal, taxes and long-term economic growth, and
the findings of the Advisory Council on Social Security. In
March, the JEC released reports on the structure of the Federal
Reserve System and the welfare to work tax credit proposal. In
April, the JEC released reports on the roots of the current
economic expansion, the benefits of auto-choice insurance
reform, the efficiency of targeted tax policies, and
establishing Federal Reserve inflation goals. In the first week
of May, we have released a report on budget process reform. We
are pleased with the favorable reception our research products
have received by policy analysts and the media.
In addition to the monthly hearings on employment
conditions and the Consumer Price Index, the JEC has also held
hearings on the Economic Report of the President, the
President's budget submission, and the economic impact of the
tax system. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's appearance
before the JEC in March was widely viewed as telegraphing an
imminent change in Federal Reserve policy.
In this Congress we will continue ongoing research programs
in areas such as employment conditions, dynamic scoring of tax
legislation, optimal size of government, middle class income
trends, income mobility, and a variety of other topics. Our
research agenda in the new Congress will expand in some of
these areas, but has already branched out into some new areas
as well.
One area of particular interest arises from the drift in
much of recent tax policy. At least to some extent, tax policy
increasingly is driven by non-economic criteria, which despite
the best of intentions, would gradually distort the tax system
and undermine the economy. We have planned a series of studies
and hearings to examine the economics of taxation, and the
effects of the current tax code on work, saving, investment,
and economic growth. These JEC activities will examine the need
to reestablish the economic criteria on which sound tax policy
should be based.
Another issue on our research agenda concerns an
examination of monetary policy, both in the United States and
in several other nations. In recent years a number of national
central banks, including our own Federal Reserve, have adopted
price stability as their overriding objective. Several of these
foreign central banks have targeted changes in price indexes as
their main guide to conducting monetary policy. Our JEC
research will be examining whether it would be desirable for
the Federal Reserve to move in a similar direction.
The JEC has been extremely active in this Congress and will
continue to be active into the future. We will continue to
expand our research agenda into new areas in coming months.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.
Senator Bennett. I am aware of that. Was your ability to
absorb that reduction based on the use of technology and
contracting out, or did you simply cut back and cut back
activities?
Mr. Saxton. I do not think we have cut back activities.
Frankly, when we decided how we were going to reorganize
ourselves we looked at the budget that we had and I believe we
were able to attract some very high quality economists who are
currently on the staff and who have worked overtime to produce
the kind of product that we have been able to share with other
Members of Congress and the public.
It took some doing. I do not want to make light of it, but
because of the quality of the people that we have and our
ability to deal with these issues efficiently we have been able
to continue a very high quality product.
Senator Bennett. What is the status of the Boskin report on
the Consumer Price Index in terms of the JEC report?
Mr. Saxton. The Joint Economic Committee looked at the
Boskin report, which recommended a 1.1-percent reduction in the
Consumer Price Index presumably through some kind of a
legislative action. We frankly related it to other policy
issues that are addressed along with it, and we produced some
reports which essentially said that everyone wants accurate
numbers in dealing with economic analysis and measure of price
stability in particular.
But we also recognize that there are major changes which
occur when you deal with the Consumer Price Index from a
legislative point of view, particularly in the area of
entitlements, and in the area of levels of taxation that we
impose on the American people, because a change, as you know,
in the Consumer Price Index has a direct impact on all those
issues.
We have also, therefore, asked the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to report to us by the end of this summer on changes
they might make in the computations that they make in order to
arrive at a more accurate figure, so that rather than have
Congress in the business of making some arbitrary judgment on
where the Consumer Price Index ought to be pursuant to Boskin
or pursuant to our own analysis, that the people that we hire
and pay to do that, who are quite frankly pretty good at it,
ought to be the group who proceed to make it more accurate.
I would also like to point out on this issue that during
the last couple of weeks the Bureau of Labor Statistics was
called upon by the administration and I think by some Members
of Congress to make suggestions as to what we might do in this
budget to correct the inefficiencies or the deficiencies of the
CPI.
The leadership on the House side at least has decided not
to make those legislative changes at this time, and so the
Boskin Commission certainly kicked off a hot debate that had to
do with Social Security and taxes and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and I hope that we have gotten everyone's attention
and that we will be moving toward more accurate numbers.
Senator Bennett. We have been joined by Senator Dorgan, who
is taking up his duties as the ranking member of this
subcommittee, and Senator, we appreciate your being here, and
welcome you to the subcommittee as well as to the ranking
member's slot.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. We will be pleased to have any opening
statement you might have.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, first, it is not my usual
practice to be tardy or late. I am in the middle of working on
the flooding disaster issue, and we have some officials from
North Dakota in, and we only have until 2:30 to file
amendments, so I have been in a series of meetings on that.
That has delayed me, and it will also require me to leave
early, but I appreciate very much your convening the hearing
and look forward to working with you on it.
I served on the Joint Economic Committee and enjoyed it a
great deal, and know of its work and appreciate, Congressman
Saxton, your appearance.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. I would like to make a few general
comments about the subcommittee, and I saved these until
Senator Dorgan was here so he could contradict, comment, or
otherwise remark.
I think we need to be very careful in this subcommittee to
recognize our responsibility to meet the needs of the entire
legislative branch of the Government, not only the Senate and
the House, but all of the other agencies that are part of the
legislative branch, including the Library of Congress, the
General Accounting Office, and others.
The 103d and 104th Congresses have achieved significant
reductions in both appropriations and numbers of staff in the
legislative branch. In 1993, Congress eliminated 16
subcommittees and abolished some select committees in an effort
to reduce the budget and streamline the institution.
In 1996, as a result of the work of those two Congresses
and this subcommittee, both Senate and House committee staffs
stand at roughly two-thirds of the level they were at in 1979,
and when measured in 1979 constant dollars, legislative branch
appropriations for fiscal 1997 are 19.8 percent less than they
were in fiscal 1977, so we have achieved reductions in people,
and we have achieved reductions in constant dollars.
The reason I say that is that there are those who say we
must now have a freeze in the legislative branch as if nothing
had been done over the last 10, 15 years. The legislative
branch appropriations were swollen. They were obviously too
high.
There was a change in control, at least in the Senate, in
the 1980 election, and control went back to the Democratic
Party after 6 years of Republican control, but through the 20-
year period from 1977 to 1997 we have had the reductions that I
have referred to, so I think the time has come in the name of
good management to review how those reductions have taken
place, and yes, we should look for additional savings, but we
should recognize that a lot of work has been done, and we are
not starting out from ground zero, and it may well be that a
freeze is not the thing to do in terms of the overall
appropriations for the legislative branch.
Now, that having been said, I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the fact that your committee is not asking for an
increase and could live with the freeze, but I did want to make
the general statement that in the legislative branch overall,
this being our first hearing, we may not be able to sustain an
overall freeze.
Senator Dorgan, did you have any comment on that overall
opening, which I delayed, as I say, until you could be here to
respond?
Senator Dorgan. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
comments. I think most people do not know that we have
downsized, and as you state, we have reduced appropriations for
the legislative branch and for committees, and it is
interesting that this weekend there appears to have been a deal
struck on a balanced budget agreement. I think we need to
understand that and what all of that means in terms of our
responsibilities, what kind of aggregate public spending we
will have, and what our obligation is on oversight.
I think that clearly with all of the Federal budget being
under the microscope, so, too, is the budget of the legislative
branch activities. Yet what we do is very important, and we
need to make sure there is adequate funding for oversight to
carry out the responsibilities of the legislative branch.
I cannot think of a better Member to serve with than
Senator Bennett. I think this will be an interesting
subcommittee, and we will face some interesting decisions, at
least if I am reading some of the Hill journals correctly.
There are people who have a very active interest in the
work of the legislative branch appropriations, but we just need
to do our work thoughtfully and in a cooperative way, and I
appreciate very much your comments.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, do you have anything further? Your request is
easy.
Mr. Saxton. We appreciate the time you have spent with us
here this morning and we look forward to being funded at the
appropriate level, and thank you for your time.
Senator Bennett. If we have additional questions, we will
submit them, and we will keep the record open for your
responses. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. The next witness has been delayed, and the
committee will take a recess until they arrive.
[A brief recess was taken.]
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL ARCHER, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY:
KENNETH J. KIES, CHIEF OF STAFF
BERNARD A. SCHMITT, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, REVENUE ANALYSIS
MARY M. SCHMITT, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, LAW
Budget request
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will reconvene. We
appreciate the attendance of Chairman Archer of the Joint
Committee on Taxation. This is a bipartisan and nonpartisan
committee, so there is no division of budget between majority
and minority salaries, as is the case in some other joint
committees we have talked about, and for fiscal 1998 the Joint
Committee has requested an appropriation of $6.126 million, an
increase of 12 percent, or $656,000 over the fiscal 1997 level.
This increase includes, I understand, $375,000 for new
hires. That would be two to three new macroeconomists, $154,000
for COLA's, and $120,000 for merit increases.
Before you came, Mr. Chairman, I made a general statement
that the appropriations for the legislative branch in constant
dollars are substantially less than they were 20 years ago. The
number of staff positions for the legislative branch are down
significantly, the work primarily of the 104th Congress.
I sat on this subcommittee when Connie Mack was the
chairman and we took some rather substantial whacks out of a
number of areas, including a 25-percent reduction in the
Government Accounting Office, so I am not as convinced that we
need an absolute freeze in the legislative branch
appropriations as apparently some of your colleagues in the
House are.
So, you may find your testimony here to be a little more
friendly than it might be on the House side in terms of the
attitude of the Senate with respect to the legislative branch
overall, but I would be happy to hear your testimony now, and
then we can respond to some of the specifics.
Mr. Archer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
opening statement
I would not give way to anybody in the entire Congress in
my desire to be frugal and to get 1 dollars' worth of benefit
out of every dollar that we spend on the legislative branch.
That was evidenced by the day after I became chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee when I cut the majority staff by 40
percent, which was probably the single biggest percentage cut
of any committee in the entire Congress, House or Senate, and
we have done our work effectively. But, I have watched over the
years as the majority staff of the Ways and Means Committee
ballooned up for political reasons.
I come here today, as you know, to testify on behalf of the
budget request for the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is
not a political entity and which has not ballooned up over the
years as the majority staff of the Ways and Means Committee
ballooned up. Therefore, it did not take the cuts in the last
Congress.
I also believe that the massive cuts--and I also believe
that their request for this year is justifiable, because they
provide unique and essential services to both the House and the
Senate at every stage of the tax legislative process, and they
have to develop markup and draft tax bills, and they have to
write all the tax committees' reports and the conference
reports.
In addition, they devote substantial, and I would say even
more than substantial, resources to the preparation of revenue
estimates. They have to accommodate every Member of Congress
when they make a request for changes in the Tax Code. They
provide the distributional analyses and other economic analyses
that relate to tax legislation. I am sure you know that, but I
just wanted to restate that for the record.
In addition, what many people do not know is that they
operate a refund office where they have to go over refunds that
are large in numbers--that is, large in dollar numbers--that
are suggested by the IRS before the IRS can actually make the
refund of a certain threshold, and they have many times caught
the IRS in errors and saved the taxpayers significant money.
Senator Bennett. May I ask, what is that threshold?
Mr. Kies. $1 million.
Mr. Archer. I think you stated a little bit about what the
request is, that for 1998 the request is $6,126,000. It is a
net increase of $656,000 over the fiscal year 1997
appropriation, but only $107,000 more than the fiscal year 1995
appropriation for the Joint Committee, and I think you alluded
to that.
In the last Congress we asked the Joint Committee to assume
additional responsibilities in addition to the traditional role
of developing, drafting, and estimating of proposed revenue
legislation. The Joint Committee now must determine the
possible unfunded mandates contained in revenue legislation,
which we voted for and which we put into effect. There has to
be some entity to determine whether a particular proposal is an
unfunded mandate or not, and beginning in 1997, to identify the
limited tax benefits that are subject to the line item veto
authority. The line item veto law provides that the Joint
Committee will determine what items in the Tax Code are subject
to a line item veto when the bill goes through the Congress.
If the Joint Committee's responsibilities are expanded in
any further way, for example by expanding the estimating
services required as they begin to move toward--as they begin
to move away from static analysis and more to an update for
accuracy that will truly measure the revenue impact of tax
legislation, then the Joint Committee is going to be needing
additional resources. They are now beginning to start that, and
some of the resources that are requested in this year's budget
request are for that purpose.
prepared statement
I guess that is pretty much what I need to tell you, Mr.
Chairman, and maybe Ken Kies, who is the chief of staff of the
Joint Committee on Taxation, would like to add something to it.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill Archer
introduction
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee today to discuss the fiscal year 1998 appropriation
request for the Joint Committee on Taxation (the ``Joint Committee'').
The Joint Committee staff provides unique and essential services to
both the House of Representatives and the Senate at every stage of the
tax legislative process. The Joint Committee staff is comprised of
highly qualified lawyers, accountants, and economists, and has earned a
reputation for nonpartisan excellence with the tax-writing committees,
the Congress, the general public, and the professional tax community.
The Joint Committee staff is involved in the development, marking up,
and drafting of tax bills and is responsible for writing all tax
Committee Reports and Conference Reports. In addition, the Joint
Committee staff devotes substantial resources to the preparation of
revenue estimates, distributional analyses, and other economic analyses
relating to proposed legislation. The refund office of the Joint
Committee reviews large proposed tax refunds as part of the
Congressional oversight of the executive branch. The services of the
Joint Tax Committee are central to Congressional oversight of the
Federal tax system and to the tax legislative process.
The funding we are requesting for the Joint Committee on Taxation
represents the minimum amount necessary to finance the operations of
the Joint Committee for fiscal year 1998. The Joint Committee provides
essential services to the Congress that are not duplicated by any other
Congressional or Executive Branch office.
Key points relating to the fiscal year 1998 appropriation request
are as follows:
We are requesting a fiscal year 1998 appropriation for the Joint
Committee of $6,126,000. This amount is a net increase of $656,000 over
the fiscal year 1997 appropriation, but only $107,000 more than the
fiscal year 1995 appropriation for the Joint Committee.
In the last Congress, we asked the Joint Committee staff to assume
additional responsibilities. In addition to the traditional role of the
Joint Committee staff in the development, drafting, and estimating of
proposed revenue legislation, the Joint Committee staff is now
responsible for determining the possible unfunded mandates contained in
revenue legislation and identifying, beginning in 1997, the limited tax
benefits subject to the Line Item Veto Act. The Line Item Veto Act has,
as you know, been overturned by a District Court, and is scheduled for
expedited review by the Supreme Court, so the extent of the Joint
Committee's responsibilities under the Act is unclear at this time.
If the Joint Committee's responsibilities are expanded in any
further way, for example, by expanding the revenue estimating services
required or significantly modifying the revenue estimating process, we
will find it necessary to request an additional increase in the Joint
Committee's appropriation to reflect the additional personnel and
equipment expenses attributable to such increased responsibilities. In
that regard, we want to point out to the Subcommittee that a new House
rule, adopted for the 105th Congress, would require the Joint Committee
to determine the macroeconomic effects of proposed revenue legislation
under certain circumstances. The Joint Committee staff does not
currently have the staff or computer capabilities to satisfy this
requirement. In addition, the Joint Committee hosted, on January 17,
1997, a symposium presenting the results of a year-long study into the
feasibility of incorporating macroeconomic effects into Joint Committee
revenue estimates. There has been further interest in pursuing this
capability as a result of the symposium and, therefore, there may be
the need for additional funding.
Additional details relating to this appropriation request are
provided below.
summary of fiscal year 1998 budget request
The following summarizes the Joint Committee's budget request for
fiscal year 1998:
Personnel Funding.............................................$5,541,000
Non-Personnel Funding:
Travel.................................................... 10,000
Transportation of Things.................................. 2,000
Rent, Communications, Utilities........................... 88,000
Other Services............................................ 95,000
Supplies and Materials.................................... 130,000
Equipment................................................. 260,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total fiscal year 1998 request.......................... 6,126,000
The fiscal year 1995 appropriation for the Joint Committee on
Taxation was $6,019,000. The House-passed legislative branch funding
bill for fiscal year 1996 froze the Joint Committee appropriation at
the fiscal year 1995 level ($6,019,000). The final version of this
legislation reduced the Joint Committee's appropriation for fiscal year
1996 by 15 percent to $5,116,000. This reduction was the result of a
provision in the Senate bill, adopted in conference, which generally
reduced appropriations of all Senate committees. This was adopted
despite the fact that the Joint Committee has always been funded
through the House of Representatives. This appropriation was lower than
the Joint Committee's budget in each of the last 5 fiscal years. The
fiscal year 1997 appropriation for the Joint Committee is $5,470,000, a
6.9 percent increase over fiscal year 1996, but still well below the
fiscal year 1995 funding level.
details of fiscal year 1998 appropriation request
Personnel Expenses
We are requesting an appropriation for fiscal year 1998 for the
Joint Committee that is $656,000 more than the fiscal year 1997
appropriation, but only $107,000 more than the fiscal year 1995
appropriation. Of this $656,000 requested increase, $649,000 relates to
increases in personnel expenses.
Cost of living.--As instructed by the House Finance Office, we are
requesting $28,000 for the annualized fiscal year 1997 cost-of-living
adjustment (2.3 percent) and $126,000 for a prorated fiscal year 1998
cost-of-living adjustment (2.325 percent). These amounts are
essentially determined for the Joint Committee by the House Finance
Office because they provide to us both the compensation base and the
percentage adjustments.
Merit increases.--We are requesting an additional appropriation for
fiscal year 1998 of $120,000 for merit increases for existing staff.
This request does not include any specific requested amount for
possible overtime pay. During 1996, the Joint Committee staff spent
considerable time and effort developing procedures to comply with the
requirements of the Congressional Accountability Act. One staff
attorney worked essentially full time to develop a staff personnel
manual that details all of the Joint Committee staff rules and
procedures. In addition, she made determinations as to which employees
are subject to the overtime requirements and created written job
descriptions for each job category. This attorney also spent many hours
developing support staff performance evaluation forms and procedures.
We have developed flexible staff scheduling procedures for support
staff that will minimize, but not eliminate, the need to pay overtime.
However, we will be required to devote considerable administrative
staff time each year to complying with the Congressional Accountability
Act on an ongoing basis. Thus, the requested increase assumes a modest
amount for administrative staff support and minimal overtime payments
to comply on an ongoing basis with the requirements of the
Congressional Accountability Act.
New hiring.--We are requesting $375,000 for hiring to fill FTE's we
are requesting for the Joint Committee for fiscal year 1998. We expect
the Joint Committee to fill these FTE positions with additional
professional staff--primarily staff attorneys, accountants, and
economists--and possibly one or two computer specialists and support
staff.
The Joint Committee staff does not now have sufficient numbers of
staff attorneys and economists to satisfy the traditional duties of the
Joint Committee. The staff needs to hire additional professional staff
so that the service provided to the Congress in connection with the
consideration of revenue legislation does not suffer.
Furthermore, we believe that this request is eminently reasonable
given the new responsibilities that were imposed on the Joint Committee
staff by legislation enacted during the 104th Congress. For example,
the Joint Committee staff has new responsibilities specifically
mandated under the Line Item Veto Act and arising out of the enactment
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and the review of
regulations under the regulatory reform bill. The scope of the Joint
Committee staff's new responsibility for any year will be determined by
the amount of revenue legislation considered during the year. However,
the Joint Committee staff estimates that any significant revenue
legislation could require approximately \1/2\ full-time employee to
satisfy these new requirements during 1997.
Authorized positions
We are requesting 73 FTE's for the Joint Committee for fiscal year
1998. This number would return the Joint Committee to the authorized
staffing level for fiscal year 1995. The Joint Committee has 61
authorized staff positions for fiscal year 1997. Other than fiscal year
1996, in which the authorized staff positions were 63, the authorized
staff levels have not, since 1980, been below 66 positions. Thus, the
authorized staffing levels of the Joint Committee are well below
historical levels. Unless the authorized FTE's are increased to an
acceptable level, we believe that the services the Joint Committee
provides to the Congress will be compromised.
We would expect that these additional FTE's would be filled
primarily with professional staff members--attorneys, accountants, and
economists; 1 or 2 positions might be filled with support staff to
accommodate the needs of these new professional staff. We expect that
particular emphasis would be placed on hiring additional staff
economists to continue the Joint Committee's efforts to pursue the
capability of incorporating macroeconomic effects in the Joint
Committee's revenue estimates.
We believe that the authorized staffing for the Joint Committee is
unacceptably low. The Joint Committee staff will not be able to
maintain its reputation for quality service to the Congress unless it
is permitted to hire sufficient professional staff members. As a result
of the new obligations of the Joint Committee discussed above, the
amount of time that the Joint Committee staff is able to devote to the
traditional duties analyzing revenue legislation has been diminished.
Unless additional hiring is authorized, the service to the Congress
will no doubt suffer.
The current Joint Committee staff has shown remarkable dedication
in picking up the slack as the Joint Committee is unable to fill the
positions of departing staff members. However, at some point, these
dedicated professionals, who often take positions on the Joint
Committee staff at less than one-half the compensation they would make
in the private sector, will conclude that the long hours for less-than-
market pay poses too great a burden on their families. This, we
believe, would be a great loss for the Congress.
The extremely complex, technical, and specialized nature of the
Joint Committee work requires the Joint Committee to hire and retain a
highly trained and experienced staff. The Joint Committee professional
staff, comprised of certified public accountants, Ph.D. economists, and
lawyers with private law practice or significant government experience,
agree to work for the Joint Committee at salaries substantially below
those available in the private sector. The lawyers on the Joint
Committee staff are graduates of the leading law schools throughout the
country, and most attained significant honors at law school. Several of
them have advanced degrees in taxation. Each had substantial related
experience before coming to work for the Joint Committee, either in
private practice with major, well-respected law firms, or with the
Internal Revenue Service or other government agencies that deal with
Federal tax matters. The accountants on the staff each spent at least 3
years in private practice with ``Big Six'' accounting firms. The staff
economists all have advanced degrees. Several have university faculty
experience. In addition, many of the economists have substantial
experience with economic modeling, both in the government and with a
variety of organizations in the private sector.
Despite the competition in the marketplace for tax expertise at the
level required by the Joint Committee, the Joint Committee has in the
past generally been successful in retaining highly qualified staff
members. The ability of the Joint Committee to hire sufficient numbers
of qualified staff members to provide the current level of service to
the Congress will be impaired if the requested appropriation is not
approved. If the current appropriations request is approved, we expect
that the Joint Committee will be able to fill open staff positions with
qualified candidates so that the level of service provided to the
Congress will not be compromised.
Nonpersonnel expenses
We are requesting only minimal increases in nonpersonnel expenses
for fiscal year 1998. We have requested a $5,000 increase in the travel
budget, which is used by the Joint Committee to send staff members to
educational conferences and for travel in connection with hiring
personnel, and the addition of a $2,000 appropriation for the
transportation of things. These two amounts are the only increases we
are requesting in nonpersonnel expenses.
The amount budgeted for other services is primarily for consulting
services. The needs of the Members for immediate responses to requests
for revenue estimates and the substantial volume of requests for
revenue estimates that the Joint Committee staff receives places
tremendous burdens on the estimating staff. To perform efficiently, the
staff of the Joint Committee has found it necessary to contract from
time to time with certain private sector organizations to do work that
the Joint Committee staff does not have the time or the resources to do
otherwise. Also, as mentioned above, the Joint Committee staff has
contracted with firms to help investigate issues involved in
incorporating macroeconomic effects in revenue estimates.
The purchase of equipment represents the single largest item of
nonpersonnel expenses. The large volume of documents that the Joint
Committee is required to produce during the legislative process
requires that the Joint Committee staff have computer equipment
necessary to produce documents quickly. In addition, the Joint
Committee devotes significant resources to the preparation of revenue
estimates, distribution analyses, and other economic analyses relating
to proposed legislation. The nature of this work and the speed with
which the staff is normally asked to complete its analyses requires
that the Joint Committee on Taxation staff utilize the most
sophisticated and technologically advanced equipment. Thus, the staff
finds it necessary to upgrade computer software and hardware constantly
to enable the staff to provide the service required and expected by the
Members of Congress.
Possible need for additional appropriation
We believe that the fiscal year 1998 budget request represents the
minimum appropriation necessary at this time to enable the Joint
Committee to provide service to the Congress at current levels. In
addition, we want to alert the Subcommittee to the fact that there are
likely to be new responsibilities imposed by the Congress on the Joint
Committee staff that may not be met out of the requested appropriation.
These new responsibilities may create the need for additional funding
for fiscal year 1998 and beyond.
The House approved a new House rule for the 105th Congress that
requires the staff of the Joint Committee to estimate the possible
macroeconomic (or dynamic) scoring effects of major revenue
legislation. The Joint Committee staff presently has neither the
personnel nor the computer capabilities to satisfy the requirements of
this rule. As discussed in more detail below, the staff of the Joint
Committee undertook during 1996 a year-long study of the feasibility of
incorporating macroeconomic effects in its revenue estimates. On
January 17, 1997, the Joint Committee staff hosted a symposium, open to
the public, analyzing the results of this year-long study. Based on the
results presented at this symposium, there is further interest in
pursuing the capability of calculating the macroeconomic effects of
major revenue legislation and, therefore, there may be a need for
additional funding to finance the development of this capability.
We have asked the Joint Committee staff to estimate the number of
additional personnel and nonpersonnel funding that might be necessary
to work toward the development of macroeconomic estimating capability.
They inform me that, during the developmental stages, which could take
a couple of years, the Joint Committee would need up to 8 additional
staff, composed of 2 senior economists, 4 economic analysts, and 2
computer programmers with an annual salary expense of $600,000. In
addition, it would be necessary to contract with 2 or 3 major
macroeconomic modeling firms for various research and development
expenses, at an estimated additional expense of approximately $100,000
per year. After the developmental stage, the Joint Committee staff
would have ongoing needs for approximately 6 professional staff
economists and computer programmers, rather than 8.
We believe that we must pursue the goal of providing a broader
class of economic analysis for proposed tax legislation, particularly
relating to the impact of saving and investment incentives and their
effects on the economy. However, we recognize that pursuing this goal
will require some extraordinarily sophisticated economic analysis that
blends traditional macroeconomic theory with the complexities of the
microeconomic analysis historically done in the preparation of revenue
estimates. There is no organization or entity that currently has this
capability. Thus, this effort will require the commitment of the
Congress over a number of years if we can hope to be successful.
review of joint committee on taxation operations during calendar year
1996
Attachments A through D provide a summary of the activity of the
Joint Committee for calendar year 1996. During 1996, the Joint
Committee staff drafted fourteen Committee and Conference Reports
(Statements of Managers) for the House Ways and Means Committee and the
Senate Finance Committee. In addition, the staff drafted three tax
treaty Executive Reports for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
(see Attachment A).
During 1996, the Congress considered and passed seven different
pieces of tax legislation. The Joint Committee staff was involved in
the development of this legislation on both a technical and policy
level, and prepared numerous revenue estimates and distribution
analyses of the final legislation, as well as numerous alternative
proposals. The legislation includes provisions in the following areas:
Medical savings accounts; earned income credit; small business
provisions; health-related tax provisions; corporate and other tax
reforms; expiring tax provisions; taxpayer Bill of Rights 2;
simplification and technical corrections; special tax rules applicable
to combat zones in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Macedonia; and
tax treatment of special assessments for the Savings Association
Insurance Fund.
The Joint Committee was involved in a variety of other tax
initiatives considered by the Congress, including miscellaneous tax
reforms, and analyses of various flat tax and consumption tax
proposals, including proposals to adopt a national sales tax, in
connection with Congress' continued consideration of fundamental tax
reform. Because these proposals could result in a complete
restructuring or replacement of the Federal income tax system, they
involve significant legal and economic analysis, and present unique
revenue estimating issues. The Joint Committee also was involved in
work in connection with the President's budget submission and various
alternative budget proposals. The Joint Committee staff prepared two
hearing pamphlets for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in
connection with proposed income tax treaties.
In addition to its work on Committee and Conference Reports and tax
treaties, the Joint Committee staff published 61 documents during 1996,
including pamphlets and testimony prepared at the request of the
Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee for
hearings held by those committees and pamphlets prepared for the
benefit of Members of Congress and their staffs in connection with tax
issues of current interest (see Attachment B). Included in these other
documents was the General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in the
104th Congress, a comprehensive compilation of the legislative history
of all tax legislation enacted during the 104th Congress.
Also included in 1996 publications were two pamphlets providing a
description of present law, issue analysis and background information
and data on Federal transportation excise taxes and Trust Fund
expenditure programs. These documents were prepared in response to the
request of the Committee on Ways and Means in connection with the
appointment of a bipartisan task force of Members of that Committee to
advise on transportation excise tax issues. We asked the Joint
Committee staff to assist the task force on a continuing basis by
developing information needed for the task force's work.
In addition, among the documents published in 1996 was a draft
analysis of issues and procedures for applying the Line Item Veto Act
(relating to limited tax benefits). The Joint Committee solicited
public comment to be submitted by December 13, 1996 on the Line Item
Veto Act analysis, in preparation for implementation of this new
provision in 1997.
In 1996 the Joint Committee staff undertook a review of the recent
developments in the tax rules governing entity classification and
taxation of the income of partnerships, as well as issues relating to
tax-free corporate spinoffs, responding to changes in State law and
Treasury guidance that have significantly impacted these areas. The
Joint Committee staff consulted academics, practitioners and bar groups
in these areas and requested public comment by December 16, 1996.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 imposes certain procedural
requirements in the House and Senate with respect to mandates imposed
on either the private sector or on State and local governments. Under
procedures developed in coordination with CBO, the Joint Committee
staff is required to provide an estimate to the CBO of the direct costs
of complying with any such mandates contained in revenue legislation
considered by the Congress.
During 1996, the Joint Committee received over 1,750 requests for
revenue estimates (see Attachment C). The requests received in 1996
frequently involved complex proposals relating to alternative tax
structures and proposals under consideration as part of the Small
Business Act, the welfare reform bill, and the health reform bill, all
of which required significant time on the part of the Joint Committee's
legal and economics staff.
One of the statutorily mandated functions of the staff of the Joint
Committee is the review of Internal Revenue Service refunds or credits
of income tax, estate and gift tax, or any tax on public charities,
foundations, pension plans, or real estate investment trusts in excess
of $1,000,000. The Joint Committee staff reports on each such refund
case and makes comments or recommendations with respect to the proposed
refund case to the IRS. During 1996 (through November), the Joint
Committee refund staff reviewed 486 proposed refunds. The Joint
Committee staff raised concerns in 92 cases (or approximately 19
percent of the cases). Errors identified by the Joint Committee staff
produced a net reduction in refunds of $10,600,000 in 1996. A copy of
the Joint Committee staff's 1996 Refund Review Operations Report (other
than sections containing confidential taxpayer information) is included
as Attachment D.
summary of anticipated workload of the joint committee on taxation for
calendar year 1997
During 1997, it is expected that the Congress will return to
consideration of various flat tax and consumption tax proposals that
have been or will be introduced. Some work was done on restructuring
proposals in 1995 and 1996, and we expect that this work will be
intensified in 1997, as new proposals are introduced and existing
proposals are refined and modified. Because these proposals involve a
complete restructuring or replacement of the current Federal tax
system, the economic and legal analysis of such proposals can be
extraordinarily complex, requiring substantial staff time. We expect
that Congressional consideration of these initiatives will place
critical and unique demands on the staff of the Joint Committee to
provide revenue estimates and legal and economic analyses in connection
with these proposals.
In addition, we expect the Joint Committee staff to continue to
have an integral role in tax aspects of Federal budget deliberations.
It is anticipated that the Joint Committee will assist in development
and analysis of legislative proposals, and prepare markup documents,
Committee reports and conference reports (Statements of Managers) with
respect to any tax pieces of Federal budget legislation.
The Joint Committee devotes substantial resources to the
preparation of revenue estimates, distribution analyses, and other
economic analyses relating to proposed revenue legislation. During
1996, Members of Congress were increasingly interested in the revenue
estimation process, particularly the possibility of incorporating
macroeconomic effects in revenue estimates, and we expect that this
interest will continue in 1997. Determining whether this can be done
and, if so, how to do it, will require substantial resources. Currently
accepted estimation processes do not account for macroeconomic effects,
and there is no consensus in the economic community about how, and
whether to, account for such effects. The Joint Committee has already
taken steps to improve the estimating process and determine the
feasibility of incorporating macroeconomic effects. These steps include
providing more disclosure regarding the estimation process to Members,
determining whether proposals are likely to have significant
macroeconomic effects, establishing a revenue estimating advisory board
(which will, among other things, address macroeconomic issues), and
contracting with macroeconomic forecasting firms for the purpose of
studying the feasibility of developing estimating models that
incorporate macroeconomic effects. The Joint Committee is in the
process of planning a conference of economic advisors in January 1997
in order to review the results of the macroeconomic forecasting firms.
It is anticipated that this review will help determine the feasibility
of using such forecasting models and aid in the development of models
that may be used by the Joint Committee. The ability of the Joint
Committee to continue these efforts will be impaired if funding at the
requested level is not provided.
During 1997, the requirements imposed under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 will give rise to a continuing responsibility of the
Joint Committee staff to provide an estimate to the CBO of the direct
costs of complying with mandates on the private sector or on State and
local governments that are contained in revenue legislation considered
by the Congress.
Under the regulatory reform bill recently enacted, a process of
Congressional disapproval applies to certain executive branch
regulations, rulings, and other pronouncements. The Ways and Means
Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have asked the Joint
Committee to review all tax regulations and similar guidance submitted
to the Congress under the regulatory reform legislation and to report
to the Committees on any issues that might be appropriate for
Congressional disapproval.
The Line Item Veto Act imposes a statutory responsibility on the
Joint Committee to identify limited tax benefits contained in any
legislation considered by the House or the Senate and to prepare a
statement for inclusion in every Statement of Managers to identify any
limited tax benefit. Following up on its work during 1996 in
preparation for this duty, the Joint Committee staff, in 1997, will
commence implementation of these provisions as required under the Act.
The Line Item Veto Act has, as you know, been overturned by a District
Court, and is scheduled for expedited review by the Supreme Court, so
the extent of the Joint Committee's responsibilities under the Act is
unclear at this time.
It is anticipated that the Ways and Means Committee's bipartisan
task force on transportation excise tax issues will require additional
background information, data and analysis during 1997. This will carry
on the work commenced by the Joint Committee, in response to the task
force's 1996 request for assistance on an ongoing basis.
It is also anticipated that the Joint Committee will be engaged
during 1997 in analysis of its review of the recent developments in the
tax rules governing entity classification and taxation of the income of
partnerships and issues relating to tax-free corporate spinoffs,
responding to changes in State law and Treasury guidance that have
significantly impacted these areas.
conclusion
We will continue to rely on the staff of the Joint Committee to
provide us with their technical support. This superb staff has a
demonstrated track record of service to the Congress. The appropriation
request for fiscal year 1998 is intended merely to provide the
necessary resources for the Joint Committee staff to respond promptly
and adequately to the requests for assistance that it receives from the
Members of Congress and to maintain its current level of services.
Therefore, if the work required of the Joint Committee increases in any
respect, for example, if the demand for revenue estimation services
increases beyond the current level provided by the Joint Committee, or
if the type of services demanded are expanded to include macroeconomic
analyses, additional funding may be requested to enable the Joint
Committee staff to satisfy this increased workload. For example,
additional funds could be required to secure necessary computer models
and data bases, to hire personnel with expertise regarding
macroeconomic effects, and to ensure that the Joint Committee has the
necessary computer software and hardware to complete economic analyses
with the speed required by the Congress.
In conclusion, we hope you appreciate the current role that the
Joint Committee staff plays in the analysis and development of tax
legislation. The nonpartisan technical tax experts on the Joint
Committee staff provide an invaluable service to the Congress that
cannot be provided by any other Congressional or Federal office. Their
work for the Congress during 1996 proved this. A failure to provide the
Joint Committee with its requested appropriation will hinder seriously
the ability of the Joint Committee staff to respond to the requirements
and needs of the Members of Congress.
______
Attachment A.--1996 Tax-Related Legislative Reports Worked on by the
Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation
tax committee report explanations
H.R. 2337 (Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2). H. Rept. 104-506 (Ways and
Means Committee report on bill to provide increased taxpayer
protections).
H.R. 2754 (Shipbuilding Trade Agreement Act). H. Rept. 104-524, Pt.
1 (Ways and Means Committee report--portion on revenue offset
provisions of Shipbuilding Trade Agreement Act).
H.R. 2778 (Tax Benefits for Individuals Performing Services in
Certain Hazardous Duty Areas). H. Rept. 104-465 (Ways and Means
Committee report on bill to provide that members of the U.S. Armed
Forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina are entitled to tax benefits as if in
a combat zone).
H.R. 3074 (Shipbuilding Agreement Act; Generalized System of
Preferences Program). S. Rept. 104-270 (Finance Committee Report--
revenue offset provisions).
H.R. 3103 (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996). H. Rept. 104-496, Pt. I (Ways and Means Committee report--
revenue provisions of bill on health insurance coverage, medical
savings accounts, long-term care services and revenue offsets).
H.R. 3103 (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996). H. Rept. 104-736 (Conference report on revenue provisions of the
Act).
H.R. 3286 (Adoption Promotion and Stability Act). H. Rept. 104-542,
Pt. II (Ways and Means Committee report on bill to offset costs of
adoptions).
H.R. 3286 (Adoption Promotion and Stability Act). S. Rept. 104-279
(Finance Committee report on adoption bill).
H.R. 3415 (Temporary Repeal of 4.3-Cents-Per-Gallon Transportation
Fuels Excise Tax). H. Rept. 104-576, Pt. 1 (Ways and Means Committee
report on bill to provide a temporary repeal of 4.3-cents-per-gallon
transportation motor fuels excise tax).
H.R. 3448 (Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996). H. Rept.
104-586 (Ways and Means Committee report on bill to provide tax relief
for small businesses and other revenue provisions).
H.R. 3448 (Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996). S. Rept.
104-281 (Finance Committee report on bill to provide tax relief for
small businesses and other revenue provisions).
H.R. 3448 (Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996). H. Rept.
104-737 (Conference report on bill to provide tax relief for small
businesses and other revenue provisions).
H.R. 3734 (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of
1996). H. Rept. 104-651 (House Budget Committee report--revenue
provisions relating to the earned income tax credit).
H.R. 3734 (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of
1996). H. Rept. 104-725 (Conference report--revenue provisions relating
to the earned income tax credit).
tax treaty executive reports
Income Tax Convention With Kazakhstan. Exec. Rept. 104-34
(Executive report for Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
Protocol Amending Article VIII of the 1948 Tax Convention With
Respect to the Netherlands Antilles. Exec. Rept. 104-35 (Executive
report for Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
Taxation Protocol Amending Convention with Indonesia. Exec. Rept.
104-36 (Executive report for Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
______
Attachment B.--Joint Committee on Taxation
jcs-96 documents
JCS-1-96--Selected Materials Relating To The Federal Tax System
Under Present Law And Various Alternative Tax Systems. March 14, 1996
JCS-2-96--Description Of Revenue Provisions Contained In The
President's Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Proposal (Released On March 19,
1996). March 27, 1996
JCS-3-96--Impact On Small Business Of Replacing The Federal Income
Tax. Scheduled for a Hearing Before the House Committee on Ways and
Means on April 24, 1996. April 23, 1996
JCS-4-96--Impact On State And Local Governments And Tax-Exempt
Organizations Of Replacing The Federal Income Tax. Scheduled for a
Hearing Before the House Committee on Ways and Means on May 1, 1996.
April 30, 1996
JCS-5-96--Impact On International Competitiveness Of Replacing The
Federal Income Tax. Scheduled for a Hearing Before the House Committee
on Ways and Means on July 18, 1996. July 17, 1996
JCS-6-96--Comparison Of Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3448 (Small
Business Job Protection Act Of 1996) As Passed By The House And The
Senate. Prepared for the Use of the House and Senate Conferees. July
31, 1996
JCS-7-96--Impact On Manufacturing, Energy, And Natural Resources Of
Replacing The Federal Income Tax. Scheduled for a Hearing Before the
House Committee on Ways and Means on July 31, 1996. July 31, 1996
JCS-8-96--Explanation Of Proposed Protocol To The Income Tax Treaty
Between The United States And Indonesia to be Considered by the
Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate. September 16, 1996
JCS-9-96--Explanation Of Proposed Protocol To The Income Tax Treaty
Between The United States And The Kingdom Of The Netherlands In Respect
Of The Netherlands Antilles to be Considered by the Committee on
Foreign Relations United States Senate. September 16, 1996
JCS-10-96--Present Law And Background Information On Federal
Transportation Excise Taxes And Trust Fund Expenditure Programs.
Prepared for the Use of the House Committee on Ways and Means. November
14, 1996
JCS-11-96--Estimates Of Federal Tax Expenditures For Fiscal Years
1997-2001. November 26, 1996
JCS-12-96--General Explanation Of Tax Legislation Enacted In The
104th Congress.
jcx-96 documents
JCX-1-96--Description Of Tax Provisions Included In A Plan To
Achieve A Balanced Budget Submitted To The Congress By The President On
January 6, 1996. January 24, 1996
JCX-2-96--Description Of Present Law, H.R. 2778, And An Amendment
In The Nature Of A Substitute Relating To Tax Relief For Peacekeeping
Personnel In The Former Yugoslavia. Scheduled for Markup by the House
Committee on Ways and Means on February 28, 1996. February 27, 1996
JCX-3-96--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 2778 As Reported By The
Committee On Ways And Means. February 29, 1996
JCX-4-96--Description Of Revenue Provisions Of The ``Health Care
Availability And Affordability Act Of 1996'' to be Introduced on
Monday, March 18, 1996 and Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee
on Ways and Means on March 19, 1996. March 15, 1996
JCX-5-96--Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 3103 To
Be Offered By Chairman Archer On Tuesday, March 19, 1996. March 18,
1996
JCX-6-96--Estimated Budget Effects Of Items Contained In An
Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 3103 To Be Offered By
Chairman Archer On Tuesday, March 19, 1996. March 18, 1996
JCX-7-96--Description Of Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To
H.R. 2337 ``Taxpayer Bill Of Rights 2''. Scheduled for Markup by the
House Committee on Ways and Means on March 21, 1996. March 20, 1996
JCX-8-96--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Taxpayer Bill Of Rights
2. Scheduled For Ways And Means Markup On Thursday, March 21, 1996.
March 20, 1996
JCX-9-96--Description Of Revenue Provisions Relating To Shipping
Income. To Be Offered in the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 2754, the ``Shipbuilding Trade Agreement Act,'' Scheduled for
Markup by the Committee on Ways and Means on March 21, 1996. March 20,
1996
JCX-10-96--Estimated Revenue Effects Of An Amendment In The Nature
Of A Substitute For H.R. 2754, The ``Shipbuilding Trade Agreement Act''
Scheduled For Ways And Means Markup On Thursday, March 21, 1996. March
20, 1996
JCX-11-96--Description Of Revenue Provisions Of Amendment To S.
1028 By Senators Dole And Roth. April 18, 1996
JCX-12-96--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Possible Amendment To S.
1028 By Senators Dole And Roth. April 18, 1996
JCX-13-96--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Revenue Provisions
Contained In H.R. 3286, The ``Adoption Promotion And Stability Act Of
1996''. April 26, 1996
JCX-14-96--Description Of Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3286 Relating
To Tax Credit For Adoption Expenses And Certain Revenue Offsets
Scheduled for Markup Before the House Committee on Ways and Means on
May 1, 1996. April 26, 1996
JCX-15-96--Description Of Revenue Provisions To Be Considered In
Connection With A Markup Of Trade Matters. Scheduled for Markup by the
Senate Committee on Finance on May 8, 1996. May 1, 1996
JCX-16-96--Estimated Budget Effects Of Tax And Trade Provisions To
Be Considered At A Markup Of The Senate Finance Committee On May 8,
1996. May 1, 1996
JCX-17-96--Present Law And Background Relating To Federal Excise
Taxes Imposed On Transportation Motor Fuels. Scheduled for a Hearing
Before the Senate Committee on Finance on May 3, 1996. May 2, 1996
JCX-18-96--Present Law And Background Relating To Federal Excise
Taxes Imposed On Transportation Motor Fuels. Scheduled for a Hearing
Before the Committee on Ways and Means on May 8, 1996. May 7, 1996
JCX-19-96--Temporary Repeal Of 4.3-Cents-Per-Gallon General Fund
Transportation Motor Fuels Excise Tax. Scheduled for Markup by the
Committee on Ways and Means on May 9, 1996. May 8, 1996
JCX-20-96--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 3415. Scheduled for
Markup by the Committee on Ways and Means on May 9, 1996. May 9, 1996
JCX-21-96--Description Of Chairman's Mark Of The Small Business Job
Protection Act. Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and
Means on May 14, 1996. May 13, 1996
JCX-22-96--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The ``Small Business Job
Protection Act Of 1996,'' A Bill To Be Introduced And Subject Of A
Markup By The Committee On Ways And Means On Tuesday, May 14, 1996. May
14, 1996
JCX-23-96--Present Law And Issues Relating To Classification Of
Workers As Employees Or Independent Contractors. Scheduled for a
Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on
Ways and Means on June 4, 1996. June 3, 1996
JCX-24-96--Description Of Chairman's Mark For The Provisions Of
H.R. 3286 Relating To Tax Credit For Adoption Expenses And Certain
Revenue Offsets And The Removal Of Barriers To Interethnic Adoptions.
Scheduled for Markup Before the Senate Committee on Finance on June 12,
1996. June 11, 1996
JCX-25-96--Estimated Budget Effects Of Chairman's Mark To The
Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3286, The ``Adoption Promotion And Stability
Act Of 1996,'' Scheduled for Finance Committee Markup on June 12, 1996.
June 11, 1996
JCX-26-96--Description Of Chairman's Mark Of A Committee Amendment
To The Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3448 (Small Business Job Protection
Act Of 1996). Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance
on June 12, 1996. June 11, 1996
JCX-27-96--Estimated Budget Effects Of Chairman's Mark Of A
Committee Amendment To The Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3448, The ``Small
Business Job Protection Act Of 1996,'' Scheduled for Finance Committee
Markup on June 12, 1996. June 11, 1996
JCX-28-96--Description Of Earned Income Credit Provisions Contained
In An Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To Be Offered By Chairman
Archer. Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means
on June 12, 1996. June 11, 1996
JCX-29-96--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Earned Income Credit
Provisions Contained In An Amendment In The Form Of A Substitute By
Chairman Archer With Respect To The Budget Reconciliation Welfare
Proposal. June 11, 1996
JCX-30-96--Estimated Budget Effects Of A Committee Amendment To The
Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3448, The ``Small Business Job Protection
Act Of 1996,'' As Approved By The Senate Finance Committee on June 12,
1996. June 17, 1996
JCX-31-96--Disclosure Report For Public Inspection Pursuant To
Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(3)(C) For Calendar Year 1995.
June 25, 1996
JCX-32-96--Description Of Chairman's Mark Of Provisions Relating To
The Earned Income Credit. Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee
on Finance on June 26, 1996. June 25, 1996
JCX-33-96--Estimated Budget Effects Of Earned Income Credit
Provisions Contained In S. 1795 The Chairman's Mark to be Considered at
Markup of the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday, June 26, 1996.
June 25, 1996
JCX-34-96--Description Of Managers' Amendment To The Revenue
Provisions Of H.R. 3448 (The Small Business Job Protection Act Of 1996)
As Reported By The Senate Finance Committee. July 9, 1996
JCX-35-96--Estimated Budget Effects Of Revenue Provisions In H.R.
3448 Including The Managers' Amendment. July 9, 1996
JCX-36-96--Estimated Budget Effects Of Revenue Provisions In H.R.
3448 As Passed By The Senate. July 9, 1996
JCX-37-96--Description Of Selected Federal Tax Provisions That
Impact Land Use. Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Subcommittee on
Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means on July 16, 1996.
July 11, 1996
JCX-38-96--Markup Of Ways And Means Committee Amendment To Be
Offered To H.R. 3592 (Water Resources Development Act Of 1996).
Scheduled for July 17, 1996. July 16, 1996
JCX-39-96--Comparison Of Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3734 (Welfare
Reform Reconciliation Act Of 1996) As Passed By The House And Senate.
Prepared for the Use of the House and Senate Conferees. July 25, 1996
JCX-40-96--Comparison Of The Estimated Budget Effects Of The
Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3734, The ``Welfare Reform Reconciliation
Act Of 1996,'' As Passed By The House And The Senate. July 25, 1996
JCX-41-96--Comparison Of Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3103 (The
``Health Coverage Availability And Affordability Act Of 1996'') As
Passed By The House And The Senate. Prepared for use of the House and
Senate Conferees. July 26, 1996
JCX-42-96--Comparison Of Estimated Budget Effects Of The Revenue
Provisions In H.R. 3103, The ``Health Coverage Availability And
Affordability Act Of 1996''. July 26, 1996
JCX-43-96--Description Of Tentative Agreement Relating To Medical
Savings Accounts (``MSA's''). Prepared for the Use of the Conferees for
the Revenue Provisions of H.R. 3103 (The ``Health Coverage Availability
and Affordability Act of 1996''). July 26, 1996
JCX-44-96--Comparison Of The Estimated Budget Effects Of The
Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3448, The ``Small Business Job Protection
Act Of 1996,'' As Passed By The House And Senate. July 29, 1996
JCX-45-96--Written Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
Taxation Regarding H.R. 3244, The ``District Of Columbia Economic
Recovery Act'' for the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 104th Congress on
July 31, 1996. July 31, 1996
JCX-46-96--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement
Relating To The Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3103, The ``Health Insurance
Portability And Accountability Act Of 1996''. August 1, 1996
JCX-47-96--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement
Relating To The Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3448, The ``Small Business
Job Protection Act Of 1996''. August 1, 1996
JCX-48-96--Draft Analysis Of Issues And Procedures For
Implementation Of Provisions Contained In The Line Item Veto Act
(Public Law 104-130) Relating To Limited Tax Benefits. November 12,
1996
JCX-49-96--Selected Background Information And Data On Federal
Transportation Excise Taxes. Prepared for the Use of the House
Committee on Ways and Means. December 17, 1996
______
Attachment C.--Joint Committee on Taxation Revenue Estimate Requests
Calendar year
1985.............................................................. 348
1986.............................................................. 474
1987.............................................................. 420
1988.............................................................. 900
1989.............................................................. 1,290
1990.............................................................. 1,286
1991.............................................................. 1,461
1992.............................................................. 2,350
1993.............................................................. 2,380
1994.............................................................. 1,259
1995.............................................................. 2,278
1996.............................................................. 1,792
______
Attachment D.--Memorandum
December 10, 1996.
TO: Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation
FROM: Senior Refund Counsel
SUBJECT: Refund Section--Calendar Year 1996 Operations Report
This is a report on the more significant developments in this
Office during the past calendar year.
summary
Volume--Refund Cases.--486 reports were received during the year.
The total dollar amount of refunds was $4,649,152,429.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996
Reports Received 1993 1994 1995 (through
Nov.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examination Division............................................ 512 482 425 360
Appeals Division................................................ 171 147 132 98
Department of Justice........................................... 18 18 20 23
Chief Counsel................................................... 8 6 2 5
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 709 653 579 486
===============================================
Concerns \1\.................................................... 70 69 79 103
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 9 post review deficiency cases for 1993, 8 for 1994, 12 for 1995 and 11 for 1996. Includes all
concerns in which the Service has indicated agreement with our position and which are expected to be signed
and closed by year end.
Post Review.--The Service reports 64 large deficiency cases to us
annually for post review. Eleven of these cases generated concerns this
year. We also review to a limited extent the Appeals Division's
nationwide post review results.
Other Action.--(1) We transmitted for consideration of legislative
action 9 issues that arose in various cases.
(2) We transmitted 7 memoranda suggesting corrections or discussing
clarification of Service procedural or technical instructions.
(3) We transmitted our concern to the Service on three issues to
ensure uniform application of the tax laws.
(4) We transmitted information to the Service in connection with a
$34,000,000 refund report that led the Service to withdraw the report
to consider whether they should reexamine the propriety of the refund.
Exhibits and Appendices provide detailed information on most of the
foregoing.
Errors identified by us in 1996 and prior years, and agreed to by
the Service in 1996 produced a net reduction in refunds of $10.6
million. The average annual reduction for the last 6 years is $9.1
million. Such correction also reduced ATNOLCF's, $133.7 million,
AMFTC's $4 million, and regular tax NOL's and future deductions $5.5
million. We also brought to the attention of the Service an error in a
proposed closing agreement that understated tax liability by
$32,500,000.
We hope we are satisfactorily accomplishing our assigned portion of
the Committee's mission and meeting your expectations. We look forward
to a productive, challenging year.
______
Appendix C.--Proposals for Statutory, Ruling, Regulatory, and Manual
Changes
(initials of originator shown)
Discussion with the Hill on the holding in the Fluor Corporation
case for purposes of legislative action. That case holds that when a
deficiency is wiped out by a foreign tax credit carryback, the taxpayer
is not liable for interest on the deficiency. (NB)
Discussion with the Hill on interest netting in the context of
allocating deductions for the purpose of determining foreign source
income, combined taxable income, and taxable income from the property,
for purposes of legislative action. (NB)
Memo to the industry specialist for utilities discussing some of
the problems we have encountered in the section 1341 area. He indicated
this would go on the utility bulletin board so that everyone handling
these items would be aware of the problems. (NB)
Memo to the Chief of Staff discussing interpretative problems with
section 172(b)(1)(C), for consideration of legislative action. (NB)
Memo to the Chief of Staff discussing problems associated with
accounting for rotable spare parts, for consideration of legislative
action. (NB)
Memo to the Assistant Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting)
pointing out a conflict between several interpretations of the
interplay between sections 616 and 263A. (JB)
Memo to the National Office Joint Committee Coordinator suggesting
modification of IRM 8941 to take into account court decisions holding
that a payment can be a payment of tax without assessment. (RWF)
Memo to the National Director of Appeals suggesting modification of
IRM 8953 to aggregate work units closed simultaneously in determining
Joint Committee jurisdiction. (RWF)
Memo to the Hill suggesting clarification of similar liability
language in section 809(b)(5)(C). (JB)
Memo to the Chief of Staff noting that the parenthetical language
in section 927(a)(2)(B) raises the question as to whether the license
of computer software is covered thereby, for purposes of legislative
action. (NB)
Memo to the Director Office of Large Case Programs (Appeals),
advising that an employee suggestion for changes in the Service's Joint
Committee procedures be considered. (RWF)
Memo to the National Office (Examination) regarding Joint Committee
review of Foreign Sales Corporations. (RWF)
Memo to National Office (Examination) suggesting the correct
procedure for applying an overpayment in excess of $1,000,000 to offset
a liability for special estimated tax under section 847. (RWF)
Memo to the National Office offering our opinion as requested on a
procedural issue. (RWF)
Memo to the Hill suggesting a technical correction to clarify
whether a section 847 deduction can result in an alternative minimum
tax liability that would not have otherwise existed. (JB)
Memo to the Hill suggesting that section 835 be eliminated since
the reason for its enactment no longer exists, or to provide for its
treatment causing a refundable or nonrefundable credit. (JB)
Memo to the Hill regarding correction of the section 164 reference
in section 59A. (JB)
Memo to Appeals regarding the authority of an Appeals Chief, under
Order 154, to submit a Joint committee report when the Case was settled
by District Counsel. (RWF)
Sent information to the Service and asked whether the Service
thought it advisable to reexamine the propriety of the refund, which
was $34,000,000. The Service requested permission, which we granted, to
withdraw the refund report to determine if any portion thereof should
be recouped. (BW)
Discussed with the Service problems of general application
involving specified liability losses. (RG)
______
EXHIBIT I.--REPORTS TO JC AS REQUIRED BY IRS CODE SEC. 6405
[Calendar year 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative
Month Received Cumulative monthly Dollar Dollar
total average receipts receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January..................................... 35 35 35.0 $425,696,759 $425,696,759
February..................................... 47 82 41.0 384,196,568 809,893,327
March........................................ 55 137 45.7 540,525,945 1,350,419,272
April........................................ 43 180 45.0 346,542,304 1,696,961,576
May.......................................... 56 236 47.2 368,589,792 2,065,551,368
June......................................... 39 292 45.8 399,213,721 2,464,765,089
July......................................... 60 335 47.9 595,679,430 3,060,444,519
August....................................... 31 366 45.8 245,737,363 3,306,181,882
September.................................... 55 421 46.8 788,095,751 4,094,277,633
October...................................... 28 449 44.9 248,452,491 4,342,730,124
November..................................... 37 486 44.2 306,422,205 4,649,152,329
December..................................... ......... 486 .......... .............. 4,649,152,329
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
EXHIBIT II.--JOINT COMMITTEE CASES RECEIVED IN 1996 BY TYPES OF TAXPAYER
AND SOURCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of Taxpayers:
Individuals................................... 31 6.38
Estates....................................... 10 2.06
Trusts........................................ ......... .........
Corporations.................................. 445 91.56
---------------------
Total....................................... 486 100.00
=====================
Source of Reports:
Examination................................... 360 74.07
Appeals....................................... 98 20.17
Justice....................................... 23 4.73
Tax Court..................................... 5 1.03
---------------------
Total....................................... 486 100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
EXHIBIT III.--MONTHLY RECEIPTS--REFUND REPORTS FROM EXAMINATION AND APPEALS
[Calendar year 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Examination Cumulative Appeals Cumulative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January........................................................ 22 22 12 12
February....................................................... 35 57 7 19
March.......................................................... 47 104 6 25
April.......................................................... 25 129 13 38
May............................................................ 46 175 9 47
June........................................................... 31 206 8 55
July........................................................... 39 245 15 70
August......................................................... 27 272 2 72
September...................................................... 37 309 14 86
October........................................................ 20 329 7 93
November....................................................... 31 360 5 98
December....................................................... ........... 360 .......... 98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
EXHIBIT IV.--1996 JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION CONCERNS \1\ ON REFUND REPORTS FROM IRS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total No. of
Examinations Appeals concerns
issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of concerns issued....................................... 56 32 88
Percent of total concerns issued................................ 63 37 100
Total reports received.......................................... 360 98 458
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of Concerns does not include 15 on deficiency cases.
additional Responsibilities
Mr. Kies. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would add to that
is just to note that the Joint Committee has been requested to
do other activities in the last two Congresses that have added
to its responsibilities.
We were recently requested by the chairmen of the two tax-
writing committees and the ranking members to conduct an
investigation of whether the Internal Revenue Service has
engaged in any inappropriate activity with respect to the
selection of 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) entities for audit. That is
quite a substantial project that we have underway, in addition
to the responsibilities that we will have to deal with in
connection with the budget agreement.
We also have been asked, for example, by Senator Murkowski,
to do an analysis of all tax provisions relating to the
electric utility industry for purposes of his work in the
Energy Committee and looking at the whole deregulation issue.
These kind of responsibilities come up on a fairly regular
basis and are in addition to the regular legislative work that
we do for the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance
Committee. We also do much of the technical work in connection
with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's approval of tax
treaties and protocols, which is another responsibility that we
have, so that is in addition to the normal legislative
responsibilities of the staff.
Revenue estimating
Senator Bennett. Let me ask you a question about revenue
estimates, because one of the most frustrating things for me as
a businessman coming into the Government is to discover that
there is no such thing as a monthly close, whereby you can get
a report of how well you did last month, how close you came to
your targets. I do not think there is such a thing as an annual
close.
One of the frustrating questions is, does anybody keep
track of how close tax revenues come to estimates, the
estimates made prior to the passage of a tax bill?
To be specific, Marty Feldstein, in writing in the Wall
Street Journal, estimated several years after the fact, that
the tax increases enacted during the first year of the Clinton
administration had produced one-third as much revenue as had
been estimated at the time we voted for that.
I have raised this issue with CBO and am told that I should
talk to you, and that you are the people who do all of this.
Could you comment on an analysis after the fact, the tracking,
if you will, of how much, putting it in business terms, a price
increase did contribute to the bottom line, or how much a price
decrease did contribute to increased market share and increased
sales?
I know those are not the Government terms, but you know
exactly what I am talking about.
Mr. Archer. I understand, Mr. Chairman, and I have had the
same concern that you have expressed over a number of years and
have importuned the Joint Committee on Taxation to give us that
kind of information. In previous Congresses, I have been told
it really is very, very difficult to do, and as a result, it
was never forthcoming. We are seeing more of that now in the
last Congress. We are not there on an automatic basis, but
individual Members can make requests of the Joint Committee to
provide what actual receipts there were in certain categories,
broad categories, and make a comparison to the estimates which,
of course, are already out there and a matter of record.
One thing the Joint Committee has done at the request of
both Senator Roth and myself is that they have illuminated for
the first time to the Members of Congress their method of
calculating capital gains, and in doing so, they have done
exactly what you mentioned--compared what the estimates were at
the time and compared what the actual revenues have been.
Then they have also overlaid their new model all the way
back into the 1970's and taken the available data at that time
on which the estimates were prepared and put it into their
computer model to get an overlay of what they would have
estimated with their new computer model.
They are within 3 percent over the long term with their
current computer model, because they now do take into account
behavioral response and the induced realizations from more
sales of capital assets whenever the tax goes down and less
sales when the tax goes up.
I will let Ken comment more in trying to respond to your
question.
Tracking experience
Mr. Kies. Senator, one of the things that we have done in
the last couple of years, actually in recognition of the very
point that you have raised, is starting to try and pick out
specific estimates that we did and then track the actual
experience going forward to see how well we have done in terms
of predicting.
The one thing that is important to realize when you talk
about revenue estimates is, that is what they are, estimates.
And, even though a specific number appears on a piece of paper,
it is the consequence of a lot of judgment which goes into
that.
Some estimates have a much better--we have much greater
confidence at the outset than others. For example, on the child
credit that has been proposed, we have a high degree of
confidence in the revenue estimate because we do not expect a
behavioral response to enacting a child credit. In our computer
model, we have 200,000 individual tax returns selected to
represent a cross-section of all tax returns, and we would do
an estimate on this basis.
Like the child credit, we would actually recalculate the
tax on all of those returns, and then expand those results to
reflect what we would expect from all 130 million households.
So, on the other hand, other estimates where the data is
not specifically part of the tax model represent a lot more
judgment. Last year we had an adoption credit, and there was
very little in the way of hard data on the number of adoptions
that occur each year, foreign and domestic, and so that is an
example where we have to draw from secondary sources to try and
come to a judgment about what the cost of a provision like that
would be.
It would not surprise me that when we look back 2 or 3
years we would have a greater error factor on an estimate like
that because of the fact that we had to rely on information
that was not coming from the tax sources, but we realize that
Members do want us to look back and try and figure out how well
we have done so we can do better in the future.
A good example of where we have improved our estimating
capability as a result of realizing that we made a mistake in
the past was the initial estimates on individual retirement
accounts in 1981. People started using IRA's much faster than
we had anticipated. Actually, once we got out about 5 or 6
years, the estimate kind of converged with actual experience,
but in the early period the utilization was far greater than we
had anticipated.
We used that experience when we estimated medical savings
accounts last year because they had many of the same features
as IRA's. There are differences, but there is a lot of
similarity, and so we looked to the experience on IRA's to try
to predict how quickly the takeup rate on MSA's would be.
In the case of MSA's, not only will we be looking back at
how accurate our estimate is, but we put in place in the
legislation reporting to actually identify fairly quickly how
many MSA accounts were established, and that first report will
come in, I believe, in August or September of this year, which
is essentially 1 year after the legislation was enacted.
So I think you will see us doing more and more of this,
because we want to always be improving what we are doing in
terms of predictability, but we also realize this is the kind
of information Members want to have because they want to get
some feel for how reliable the work we are doing is, and so our
whole philosophy for the past 3 years is that the more the
people know about the estimating methodology, the higher the
confidence level will be.
We are not trying to have a black-box-type approach, where
we just say trust us. We really want Members to understand what
we are doing and how we are doing it.
Luxury boat tax
Senator Bennett. Let me share with you a personal example
of how a lack of this information can skew public policy. When
I first came to the Senate, I was approached by John Chafee and
he asked me if I would cosponsor a bill to repeal the boat tax,
the luxury boat tax, and you remember how that tax destroyed an
industry, and I said, why, of course, John. I am startled that
the tax has not been repealed long before now, given the damage
that it did.
He said, well now, be careful before you sign up too fast,
because you have to sign up not only for the repeal of the tax,
but for the enactment of some other kind of tax to offset the
revenue loss that comes from the repeal. I said, now, John,
there is no revenue loss that will come from repeal. There will
be a revenue gain that will come from repeal overall by virtue
of the fact that the industry may come back. I am not sure that
it has. I mean, that is a classic example of Government
stupidity.
He said no, the thing is scored as x percent of x number of
sales. The fact that those sales are not taking place, and,
therefore, that percentage is never realized, does not change
the fact that it is scored in that fashion, and in order to
repeal the tax under the Budget Act we have to offset that by
increasing taxes someplace else, and you may not want to sign
up for a bill that can be attacked as a tax increase somewhere
down the line.
I signed up for the bill anyway and kind of looked the
other way while the figures were artificially created to look
like there would be some kind of revenue offset. Again, coming
from the business world, I would not tolerate that from one of
my managers for 10 seconds.
I would say, you have got a product on the shelf that has
failed. Pull it off the shelf right now. Move it through a
garage sale if necessary, but get rid of it, realize whatever
you can out of it, even if it is scrap, but do not sit here and
tell me that we have to offset the revenue that we have lost by
taking that product out of our product line by increasing
prices on our other products.
But that is essentially what the Government is doing, and I
would look to the Joint Committee on Taxation to stand up and
say, overall revenue to the Government was lost in the
following amounts as a result of that tax, and, therefore, the
tax can and should be repealed without any revenue impact,
without any negative revenue impact.
Am I whistling in the dark on this? Is there any
possibility for that kind of analysis out of your committee in
a future circumstance?
Macroeconomic estimates
Mr. Archer. Well, let me try to jump in as briefly as
possible, and Ken may want to add something to it. There are
two aspects to these revenue estimates. One is the
macroeconomic impact of whatever occurs, which means are you
going to increase economic activity, are you going to decrease
economic activity, and, therefore, you have got a reflow of
money into the Treasury either positive or negative as a result
of what you do.
Then there is the micro aspect which you just talked about.
What will happen to a particular industry, or what will be the
behavioral response to capital gains insofar as the sale of
capital assets is concerned, but then what macroeconomic impact
that will have is a different thing.
The way we are currently set up, and I had chafed at this
for many, many years, is that CBO sets the macro baseline and
they make no adjustment, irrespective of what is done to the
Tax Code. The Joint Committee has not had, probably not the
legal capability, and certainly not the computer capability to
do that.
So if we have, for example, an impact, let us say, of the
luxury boat tax, you can pretty well isolate it and say there
will be a behavioral response by purchasers of boats that will
reduce the amount of static analysis tax revenues, but nobody
takes into account the fact that there are jobs that are going
to be lost, so the payroll tax is going to be reduced and the
income tax revenues are going to go down because dealers are
going to have less sales and so on and so forth.
Even to this day we have not solved that problem and it, to
me, is one that must be solved, because the CBO gives us a
baseline, a macroeconomic baseline twice a year, and they do
not adjust it in between, with apparently one exception, which
occurred last week. [Laughter.]
But if that is not unique, it is exceedingly rare, and so
here we take up a tax bill and the Joint Committee has to put
their estimates on top of an economic baseline, that is the
macroeconomic projections by the CBO, as if a tax change is
going to have absolutely no bearing on it, and they have to do
it that way, and so we have a long way to go to really get more
accuracy. Then there is the question of what are the results
compared to what are the estimates initially going in?
Well, what are the results: No. 1, as a result of what
happened to the overall economy macrowise? What did this path
do in reality compared to what the static analysis projected
path was that CBO gave us? That explains a lot of the
difference in revenues, and so you have to accept, under
today's estimating practice, the fact that the Joint Committee
cannot do anything about that.
Now, when you talk about Marty Feldstein's analysis of the
1993 taxes, and I suspect that analysis is valid, part of that
was what happened to the macroeconomy compared to what the
baseline was, and I think we have just got to find a way to do
a better job on the macro side.
Part of it was also the effect of behavioral response in
specific areas like you mentioned, the luxury boat tax and so
on. And again, Ken may want to add something. I am just
scratching the surface of this issue, but it has frustrated me
in the years that I have been on the Joint Committee and on the
Ways and Means Committee, and we are at least on the threshold
of looking at it and trying to do something about it.
Mr. Kies. I would just add a couple of things, Senator.
First, in terms of Professor Feldstein's analysis, we have
actually looked fairly closely at how he has analyzed the
effects of the 1993 act.
I would say that his analysis is somewhat preliminary, and
the reason--CBO adjustment in revenue shares may suggest that
he is way off--that the CBO baseline adjustment that Chairman
Archer referred to last week has increased their projected
revenue stream by over $45 billion a year over 6 years, which
may suggest the preliminary analysis of Professor Feldstein may
not necessarily tell the whole story, but it is the kind of
thing that we want to keep looking at.
In terms of the issue on the excise tax on boats, our
estimate, which was done in 1990, which did precede a period of
somewhat of an economic downturn, did assume a decline in boat
sales. I mean, that was a part of our estimate.
In fact, I testified on January 11, 1995, to a joint House-
Senate Budget Committee hearing on the issue of overall revenue
estimating, and that testimony actually went into great detail
about our estimate on the excise tax on boats, because it has
gotten a lot of attention. Our assumption on sales was not that
far off.
The issue that makes this a more complex question is what
one has to assume about the effects of the declining sales. If
sales declined in the boat industry, that means that probably
not as much capital will be employed in the boat industry, but
it will go somewhere else in the economy.
How quickly it moves there, how quickly jobs shift out of
the boating industry and into some other industry, becomes a
difficult thing to assess in terms of analyzing the overall
revenue flows to the Federal Government. But, one cannot only
look at the boating industry for purposes of determining what
the revenue effect on the Federal budget has been, because the
shift will create economic activity elsewhere, and that is
where these kinds of estimates do become very complicated.
The one thing that I think Members of Congress might well
have asked about when the boat tax was considered is what the
regional dislocation was going to be, so that they would have
been better informed about what the consequences to areas of
the country were. This is a significant component of the
industry.
But, I will make sure that I send you a copy of the
analysis we did do after the fact of our estimate on the boat
tax because I think you will find that it may have been a lot
more accurate than people have portrayed by only looking at the
effects on the boating industry itself, and not taking into
account the overall effects.
Senator Bennett. Well, I would be glad to receive it and
look through it with interest, but I am less concerned about
flogging the boat tax horse than I am about the overall issue,
and if I understand you correctly, Mr. Chairman, there is a
disconnect between the Joint Committee on Taxation and the CBO
in some of these areas.
It may well be that this committee and its corresponding
committee in the House become the only nexus for oversight of
both groups, where this issue can be discussed and raised, and
it is always good to raise issues at appropriations time. We
seem to have people's attention more at that point than at any
other, and I intend to raise this with CBO when they come
before this committee, and anything you can give me as
ammunition, not to embarrass but to resolve these kinds of
things so that we go in the right direction, I would be very
happy to receive.
Not to repeat again, but just to stress for clarity's sake,
nothing can be more difficult when you are running a $1.7
trillion exercise, or enterprise rather, than to do it with
inaccurate information, with estimates that are based on
formulas that are never checked up on, that are never compared
to reality, forward-making decisions like the budget deal that
was achieved over the weekend based on those estimates that do
not ever look back and say, well, we have to change our model.
It would drive a CEO crazy to run a $1.7 trillion
enterprise with this kind of internal financial information,
and it may be one of the major reasons why we do so poorly with
our shareholders. They do not understand the details, but they
sure understand in general terms how badly the Government is
floundering in some of these areas. We do not have crisp
answers.
All right. I raised this issue with Senator Packwood when
he was chairman of the Finance Committee, and he provided me
with information that indicated that the luxury boat tax
produced x amount less than was projected in revenue, and that
the luxury car tax, as I recall, was three times greater than
the amount estimated.
Again, to a businessman that means there is a lot less
price resistance to buying luxury cars than there is price
resistance to buying luxury boats, and you price your product
based upon price resistance that is out there in the
marketplace, and we were able to say, people are still going to
buy a $150,000 Mercedes, even with the luxury tax on them,
because they are not buying them just for transportation.
You can get to your destination just as warm and just as
dry in a Ford Escort as you can in a $150,000 Mercedes. Your
ego might not feel quite as good in the Ford Escort, and it
might not last as long in terms of the number of years you have
it, but if you are buying basic transportation, you do not
necessarily buy a Mercedes.
The luxury tax apparently did not deter people from buying
luxury cars to nearly the degree that it was estimated, and the
tax writers--now you are wearing your hat as chairman of Ways
and Means--ought to know that and ought to be looking back, as
they continue to write taxes, and say, well, we missed it on
this one. This time, what will happen?
OK. Enough said.
Mr. Archer. Mr. Chairman, you are exactly right. What we
should seek in the estimates is accuracy. We should not seek to
put our political imprint on them and say we know this is going
to give us more, or we know this is going to give us less, but
we should seek accuracy, and it does mean that we have got to
review what has been done in advance compared to what actually
happened in reality, and I will sign up to be a soldier in your
crusade for that.
Senator Bennett. You will not be a soldier. You will be a
general. [Laughter.]
Mr. Archer. I would like to sign you up as a general in my
crusade to get rid of the need to do all of this by abolishing
the income tax completely and totally, and replacing it with a
consumption tax, and then we will not have to go through all of
this.
Senator Bennett. I would be delighted to sit down over a
bowl of Senate bean soup and pursue that with you.
One of my goals is to make the Tax Code in this country
simple, neutral, and stable so that it does not favor one group
over the other--that is the neutrality; people can understand
it--that is the simplicity; and people can make plans not
expecting Congress to change it every 18 months, and I am
willing to look at a flat tax, I am willing to look at a
consumption tax, and I am willing to look at anything.
Well, we can do that when we are not in this context.
Mr. Archer. If we can do that, then I will be the first to
jump before your committee and say cut the appropriations for
the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Senator Bennett. Well, that may be one of the incentives to
get us moving in that direction.
We have some more technical type questions about the work
of the Joint Committee on Taxation that I would like to submit
to you in writing. We would appreciate your response to those.
Additional committee questions
Mr. Kies, I would say you were the topic of a front page
article in the Wall Street Journal which I am sure did not make
you real happy, and we will probably have some questions on
that in writing for you as well. I think that you should have
the opportunity to respond on the record, but I will not raise
those to the level of a public hearing in a public discussion.
Senator Dorgan, who had to be excused because of the
pressures of flood conditions in his home State, would
appreciate a clearing of the air on some of those issues.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Joint Committee for response subsequent
to the hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
Question. In your budget submission you noted that the JCT received
over 1,750 revenue requests in 1996. Of that number, how many revenue
estimates were answered by JCT? How many of those answered were for new
legislative proposals versus legislation which had been previously
estimated?
Answer. Of the 1,799 requests for revenue estimates received in
calendar year 1996, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation
responded to 803.
It is extremely difficult to quantify how many of the revenue
requests answered by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation were
for new legislative proposals versus legislation that had been
previously estimated. If a bill is introduced in both the House and the
Senate during a session, it is not uncommon for the Members sponsoring
the legislation in the House and the Senate to request revenue
estimates. However, the staff of the Joint Committee estimates that a
relatively low percentage of revenue estimate requests fall into this
category. In addition, if a request is similar or identical to a
proposal that the Joint Committee staff has previously estimated, there
is still a substantial amount of work entailed in responding to the
request. The Joint Committee staff is always reviewing and updating its
estimating methodology to account for (1) updated economic assumptions
provided by the Congressional Budget Office, (2) improvements in
computer modeling, (3) new information that may have become available,
(4) new information provided by potentially affected taxpayers, and (5)
changes in proposed effective dates and forecasted enactment dates.
Thus, the fact that a revenue request has been previously estimated by
the Joint Committee staff does not necessarily reduce the time required
to respond to the current request.
Question. How many requests have you received to date? What is the
estimate for fiscal year 1997?
Answer. As of June 1, 1997, the staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation has received over 1,000 requests for revenue estimates for
calendar year 1997. [Note that all of the Joint Committee statistics
are kept on essentially a calendar year system, which reflects the
timing of legislative sessions.] It is projected that the staff will
receive well over 2,000 requests for revenue estimates for all of
calendar year 1997.
The number of revenue requests received in any calendar year
generally is determined by the amount of revenue legislation considered
by the Congress during the year. However, there has been a fairly clear
trend since the mid-1980's of increased numbers of requests for revenue
estimates as the focus upon the budget impact of proposed legislation
has continued to increase.
In addition, if the Supreme Court overturns the decision of Judge
Jackson with respect to the Line Item Veto Act (the ``Act''), the Joint
Committee on Taxation staff anticipates that Members will routinely
request information as to the status of proposed legislation under the
Act. Thus, it is anticipated that the workload of both the economists
and the attorneys on the Joint Committee staff will increase even more
and it will be necessary to begin compiling statistics relating to the
number of requests made for determinations under the Act.
Question. At the House hearing, the Chief of Staff Kies said that
JCT was about to complete a year-long study of the Committee's computer
needs. Has this report been completed? If so, please summarize its
findings and provide this subcommittee with a copy of the report.
Answer. The year-long study referred to by Mr. Kies during the
House hearing is a study of the feasibility of taking into account
macroeconomic effects of proposed legislation. This study culminated in
a symposium on January 17, 1997, of noted macroeconomists. In general,
these macroeconomists concluded that there is not a sufficient
consensus among the economics profession to take account of
macroeconomic effects currently, but that if the state of the art can
be improved, such effects should be taken into account in preparing
revenue estimates. These economists also recommended that the Congress
continue to work to improve the ability for such macroeconomic effects
to be considered. The results of the year-long study and the symposium
will be published by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation in
the near future.
As part of this study, the Joint Committee staff has also
considered the costs (in terms of additional staff time and computer
needs) of continuing to expand the macroeconomic estimating capability
of the Joint Committee staff. Because this is a long-term project that
cannot be completed in a single fiscal year, it is difficult to
quantify the total projected costs. However, in testimony before the
House Subcommittee on Legislative, Mr. Kies estimated that
approximately $200,000 of the Joint Committee staff's requested
increase for fiscal year 1998 would be devoted to the work relating to
macroeconomic estimating.
Question. At the House hearing in response to Congressman
Thornton's question that ``you give serious consideration to whether
some reduction from the requested amount for the Joint Committee could
be made possible by developing a joint use of some of the resources of
CBO,'' Mr. Archer stated that he would be glad to work with John
Kasich. Has any progress been made in this area?
Answer. This question refers to the House Subcommittee on
Legislative hearing with respect to the Joint Committee on Taxation's
appropriation request for fiscal year 1997. It is the opinion of the
Joint Committee on Taxation that there is virtually no overlap in
responsibilities between the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint
Committee on Taxation and that no savings could be attained by
developing a joint use of resources with the CBO. Although the Joint
Committee staff works closely with the CBO, the two staffs have worked
over the years to define clearly the areas of jurisdiction and,
therefore, there are currently no areas in which the Joint Committee
staff and the CBO staff are performing the same work. Thus, there is no
economies to be attained by a joint use of resources because there is
no overlap in work.
Questions. Last Congress JCT assumed additional responsibilities
regarding the line-item veto and the determination whether a provision
affects 100 entities or not. Although the fate of the line-item veto is
in the courts hands, has JCT expended any fiscal year 1997 funds in
preparation for its new responsibilities? Are any funds in the fiscal
year 1998 budget request earmarked for this purposes?
Answer. Early in fiscal year 1997, the Joint Committee staff spent
extensive staff time analyzing the provisions of the Line Item Veto Act
as it relates to revenue legislation. A draft analysis was published in
November of 1996, with public comment requested by December 16, 1996.
The final analysis was published by the Joint Committee staff in late
December.
Because of the uncertainty over whether the provisions of the Line
Item Veto Act will be upheld, the Joint Committee staff has earmarked
no specific funds for fiscal year 1998 to satisfying the staff's
responsibilities under the Act. If the Act is upheld, it is anticipated
that the Joint Committee staff will have significant additional
responsibilities under the Act and responding to Members during the
consideration of legislation as to whether certain provisions may be
limited tax benefits subject to the Act.
Question. At the beginning of the 105th Congress, the House adopted
a new rule which impacts the scope of work of the JCT regarding
economic analysis. Has the Majority Leader designated any legislation
as ``major tax legislation'' yet this year? How many tax bills of this
designation do you anticipate this years? Next year?
Answer. The Majority Leader has not yet designated any legislation
during 1997 as ``major tax legislation.'' Because this is a new House
rule for which there is no experience, it is impossible to estimate
with any certainty the number of bills that may be designated as major
tax legislation. It is likely that any bill that restructures the
Federal income tax system would be so designated, but it is difficult
to predict what other legislation might fall into this category.
Question. Mr. Kies, you were the topic of a front page article in
The Wall Street Journal on April 17, 1997. The article was critical of
the amount of travel you did last year at the expense of outside groups
with interests in tax policy. I understand that you took a dramatic cut
in salary to take the position of Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee
on Taxation and I commend you for your public service. However, last
year was a very busy year. Could you explain how you were able to find
so much free time to travel? How do you respond to critics who say that
there is an appearance problem with the amount of travel you accepted
from outside groups?
Answer. Concerning this inquiry, several points are relevant.
First, at no time during calendar year 1996 did my travel interfere
with my other work as Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation. Much of my travel was done during Congressional recesses, on
weekends when the Congress was not in session, or when the Congress was
not actively considering revenue legislation. In fact, of the 34 out-
of-town trips that I took during 1996, 29 of them were associated with
travel which involved either no overnight stay or only a single night
outside of town.
Second, the groups that I spoke to included various tax
professionals groups like the American Bar Association Tax Section,
various chapters of the Tax Executives Institute, other tax
professional gatherings and various affected taxpayer groups. Five
speeches involved lectures at colleges or law schools concerning the
federal tax and budget legislative process. The expenses were generally
paid by section 501(c)(3) tax exempt educational organizations. This
raises a fundamental issue. Each year the Federal Government expects
taxpayers to voluntarily remit over $1.5 trillion to the Internal
Revenue Service through a series of complex tax laws which are used to
finance the varied activities of our Federal Government. Almost all of
my travel involved speeches to groups to familiarize them with pending
or recently enacted tax legislation modifying this complex set of
rules. In 1996, the Congress passed tax legislation which contained
many complicated provisions increasing revenues over the next 10 years
by billions, while at the same time including billions of revenue
losing provisions. Your inquiry raises an important question: ``Should
Congressional staffers continue to be willing to travel outside of
Washington to speak to groups impacted by the federal tax system and
Congressional legislative action in that regard?'' One alternative
would be to discontinue any such activities. The result would be that
Congressional staff would be available only to those taxpayers with the
time and economic resources either to travel to Washington to meet with
us or those that have Washington offices or representatives. This is
clearly not a desirable result. On the other hand, if we are to
continue this type of public service to taxpayers who may not have
access to Washington counsel, should the Federal Government (i.e.,
taxpayers) pay for it or should the current practice be continued of
permitting those groups to whom we give speeches to reimburse the cost
of such travel accompanied by the full disclosure required under the
ethics rules? I believe it is essential that we continue to be willing
to speak to groups like the ABA Tax Section and other taxpayer groups
affected by Congressional action, but that this is not an expense that
should be paid by taxpayers. I also do not view this activity as
something that should be viewed as ``free time'' but rather an
important responsibility that is inherently related to the work of the
Congress.
I am attaching for the record copies of materials that I prepared
in response to The Wall Street Journal article. These materials have
previously been shared with all Members of the Joint Committee on
Taxation, the Senate Finance Committee and the Committee on Ways and
Means. Moreover, my response to The Wall Street Journal was published
on April 23, 1997 (copy also attached).
Question. The JCT budget requests an increase of $5,000 for travel.
How much money did the JCT spend on travel last year?
Answer. During fiscal year 1996, the Joint Committee on Taxation
expended approximately $8,200 for travel expenses. Approximately $1,000
was expended to send Joint Committee staff members to educational tax
conferences addressing issues under consideration by the Congress. The
remainder of the funds were expended for travel to Washington by
economists on the Joint Committee on Taxation Advisory Board or in
connection with the macroeconomic symposium.
The Joint Committee's request for fiscal year 1998 for travel funds
will assure that the travel budget more closely reflects actual
expenditures.
______
Attachments
Congress of the United States,
Joint Committee on Taxation,
Washington, DC, April 24, 1997.
The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
The Honorable Bill Archer,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Roth and Mr. Archer: I am writing to you concerning an
article which appeared in The Wall Street Journal on April 17, 1997,
concerning my role as Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation. This article is replete with inaccurate, biased and
misleading reporting.
I am enclosing for your information a letter which I sent to the
Editor of The Wall Street Journal concerning the article and a separate
letter which I have sent to Alan Murray, the Washington Bureau Chief
for The Wall Street Journal, detailing the glaring defects in the
article.
If you have any questions concerning the issues raised in this
article, I would be happy to address them. Please do not hesitate to
call me if you wish to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Kenneth J. Kies.
______
Congress of the United States,
Joint Committee on Taxation,
Washington, DC, April 23, 1997.
Mr. Ned Crabb,
Editor, Letters to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal,
New York, New York.
Dear Mr. Crabb: Enclosed is a letter to you regarding the article
which appeared on April 17, 1997, in The Wall Street Journal concerning
my role as Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee. I would appreciate it
if you would consider it for publication in the ``Letters to the
Editor'' section of your paper. I have also enclosed a copy of a letter
which I have sent to Alan Murray, the Washington Bureau Chief of The
Wall Street Journal, providing additional detail supporting the
concerns which I have raised with respect to the April 17, 1997,
article. I believe that the more detailed information contained in my
letter to Mr. Murray clearly supports my request that you publish my
letter to you concerning this article.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Kenneth J. Kies.
______
Congress of the United States,
Joint Committee on Taxation,
Washington, DC, April 23, 1997.
Mr. Ned Crabb,
Editor, Letters to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal,
New York, New York.
Dear Mr. Crabb: I am writing regarding your article of April 17,
1997, concerning my role as Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation. This article is replete with inaccurate, biased and
misleading reporting. Let me address some of the article's most glaring
problems.
First, the article implies that I assisted Mr. Vander Jagt in an
effort to obtain business from Steve Wynn. Since assuming my role as
Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, I have never engaged
in any such discussion on behalf of anyone connected with Baker &
Hostetler or any other firm.
Second, the article suggests that I provide special treatment to my
prior law firm, Baker & Hostetler. This assertion is false. Moreover,
the article fails to note, as your reporter was advised, that since
assuming the position of Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee, I have
had a consistent policy of refusing to even meet with any member of the
firm on any matter pending before the Joint Committee or to discuss
such matters with them.
Third, the discussion in your article of the so-called football
coaches provision fails to portray accurately the history of this
provision. The article stated that the legislation sought to insert
special legislation to allow college coaches to set up a tax exempt
pension plan. However, the legislation involved was a technical
correction to legislation the Congress passed in 1987 to permit coaches
to set up such a pension plan. Operating under this prior legislation,
the college coaches, with the express approval of the I.R.S., had set
up and were operating such a plan until a technical defect was
identified with the original legislation. In 1993, Hank Gutman, then
Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee, ruled that the legislation to
correct the defect qualified as a technical correction because it would
accomplish the original intent of the 1987 legislation.
Fourth, the reference in the article to the legislation affecting
Fort Howard and Morgan Stanley failed to note that I was by no means
the only one to have concluded that the legislation was an appropriate
technical correction or clarification of legislation previously enacted
by the Congress. The Ways and Means Majority staff, the Senate Finance
Committee Majority staff and the Treasury Department, among others, all
supported this conclusion. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
in the case of U.S. v. Croy (Europe)Ltd., 27 F. 3d. 367 (9th Cir.,
1994) had previously concluded in 1994 that the state of the law was
already consistent with the 1996 clarification even prior to its
approval by the Congress.
Fifth, the article suggests some undefined cause and effect
relationship between my one-time speech to the 1996 meeting of the
commercial gambling industry's Tax Executives Committee and a
legislative proposal to subject Indian gambling to taxation. There are
two significant defects with this oblique suggestion: first, the
legislation to impose taxation on Indian gambling passed the House of
Representatives in the Fall of 1995 while my speech occurred in April
of 1996; second, to date the commercial gambling industry has been
unwilling to support such legislation, at least in part as a result of
the fact that the commercial gambling industry provides substantial
management and support services to the Indian-owned casinos.
Finally, your article suggests that my role as Chief of Staff of
the Joint Committee is different from the role performed by prior
chiefs of staff. This too is inaccurate. Every chief of staff of the
Joint Committee prior to me has engaged actively in speaking to
taxpayer groups both inside and outside of Washington. They, like I,
have complied with all applicable ethics rules of the Congress in these
activities, which rules are today more restrictive than ever. This is a
role that we should continue to fulfill given the significant impact
which tax legislation has on the public generally and taxpayer groups
in particular. To do otherwise would be a disservice to the tax system
and the tax legislative process.
Sincerely,
Kenneth J. Kies.
______
Congress of the United States,
Joint Committee on Taxation,
Washington, DC, April 23, 1997.
Mr. Alan Murray,
Washington Bureau Chief, The Wall Street Journal,
Washington, DC.
Dear Alan: I am writing concerning the recent article which The
Wall Street Journal published by Greg Hitt regarding my role as Chief
of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. As I suggested to you in
my letter of April 10, 1997, I believed that Mr. Hitt was in the
process of writing a single-mindedly negative article concerning me.
The content of the story which appeared on April 17, 1997, conclusively
demonstrated that my suspicions were correct. The article contains
numerous distortions and inaccuracies and fails to include a balanced
view on almost any of the issues which Mr. Hitt raised. I have enclosed
with this letter a point by point response to the various issues which
Mr. Hitt raised in his article. The responses which I have received
from many who have read this article have been consistent and are
similar to my own assessment. First, they fail to see what was
newsworthy in the article. Second, they believe the article is one-
sided and inaccurate. Third, they believe that the article falls
dramatically below the standards for responsible journalism
characteristic of The Wall Street Journal.
By this letter I am specifically requesting a letter of apology
from The Wall Street Journal for the printing of this article. I would
welcome the opportunity to discuss with you, in as much detail as you
desire, the specific concerns I have raised in my point by point
analysis of the article.
Sincerely,
Kenneth J. Kies.
______
Point by Point Analysis of Distortions and Inaccuracies in The Wall
Street Journal Article of April 17, 1997, Entitled ``In the Public
Eye--Tax-Panel Staff Chief Keeps a High Profile; Special Interests
Help''
wall street journal article contains serious distortions and
inaccuracies
Text of WSJ Article
1. When Washington lobbyist Guy Vander Jagt went to Las Vegas to
court gambling tycoon Steve Wynn last April, he showed up with a
friend: Kenneth Kies, chief of staff of the congressional Joint
Committee on Taxation.
Mr. Wynn and his fellow gambling executives were worried that
Congress would impose new taxes on their industry's earnings. And Mr.
Vander Jagt, a former member of Congress, was seeking to boost his
lobbying business.
As for Mr. Kies, Mr. Vander Jagt says: ``I thought it would look
good if I had the chief of staff, and I did.'' The three men had lunch
on the patio of Mr. Wynn's mansion, overlooking the 18th hole of his
private golf course. Then Messrs. Kies and Vander Jagt played a round
of golf.
Mr. Vander Jagt didn't get the account. But Mr. Kies's presence at
the outing highlights the unusual license he takes with his job as
Congress's top tax staffer. The Joint Committee was set up 71 years ago
to provide technical tax assistance to congressional tax writers, and
its hear traditionally has avoided the limelight.
Response
1. The first four paragraphs of the article concern my meeting with
Mr. Wynn which was also attended by Mr. Vander Jagt. The thrust of this
section of the article suggest that I was attempting to assist Mr.
Vander Jagt in obtaining business from Mr. Wynn. This is categorically
untrue. Moreover, this section of the article is distorting and
misleading for a number of reasons. First, at no time during my visit
to Las Vegas or at any other time since becoming Chief of Staff of the
Joint Committee on Taxation, have I in any way discussed or assisted or
encouraged anyone to hire Mr. Vander Jagt or Baker & Hostetler in
connection with representation of the gambling industry, or any other
industry. Second, I was in Las Vegas to give a speech to the 1996
meeting of Hotel & Gambling Industry Tax Executives Committee as a
result of an invitation which I received from Lee Johnson with Burson-
Marsteller, a public relations firm with offices in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Burson-Marsteller has no relationship or connection whatsoever to
Mr. Vander Jagt or Baker & Hostetler. Third, my entire discussion with
Mr. Wynn focused on issues wholly unrelated to who represents him or
the gambling industry. Among the issues we discussed were the prospects
for federal tax restructuring and other issues of that nature. Finally,
Mr. Vander Jagt advises me that he has no recollection of the quote
attributed to him.
Text of WSJ Article
2. Then there is his relationship with Mr. Vander Jagt and the
Cleveland law firm of Baker & Hostetler. Mr. Kies earned $500,000 a
year as a lobbyist for the firm before leaving two years ago to take
the congressional tax job. He handed many of his accounts to Mr. Vander
Jagt, a longtime friend whom he helped land a job at the firm in 1993.
Response
2. Prior to taking the position as Chief of Staff of the Joint
Committee on Taxation, I did not earn ``$500,000 a year as a lobbyist
for [Baker & Hostetler].'' Rather, I earned this compensation as the
Firm-wide Chair of Baker & Hostetler's Tax and Personal Planning Group.
This group consists of over 50 lawyers located in the law firm's six
offices. The Tax and Personal Planning Group consists of one of the
four major practice areas of the law firm. In my capacity as Chair of
the Firm-wide Tax and Personal Planning Group I coordinated all tax
work for the law firm, participated in the setting of compensation for
all associates and non-equity partners. My own tax practice included
tax litigation, other tax controversy work, tax planning and tax
legislative work. To state that I earned $500,000 a year as a lobbyist
misrepresents of my role at Baker & Hostetler. A copy of my resume,
which was provided to Greg Hitt, and my discussions with him made that
point abundantly clear.
Text of WSJ Article
3. In addition to accompanying Mr. Vander Jagt to see Mr. Wynn, Mr.
Kies last year took trips at Baker & Hostetler's expense to Orlando,
Fla., Houston, Cleveland, and Columbus, Ohio, where he spoke to the
firm's clients and prospective clients. ``It helps the firm enormously
because Washington works on appearances,'' Mr. Vander Jagt explains.
Mr. Kies ``is enormously important in the formulation of tax law.
People think, `Well, Baker & Hostetler ought to have a direct pipeline
into Ken.' ''
``Having Ken over there, it's a nice thing,'' adds William
Schweitzer, managing partner of Baker & Hostetler's Washington office.
But he says the firm's dealings with Mr. Kies aren't any different than
they would be with someone else serving as staff director of the Joint
Committee on Taxation. On the issue of recruiting business, Mr.
Schweitzer says: ``probably, it gives you a bit of an advantage'' to
have Mr. Kies positioned on Capitol Hill, but direct connections are
difficult to make. (Baker & Hostetler also does legal work for Dow
Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal.)
Response
3. This excerpt of the article implies that I have given special
treatment to Baker & Hostetler. It totally distorts the actual
relationship I have had with Baker & Hostetler since taking the
position as Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee. In particular, it
fails to note that since assuming the position of Chief of Staff of the
Joint Committee, I have had a consistent policy of refusing to even
meet with either partners or associates of the firm on any matter
pending before the Joint Committee on Taxation or to discuss such
matters with them. I adopted this practice after consulting with prior
Chiefs of Staff of the Joint Committee concerning the way in which they
handled their own prior relationships with law firms with which they
had previously been associated prior to taking the position of Chief of
Staff of the Joint Committee. Failure to include this information
coupled with the text presented clearly and intentionally conveys an
unjustly unfavorable impression of me. As you can see from the enclosed
memo to Greg Hitt dated March 14, 1997, this point was clearly
communicated to him.
Text of WSJ Article
4. Because of his clout, the Washington tax-writing community is
reluctant to criticize Mr. Kies openly. But because his behavior is so
unusual, given his staff position, many are uneasy.
``I'm a little surprised he's quite as visible as he is,'' says
John ``Buck'' Capoton, former assistant secretary of the Treasury for
tax policy in the Reagan administration ``It's a little dangerous to
get out in front of the members. It's supposed to be their show, not
his.''
Response
4. The article in this excerpt makes the unsubstantiated assertion
that ``many are uneasy'' with my behavior as Chief of Staff of the
Joint Committee. Notwithstanding this, the only ``on the record''
comment included is one from Buck Chapoton. He has advised me since
this article appeared that the quote used from his interview with Greg
Hitt completely distorts the lengthy interview which he provided to
Greg concerning his view of my tenure as Chief of Staff of the Joint
Committee.
Text of WSJ Article
5. The revolving door for government officials is a commonplace in
Washington. But while executive-branch employees face some strict
restrictions on their lobbying activities after office, members of
Congress and their staffers face few such limits.
Response
5. The statement that Members of Congress and their staffers face
few limits on activities that they can conduct after leaving
government, as contrasted with Executive Branch employees, is flatly
wrong. Prior to the Clinton Administration, the Executive Branch and
the Legislative Branch essentially operated under exactly the same
restrictions--a one-year moratorium on their ability to have contact
with their prior agency or employer. While it is true that the Clinton
Administration has lengthened that to five years under some
circumstances, the nature of the limitation is essentially the same.
Thus, Members of Congress may not lobby their colleagues for one year
after leaving office. Likewise, staffs of committees are precluded from
lobbying staff members of the committee on which they worked or Members
of such committees for one year after they leave office.
Text of WSJ Article
6. But even in the freewheeling world of congressional staffers,
Mr. Kies's and Mr. Vander Jagt's moves through that revolving door seem
surprisingly fast.
As a Baker & Hostetler lobbyist, Mr. Kies unsuccessfully pushed the
case of the American Football Coaches Association, which was seeking
special tax legislation that would allow college coaches to set up a
tax-exempt pension plan. When he took his job in Congress, Mr. Kies
passed the coaches account on to Mr. Vander Jagt. The provision
subsequently was included in one version of the GOP's balanced-budget
bill, which later died. Then it became part of a small-business tax
bill that was signed into law.
Mr. Kies denies having anything to do with the measure's success.
But Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, made a point of
publicly highlighting Mr. Kies's ties to the coaches in a meeting of
the Senate Finance Committee. ``He made some snide comment,'' Mr. Kies
says. ``I remember much more vividly his 65 questions on coal-miner
retirees.''
Response
6. The discussion in the article of the so-called football coaches
provision fails to portray accurately the history of this provision.
The article stated that the legislation sought to insert special
legislation to allow college coaches to set up a tax exempt pension
plan. However, the legislation involved was a technical correction to
legislation the Congress passed in 1987 to permit coaches to set up
such a pension plan. Operating under this prior legislation, the
coaches, with the express approval of the I.R.S., had set up and were
operating such a plan until a technical defect was identified with the
original legislation. In 1993, Hank Gutman, then Chief of Staff of the
Joint Committee, ruled that the legislation to correct the defect
qualified as a technical correction because it would accomplish the
original intent of the 1987 legislation. While the article discusses
the exchange which Senator Rockefeller and I had during a markup of the
Senate Finance Committee, it failed to include the fact that I
specifically indicated during that exchange that I was recused from any
discussion of the matter and that I had consistently during my tenure
recused myself from discussions about this provision. Finally the
article failed to note that the Football Coaches Association provision
was included in a bill reported by the House Ways and Means Committee
in 1993, more than a year prior to my becoming Chief of Staff of the
Joint Committee.
Text of WSJ Article
7. Another case that raised eyebrows involved Mr. Vander Jagt's
efforts to protect a wealthy client from legislation that would tighten
tax rules on American who renounce their U.S. citizenship in order to
escape taxes. Mr. Vander Jagt was retained to represent Joseph
Bogdanovich, and H.J. Heinz Co. executive who had moved to Britain and
renounced his citizenship.
Drafting Error
The effective date of the bill was Feb. 6, 1995. But in a closed-
door meeting of the House Ways and Means Committee, GOP lawmakers
approved a statement that would have allowed the effective date to slip
by a month, exempting Mr. Vander Jagt's client. Democrats were invited
to the hastily convened meeting, but many showed up late and the change
went unnoticed. When Democrats discovered it hours later, they
protested loudly, and GOP members reversed course. Mr. Kies calls is a
simple drafting error. But as the top staffer in the room, it was his
job to advise members on the implications of the change. Democrats
remain skeptical about the episode.
``We've never gotten a satisfactory explanation of how that
happened.'' says California Democrat Robert Matsui, a senior member of
the committee. Messrs. Kies and Vander Jagt say they never spoke about
the issue.
Response
7. Concerning this section of the article, at least two points are
relevant. First, to suggest that I should have been aware of the
implications of what was a completely innocuous statement concerning
the expatriation issue as relates to Mr. Bogdanovich when I was wholly
unaware of the factual circumstances concerning his situation is
obviously an absurd statement. Second, contrary to the suggestion in
the article, I was not the only top staffer ``in the room,'' when this
statement was hastily drafted. In the room at the same time were top
staffers from the majority and minority side of the Ways and Means
Committee, both of whom were apparently familiar with the factual
situation involving Mr. Bogdanovich. I in no way mean to suggest that
they were attempting to assist Mr. Bogdanovich or Mr. Vander Jagt
because I firmly believe that the statement was in no way binding
regarding future action which the Ways and Means Committee or the
Senate Finance Committee would take on this matter, but was only
intended to constitute a place holder for future consideration of the
issue of expatriation.
Text of WSJ Article
8. And by just tweaking the language of legislation, Mr. Kies has
shown he can wield substantial influence on issues important to special
interests.
Last year, for instance, he helped clear the way for a little-
noticed provision that gave millions of dollars in tax benefits to Fort
Howard Corp. and Morgan Stanley Group Inc., which owns a major stake in
the Wisconsin paper company. A Democratic-appointed predecessor, Harry
Gutman, refused to touch the matter, saying it wasn't strictly a
technical issue and therefore should be left to members of Congress to
decide. ``I wouldn't do it,'' Mr. Gutman says. Mr. Kies says he got
involved because he saw the situation differently.
Response
8. The reference to the legislation affecting Fort Howard and
Morgan Stanley failed to note that I was by no means the only one to
have concluded that the legislation was an appropriate technical
correction or clarification of legislation previously enacted by the
Congress. The Ways and Means Majority staff, the Senate Finance
Committee Majority staff and the Treasury Department, among others, all
supported this conclusion. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
in the case of U.S. v. Kroy (Europe) Ltd., 27 F. 3d. 367 (9th Cir.,
1994) had previously concluded in 1994 that the state of the law was
already consistent with the 1996 clarification even prior to its
approval by the Congress in 1996.
Text of WSJ Article
9. As for his far-flung public speeches, Mr. Kies argues that
speaking to taxpayers--even if it means traveling extensively--is part
of his job. Last year, his itinerary included visits to academic
institutions and nonprofit organizations, as well as trips underwritten
by Baker & Hostetler and by grocery, real-estate, gambling and energy
concerns. In all, Mr. Kies took 42 trips paid for by outside groups,
costing nearly $60,000.
Response
9. The article suggest that my role as Chief of Staff of the Joint
Committee is different from the role performed by prior chiefs of
staff. This too is inaccurate. Every chief of staff of the Joint
Committee prior to me has engaged actively in speaking to taxpayer
groups both inside and outside of Washington. They, like I, have
complied with all applicable ethics rules of the Congress in these
activities, which rules are today more restrictive than ever. This is a
role that we should continue to fulfill given the significant impact
which tax legislation has on the public generally and taxpayer groups
in particular. To do otherwise would be a disservice to the tax system
and the tax legislative process.
Text of WSJ Article
10. It was on one such speaking trip last April that Mr. Kies and
Mr. Vander Jagt visited Mr. Wynn, chairman of Mirage Resorts Inc. Mr.
Kies was in Las Vegas to speak to a group of hotel and gambling
executives. His $1,900 in travel and lodging expenses were paid by the
hotel and gambling interests, according to Rick Darnold, a Boyd Gaming
Corp. vice president who organized the event.
Mr. Kies says that after his separate meeting with Mr. Wynn, he
sent the Mirage chairman a $100 check to avoid the appearance that he
might be accepting a special gift by playing on his private golf
course. ``I'm the only person who probably ever paid to play there,''
he says.
He says his views aren't influenced by the money spent on him. But
the gambling executives have reason to feel their money was well spent.
``If people have a good understanding of your industry, then they're
better regulators,'' Mr. Darnold says.
On the issue of gambling, Mr. Kies talks down a proposal to impose
tax-withholding requirements on keno and bingo winnings. The gambling
industry fears that the idea--bandied about in the last Congress and
endorsed by the Clinton administration--would eventually be broadened
to include slot machines. And he has strongly endorsed taxing the
proceeds earned at Indian casinos, which provide untaxed competition
with the commercial-gambling industry.
``I question whether he's got his own agenda,'' says Democratic
Rep. Gerald Kleczka of Wisconsin, who worries about the impact such a
tax would have on the 17 Indian-run casinos in his state. ``If you want
the job of a member of Congress, run for it.''
Response
10. The article suggests some undefined cause and effect
relationship between my one-time speech to the 1996 meeting of the
commercial gambling industry's Tax Executives Committee and a
legislative proposal to subject Indian gambling, which currently enjoys
tax free treatment, to the income taxation regime imposed on other
business activities (including commercial gambling.) There are two
significant defects with this oblique suggestion; first, the
legislation to impose taxation on Indian gambling passed the House of
Representatives in the Fall of 1995 while my speech occurred in April
of 1996, second, to date the commercial gambling industry has been
unwilling to support such legislation, at least in part as a result of
the fact that the commercial gambling industry provides substantial
management and support services to the Indian-owned casinos.
subcommittee recess
Senator Bennett. I have nothing further. Do you have
anything to add?
Mr. Archer. I would only add one other thing. We rotate
chairmanships of this committee every year, and one year it is
the House Ways and Means chairman, the next year it is the
Senate Finance Committee chairman, and next year Senator Roth
is the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Next year
he will be the chairman, at the time when these appropriations
will be going into effect.
Senator Bennett. All right. Thank you very much. We
appreciate your coming over.
Mr. Archer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Tuesday, May 6, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room S-128, the
Capitol, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Bennett, Stevens, Craig, and Dorgan.
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
STATEMENTS OF:
HON. GREGORY S. CASEY, CHAIRMAN, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
HON. WILSON LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, MEMBER, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
CHIEF GARY L. ABRECHT, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
ACCOMPANIED BY HON. ALAN M. HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, MEMBER,
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
OPENING STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today we're holding a hearing on the budget for the U.S.
Capitol Police Board and the Congressional Budget Office budget
request. We appreciate you being here and look forward to your
testimony.
The first panel will be the Capitol Police Board, including
the Honorable Greg Casey, who is the Senate Sergeant at Arms
and chairman, the Honorable Wilson Livingood, the House
Sergeant at Arms, and Mr. Gary Abrecht, Chief of the Capitol
Police. I assume you are honorable as well, sir.
Mr. Abrecht. I do not know, sir. [Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. And we have accompanying them the
Honorable Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, who serves as
a member of the Police Board. We will start with this first
panel and go on to the second one after you have concluded.
I want to commend the board, particularly you, Mr. Casey,
for the effort being made to review the financial management
and human resource practices of the police. My memory goes all
the way back to the time when the Capitol Police were referred
to affectionately as the campus cops.
Every Senator had patronage, and the Capitol was filled
with students at George Washington University who were getting
their law degrees at night while sitting behind desks around
the Capitol wearing uniforms during the daytime. One of them,
who is now one of the more prominent attorneys in Salt Lake
City, said if anything had ever happened that would have
required him to draw his gun he would have been more panicked
than the individual against whom he was drawing it, because he
had not the slightest idea how to use it, or even what certain
buttons on it were for.
The Capitol Police unfortunately have had to acquire a
professionalism far beyond that level, and we are sorry in a
sense that is the case, but we recognize the professionalism of
the police and commend you for that.
So we have been joined by Senator Craig. Do you have an
opening statement?
Senator Craig. No, Mr. Chairman. Go right ahead. I will
have some questions.
Senator Bennett. Well, we shall hear from you, then, Mr.
Casey.
summary statement
Mr. Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to also
thank Wilson Livingood and Chief Abrecht and Mr. Hantman for
being here today. These two fine gentlemen plus the police
chief make up the team that makes up the Police Board. It's a
great team to work with.
I am honored to be chairman of the Capitol Police Board. I
am honored to be able to represent the 1,250 members of the
Capitol Police in making this request for our 1998
appropriations. Thank you also for your kind remarks.
I am reminded of the fact that one of my mentors in Idaho
politics was a former Governor of Idaho who himself served,
while he was attending George Washington University, as a
Capitol Hill policeman. The stories you just told, I have heard
before from Governor Smiley when he served on the Capitol
Police many years ago.
You are also correct in recognizing that this is a
department that is in transition, reminding you--I do not think
I need to, but this is the agency with the sole statutory
responsibility for providing law enforcement and protective
services for the entire branch of Government, legislative
branch of Government.
Because of that, we have the responsibility to try to
increase our capabilities in what has become a varied and ever-
present security threat situation.
Thanks to the support of this committee, the Capitol Police
has become a top-flight law enforcement operation, with
enhanced capabilities and professional respect both within this
community and outside this community.
One example of the increased capabilities of the force is
the creation of the physical security division. This division,
which I might add was created subsequent to a Secret Service
joint operation to analyze the physical security needs of the
Capitol complex, was created in 1996. It has been charged with
the development and implementation of an integrated security
program for the entire Capitol complex.
With the approval of this committee just recently, phase 1
of this comprehensive state-of-the-art program has begun, and I
might also add that we hope to finish phase 1 of our Capitol
security program by the end of this calendar year, so the
record of being able to put together the physical security
division in 1996, develop and implement phase 1 by the end of
this calendar year I think is fairly remarkable, and speaks
highly of the effort of the Capitol Police.
We have also become a full partner in the intelligence and
national security community of the Federal Government,
something which I think will become increasingly important.
Because of these responsibilities, it falls to those of us
who constitute the board to ensure that progress continues. The
Capitol Police must remain responsive to the changing security
requirements of Congress.
In discharging this responsibility, we feel the need and
obligation to serve both the department, its men and women, and
the Congress. To the men and women of the department, the board
must ensure that pay and benefits are commensurate with the
duties we ask these personnel to perform for us on a daily
basis. We must ensure that parity is maintained with other
similar Federal law enforcement agencies in the Washington
metropolitan area, and that the police command and management
are effective and competent.
To the Congress, the board must ensure that our budget
request is reasonable, reflecting only the real needs of the
department while ensuring our appropriated funds are managed
responsibly and efficiently, something I am sure you will ask
me questions about.
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Craig, that all
of these factors were considered during the preparation of the
fiscal year 1998 U.S. Capitol Police Board's budget request.
The total request for 1998 is $79,336,000. This reflects a 9-
percent increase over last year, or a $7.1 million increase.
The increase reflects basically two areas. One is parity
initiatives for these sworn officers to include about $2
million in COLA only, and one-third of it, roughly 30 percent,
is increases in the general expenses to cover computer and
telecommunications systems which are now showing as part of the
Sergeant at Arms' budget. Basically what we are doing is moving
an expense that is for the Capitol Police, out of the Sergeant
at Arms' budget and into the police budget, where it should
have been all along. It is not new money. It has just been
shifted over.
Senator Bennett. May I interrupt you long enough to ask if
you know if the Sergeant at Arms' budget is going down
commensurately?
Mr. Casey. I cannot guarantee that at this point, Mr.
Chairman. The Sergeant at Arms' organization is in a state of
total reorganization at this point. We will probably come back
to you with a net reduction in the amount of O&M that we're
requesting for 1998 over the budget that you've already
received in the Sergeant at Arms operations. Whether that can
be directly attributable to the shift of this money, I cannot
say honestly.
Senator Bennett. Continue.
Mr. Casey. To ensure that we build on the operational
successes of the Capitol Police, the board and the department's
command staff recognize that our focus for the coming year must
be on administrative and management issues. In response, this
board passed a resolution which directs the department to
conduct an evaluation of administrative and management
functions within the Capitol Police force.
This evaluation will include analysis and assessment of
information technology, financial management, and human
resource programs. We know that certain improvements,
especially in information technology, are needed to improve and
maintain the operational successes of the force. I will just
outline in a moment what that evaluation process is going to
be.
First, we are going to conduct a thorough analysis of our
current administrative operations and practices and establish
some benchmarks. Second, we are going to define our
requirements and our priorities; and third, once our functional
requirements are defined, we will develop and implement
programs to meet those needs and apply best business practices.
This action is a proactive and responsible approach to
making certain that the police command, the Police Board, and
the respective appropriations and oversight committees have
sound information on which to base their decisions.
The mission of the U.S. Capitol Police is critical to the
safety and security of the U.S. Congress and all those who work
and visit here. We are presented with a complex and challenging
task. It is our mutual goal to ensure that the U.S. Capitol
Police continues to receive the funding it requires to
effectively perform its mission.
Just to elaborate on that statement, we are told repeatedly
that this building, if not the top, is one of the top terrorism
targets in the Nation, so we make a choice day-in and day-out
as to whether or not we will make it a fortress, like some
buildings in this town, or whether or not we will continue to
have access by the public and the many visitors who come here.
In order to do that, we have to continue to improve and
keep our Capitol Police force responsive to that environment in
which we find ourselves. That is a very difficult and demanding
task. I think our police force has risen to that. That is one
of the reasons I think when the chief talks, you will see that
some of our statistics are things to be proud of, but it is
indeed a daunting task and one we have to continue to stay on
top of.
We are convinced the administrative management aspect of
this needs to be evaluated, as well as the physical security
part of it, and we set about doing that in this calendar year.
I would like to thank this committee for the support and
guidance you have provided us, and I also want to thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for the excellent working relationship we have
had with your staff and with the Appropriations Committee. It
has indeed been a partnership with them, and we think that has
been very beneficial to both of us.
prepared statement
A detailed budget of the U.S. Capitol Police has been
submitted to the committee, and I will be happy to answer
questions either now or after the other gentlemen.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory S. Casey
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Greg Casey, I am
the 34th Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the United States Senate.
As such, I also serve this year as chairman of the Capitol Police
Board. On behalf of the 1,250 men and women of Capitol Police, I am
pleased to present the fiscal year 1998 Budget Request for the United
States Capitol Police.
Joining me today are the other two members of the Capitol Police
Board, Mr. Wilson Livingood, the House Sergeant at Arms, and Mr. Alan
Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol. I would like to thank each of
them for their commitment and effort on behalf of the Board and
Department. In particular, Mr. Livingood for his depth of experience
and guidance in law enforcement operations and Mr. Hantman, not only
for his work as a member of the Board, but also his support as
Architect in providing facilities support, including infrastructure and
capital improvements which are included in the Architects budget
request. Also with us today is Gary Abrecht, the Chief of Police. Our
appreciation to him for his leadership of the department.
Over the past few years, the U.S. Capitol Police has been a
Department in transition. As the agency with the sole statutory
responsibility for providing law enforcement and protective services
for the United States Congress, the Capitol Police must constantly
strive to meet security threats which are varied and ever present.
With the support of this committee, the U.S. Capitol Police force
has become a top flight law enforcement operation with enhanced
capabilities and professional respect both from within and outside the
force. One example of the increased capabilities of the force is the
creation of the Physical Security Division. This division is charged
with the development and implementation of an integrated security
program for the entire Capitol Complex. With the approval of this
committee, phase one of this comprehensive, state-of-the-art program
has begun. The U.S. Capitol Police has also established itself as a
partner within the intelligence and national security community of the
federal government.
It falls to the Board of the U.S. Capitol Police to ensure that
this progress continues and the Capitol Police remain responsive to the
changing security requirements of the Congress. In discharging this
responsibility, the Board assumes an obligation to both the Department
and to the Congress.
To the men and women of the Department, the Board must ensure that
pay and benefits are commensurate with the duties the personnel are
asked to perform; that parity is maintained with other similar federal
law enforcement agencies in the Washington Metropolitan area; and that
police command and management are effective and competent. To the
Congress, the Board must ensure that our budget request is reasonable,
reflecting only the real needs of the Department, while ensuring
appropriated funds are managed responsibly and efficiently.
All of these factors were considered during the preparation of the
fiscal year 1998 U.S. Capitol Police Budget Request. The total fiscal
year 1998 Budget Request for the United States Capitol Police is
$79,336,000. This reflects an increase of 9 percent over last year's
appropriation and an increase of 3 FTE's.
The increase reflects actions in basically two areas. It funds pay
parity initiatives for the sworn members of the force. It also
increases the General Expenses Budget to cover computer and
telecommunication systems expenses which were previously funded within
the budget of the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms.
To ensure that we continue to build upon the operational successes
of the U.S. Capitol Police, the Board and the Department's Command
Staff recognize that our focus for the coming year must be on
administrative and management issues.
In response, the Capitol Police Board passed a resolution which
directs the department to conduct an evaluation of the administrative
and management functions within the Capitol Police force. This
evaluation will include analysis and assessment of information
technology, financial management, and human resource programs.
We know that certain improvements, especially in the information
technology area, are needed to improve and maintain the operational
successes of the force.
If I may take a moment to outline the evaluation process:
--We will first conduct an analysis of current administrative
operations to establish benchmarks.
--We will begin to define our requirements and priorities.
--Once our functional requirements are defined, we will develop and
implement programs to meet the identified needs and apply best
business practices in each of the administrative operations.
This action is a proactive and responsible approach in making
certain that the police command, the Police Board, the respective
appropriations and oversight committees have sound business information
in order to make sound business decisions.
The mission of the U.S. Capitol Police is critical to the safety
and security of the United States Congress and all those who work and
visit within the Capitol complex. We are presented with a complex and
challenging task. It is our mutual goal to ensure that the U.S. Capitol
Police continues to receive the funding it requires to effectively
perform its mission.
I would like to thank the Committee for the support and guidance
you have provided to the Board over the last year. A detailed budget
for the U.S. Capitol Police has been submitted to the Committee. I will
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
United States Capitol Police Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request
combined budget
Fiscal year 1997 Appropriation.......................... $72,138,000
Fiscal year 1998 Appropriation Request.................. 79,336,000
Fiscal 1998 Increase.................................... 7,198,000
The budget for the United States Capitol Police is comprised of
funding for the salaries of officers, members and employees and a
general expenses account for administrative and capital asset
requirements. The total estimate for fiscal year 1998 is $79,336,000.
This is an increase of $7,198,000 over amounts appropriated in fiscal
year 1997.
Funding is requested for COLA and Comparability Pay, and three new
positions. Two of these positions are for support of internal
personnel/payroll functions which will be administered through the
National Finance Center. The other new position is requested for
support of the Office of General Counsel in meeting the requirements of
the Congressional Accountability Act.
The amount of $2,382,000 is requested to fund several pay
initiatives for sworn personnel. It has been a long-standing objective
of the Capitol Police Board and the Chief of Police to achieve parity
in terms of pay and other benefits with other similarly situated
Federal law enforcement agencies which are covered under Title 5 of the
United States Code. The amount requested would allow the Department to
administer the provisions of the Fair Labor Standard Act consistent
with other agencies that allow the inclusion of scheduled leave for
purposes of meeting pay period thresholds. Funding would also allow the
Department to pay sworn personnel differential pay rates for Sundays,
nights and holidays.
The total request for the General Expenses budget is $5,401,000.
Included in the General Expenses budget is the amount of $2,167,000 for
computer services and telecommunications systems. The budget for these
functions is included at the direction of the Senate Subcommittee on
the Legislative Branch and represents a transfer of budget authority
from the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms budget.
Funds are also requested in the amount of $100,000 to fund a cross-
servicing contract for the Accounting function related to our General
Expenses appropriation as well as to upgrade or acquire necessary
systems. Funding for the biennial promotion exam is included in the
amount of $175,000. The amount of $98,000 is requested for restoration
of the vehicle replacement budget which was reduced in fiscal year
1997.
The following is an explanation of changes contained in the
Salaries and General Expenses budget estimates.
salaries budget
Fiscal 1997............................................. $69,356,000
Fiscal 1998............................................. 73,935,000
Increase................................................ 4,579,000
Mandatory Pay and Related Changes--$4,367,000
Personnel Compensation--($261,000). A decrease is estimated due to
the timing of scheduled classes at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center.
Agency Contributions for Employee Benefits--$462,000.
Annualization of fiscal year 1997 COLA--$316,000. This amount is
included at the COLA rate of 2.3 percent for three months for the COLA
increase effective on January 1, 1997.
Projected fiscal year 1998 COLA--$1,201,000. Estimated at the rate
of 2.8 percent for nine months.
Comparability Pay--$267,000. Estimated at the rate of .7 percent
for nine months.
Pay Schedule Parity Initiatives.
Scheduled Leave Inclusion--$676,000.--Funding of this initiative
would allow the department to administer provisions of the Fair Labor
Standard Act in the same manner as other Federal law enforcement
agencies. Sworn officers would be allowed to count scheduled leave
toward meeting pay period thresholds for purposes of earning overtime.
Differential Pay Rates.--Funding for the following differential pay
rates is requested for sworn officers of the department consistent with
rates paid under Title 5 of the United States Code for other Federal
law enforcement agencies:
--Sunday Pay--$521,000. This amount would be paid to sworn officers
working Sunday at a differential rate of 25 percent.
--Night Differential--$783,000. This differential pay would be
administered at a rate of 10 percent.
--Holiday Pay--$402,000. This amount is requested to fund a holiday
pay differential of 100 percent.
Program Type Changes--Workload--$212,000
New Positions--$212,000. Amount of compensation and related
benefits to fund three new positions: Two positions are requested to
staff internal personnel/payroll functions in support of the National
Finance Center payroll operation. The other position would be assigned
to the Office of General Counsel in support of administering the
Congressional Accountability Act.
general expenses budget
Fiscal 1997............................................. $2,782,000
Fiscal 1998............................................. 5,401,000
Increase................................................ 2,619,000
The General Expenses Budget request for fiscal year 1998 is
$5,401,000. This amount includes a transfer of computer services and
telecommunications systems from the Office of the Senate Sergeant at
Arms. The estimate to fund these functions is $2,167,000. It is
expected that these funds will be used to reimburse the Office of the
Senate Sergeant at Arms for the maintenance and upgrade of current
systems.
The following is an overview of the General Expenses budget by
object class:
Transportation of Persons
Fiscal 1997............................................. $250,000
Fiscal 1998............................................. 275,000
Increase................................................ 25,000
This object class includes airfare, car rental, mileage, tolls, per
diem, and other expenses incidental to official travel by employees of
the Department. These travel expenses are related to protective
details, transporting employees to and from the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC) for recruit and other specialized training, as
well as other developmental training that is not held at FLETC or in
the DC area. It also includes costs associated with other travel
related to official business such as investigations, ceremonial
functions, competitions, etc.
Transportation of Things
Fiscal 1997............................................. $5,000
Fiscal 1998............................................. 5,000
Increase................................................................
This object class includes freight costs incurred when parts,
uniforms, or materials must be sent to another location (e.g., our
liaison office at FLETC), when equipment is shipped to a repair
facility, when items of evidence must be sent to another site for
analysis or investigation, shipment of household goods for officers
assigned to FLETC, etc. Funds contained in this object class cover any
transportation costs except regular mail services and travel and per
diem costs.
Rent, Communications, and Utilities
Fiscal 1997............................................. $137,000
Fiscal 1998............................................. 76,000
Increase................................................ (61,000)
This object class provides funds for the lease and rental of
equipment and services such as law enforcement computer files,
automated research services, and photocopying machines. It also
includes funds for U.S. Postage, and commercial long distance telephone
service. The estimated decrease reflects the recent level of costs for
these functions.
Other Services
Fiscal 1997............................................. $1,195,000
Fiscal 1998............................................. 3,666,000
Increase................................................ 2,471,000
This object class includes charges for commodities, whether
acquired by formal contract or other form of purchase, that are
ordinarily consumed or expended within one year after they are put into
use. It contains items such as weapon parts, photographic supplies, K-9
supplies, automotive maintenance supplies, electronic supplies, office
supplies, publications, uniforms and accessories, ammunition and
explosives, and other miscellaneous supplies.
This object class includes all services not specifically covered by
any other object class. It encompasses such things as repairs and
alterations to equipment, maintenance contracts, tuition and
registration fees for training programs, conferences, seminars, etc.,
uniform alterations, and professional services such as recruit
physicals, forensic services, stenographic services, veterinary care,
psychological evaluations, employee assistance program. The request
also includes continued funding for the NFC conversion of payroll which
is expected to occur for the House payroll on March 30, 1997.
The amount of $2,167,000 is requested for reimbursement to the
Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms for computer and
telecommunications services. Funding is also requested for an
initiative to have the Departmental accounting of the General Expenses
appropriation performed via cross-servicing by another agency. The
amount of $175,000 is included in this object class for the biennial
promotion exam.
Supplies and Materials
Fiscal 1997............................................. $938,000
Fiscal 1998............................................. 996,000
Increase................................................ 58,000
This object class includes charges for commodities, whether
acquired by formal contract or other form of purchase, that are
ordinarily consumed or expended within one year after they are put into
use. It contains items such as weapon parts, photographic supplies, K-9
supplies, automotive maintenance supplies, electronic supplies, office
supplies, publications, uniforms and accessories, ammunition and
explosives, and other miscellaneous supplies.
Capital Assets
Fiscal 1997............................................. $257,000
Fiscal 1998............................................. 383,000
Increase................................................ 126,000
This object class provides for the purchase of equipment that has a
normal life expectancy of a year or more after being put into use,
without material impairment of its physical condition, and has a unit
cost of at least one hundred dollars. Included in this object class are
weapons, vehicles, photographic equipment, automotive maintenance
equipment, electronic equipment, investigative equipment, etc. The
increase includes $97,000 to restore the budget for vehicle
replacements which was reduced in fiscal year 1997.
SCHEDULE 3--JOINT--BY APPROPRIATION AND OBJECT CLASS
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 actual Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Net change 1997/98
-------------------------- estimate estimate -------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breakdown by Appropriation: U.S. Capitol Police:
Salaries:
House................................... 637 $34,213 637 $33,437 637 $35,507 ........... $2,070
Senate.................................. 662 35,919 662 35,919 665 38,428 3 2,509
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. 1,299 70,132 1,299 69,356 1,302 73,935 3 4,579
Rescission (Public Law 104-208)............. ........... 3,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Salaries............................ 1,299 67,132 1,299 69,356 1,302 73,935 ........... 4,579
=======================================================================================================
General Expenses............................ ........... 2,560 ........... 2,782 ........... 5,401 ........... 2,619
=======================================================================================================
Breakdown by Object Class:
11 Personnel Compensation................... ........... 54,314 ........... 56,378 ........... 60,456 ........... 4,078
12 Personnel Benefits....................... ........... 12,818 ........... 12,978 ........... 13,479 ........... 501
21 Transportation of Persons................ ........... 250 ........... 250 ........... 275 ........... 25
22 Transportation of Things................. ........... 5 ........... 5 ........... 5 ........... ...........
23 Rent Comm., and Utilities................ ........... 137 ........... 137 ........... 76 ........... -61
25 Other Services........................... ........... 1,070 ........... 1,195 ........... 3,666 ........... 2,471
26 Supplies and Materials................... ........... 938 ........... 938 ........... 996 ........... 58
31 Capital Assets........................... ........... 160 ........... 257 ........... 383 ........... 126
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... ........... 69,692 ........... 72,138 ........... 79,336 ........... 7,198
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHEDULE B--JOINT--ANALYSIS OF CHANGE TO BUDGET BASE BY ORGANIZATION AND OBJECT CLASS
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory pay and Program Type Changes Net total changes
related costs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------- Price level Legislation Workload Equipment,
changes ---------------------------------------- alterations,
-------------------- maintenance,
Staff Amount repairs, etc. Staff Amount
Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount --------------------
Staff Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breakdown by Object Class:
11 Personnel Compensation... ........ $3,905 ........ ........ ........ ........ 3 $173 ........ ........ ........ $4,078
12 Personnel Benefits....... ........ 462 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 39 ........ ........ ........ 501
21 Transportation of Persons ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 25 ........ ........ ........ 25
22 Transportation of Things. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
23 Rent, Comm., and
Utilities.................. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ -61 ........ ........ ........ -61
25 Other Services........... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 2,371 ........ $100 ........ 2,471
26 Supplies and Materials... ........ ........ ........ $58 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 58
31 Equipment................ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 126 ........ 126
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... ........ 4,367 ........ 58 ........ ........ 3 2,547 ........ 226 ........ 7,198
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHEDULE C--JOINT--DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CHANGE BY ORGANIZATION
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Base
--------------------------------
Staff Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 1997.................... 1,299 $69,356
Budget Base, 1997...................... 1,299 69,356
--------------------------------
Adjustments to Base
(1)1998 Request
--------------------------------
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs:
Federal Employees Retirement System
(FERS), CSRS and Health Benefits.. .............. 462
Projected fiscal year 1998 COLA.... .............. 1,201
Annualization of fiscal year 1997
COLA.............................. .............. 316
1998 Comparability Pay Increase.... .............. 267
Capitol Police Board Pay
Initiative:
Scheduled Leave Toward
Threshold..................... .............. 676
Night Differential............. .............. 783
Sunday Pay..................... .............. 521
Holiday Pay.................... .............. 402
Estimated Lapse/FLETC Classes...... .............. (261)
Price Level Changes.................... .............. ...............
Program Type Changes................... .............. ...............
Legislation........................ .............. ...............
Workload: Personnel Compensation
and Benefits...................... 3 212
Equipment.......................... .............. ...............
Net Increase/Decrease Requested........ 3 4,579
--------------------------------
Total Appropriation Request, 1998 .............. 73,935
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHEDULE D--JOINT (SALARIES)--SUMMARY OF AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 1998 BUDGET
REQUEST
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Base
-------------------------------
Staff Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 1997..................... 1,299 \1\ $69,356
Budget Base, 1997....................... 1,299 \1\ 69,356
===============================
Proposed Changes for fiscal year 1998:
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs..... .............. 4,367
Price Level Changes................. .............. ..............
Program Type Changes:
Legislation..................... .............. ..............
Workload........................ 3 212
Equipment....................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Total Proposed Changes........ 3 4,579
===============================
Fiscal year 1998 Budget
Request...................... .............. 73,935
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes overtime currently estimated at $4,000,000 and employee
benefits at approximately $13,479,000.
explanation of change--fiscal year 1998 to accompany schedule d--house
adjustments to base
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs--$2,070,000
Retirement System and Health Benefits--$174,000. The increase is
requested commensurate with other increases in personnel compensation.
Projected fiscal year 1998 COLA--$576,000. The projected COLA is
2.8 percent for nine months (2.1 percent).
Annualization of the fiscal year 1997 COLA--$153,000. This amount
is estimated on the basis of 2.3 percent for three months.
Fiscal year 1997 Comparability Pay Increase--$126,000. This
increase is requested to provide USCP officers with a comparability
increase similar to that received by other Federal law enforcement
officers. The projected increase is .7 percent for nine months (.53
percent).
Estimated Employment Lapse--($103,000). This amount is estimated to
lapse due to the scheduling of FLETC classes and the vacancies that
accrue prior to the hiring of classes.
Scheduled Leave Inclusion--$325,000. This amount is requested to
allow the Department to administer the FLSA in the same manner as other
Federal law enforcement agencies by allowing scheduled leave to be
counted toward meeting pay period thresholds for purposes of overtime.
Differential Pay Rates:
--Sunday Pay--$250,000. This amount would fund a differential rate of
25 percent for officers that work on Sunday.
--Night Differential--$376,000. This amount would provide for a night
differential at rates between 7.5 and 10 percent.
--Holiday Pay--$193,000. This amount is requested to fund a holiday
pay differential of 100 percent.
SCHEDULE D--JOINT (GENERAL EXPENSES)--SUMMARY OF AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 1998
BUDGET REQUEST
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Base
-------------------------------
Staff Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 1997..................... .............. $2,782
Budget Base, 1997....................... .............. 2,782
===============================
Proposed Changes for fiscal year 1998:
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs..... .............. ..............
Price Level Changes................. .............. 58
Program Type Changes:
Legislation..................... .............. ..............
Workload........................ .............. 2,335
Equipment....................... .............. 226
-------------------------------
Total Proposed Changes........ .............. 2,619
===============================
Fiscal year 1998 Budget
Request...................... .............. 5,401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHEDULE D1--HOUSE (SALARIES)--SUMMARY OF AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 1998 BUDGET
REQUEST
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Base
-------------------------------
Staff Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 1997..................... .............. \1\ $33,437
Budget Base, 1997....................... .............. \1\ 33,437
===============================
Proposed Changes for fiscal year 1998:
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs..... .............. 2,070
Price Level Changes................. .............. ..............
Program Type Changes:
Legislation..................... .............. ..............
Workload........................ .............. ..............
Equipment....................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Total Proposed Changes........ .............. 2,070
===============================
Fiscal year 1998 Budget
Request...................... .............. 35,507
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes overtime currently estimated at $2,000,000 and employee
benefits at approximately $6,435,000.
SCHEDULE D2--SENATE (SALARIES)--SUMMARY OF AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 1998
BUDGET REQUEST
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Base
-------------------------------
Staff Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 1997..................... .............. \1\ $35,919
Budget Base, 1997....................... .............. \1\ 35,919
===============================
Proposed Changes for fiscal year 1998:
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs..... .............. 2,297
Price Level Changes................. .............. ..............
Program Type Changes:
Legislation..................... .............. ..............
Workload........................ 3 212
Equipment....................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Total Proposed Changes........ 3 2,509
===============================
Fiscal year 1998 Budget
Request...................... .............. 38,428
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes overtime currently estimated at $2,000,000 and employee
benefits at approximately $7,044,000.
JOINT PERSONNEL SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
Actual Estimate Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief.................................. 1 1 1
Assistant Chief........................ 1 1 1
Deputy Chief........................... 3 3 3
Inspector.............................. 8 8 8
Captain................................ 15 15 15
Lieutenant............................. 37 37 37
Sergeant/Special Tech.................. 148 148 148
Detective.............................. 47 47 47
Technician/K-9......................... 50 50 50
Officer................................ 783 783 783
Non-Sworn Personnel.................... 206 206 209
================================
Average salary/FTE \1\................. $40,285 $41,615 $42,863
Number of FTE's........................ 1,226 1,256 1,259
Number of FTE's authorized............. 1,299 1,299 1,302
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes overtime currently estimated at $4,000,000 and employee
benefits at approximately $13,479,000.
SCHEDULE A--HOUSE--BY APPROPRIATION AND OBJECT CLASS
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 actual Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Net change 1997/98
-------------------------- estimate estimate -------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breakdown by Appropriation: U.S. Capitol Police:
Salaries:
House................................... 637 $34,213 637 $33,437 637 $35,507 ........... $2,070
Rescission (Public Law 104-208)......... ........... 2,200 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. 637 32,013 637 33,437 637 35,507 ........... 2,070
=======================================================================================================
General Expenses............................ ........... 2,560 ........... 2,782 ........... 5,401 ........... 2,619
=======================================================================================================
Breakdown by Object Class:
11 Personnel Compensation................... ........... 25,959 ........... 27,176 ........... 29,072 ........... 1,896
12 Personnel Benefits....................... ........... 6,079 ........... 6,261 ........... 6,435 ........... 174
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... ........... 32,038 ........... 33,437 ........... 35,507 ........... 2,070
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHEDULE B--HOUSE--ANALYSIS OF CHANGE TO BUDGET BASE BY ORGANIZATION AND OBJECT CLASS
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory pay and Program Type Changes Net total changes
related costs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------- Price level Legislation Workload Equipment,
changes ---------------------------------------- alterations,
-------------------- maintenance,
Staff Amount repairs, etc. Staff Amount
Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount --------------------
Staff Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breakdown by Object Class:
11 Personnel Compensation... ........ $1,896 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ $1,896
12 Personnel Benefits....... ........ 174 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 174
21 Transportation of Persons ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ $25 ........ ........ ........ 25
22 Transportation of Things. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
23 Rent, Comm., and
Utilities.................. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ -61 ........ ........ ........ -61
25 Other Services........... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 2,371 ........ $100 ........ 2,471
26 Supplies and Materials... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 58 ........ ........ ........ 58
31 Equipment................ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 126 ........ 126
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... ........ 2,070 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 2,393 ........ 226 ........ 4,689
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHEDULE C--HOUSE--DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CHANGE BY ORGANIZATION
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Base
--------------------------------
Staff Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 1997.................... 637 $33,437
Budget Base, 1997...................... 637 33,437
--------------------------------
Adjustments to Base
(1)1998 Request
--------------------------------
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs:
Federal Employees Retirement System
(FERS), CSRS and Health Benefits.. .............. 174
Projected fiscal year 1998 COLA.... .............. 576
Annualization of fiscal year 1997
COLA.............................. .............. 153
1998 Comparability Pay Increase.... .............. 126
Capitol Police Board Pay
Initiative:
Scheduled Leave Toward
Threshold..................... .............. 325
Night Differential............. .............. 376
Sunday Pay..................... .............. 250
Holiday Pay.................... .............. 193
Estimated Lapse/FLETC Classes...... .............. (103)
Price Level Changes.................... .............. ...............
Program Type Changes:
Legislation.................... .............. ...............
Workload: Personnel
Compensation and Benefits..... .............. ...............
Equipment...................... .............. ...............
Net Increase/Decrease Requested........ .............. 2,070
--------------------------------
Total Appropriation Request, 1998 .............. 35,507
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHEDULE D1--HOUSE (SALARIES)--SUMMARY OF AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 1998 BUDGET
REQUEST
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Base
-------------------------------
Staff Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 1997..................... .............. \1\ $33,437
Budget Base, 1997....................... .............. \1\ 33,437
===============================
Proposed Changes for fiscal year 1998:
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs..... .............. 2,070
Price Level Changes................. .............. ..............
Program Type Changes:
Legislation..................... .............. ..............
Workload........................ .............. ..............
Equipment....................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Total Proposed Changes........ .............. 2,070
-------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 Budget
Request...................... .............. 35,507
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes overtime currently estimated at $2,000,000 and employee
benefits at approximately $6,435,000.
HOUSE PERSONNEL SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
Actual Estimate Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief.................................. 1 1 1
Assistant Chief........................ ......... ......... .........
Deputy Chief........................... 2 2 2
Inspector.............................. 4 4 4
Captain................................ 8 8 8
Lieutenant............................. 20 20 20
Sergeant/Special Tech.................. 81 81 81
Detective.............................. 21 21 21
Technician/K-9......................... 23 23 23
Officer................................ 353 353 353
Non-Sworn Personnel.................... 124 124 124
================================
Average salary/FTE \1\................. $40,608 $41,948 $43,206
Number of FTE's........................ 584 600 601
Number of FTE's authorized............. 637 637 637
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes overtime currently estimated at $2,000,000 and employee
benefits at approximately $6,435,000.
SCHEDULE A--SENATE (SALARIES)--BY APPROPRIATION AND OBJECT CLASS
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 actual Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Net change 1997/98
-------------------------- estimate estimate -------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breakdown by Appropriation: U.S. Capitol Police:
Salaries:
Senate.................................. ........... $35,919 ........... $35,919 ........... $38,428 ........... $2,509
Rescission (Public Law 104-208)......... ........... 800 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. ........... 35,119 ........... 35,919 ........... 38,428 ........... 2,509
=======================================================================================================
Breakdown by Object Class:
11 Personnel Compensation................... ........... 28,355 ........... 29,202 ........... \1\ 31,384 ........... 2,182
12 Personnel Benefits....................... ........... 6,739 ........... 6,717 ........... 7,044 ........... 327
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... ........... 35,094 ........... 35,919 ........... 38,428 ........... 2,509
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Personnel Compensation in fiscal year 1998 reflects overtime estimate of $2,000,000.
SCHEDULE B--SENATE--ANALYSIS OF CHANGE TO BUDGET BASE BY ORGANIZATION AND OBJECT CLASS
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory pay and Program Type Changes Net total changes
related costs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------- Price level Legislation Workload Equipment,
changes ---------------------------------------- alterations,
-------------------- maintenance,
Staff Amount repairs, etc. Staff Amount
Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount --------------------
Staff Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breakdown by Object Class:
11 Personnel Compensation... ........ $2,009 ........ ........ ........ ........ 3 $173 ........ ........ ........ $2,182
12 Personnel Benefits....... ........ 288 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 39 ........ ........ ........ 327
21 Transportation of Persons ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
22 Transportation of Things. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
23 Rent, Comm., and
Utilities.................. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
25 Other Services........... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
26 Supplies and Materials... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
31 Equipment................ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... ........ 2,297 ........ ........ ........ ........ 3 212 ........ ........ ........ 2,509
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHEDULE C--SENATE--DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CHANGE BY ORGANIZATION
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Base
--------------------------------
Staff Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 1997.................... 662 $35,919
Budget Base, 1997...................... 662 35,919
--------------------------------
Adjustments to Base
(1)1998 Request
--------------------------------
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs:
Federal Employees Retirement System
(FERS), CSRS and Health Benefits.. .............. 288
Projected fiscal year 1998 COLA.... .............. 625
Annualization of fiscal year 1997
COLA.............................. .............. 163
1998 Comparability Pay Increase.... .............. 141
Capitol Police Board Pay
Initiative:
Scheduled Leave Toward
Threshold..................... .............. 351
Night Differential............. .............. 407
Sunday Pay..................... .............. 271
Holiday Pay.................... .............. 209
Estimated Lapse/FLETC Classes...... .............. (158)
Program Type Changes:
Legislation........................ .............. ...............
Workload: Personnel Compensation
and Benefits...................... 3 212
Equipment.......................... .............. ...............
Net Increase/Decrease Requested........ .............. 2,509
--------------------------------
Total Appropriation Request, 1998 3 38,428
------------------------------------------------------------------------
explanation of change--fiscal year 1998 to accompany schedule d--senate
adjustments to base
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs--$2,297,000
Retirement System and Health Benefits--$288,000. The increase is
requested commensurate with other increases in personnel compensation.
Projected fiscal year 1998 COLA--$625,000. The projected COLA is
2.8 percent for nine months (2.1 percent).
Annualization of the fiscal year 1997 COLA--$163,000. This amount
is estimated on the basis of 2.3 percent for three months.
Fiscal year 1997 Comparability Pay Increase--$141,000. This
increase is requested to provide USCP officers with a comparability
increase similar to that received by other Federal law enforcement
officers. The projected increase is .7 percent for nine months (.53
percent).
Estimated Employment Lapse--($158,000). This amount is estimated to
lapse due to the scheduling of FLETC classes and the vacancies that
accrue prior to the hiring of classes.
Scheduled Leave Inclusion--$351,000. This amount is requested to
allow the Department to administer the FLSA in the same manner as other
Federal law enforcement agencies by allowing scheduled leave to be
counted toward meeting pay period thresholds for purposes of overtime.
Differential Pay Rates:
--Sunday Pay--$271,000. This amount would fund a differential rate of
25 percent for officers that work on Sunday.
--Night Differential--$407,000. This amount would provide for a night
differential at rates between 7.5 and 10 percent.
--Holiday Pay--$209,000. This amount is requested to fund a holiday
pay differential of 100 percent.
Price Level Changes--$0.
Program Type Changes:
Workload--$212,000.
New Positions--$212,000. Compensation and benefits to fund three
new positions. Two positions are requested to staff internal payroll/
personnel functions in support of the National Finance Center payroll
operation. The third position is requested for assignment to the Office
of General Counsel in support of administering the Congressional
Accountability Act.
SCHEDULE D2--SENATE (SALARIES)--SUMMARY OF AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 1998
BUDGET REQUEST
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Base
-------------------------------
Staff Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 1997..................... .............. \1\ $35,919
Budget Base, 1997....................... .............. \1\ 35,919
===============================
Proposed Changes for fiscal year 1998:
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs..... .............. 2,297
Price Level Changes................. .............. ..............
Program Type Changes:
Legislation..................... .............. ..............
Workload........................ 3 212
Equipment....................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Total Proposed Changes........ 3 2,509
-------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 Budget
Request...................... .............. 38,428
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes overtime currently estimated at $2,000,000 and employee
benefits at approximately $7,044,000.
SENATE PERSONNEL SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
Actual Estimate Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief.................................. ......... ......... .........
Assistant Chief........................ 1 1 1
Deputy Chief........................... 1 1 1
Inspector.............................. 4 4 4
Captain................................ 7 7 7
Lieutenant............................. 17 17 17
Sergeant/Special Tech.................. 67 67 67
Detective.............................. 26 26 26
Technician/K-9......................... 27 27 27
Officer................................ 430 430 430
Non-Sworn Personnel.................... 82 82 85
================================
Average salary/FTE \1\................. $40,135 $40,459 $42,703
Number of FTE's........................ 642 656 659
Number of FTE's authorized............. 662 662 662
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes overtime currently estimated at $2,000,000 and employee
benefits at approximately $7,044,000.
SCHEDULE 3--HOUSE (GENERAL EXPENSES)--BY APPROPRIATION AND OBJECT CLASS
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 actual Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Net change 1997/98
-------------------------- estimate estimate -------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breakdown by Appropriation: U.S. Capitol Police:
General Expenses............................ ........... $2,560 ........... $2,782 ........... $5,401 ........... $2,619
=======================================================================================================
Breakdown by Object Class:
11 Personnel Compensation................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12 Personnel Benefits....................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
21 Transportation of Persons................ ........... 250 ........... 250 ........... 275 ........... 25
22 Transportation of Things................. ........... 5 ........... 5 ........... 5 ........... ...........
23 Rent Comm., and Utilities................ ........... 137 ........... 137 ........... 76 ........... -61
25 Other Services........................... ........... 1,070 ........... 1,195 ........... 3,666 ........... 2,471
26 Supplies and Materials................... ........... 938 ........... 938 ........... 996 ........... 58
31 Capital Assets........................... ........... 160 ........... 257 ........... 383 ........... 126
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... ........... 2,560 ........... 2,782 ........... 5,401 ........... 2,619
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHEDULE B--HOUSE (GENERAL EXPENSES)--ANALYSIS OF CHANGE TO BUDGET BASE BY ORGANIZATION AND OBJECT CLASS
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory pay and Program Type Changes Net total changes
related costs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------- Price level Legislation Workload Equipment,
changes ---------------------------------------- alterations,
-------------------- maintenance,
Staff Amount repairs, etc. Staff Amount
Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount --------------------
Staff Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breakdown by Object Class:
11 Personnel Compensation... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
12 Personnel Benefits....... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
21 Transportation of Persons ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ $25 ........ ........ ........ $25
22 Transportation of Things. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
23 Rent, Comm., and
Utilities.................. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ -61 ........ ........ ........ -61
25 Other Services........... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 2,371 ........ $100 ........ 2,471
26 Supplies and Materials... ........ ........ ........ $58 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 58
31 Equipment................ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 126 ........ 126
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... ........ ........ ........ 58 ........ ........ ........ 2,335 ........ 226 ........ 2,619
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHEDULE C--HOUSE (GENERAL EXPENSES)--DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CHANGE BY
ORGANIZATION
[Amounts in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Base
-------------------------------
Staff Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 1997..................... .............. $2,782
Budget Base............................. .............. 2,782
-------------------------------
Adjustments to Base
(1)1998 Request
-------------------------------
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs......... .............. ..............
Price Level Changes: Supplies and
Materials.............................. .............. 58
Program Type Changes.................... .............. 2,561
Workload:
Transportation of Persons....... .............. 25
Rent, Comm., and Utilities...... .............. -61
Other Services.................. .............. 2,371
Equipment, Alterations, Maintenance,
Etc................................ .............. 226
Net Increase Requested.................. .............. 2,619
-------------------------------
Total Appropriation Request, 1998. .............. 5,401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation of change--fiscal year 1998 to accompany Schedule C--General
expenses
Adjustments to Base:
Mandatory Pay and Related Costs.....................................
Price Level Changes....................................... $58,000
Supplies and Materials................................ 58,000
Program Type Changes......................................2,335,000
Transportation of Persons............................. 25,000
Rent, Comm., and Utilities............................ (61,000)
Other Services........................................2,371,000
Equipment, Alterations, Maintenance....................... 226,000
Other Services........................................ 100,000
Equipment............................................. 126,000
summary statement of wilson livingood
Senator Bennett. Let us go on.
Mr. Livingood. Mr. Chairman, I am Bill Livingood, the House
Sergeant at Arms, and Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
first of all it is an honor to appear before you and discuss
the fiscal year 1998 budget request for the U.S. Capitol
Police.
I would like to join Mr. Casey in welcoming the new
Architect, Alan Hantman, to the Capitol Police Board. During my
tenure, which has been 2 years as Sergeant at Arms, I have
found my service on the board to be both challenging, exciting,
and rewarding. I know that Mr. Hantman will find this
experience equally satisfying. The expertise he brings to the
table I think will provide valuable insight on many board
decisions.
I would like to say there is a big change today. The world
is changing, and the threat that the Capitol Police and the
Capitol itself encounters, and the Members, is changing. With
additional training that the Capitol Police has now been
receiving and will receive additional other training, I feel
that the Capitol Police is prepared today to meet this
challenge.
I would like to say I am really proud of what they have
done and how they have met this challenge, because in the last
4 or 5 years it is a different world today, and it is a
different Capitol Police, and we feel that the Capitol Police
Board's responsibility was to assure that they had the tools to
meet this challenge.
The U.S. Capitol Police is a unique law enforcement agency.
It is charged with protecting 535 Members of Congress. It is
charged with protection of their families, congressional staff,
the visiting public, which has meant astronomical proportions
this year, a large increase in visiting public, and the
buildings, comprising the Capitol complex.
To successfully meet its mission, the department has
evolved into a full service security agency which also provides
comprehensive law enforcement and protective operations to the
legislative branch of Government. The U.S. Capitol Police also
interacts on an equal basis with agencies that deal in national
security and intelligence matters.
Due to the leadership and support of this committee, and
the dedication and hard work of our personnel, the U.S. Capitol
Police has made great strides in its operational capabilities.
The board feels it is now time to focus its efforts on the
department's internal management mechanisms, as Mr. Casey
mentioned. In particular, the board will commission review of
the department's internal accounting, personnel, and
information management functions to ensure that they are being
performed in a manner which is consistent with industry
standards.
In addition, police post and staffing level study has been
conducted to ensure that our personnel are deployed in a manner
which is both operationally effective and fiscally efficient.
It is hoped that overtime expenditures will be further reduced
once the results of this study are instituted.
With regard to personnel issues, it has been the
longstanding goal of the U.S. Capitol Police Board to ensure
that the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police maintain pay
parity with their counterparts in other law enforcement
agencies. Therefore, the U.S. Capitol Police fiscal year 1998
budget submission contains a request to fund two pay
initiatives, scheduled leave inclusion and differential pay.
These pay rates are consistent with rates paid for the officers
of other similar law enforcement agencies. In order for the
Capitol Police to attract and retain highly qualified officers,
I feel it is imperative that these initiatives be fully funded.
I would like to thank the committee for your support of the
transfer of the physical security responsibilities from the
Architect of the Capitol to the U.S. Capitol Police, and for
providing funding for necessary security upgrades recommended
in the U.S. Capitol Police/Secret Service study. This study
provided the board with numerous recommendations on how to
improve security within the Capitol complex.
I also would like to thank the committee for your
assistance in providing emergency funding to relocate the U.S.
Capitol Police K-9 facility to the Architect's facility at Blue
Plains. This has been a huge improvement. We look forward to
occupying the former Metropolitan Police Department facility
this summer, and urge the committee to approve the Architect's
request to renovate that facility for the department's use.
prepared statement
A detailed budget for the Capitol Police has been submitted
to the committee, as Mr. Casey mentioned, and we will be happy
to answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wilson Livingood
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, as a member of
the U.S. Capitol Police Board, it is my honor to appear before
you to discuss the fiscal year 1998 Budget Request for the U.S.
Capitol Police.
I join Mr. Casey in welcoming Mr. Hantman to the U.S.
Capitol Police Board. During my tenure as House Sergeant at
Arms, I have found my service on the Board to be both
challenging and rewarding. I know that Mr. Hantman will find
the experience equally satisfying. The expertise he brings to
the table will provide valuable insight on Board decisions.
The United States Capitol Police is a unique law
enforcement agency. It is charged with protecting the 535
Members of Congress and their families, congressional staff,
the visiting public, and the buildings comprising the Capitol
complex. To successfully meet its mission, the Department has
evolved into a full service security agency which also provides
comprehensive law enforcement and protective operations to the
Legislative Branch of government. The U.S. Capitol Police also
interacts on an equal basis with agencies that deal in national
security and intelligence matters.
Due to the leadership and support of this Committee, and
the dedication and hard work of our personnel, the U.S. Capitol
Police has made great strides in its operational capabilities.
The Board feels it is now time to focus its efforts on the
Department's internal management mechanisms. In particular, the
Board will commission a review of the Department's internal
accounting, personnel, and information management functions to
ensure they are being performed in a manner which is consistent
with industry standards. In addition, a police post and
staffing level study has been conducted to ensure that our
personnel are deployed in a manner which is both operationally
effective and fiscally efficient. It is hoped that overtime
expenditures will be further reduced once the results of the
study are instituted.
With regard to personnel issues, it has been the long-
standing goal of the U.S. Capitol Police Board to ensure that
the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police maintain pay
parity with their counterparts in other law enforcement
agencies. Therefore, the USCP fiscal year 1998 Budget
submission contains a request to fund two pay initiatives;
scheduled leave inclusion and differential pay. These pay rates
are consistent with rates paid for the officers of other
similar law enforcement agencies. In order for the U.S. Capitol
Police to attract and retain highly-qualified officers, I feel
it is imperative that these initiatives be fully funded.
I would like to thank the Committee for your support of the
transfer of the physical security responsibilities from the
Architect of the Capitol to the U.S. Capitol Police and for
providing funding for necessary security upgrades recommended
in the U.S. Capitol Police/U.S. Secret Service study. This
study provided the Board with numerous recommendations on how
to improve security within the Capitol Complex.
I also thank the Committee for your assistance in providing
emergency funding to relocate the U.S. Capitol Police K-9
facility to the Architect's facility at Blue Plains. We look
forward to occupying the former Metropolitan Police facility
this summer and urge the Committee to approve the Architect's
request to renovate that facility for the Department's use.
A detailed budget for the U.S. Capitol Police has been
submitted to the Committee. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
summary statement of gary abrecht
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. Chief, are you next,
or are you coasting on your statement? [Laughter.]
Mr. Abrecht. I have a couple of issues I would like to
address. Last year was a time of operational growth for the
department due to the lessons learned from the sarin gas attack
which occurred in the Tokyo subway system. We developed a whole
chemical and biological response capability for the Capitol
complex. This capability complements the exemplary explosive
device detection and disposal ability that the department has
maintained since 1971.
In addition, as Mr. Casey mentioned, we have expanded our
protective intelligence capability. We now routinely exchange
information which impacts on the security of the Capitol
complex and Congress with other national security and
intelligence organizations. These increased operational and
intelligence exchange capabilities have significantly enhanced
our ability to deter, interdict, or respond to acts of violence
directed against the Congress and those who work and visit in
the Capitol complex.
You will recall that last year I reported that threats
against Members of Congress nearly doubled from the year
before. I am pleased to report that cases this year have
decreased from last year's peak, although the number of threat
cases is still above the average for the previous year.
Compared with the previous 12 month period, the
department's threat assessment section has recorded a 33-
percent decrease in direct threats against Members of Congress.
Implied threats have also decreased, while direction of
interest cases have significantly increased. We continue to
diligently investigate each case that is brought to our
attention, and work closely with other law enforcement agencies
to successfully resolve those cases.
The crime situation in the Washington area and in the city
in particular has been of concern in recent months, so we have
been particularly diligent in looking out for the safety of the
public, Members, and the staff in our area of jurisdiction, and
I am pleased to report that crimes against persons within the
Capitol complex continue to decline.
Last year, within our primary jurisdiction, crimes against
persons dropped by 8 percent. This year, such crime decreased
again by 33 percent, and there were only 16 reported incidents
for the entire year of crimes against persons on the Capitol
Grounds. This figure is remarkable, when one considers the
millions of people who visited or traveled through the
buildings, streets, and parks of the Capitol complex last year.
Property crimes also decreased by 29 percent compared to
the previous 12 month period. Unfortunately, in the area
surrounding the Capitol complex which comprises the extended
jurisdiction zone, 731 crimes against persons and 3,124
property crimes were reported. I am fairly proud that our
patrol and enforcement efforts deter this level of criminal
activity from occurring within the Capitol complex itself.
As both the Sergeants at Arms have mentioned, this year's
budget request contains a pay initiative which is intended to
assure that the salaries and benefits that Congress provides
for the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police remain
comparable to those which are provided to their counterparts in
other similar Federal law enforcement agencies.
Aside from the issue of fairness, this initiative will
ensure that the department will continue to improve and retain
the highly qualified officers we need to effectively perform
our mission.
The issue of attracting the best possible officer
candidates has become even more critical due to the
increasingly complex and technical nature of our mission.
Therefore, I urge the committee to support this request, and
provide funding to institute these pay initiatives. I think
both Mr. Casey and Mr. Livingood have mentioned the physical
security initiative and the progress we are making on that, and
I think I will coast, as you say, on their statement in that
regard.
They also both made mention of the fact that while our
operational capabilities have increased--we reduced crime,
increased training, and improved our response capabilities--
that there is some work needed in our administrative
operations.
As Mr. Livingood mentioned, we have conducted an extensive
review of every post, to include staffing levels and the hours
each post is required to be staffed in order to determine if
our personnel can be redeployed. The results are now being
compiled and analyzed, and I expect to make some
recommendations to the Capitol Police Board in June which, if
they prove acceptable, could result in reduced police post
staffing costs without affecting security.
We are also reviewing staffing of our support and
administrative positions to see if there are additional
reductions that could be made there.
The second initiative consists of a management review of
our internal accounting and information management systems. The
weakness of our administrative infrastructure were highlighted
by the onset of the Congressional Accountability Act. As an
example, our antiquated mainframe custom-designed time and
attendance system cannot be successfully reprogrammed to handle
the accounting requirements imposed by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Despite a year's worth of effort, we have been unsuccessful
in making that work in a streamlined fashion for us. For that
reason, we have had great difficulties in providing accurate
overtime reports and reconciling pay issues, and I am delighted
the board has sought to provide assistance by commissioning an
administrative systems and information management review. It is
hoped that once this review is completed the department will
have state-of-the-art systems in place to support the officers
in the field.
As directed by the committee last year, we have included
amounts for reimbursing the Senate Sergeant at Arms for
computer and telecommunications services in our budget. I would
just like to point out that should these amounts not be
approved, they will need to be restored to the Senate Sergeant
at Arms budget, since obviously data processing and
telecommunications are the lifeblood of any police agency, and
without that we would just cease to be effective.
Mr. Casey. And they are out of our budget, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abrecht. In closing, I would like to again thank the
committee for the appropriation you provided to relocate our K-
9 operation to the Architect's facility at Blue Plains. These
dogs are an important, vital element of the department's
security operations, and we take great pride in running the top
explosives detection K-9 program in the country. In fact, just
2 weeks ago, Officer George Lyter and his dog Maik took first
place at the U.S. Police Canine Association's national trials
in St. Paul, MN, in the explosive detection area.
prepared statement
It is essential that our K-9's be well cared for and
provided with adequate kenneling and training facilities so
that we can continue to provide the highest quality and most
effective service. This summer we will move into the
Metropolitan Police K-9 building. This building is currently in
a state of disrepair. Therefore, I hope the committee approves
the Architect's request to renovate this facility for the
department's use.
I will be happy to answer any questions you have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary L. Abrecht
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am honored to
appear before you to discuss the fiscal year 1998 Budget
Request for the United States Capitol Police.
Last year was a time of operational growth for the United
States Capitol Police. Due to the lessons learned from the
sarin gas attack which occurred in the Tokyo subway, we have
developed a chemical/biological incident response capability
for the Capitol complex. This capability complements the
exemplary explosive device detection and disposal ability the
Department has maintained since 1971. In addition, we have
expanded our protective intelligence capabilities. We routinely
exchange information which impacts on the security of the
United States Congress with other national security and
intelligence agencies. These increased operational and
intelligence exchange capabilities have significantly enhanced
our ability to deter, interdict, or respond to acts of violence
directed at the Congress and those who work and visit within
the Capitol complex.
You will recall that last year I reported that threats
against Members of Congress nearly doubled from the year
before. I am pleased to report that cases this year have
decreased from last year's peak, although the number of threat
cases is still above the average for previous years. Compared
with the previous twelve month period, the Department's Threat
Assessment Section has recorded a 33 percent decrease in direct
threats to physically harm Members of Congress. Implied threats
have also decreased while direction-of-interest cases have
significantly increased. We continue to diligently investigate
each case that is brought to our attention and work closely
with other law enforcement agencies to successfully resolve
these cases.
The crime situation in the Washington area, and in the city
in particular, has been of concern in recent months, so we have
been particularly diligent in looking out for the safety of the
public, Members, and staff in our area of jurisdiction, and I
am pleased to report that crimes against persons within the
Capitol complex continue to decline. Last year within our
primary jurisdiction, crimes against persons dropped by 8
percent. This year, such crimes decreased again by 33 percent
for a total of only 16 reported incidents for the entire year.
This figure is remarkable when one considers the millions of
people who visited or travelled through the buildings, streets,
and parks of the Capitol complex last year. Property crimes
also decreased by 29 percent compared to the previous twelve
month period. In the area surrounding the Capitol complex which
comprises the Extended Jurisdiction Zone, 731 crimes against
persons and 3,124 property crimes were reported. I feel that
our patrol and enforcement efforts deter this level of criminal
activity from occurring within the Capitol complex.
This year's budget request contains a pay initiative which
is intended to ensure that the salaries and benefits the
Congress provides to the men and women of the U.S. Capitol
Police remain comparable to those which are provided to their
counterparts in other similar federal law enforcement agencies.
Aside from the issue of fairness, this initiative will ensure
that the Department can continue to recruit and retain the
highly qualified officers we need to effectively perform our
mission. The issue of attracting the best possible officer
candidate has become even more critical due to the increasing
complexity and technical nature of our mission. Therefore, I
urge the Committee to support this request and provide funding
to institute these pay initiatives.
As a result of the leadership and support of the Committee,
the responsibility for the physical security systems within the
Capitol complex has been transferred from the Architect of the
Capitol to the new Capitol Police Physical Security Division. I
appreciate the Committee's recent approval of Phase One of our
system design and installation plan. Once the installation is
completed, all of the security systems will be state-of-the-art
and completely integrated. This means that the systems will be
more easily maintained and police operations and alarm response
will be streamlined and improved. The installation of these
systems is a significant advance in the security of the
Congressional community. I thank the Committee for your support
of the project and I am confident you will be pleased with the
results.
Over the past several years, the Department has made great
strides in our operational capabilities. We have reduced crime,
increased training, improved our response capabilities,
addressed new threats, and as I have just stated, we are in the
process of making vast improvements in the physical security
systems. Now it is time for us to look inward and identify
areas in our administrative infrastructure where improvements
can be made and fiscal savings realized. We are pursuing two
initiatives to attain this goal. First, we have conducted an
exhaustive review of every police post to include staffing
levels and the hours each post is required to be staffed in
order to determine if our personnel can be redeployed. The
results are now being compiled and analyzed and I expect to
make some recommendations to the U.S. Capitol Police Board in
June, which if they prove acceptable, could result in reduced
police post staffing costs without affecting security.
Furthermore, we are also reviewing staffing of support and
administrative positions to seek additional reductions.
The second initiative consists of a management review of
our internal accounting and information management systems. The
weaknesses of our administrative infrastructure were
highlighted by the onset of the Congressional Accountability
Act. Our antiquated, mainframe, custom-designed Time and
Attendance System cannot be successfully reprogrammed to handle
the accounting requirements imposed by the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Therefore, we have great difficulties in providing
accurate overtime reports and reconciling pay issues. I am
delighted that the Board sought to provide assistance by
commissioning an administrative systems and information
management review. It is hoped that once the review is
completed, the Department will have state-of-the-art systems in
place to support the officers in the field.
As directed by this Committee last year, we have included
amounts for reimbursing the Senate Sergeant at Arms for
computer and telecommunications services. I would like to point
out that should these amounts not be approved, they will need
to be restored to the Sergeant at Arms' fiscal year 1998
budget.
In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for the
appropriation you provided to relocate our K-9 operations to
the Architect's Blue Plains facility. These dogs are an
important element of the Department's security operations and
we take great pride in running the top explosives detection
canine program in the country. In fact, just two weeks ago
Officer George Lyter and his dog Maik took first place at the
United States Police Canine Association national trials in St.
Paul, Minnesota. It is essential that our canines be well cared
for and provided with adequate kenneling and training
facilities so that we can continue to provide the highest
quality and most effective level of service. This summer, we
will move into the Metropolitan Police K-9 building. This
building is currently in a state of disrepair. Therefore, I
hope the Committee approves the Architect's request to renovate
this facility for the Department's use.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. Mr. Hantman, do you have a
statement?
Mr. Hantman. I am basically here in support of the others.
At my confirmation hearing Senator Warner recommended I be
greatly involved in any considerations on security as it
relates to accessibility of the Capitol.
It is a very delicate operation we are involved with, and
we need to guarantee the security, but yet not be a closed
facility to the public and to the visitors. The overall
reevaluation of security on Capitol Hill is a critical one, and
we are cooperating very well in terms of the Sergeant at Arms
in both the Senate and the House.
We will take a serious look at what is happening in
security and how we can improve it and still make it compatible
with the historic nature of the Capitol of our country. It is a
real challenge. I welcome it, and I would like to be part of
this board and I think we will serve the Capitol well.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. Senator Dorgan, do you have a
statement?
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I regret I was late. My
schedule said 10:30. In any event, I have read the statements
and appreciate the testimony.
upgrading Computers
Senator Bennett. Let me ask a few quick questions, and
Senator Craig, can I ask you to Chair between 10:30 and 10:35,
if you would?
Senator Craig. Yes.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I have a 5-minute assignment I
need to leave for.
I recognize the need to update your computers and technical
assistance. Have you looked far enough ahead in your planning
to be able to speculate, or put a tougher word on it, that
expenditures in this area will go down once you have acquired
the equipment necessary, or are we looking for an ongoing level
of increased activity in this area, and I do not ask that with
any loaded intent. I just want to be forewarned as to where we
would go in years to come with this.
Mr. Casey. I will go ahead and speculate. One of the
reasons that including the resources in the Sergeant at Arms
budget back in the police budget is to give the police the
resources rather than relying on somebody else to begin
managing in the way they see fit, rather than coming to us as
sort of a forced client of ours and accepting what we give
them.
What we are hoping happens, and, in fact, in our
preliminary discussion we are hoping happens, is that they now
have these resources. They can begin to better utilize those
resources to accomplish what they want to get done. I believe
that the amount we have in there is more than sufficient, and
they should probably go down thereafter.
Senator Bennett. How much of this is for acquisition of
hardware and how much is for new programming of software
techniques?
Mr. Abrecht. About $1 million of the $2 million is for
hardware acquisition to replace the work stations which are
486/33's at the present time, and there is quite a lot of other
hardware acquisition in there. I would say about three-quarters
at the present time is for hardware acquisition and about one-
quarter of it is software and software support.
Senator Bennett. So presumably the hardware will last more
than 1 year.
Mr. Abrecht. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. Although in this fast-changing environment
you can never be sure.
Mr. Abrecht. Certainly more than 1 year, but there seems to
be a trend that these things have a life cycle of 3 or 4 years.
Senator Bennett. This is a very tiny nit-pick because the
amount of money is so small in Federal terms that it is almost
not worth raising, and I raise it solely because it might
indicate a management issue.
Transportation of persons
Your request for transportation of persons includes an
increase of $25,000, and in fiscal 1996 the Capitol Police
spent $439,360 for transportation of persons, and it strikes me
that there is again a very small amount of money, but a
disconnect between what you are requesting and what you are
actually doing. It appears you are constantly reprogramming
money into this, and should you not just say that we need
$400,000, or whatever the number is, instead of these
unrealistically low figures?
Mr. Abrecht. I guess we are always hoping they will go back
down. It is very hard to estimate this because it is
essentially driven by threats against Members of Congress and
by CODEL's and substantial committee hearings. Excuse me, not
CODEL's but committee hearings at remote locations, and so it
is just very hard for us to figure them.
We are always hopeful we will not spend as much money as we
have in the past year, and so basically I am a cheapskate. I
say, no, we have got to keep these costs down, and so I do not
look every year to say, well, we will have as bad a year next
year as we had the last year. Maybe they will go back down to
the level they were before, and so I have not sought to budget
for every eventuality.
This year we just did a very expensive hearing in Puerto
Rico, and the distance is a long way away. It took a large
number of people. There were demonstrations of substantial size
scheduled, and so we incurred a very large expense doing that.
I hope next year that will not happen, and so I have not just
given myself a comfort zone of everything that could possibly
happen.
It is a problem. These things are not schedulable, and that
is why we have tended to be on the conservative side, and I
realize we impose a burden on the committee when we have to ask
for reprogramming to cover those.
Senator Bennett. Again, it is not a major item, but it
raised in my mind the question of management circumstance here.
With that, I will yield to Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am
told that this is the first time the entire board has appeared
with the chief at this appropriations hearing, and we
appreciate that. The board has an excellent reputation, and we
very much appreciate the work that the force does.
I would like to ask about the chart behind you. Who brought
the chart?
Mr. Abrecht. I did.
Jurisdiction
Senator Dorgan. That is a striking chart, and with that
chart you described the extended jurisdiction of the Capitol
Hill Police and the crimes committed within that jurisdiction
in a 1-year period, is that right?
Mr. Abrecht. That's right, sir. The red line is the primary
jurisdiction, the Capitol Grounds, and the green line is the
extended jurisdiction.
Senator Dorgan. And the extended jurisdiction, can you
describe that for me? What does the extended jurisdiction mean?
Mr. Abrecht. In 1992 the Congress recognized the fact that
our officers inevitably are off the grounds quite a bit and
going to take care of various congressional facilities that are
located off the ground, and there have been some incidents
where they've been unable to take the police cases that they
have made out there. They were thrown out of court because we
did not have jurisdiction. So in 1992 the Congress gave us
jurisdiction out to this green line in order that our officers
could be protected from civil liability and have arrest
authority within that area when they were out there doing their
congressional business.
Senator Craig. You do not normally patrol out to the green
line?
Mr. Abrecht. No, sir.
Senator Craig. You just go out there, as you said, for
congressional facilities and other targeted activities?
Mr. Abrecht. That is correct. We do not do a general patrol
for the deterrence of crime in the green area. We are only
there for some congressional purpose.
Senator Dorgan. Do you have a second chart as well?
Property crimes
Mr. Abrecht. Yes; I have the property crimes.
Senator Craig. Senator, I was just thinking of moving to
the Hill. [Laughter.]
I have decided not to. [Laughter.]
Mr. Abrecht. Do not do that. I have lived on the Hill
myself for 25 years.
Senator Dorgan. But I look at these charts and it looks
like a virtual crime wave in this jurisdiction. I come from a
town of 300 people, where we had one felony last year, which
was extraordinary. It was the talk of our county, because we
have not had a felony for years and years and years, but this
looks like a virtual crime wave. Is that an isolated year, or
would you expect that next year?
Mr. Abrecht. Obviously, we hope next year always will be
better. The indications are that in the District of Columbia it
has begun to go back down. It is not unusual for large urban
areas. If you look at the city as a whole, it is certainly not
the worst part of the city, but it is a substantial amount of
crime. It is for an entire year.
Senator Craig. Is this activity an increase over fiscal
year 1994? Let us see, this is for--OK.
Mr. Abrecht. This is the last fiscal year.
Senator Craig. The fiscal year before, how does it stack
up? Has it declined?
Mr. Abrecht. For the Capitol Grounds it is a decline. Let
me just get you it for the extended jurisdiction. I believe it
is about the same as my recollection.
Senator Dorgan. Just adding in my head, it looks as though
crimes against persons and against property number about 4,000
crimes on these two charts, which is an extraordinary number of
crimes in a relatively small part of the city.
Mr. Abrecht. The vast bulk of that is car break-ins, what
makes up the huge volume of it, which is the yellow dots on
this map.
Senator Dorgan. We view car break-ins as serious in our
county. [Laughter.]
Mr. Abrecht. I certainly view them as serious as well, sir.
It is one of the few crimes we do have to do something about on
the Capitol Grounds.
To answer your question, Senator, there was a decrease in
the extended jurisdiction zone of 4 percent between the last 2
fiscal years. There had been a substantial increase the
previous year, so actually 1996 is down 4 percent from 1995,
which was up substantially from 1994, so that is a trend at the
present time.
Senator Dorgan. I appreciate that. I will go on to a couple
of other questions, but I was just curious about the chart.
That is the first time I have seen a chart like that, and it is
staggering to see the amount of crime in the extended
jurisdiction in 12 months.
Pay parity
You, chief, indicated that there was a need to establish a
pay parity initiative, and my question would be, with whom
would the Capitol Police force achieve parity if the initiative
was funded?
Mr. Abrecht. The agencies we compare ourselves with
primarily are the two other Federal uniformed law enforcement
agencies in town, being the U.S. Park Police and the U.S.
Secret Service's Uniformed Division, and we also, of course,
seek to maintain parity with the large suburban police
departments which are essentially the agencies we compete for
personnel with. If we lose officers it is typically to either
the Park Police or the Uniformed Division or the large suburban
agencies, Montgomery County, Fairfax County, Prince Georges.
Senator Dorgan. You are asking in the budget for a COLA
increase as well as comparability increase. Who will receive
the comparability increase, and how will that be distributed if
you receive it?
Mr. Abrecht. The comparability increase is essentially a
term of art that has come around here to represent what is
known in the executive branch as locality pay.
You recall, essentially the Federal Government in its
wisdom now divides its pay, annual COLA, if you will, into two
parts, the cost of living, which is national, and a regionally
based locality pay, and we have essentially called that
comparability pay for our purposes, and it is essentially the
same COLA that would be received by all of our people, so it
would go across the board. Whatever is put in place in the
Executive Office we would ask the same for our office.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I want to thank the board for its
work, and chief, thank you, and say that most of us spend our
days here not thinking about the work of the law enforcement
officials of the Capitol, but they do a wonderful job, and we
need to think more and appreciate more about the work that they
do for us. We may have other questions about the specifics of
the budget, but we appreciate your appearance.
Thank you. Senator.
Senator Craig [presiding]. Chief, let me also echo what
Senator Dorgan has just said. I am sitting here looking at
these charts, and my goodness, I did not realize that I worked
every day in a virtual war zone. Now, that speaks well for you
in the sense that I come from an area of the country and a
community not unlike the Senator's, in which crime in itself is
still a happening and viewed with alarm, almost any level of
crime, and so when you see these kinds of figures or portrayals
you react to them.
But I must say that working here I do not sense that it is
the No. 1 terrorist threat or target, although I recognize,
from your statistics and all the other things you have to deal
with, that is exactly true because of the character of this
building and what goes on in it.
consolidating Library and Supreme Court Police forces
Let me ask a question about an effort that the board sought
to undertake last year: to consolidate the Library of Congress
Police force and the Supreme Court Police with the Capitol
Police. A one-time cost of the transition was estimated at
approximately $3.2 million. Has any study been done to
determine the long-term benefits and cost savings of
consolidating the forces?
Mr. Abrecht. When we did the study, and at least one
previous study, we could not identify any substantial long-term
cost savings, the reason being that there is essentially no
post duplication. There is no place where there is a Capitol
Police officer walking the same place that there is a Library
officer walking.
There was one post, the Cannon tunnel. We discovered that
one, and it was brought to our attention, and we took care of
it. We worked out an agreement with the Library, and we share
the work there. There are not two officers there any more.
Other than that, there is really no overlap in work.
Another thing we determined was that the Library, maybe you
would think that there were administrative structures that were
duplicated, but it turns out all of the administrative work for
the Library Police is essentially done by their Library
entities.
They do not have their own personnel shop, data processing
shop. All of that is essentially done by the Library's total
operation, so we could not come up with any substantial cost
savings in doing this.
We tried fairly hard, and could come up with no
duplications that would obviously disappear if we were to take
over that operation, so it did not look like there was any real
long-term savings.
Senator Craig. So that the $3.2 million as a cost of
transition, is that now a fixed cost in the budget that you
need annually?
Mr. Abrecht. It would be a one-time cost. If Congress were
to decide to do that, and I have not heard any discussion of
that issue, there would be a one-time cost, a substantial cost
for training and to replace officers to get them trained up to
our standard.
K-9 facility
Senator Craig. I see you are getting a new doghouse. Tell
me about the K-9 facility. Out of pure curiosity, how many dogs
do you have on the staff?
Mr. Abrecht. We have 30 dogs. Their primary purpose is bomb
detection. We had an absolutely horrible facility about 2 years
ago, and got to the point where the dogs died from a vermin,
what appeared to be a vermin infestation in the old facility at
the old Poplar Point Nursery.
And so after that crisis this committee very generously
provided some interim funding to put up a temporary facility
out at Blue Plains, where the Architect has a large warehouse
and nursery facility, and we moved over there.
The Metropolitan Police Department was sort of essentially
squatting on the Architect's facility there, and they finally
are in the process of building themselves a new facility, after
which we will take over their facility, which is quite rundown.
It is going to need a little work, but after that we will have
a good indoor kennel facility at Blue Plains, and we will be
able to take care of all of our needs.
Senator Craig. Well, it is interesting for you to explain
what role these dogs play. I know we see them quite often. I
understand why they are around, and also recognize that we have
maybe one of the best in the country, if not the best. It is
interesting, and it certainly fits well with the concern about
the Capitol being the No. 1 target of terrorists, and I suspect
that a bomb or bombs would be the weapon of choice in most
instances with terrorists, so it is good to hear about that.
Mr. Abrecht. Yes; it is a great program. It is not one I
can say I started. It has been around for about 20 years. They
have an excellent training, and it is first-rate at the present
time, and we are going to work to keep it that way.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett [presiding]. Senator Stevens, do you have
any questions?
Bombs
Senator Stevens. I only have one question, thank you.
During my watch as whip we had two bombs, and I have been very
concerned about bombs and various things. We have talked about
the general problem of overall readiness for terrorist-type
activities.
One of the things that always sticks in my mind was that
bomb upstairs was placed there because someone had studied the
routine. It was about 8 minutes after the change of personnel,
and personnel were a little late in getting there. They did not
overlap. There was a gap at the time that bomb was placed
there.
But do we have some sort of instruction to our people about
how to deal with routine--I mean, if everybody is at the same
place every day, and they know exactly where you are going to
be and who is going to be there and what time, and know the
idiosyncracies of being late, or changing, or going to get a
sandwich or whatever it might be?
The briefings we had at that time indicated that the best
way to foil attempts of that kind of terrorism was to not have
such routines that are so strict. As a matter of fact, as I
told you, they even told the Senators not to drive in the same
way, to vary the cars they drive in, and various other things.
But I do not see much attempt at that now. Have we abandoned
that practice of having different schedules and different
people at different places and times of change being different,
every day?
Mr. Abrecht. We try very hard to have officers avoid
becoming routine, particularly in the performance of their
duties, and we try to rotate posts as much as we can. There are
obviously tradeoffs here. There are tradeoffs between knowledge
of the post and complacency, essentially.
It is obviously an advantage for us to have officers at
certain places who know the Members who are coming through that
area, know the routine, know the senior staff who work in that
area, and when you constantly rotate people you lose that
aspect of it, but you are also correct that you gain in the
battle against complacency.
So there is sort of a constant balancing that we have to go
through, and if we are moving in any direction we are moving
toward more of a rotation and less permanently assigned
officers for just that, among other reasons, and it is
something that we have to constantly guard against.
Every time there is an incident like the Oklahoma City
bombing people tend to be more alert, more careful, and to
avoid this tendency toward complacency and routine. Then, over
time it tends to get complacent again and to get routine again,
and we know that we have to continue to battle that.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Mr. Casey. There is also, Mr. Chairman, the continual
conflict between what they have as general orders, and their
officers following the general orders to the letter, and the
inconvenience that it sometimes puts both the visitors and the
Members to.
We get a lot of pressure on occasion to ease up,
particularly at the staff doors, with things like that and
become familiar with those people and to sort of change the way
you interpret that order to allow those people that you would
ordinarily recognize to come through, but we constantly get
that kind of pressure, too, but they have been very, very good
about trying to be as good and gentle as they can about
enforcing that general order to the letter so something like
that familiarity does not creep in.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Mr. Livingood. If I could add one other thing, one of the
big issues in this area is training. Specifically, a terrorist
will generally do a surveillance prior to coming, as you
mentioned, to try something, and what we are going to be doing
in our new classes, in-service classes, is adding a course of
countersurveillance so the officers know what people to be
looking for and how to sort of pick them out. That will add to
the alertness of the officers.
Senator Stevens. Well, I can understand having the same
people and get to know sort of the clientele for a particular
entry or passage, but it does seem to me that the mistake we
made back in those days is that we were just letter perfect in
every shift change. People came in 10 minutes late, and
everyone was doing the same thing. I was always impressed with
the lectures they gave us on how to avoid that, where you have
shifts change at different times, and only announce them the
day before instead of posting them on the wall so people could
see them.
It does seem to me that we ought to be more attuned, and I
still think we are going to be a target. We are a main target
for terrorism against the Government, either these facilities
or the White House, but not in the sense of our personnel. I
think it is the buildings.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, possibly one more question in
this area. I am curious, in the training that you put your
staff and the officers through. Do you ever attempt to have an
unknown penetrate the area? Is that part of the training, to
actually attempt to do that?
Mr. Abrecht. We have not in recent times done testing of
our facilities.
Senator Craig. How do you do countersurveillance, then,
from the sense that, I mean, obviously I can appreciate
training people to look for certain things and certain patterns
and certain kinds of human behavior or human activity, but
unless you really attempt to have somebody penetrate a
location----
Mr. Abrecht. We train officers in how to watch for people
who appear to be conducting surveillance of facilities, or who
are lurking around, or try to figure out what is happening. We
are essentially testing our system itself, rather than just
shoo them away, to actually find out what they might be up to.
Someone trying to come in through a garage door on foot, for
instance.
Mr. Casey. There are a number of things you may want to
discuss on that in executive session.
Senator Craig. I appreciate this is a public meeting.
Mr. Chairman, I have one personal request. I drive by your
facility at Blue Plains, and I see those greenhouses, and I
would love to go visit that sometime, and I would like to see
the dog facility also.
Senator Bennett. I would recommend while the Architect is
here that all members of the subcommittee take advantage of the
opportunity to tour some of those facilities, particularly when
we are getting ready to increase the budget for repair.
Some of these buildings are what, 60 years old or
something, and we are going to have to make a major renovation.
I have been through them, and I recommend that every member of
the subcommittee take the opportunity.
The Architect has been very generous with his time, but I
am sure he will be happy to take the opportunity.
If there are no further questions----
Mr. Casey. Mr. Chairman, I do have a detailed breakdown of
the cost, and I can make that available to your office so that
you can go through that.
Additional committee questions
Senator Bennett. Thank you. Any further questions will be
submitted in writing.
Mr. Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Police
Board we appreciate your time.
Senator Bennett. We appreciate your coming. We will move
quickly to the next panel.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the board for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
new positions
Question. You are requesting three new positions in fiscal year
1998. What are these positions? Can these positions be absorbed through
attrition?
Answer. Two of these positions are in support of the anticipated
migration of the Senate-side payroll to the National Finance Center.
The third position will be assigned to the Office of General Counsel in
support of administering the Congressional Accountability Act.
It is increasingly difficult to absorb the staffing of new
functions through attrition. In fiscal year 1992, the Capitol Police
had an authorized staffing level of 1,357 positions. For the past two
years we have operated at a level of 1,299 positions, a reduction of 58
positions.
cola/comparability costs
Question. In addition to the $212,000 requested for new positions,
you are requesting $1.985 million for ``Mandatories''. Specifically,
what is included in this amount?
Answer. The amounts requested are to fund the anticipated cost of
living allowance in fiscal year 1998 as well as a comparability
increase for sworn personnel. In the current fiscal year, uniformed
personnel received an increase of 3.33 percent, which included the
nation-wide cost of living increase of 2.3 percent. Civilian personnel
received the 2.3 percent COLA.
The fiscal year 1998 cost of these increases is estimated to be
$1,468,000. This increase would become effective on January 1, 1998,
and reflects the rate of 2.8 percent, for the COLA and .7 percent for
the comparability pay. The amount of $403,000 is also requested to
cover the cost of the 1997 increases in fiscal year 1998. The net
increase in employee benefits associated with these increases is
estimated at $114,000.
pay parity initiatives
Question. You have requested that the committee fund a pay parity
initiative. Parity with whom? If we approved this initiative, would you
require statutory authority to implement?
Answer. Over the past several years, the Capitol Police Board, with
the support of this committee, has pursued the on-going objective of
gaining and maintaining parity with other similarly situated Federal
law enforcement agencies with are covered under Title 5 of the USC.
Principally, these agencies are the U.S. Park Service and the Uniformed
Service of the Secret Service.
Notably, recent initiatives have included the Capitol Police
Retirement Act, pay compression, mandatory retirement, Cost of Living
Adjustments and Comparability pay.
The USCP competes directly with other Federal law enforcement
agencies in recruiting and it is essential that we maintain salary and
benefit parity with them.
The requested funding would allow us to pay USCP uniformed
personnel for various differentials that are paid to other law
enforcement personnel under Title 5, including Sunday, Holiday and
Night pay. Obviously, we would defer to the prerogative of the relevant
House and Senate authorizing entities to determine what additional
actions, if any, would be required prior to implementation.
scheduled leave/threshold
Question. You have requested that scheduled leave be counted toward
the earning of overtime. Do you have current authority to make this
adjustment?
Answer. Current authority exists for us to administratively make
the adjustment. However, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that
the amount requested to fund this initiative would be disbursed as
overtime and as such would increase our current estimate from $4
million to $4.676 million.
PAYROLL COMPARISON--USCP VS. OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLSA OT Including Including Percent
threshold scheduled scheduled ----------------------------------------------------
Agency (in annual sick Night Sunday Holiday COLA and
hours) leave leave differential differential differential locality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Capitol Police............................................... 85 No No None None Comp 3.33
U.S. Park Police.................................................. 80 Yes Yes 10 25 100 3.33
U.S. Secret Service............................................... 85 No No 10 25 100 3.33
FBI............................................................... 80 Yes Yes 10 25 100 3.33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday Pay @ 25 percent. Holiday Pay @ 100 percent. Evening: 1800 to 0600 @ 10 percent; 1500 to Midnight @ 7.5 percent; Midnight to 0800 @ 10 percent.
remaining parity issues
Question. If the pay parity initiatives are approved, what
remaining differences would remain. Please enumerate.
Answer. There are no other parity issues of substance. The USCP
retirement system mirrors that of other Federal law enforcement
agencies.
other services increase
Question. In the category of ``Other Services'' you have requested
an increase of $2.4 million. Please explain the increase.
Answer. Of the $2.4 million requested, $2.1 million will be used
for telecommunications and computer services. The inclusion of these
items is at the direction of the Senate Subcommittee on the Legislative
Branch and represents a budget authority transfer from the Office of
the Senate Sergeant at Arms which previously budgeted for these
services.
Also included in our ``other services'' request are funds to
upgrade the departmental accounting system, possibly through a cross-
servicing agreement. The amount of $100,000 is requested in this area
which will include funding for the annual agreement, outside
consultation on meeting Comptroller General standards, assuring that
internal and external interaction requirements are met and that data
can be collected and reported consistent with Federal fiscal
standardization. Finally, it may be necessary to acquire specific
hardware and connectivity to implement the new system dependent upon
which option is selected.
The amount of $170,000 is also included in this object class to
fund the biennial cost of the promotion exam.
computer and telecommunications
Question. You have requested funds to reimburse the Senate Sergeant
at Arms for Computer and Telecommunications services? Please explain
what services are provided.
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, we have requested $1,247,000 for
computer products and services, and $929,000 for telecommunications
services that were previously provided by the Senate Computer Center
(SCC). These amounts are included at the direction of the Senate
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch. We will have the option of
purchasing these products and services directly from private vendors,
or reimbursing the SAA.
In general, the types of services in the computer area include
hardware and software upgrades, a pro rata share of software licensing
and maintenance contracts, replacement of obsolete workstations and
funding to migrate our applications from the SCC's mainframe
environment.
In the telecommunications area, funding is requested for
maintenance for circuits, facsimile equipment and radio systems,
monthly usage charges for local telephone service, radio telephone
circuits, cellular phones and pagers. Funds are also requested for
upgrades of systems, new consoles for the CAD system and new command
center.
New hardware--5 color printers, control card, cables, and
other accessories......................................... $14,000
Hardware and software maintenance--reimburse the Senate
Computer Center for the maintenance of 300 personal
computers, 105 printers, 8 file servers, and software..... 53,463
Mainframe to PC migration--Senate requires us to migrate our
applications from a mainframe environment to personal
computers within two years. These funds will pay for
consulting services, and we will require more funding in
fiscal year 1999.......................................... 70,000
Software and software upgrades--upgrade to Corel Office Suite
and Windows NT 4.0........................................ 89,589
Replacement of existing workstations--current 486/33
workstations are approaching obsolescence and cannot run
applications currently on our system. Faster, workstations
with greater memory are needed in order to complete the
migration project......................................... 1,020,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal computer services.............................. 1,247,052
In fiscal year 1998, we have requested $929,000 for
Telecommunication products and services. Summarized costs are
as follows:
Frame Relay Circuit and Routers............................... $1,920
10/100 Ethernet Network Interface Cards....................... 4,000
Cellular Telephones and Pagers................................ 4,804
Facsimile Maintenance......................................... 6,100
NFC Conversion Telecommunication Services..................... 9,000
Streetguard Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System Maintenance.. 14,000
Radio Circuits................................................ 15,000
Upgrade of Police Metropolitan Area Radio System.............. 20,000
Business Telephone Lines...................................... 25,000
Technical Support for Senate Security while traveling......... 25,000
AT&T System 75 Maintenance.................................... 32,000
Hand Held Radio Maintenance................................... 50,000
New Hand held Radios.......................................... 60,000
Replacement and/or repair of GE Radio Receivers............... 60,000
New Consoles for the CAD System in the Communication Center... 70,000
Upgrade of System 75 to Definity G3I.......................... 70,000
Local telephone Service....................................... 98,000
Radio Coverage................................................ 100,000
Radio System Maintenance...................................... 114,000
New Command Center............................................ 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal telecommunication services..................... 928,824
house services
Question. What services are provided to the USCP by the House? Is
there any reimbursement to the House offices for theses services?
The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer performs payroll
disbursement services for the House side and the disbursement function
for the general expenses appropriation. In addition, the House Sergeant
at Arms pays for telephone services of the USCP on the House side. We
provide no reimbursement for these services.
accounting function/management review
Question. You have requested funds to possibly have your accounting
functions cross-serviced by another agency. Have you discussed this
option with the Library of Congress? Would this initiative save money?
Answer. Also included in our ``other services'' request are funds
to upgrade the departmental accounting system, possibly through a
cross-servicing agreement. The amount of $100,000 is requested in this
area which will include funding for the annual agreement, outside
consultation on meeting Comptroller General standards, assuring that
internal and external interaction requirements are met and that data
can be collected and reported consistent with Federal fiscal
standardization. Finally, it may be necessary to acquire specific
hardware and connectivity to implement the new system dependent upon
which option is selected.
The accounting function within the department is currently being
performed on an outdated system which has been in use for over ten
years. There are several options available to the department, including
developing our own accounting system. We believe that it may be more
cost efficient however to be cross-serviced by another agency and we
have begun discussions with several agencies to determine which may
meet our requirements. There are no savings to be gained from this
initiative in that the functions that would be provided are not
currently being received.
physical security supplemental spending plan
Question. In September of 1996, you received a supplemental
appropriation of $3.25 million. How will these funds be expended? Do
you have a plan in place for improving physical security?
Answer. As the Committee is aware, early in 1995 the USCP and the
U.S. Secret Service conducted a comprehensive physical security survey.
In fiscal year 1996, responsibility for installations of physical
security equipment was transferred to the USCP.
Since that time, the USCP established a Physical Security Division
(PSD), appointed a director and hired staff. A five-year budget and
program plan was developed, approved by the Board and forwarded to the
Senate and House Appropriation Committees. The Board then directed the
PSD to provide a comprehensive security implementation plan based on
the USCP/USSS survey. In December 1996, the USCP engaged the Department
of the Army, Physical Security Equipment Management Office to assist in
the development of the implementation plan. This survey was initiated
in January and included technical design, equipment selection,
installation and cost estimates.
In fiscal year 1997 responsibility for the maintenance of physical
security was transferred to the USCP. At the time of this transfer,
there were only 52 on-line accounts on the House side for the Members'
duress alarm system, which had taken over three years to install. Since
that time, the USCP has installed 245 additional systems in less than
six months. Additionally, the Maintenance Section has completed more
than 1,000 requests for service repairs since October 1, 1996. This is
double the amount completed in the entire preceding year prior to the
transfer. We have accomplished this without increase in personnel,
funding or overtime while expanding coverage to seven days each week.
aoc mou
Question. The implementation of physical security plans in the
Capitol complex will require close coordination with the Architect of
the Capitol on matters relating to design. How will you assure that
this coordination will be carried out?
Answer. We have executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Office of the Architect as specified in the Conference Report
accompanying H.R. 3610, Making Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations for
Fiscal Year 1997 to delineate the process for implementing security
projects.
k-9 facility
Question. Last year, emergency funding was arranged to alleviate
serious problems associated with your K-9 facility. What is the current
status of the project to take over the D.C. facility? Once you have
moved into the facility occupied by D.C., are there plans to share any
of the facilities since they will still be adjacent to your kennels?
Answer. The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) has completed all their
assigned work related to the emergency funding. The obedience, attack,
and agility fields have been completed and fenced. All the trailers and
storage areas have been put in place. The Metropolitan Police
Department (MPD) will turn over their old facility, which includes 12
indoor kennels, to the U.S. Capitol Police in April, after they move to
their new training facility, which is now under construction. Even
though these kennel facilities are an improvement from the one at
Poplar Point, they still need considerable renovation. The AOC has
requested funds to renovate our kennel facilities in fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1999. We plan to share the obedience, attack, and
agility fields with MPD.
senate/house positions
Question. You have 637 positions on the House side, and 662 on the
Senate side. Please explain why there are unequal numbers of positions.
Answer. There has never been an attempt to divide the total number
of positions equally between the two houses. Variations have occurred
over time due to the implementation of various initiatives such as the
screening of all freight destined for the Senate loading dock at the
off-site delivery center, the security aide initiative, the physical
security initiative, and so forth. It should be noted however that
assignments overall are made without regard to the payroll on which an
officer resides.
nfc status
Question. What is the status of the project to move the House
payroll to NFC.
Answer. Conversion of all House-appropriated U.S. Capitol Police
positions and employees to the USDA/NFC payroll became effective on
March 30, 1997. This included the transfer of payroll processing,
salary and benefits disbursement, and retirement/benefits counseling
functions from the House Finance Office to the Department. Appointing
authority is retained by the Committee on House Oversight.
In 1992, Title 40, Section 207a., was amended by legislation, and
mandated that the House and Senate act jointly to provide for a unified
payroll administration for the USCP. To that end, the USCP has been
actively engaged in providing information to relevant Senate leadership
regarding the conversion of Senate-appropriated positions to the USDA/
NFC. Currently, the matter is under serious consideration by the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Committee on
Appropriations. We have determined that should the Senate decide to
expedite approval, a unified payroll could be achieved by the beginning
of fiscal year 1998, at little or no cost incurred above that
appropriated for fiscal year 1997. Thereafter, we have estimated that
the total (unified) cost of USDA/NFC cross-servicing costs would be
approximately $160,000 per annum.
unified payroll
Question. What remaining impediments remain toward a unified
payroll? What is keeping us from a unified payroll and consolidated
reporting?
Answer. Bifurcated administrative systems result in a complex and
inconsistent infrastructure. Differences in the administrative systems
and practices of the two chambers have created disparities between
employees working side by side. They also result in critical
inefficiencies when trying to capture and report management information
for budget, accounting, manpower utilization, position management, etc.
With the assistance of this committee, the USCP is addressing these
problems through legislation, to eliminate the disparities between the
two chambers. Some of the most visible inequities that exist are:
Difference in personnel practices.--Nonpay status; payroll cycles;
wage and earnings reporting; and pay setting.
Differences in work/information flow.--Approval processes; and
information feedback.
unionization status
Question. What is the current status of unionization efforts in the
USCP under the Congressional Accountability Act?
Answer. The following is a chronology of activities to date
regarding the unionization of USCP officers.
uscp unionization chronology
October 1996.--Petition for Certification as exclusive bargaining
representative by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Fraternal
Order of Police, and International Union of Police Associations.
January 1997.--Board of Directors, Office of Compliance Decision
Order. Excluding certain divisions of the USCP.
February 1997.--Decision and Direction of Election issued by Board
of Directors, Office of Compliance.
April 1997.--Election held at USCP Headquarters. (Challenges
sufficient to affect results.) International Union of Police
Associations eliminated.
May 1997.--Decision and Direction on Challenged Ballots.
June 1997.--Second Election Runoff between International
Brotherhood of Teamsters and Fraternal Order of Police.
June 1997.--Certification of Representative certifies the Fraternal
Order of Police as exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit.
TBD.--Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations to begin.
accounting system
Question. You have requested the amount of $100,000 within the line
item ``other services'' to have the accounting function performed
through a cross-servicing agreement. Please explain.
Answer. The accounting function is part of a broader review that
the Board will undertake within the department. While the USCP has made
great strides in recent years in operational areas, the board will now
place renewed emphasis on assuring that the administrative and
management areas are in compliance with prescribed standards of the
Comptroller General. We plan to conduct a department-wide survey and
evaluation of internal accounting and administrative controls for the
purpose of identifying weaknesses so that they can scheduled and
assigned for corrective action.
The accounting function within the department is currently being
performed on an outdated system which has been in use for over ten
years. There are several options available to the department, including
developing our own accounting system. We believe that it may be more
cost efficient however to be cross-serviced by another agency and we
have begun discussions with several agencies to determine which may
meet our requirements.
In addition, we have included funds for an outside consultant to
perform a requirements analysis leading to the design of an information
technology plan which will meet the management needs and reporting
requirements of the department.
physical security
Question. Can you provide us with a brief overview of activities
undertaken to date regarding the physical security function for the
Capitol complex?
Answer. As the Committee is aware, early in 1995 the USCP and the
U.S. Secret Service conducted a comprehensive physical security survey.
In fiscal year 1996, responsibility for installations of physical
security equipment was transferred to the USCP.
Since that time, the USCP established a Physical Security Division
(PSD), appointed a director and hired staff. A five-year budget and
program plan was developed, approved by the Board and forwarded to the
Senate and House Appropriation Committees. The Board then directed the
PSD to provide a comprehensive security implementation plan based on
the USCP/USSS survey. In December 1996, the USCP engaged the Department
of the Army, Physical Security Equipment Management Office to assist in
the development of the implementation plan. This survey was initiated
in January and will include technical design, equipment selection,
installation and cost estimates.
In fiscal year 1997 responsibility for the maintenance of physical
security was transferred to the USCP. At the time of this transfer,
there were only 52 on-line accounts on the House side for the Members'
duress alarm system, which had taken over three years to install. Since
that time, the USCP has installed 245 additional systems in less than
six months. Additionally, the Maintenance Section has completed more
than 1,000 requests for service repairs since October 1, 1996. This is
double the amount completed in the entire preceding year prior to the
transfer. We have accomplished this without increase in personnel,
funding or overtime while expanding coverage to seven days each week.
Finally, we are nearing the completion of Memorandum of
Understanding with the Office of the Architect as specified in the
Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3610, Making Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997 to delineate the process for
implementing security projects.
library of congress merger
Question. For several years, there have been discussions and
studies involving a merger with the police and security of the Library
of Congress. What is the status of this proposal?
Answer. In House Report 104-141 on the 1996 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Bill, the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations
instructed the United States Capitol Police to undertake discussions
and a study to determine the extent to which the police and security of
the United States Capitol, the Library of Congress and the United
States Supreme Court can be combined as a unified operation under a
single command utilizing common personnel.
From an administrative perspective, the absorption of the Library
of Congress Police (LOCP) by the USCP is feasible. If approved, we
would anticipate entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
LOC, with a projected date of transfer six months thereafter. The MOU
would address issues regarding retirement, transfers of leave balances
and training.
In addition to personnel costs which we anticipate would be covered
pursuant to an appropriation transfer, we have developed one-time cost
estimates associated with the transfer.
There are a variety of important administrative issues that would
need to be addressed if the merger occurs. Many of these issues will be
contingent upon specific congressional directives and mandates. Equally
important is the merger's impact upon the budgets of those entities
that provide valuable services to the USCP, e.g., Architect of the
Capitol, and the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms.
systems acquisition
Question. You have indicated that a review will be made of
administrative and financial areas to replace an antiquated
infrastructure. What provision is made for the cost of new systems?
Answer. Included in our request is the amount of $100,000 which is
dedicated to replacing the current expense control system in the
accounting and financial management functions. Ideally, this
replacement system will be attained through a cross-servicing
arrangement with another agency.
Secondly, within the overall amounts requested for reimbursement to
the Senate Sergeant at Arms for computer services, are amounts to
enable us to begin upgrading workstations, phase in a migration from
the SCC workstation, and acquire a replacement for the time and
attendance system.
The pace and scope of all of the planned improvements will not be
known until after our review is completed. At that time we will inform
the committee of our plans and requirements. In the interim, we feel
that the current request will allow us to move forward in all of these
areas.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
STATEMENT OF HON. JUNE E. O'NEILL, DIRECTOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
JAMES L. BLUM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
GAIL DEL BALZO, GENERAL COUNSEL
STANLEY L. GREIGG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS
POLLY E. HODGES, BUDGET AND FINANCE OFFICER
DAVID M. DELQUADRO, PERSONNEL OFFICER
MARK G. DESAUTELS, ASSISTANT FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
DANIEL F. ZIMMERMAN, CHIEF, SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH
UNIT
Budget request
Senator Bennett. Our next panel is headed by the Honorable
June O'Neill, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office,
and we will dispense with the usual formalities and
congratulations and greetings, because both Senator Dorgan and
I are conferees of the conference that must convene at 11
o'clock. I can be a little later than he can. He has a more
direct interest in what is happening here than I do, so you are
probably going to get a much lighter going over than you might.
summary statement
Ms. O'Neill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am accompanied by
Mr. James Blum and the staff that has helped prepare the
statement. I will be brief. Our budget request for fiscal year
1998 is for $24,995,000, which allows an increase of 1.9
percent, or $463,000, over our fiscal year 1997 appropriation.
The amount of our request is about one-half of the 4
percent increase that CBO would need to maintain its budget at
the current services level--that is, taking account of pay and
benefit increases and other rising costs.
The requested amount would fund our current staff ceiling
of 232 full-time equivalent positions, or full-time
equivalents. But in order to hold our requested increase to 1.9
percent, we would reduce spending on automated data processing
[ADP] and on printing and postage by a total of $542,000.
Although we should be able to maintain our current workload
with the funds requested here, I would like to point out that
the law dealing with unfunded mandates as well as the
Congressional Accountability Act will continue to have a
significant cost impact on our budget.
CBO has now had a full year of operation under the Unfunded
Mandates Act, and the cost of carrying out its responsibilities
has become clearer. Both our fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year
1998 budgets are based on the assumption that the required
level of work on mandates will decline somewhat after the first
year. But in view of the pace of work, that assumption could be
optimistic.
Moreover, a number of legislative proposals have been made
for expanding the scope of work on mandates, and, of course,
that could cause a significant diversion of resources from our
basic work.
As for the Congressional Accountability Act, CBO used an
estimated two full-time equivalents in staff and $320,000 to
assure compliance in fiscal 1996. No additional staff or funds
were provided for that purpose. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998,
we estimate that a similar level of effort will be required.
That cost is also being absorbed. Of course, estimating how
much it will cost annually to comply with the act beyond 1996
is extremely difficult.
Mr. Chairman, given our role in the budget process, we are,
of course, very aware of Congress' intention to balance the
budget and downsize the Federal Government, including the
legislative branch. However, maintaining a strong analytical
capability in the Congressional Budget Office is essential, I
believe, to helping achieve those goals.
Our request is for less than is necessary to maintain our
budget at its current services level. I think it is a prudent
budget in which we absorb over 50 percent of our mandatory pay
and benefit increases by making reductions elsewhere.
prepared statement
We believe that our requested increase of 1.9 percent would
allow us to serve the Congress at the level it has come to
expect of us. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have right now or in writing and will submit our complete
prepared testimony for the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of June E. O'Neill
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present the fiscal year 1998 budget request for the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO). The mission of CBO is to provide the Congress with
the objective, timely, nonpartisan analysis needed for economic and
budget decisions and the information and estimates required for the
Congressional budget process. CBO does not make policy recommendations
but presents the Congress with options and alternatives in a wide range
of subjects, all of which have economic and budgetary impacts.
Our fiscal year 1998 request is for $24,995,000, a 1.9 percent
increase--$463,000--over our fiscal year 1997 appropriation of
$24,532,000. That requested level would fund 232 full-time-equivalent
positions (FTE's), our current staff ceiling. No additional staff is
requested. Our requested increase is about half of the 4 percent
increase that would be needed to maintain CBO's budget at the fiscal
year 1997 current-services level. CBO is able to hold its overall
request to 1.9 percent by cutting back on the number of reports and
studies to be published in fiscal year 1998, which will lower printing
and postage costs, and by reducing spending for automated data
processing (ADP) systems, data, and model development and for ADP
hardware.
At the requested level, CBO's fiscal year 1998 budget remains--in
real terms--below the amount that would be required to restore our real
resources to their fiscal year 1988 level. In the meanwhile, CBO's
staff ceiling has been increased by six positions since 1988, and its
duties expanded by legislation numerous times.
Over the years, CBO has taken a number of steps to absorb the cuts
in real resources it has experienced, including holding down salaries
when turnovers occur; continuing our efforts to reduce administrative
expenses, especially in the areas of report production, distribution,
and storage; and, aggressively renegotiating contract terms for ADP and
other administrative services. We have been aided further in our
efforts to absorb cuts in real resources over the years by a steady
decline in the cost of computing power.
Before discussing our fiscal year 1998 request in more detail, I
would like to describe for the Committee two major new CBO work efforts
of the past fiscal year.
major new work efforts during 1996
CBO undertook two new major efforts during the past year. One was
to develop estimates of the costs of federal mandates imposed on state
and local governments and on the private sector in new legislative
proposals. The other was to prepare long-term budget projections to
show the increased pressures on the federal budget after 2010 that will
come with the retirement of the baby-boom generation and the aging of
the U.S. population.
Federal Mandate Cost Statements
On January 1, 1996, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
took effect. The act established new procedures designed to ensure that
the Congress fully considers the potential effects of unfunded federal
mandates before imposing them on state, local, and tribal governments
or the private sector. Among the new procedures, CBO is required to
provide statements to authorizing committees about whether reported
bills contain mandates and, if so, their estimated costs.
In carrying out its new responsibilities under the act last year,
CBO used an estimated 24 work years of staff effort. CBO's
appropriation for 1996 provided funds for 13 additional staff
positions, and we reallocated an additional 11 staff years of effort
from other work. Originally, we estimated that we would need 25 work
years of staff effort to carry out our new duties, based on an
assumption that we would have to prepare 550 intergovernmental and 550
private-sector mandate analyses.
In fact, we transmitted to the Congress last year 718
intergovernmental and 673 private-sector mandate cost statements, using
about the level of resources expected. Among the proposals analyzed, 69
contained intergovernmental mandates and 91 included private-sector
mandates. Of those, 11 intergovernmental and 38 private-sector mandates
had costs exceeding the thresholds established in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act.
Earlier this year, CBO completed a report analyzing its first year
of operation under UMRA titled ``The Experience of the Congressional
Budget Office During the First Year of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.'' I would like to provide copies of the report for the Committee's
information.
Long-Term Budget Projections
CBO's annual report to the Congress on the economic and budget
outlook last year included a chapter that looked at the budget through
the first half of the 21st century and the implications of the
retirement of the baby-boom generation. Together with CBO's work on
unfunded mandates, the long-term budget projections constituted a
second major analytic effort by CBO last year.
For the past several years, CBO has been preparing 10-year budget
projections of current laws and policies to serve as a baseline in
considering the budgetary effects of new policy proposals. A 10-year
time frame, however, is not sufficient to show the dramatic effects on
the federal budget of projected long-term demographic changes in the
U.S. population. To illustrate those future pressures, CBO prepared
some long-term budget projections to 2050, using a standard model of
economic growth and the actuarial projections used by Social Security
and Medicare trustees.
The longer-term CBO projections showed that the federal deficit
would begin to mount rapidly after 2010 under current budget policies.
A sharply rising federal deficit would have adverse consequences for
interest rates and economic growth, making the budget and economic
outlook bleaker. The growth in federal spending over the period was
largely in Medicare and Social Security, and CBO included a special
chapter in its annual report, ``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and
Revenue Options'' (August 1996), that discussed various options for
limiting the long-term growth of outlays for those programs. Because we
believe that analysis to be significant, this spring we published it as
a stand-alone report titled ``Long-Term Budgetary Pressures and Policy
Options'' (March 1997).
Other CBO Work
As in other years, CBO maintained its normal support of the
Congressional budget and legislative processes throughout the fiscal
year, performing cost estimates for hundreds of bills, as well as
maintaining a steady flow of scorekeeping reports to the Appropriations
Committees. CBO's divisions published 20 reports in fiscal year 1996,
and CBO staff members testified 18 times before 11 Congressional
committees last year, demonstrating the broad range of its analytic
expertise. Appendix A to this statement provides an overview of CBO's
work for the Congress under current law in fiscal year 1996.
Also, I should note that CBO has new responsibilities under the
Line Item Veto Act, beginning January 1, 1997. Although the work
required will not be nearly as demanding as that required by UMRA, each
time the President exercises his authority under the act, CBO is
required to provide the Budget Committees with an estimate of the
reductions in budget authority and outlays stemming from the
President's action. CBO will prepare any additional information that
the Budget and Appropriations Committees may need to track the effects
of the new law.
fiscal year 1998 request
As I indicated previously, Mr. Chairman, CBO's fiscal year 1998
request is for $24,995,000, an increase of 1.9 percent, or $463,000,
over our fiscal year 1997 appropriation. That request funds our staff
ceiling of 232 full-time-equivalent positions. No additional positions
are being requested. Specifically, our request includes:
--$938,000 in mandatory pay increases, the major components of which
are: (a) $424,000 for a projected 2.8 percent employment cost
index (ECI) adjustment on January 1, 1998; (b) $295,000 for the
annualization of fiscal year 1997 pay raises; and (c) $198,000
for merit increases, budgeted at 4 percent of salaries, with 50
percent of the cost offset by savings from staff turnover.
--$67,000 in various price increases, from printing to ADP
timesharing;
--A $334,000 reduction in planned spending for ADP timesharing and
systems, data, and model development and for lower printing and
postage costs; and
--A $208,000 reduction in spending for equipment, primarily ADP
hardware and software.
The request is lower than the roughly $25.5 million that would be
necessary to maintain our budget at the current-services baseline
level, which would require an increase of 4 percent. To limit our
request below that level, we have partially offset combined mandatory
pay and benefit increases and general price increases of $1,005,000
with reductions in ADP spending and in our printing and postage budget
amounting to $542,000.
In our budget, more than 85 percent of the total constitutes
personnel costs. Of the cost increases CBO faces in fiscal year 1998,
over 93 percent are mandatory increases associated with pay and
benefits. CBO has carefully scrubbed other parts of its budget to
absorb more than half of the increases, cutting ADP spending 12.2
percent and administrative spending 10.1 percent. At 8.3 percent of
CBO's budget, ADP spending is at a historic low. Moreover,
administrative expenses--6.6 percent of the total budget--are well
below their historic average. As a result, those areas of spending
cannot be counted on to yield similar savings on an annual basis in the
future, even though mandatory costs will continue to rise.
Although CBO should be able to maintain its current workload with
the funds requested here, it is important to point out that the law
dealing with unfunded mandates and the Congressional Accountability
Act, both high priorities for the Congress, will continue to have a
significant cost impact for our budget.
CBO now has had a full year of operation under the Unfunded
Mandates Act, and the costs of carrying out its responsibilities under
the act are becoming more clear. Expecting that the level of work
effort will fall somewhat after the first year, both the fiscal year
1997 and fiscal year 1998 budgets assume seven FTE's and more than
$600,000 in costs above the base provided by the Congress for our work
on unfunded mandates. Considering the pace of work on unfunded mandates
last year, however, even that estimate could prove too low.
Furthermore, a number of legislative proposals have been made for
expanding our work duties on mandates, which could cause an even
greater diversion of our analytic efforts from our basic budget work.
The number of analytic studies we provided to the Congress last
year was sharply reduced. Part of the slowdown in the production of
programmatic analyses was the result of diverting analysts from doing
in-depth analysis of various budget issues to the more immediate
requirements of work on unfunded mandates.
Over the years, CBO's analytic reports produced by our program
divisions have helped to provide committees with important information
on legislative options and alternatives to current policies.
Subsequently, as committees reported legislation incorporating
alternatives analyzed by CBO, our cost estimates for the proposed
legislation often relied on the methodologies developed by the program
divisions. By diverting analysts away from long-term programmatic work
to attend to unfunded mandates duties, CBO may one day be unable to
perform policy analysis for committees in a timely fashion during the
legislative process. Subsequently, that lack of research may have an
effect on the quality of CBO's cost estimates of bills.
As for the Congressional Accountability Act, CBO used an estimated
two FTE's and $320,000 to assure compliance in fiscal year 1996. No
additional staff or funds were provided for that purpose. For fiscal
years 1997 and 1998, we estimate that a similar level of effort will be
required. That cost is also being absorbed. Of course, estimating how
much it will cost annually to comply with the act beyond 1996 is
extremely difficult. In addition to the ongoing cost of compliance,
another possible cost component exists that depends on the number of
employee disputes and whether any result in lawsuits. A lawsuit would
not only incur significant legal expenses but also disrupt CBO's work
while management and administrative staff met with lawyers, provided
needed documentation, and testified.
At this point, I would like to discuss two specific and important
administrative concerns. The first has to do with attracting and
retaining a high-quality workforce. As we pointed out to the Committee
last year, the restrictions on compensation that CBO has faced in
recent years--the same restrictions the Congress itself has faced--have
already affected our ability to attract and retain highly qualified
staff. During the last two years, CBO has experienced an unusually high
turnover among its most skilled staff and managers, who have left to
take more lucrative positions. If the pay freeze for Members of
Congress and other senior level positions continues, which is likely,
it will exact a heavy toll on CBO's managers and senior staff.
The executive branch, and even some other legislative branch
agencies, use several options for compensation, such as bonuses and
locality pay. However, those options are not available to CBO. As a
result, we are at a serious competitive disadvantage with both the
private sector and other governmental agencies. CBO is in danger of
losing employees with years of institutional knowledge--staff members
who have helped to shape CBO's products and to train new staff members.
That situation has implications for the quality of CBO's service in the
future.
Our second concern has to do with the ADP services that are
currently being provided to us by House Information Resources (HIR).
CBO does a sizable amount of computing on HIR's mainframe on a
reimbursable basis. However, we have recently learned that HIR is
reviewing a ``Mainframe Computer Retirement'' plan that could have
serious implications and consequences for the Congressional Budget
Office. If this service to CBO is terminated without ample notice, it
will have an adverse effect on our ability to meet Congressional demand
for CBO's products and even on our ability to operate. To address that
concern, we intend to explore the ramifications on CBO's budget and
operations of moving to outside vendors in the event HIR curtails its
service to CBO.
Finally, let me update the Committee on CBO's efforts to
accommodate those interested in receiving our work products in
electronic format. For a number of years, CBO has maintained a gopher
site on the Internet. At that site, people can get copies of CBO's
published reports in electronic format, either in Word Perfect or
ASCII. In the short time that we have been offering that service, a
revolution has occurred on the Internet. File transfer protocol sites
like our gopher site are now obsolete, and Internet users have moved on
to the graphically oriented and more interactive World Wide Web. CBO,
which was once out front in terms of the electronic distribution of its
material, is now trying to catch up.
Sometime this fiscal year, CBO expects to move the electronic
distribution of its documents from its gopher site to the World Wide
Web. Once we have established a web site, we intend to offer not just
our published documents--which are basically all we currently offer on
our gopher site--but all of CBO's work products, at least eventually.
We are closely coordinating our efforts with those who are developing
the Legislative Information System for the Congress, and CBO's site
will be fully integrated with that system when both are completed.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, no agency is more keenly aware than CBO of the
Congress's intention to balance the budget and downsize the federal
government, including the legislative branch. However, maintaining a
strong analytic capability in the Congressional Budget Office is
essential to achieving those goals. Our request is for less than is
necessary to maintain our budget at the current-services level. It is a
prudent budget in which we absorb over 50 percent of our mandatory pay
and benefit increases with reductions elsewhere. We do believe,
however, that our requested increase of 1.9 percent would allow us to
continue to serve the Congress at the level it has come to expect.
______
Appendix A.--Major Responsibilities of the Congressional Budget Office
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was created by the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law
93-344) and began operations on February 24, 1975, with the appointment
of Director Alice M. Rivlin. Its mission, then as now, is to provide
the Congress with economic and budgetary information. Compared with the
missions of the Congress's other support agencies--the Congressional
Research Service and the General Accounting Office--CBO's mandate is
relatively narrow. But its subject matter is extremely broad,
reflecting the extensive array of activities that the U.S. budget
covers and the major role the budget plays in the national economy.
A substantial part of what CBO does is to support the work of the
two other Congressional institutions created by the 1974 Budget Act: a
Committee on the Budget in both the House of Representatives and the
Senate, each with its own staff. Those committees are in charge of the
process, spelled out in the Budget Act, by which the Congress sets its
own targets for the federal budget, including the overall levels of
revenues and spending, the surplus or deficit that results, and the
distribution of federal spending by broad functional categories. Each
spring the Congress adopts the result of that process, the
Congressional budget plan, in the form of a concurrent resolution. The
resolution imposes an overall framework and discipline on the way
appropriations, other spending measures, and tax legislation are
passed.
The policies and principles that have shaped CBO since its
inception are key factors in its effectiveness. CBO is a professional,
nonpartisan staff office; it does not make recommendations on policy.
This nonpartisan stance has been instrumental in preserving the
agency's reputation for professionalism and has enhanced the
credibility of its products. CBO prepares independent analyses and
estimates relating to the budget and the economy, and it also presents
options and alternatives for the Congress to consider. It routinely
discloses the assumptions and methods it uses, which enhances the
general perception of CBO's products as objective and impartial.
Some of CBO's activities are statutory tasks; others are carried
out at the request of Congressional committees. According to the Budget
Act, CBO must give priority first to requests for services from the
House and Senate Budget Committees; second, to requests from the two
Appropriations Committees, the House Committee on Ways and Means, and
the Senate Committee on Finance; and finally, to requests from all
other Congressional committees. CBO prepares various types of analyses
for the Congress, including cost estimates for bills that individual
Members have introduced or plan to introduce. But committee requests
always have priority; CBO handles requests from individual Members only
to the extent that its resources permit.
CBO's services can be grouped into four categories: helping the
Congress formulate a budget plan, helping it stay within that plan,
helping it assess the impact of federal mandates, and helping it
consider issues related to the budget and to economic policy.
helping the congress develop a plan for the budget
The House and Senate Budget Committees prepare the annual
Congressional budget plan, drawing on the views and estimates of the
other committees. A major part of CBO's role in this process is to
prepare an annual report, divided into two volumes. The first volume
provides economic forecasts and budget projections for a multiyear
period, currently 10 years. Typically, it also includes a discussion of
a current economic or budget policy issue, such as the chapter on the
economic and budgetary implications of balancing the budget in the most
recent report. The second volume is a collection of spending and
revenue options for reducing the budget deficit. The current edition of
this volume--the 18th we have done--was published in March. CBO
customarily updates its economic and budget projections in mid-August.
Economic Forecasts and Projections
CBO is the only entity of the legislative branch whose mandate
includes making economic forecasts and projections. Its forecasts cover
18 to 24 months (it does not attempt to forecast cyclical fluctuations
in the economy more than two years ahead) and involve the major
economic variables--gross domestic product, unemployment, inflation,
and interest rates. Its ten-year projections of the economy present a
longer-term view based on trends in the labor force, productivity, and
saving.
In preparing its forecast, CBO consults the major econometric
models and commercial economic forecasting services, as well as the
expertise of its staff. The models currently available to CBO represent
a broad range of assumptions about how the economy works; they include
Data Resources, Inc.; the Macroeconomic Advisers Model; the MSG
multicountry model, developed by Warwick McKibbin and Jeffrey Sachs;
and a standard growth model developed at CBO. CBO also relies on the
advice of a distinguished panel of economic advisers (see Appendix B).
Usually, CBO's forecasts are fairly close to the Blue Chip consensus of
private forecasters.
Baseline Budget Projections
The purpose of CBO's biannual budget projections is to give the
Congress a baseline for measuring the effects of proposed changes in
taxing and spending laws. The projections start with the Congress's
most recent budgetary decisions and show what would happen to the
federal budget if no new policy decisions were made over the projection
period. The budget committees use those projections to develop annual
budget resolutions and directives to other committees. CBO uses them to
produce cost estimates for proposed legislation and in scorekeeping
tabulations (described later).
For revenues and entitlement programs, such as Social Security or
Medicare, the baseline projections generally assume that current laws
will continue without change. For discretionary spending, the
projections are based on the most recently enacted appropriation bills
or on any statutory spending limits that may be applicable.
CBO's projections do not represent a forecast of future budgets
because the Congress makes numerous policy decisions in response to
changing national needs and economic circumstances. A longer-term
framework is helpful in making annual budget choices because those
decisions sometimes have little impact on the budget in the short run
but significantly influence relative budget priorities over a period of
several years.
CBO's capability to do budget projections has enabled the Congress
to move increasingly in the direction of multiyear budgeting. In the
past, both budget committees have used CBO's baseline budget
projections as a starting point for formulating their recommendations
for the annual budget resolution. CBO's baseline spending projections
are distributed to the appropriations committees and the authorizing
committees as background information for preparing their ``views and
estimates'' reports to the budget committees. The budget committees
then use the CBO baseline projections in their markup materials for the
budget resolution to assess how spending and revenues should be altered
in the future to meet fiscal policy goals and national needs.
Deficit Reduction Options
The most widely distributed of all CBO publications is the volume
of deficit reduction options that the agency prepares as part of its
annual report. The volume discusses various strategies for reducing the
deficit and offers more than 200 specific spending and revenue options
for the Congress to consider. Members of Congress, as well as many
outside groups, use the report to develop deficit reduction proposals
and to educate the public about the difficult choices that must be
made. Over the years, this report has become a standard reference for
developing deficit reduction plans and has been relied on heavily by
both budget committees in developing the budget resolution each year.
The policy options included in this report come from many sources,
and most have been considered by the Congress at some time. In
accordance with CBO's mandate to provide objective and impartial
analyses, the discussion of each option presents the cases for and
against it as fairly as possible. CBO does not endorse the options
included, nor does exclusion of any proposal imply a recommendation.
All divisions of the Congressional Budget Office contribute to this
report.
Analysis of the President's Budget and Other Assistance
Each year, at the request of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, CBO analyzes the President's budget to see how its
revenue and spending proposals would affect the projections. In the
analysis, CBO uses its own economic assumptions and estimating
techniques to recast the budget that the President has proposed and
submitted to the Congress. To keep those techniques and methods as
accurate as possible, CBO staff carefully monitor both actual spending
trends, as reported monthly by the Treasury, and various program data
series that provide information on recent trends in the use of federal
benefits and services, the growth in beneficiaries, and other factors
affecting federal spending. CBO uses those independent methods to
reestimate the effect of the President's budgetary proposals. In some
years, those so-called economic and technical reestimates have been
significant.
In addition, as the Congress moves toward adopting its annual
budget resolution, CBO helps the budget committees and other committees
estimate the effects of alternative budget plans. Frequently, the
agency is asked to testify before Congressional committees about the
outlook for the economy and the budget and about other matters related
to developing the annual budget plan. Finally, the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 requires CBO each year to provide the Congress with a
report on unauthorized appropriations and expiring authorizations. This
year, that report was filed with the Congress on January 15.
helping the congress stay within its budget plan
Once the Congress adopts the annual budget resolution, the budget
committees take the lead in enforcing its provisions. To help them with
that work, CBO supplies estimates of the budgetary impact of bills
reported by the different committees and up-to-date tabulations of the
status of Congressional actions on legislation affecting the budget.
CBO also prepares a series of sequestration reports that advise the
Congress and the Administration on two matters: whether the
appropriation limits for discretionary spending established by the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 have been
exceeded, and whether the enactment of any direct spending or receipt
legislation has increased the budget deficit.
Cost Estimates for Bills
CBO is required to develop cost estimates for virtually every bill
reported by Congressional committees to show how those legislative
proposals would affect spending or revenues over the next five years.
For most tax legislation, CBO uses estimates provided by the Joint
Committee on Taxation, a separate analytic group that works closely
with the two tax-writing committees. CBO also prepares cost estimates
for use in drafting bills (especially in the early stages), for
formulating floor amendments, and for working out the final form of
legislation in conference committees. To the extent that its resources
permit, CBO provides estimates of the cost of bills in response to
requests by individual Members.
CBO's cost estimates have become an integral part of the
legislative process, and committees increasingly refer to them at every
stage of bill drafting. The estimates may also have an impact on the
final outcome of legislation because they are used to determine whether
committees are complying with the annual budget resolutions and
reconciliation instructions.
The number of such cost estimates varies each year, depending on
the amount of legislation being considered and reported by legislative
committees. In 1996, CBO prepared 652 federal cost estimates, as shown
in Table 1. A large part of CBO's bill costing in certain years has
been for the House and Senate committees receiving reconciliation
instructions in the budget resolution. CBO's system for tracking cost
estimates has treated work on the reconciliation proposals as if they
were a few large bills. Work on a reconciliation bill alone is often
equivalent to 100 or more bill cost estimates. That was particularly
true last year when CBO worked closely with a number of committees in
evaluating the savings from the large number of options that were
considered for reforming welfare.
TABLE 1.--NUMBER OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES PREPARED BY CBO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Estimates.................................. 628 855 638 733 603 622 517 652
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cost estimates for bills that the legislative
committees report, CBO provides the appropriations committees with
estimates of outlays for all appropriation bills. Those estimates are
prepared for each appropriation account and are transmitted to the
staffs of the committees largely in the form of computer tabulations.
For example, many reports display data on both budget authority and
outlays in the Comparative Statement of Budget Authority formats that
the appropriations committees use. CBO's estimates may be critical in
determining whether the legislation complies with allocations in the
annual budget resolution and with statutory limits on discretionary
appropriations.
Scorekeeping
One of CBO's most important functions is to keep track of all
spending and revenue legislation considered each year, so that the
Congress can know whether it is acting within the limits set by the
annual budget resolutions. CBO provides the budget and appropriations
committees with frequent tabulations of Congressional action on both
spending and revenue bills.
The bulk of CBO's scorekeeping activities involve spending actions.
The spending side of the federal budget is complex, consisting of more
than 1,000 separate accounts. Furthermore, the Congress acts each year
on a large number of individual legislative bills that affect spending,
including 13 appropriation bills. CBO's scorekeeping system tracks
Congressional action on all of those bills from the time they are
reported from committee to their enactment into law. As a result, the
CBO scorekeeping database for budget authority and outlays is extremely
complex, and keeping it current represents a major effort. That effort
is all the more intense now that caps have been placed on discretionary
appropriations and a pay-as-you-go requirement has been placed on
mandatory spending and receipts.
CBO's scorekeeping estimates are derived from its analysis of the
President's budget, baseline budget projections, and bill cost
estimates, as well as from the economic assumptions used for the
concurrent budget resolution. CBO conducts a comprehensive review of
its scorekeeping estimates at least twice a year to determine how its
projections fit with actual fiscal activity. It incorporates new
information provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
other federal agencies and any revised economic assumptions that the
budget committees may adopt in addition to other relevant data.
Specially designed computer scorekeeping reports are provided
weekly--and sometimes daily--to the budget and appropriations
committees. Frequent letters are also sent to the chairmen of the two
budget committees to advise them on current budgetary levels. In
addition, advisory letters have been sent on request to the chairmen of
the Senate and House Appropriations Committees on the budgetary impact
of individual appropriation actions, such as a supplemental
appropriation bill or a continuing resolution. CBO's automated
scorekeeping database also provides special computer reports to the
appropriations committees to use in preparing their ``views and
estimates'' reports due on February 25, and in dividing the allocations
from the budget resolution among subcommittees.
CBO also prepares a weekly report on the legislative status of
selected entitlement legislation and other bills that would directly
affect budgetary requirements. Similar reports contain information on
the legislative status of bills providing authorizations for
appropriations and proposed revisions of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974. Copies of those reports are provided to the staffs of the
appropriations and budget committees of both Houses.
Revenue scorekeeping reports with bill-by-bill detail are sent
biweekly, or as needed, to the staffs of the Ways and Means, Finance,
and Budget Committees. The reports provide five-year estimates of the
revenue effects of each tax bill in the legislative process and compare
the cumulative revenue effects of enacted legislation with the targets
set in the budget resolution. The revenue estimates shown in the
reports are drawn from CBO cost-estimate letters and are furnished to
the tax-writing committees when each tax bill is reported.
Sequestration Reports
Each year, CBO prepares three sequestration reports as part of the
enforcement procedures specified by the Balanced Budget Act. Those
reports are advisory and serve only as a benchmark for judging the
accuracy of similar sequestration calculations made by the Office of
Management and Budget. Under the law, OMB can trigger the cancellation
of budgetary resources when the limits on discretionary appropriations
are breached or when direct spending and receipt legislation increases
the deficit. Those provisions apply through fiscal year 1998.
In addition to the sequestration reports, the Balanced Budget Act
specifies another task: CBO must notify the Congress whenever it or OMB
projects a recession in the next year (defined as two consecutive
quarters of less-than-zero real economic growth) or the Department of
Commerce reports two consecutive quarters of real economic growth of
less than 1 percent. If the President concurs, the Congress can then
elect to set aside the statutory appropriation limits and other budget
enforcement procedures.
helping the congress assess federal mandates
To better assess the impact of its laws on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector, the Congress passed the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The act amends the Congressional Budget
Act to require CBO to give authorizing committees a statement about
whether reported bills contain federal mandates. If the five-year
direct costs of an intergovernmental or private-sector mandate exceed
specified thresholds, CBO must provide an estimate of those costs (if
feasible) and the basis of that estimate.
CBO's statement must also include an assessment of what funding is
authorized in the bill to cover the costs of the mandates and, for
intergovernmental mandates, an estimate of the appropriations needed to
fund such authorizations for up to 10 years after the mandate is
effective. When requested, CBO is also required to assist committees by
preparing studies of legislative proposals containing federal mandates.
The law took effect January 1, 1996.
helping the congress consider budget and economic policy issues
CBO's responsibilities also entail analyzing specific program and
policy issues that affect the federal budget and the economy. For the
most part, requests for those analyses come from the chairman or
ranking minority member of a full committee or subcommittee. The
leadership of either party in the House or Senate may also request a
CBO analysis. The analyses cover a variety of federal activities such
as examining current policies, suggesting other approaches, and
projecting how the alternatives would affect current programs, the
federal budget, and the economy. In keeping with its nonpartisan
mandate, CBO does not offer recommendations on policy in those studies.
Some studies may take 9 to 12 months, or sometimes longer, to
complete. Other analyses may be conducted in a much shorter time frame,
appearing as CBO papers or memorandums. Many CBO publications have
helped to shape public discussion of the issues they address, not only
on Capitol Hill but in the nation at large. Over the years, CBO has
responded to requests for analyses of key program issues from almost
every committee of both Houses of Congress. The following discussion
demonstrates the range of issues addressed in the agency's
publications. Included in the discussion is an illustrative list of
reports issued by CBO during fiscal year 1996.
U.S. Economic and Fiscal Policy
CBO has published a number of analyses of macroeconomic issues
related to economic growth and other topics. Many of those studies are
based on simulations that use computer models of the economy. The
following reports were among those completed last fiscal year on
macroeconomic issues: ``Labor Supply and Taxes'' (January 1996); ``Who
Pays and When? An Assessment of Generational Accounting'' (November
1995); and ``CBO's Method for Estimating Potential Output'' (October
1995).
Federal Taxes
CBO's analyses of the U.S. tax system have explored the effects of
taxes on taxpayer behavior and how changes in current tax laws or the
enactment of new taxes may affect taxpayers and the budget. Reports
published last fiscal year include: ``Incidence of the Corporate Income
Tax'' (March 1996); ``Projecting Capital Gains Realizations'' (November
1995); and ``The Growth of Federal User Charges: An Update'' (October
1995).
Natural Resources and Commerce
CBO's policy analyses in the areas of natural resources and
commerce cover agriculture, energy, the environment, industry and
trade, transportation, public works infrastructure, and research and
technology. The range of those efforts in fiscal year 1996 is indicated
by the studies listed below: ``Emerging Electronic Methods for Making
Retail Payments'' (July 1996); ``How the Medicaid Rebate on
Prescription Drugs Affects Pricing in the Pharmaceutical Industry''
(December 1995); and ``High-Tech Highways: Intelligent Transportation
Systems and Policy'' (October 1995).
Health and Human Resources
A number of CBO studies have examined the rising cost of health
care in the United States and the expansion of health insurance
coverage. These studies have dealt with both federal health care
programs (Medicare and Medicaid) and national health care issues. CBO's
analyses have also treated other topics within the framework of human
resources and social services, including education, employment and
training, housing, and community development. The following reports of
this type were sent to the Congress last fiscal year: ``An Analysis of
Alternative Child Support Assurance Programs'' (April 1996); and ``The
High-Deductible/MSA Option Under Medicare: Exploring the Implications
of the Balanced Budget Act of 1996'' (March 1996).
National Security
Military manpower, strategic forces, general-purpose forces, and
other programs of the Department of Defense are some of the subjects of
CBO's analyses related to national security. The studies examine the
costs, other economic effects, and strategic significance of current
defense programs, proposed legislation, and alternative programs of
interest to Congressional committees. Publications in fiscal year 1996
included: ``Bonuses for Nuclear-Trained Officers in the Navy: Current
Programs and Alternatives'' (September 1996); ``Improving the
Efficiency of Forward Presence by Aircraft Carriers'' (August 1996);
``The Cost of Expanding the NATO Alliance'' (March 1996); ``An Analysis
of U.S. Army Helicopter Programs'' (January 1996); and ``Military Pay
and the Rewards for Performance'' (December 1995).
Budget Concepts and Processes and General Government
Periodically, the Congress asks CBO to analyze concepts and
procedures related to the federal budget--both the process and budget
accounting--as well as general government and personnel issues. Those
studies have included the budgetary treatment of credit and insurance
programs and the risks posed to the federal government by government-
sponsored enterprises. Listed below are similar studies completed in
1996: ``Changes in Federal Civilian Employment'' (July 1996);
``Assessing the Public Cost and Benefits of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac'' (May 1996); and ``Mandatory Spending Mechanisms'' (February
1996).
______
Appendix B.--Panel of Economic Advisers
Dr. Robert J. Barro, Professor of Economics, Harvard University.
Dr. Michael Boskin, Professor of Economics, Hoover Institute,
Stanford University.
Dr. Barry P. Bosworth, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution.
Dr. Robert Dederick, Economic Consultant, The Northern Trust
Company.
Dr. Rudiger Dornbusch, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Dr. Martin Feldstein, President, National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Dr. Robert J. Gordon, Professor of Economics, Northwestern
University.
Dr. Lyle E. Gramley, Consulting Economist, Mortgage Bankers
Association of America.
Dr. Robert E. Hall, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Dr. Marvin Kosters, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise
Institute.
Dr. Anne Krueger, Professor of Economics, Stanford University.
Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw, Professor of Economics, Harvard University.
Dr. Allan Meltzer, University Professor, Graduate School for
Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University.
Dr. Rudolph Penner, Director, Economic Studies, KPMG Peat Marwick.
Dr. James Poterba, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
Dr. Robert Reischauer, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution.
Dr. Sherwin Rosen, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago.
Dr. Joel Slemrod, Professor of Economics, University of Michigan.
Dr. John Taylor, Professor of Economics, Stanford University.
Dr. James Tobin, Sterling Professor Emeritus, Cowles Foundation for
Research in Economics, Yale University.
reductions in ADP and other spending
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
Let me talk for just a minute about the reduction in
computer data and processing-related spending. Is this
reduction because of efficiencies that you are getting as a
result of computers that you installed in prior years?
Ms. O'Neill. It is partly that and partly because we have
been very aggressive in pursuing different contractual
arrangements and in doing more and more of our work in ways
that are more parsimonious. In addition, we have been able to
take advantage of declining computer costs.
At the same time, we have been trying to expand our public
service by installing an up-to-date web site, which should be
in place pretty soon. We hope that will make our work available
to many, many people who would not have had access to it
before.
Senator Bennett. Do you think it will cut costs, and that
people will be satisfied with the information they get?
Ms. O'Neill. There may not be an actual dollar savings,
because the audience will be larger.
Another way we have saved in the past is by postponing some
work that would have involved additional outside contracts to
provide data of one kind or another. We have been able to do
that. Eventually that comes to an end though.
changes in CBO's revenue projections
Senator Bennett. I would give you an opportunity to put on
this record what you have said elsewhere. During the budget
negotiations, an additional $225 billion over 5 years was spent
as a result of your interim reports. Some people have accused
you of responding to political pressures where the negotiator
said, would it not be wonderful if we had this additional
money. I am not one of those who so accused you, and would give
you the opportunity now to explain for the record exactly what
happened.
Ms. O'Neill. The money was not actually found. It was
simply not anticipated by us when we prepared our annual
report.
Every month we track receipts based on monthly Treasury
reports, and in addition to that we follow daily accounts of
what is happening with receipts, particularly in April. We then
prepare a monthly report for the Budget Committees on our
findings.
A month prior to our report in April, we had noted that
receipts had come in higher than anticipated, and if that was
extrapolated through the end of the fiscal year, it would
produce a significantly lower deficit than the $112 billion we
had been estimating for 1997. Specifically, $10 billion extra
had come in through March in withheld receipts.
During the month of April--which is the heaviest tax
receipt month, understandably--we follow receipts on a daily
basis. Starting around April 15, money begins coming in from
the April 15 tax filings. As it turned out, $25 billion more
came in during the month of April than expected, so added to
the extra in March, that already brought receipts to $35
billion above what we had been estimating would come in for
1997.
It seemed to us perfectly plausible that an additional $10
billion would come in over the remaining months of 1997.
Putting that together gets you to an additional $45 billion.
That was not a revised projection or forecast or anything.
That was cash in hand that was above our forecast. We would
normally have been recording that anyway in our monthly reports
on the Treasury statements. However, we thought that we had an
obligation not to be inflexible at that point in time and to
transmit the information to the Budget Committees--which had
also been noticing, because news accounts had begun to appear,
that the Treasury was awash in cash. The Treasury was paying
off some of the Federal debt, and it was apparent publicly that
this was going on. Ignoring it did not seem to be at all
prudent.
The Budget Committees asked us what we expected the deficit
for 1997 to be in view of the additional $45 billion, and since
nothing much had come in different than what we anticipated on
the outlay side, the extra $45 billion in receipts meant a $45
billion lower deficit.
The next question, which is perfectly reasonable, is, What
effect would this have on future years? We do not revise our
forecast or projections. We update them in the summer. But we
met within CBO to discuss what effect we thought this could
have on future years, and taking into account the reports of
higher growth than we had originally foreseen, we thought that
this was not something that would evaporate next year.
One component would certainly not evaporate, which is that
the reduced deficit in 1997 would mean reduced interest on the
debt. That was automatic. It seemed to us that it would be a
cautious forecast of what the effect would be to say that some
of this may be temporary and some permanent. From what we knew
that seemed perfectly logical.
Therefore, we thought that even if we were projecting
somewhat lower receipts, there would be offsetting debt service
that together would reduce the deficit by approximately $45
billion each year over the next few years.
This is one of those situations where it is true that the
timing may have seemed unseemly, but we cannot really worry
about something like that. I mean, had we not said anything, I
think that would have been highly damaging to the budget
negotiations that were going on, because this was something
that was really large. Rigidity at that point in time did not
seem to be a good way of dealing with the information.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I note the 45 times 5 is 225.
Ms. O'Neill. That is where the $225 billion comes from,
yes.
relationship with the Joint Committee on Taxation and other agencies
Senator Bennett. The projection of revenues, of course, is
not made by CBO, as I have learned to my embarrassment, having
yelled at CBO directors in previous hearings.
Ms. O'Neill. No; it is a complicated story. We are
responsible for the projection of revenues for legislation that
is already passed. We are not responsible for the estimates for
new legislation, but we do the projections of total revenues.
Senator Bennett. I see. Well, this is done by the Joint
Committee on Taxation, and I would just urge you to stay as
close to them as you can. I am sure you are already doing that,
but I was surprised, as a businessman, to come here and find
that there were two agencies involved in that, and that calls
for the greatest of coordination back and forth.
Ms. O'Neill. We do work very closely with the Joint
Committee on Taxation, and we also confer with the Treasury.
The information on daily receipts comes from the Treasury. I
would point out that we were not alone in underestimating
revenues for this year. Actually, OMB's estimate of revenues
for 1997 was lower than ours, and its estimated deficit
somewhat higher.
Additional committee questions
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. We may have some
additional questions for you in writing.
We appreciate your coming. We appreciate your stewardship
in trying to absorb the increased upward pressures by sound
management practices within the agency so that the amount you
request from the Congress is as modest as it is.
Ms. O'Neill. Well, we try.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
Question. In your testimony before this subcommittee last
year, you indicated that CBO's fiscal year 1996 appropriation
provided an increase of $1.1 million and 13 additional FTE's to
handle the increased workload required by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. At that time, CBO estimated that the total
resources CBO would need to devote to fulfilling those
responsibilities would be $2.2 million and 24 FTE's. What was
the total amount of resources CBO devoted in fiscal year 1996?
What do you estimate for fiscal year 1997?
Answer. In carrying out its new responsibilities under the
act last year, CBO used an estimated 24 staff-years of effort
and about $2.3 million--almost double the amount of additional
resources provided in the appropriation for fiscal year 1996.
Because we are expecting the amount of work to fall somewhat
after the first year, both the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year
1998 budgets include 20 full-time-equivalent staff-years and
about $2.1 million for preparing the mandate estimates required
by the act.
Question. CBO's ability to continue to contract for use of
the House Information Resources mainframe computer has been an
issue over the last few years. Last year you indicated you were
pursuing other alternatives. In your testimony before the House
this year you indicated you were going to use savings in the
contract to study other alternatives. What is the status of
your investigation into alternatives? What are their cost
estimates?
Answer. Over the years we have enjoyed a very good
relationship with HIR. Given the choice, CBO would prefer to
continue that association rather than move to another mainframe
computer. However, should that not be possible, it is important
that CBO be given enough time to ``migrate'' its applications
to a new facility.
Given the uncertainty of this situation, we have held
preliminary meetings with a firm that specializes in
converting, integrating, and testing older (so-called
``legacy'') systems. However, additional discussions with the
firm, as well as the participation of key CBO staff, will be
necessary before a contract can be agreed to. Still, we
anticipate that a contract will be awarded and the work
completed during this fiscal year.
Our current agreement with HIR will not expire until the
end of the fiscal year. By then, we expect to have an inventory
of all mission-critical systems as well as migration strategies
and their estimated costs. Those strategies will include
possibly moving (``rehosting'') and modifying (``re-
architecting'') CBO applications that now reside on the HIR
mainframe. As a related task, we will ask the vendor as part of
this contract to analyze all CBO systems (including those on
the HIR mainframe) for problems that could arise in two years
when the calendar shifts to the year 2000.
subcommittee recess
Senator Bennett. Thank you. The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., Tuesday, May 20, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room S-128, the
Capitol, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Bennett, Stevens, and Dorgan.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF
CONGRESS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GEN. DONALD L. SCOTT, RETIRED, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
WINSTON TABB, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
RUBENS MEDINA, LAW LIBRARIAN
JO ANN C. JENKINS, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF THE LIBRARIAN
LLOYD A. PAULS, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR HUMAN RESOURCES
LINDA J. WASHINGTON, DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED SUPPORT SERVICES
HERBERT S. BECKER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
MARYBETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
FRANK KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE
BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
JOHN D. WEBSTER, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES
KATHY A. WILLIAMS, BUDGET OFFICER
KENNETH E. LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF SECURITY
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will come to order.
This morning we are looking forward to hearing from three
agencies: the Library of Congress, the Government Printing
Office, and the General Accounting Office.
I will comment that under the chairmanship of Senator Mack,
for whom I worked for the 2 previous years in the last
Congress, we worked very hard to decrease the spending in all
three of these agencies. As I said in a previous subcommittee
meeting, I think we did a pretty good job across the board for
the legislative branch in bringing down expenses.
The General Accounting Office in particular was faced with
the challenge of absorbing a 25-percent budget reduction over
the past 2 years. We will hear this morning on how these past
reductions have been handled and how management has been
conducted in these agencies.
I am one who believes that once you have a belt tightening
of this kind, it does not need to go on forever and the
agencies need to be commended for doing a decent job. For this
reason I have made it clear that I am not in favor of the
position expressed by some Members of the House regarding a
freeze in legislative branch appropriations. Such a freeze
would indicate that we had not done our job in previous years
and that some of the out of control activities that had been
identified have not been brought under control.
I would like to begin by commending the Library of Congress
for its cooperation with the General Accounting Office as well
as private consultants, Booz Allen and Price Waterhouse, in
conducting a comprehensive review of the operations of the
Library.
The Library appears committed to improving the financial
and management operations and has taken a number of steps which
should result in cost savings and operating efficiencies. We
look forward to hearing about those this morning.
So, Dr. Billington, we welcome you and General Scott to the
committee. We look forward to hearing from you.
Senator Dorgan, the ranking member, has joined us.
Do you have an opening statement, Senator?
Senator Dorgan. Let me also welcome Dr. Billington and
General Scott. We appreciate very much the service that you
give to our country. I deeply admire the institution you serve
and we are anxious to hear your testimony.
Senator Bennett. Senator Stevens, do you have any comment
at this time?
Senator Stevens. No, thank you.
Senator Bennett. Then, Dr. Billington, we are happy to hear
from you.
opening statement of dr. billington
Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted
my full statement for the record which contains considerable
detail both on our current operations and on the specifics of
our request for the 1998 budget. I will also submit a full list
of witnesses for the record. But I would like especially to
introduce Gen. Donald L. Scott, the new Deputy Librarian, whom
you will also be hearing from in just a minute.
Senator Bennett. Without objection, your full statement
will appear in the record.
Dr. Billington. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, the Library is like no other agency of the
legislative branch and in many respects it is unique among
institutions in the world. It is the world's largest, best
organized, most accessible repository of knowledge and the most
diverse, as well, in terms of the kinds of materials and
languages it covers.
With the support of the Congress, the Library of Congress
serves both the national legislature, as well as the libraries,
scholars, and plain citizens of the Nation. It is a resource
that will be of increasing, incalculable value in ways we
cannot even yet fully foresee to all Americans as we move into
the information age.
The Library is playing an important role in moving the
legislative branch into that information age. Thanks to strong
support from the Congress, the Library was able to rapidly
develop the THOMAS system for making congressional information
available online in a searchable form at the start of the 104th
Congress. We are also working with the House and Senate to
build an integrated legislative information retrieval system
online at the start of the 105th.
THOMAS
THOMAS has already recorded more than 75 million electronic
transactions, pretty clearly indicating the usefulness and
appeal of congressional information to the American public.
Congressional support, supplemented by major funding from
private philanthropy for our national digital library, has
enabled the Library to become a world leader in providing high
quality content for the Internet.
Congress is delivering back, in effect, increasing amounts
of the Library's content to the American people.
We are now recording about 42 million electronic
transactions a month on all of our data bases, which is four
times the number in 1993 and is close to 2 million transactions
every working day.
Our web site is widely recognized as one of the best.
Library's vision for the 21st century
The Library's vision for the 21st century is to lead the
Nation in ensuring access to knowledge and information and in
promoting the Library's creative use for the Congress and for
the Congress' constituents through the acquisition,
organization, and dissemination of knowledge and solid
information.
Today, the Library faces the daunting, basic challenge of
effecting a full transition to new, electronic services and
more efficient electronically enhanced operations while at the
same time continuing its basic services to Congress and the
Nation. To maintain its services in the present, in other
words, the Library must both preserve the past and embrace the
future.
Strategic plan
The Library has established priorities and carefully worked
out a strategic plan that extends through the year 2004. The
two key requirements are, first, a modest, but inescapable,
capital investment in technology now to build an integrated
automation system; and second is basic, continuing support from
the Congress to sustain our traditional work of cataloging,
collection security, and access to the collections.
This basic support particularly requires funding mandatory
pay increases and unavoidable price level increases. Otherwise,
we face erosion of what we have already done; and make the
transition, that will eventually have to be made anyway, even
more costly in the future simply to keep up to date.
In only 3 years, Mr. Chairman, the year 2000, the Library
of Congress will mark its bicentenary. This, along with the
millennium that approaches will put both added burdens and
added opportunities on the Library, but it will, we think, be
an occasion to show the Nation and the world that America's
elected representatives have had the wisdom to create and
sustain the greatest repository of human knowledge and
creativity in world history and to make it important not just
for today's Congress and today's citizens but for future
generations.
By funding the Library's 1998 budget request, the Congress
will enable the Library to head into the 21st century with the
capacity to make its operations more efficient, to broaden
vastly its access to its collections, and to provide even
better service to the Congress and to the American people.
prepared statements
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge the subcommittee to support the
Library's budget request and I now ask that the Deputy
Librarian also make a short introductory statement that will
cover the important areas of management for which he has
assumed, I think quite extraordinarily, fast control.
General Scott.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of James H. Billington
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to appear here to discuss the Library of Congress budget
request for fiscal year 1998.
With Congressional support and direction, the Library of Congress
has developed over 197 years a massive collection of more than 111
million items, cost-effective institutional networks, and a superbly
knowledgeable staff. It has a potential unmatched by any other
institution for making knowledge and information accessible to almost
anyone almost anywhere.
The Library directly serves not only the Congress but the entire
nation with the most important commodity of our time: information. It
is a unique resource of incalculable future value for the United States
in the Information Age: a time when our society's economic productivity
is increasingly based on information and individual achievement
requires ever more life-long learning. The Library of Congress is
fundamentally different from any other institution in the legislative
branch of government.
The Library's mission is to make its resources available and useful
to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a
universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future
generations. The Library's first priority is to make knowledge
available and useful to the United States Congress. This primary
purpose can be realized only if the Library also preserves, secures,
and sustains its incomparable collections for present and future use.
These two activities are the top priorities in the Library's overall
statement of mission and strategic priorities (attachment 1), closely
followed by the imperative to make the Library's resources maximally
accessible to the American people. The Library's ability to continue
meeting these priorities rests on its ability to modernize its
infrastructure and to advance its use of technology.
The Library requests $387.6 million (including $30.4 million in
authority to use receipts) for fiscal year 1998 to support its mission
and strategic priorities. This is an increase of 7.1 percent over
fiscal 1997; it includes $14.7 million to fund mandatory pay raises and
unavoidable price-level increases and $11 million to meet critical
growing workload increases (net of program decreases). The recent
budget agreement includes a proposal that would increase the Library's
mandatory pay costs by another $2 million due to higher agency
retirement contributions. The additional $2 million in mandatory costs
is not included in our budget request.
During the past nearly 200 years, the Congress and the Library
have, at critical times, taken necessary steps to integrate into
Library operations the technology that will keep the Library's
collection useful and relevant to the Congress and the Nation. The
Library currently faces the fundamental challenge of effecting a full
transition to the new electronic services and more efficient operations
required for the Information Age while, at the same time, continuing to
sustain its basic services. To ensure the Library's future utility to
the Congress and the Nation, we are requesting this year new funds for:
(1) a modern electronic Integrated Library System (ILS) that will
provide inventory control and vastly improve the efficiency of core
library functions including acquisitions, cataloging, collections
security, and circulation and will ultimately save money; (2) continued
implementation of our highest priority security initiatives, including
additional police to cover newly renovated space and additional staff
for an expanded reader registration program; (3) a temporary increase
in additional FTE's and funds to support our staff succession plan to
help ensure continuity of high-quality congressional and national
services; (4) a temporary increase of $0.5 million for the Copyright
Office to maintain registration processing at an acceptable level; and
(5) the purchase of an additional 10,000 talking book machines to
ensure the continued availability of the equipment for blind and
physically handicapped people.
In this time of budget austerity, the Congress has been extremely
supportive of the Library of Congress, continuing to increase its
budget over the past several years. However, the actual number of
appropriated full-time equivalent (FTE) positions has declined by 435
or 10 percent since fiscal 1992. The Library's budget has simply not
increased enough to support the same number of FTE's that were funded
in fiscal 1992. The Library has so far managed to accomplish its
mission with fewer staff by: (1) identifying functions and activities
that may have been desirable in the past but do not support high enough
priorities to justify their costs in today's budget environment (for
example, the Library has eliminated less popular reading room hours on
Sundays and Tuesday and Friday evenings for the Main Reading Room, Law
Library, and five other reading rooms); and (2) implementing changes in
its business processes that improve the efficiency of operations (for
example, the Library re-engineered the Federal Transfer Program,
dramatically reducing the receipt and processing of millions of surplus
materials from Federal agencies, thereby eliminating substantial
handling costs).
In fiscal 1997, the Library will shift some resources, with
Congressional approval, to address general management improvements and
security initiatives recommended in two recent GAO-commissioned reports
(a management review by Booz-Allen & Hamilton and a financial audit by
Price Waterhouse LLP). Because the Library did not receive price-level
increases in fiscal 1997 and must fund several non-payroll priorities
(e.g., auditor fees) from existing funds, the shift in fiscal 1997
resources will cause a projected reduction of another 7 FTE's (see
attachment 3). The Library is working on ways to carry out economy
measures while addressing key GAO-sponsored recommendations, but it
does not appear likely that they will provide large-scale financial
savings in fiscal 1998.
Since the Library's services are extremely labor intensive (some 70
percent of our budget is for payroll costs), future economies must come
primarily from re-engineering our major operations and from investing
further in automation; both steps will improve the productivity of our
staff. The Library's fiscal 1998 budget requests an increase of $6.1
million for automation projects needed to improve internal operations
and make the collections more accessible. The investment in better
automation now will greatly improve service and save money in the long-
term. The investment the Congress made during the late 1980's and early
1990's in the Library's automation program made possible both the rapid
implementation of THOMAS in 1994 and the first release of a retrieval
component of the Legislative Information System in January 1997.
Investments made today may take several years to bear fruit, but will
produce major productivity and quality improvements in our basic
library and copyright operations. If we are to stay at the cutting edge
for the Congress and the nation, we must invest today in three
automation projects--the Integrated Library System (ILS), the Copyright
Office Electronic Registration, Recordation and Deposit System (CORDS),
and the Global Legal Information Network (GLIN).
These major re-engineering and automation projects must be
completed if the Library is to be as relevant to the emerging needs of
the Congress and the Nation as it has been to those of the recent past.
Funding our fiscal 1998 budget request, including provisions for
mandatory pay and price-level increases, will enable the Library to
sustain its basic services while continuing to modernize its operations
for the future. It would bring the Library's automated systems up to
the level now being achieved by other major research libraries in
America. If this request cannot be granted, and we are, as a result,
required to make further staff cuts before major productivity projects
are implemented, we would make reductions in accordance with our
priorities. We would regrettably have to begin fairly rapidly to reduce
public programs--particularly those which preferentially serve the non-
governmental Washington area such as public reading room hours,
reference support, and local access to the Library's buildings. We
would reduce further, if not eliminate altogether, exhibits,
publications, and other outreach programs.
It would be tragic to cut back drastically on these traditional
services on which so many who live in or come to Washington depend--and
for which Congress has created such exciting new opportunities through
its glorious restoration of the Thomas Jefferson and John Adams
buildings. But the damage would be irretrievable if we cut back even
for a year the basic acquisition and servicing of the collections, and
it would be inadmissable not to sustain and advance the leadership role
the Congress has encouraged the Library to take in sharing more of its
contents with the nation as a whole. Future generations will not
forgive us if we fail to make electronically accessible via the
Internet the Library's unique and useful materials at precisely the
moment when the Library's proven technological capability to provide
such access is enjoying enthusiastic public--and growing private--
support. In short, we believe that the Congress should sustain its
fruitful investment in the Library and not let erode the great
institution it has wisely created and supported for 197 years.
A brief review of the Library's past and present is essential for
understanding the Library's priorities for fiscal 1998.
early history
The Library of Congress is a living monument to the remarkable
wisdom of the Founding Fathers who saw access to an ever-expanding body
of knowledge as essential to a dynamic democracy. The Library's three
buildings are named for Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James
Madison. With their support, the Congress established the Library in
1800 as soon as it moved to the new capital city of Washington and
established the Joint Committee on the Library as the first Joint
Committee of the Congress in 1802.
Jefferson, in particular, took a keen interest in the new
institution. After the British burned the Capitol and the Library
during the War of 1812, Congress accepted Jefferson's offer to
``recommence'' the Library and purchase his multilingual 6,487-volume
collection (then the finest in America) at a price of $23,940. It
contained volumes on everything from architecture to geography and the
sciences. Anticipating the argument that his collection might seem too
wide-ranging for Congress, Jefferson said that there was ``no subject
to which a Member of Congress might not have occasion to refer.''
Jefferson's ideals of a ``universal'' collection and of sharing
knowledge as widely as possible still guide the Library. With
Congressional blessing, it has grown to serve the Congress and the
nation--largely as a result of four milestone laws: (1) the copyright
law of 1870, which stipulated that two copies of every book, pamphlet,
map, print, photograph, and piece of music registered for copyright in
the United States be deposited in the Library; (2) the 1886
authorization of the first separate Library building that contained
openly accessible reading rooms and exhibition space for the general
public; (3) the 1902 law which authorized the Library to sell its
cataloging records inexpensively to the nation's libraries and thus
massively help to subsidize the entire American library system; and (4)
the law in 1931 that established the program in the Library to create
and supply free library materials to blind and physically handicapped
readers throughout the country. Congress thus established the basis
both for the continued growth of the collections and for the extension
of the Library's services to citizens everywhere.
Congress created in 1914 the Legislative Reference Service (LRS) as
a separate entity to provide specialized services to ``Congress and
committees and Members thereof.'' In 1946, the Congress granted LRS
permanent status within the Library and directed it to employ
specialists to cover broad subject areas. Congress renamed the LRS the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) in 1970 and enhanced its
analytical capabilities by adding additional staff and emphasizing
research support to the committees of Congress.
More recently, Congressional statutes have created the American
Folklife Center (1976), the American Television and Radio Archives
(1976), the National Center for the Book (1977), the National Film
Preservation Board (1988), and the National Film Preservation
Foundation (1996)--further extending the Library of Congress' national
role.
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 111 million
items cover more than 530 miles of shelf space and include research
materials in more than 450 languages and almost all media through which
knowledge and creativity are preserved and communicated.
The Library has more than 26 million volumes, including 5,700
volumes printed before the year 1500; 13 million prints, photographs,
and posters; 4 million maps, old and new; 700,000 reels of film,
including the earliest movies and television shows; 4 million pieces of
music; 48 million pages of personal papers and manuscripts, including
those of Presidents Washington through Coolidge; and hundreds of
thousands of scientific and government documents.
New treasures are added each year. Recent acquisitions, to name a
few, include the collection of Marion S. Carson, the nation's most
extensive private collection of Americana, which includes the earliest
photographs ever taken of a human face and of an urban scene, as well
as more than 10,000 manuscripts, rare books, broadsides, photographs,
drawings, prints, and other original documents; the personal papers and
several hundred original drawings of cartoonist, playwright, and
screenwriter Jules Feiffer; the collection of jazz great Ella
Fitzgerald, comprising some 10,000 music scores; and important rare
books such as Antonio de Medina's Viaggio di terra Santa (1590), an
extremely rare and richly illustrated Italian translation of a Spanish
pilgrimage to the eastern Mediterranean.
Every work day the Library's staff takes in approximately 10,000
new items for its collections, organizes them, catalogs them, and finds
ways to share them with the Congress and the nation--through on-line
access across the nation, through in-person access in the Library's
reading rooms, and through cultural programs that feature the Library's
collections and reach across the country.
The Library of Congress programs and activities are funded by four
salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriations, which support congressional
services, national library services, copyright administration, and
library services to blind and physically handicapped people. A separate
appropriation funds furniture and furnishings. Major services (see
attachment 2) include providing annually responses to some 500,000
congressional requests, registering more than 560,000 copyright claims,
cataloging some 300,000 books and serials, and circulating more than 23
million audio and braille books and magazines to blind and physically
handicapped individuals all across America. The Library also now
processes over one million Internet transactions every day (which
provide access to the Library's on-line information files that contain
more than 40 million records).
The Library has become a world leader in providing high quality
content for the expanding Internet, and was recently cited by Time
magazine, among others, as one of the best websites of 1996. The
Congress--and this Committee in particular--has made it possible for
the Library to help bring the Legislative Branch into the Information
Age. We believe that much more can be accomplished by investing further
in the transforming technology required to exploit this unique national
resource.
the library's planning efforts
During fiscal 1996, the Library developed a Management Improvement
Plan (MIP) to focus its efforts on implementing the Library's
priorities: Provide Support to the U.S. Congress; Preserve, Secure and
Sustain a Universal Collection; Make the Library's Collections
Maximally Accessible; and Enhance the Educational Value of the
Library's Collections.
The MIP also addressed the useful recommendations contained in two
reports commissioned by GAO and completed in 1996--a management review
conducted by Booz-Allen & Hamilton and a financial audit conducted by
Price Waterhouse LLP. The MIP contains nine parts: plans and programs;
security (of people, facilities, collections, and data systems);
management-employee communications; training and development;
accountability mechanisms; support functions' efficiency and
responsiveness; streamlined management processes; financial management;
and broader understanding and appreciation of the Library.
Using as our guide the Library's statement of mission and strategic
priorities endorsed by the 104th Congress, we updated our 1993-2000
strategic plan to take us through the year 2004. The Library's
challenge, under the 1997-2004 strategic plan, is to sustain past gains
while becoming a more efficient and effective operation. The Library's
vision for the 21st century is to ``lead the nation in ensuring access
to knowledge and information and in promoting its creative use for the
Congress and its constituents.'' The United States has, and must
continue to have, the finest national library in the world.
With that background, I am happy to present the Library's fiscal
1998 budget request, relating it to our priorities:
Support to the United States Congress
The first priority of the Library of Congress is, and will remain,
to serve the information and research needs of the Congress. The
Congressional Research Service, the Law Library, the Library Services'
Loan Division, and other elements of the Library of Congress provide a
cost-effective, shared resource that serves all Committees and Members
in a nonpartisan manner.
The fiscal year 1998 budget request seeks funding for 25 additional
FTE's in the Congressional Research Service as part of a multi-year
succession plan. By 2006, nearly 52 percent of CRS' staff will be
eligible to retire. This poses a significant threat to CRS' ability to
maintain its current analytic and information services unless training
of replacement staff can begin soon, under the tutelage of the senior
staff who are eligible for retirement.
As directed by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1997,
the Library and CRS worked with the House, the Senate, and legislative
agencies to put into production the initial release of a new retrieval
component of the legislative information system (LIS). The retrieval
component is based on national standards and is being built on an open
architecture, which will enable the system to accommodate future
improvements to data management systems. The purpose of the LIS is to
improve the efficiency of dissemination of information for the
legislative branch and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. The
LIS will provide the Congress with far greater on-line access to a
variety of legislative documentation, including: full-text legislation,
bill summaries, committee reports, floor schedules, and the
Congressional Record. The on-line availability of this information will
make it easier for Members and staff to track bills through the law-
making process, and will also help CRS to do its work in a more cost-
effective and timely manner.
In addition to the retrieval component of the LIS, the Library has
participated in a number of discussions and meetings with legislative
branch staff to support the establishment of a program for the exchange
of information between legislative branch entities that would over time
significantly improve information technology planning and evaluation.
CRS also completed a major initiative during the past year to
improve on-line delivery of its products and services. All CRS issue
briefs are now available electronically to congressional offices
through the CRS home page. This effort is part of a continuing program
to improve the speed and delivery of CRS products and services by
providing them to Members and staff on-line. CRS continuously updates,
refines, and improves the availability of information on the CRS Home
Page to ensure that we remain responsive to congressional needs.
For its part, the Law Library is rapidly expanding its
multinational electronic database called the Global Legal Information
Network (GLIN) to ensure that the Congress has rapid and reliable
information on foreign, international, and comparative law. GLIN made
its debut on the Library's home page in July 1996. Member nations are
contributing abstracts and full text of laws at the rate of 15 entries
per day and growing. Fourteen countries have been fully trained to
participate via the Internet, and the Library projects that GLIN
membership will soon increase to 15-20 nations. The fiscal year 1998
budget requests $223,362 and three additional FTE's to support the
expansion of GLIN. The Library has been funding GLIN so far by
reallocating existing resources, and NASA has provided support to
explore and test satellite communications. In addition, international
agencies (e.g., the World Bank) have provided support to participating
nations. We project that GLIN will attract at least 50 members by 2002
and will create an easy-to-use database, allowing faster service to the
Congress. It should eventually produce savings to the Library's budget
as other nations begin sharing the costs to acquire, catalog, and make
accessible international laws.
Preserve, Secure and Sustain a Universal Collection
The second priority of the Library of Congress is to preserve,
secure and sustain for the present and future use of the Congress and
the nation a universal collection of human knowledge, including
comprehensive records of American history and creativity.
A universal collection is even more essential today than it was a
few years ago if the Congress is to meet its legislative and
representational responsibilities. There are many more countries,
institutions, and individuals creating important information on more
subjects, and the Congress and U.S. Government have more complex and
far-ranging concerns and needs than ever before. To keep America
competitive and to foster creativity in the Information Age, Americans
will increasingly have to rely on better and more timely use of
knowledge. This, in turn, requires continuing access to the many
languages and to the expanding range of formats in which important
knowledge is now being generated, recorded, and communicated.
The Library's unique resources provide an indispensable reservoir
of information upon which important legislative decisions are made. If
a democratic society is to be dynamic and productive, access to
information is not a luxury, it is a necessity.
The fiscal 1998 budget request supports this priority by funding
several major items:
Library Materials.--A price level increase of $1,161,000 is
necessary to sustain purchasing power at fiscal 1995 levels and to
recoup fiscal 1996 and 1997 price level increases for books, machine-
readable works, and other materials. Many of these are foreign
publications--on all subjects--that are purchased from countries with
high rates of inflation. The amount of material we can afford to
purchase from appropriated funds has declined seriously--from 930,747
pieces in fiscal 1992 to 707,695 pieces in fiscal 1996. We cannot
permit further erosion in these acquisitions--particularly since these
reductions disproportionately hurt precisely those foreign acquisitions
which only the Library of Congress makes and which often have growing
importance for our international competitiveness. We should not risk
depleting what is, in effect, the nation's strategic information
reserve. It will have many uses tomorrow that we cannot even imagine
today.
Copyright Office.--The fiscal 1998 budget request also supports a
growing workload increase of five FTE's and $304,179 to continue
implementation of the Copyright Office's pioneering Electronic
Registration, Recordation and Deposit System (CORDS). We have reached a
critical point in the development and implementation of CORDS. The
Copyright Office has proved during its pilot of 1996 that electronic
registration and deposit works. Now the CORDS system is being perfected
through a number of critical test phases with external participants.
CORDS will both (1) help the Copyright Office streamline its complex
internal registration, recordation and deposit processes; and (2)
provide the Library with copies of new copyrighted works in digital
form for its collections. Re-engineering the Copyright Office's
registration processes and integrating them with the Library's
acquisition and cataloging processes is critical to the long-term cost-
effectiveness of operations. Electronic publishing is growing
exponentially; and the Library must be a leader in testing and
demonstrating the means to acquire, authenticate, store securely and
provide authorized access to this vast body of new copyrighted works in
electronic form. CORDS is a crucial component.
For many years, the Copyright Office has been steadily increasing
overall productivity even as its staff has shrunk. In fiscal 1980, a
staff of 628 FTE's processed 483,000 claims; in 1996, a staff of 471
FTE's processed 609,000 claims representing more than 700,000 works. At
the simplest level, the staff in 1996 is 25 percent lower than in 1980,
yet it processed more than 26 percent more claims. These gains were the
result of systematically automating various processes and increasing
the efficiency of manual procedures by eliciting ideas at all levels in
the Copyright Office.
More recently, however, the Copyright Office has been able to keep
up with its irreducible clerical workload only by using overtime and
additional temporary help. By the end of fiscal 1995, the steady loss
of trained staff (particularly examiners, whose number fell from 64 to
49 FTE's in three years, and whose expertise cannot be replaced with
temporary staff) resulted in growing backlogs. The registration
processing period has grown alarmingly from a norm of five to seven
weeks in 1993 to more than 18 weeks now.
To stem this growing backlog, the Copyright Office requests
additional funding of $538,953 and 14 FTE's. Fiscal relief can come in
the future through a legislated ability to increase the fee schedule,
but a temporary increase for fiscal 1998 is needed to cope with the
current workload.
Security.--A fiscal 1998 increase of $1.3 million is requested to
improve security. A number of needed security improvements have been
funded by changing the priority for existing resources and by
reprogramming resources, such as the fiscal 1997 reprogramming of funds
that has enabled us to hire our new Director of Security. We have made
major efforts here, as supported by the Congress.
A key component of the collections security program is the reader
registration program. Under this program, each researcher using the
reading rooms is required to provide positive identification. Once such
identification (photo ID with address) is presented, the Library issues
a Reader Identification Card to the individual with the person's photo
and signature, as well as a machine readable card number. Thus, patron
information is available for management--including the Library's Office
of the Inspector General, if necessary. The funding requested
($393,410) will permit the operation of two reader registration
stations, one in the Thomas Jefferson Building and one in the James
Madison Building, the buildings in which most of the Library's reading
rooms are located. The Library anticipates issuing 100,000 Reader
Identification Cards annually.
The fiscal 1998 budget proposes $417,035 and 18 FTE's for
additional police officers. Seven additional police FTE's are needed to
staff posts in the Library's Thomas Jefferson Building now that it has
reopened. Funding for three FTE's (and authorization for a total of 11
additional police FTE's) are also necessary to reduce the present
police overtime rate. In fiscal year 1996, the Library contracted with
Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) to conduct an in-depth physical
security survey of the Library and review police operations. CSC's
report indicated that Library police are currently understaffed to
accomplish their mission and must work excessive overtime which reduces
their effectiveness. The Library's goal is to reduce police overtime,
now computed at approximately 26,000 hours per year (roughly 25 percent
of total scheduled hours), to approximately 10,000 hours (roughly 10
percent of total scheduled hours). The Library believes a 10 percent
overtime rate will not compromise the effectiveness and quality of
performance. Our security requirements have increased since the
Oklahoma City bombing incident in 1995, but we have not been able to
increase our police staffing sufficiently to handle these new
requirements without excessive overtime. Funding for $268,000 in non-
personal increases is also needed to train and uniform the new police,
to support contract staffing for two new cloakrooms, for installation
and maintenance of security equipment, and for contract support of some
non-police functions.
The copyright system is a major source of acquisitions for the
Library. The high volume and great variety of materials that come in
daily to the Library and are temporarily stored in tubs, on book trucks
and on open shelves while awaiting processing create a point of serious
vulnerability to untraceable loss. A key need of security is to gain
item level control at the earliest point of entry into the Library. The
fiscal 1998 budget requests $242,072 and six FTE's to apply magnetic
strips and accession labels to all works as soon as they enter the
Library through copyright.
We have developed a Library Security Management Plan to integrate
recommendations from CSC and others into a management level framework
for phased and prioritized implementation of efficient, cost-effective
solutions. The Library's highly-qualified new Director of Security will
oversee the implementation of this plan.
Integrated Library System (ILS).--Essential to improved security
and overall process improvements is the Library's request for a $5.6
million increase to purchase and install an Integrated Library System.
This initiative builds on our previously-identified need to provide
inventory control over our collections through the conversion of two
very large manual files--our shelflist of over 12 million cards and our
serial record file with cards for almost 900,000 serial titles. These
files constitute the only comprehensive record of what book and serial
copies have been added to the Library's collections over the course of
nearly two hundred years. Information about these materials needs to be
available to all staff and to public users from any location, not just
to the relatively few staff with access to the card files.
An integrated library system is essential for ensuring the security
of the Library's collections. Currently, there is no Library-wide
system for recording what we have and where it is. The security of the
Library's collections depends to a very large degree on our procuring
an automated system that will allow us to document and to track
collection materials on a continuing basis from the point they enter
the Library.
The time has come when we must begin the systematic and overall
replacement of our several separate, outmoded computer systems. These
systems have served us well for over 25 years, and we are fortunate
that there have been no major breakdowns or failures. But these legacy
systems are simply not adequate to support us as we move into the 21st
century. In order to continue re-engineering our business processes, we
need a single system that integrates all major functional areas, such
as cataloging, acquisitions, inventory, and circulation. Better
automation support will enable Library staff to be more productive,
permitting the Library to deliver existing products and services with a
smaller workforce. For example, by streamlining cataloging, by
eliminating inefficient and error-prone re-keying in several areas, by
reducing duplicate acquisitions, and by minimizing the handling of
materials, we expect to be able to reallocate substantial resources to
other critical mission work, such as collection security. We estimate
that we will be able to reallocate approximately $6 million per year to
high-priority mission work once the new system is fully in place in six
years. Overall, systems replacement will result in greatly improved
service by providing a simple yet powerful public catalog, up-to-date
information about the status and availability of materials in our
collections, and easily traversed connections to a wide variety of
research tools, including the rich resources of the National Digital
Library.
Preservation.--On the preservation front, the decay of materials
printed and written on acidic paper continues to be a serious problem.
Paper-based books and records are in effect being consumed by ``slow
fires'' no less deadly than the fast fires that destroyed the Capitol
and the Library of Congress in 1812. Though printing on more permanent
alkaline paper is a recent encouraging development, millions of books
published during the past 150 years on acidic paper bear the seeds of
their own destruction.
Since the 1970's, the Congress has supported the Library's national
leadership in a scientific odyssey to solve the problem of
deteriorating acidic paper. The objective has been to develop or obtain
the use of mass deacidification processes to neutralize the acid in
books and other paper-based materials before they become so brittle
that the only way of saving the contents is by much more costly
reformatting, such as microfilming.
Congress approved our plan two years ago to expend no-year funds
previously appropriated for mass deacidification development in order
to work with a private firm to improve the Bookkeeper process and then
to begin deacidifying books on a limited scale. For the first time
since we began our search for a mass deacidification process 20 years
ago, the Library moved beyond research and testing during the past year
and began deacidifying books from the Library's collections, committing
ourselves to deacidifying 72,000 books using the Bookkeeper process. We
successfully treated 25,000 books in fiscal 1996 from the general
collections, the Law Library, and the Asian Division and expect to
treat an additional 47,000 books in fiscal 1997. A plan to deacidify
another 275,000 books and evaluate other processes is pending approval
of the Committee.
There is more good news on the preservation front. As a result of
installing a state-of-the-art audio preservation system to digitize
audio materials, the Library took a giant step in 1996 toward
preserving and increasing access to these hitherto little used
materials in the Library's collections. This system's impressive
features will allow the Library to preserve and restore at least 80
percent of its audio collections, including more than 98 percent of the
audio cylinders, at an unprecedented level of quality, and to undertake
research essential for the preservation of digital audio data.
Arrearage Reduction.--Arrearage reduction efforts remain a major
Library enterprise. Despite steady reductions in staff, we continued
during fiscal 1996 to reduce the backlog of unprocessed materials--by
1.5 million items--while remaining current with new receipts. As of
March 31, 1997, we have achieved a cumulative 50 percent decrease (19.7
million items) in our backlog since the arrearage reduction project
began. We are well ahead of our target goals for reducing the books and
serials arrearage. We will continue to streamline cataloging and
processing; but arrearage reduction work is unavoidably labor
intensive, and we have reached the point where any further reductions
in staff (before the cataloging process is re-engineered), which would
result from not funding mandatory pay increases, would seriously slow--
and could reverse--the continued success in this major effort.
Make the Library's Collections Maximally Accessible
The Congress has extended the services of the Library of Congress
to the nation by providing public access to its rich resources through
its 20 public reading rooms, through interlibrary loan, through a
variety of special programs, and most recently through electronic
access.
The Congress also established in 1931 a program in the Library of
Congress that creates and supplies free library materials to blind and
physically handicapped readers throughout the country. Administered by
the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped,
this service actually began in 1897 when the new Library of Congress
building opened with a special reading room for blind patrons. The
fiscal 1998 budget request includes a growing workload increase of
$2,500,000 for procurement of audio cassette book machines.
Approximately 10,000 units will be added to those currently scheduled.
These machines will permit service without interruption and waiting
lists.
In fiscal 1996, the Congress approved a braille centralization
initiative that had the potential of saving millions of dollars for the
network of non-Federal libraries but would have cost the Library of
Congress nearly $700,000 annually. Initially, the Library believed a
portion of its costs could be absorbed; however, current budgetary
constraints would unacceptably decrease the production and distribution
of braille materials, the primary mission of the Library, to support
this centralization initiative. Therefore, the Library is not
implementing this centralization project and has encouraged the network
libraries to pursue this initiative without Federal support.
The Congress approved and funded the National Digital Library
program as part of the fiscal 1996 budget. This is a public-private
partnership to digitize the most important and interesting historical
Americana materials from the Library for viewing by American citizens,
in schools, libraries and homes everywhere. The overall goal is to
digitize, in collaboration with other institutions, millions of
American history items from the Library of Congress and other
repositories by the year 2000--the Library's bicentennial. We are
increasingly working in collaboration with other great American
repositories with unique materials; and we are on schedule with our
public-private partnership for raising the $60 million needed over the
five-year period from 1996 to 2000: $15 million from the Congress and
$45 million from the private sector. Making these priceless treasures
of American history accessible to all Americans in their own local
communities, is central to the Library's goal of enriching education in
America and widening access to the documentary record of America's
knowledge and creativity.
This pathbreaking public-private partnership has so far generated
the direct contribution by the private sector of $24.5 million, matched
by the Congressional appropriation of $3 million per year beginning in
fiscal 1996.
The Library has seventeen large and unique collections online,
fascinating archives of American history that have drawn wide public
acclaim. They attract more than 4 million electronic hits a month. The
National Digital Library Program was featured at the National
Educational Summit attended by all state governors in April of 1996 and
has been cited by Time magazine and many other sources as one of the
best of all Internet websites.
To date we have multi-year contracts in place for digitizing more
than 1.7 million digital items in addition to the more than 300,000
already archived. We have established a dozen ways to process and
convert collections materials to digital form and to develop new
technical standards for storing and sharing these items electronically.
Operationally, we have built an efficient organization which will work
to integrate this five-year public-private effort into the internal
functions of the institution. Our pioneering work in making high
quality content electronically available in a reliable and user-
friendly format is providing valuable experience for our (and other
libraries) overall programs of electronic modernization.
The Library of Congress has historically served not only Congress
but the nation's libraries, providing leadership in cataloging and the
development of technical standards. The creation of the catalog record
and MARC standard, now used world-wide, was the Library's gift to the
nation. Great economies of scale were possible by these developments,
saving libraries the cost of duplicative cataloging and enabling the
easy exchange of information. This role continues unabated in the
digital era as we play a similar role, often in collaboration with
other great research libraries, by helping the library and educational
community gain local access to not just our catalog records but also to
full documents, musical scores, collections of photographs, and many
other types of materials which have never before been widely available.
Standards and best practices will be crucial to the handling of
electronic materials. Our Copyright Office is creating a system and
technical architecture that will also handle full documents (digital
objects), and is working closely with Library Services and the National
Digital Library Project to develop an infrastructure for the future.
Enhance the Educational Value of the Library's Collections
Through interpretive and educational programs, the Library shares
its rich collections of printed books, manuscripts, prints and
photographs, maps, sound recordings, and films with the nation's
citizens. The Library's World Wide Web site has been particularly
useful in reaching its various constituencies, including the general
public. Electronic exhibits, one of the most popular areas on the Web
site, permit people who cannot journey to Washington, D.C. to view in
their own localities materials from the Library's exhibits and to learn
about their significance in the history of mankind. Electronic exhibits
are cost-effective--permitting the public everywhere to enjoy and
benefit from them long after the physical exhibit has been dismantled.
Library-developed publications are also becoming increasingly available
on the Web, and active collaboration with publishers has resulted in an
increased public awareness of the extraordinary and unique materials in
the collections.
The Library's interpretive and educational programs are fourth
priority activities and have thus been made heavily dependent on
private funding for their operation. Although the demand for more
exhibits, programs, and publications grows, a combination of gift and
trust funds, improved operational management, and technological
opportunities have been and will continue to be relied upon to meet the
need. The Library's private fund-raising has resulted in generous
contributions from donors and from the James Madison Council in support
of exhibits, scholarly programs, and publications. In fiscal 1996, we
raised $10.6 million in new pledges and non-pledge philanthropic gifts
with one of the smallest development offices of any major national
cultural institution.
In its centennial year of 1997, the Thomas Jefferson Building,
magnificently restored with the support of the Congress, is now largely
reopened. Scholars and researchers are able to use exceptional global
resources in the new European, Asian, and African and Middle Eastern
Reading Rooms. The Library opened a permanent and privately-funded
``American Treasures of the Library of Congress'' exhibit on May 1,
1997. This exhibit enables visitors to see for the first time a wide
variety of the inspirational original documents of American history
from the collections. More than 200 objects from the Library's
incomparable record of America's memory from Thomas Jefferson's rough
draft of the Declaration of Independence and Benjamin Franklin's
letters to original musical scores by Gershwin and Jelly Roll Morton to
Alexander Graham Bell's first sketch of a telephone and the earliest
copyright deposit moving images from Thomas Edison's laboratory--all
are on display in the Treasures Gallery. This sweeping exhibition, on
display in the magnificent Thomas Jefferson Building, re-establishes
the Library of Congress as a major tourist attraction; and for those
who cannot visit Washington, an expanded on-line version of
``Treasures'' is accessible on the Internet.
In the year 2000, the Library of Congress will celebrate its
bicentenary. Our 200th birthday provides the opportunity to heighten
the nation's awareness and utilization of the Library as a major
resource for the Congress and the American people as we enter the new
millennium in the midst of the information age. Planning is underway
for a national celebration with advice and participation from the
Congress as well as the library, scholarly, and educational
communities. The National Digital Library Program, through which the
Library's collections directly reach American citizenry, is a key
element of the celebration. Preliminary plans include on-site and
digitized exhibitions on Thomas Jefferson, democracy, and knowledge,
and on the history of the Library of Congress in American life; an
illustrated history of the Library; the issuance of a commemorative
stamp; Congressional authorization of a Bicentennial Advisory
Commission and a commemorative coin series; national television and
radio programming; and events at local levels. Most of the funding will
come from private sources.
enabling infrastructure
The Library's strategic planning process has developed objectives
for the supporting infrastructure to ensure that the Library is able to
carry out its mission efficiently in accordance with its priorities.
The key objectives are motivating and mobilizing human resources,
efficiently delivering electronic services and using space and
equipment, and providing modern financial and information systems.
In December 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia approved the final settlement of the Cook class action
lawsuit, which dates back to 1982. The Library has already put in place
many of the agreement's provisions, including changing the selection
process to ensure that it is fair and equitable; training all managers
and supervisors in diversity awareness; promoting 39 class members; and
reassigning three others. Working closely with the Departments of
Justice and Treasury, payments totalling $8.5 million were made to
class members in April. Above and beyond the implementation of this
settlement, the Library has a continuing commitment to ensure equal
opportunity and fairness in all our activities.
library buildings and grounds
The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the
structural and mechanical care of the Library's buildings and grounds,
which are critical components of the Library's infrastructure. Each
year, the Library suggests priority capital improvement requirements to
the AOC, and the AOC is responsible for submitting the budget request.
The Library Buildings and Grounds budget request for fiscal 1998 totals
$15,755,000--a $6 million increase from fiscal 1997, primarily for
capital improvements required to support Library programs.
Our prime concern has been off-site storage of Library materials at
Fort Meade, Maryland. The Library has been working closely with the AOC
on the building design for Storage Module 1, the first of several
storage modules to be constructed at Fort Meade. The final designs and
logistics plans will be reviewed within the next few months.
Construction is expected to begin by the end of 1997. The AOC plans to
have the facility completed in time for the Library to begin occupancy
by mid 1999. Additional modules for collections, materials screening/
holding, furniture and equipment storage, and copyright deposits are to
be constructed and occupied over the next 10 years. We envision a
continuous building program at Fort Meade to ensure that the Library's
growing collections remain secure and accessible. Additional funding
will be needed in the future to support this building program as we
vacate existing leased storage space in Landover, Maryland.
Although the Library's plans for Fort Meade originally included
building a nitrate film processing and storage facility, the Department
of the Army has indicated that such a facility could not be constructed
there. As a result, the Library has been exploring other alternatives,
including seeking private sector donations to fund a major part of a
facility at another location. The Library has developed a comprehensive
plan for a new National Audio-Visual Conservation Center and is now
developing a funding strategy that will likely seek congressional
authorization for a public-private partnership similar to that which
has made the National Digital Library program so successful.
proposed legislation
The Library is seeking legislation to allow the Copyright Office to
set the fees for basic services, to improve the efficiency of the
copyright arbitration process, to improve financial management
activities, to support the Library's bicentennial activities, and to
seek permanent authorization of the American Folklife Center.
Much of the work that the Copyright Office performs is a service
for which the public pays a fee. In the past, the ideal ratio was
thought to be 66 percent funded by fees with the other 34 percent
funded out of appropriated funds. The latter was considered to be a
reasonable offset for the value of materials that the Library acquired
through the copyright system.
Most copyright fees are set by Congress. From time to time Congress
raises these fees, usually at the request of the Copyright Office. Each
time the fees have been raised to reestablish the 2/3 fee-funded goal.
The most recent increase was in 1991, when the fee was raised to $20.
In the 104th and now in the 105th Congress, the House of
Representatives passed legislation that gives the Register the
authority to set the basic fees, subject to Congressional veto. The
Senate did not act on this legislative proposal before adjournment of
the 104th Congress and the legislation is now pending before the Senate
(S. 506). The legislation would also authorize the Library to pay
arbitrators involved in the settlement of royalty distribution
proceedings directly with funds coming from the relevant royalty pool.
Currently, the parties to an arbitration proceeding pay the
arbitrators. The fiscal year 1997 budget authorized the use of
offsetting receipts to pay the arbitrators pending approval of the
authorizing legislation. We are again requesting the authority to use
offsetting receipts in the fiscal 1998 budget.
Early passage of this legislation is critical, since the Copyright
Office is severely hampered by a lack of staff in several essential
areas, and the registration and issuance of certificates is
unacceptably now taking more than 18 weeks.
The services provided by the Copyright Office are important both to
copyright owners and to the economy. To provide these services in a
reasonable time frame will require additional personnel, which in turn
requires enactment of fee-setting authority early in the 105th
Congress.
We believe that this is relatively non-controversial legislation
that both the majority and minority of the Senate Judiciary Committee
will support. Because this legislation is essential for the budget, we
request the help of the Appropriations Committees in expediting its
consideration.
Early in the 105th Congress, we will also seek approval, as we have
for the past several years, of legislation to implement improvements in
our financial management as recommended by GAO and by recently
completed management studies. A key element needed to improve our
financial management practices is a revolving fund to operate fee
service activities. Particularly urgent is our need for revolving fund
authorization to continue operating the Library's overseas Cooperative
Acquisitions Program on the same financial basis as has been done so
economically for 30 years. The General Accounting Office sent a letter
to the Library at the end of January which stated that the Library
could not continue to retain and use all of the funds collected for
operating costs without clear legislative authority. Without new
revolving fund authority to operate this Cooperative Acquisitions
Program, the Library would need to end a cost-effective, widely
appreciated service which benefits nearly 100 research libraries
throughout the nation.
The Library is seeking authorization for an Advisory Commission to
guide the planning of its bicentennial in the year 2000. The membership
will be largely Congressional, but will also include private citizens
and representatives from other branches of government as well as the
library and educational communities. The Congress of the United States
created our oldest Federal cultural institution, has sustained and
improved it over the years, and deserves to receive public credit and
visibility at this 200th birthday as the greatest library patron of all
time.
Finally, the Library continues to work closely with the Board of
Trustees of the American Folklife Center to pursue permanent
authorization for the Center, and at a meeting last month, the Board
adopted draft legislative language which is planned to be introduced in
Congress later this year.
summary
The Library's proposed fiscal 1998 budget supports the Library's
mission and priorities. Thanks to the foresight and continuing support
of the Congress, the Library of Congress has become the nation's
principal knowledge reserve. The Library's ability to acquire,
organize, preserve, and make increasingly accessible its unique
resources is of critical importance to our knowledge-based democracy
and to legislative policy-making.
In only three years, the Library of Congress will mark its
Bicentenary. By funding fully the Library's fiscal 1998 budget request,
the Congress would prevent further staff reductions and the erosion of
core programs that have already been reduced as a result of unfunded
price level increases and other factors. This budget will enable the
Library to improve internal operations through the use of new
technology, to tighten the security of its staff and collections, and
to position the Library to move into the 21st century with sufficient
state-of-the-art services for the Congress and the Nation in the
information age.
For fiscal 1998, we submit a budget request that will enable us to
continue to make the major contributions to the American people that
Congress has supported for 197 years through its Library.
______
Attachment 1.--The Mission and Strategic Priorities of the Library of
Congress
mission
The Library's mission is to make resources available and useful to
the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a
universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future
generations.
priorities
The first priority of the Library of Congress is to make knowledge
and creativity available to the United States Congress.
The second priority of the Library of Congress is to preserve,
secure and sustain for the present and future use of the Congress and
the nation a comprehensive record of American history and creativity,
and a universal collection of human knowledge.
The third priority of the Library of Congress is to make its
collections maximally accessible to (in order of priority): the
Congress, the U.S. government more broadly, and the thinking and
creative public.
The fourth priority is to add interpretive and educational value to
the basic resources of the Library.
ATTACHMENT 2.--LIBRARY OF CONGRESS COMPARISON OF APPROPRIATIONS, STAFF, AND WORKLOAD STATISTICS
[For the fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent
1997 Change 1992-97 change
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 projected
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Library appropriations--actual....... $328,170,000 $334,316,000 $330,864,000 $348,230,000 $352,399,000 $361,896,000 +$33,726,000 +10.28
Full-time equivalent [FTE] positions
(appropriated)...................... 4,549 4,492 4,163 4,180 4,114 4,107 -442 -9.72
Size of Library collections.......... 101,395,257 104,834,652 107,814,587 108,433,370 111,080,666 113,580,666 +12,185,409 +12.02
Workload statistics:
Unprocessed Library arrearages... 33,576,196 27,456,787 25,431,296 22,491,071 20,970,523 18,900,000 -14,676,196 -43.71
CRS--requests and services
provided Congress............... 645,000 607,000 536,000 492,000 487,000 500,000 -145,000 -22.50
Loans of collections to Congress. 48,790 43,876 43,465 36,368 31,026 35,000 -13,790 -28.26
Copyright claims registered...... 606,253 600,000 530,332 609,195 550,422 560,000 -46,253 -7.63
Copyright inquires............... 430,773 433,700 402,163 500,746 432,397 450,000 +19,227 +4.46
Services to the blind and
physically handicapped [BPH]--
readership...................... 761,300 767,800 777,300 772,100 777,500 782,500 +21,200 +2.78
BPH:
Books and magazines; total
circulated.................. 21,284,200 21,802,200 22,586,000 22,909,400 23,100,000 23,300,000 +2,015,800 +9.47
New braille and audio books
and magazines titles........ 2,206 2,322 2,327 2,328 2,568 2,309 +103 +4.67
Print materials cataloged........ 266,793 260,957 279,809 276,348 289,509 300,000 +33,207 +12.45
National coordinated cataloging
operation [NACO]:
Library of Congress
contribution................ 122,861 118,921 114,333 124,911 115,714 115,800 -7,061 -5.75
Outside contribution......... 61,730 75,794 78,176 96,655 106,182 120,000 +58,270 +94.39
Exhibits, displays, and
publications (funded by
appropriations)................. 35 31 31 27 15 18 -17 -48.57
Regular tours.................... 44,440 27,954 29,952 47,300 47,847 48,000 +3,560 +8.01
Reference service................ 1,326,945 1,306,264 1,198,358 1,145,757 1,129,952 1,200,000 -126,945 -9.57
Main Reading Room and five other
reading rooms hours per week.... 78 69 65 65 65 65 -13 -16.67
Items circulated................. 2,522,620 2,345,151 2,403,002 2,289,981 2,175,075 2,300,000 -222,600 -8.82
Preservation treatment--original
format.......................... 269,388 304,134 288,111 339,636 274,086 290,000 +20,612 +7.65
Mainframe computer transactions.. 97,372,626 112,491,847 152,095,306 197,216,679 204,297,492 210,000,000 +112,627,374 +115.67
Machine readable cataloging
[MARC] records.................. 23,981,266 24,670,791 25,090,965 26,100,661 26,320,667 27,000,000 +3,018,734 +12.59
Internet transactions (LOCIS,
MARVEL, worldwide web, and
THOMAS public transactions) \1\. NA 7,028,995 38,422,986 92,873,807 134,416,660 175,000,000 +167,971,005 +2,389.69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Comparison based on 1993-97 data.
NA: Not available.
Attachment 3.--Total Library appropriations--Actual full time equivalent
(FTE) positions
Total actual
FTE's
Fiscal year:
1992.......................................................... 4,549
1993.......................................................... 4,492
1994.......................................................... 4,163
1995.......................................................... 4,180
1996.......................................................... 4,114
1997 (projected)...........................................\1\ 4,107
1998 (requested).............................................. 4,203
\1\ Cumulative decrease of 442 FTE's or 9.7 percent from 1992 to 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Marybeth Peters
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to present the budget request of the Copyright Office for
fiscal year 1998.
The Copyright Office's duties and responsibilities include issuing
certificates of registration and recording statutory licenses and other
important documents in an accurate, reliable and timely manner and
creating and maintaining a public record of these actions.
Additionally, it oversees and administers the copyright arbitration
royalty panel system (CARP's), provides technical assistance on
copyright to the Congress and to Executive Branch agencies, provides
information services to the public and serves as a resource to domestic
and international copyright communities. Importantly, it supports the
Library of Congress, and thereby Congress and the nation, by obtaining
and making available copies of copyrighted works for the Library's
collections.
Copyright is one of the shining stars of our economy. Domestically
and internationally the copyright industries (those who produce and
distribute computer software, books, music, motion pictures, television
programming, recordings, and databases) are at the forefront of our
economy, and copyrighted works are one of our leading exports. The
copyright industries and those who support them account for almost 6
percent of our Gross National Product.
For the past two years you have heard references to the ``national
information infrastructure,'' the ``information society,'' the
``information superhighway,'' and the ``global information
infrastructure.'' All these terms refer to the merging of computer and
communications technology whereby copyrighted works in digital form
travel all over the world. Domestically and internationally we are
adjusting our copyright norms to bring us into the 21st century and to
ensure copyright owners that their rights will be protected. Two new
treaties which included ``digital agenda issues'' were concluded in
Geneva, Switzerland on December 20, 1996. Protection of American
creativity through copyright protection is critical to our continued
progress and prosperity. The Copyright Office and the Library of
Congress play a vital role in all this.
Timely action by the Copyright Office, and complete, reliable and
objective records of copyrights showing their authorship, ownership and
legal status as well as licensing information are essential to
copyright owners. Many benefits are tied to registration; United States
copyright owners may not initiate a copyright infringement suit without
first registering with the Copyright Office or without obtaining the
Office's refusal to register. Certificates of registration along with
certified copies of transfers of copyright ownership are relied on not
only by our courts but by customs officials, foreign courts and various
rights organizations.
Despite several setbacks during the past year, the Office managed
to accomplish much work. We processed approximately 609,000 claims
representing more than 700,000 works and recorded more than 16,600
documents containing more than 200,000 titles. Our requests for public
information rose to 432,000. The Licensing Division collected
approximately $187 million in royalty fees.
There were several firsts in 1996.
--On February 27, 1996, the first claim was received via the Office's
Electronic Registration, Recordation and Deposit System
(CORDS); the submission came from a graduate student at
Carnegie Mellon University who electronically submitted for
registration her doctoral thesis in computer science.
--The first copyright arbitration royalty panel, which dealt with
more than $550 million in cable royalties for the years 1990-
1992, was concluded. The arbitrators delivered their final
report in August, followed by the recommendation of the
Register of Copyrights to the Librarian of Congress, who issued
his decision in October.
--The first claims to copyright and documents concerning rights came
in under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act which restored
copyright protection to millions of foreign works on January 1,
1996.
Notwithstanding these and many other accomplishments, the Office
lost ground in providing essential copyright services, and we are
currently in a bind.
In fiscal 1980 with a staff of 628 full time employees (FTE's) we
processed 483,000 claims; in fiscal 1996 with a staff of 471 FTE's, we
processed 609,000 claims. Thus, a staff which is reduced by 25 percent,
processed a 26 percent increase in claims. This is even more
remarkable, given the direction of the Office to expand its group
registrations--that is, the use of a single application to encompass
multiple works at a reduced fee. Group registration is possible for:
unpublished works that are authored and owned by the same individual;
serials; daily newspapers; newsletters; databases; and works whose
copyright protection was restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act. Group registrations were established to encourage publishers of
works that the Library needs for its collections to register their
works immediately after publication, and in certain cases to ease the
burden on individual creators. The result is that the number of
registrations decreases but work does not decrease proportionately
since each individual work in the group must be examined.
The reality is that today we are confronted with an unacceptable
backlog. During the past year, we coped with the backlog to some extent
by using overtime and temporary employees. However, the steady loss of
trained professional staff (particularly examiners, whose number fell
from 64 FTE's to 49 FTE's in three years, and whose expertise cannot be
replaced with temporary staff) resulted in the processing time for
registration going from the norm at the beginning of 1993 of six weeks,
to an average of 12 weeks in 1994 and 1995, and then, as a result of
additional losses in the examining corps, to the current time of 18
weeks.
This unacceptable time frame must be reduced; otherwise, the
copyright system will collapse--copyright owners will not be able to
pursue infringers in a timely manner and will suffer irreparable harm.
Furthermore, these excessive delays cause much additional work in the
form of numerous inquiries about the status of in-process claims.
To turn the situation around, the Copyright Office is requesting 14
additional positions ($538,953) to support the processing of claims in
a reasonable time. This would enable the Office to cope with the
current work until fiscal relief comes in the form of legislation which
would allow the Office to adjust fees as needed.
Let me explain my reference to fee setting legislation. Two years
ago I recognized that the Office needed additional funding to cover its
basic services. I sought legislation to allow us to: (1) raise the
existing fees in any year through a cumulative adjustment based on the
rise in the consumer price index; and (2) allow us to invest a
percentage of our prepaid fees in U.S. interest-bearing securities. The
House passed legislation giving the Office fee setting authority; the
language of the House bill was incorporated in S. 1961 at the end of
the legislative session last year. Unfortunately, time ran out and the
Senate adjourned without taking action on this.
The House passed similar legislation on March 18, 1997 (H.R. 672).
Mr. Hatch, chairman of our oversight committee, introduced the same fee
provisions on March 20, 1997 in S. 506; that bill has cleared all
committees and is awaiting action by the full Senate. Hopefully, the
Senate will pass this bill in the near future. However, even if enacted
within the next two months, the basic fees could not be raised until
late fiscal 1999 or more likely fiscal 2000 due to the need to conduct
a fee study, propose a fee schedule and hold hearings on that schedule,
finalize a schedule to submit to Congress, which has 120 days to review
the schedule and if it disagrees, reject it.
Meanwhile, it is important that the Copyright Office not only
maintain its service, but that it continue to development and implement
its electronic registration, deposit and recordation system (CORDS).
This system, which is an essential investment in the future, is
critical to the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress. It will
streamline our internal procedures and ultimately lead to major savings
and improved service. It will provide the Library with the vast array
of information products that are being created and disseminated in
digital form.
With respect to the Copyright Office, the benefits of the system
are impressive. Today it takes 6 FTE staff members to handle 10,000
claims annually; with CORDS fully implemented, this will drop to 2.5
FTE staff members. Even where the full CORDS system is not used, i.e.,
Mixed CORDS, where the application is received electronically and the
hard copy is sent separately, results in savings. The number of FTE
staff members needed to handle 10,000 claims in such submissions drops
to 4.5. Additionally, there are nonpersonal savings such as postage,
space, printing and supplies, and the processing time for claims
submitted through CORDS drops dramatically thereby benefitting the
copyright communities and the public.
CORDS is at a crucial juncture. During fiscal year 1998, the
Library and the Copyright Office must take over the operation of CORDS
from our expert consultant, the Corporation for National Research
Initiatives. Additionally, CORDS, which uses the latest technology,
must be integrated with existing automated systems. It must be expanded
to additional user platforms, and a more powerful database engine is
needed to handle an increasing volume of transactions.
Additional development work also is needed to expand the system to
handle all of the different formats in which works are being
distributed. At present, the system can only handle text and images;
but in the future, it must also handle sound recordings and audiovisual
productions.
Finally, we must begin to train Copyright Office staff as well as
copyright owners to use the system. To accomplish these goals, which
will move this project from the testbed stage to a production system,
we are requesting five additional technical positions--two program
analysts and three computer specialists ($304,179), which are essential
for development and implementation activities.
Let me now turn to security of the collections. We are asking for
the authority to hire six mail technicians ($160,072) and to spend
$82,000 for security targets and accession labels. The Copyright Office
is the front door for copies that come to the Library's collection
through the copyright system. It is important that security controls
are attached to the copies at the earliest possible moment.
In 1993 the Office, with the assistance of the Collections
Management Division of Library Services, began targeting hardbound
books. Approximately 71,000 books are targeted annually.
The Copyright Office is requesting funding so that targets or
accession labels can be attached to all items (CD's, videotapes,
architectural drawings, prints, audio tapes, sheet music, microfilms,
CD-ROM's, etc.).
There is one additional matter. The Copyright Office is seeking
legislation which would allow the Library to directly pay the
arbitrators in distribution proceedings with funds coming from the
relevant royalty pool. Currently, parties appearing before a copyright
arbitration royalty panel must pay the arbitrators themselves. If this
legislation is enacted, (it is included in the bill allowing the Office
to set fees), we will need to continue the authority Congress approved
in fiscal 1997 to expend up to $1.8 million from offsetting collections
to pay the arbitrators engaged in distribution proceedings in fiscal
year 1998.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions which I would be pleased to
answer now or more fully in writing.
______
Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to
appear here today to discuss the fiscal year 1998 budget request for
the Congressional Research Service.
As I hope each of you has confirmed in your experience, the
Congressional Research Service is your organization. The Congress has
given CRS the task of providing the best information, research, and
policy analysis, in contexts and formats you can apply directly to each
stage of lawmaking. You expect our work to be reliable, accurate,
unbiased, timely, and confidential. You want us to be efficient in how
we manage and effective in what we do--providing quality products and
services.
Our budget request seeks funding to support two major priorities
that the Service must meet in fiscal year 1998 to carry out its role
successfully and to continue to fulfill your expectations. First, we
must sustain the quality, quantity, and scope of work that the Congress
expects from the Service, including completing the specific activities
that the Congress directed the Service to undertake in fiscal year
1997. Second, we must prepare for the potential concentrated loss of a
large number of CRS professional staff due to retirement.
To meet these priorities we are requesting a total budget increase
of $4,189,000 in fiscal year 1998. Three-quarters of this increase,
$3,051,127, is necessary to provide current services and covers
mandatory pay and price-level increases. The recent budget agreement
includes a proposal that would increase CRS's mandatory costs by
$432,000; these additional costs are not included in the budget request
before you. We also are asking for $1,137,873 to undertake a major
initiative to address the second priority--provide a temporary increase
in staff in order to manage the anticipated retirements of a large
number of CRS staff and to ensure continuity in our services. The
request maintains the current proportional funding split of
approximately 90 percent to staff costs and approximately 10 percent to
nonpersonals. Our priorities and challenges are outlined below.
our highest priority: sustain the scope and enhance the quality of crs
services
I would like to review briefly the work we undertook in fiscal year
1996 that demonstrates our commitment to meeting your needs.
The Congress called on CRS for information and analysis on
approximately half a million occasions. In response to these requests,
we created more than 1,000 new written research products. We delivered
nearly 2,800 custom, confidential memoranda and gave 2,600 in-person
briefings and consultations. More than 690,000 copies of our reports
and issue briefs were distributed to the Congress last year.
CRS staff provided research and analysis to Members and
congressional staff on hundreds of legislative issues: on sweeping
changes in welfare and immigration law, health care legislation, social
security and retirement, wages and employment, telecommunications
reform, the line-item veto, taxes, banking and finance reform, the Farm
Bill and agricultural concerns, environmental issues, juvenile crime,
and research and development policy. In addition, we covered issues
related to the defense budget and to U.S. relations with Russia, China,
and Japan, and monitored the situations in Bosnia and the Middle East.
Strategic Initiatives
The Congress has undergone significant changes in recent years, and
to respond CRS has undertaken several important strategic management
challenges focusing on improving our services. In fiscal year 1996 our
strategic initiatives produced a number of positive results, on which
we continue to build.
Budget and Appropriations Process.--A CRS analysis of Senate
activity indicated that more than 70 percent of Senate roll call votes
on the floor in 1996 was devoted to budget-related matters. As budget
issues have increasingly become the focus of congressional work, CRS
has enhanced its analysis of budget and appropriations issues and
delivery of this work to the Congress. For example, new electronic
formats available on the CRS Home Page have allowed the Service to
present its analysis of appropriated measures in a dynamic environment
that leads the user directly from the CRS report to relevant
congressional and executive branch documents. In mid-March we met with
the majority and minority staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee
to discuss how CRS is analyzing and presenting budget and
appropriations information. In addition to making this information
available, we continue to analyze the implications of budget and
appropriation issues as they impact specific policies and programs.
Ongoing work with our sister agencies, CBO and GAO, seeks to improve
the exchange of budget information.
Impact of the High Turnover of Members of Congress.--In responding
to high turnover in the membership of the Congress, a recurring pattern
over the past three Congresses (with 39 new Senators coming on board
since the November 1992 general election), we continued to offer
assistance tailored to the unique needs of new Members. This assistance
included organizing new Member seminars and preparing new products on
public policy issues designed not only to meet the challenges of new
Members and staff, but also to address the needs of returning Members
and staff taking on new assignments. This year we intensified our
efforts for the 105th Congress by scheduling visits to all new Member
offices to brief Members and congressional staff about the services CRS
provides. We are honored that the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration, in conjunction with the joint leadership, asked CRS to
conduct the policy sessions for new Senators of the 105th Congress. We
particularly appreciate the positive comments about the program by
Chairman Warner, who personally attended a number of the sessions.
Other Responses to Congressional Needs.--In addition to these
efforts, we also are working closely with the Congress to apply new
technology to the work of the legislative branch, to emphasize the
importance of objectivity and nonpartisanship in CRS products and
services, to review and improve CRS capabilities concerning the
devolution of federal programs to the states, and to develop a strategy
to allocate resources in light of legislative branch budgetary
constraints.
I am pleased to report that during the past year these initiatives,
which drew upon the resident expertise within CRS, have enhanced the
quality of our congressional services. I am providing for the record my
report entitled ``CRS Strategic Goals for Meeting Changing Needs of the
Congress,'' which provides a more detailed account of our work in these
areas.
Service Improvements
I also would like to bring you up to date on several other service
improvements we have been working on for the past few years.
First, the system we use to record and track inquiries from the
Congress--the Inquiry Status and Information System (ISIS)--has been
replaced by a new, networked request system (ISIS 96). This new system
offers improved capabilities for assigning, monitoring, and responding
to the high volume of congressional requests CRS receives each day. As
the original system, which was installed 18 years ago, began to fail,
it became critical to replace the system with one that will accommodate
and more efficiently process the large number of congressional requests
we receive.
The new ISIS 96 is an integral element in our ability to provide
timely, efficient responses to your requests and is serving as the
backbone of our efforts to build an integrated management information
system. In recognition of the critical nature of the system, I want to
thank the Library of Congress for its continued support in this
replacement effort and its cooperation in sustaining the system's
reliability and ensuring its security.
Second, the CRS Home Page makes available online exclusively to
congressional offices all CRS issue briefs and numerous reports, as
well as other linkages to resources related to the legislative work of
the Congress. Through our Home Page the Congress has integrated access
to a wide range of products and information. This service is now
readily accessible electronically to Members and staff 24 hours a day.
Third, we continue to improve the timeliness and accessibility of
the Legislative Alert, our weekly listing of selected CRS products that
focus on legislative issues expected to receive floor action in the
Senate or the House. The Legislative Alert now is faxed to all
congressional offices at the beginning of each week that Congress is in
session; it is also available on the CRS Home Page. We appreciate the
support and cooperation of the leadership of both chambers in assisting
us with timely identification of these legislative issues.
Fourth, we have been working to enhance information security at
CRS. Growing reliance on local networks, the World Wide Web, and linked
systems and documents makes it imperative for CRS to maintain vigilance
against unauthorized access or manipulation of information. We have
formed a permanent CRS systems security team to undertake a
comprehensive assessment of our security needs. This team will conduct
ongoing monitoring of CRS obligations as technology and intrusion
capability evolve, coordinate efforts with the Library, and make
recommendations when incursions or vulnerabilities are detected. We
give high priority to the task of protecting the information needed to
serve the Congress and will take the necessary steps to address
possible risk of unauthorized penetration of stored material and
transmissions.
Specific Congressional Directives
CRS also is addressing specific congressional directives outlined
in the conference report that accompanied the fiscal year 1997
legislative branch appropriation. In that report the Congress asked CRS
to coordinate the development of a retrieval capability for an
electronic Legislative Information System for the Senate. The report
further directed the Library's Information Technology Services office
to provide the necessary technical support for that effort.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report that the initial version of
this new legislative retrieval system provides the text of bills, the
text of the Congressional Record and the Congressional Record Index
since the 103rd Congress; summaries of bills and their status beginning
with the 104th Congress; committee reports on bills for the 104th and
105th Congresses; and the full text of all active CRS issue briefs. We
soon will begin to add summaries of legislation back to the 93rd
Congress.
The retrieval system also provides links to floor and committee
schedules and activities; GAO and CBO reports; connections to other
Senate and House resources such as the Senate's Webster Home Page and
the Senate Recording Studio's database of current floor debate; and
access to copies of historical documents such as the Constitution and
the Federalist Papers.
In addition, as a result of a joint project initiated by the Senate
Rules Committee and directed by the Office of the Secretary, a new
component of the system soon will provide access to the text of
amendments within minutes of their being offered on the Senate floor.
In the fiscal year 1997 appropriations report the Service also was
asked to contribute to meetings and discussions of the Senate Committee
on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Oversight in an
effort to provide for ``the widest possible exchange of information
among legislative branch agencies with the long-range goal of improving
technology planning and evaluation.'' An important part of this effort,
in which CRS has been an active participant, is to eliminate
duplication, ensure better integration of data and systems between the
two chambers, and thereby provide more effective service to the entire
Congress.
During the next year we will continue to work toward meeting these
specific directives. We realize the importance of these projects to the
work of the Congress, and we welcome the opportunity to assist with
these efforts.
our challenge: to prepare for the concentrated loss of crs experts
Mr. Chairman, it is incumbent on me as the Director of CRS to
apprise you that within a few years, as a result of the age and service
profile of CRS personnel, the Service will lose a substantial share of
its most experienced and valued staff through retirements. More than 20
percent of current CRS staff will be eligible to retire by the year
2000; more than 50 percent by 2006. The major historical reason for
this extraordinary proportion of potential retirees is the consequence
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, which expanded the
capacities of CRS in order to match the analytical ability of the
legislative branch with that of the executive branch. Another
circumstance that created the current challenge is that, due to
budgetary constraints, CRS has been unable to fill many vacancies
during the past decade. Because of the concentration of senior CRS
staff who are eligible to retire in the next few years, we consider
projected retirement losses to be one of the greatest challenges facing
the Service in the future.
Maintaining Our Information and Research Capability
Last year we initiated a survey to determine the planned
retirements and an analysis of implications for our research capacity
through the year 2006. Such planning is essential if we are to prepare
adequately for, and manage the impact of, this anticipated loss of CRS
professional expertise. The survey indicated our projected losses in
many issue areas, including health policy, social security, tax policy,
defense budgeting, international trade, constitutional law, crime,
biomedical policy, environmental issues, agricultural policy, and
science and technology. The retirees' knowledge of their disciplines,
their subject expertise, and their legislative experience will be
exceedingly difficult to replace.
The succession initiative presented in our fiscal 1998 budget
request calls for an increase of 60 staff, hired over a three-year
period; the first year, for example, adds 25 positions. This small
increase in staffing will be eliminated during the following six years
through retirements, returning CRS to its present staff size in fiscal
2006. In addition, this temporary increase is one of a number of
complementary strategies in our overall plan to minimize the risk to
our research capacity created by the projected retirements of hundreds
of senior staff in a short period of time. I emphasize that this
increase is temporary: it does not represent a permanent expansion of
the CRS personnel base or of the CRS baseline current services budget.
Effectiveness and Continuity of Service
We believe that our succession initiative is an effective approach
to address significant staff loss, while preserving continuity of
service to the Congress. While part of our planning for the future
entails detailing staff within CRS to meet temporary shifts in
congressional priorities and supplementing staff with consultants where
feasible, we need to build our long-term ability to maintain quality
service to the Congress. Let me briefly describe the reasons for
proposing this initiative.
First, this succession initiative would allow CRS to hire the
necessary staff in time to develop the breadth and depth of on-the-job
knowledge about public policy issues needed to replace departing senior
analysts and specialists, permit new staff to be mentored by those who
will soon retire, allow us to increase diversity, and enable the new
staff to more quickly develop familiarity with congressional processes
and procedures. This multiyear initiative will require significant
effort to recruit, select, train, and assimilate new staff.
Today there are few ``apprentice'' staff working with more seasoned
CRS analysts. This situation is in contrast to practices that prevail
in many professional settings where generally there is an opportunity
to develop planned annual additions to the intellectual base--such as
associates in law firms, residents in medical settings, junior analysts
in investment banking--where typically there are planned, annual
additions to the stock of intellectual capital through multiyear
apprenticeship programs.
Second, the initiative would allow new staff the time to acquire
the appropriate mix of capabilities to serve the Congress:
--Developing a working knowledge of legislative and budget processes
as actually practiced.
--Obtaining experience in examining and presenting issues from an
unbiased, public policy perspective.
--Gaining knowledge of, and ability to take into account and convey,
a broad range of views on issues.
--Developing a working knowledge of specialized subject-area
information resources.
--Establishing contacts with experts in academia, government
agencies, and elsewhere.
--Becoming proficient in using technology to acquire and analyze
information and incorporating it in products for the Congress
according to prescribed formats and standards.
In addition, the six CRS-specific qualities that are part of the
culture of the Service must be developed--objectivity, timeliness,
accuracy, confidentiality, responsiveness, and resident expertise.
Third, hiring some staff at the entry level typically brings aboard
personnel who are familiar with the most recent and advanced
methodologies and skills being taught or practiced--staff who are able
to adjust to evolving demands for professional growth and who
invigorate the institution.
I want to underscore the importance of continuity of service--or
the institutional memory, as we often call it--provided by CRS. The
average tenure of a legislative assistant in the Senate today is 2.8
years; the average legislative director has been on the job 3.5 years.
By contrast, our average CRS analyst and information specialist has
been building expertise at CRS on issues and how they are addressed
within the legislative framework for 18.5 years. These CRS staff
provide invaluable expertise, experience, and institutional memory on
which Members and congressional staff have come to rely.
I am providing for the record a copy of my report, ``Succession
Initiative of the Congressional Research Service,'' which provides more
detail on our succession initiative as well as the skills and expertise
we seek to maintain.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to share with you and the
other members of this Committee some of our recent accomplishments as
well as our challenges for the future. We are grateful for the support
of the Senate Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch in the past, and
we are committed to working closely with you in the coming years to
meet the challenges facing both the Congress and the Service.
______
Director's Report--Succession Initiative of the Congressional Research
Service, March 1997
executive summary
CRS is requesting funds to finance a succession plan designed to
sustain its research capacity through the expected retirements of over
half its staff between now and the year 2006. To responsibly manage
this expected loss of senior capability, the plan would allow CRS to
hire 60 additional full-time equivalent (FTE) staff over the next three
years (25 in fiscal year 1998, 25 in fiscal year 1999, and 10 in fiscal
year 2000) followed by an equal reduction in staff level during the
following six years. By 2006 CRS would return to its current level of
747 full-time equivalent staff positions without any interruption in
the quality of its support to the Congress.
By 2006, almost 52 percent of CRS staff will be eligible to retire.
The overall succession plan would allow CRS to hire 60 additional
full-time equivalent staff over the next three years to begin a
replacement cycle designed to minimize the impact of the potential loss
of nearly 400 staff.
Funding for the succession plan requested for fiscal year 1998
would allow CRS to hire 25 additional full-time equivalent employees in
fiscal year 1998 to begin the replacement cycle set forth in the plan.
The design of the succession plan is to bring new staff to CRS
before its experts retire so that their institutional memory on issues,
their knowledge of the legislative process, and the CRS service
qualities of confidentiality, objectivity, timeliness, accuracy, and
responsiveness which they have mastered can be passed on. This plan
seeks to avoid shortfalls in the level and quality of service to the
Congress during this period.
The value of the institutional memory of CRS staff to the Congress
is suggested by the fact that the average tenure of 18.5 years of CRS
staff is in marked contrast to that of most congressional staff (e.g.,
less than 2 years for legislative assistant).
The plan is effective because it allows CRS to hire, train and
mentor new staff at entry-level salaries.
This is not an initiative to permanently increase the Service's
staffing. The succession plan would temporarily adjust the Service's
FTE's. The proposed initiative anticipates hiring 60 additional FTE's
over a three year period, with a subsequent net decrease of 60 FTE's
over the following 6 years. By fiscal year 2006 CRS would return to the
fiscal year 1997 authorized level of 747 FTE's.
The Service has determined the highest priority staff needs for
this initiative and is prepared to undertake a focused recruitment
effort to expedite the hiring of these additional staff. Some of the
legislative policy areas where the Service projects the need to act
quickly are Social Security; Welfare; Transportation; Immigration;
Crime and Criminal Justice; Agriculture; Military Personnel; Natural
Resources; and Biomedical Policy.
The Service will continue to consult with its appropriations and
oversight committees as this initiative progresses.
Throughout this effort, CRS will continue to pursue diversity, in
the racial and ethnic makeup of its future staff, and in experience,
perspective and skills.
introduction
By 2006, almost 52 percent of CRS' staff will be eligible to
retire. Unless planning and training of replacement staff can begin
soon, CRS' ability to maintain services will be threatened. This, in
turn, could compromise CRS' role as the primary congressional source of
analysis and evaluation of legislative proposals as well as
representational assistance.
CRS Risk Assessment
Background.--The CRS mission and staff were greatly expanded by the
enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. A large
percentage of staff hired at that time make up the capacity of the
Service today. Recognizing this, CRS undertook a methodical two-year
assessment of the threat posed to its services by the prospect of
concentrated loss of staff due to retirements. This threat and the work
CRS had underway to address it were also discussed in the 1996 General
Accounting Office audit of the Library of Congress conducted by Booz-
Allen and Hamilton. The audit report stated that ``CRS is currently
conducting planning to sustain its intellectual capital'' which ``can
alleviate the potential pitfalls and costs of any extreme change in its
workforce in the future.''
In order to more clearly define the risk posed, CRS conducted a
survey of all eligible staff to estimate specific time frames within
which its staff expected to retire, identify the planned retirements,
and analyze the implications of those retirements for its research
capacity through the year 2006. The assessment was conducted in order
to (1) refine and sharpen the framework CRS uses to identify and
prepare for congressional priorities over the next decade; (2) identify
the losses CRS is likely to experience over the next several years in
specific subject areas and across functional capabilities within CRS;
and (3) determine what competencies and expertise will be needed during
that time period to match CRS capacity to congressional needs.
Findings.--The risk assessment showed that CRS is faced with a
major threat to its ability to maintain services to the Congress
resulting from the possibility that over 50 percent of the staff
(nearly 400 staff) may retire between now and 2006. The policy areas in
which the Service projects an immediate need include: Social Security;
Welfare; Transportation; Immigration; Crime and Criminal Justice;
Agriculture; Military Personnel; Natural Resources; and Biomedical
Policy.
The data regarding retirement eligibility, coupled with staff
projections about when they will actually retire, led to the
identification of a large number of issue areas where the one or two
experts in a given policy area could leave at the same time, leaving
CRS with little or no capacity to provide high-level analysis.
Fortunately, data show that everyone does not retire on the first day
of eligibility, but good management necessitates planning for their
retirement to avoid any major disruption of services.
Due to budgetary constraints during the past decade, today there
are few ``apprentice'' staff working with senior CRS analysts. This
situation is in contrast to practices that prevail in many professional
settings where typically there are planned annual additions to the
intellectual base--such as associates in law firms, residents in health
and medical practices, and junior analysts in investment banking. In
these fields, regular renewal of the stock of intellectual capital
occurs through a multi-year apprenticeship program.
The results of the CRS study of potential retirees and additional
research and analyses \1\ laid the groundwork for the succession plan
contained in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Several private sector succession planning initiatives were
useful in assisting the Service develop its plan. Senior CRS managers
conducted discussions with Motorola and Proctor & Gamble Company to
learn about how these companies approach succession planning.
Additional information and insights were also obtained from researching
succession planning in such companies as Corning Glass, AT&T, General
Electric, and K-Mart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS Succession Plan
Introduction.--The anticipated loss of nearly 400 experienced
staff, coupled with the knowledge that it will take 5-10 years to
replace the breadth and depth of knowledge about the public policy
issues resident in top level analysts and specialists, led to this
proposed multi-year initiative. The initiative anticipates a temporary
increase in staff by hiring 60 additional FTE's over a three-year
period, with a subsequent net decrease of 60 FTE's over the following 6
years. By fiscal year 2006 CRS would return to the fiscal year 1997
authorized level of 747 FTE's. By fiscal year 1998 CRS will be ready to
recruit in the highest risk areas, and begin the multi-year effort that
will sustain essential services to the Congress.
This initiative would allow CRS to hire and accomplish the most
effective training of new staff before veteran expertise is lost.
Hiring at the entry-level typically brings aboard personnel who are
familiar with the most recent and advanced methodologies and expertise
being taught or practiced--staff who are able to adjust to evolving
demands for professional growth and who invigorate the institution.
Failing to anticipate the need for new expertise usually results in
discontinuities between the departure of an existing expert and the
hiring of a new one, and reduces capability while a new staffer is
acclimating to his or her new CRS role.
In the meantime, CRS will continue to reassign staff to meet the
most critical needs, and fill vacancies as they occur. However, the
inability to provide a period of mentorship by retirees will result in
gaps in coverage and quality of service while new staff members ``get
up to speed''.
The purpose of the succession initiative is not to restore staff
lost through downsizing in past years nor to restore discontinued
services.
Projected Costs.--As noted above, the succession initiative is
based on a temporary increase in staffing--hiring 60 additional staff
over a three-year period (twenty-five in fiscal year 1998, twenty-five
in fiscal year 1999, and ten in fiscal year 2000) followed by a net
decrease of ten FTE's each year from 2001 to 2006--by 2006 CRS would
return to the present FTE level of 747.
The following table summarizes the year-by-year costs in comparison
with the present base, and also shows the net change from one year to
the next.
CRS SUCCESSION INITIATIVE FTE AND COST PROJECTIONS, YEAR BY YEAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change from prior Net change from fiscal
fiscal year year 1997 (747 FTE's)
Fiscal year -----------------------------------------------------
FTE's Dollars FTE's Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998...................................................... +25 +$1,137,873 +25 +$1,137,873
1999...................................................... +25 +1,585,146 +50 +2,723,019
2000...................................................... +10 +1,177,560 +60 +3,900,579
2001...................................................... -10 -121,962 +50 +3,778,617
2002...................................................... -10 -364,210 +40 +3,414,407
2003...................................................... -10 -534,403 +30 +2,880,004
2004...................................................... -10 -787,452 +20 +2,092,552
2005...................................................... -10 -972,059 +10 +1,120,493
2006...................................................... -10 -1,120,493 ......... ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In projecting the costs of the initiative, a number of assumptions
were made. First, it was assumed that the fiscal year 1997 staffing
level of 747 FTE's will be maintained in each year by full funding of
mandatory costs--cost of living and locality pay increases, for
example--which will permit rapid refilling of positions which become
vacant.
Second, the plan is based on hiring staff at the entry-level,
typically at GS-9 or GS-11. It is assumed that these new staff will
perform successfully and will therefore progress at normal rates
through promotion plans. This is consistent with the mix of positions
CRS has maintained for decades. As senior staff leave, their positions
are usually filled at a lower level, and the new hires promoted as they
demonstrate work at the next higher grade. At any given moment, we have
staff at different grade levels, each of whom progresses based on
performance. The funding in the base assumes that there will be such a
mix of staff at different stages in their promotion plans.
Third, the cost projections in the table above include an estimated
cost of living increase for each year, based on Congressional Budget
Office estimates at the time the proposal was developed. All costs
cover both salaries and benefits.
With regard to benefits, the cost of new employees, who are covered
by the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) in place for all hires
after 1984, is significantly higher than the benefit rate paid for the
projected retirees, most of whom are covered under the Civil Service
Retirement System (CSRS). While the actual benefits will vary for each
individual depending upon the specific elections with regard to health
and life insurance and other benefit items, on average the
Congressional Research Service budget must pay approximately 27.2
percent for FERS employees compared to the average CSRS employee
benefit cost of 11.8 percent.
The following table shows the number of staff eligible to retire
and the additional full-time equivalent positions requested under the
initiative for each fiscal year.
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE STAFF ELIGIBLE TO RETIRE (CUMULATIVE BY
YEAR) AND ADDITIONAL FTE'S REQUESTED UNDER INITIATIVE
[Full-time equivalents (FTE's)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
No. of FTE's
eligible to requested
retire (above 747
(cumulative) FTE level)
\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
1998..................................... 95 25
1999..................................... 113 50
2000..................................... 139 60
2001..................................... 175 50
2002..................................... 209 40
2003..................................... 254 30
2004..................................... 314 20
2005..................................... 344 10
2006..................................... 382 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes fiscal 1997 funding will be increased each year to cover
mandatory costs, and departing staff will be replaced to maintain an
FTE level of 747. The temporary increase in FTE's from 1998 to 2000,
with a subsequent reduction of these FTE's (to be completed by 2006),
will permit CRS to mentor a small group of replacement staff in a few
critical subject areas prior to the retirement of experienced staff.
Timing.--The concept of the initiative is to hire entry-level staff
before senior analysts retire. Allowing staff to overlap accelerates
the learning process through on-the-job mentoring and allows time for
the orderly transfer of institutional knowledge of public policy issues
and of the congressional environment and process--knowledge which makes
CRS so effective in support of the Congress.
Based on CRS experience with entry-level analysts, several years of
on-the-job experience are required for a new analyst to become reliably
self-sufficient and to work with topics of greater complexity in
meeting the needs of the Congress.
A period of overlap, which will be possible only with funding for
additional positions under the succession initiative, is needed for
entry-level staff to acquire the knowledge of how Congress and CRS have
dealt with issues in the past, and of the legislative process. Once the
first group of retirements takes place--and hopefully their
replacements will already be here as a consequence of this initiative--
these vacancies will be used to anticipate the next group. Ultimately,
CRS will replace all of the retirees, but the headstart will allow this
to occur in an orderly way without disruptions of congressional
support. The plan to provide a multi-year period of overlap in critical
subject areas in order to transfer institutional expertise will require
significant effort to recruit, select and then train and assimilate
staff into CRS.
Recruitment.--CRS plans to recruit through a variety of mechanisms,
with emphasis on a very successful approach used in past years--the
Graduate Recruit Program. Under this program, CRS has conducted
intensive recruitment from the graduate public policy schools which are
found in universities throughout the country. These students represent
a pool of strong candidates, with good grounding in advanced
methodological techniques--traits which are necessary to provide
Congress with a firm foundation for policy decisions. Many Graduate
Recruits will come for a summer between their 1st and 2nd year. The
next year, those who are successful will be placed in permanent
positions. The program provides the opportunity for both CRS and the
students to assess whether this is the right environment for them; it
is also an excellent way to attract some of the best students. CRS has
reached an agreement with its labor union to reinstate the Graduate
Recruit Program, and is awaiting other required final approvals before
embarking on this recruitment effort. In addition to Graduate Recruit
placements, some positions will be filled through the normal posting
process, or through a Law Recruit Program (a variant of Graduate
Recruit) designed for law school recruitment.
It is the CRS practice to pursue the institutional gains derived
from diversity, in the racial and ethnic makeup of its future staff,
and in experience, perspective and skills. A critical component of the
Service's recruitment strategy is to attract professionals who are
dedicated to public service and who have the greatest potential for
remaining with the Service over time.
Alternative Strategies.--The succession initiative is one of a
number of strategies CRS is already implementing to help maintain its
research and information capacity. Other strategies include detailing
and reassigning staff internally, mentoring staff assigned to new
areas, and using contractors for certain activities.
As a matter of long-term practice, CRS has reassigned analysts to
work on issues that require additional support due to immediate
legislative needs. This past year the Service, with the approval and
support of its labor organization (CREA), instituted a program that
allowed for formal ``details''. Under this program the Service
identifies areas that require temporary assistance as congressional
priorities shift, notifies staff of the opportunity to provide this
assistance, and selects from among interested staff to fill this need.
CRS continues to carefully examine activities to determine which
are appropriate to contract out and which should be performed with in-
house staff. The Service has successfully used consultants in a variety
of subject areas to provide written products when in-house staff either
do not have a specific type of expertise (actuarial services, for
example), or when they are fully committed and cannot meet
congressional deadlines without temporary outside assistance.
The Service expects that contractors will continue to be an
important resource, but that if it is to fulfill the mission that
Congress has established, CRS must maintain a shared pool of resident
policy experts and information specialists.
Unique Attributes Required of CRS Staff
As a service organization CRS has focused its efforts on six
service qualities that it must meet if it is successfully to fulfill
the legislative needs of the Congress. These qualities define not only
the standards which the organization must meet as it performs its
mission, but also frame the attributes that are essential for its
staff, both current and future. As CRS undertakes its succession
planning and focused recruitment efforts, designed to replenish the
loss of critical expertise, it must do so bearing in mind the special
skills and talents requisite to the work it performs.
It is therefore incumbent upon CRS to ensure the necessary period
of training and mentoring by resident and seasoned experts in order to
instill these unique skills in those that are hired and who will be
responsible for providing the continuity of service that the Congress
expects.
The attributes required of CRS analysts are a combination of
subject specialty training, which may be acquired elsewhere, and in-
house experience developed over time, working in the congressional
setting with the specific responsibilities of such an analyst. Many of
these skills are not routinely developed in academic nor in other work
environments. Acquiring the proper mix of these capabilities requires
not only talent, but ``time in training'', working along side
experienced staff who can guide and assist in the learning process.
These capabilities include, in general:
--Acquiring working knowledge of legislative and budget procedures as
actually practiced.
--Obtaining experience with examining and presenting issues from an
unbiased, public policy perspective.
--Gaining knowledge of and ability to take account of a broad range
of views on issues.
--Learning to present products and services in the manner and form
that best matches the needs of the client.
--Developing a working knowledge of specialized subject-area
information resources.
--Establishing contacts with experts in academia, government
agencies, and elsewhere who have related subject expertise.
--Becoming proficient in using technology to acquire and analyze
information and use it in preparing products for the Congress
in prescribed formats and standards.
In addition, a summary description of the six CRS-specific service
qualities is provided below, accompanied by a listing of some of the
skills required to successfully demonstrate these qualities.
objectivity
Service Quality
The hallmark of CRS legislative assistance--that its work is non-
partisan and objective--must never be compromised. The Congress has
available to it a wide variety of sources for research analysis and
information. Unlike most of these sources, CRS adheres strictly to a
policy of providing products and services which can be relied upon to
be free of policy advocacy or partisan or other bias. This imprimatur
of objectivity, combined with the other elements of its service
quality, makes CRS uniquely valuable in the legislative arena. This
attribute was central to the purposes for which CRS was created and
remains essential to its future success.
Skills Needed
Acquiring the skill to present policy issues in an objective, non-
partisan manner devoid of any appearance of advocating a personal or
institutional viewpoint.
Learning to remain independent of prevailing paradigms or
assumptions in order to fairly treat all perspectives.
Understanding and practicing the requirement that all Member and
committee clients, regardless of party affiliation, majority or
minority status, or particular viewpoint receive equal consideration
and treatment.
Developing the skill to frame responses in a manner that is clear,
unambiguous, and minimizes the risk of misinterpretation in an often
polarized environment.
timeliness
Service Quality
The press of congressional business is such that the importance of
timeliness as an objective for CRS cannot be overemphasized. Indeed,
the speed with which CRS responds to client demands is unique among the
many information resources available to the Congress. In order to
satisfy expectations, the Service must meet or beat all client
deadlines for legislative assistance and anticipate and be responsive
to legislative timetables. CRS can only meet complex needs within a
reasonable time frame if the Service maintains the requisite expertise.
But in order to successfully meet those needs CRS must also be adept at
managing conflicting deadlines through the negotiation process,
anticipating needs to the extent possible, staying abreast of
legislative timetables as they develop on specific issues, maintaining
reasonable turn-around times for requests without specific deadlines,
and insuring that all delivery methods--both manual and electronic--are
as swift and predictable as possible.
Skills Needed
Acquiring the skills to juggle priorities to meet immediate and
often unanticipated legislative deadlines.
Developing familiarity with legislative timetables and
understanding implicit time constraints placed upon staff and Members
at various stages of the legislative process.
Fully understanding that information that is late may be of little
or no value to a congressional client.
Learning the skill of anticipating the unique needs of
congressional clients as they work through legislatively active topics
so that the knowledge base and products necessary to respond to urgent
needs are available as needed.
Cultivating a professional demeanor that consistently demonstrates
the ability to endure pressures and interpersonal tensions natural to a
fast-paced, high-stakes political environment.
accuracy
Service Quality
CRS' goal is to provide 100 percent factual accuracy. The analysis
and information CRS presents must be accurate and complete whether it
originates within CRS or with others. CRS does not shade the
presentation of information or its analyses to influence outcomes. The
Service places critical thinking and broad and deep subject knowledge
on top of solid research when undertaking its work for the Congress.
CRS products and services on legislative matters must be reliable,
current, and comprehensive. Analysis and information, in whatever form,
must be current in relation to the time requested, and written products
must reflect all relevant information available as of their dates of
release. CRS products should explicitly state the assumptions,
methodology, and resources relied upon.
Skills Needed
Developing the ability to balance the need for timeliness with the
critical need for accuracy.
Acquiring the facility to maintain the currency of multiple
products on a variety of subjects so that they reflect the latest
developments.
Becoming adept at the requirement of specifying assumptions,
methodologies and sources for all analysis and conclusions.
Developing the ability to make appropriate use of original sources
while assessing their limitations and attaching appropriate caveats.
confidentiality
Service Quality
The identity of a congressional client from whom the Service
receives a request, the subject of such request, and the specific
products and services provided in response, constitute confidential
information which CRS will not disclose without prior authorization
from the client. In meeting that obligation, the Service has drawn
careful distinctions between written products which are advertised as
available for congressional distribution, and those written
specifically for an individual client with expectations of
confidentiality. In the absence of specific authorization to the
contrary, CRS always presumes a confidential relationship and acts
accordingly.
Skills Needed
Becoming familiar with the rules and procedures pertaining to the
handling and sharing of all congressional information.
Developing a trust relationship with all congressional clients.
Becoming facile at working simultaneously for multiple clients with
different viewpoints on the same or similar subjects without
compromising confidentiality.
responsiveness
Service Quality
As a support agency working closely with and exclusively for its
congressional clients, CRS is expected to provide assistance which best
meets specific congressional needs. Thus, CRS must respond with the
most useful, legislatively-relevant products and services. The utility
of CRS services depends upon clarity, brevity, product format, and
sensitivity to audience expectations and levels of knowledge. To
achieve the objective of being ``responsive'' the Service must maintain
close contact with Members and staff generally, as well as with
specific committee and Member offices. These relationships allow CRS to
become familiar with the needs expressed by clients (and perhaps more
importantly, needs which may not be expressed) and the nature of the
intended use of requested responses. This close relationship also
facilitates negotiations between clients and CRS staff as to
appropriate responses.
Skills Needed
Developing the skills of lucidity and brevity.
Understanding client needs and the legislative context in which
they arise.
Learning the most appropriate way to present information and
analysis in the manner and form that best meets the needs of the
clients and is most useful to them.
Developing the skill to present complex issues in language which is
easily understood and free of jargon; developing the ability to write
concisely in the vernacular of the legislative arena and to translate
the language of specific disciplines into common parlance.
Becoming skillful at framing the discussion of issues to contribute
to the likelihood of achieving common ground for legislative
consideration and debate.
resident expertise
Service Quality
The breadth of knowledge, level of expertise, and legislative
sensitivity of resident CRS staff are the underpinnings of all support
the Service provides to the Congress. CRS must provide expert, multi-
disciplinary, and analytical support on all legislative matters before
Congress. The concept of ``one-stop shopping'' for the Congress is
critical in a time of wide ranging and complex legislative issues. So
too, the institutional memory provided by a diverse CRS staff (made up
of individuals who generally have tenure well beyond that of
congressional staff) is of great value in dealing with recurring
substantive and procedural legislative issues. CRS integration of
knowledge from a variety of disciplines, such as law, economics, the
social sciences, political science and international relations, as well
as science, technology, natural resources, and library and information
sciences provides the Congress with a unique source for analyses of the
multi-faceted issues before it. This multi-disciplinary staff enhances
CRS' ability to anticipate legislative issues and to provide creative,
interdisciplinary analyses. This knowledge base must be maintained and
nurtured to assure that the quality of service is not compromised.
Skills Needed
Learning to apply academic training and experience in the context
of lawmaking.
Developing expertise in legislative procedures and legislative
branch organization which cannot be acquired elsewhere.
Applying subject knowledge in an interdisciplinary context, working
closely with CRS experts covering virtually all public policy areas.
Acquiring experience over time which becomes invaluable
institutional memory that can be used to assist Members and staff on
matters and precedents that pre-date their tenure in the Congress.
Learning how to remain constantly vigilant to new methodologies,
programs, and research designs that could be applied to analytical
research.
Adapting to information and research technologies available to CRS
and the Congress and utilizing those technologies to best serve the
client.
conclusion
The past 25 years of experience suggests that it takes at least
five years for an entry-level analyst to develop subject expertise and
knowledge of the legislative environment sufficient to handle complex
issues in the way a senior analyst can. Brief examination of the CRS
service qualities reinforces this need to anticipate and prepare for
internal staff turnover. New analysts can make this transition more
easily if mentored for a few years by senior staff--in this way the
previous legislative efforts become part of the knowledge base and
improve analysis of each issue. If the Service waits until all of the
retirement-eligible leave before replacing them, it will lose the
opportunity for such mentoring and will reduce its analytical capacity
in a large number of critical areas during the period that new staff
are developing expertise.
The average tenure of a legislative assistant in the Congress today
is less than 2 years. The average Legislative Director has only been on
the job for less than 3 years. Congress cannot obtain the analysis it
needs, set against the knowledge of what Congress has done in the past
and an in-depth understanding of the legislative process, unless it
develops and has continuing access to a shared staff.
As discussed above it is clear that it takes years for a staff
member to develop the breadth and depth of expertise Congress needs to
provide close support on complex public policy issues. This expertise
develops from basic subject expertise (which new staff have) combined
with knowledge of how Congress has addressed issues in the past, and
from an in-depth understanding of the legislative process which takes
years to acquire.
The succession initiative is one of a number of strategies CRS is
already implementing, including detailing and reassigning staff
internally, increasing mentoring, and using volunteers for certain
activities. These measures, while important in providing continuity,
cannot in themselves remedy the cumulative expected loss of
institutional memory and capability created by anticipated staff
retirements.
The purpose of the initiative described here is to provide a multi-
year mentoring and development period for new staff to be trained by
retiring staff. In this way, CRS hopes to manage the transition
smoothly, and maintain its current analytic capacity.
______
Director's Report--CRS Strategic Goals for Meeting Changing Needs of
the Congress, December 1996
accomplishments and work-in-progress
memorandum
Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress,
December 27, 1996.
TO: All CRS Staff.
FROM: Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director Congressional Research Service.
SUBJECT: Report on work toward CRS strategic goals.
One year ago, in December 1995, I convened senior CRS managers for
a two-day session to examine evolving changes in the character and the
work of the Congress and to identify goals and initiatives for assuring
that CRS would continue to strengthen its support for the Congress by
anticipating and meeting its changing needs. At this focused and highly
productive session we identified six significant, strategic goals for
CRS and a number of specific actions for achieving these goals.
The six strategic goals for enhancing CRS service to the Congress
are (1) improving our ability to meet information needs as the Congress
addresses public policy issues increasingly through the budget and
appropriations process; (2) making creative and effective use of
technology to improve our services and internal work processes; (3)
strengthening our effectiveness in providing objective support to the
Congress during a time of increased political and ideological
polarization; (4) positioning ourselves to meet increasing needs for
research and analysis regarding state and local developments; (5)
developing a framework for decision-making about resource allocation in
an environment of constrained budgets; and (6) providing support
specifically designed for new Members and staff as they assume their
duties, as well as for returning Members and staff taking on new
assignments.
Over the last year, support for achieving these goals has come from
all quarters of CRS. Approximately 150 CRS employees, representing all
divisions and offices, volunteered to serve on six goal-oriented teams.
These team members, in turn, consulted widely throughout the Service to
gather information, to solicit suggestions, and try out new ideas. They
conferred with many individuals and consulted larger groups, including
conducting consultative management meetings in each division.
I am pleased to report that all specific actions identified by
senior managers in support of the six strategic goals have received
effective, conscientious attention. Most of the originally specified
actions, and some additional tasks identified by teams while pursuing
their work, have been completed. Other actions, by their nature,
require and are receiving continuing attention. Those relating to the
sixth goal, serving needs arising from increased congressional turn-
over, are being pursued in the context of the arrival of the 105th
Congress.
Because the six strategic goals derive directly from the needs of
the Congress and because we have made significant progress toward
achieving these goals, I have highlighted these accomplishments before
our appropriations and oversight committees and in discussions with
individual Members. Uniformly, congressional reactions have been
favorable.
As a direct result of work on the six strategic goals, CRS has
already experienced important improvements in its service to the
Congress and can look forward to further significant gains. These gains
come from establishing or refining organizational arrangements and
responsibilities in such areas as technology policies, budget and
appropriations coverage, and sharing of Federal/State resources across
LC/CRS organizational lines. They come from reviewing and improving CRS
policies and procedures including clarifying and emphasizing
objectivity standards, developing criteria for allocating resources,
and setting performance objectives for the evolving Legislative
Information System. They also come from a number of more specific
actions such as adopting WordPerfect 7.0 as the next generation word
processing package for CRS and initiating appropriate application
tests, enhancing the CRS Home Page, including information resource
pages, and being selected by both the House and the Senate to provide
the official public policy orientation for new Members.
This report summarizes accomplishments and work-in-progress for
each of the goal-oriented teams. I want to thank each of you for your
direct and indirect support of this process. Our work has been both
productive and effective with highly constructive results. We have
accomplished many goals we set for ourselves. These accomplishments are
reflective of the thoughtful, creative, and analytical staff of CRS. I
thank you all for the time and energy you continue to devote to ensure
that CRS remains a unique and highly valued resource to the Congress.
budget focus team
The Budget Focus Team has enhanced CRS capacity to meet the
analytical and information needs of the Congress as it addresses public
policy issues increasingly through the budget and appropriation
process. The team reviewed the manner in which the entire Service
addresses budget and appropriations-related issues. This team worked in
concert with a pre-existing team (the Appropriations Team). Beginning
with fiscal year 1996, the Director's Office worked with an
interdivisional team whose members became authors of reports analyzing
the major issues inherent in each appropriation bill. Their efforts,
coupled with those of the Budget Focus Team, addressed seven specific
goals and identified additional actions, as specified below.
Goal:
Evaluate adequacy of CRS coverage of budget issues, identify high
priority areas and whether client needs are met.
Accomplishments:
CRS will continue the practice begun in fiscal year 1996 of
analyzing the issues arising from each of the 13 appropriations bills
and preparing an overview of all bills.
CRS will report on all significant budget developments; budget-
related products will be regularly updated; and budget products will be
easily identifiable.
CRS will continue to develop products covering the four basic
components of the budget process: the President's budget, the budget
resolution, appropriations, and reconciliation. Specific products to
analyze supplementals, rescissions, and continuing resolutions will be
created as needed for significant bills when it is determined that a
product is required.
Work in Progress:
Starting with the 105th Congress, CRS will enhance coverage and
analysis of policy issues that are addressed in the budget and
appropriations process. For example: (1) products covering major non-
budget policy issues, but with large potential budget implications,
will contain an analysis of these implications; (2) on a case-by-case
basis, mentors will be assigned by management to work closely with
analysts newly assigned to budget-related issues; and (3) all CRS
products on policies or programs will cover the implications of the
budget or appropriations whenever these implications figure
significantly in policy formulation or program change.
Goal:
Address the knowledge base of CRS staff on budget issues, determine
training needs, and design an introductory budget course for CRS staff.
Evaluate adequacy of resources to support budget-related projects.
Accomplishments:
Examined the current level of budget related training and
recommended three levels of training: beginning, advanced and
specialized.
Designed a two-day intensive introductory class on the
appropriations process. Classes were held for Appropriations Team and
Budget Team members and other CRS staff in October and November of 1996
(28 staff members attended). Additional classes will be held in
January, with priority given to Budget Team and Appropriations Team
members. The Congressional Reference Division conducted a course on
budget documents and information sources for members of the
Appropriations Team.
Developed the capability within the Library Services Division to
acquire, organize, and distribute both paper and electronic budget and
appropriation materials to divisions and analysts.
Goal:
Determine the role of CRS in the budget arena vis-a-vis CBO and
GAO. Assess adequacy of relationships of CRS staff with staff of CBO,
GAO and OMB and agency budget and program personnel.
Work in Progress:
Compared functions of CRS, CBO and GAO in the budget arena. The
team found uneven but generally good working relationships with GAO and
CBO. Several activities are under way to improve the relationship and
exchange of information among CRS, CBO, and GAO, including (1) the
Associate Director for Research will review methods of gaining easier
access to CBO and OMB computer runs of budget-related material and ways
of facilitating access to some other CBO material, including scoring of
appropriations and other budget bills; and (2) division-level
management will identify ways to improve communications between CBO and
CRS.
Goal:
Assess adequacy of relationships between CRS staff and staff of
authorizing, appropriations, and budget committees.
Accomplishments:
Appropriations reports listed specific analysts responsible for
issues covered in the report.
Work in Progress:
Continue to develop closer relationships with the staffs of the
appropriations subcommittees.
Goal:
Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the management and
coordination of budget related projects.
Work in Progress:
Recommended that senior management adopt a clear and consistent
policy involving increased attention to budget products. Coordination
of ongoing work across division and office lines in CRS would be
facilitated by a team approach working within the existing
organizational framework. The team advocated creating an ``Advisory
Group on the Budget'' to coordinate, advise, and consult with the
Associate Director for Research on issues related to budget-related
products and services. For the fiscal year 1998 budget cycle,
coordinators of the appropriations team will play this role in
consultation with the Deputy Director.
The Appropriations Team will continue under the direction of the
Deputy Director to lead the Service coverage of budget and
appropriation issues.
technology team
The Technology Team sought to make the most creative and effective
use of technology in improving CRS services to the Congress and also
CRS internal work processes. The team addressed three specific goals
and recommended a number of additional actions.
Goal:
Take a snapshot of current electronic infrastructure, including
hardware, software, internal and external data bases, staffing for
technical support, and training.
Accomplishments:
Interviewed and gathered documentation from CRS offices and
divisions to provide a comprehensive view of the current electronic
infrastructure of CRS.
Constructed charts outlining the baseline technological
infrastructure of CRS and specifying hardware and software capability
supporting the major functions and activities of CRS.
Gathered additional information consisting of inventories of CD-
ROM's in CRS and of audio-visual equipment and descriptions of
electronic activities of the Automation Office teams, the Electronic
Research Products Office, the Bill Digest Section, and the Library
Services Division.
Goal:
Elicit initial staff input on development of a comprehensive and
integrated legislative information system.
Accomplishments:
With the CRS Automation Office, conducted a series of six meetings
to which all CRS staff were invited. Staff suggestions included 51
types of data to be considered for inclusion in a Legislative
Information System (LIS) and 35 suggested functional attributes for the
system.
Worked to ensure that suggestions incorporated in the design and
construction of the LIS, as its development progresses incrementally,
provides CRS staff with accessible resources for meeting the needs of
the Congress.
Goal:
Examine the current process for determining division and CRS-wide
technology needs.
Accomplishments:
Developed an understanding of current processes for determining
technology needs and formulated recommendations for improving those
processes by providing a structure that accommodates change while
taking into account effects on and needs of users.
Planning under way to form a CRS-wide technology policy group that
will consult with technology users, recommend CRS technology
priorities, disseminate relevant technology information, and review and
approve implementation plans for new projects. Previously established
special-focus groups such as the CRS Web Policy Group and the CD-ROM
Policy Group are to be subgroups of the larger CRS-wide group.
Modified the CRS staff Home Page to provide information about
automation training opportunities and user tips such as the ``Database
News,'' the ``CRD Searcher'' and similar aids.
Developed a pilot program in the CRS Automation Office for
improving troubleshooting support throughout CRS.
Installed Windows 95 as the new operating system for CRS.
Selected the next generation word-processing program for CRS,
WordPerfect 7.0, and began efforts to simplify and streamline
production processes as an integral part of introducing this software.
An interdivisional team is now doing preliminary testing.
Helped design professionally moderated focus group sessions with
congressional staff, conducted by Westat, to explore congressional
experiences with CRS electronic services. Six focus groups met. The
average number of congressional staff participating was eight.
Proposals arising from these sessions are now being considered:
availability of all CRS products on-line, development of electronic
ordering capability, enhancement of search features, and creation of a
less complex, more readily accessible Home Page design. Suggestions
were also offered for new services for the Home Page.
Work in Progress:
The Technology Team is exploring additional actions for achieving
objectives set for the team.
--Establish and attain technology competencies throughout CRS,
appropriate for specific jobs and functions.
--Enhance technology support by developing the necessary skills for
the requisite number of staff and determine the extent to which
technology support staff should be centrally located and
supervised or be dispersed throughout CRS.
--Initiate a pilot study to examine the feasibility of establishing a
CRS-wide approach to purchasing or subscribing to electronic
resources. Planned implementation includes capabilities such as
on-line databases, CD-ROM's and specialized software to ensure
consideration of evolving choices of electronic resources,
compatibility with existing systems, accommodation of needs for
paper-based resources, accessibility wherever needed throughout
CRS, and minimum costs to CRS.
--Examine alternatives for enhancing electronic production and
delivery of CRS products and congressional use of electronic
delivery systems.
decreasing resources team
The Decreasing Resources Team developed a framework for making
decisions about resource allocations and resource use in an environment
of constrained budgets in order to continue to place the highest
priority on the legislative needs of the Congress. Subteams completed
several tasks, including service-wide consultative management meetings
to elicit staff perceptions and ideas for improving CRS products and
services and supporting systems.
Goal:
Generate processes, criteria, requirements that must be met when
any additional resources are sought (personnel and non-personals).
Accomplishment:
Developed selected factors or criteria for divisions and offices to
address in seeking additional personnel and postings. These criteria
were used to select fiscal year 1996 postings. Criteria included
ability to move staff or work to meet changing demands, definition of
the scope of the recruitment effort, diversity and upward mobility
goals, and overall budget impact. The purpose of the exercise was to
focus on the implications of hiring decisions, the necessity of linking
hiring with legislative needs, and alternatives to hiring within a
division or CRS as a whole.
Goal:
Examine the bases used to determine current allocation of non-
personals.
Accomplishments:
Examined the allocation of non-personal resources and recommended
changes in the process of making allocations to divisions and offices.
Recommended modifications include a reexamination of built-in costs of
database and print subscriptions and development of a new, easily
understandable sub-allotment process at the beginning of each fiscal
year. Opportunities will be provided for divisions and offices to seek
changes in allocations throughout the year as needs arise.
Reviewed CRS database and subscription budgets to determine the
most efficient ways to utilize these increasingly important resources
throughout CRS (See Technology Team section).
Goal:
Determine guidelines for division and office authority for final
decision making on already allocated resources.
Accomplishment:
Reviewed and endorsed the current system for final decision making
on the disbursement of allocated resources.
Goal:
Elicit staff input to (1) develop a high-priority list of work
processes for streamlining within each division or office; (2) identify
five or more products, services or activities, within each division and
within CRS, for potential elimination, transfer to the Library, or
restructuring; and (3) create an environment, among managers and staff,
conducive to moving staff and work within and between divisions and
offices to improve subject-area coverage and service to Congress.
Work in Progress:
In May 1996 began to elicit ideas on opportunities for efficiencies
within CRS and to identify products, services, or activities that might
be eliminated, transferred to the Library, or restructured. The Deputy
Director and the Associate Director for Finance and Administration
conducted discussions with staff in each division and office to gather
suggestions throughout the Service.
Continue to track the many specific and useful suggestions being
discussed by individual divisions or offices responsible for specific
programs or services as well as discussions that are part of current
CRS efforts to anticipate increased staff retirements.
Encourage consideration by Division Chiefs of a list of
alternatives to explore shifting staff and work to high priority
subjects. An independent effort to provide staff details for up to one
year, based on an agreement with CREA, provided the kind of flexibility
contemplated by this task.
Goal:
Reexamine the need for time accounting.
No modifications were determined to be immediately necessary, but
examination of the issue continues.
Goal:
Brainstorm options to ensure uniform application of performance
evaluation standards.
Work in Progress:
Continue to examine options that will foster a clearer
understanding of performance standards and methods and ensure that all
divisions and offices are applying them consistently. This examination
continues efforts initiated in 1995 to encourage Division Chief and
manager participation in promotion reviews outside their divisions or
offices.
Goal:
Identify the impact of ISIS 96 on work processes and make necessary
adjustments.
Accomplishment:
Established a service-wide group of coordinators to ensure that the
components of the first release of ISIS 96 meets CRS needs. A new team
has been established to ensure subsequent releases consider service-
wide and individual division and office needs.
Goal:
Complete senior level managerial performance evaluation revisions
and seek Library adoption.
Work in Progress:
The Director submitted to the Library in late December 1995 a set
of recommendations to Library of Congress regulations governing senior-
level managerial performance. CRS will continue to work with the
Library in refining and improving these regulations.
Goal:
Distribute to RPC materials on LCR and contract performance
provisions.
Accomplishment:
In March 1996 the Office of Policy Compliance completed and
distributed to supervisors a CRS Supervisor's Manual providing clear
guidance on the meaning and application of Library resolutions as well
as collective contractual bargaining provisions relating to staff
performance.
objectivity and nonpartisanship team
The Objectivity and Nonpartisanship Team looked at ways to preserve
and strengthen CRS effectiveness in providing objective support to the
Congress and ensure inclusion of the broadest possible range of diverse
viewpoints in the work of the Service. This team anticipates that the
environment in which the Congress acts will continue to be polarized
along political and ideological lines. The team's work focused on four
specific goals.
Goal:
Consider and modify (if necessary) guidelines for policy review to
reflect diverse viewpoints.
Accomplishments:
Reviewed and refined CRS procedures, guidelines, and practices
relating to achieving objectivity and nonpartisanship in CRS products
and services.
Compiled a set of current CRS guidelines, LC regulations, and other
documentation concerning objectivity and nonpartisanship as an aid to
understanding policy and practices concerning balance and objectivity.
The compilation was distributed to all CRS staff in December 1996.
Goal:
Reexamine CRS disclaimers.
Accomplishment:
Reviewed statements on the CRS Home Page and drafted statements
about CRS nonpartisanship and disclaimers regarding non-CRS resources
appearing on CRS products and services.
Goal:
Review acquisitions and data base resources to ensure diverse
viewpoints.
Work in Progress:
Worked with divisions to review and assess the ideological balance
of public policy literature including the Public Policy Literature
File. Resulting recommendations for changes in coverage are being
implemented.
Goal:
Hold consultative management meetings in each division to discuss
the need to recognize diverse view points and to provide opportunities
to discuss related problems and issues.
Work in Progress:
Began scheduling for staff meetings in each division to provide the
opportunity to consider objectivity and nonpartisanship issues in the
context of the new Congress.
federal-state shifts team
The Federal-State Shifts Team addressed increasing congressional
needs for research and analysis regarding state and local developments
as the Congress shifts responsibilities for many programs from the
federal government to the state level. The team developed four specific
goals and identified additional actions.
Goal:
Determine congressional needs for CRS assistance relating to
program and policy shifts occurring between federal and state
governments.
Accomplishments:
Built on the assumption that the congressional need for CRS
information and analysis concerning federal-state policy issues will
continue to grow. Such congressional interests reflect a long-term
devolution of responsibility and authority and the fact that states are
and will continue to serve as laboratories for innovations in many
policy areas.
Goal:
Assess the extent to which CRS is currently supporting Congress on
federal-state policy issues.
Accomplishments:
Conducted an internal survey of 78 CRS analysts, librarians, and
other staff who work on federal-state issues. The survey found that CRS
currently devotes substantial resources to providing information and
analysis to Congress on federal-state issues. All divisions have
responsibility for issues in these areas.
Collected information from all CRS divisions about the types of
requests from Congress for information and analysis at the substate
geographic level and CRS's ability to answer them. This information is
currently being analyzed.
Completed a checklist of CRS products on federal-state issues and
issued the product on November 29, 1996 (96-964 L).
Began preparation of a new issue brief on federal-state issues that
may be part of an info pack on the subject.
Goal:
Identify problems related to availability, collection, and use of
information concerning federal-state policy issues.
Work in Progress:
Actively seek a replacement source for information issued by the
now-terminated Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
(ACIR), particularly the report ``Significant Features of Fiscal
Federalism.'' The Rockefeller Institute of Government is planning to
publish both volume 1 (the survey of state budget and tax laws) and
volume 2 (the repackaging of Census of Governments data) in May 1997.
CRS will explore these and other possible alternative sources.
Work with Library staff to address access to archived government
electronic resources.
Develop recommendations on how to respond to decisions by executive
branch statistical agencies pertaining to the availability and utility
of information; monitoring changing availability and formats of
products; improving accessibility of electronic products to CRS staff;
and preserving present data for the future.
Monitor a pilot study now under way to assess state materials
received by the Library's Exchange and Gift Division State Documents
Unit and to determine the value of this material to CRS and the impact
its integration would have on CRS.
Begin to assess the usefulness of commercial on-line systems, such
as State Track and Legislate's state regulation files.
Goal:
Identify CRS staff and resource requirements to support Congress on
federal-state policy issues.
Accomplishments:
Determined that CRS needs to improve interdivisional and staff
communications, develop better ways to communicate with Congress about
the work of the Service in this area, and establish better databases
and models to facilitate manipulation of large data sets on federal-
state developments.
Obtained a prototype version of the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) in an electronic database format from Westat. The
CFDA electronic database will be integrated into the Education and
Public Welfare Division's pilot Program Information Explorer (PIE) to
be tested in early 1997. It will allow analysts to locate statutory and
administrative information on federal programs and link this to federal
budget data.
Work in Progress:
Create an internal CRS federal-state issues Home Page to serve as a
vehicle for providing and sharing information within CRS about federal-
state issues and the availability of materials relating to these
issues. This Home Page will list new reports by CRS and others that
focus entirely or in part on the federal-state-local system and
relationships. After this staff Home Page is operational (expected
early in 1997) information can be made available to congressional
offices.
Monitor a pilot project involving the CRS welfare reform team and
Lotus Notes, a Groupware application, to facilitate communication and
the sharing of information resources regarding federal-state issues.
congressional turnover team
This team identified ways to prepare CRS to meet congressional
needs in an environment increasingly marked by high congressional
turnover. Much of the team's work is assigned to subteams that have
been or will be established to complete specific actions or groups of
actions. Work began in August with a series of focus groups designed to
elicit information on CRS services and continues with efforts focused
on programs for the 105th Congress.
Goal:
Conduct a focus group review of CRS support for new Members and
staff.
Accomplishments:
The social science research firm, Westat, conducted five focus
groups with professional staff from 104th Congress new Member offices
(one focus group with new Senate offices and four with House offices).
Elicited congressional staff perceptions on what services CRS provides,
how well CRS meets their needs, how available and objective CRS staff
are, and whether or not CRS responds appropriately to sensitive
matters.
Identified through these focus groups characteristics of CRS that
are especially valued by Congress: ready response, institutional
knowledge, coverage on legislative matters, nonpartisan information,
complement to committees as information source, and a supplement to
office staff.
Gathered suggestions to enhance CRS services. The suggestions
ranged from creation of a legislative hotline to increased outreach,
better tracking of information requests, and more electronic services.
Focus group suggestions are being examined more fully by the team and
by the Director's Office.
Goal:
Prepare for the 105th Congress by (a) reviewing and revising
orientation materials, programs (seminars, open house, etc.), and
correspondence, (b) planning policy issues coverage including products
and seminars, (c) organizing new Member seminars, (d) conducting in-
person outreach (e.g. office visits), (e) supporting congressional
sponsored programs for new Members, (f) exploring additional support
targeted at new Members/staff, and (g) developing systematic monitoring
and data collection of CRS experience with new Members.
Accomplishments:
Orientation Materials
Produced a new 12-minute introductory videotape on CRS, which will
be distributed to Member offices and will be shown at CRS regular
weekly briefings on services.
Redesigned CRS printed orientation materials for the 105th Congress
to more carefully target and tailor products. A subteam created two new
brochures, ``Services to Members'' and ``Services to Congress,'' the
latter designed for staff; two new rolodex cards (one for Members); and
a wallet size card for Members with key CRS telephone numbers. The team
also created a portfolio describing CRS services with fact sheets on
CRS assistance and on each function within congressional offices.
Sent all Members-elect a letter several days after the election
describing CRS services; will send a letter to each Member office's
administrative assistant and legislative director describing CRS
services and offering in-person briefings on CRS.
Seminars and Programs
Received congressional endorsement to provide the official public
policy orientation for new Members of the House and Senate. This task
included a one-day policy seminar at the Library for Senators-elect on
December 5. Five Senators-elect attended. A three-day program for new
House Members will be held in Williamsburg on January 22-24. Both
programs received support from the bipartisan leadership of the House
and Senate.
Initiated review of current seminars and programs that will be
provided directly the first few months of the First Session of the
105th Congress, including the budget seminar series.
Reports and Other Services
Issued the CRS Report, ``105th Congress: Key Issues and Early
Agenda'' (97-1 F), on December 3, 1996.
Installed a Members-only telephone line to facilitate access to CRS
analysts and services.
Created a Guide to the Legislative Process on the CRS Home Page.
Evaluating Programs
Review CRS efforts to prepare for the 105th Congress and develop
management systems to collect and evaluate relevant information and
report findings.
Goal:
Evaluate committee liaison effort and recommend options for the
future.
Work in Progress:
Create a subteam to address how CRS can best ensure effective, on-
going liaison with the committees of the 105th Congress.
appendix--strategic goals team members
budget focus team
Donald Kiefer (ECON), Team Leader
Michael Anderson (CRD)
Patricia Ayers (CRD)
John Blodgett (ENR)
Stephen Daggett (FAND)
Michael Davey (SPR)
John Fischer (ECON)
Sharon Gressle (GOV)
Paul Irwin (EPW)
Jean Jones (ENR)
Nancy Jones (ALD)
Robert Kirk (LSD)
Janet Kline (EPW)
Martin Lee (ENR)
Paul Rothberg (SPR)
Mallary Stouffer (RSH/ERPO)
Patricia Wertman (ECON)
Philip Winters (ECON)
appropriations coordinators
Angela Evans (DO), Team Leader
Michael Anderson (CRD)
Carl Behrens (ENR)
Suzanne Cavanagh (GOV)
Ralph Chite (ENR)
Stephen Daggett (FAND)
Michael Davey (SPR)
Paul Dwyer (GOV)
John Fischer (ECON)
Alfred R. Greenwood (ENR)
Marc Humphries (ENR)
Paul Irwin (EPW)
Nancy Jones (ALD)
Janet Kline (EPW)
Robert Kirk (LSD)
Edward Knight (ECON)
Sylvia Morrison (ECON)
Nonna Noto (ECON)
Larry Nowels (FAND)
Barbara Schwemle (GOV)
George Siehl (FAND)
Sandy Streeter (GOV)
Susan Vanhorenbeck (ECON)
Philip Winters (ECON)
technology team
Jane Bortnick Griffith (SPR), Team Leader
Richard Ehlke (ALD)
Susan Finsen (FIN)
Peggy Garvin (CRD)
Jeffrey Griffith (RSH)
Steven Hildreth (FAND)
James Jackson (ECON)
Michael Koempel (GOV)
John Moore (ENR)
Richard Rimkunas (EPW)
Stephanie Williams (LSD)
decreasing resources team
Richard Ehlke (ALD), Co-Team Leader
Michael Koempel (GOV), Co-Team Leader
Time Accounting
Roger White (ECON)
Consultative Management Meetings
Angela Evans (DO)
Susan Finsen (FIN)
Lynne McCay (CRD)
Donna Scheeder (CRD)
Performance Standards
Charlotte Preece (FAND)
Jay Hadlock (CRD)
Donald Kiefer (ECON)
Bessie Alkisswani (FIN)
James Richardson (LSD)
Jean Jones (ENR)
Clay Wellborn (GOV)
Sharon House (EPW)
Lennard Kruger (SPR)
Karen Lewis (ALD)
Douglas Warshof (POL)
LCR and Contract Performance
Douglas Warshof (POL)
Hugh Elsbree (POL)
Marie Anderson (FIN)
Joseph Broderick (POL)
Gloria Hines (FIN)
Nonpersonals
Research Policy Council
Personnel Resources
Research Policy Council
Senior Level Managerial Performance
Hugh Elsbree (POL)
James Richardson (LSD)
Douglas Warshof (POL)
objectivity and nonpartisanship team
John Moore (ENR), Team Leader
Pat Ayers (CRD)
Bill Cox (ECON)
Mark Eddy (GOV)
Hugh Elsbree (POL)
James Robinson (POL)
Irene Stith-Coleman (SPR)
Kris Vajs (LSD)
federal-state shifts team
P. Royal Shipp (EPW), Team Leader
Keith Bea (GOV)
Eugene Boyd (GOV)
Thomas Carr (ALD)
Claudia Copeland (ENR)
Kathleen Doddridge (CRD)
Thomas Gabe (EPW)
Peggy Garvin (CRD)
Robert Goldich (FAND)
David Huckabee (GOV)
Gerald Mayer (ECON)
Nonna Noto (ECON)
James Riehl (CRD)
Tangela Roe (LSD)
Alix Salinas (LSD)
Wendy Schacht (SPR)
Margot Schenet (EPW)
Clay Wellborn (GOV)
Jennifer Williams (GOV)
congressional turnover team
Janet Kline (EPW), Co-Team Leader
Charlotte Preece (FAND), Co-Team Leader
Orientation Video
Robert Bamberger (ENR)
John Blodgett (ENR)
Linda Cox (RSH/SB)
Gary Levine (RSH/AV)
Robert Nickel (RSH/AV)
Orientation Materials
John Blodgett (ENR)
Robert Newlen (RSH/IQ)
Karen Wirt (RSH)
Senate Fair
Mildred Amer (GOV)
Keith Bea (GOV)
Chandell Butler (DO)
Vanessa Cieslak (CRD)
Michael Davey (SPR)
Susan David (RSH/AU)
Mark Eddy (GOV)
Carl Ek (FAND)
Kelly Garcia (RSH/SB)
Kevin Greeley (ALD)
Amy Johnson (DO)
Frederick Kaiser (GOV)
Robert Keith (GOV)
John Kelley (RSH/AU)
Lynne Kennedy (CRD)
Fran Larkins (CRD)
Jennifer Manning (CRD)
Clyde Mark (FAND)
Lynne McCay (CRD)
Robert Newlen (RSH/IQ)
JoAnne O'Bryant (GOV)
Dylan Perkins (RSH/IQ)
Jill Roberts (RSH/SB)
Barbara Salazar (CRD)
Karen Spar (EPW)
Rita Tehan (CRD)
Lorraine Tong (GOV)
105th Report
Karen Alderson (LSD)
Jean Bowers (LSD)
Ted Burch (LSD)
Felix Chin (LSD)
Lisa Dove (LSD)
Kerry Dumbaugh (FAND)
Susan Fletcher (ENR)
Sharon Gressle (GOV)
Robert Howe (LSD)
Paul Irwin (EPW)
Nancy Jones (ALD)
Robert Kirk (LSD)
Lennard Kruger (SPR)
Valentin Leskovsek (LSD)
Terrence Lisbeth (FAND)
Bonnie Mangan (LSD)
Tangela Roe (LSD)
Alix Salinas (LSD)
Margot Schenet (EPW)
Sherry Shapiro (LSD)
Edith Sutterlin (LSD)
Jack Taylor (ECON)
George Walser (LSD)
Karen Wirt (RSH)
Amy Woolf (FAND)
Management Information System
Robert Bury (RSH/AU)
Janine D'Addario (DO)
Edward Ecklund (RSH/AU)
Richard Huang (RSH/AU)
Ernestine Wang (RSH/AU)
Brenda Wesner (RSH/ISIS)
PPI
Claudia Copeland (ENR)
Michael Davey (SPR)
Letters
Chandell Butler (DO)
Janine D'Addario (DO)
Amy Johnson (DO)
Michael Koempel (GOV)
Rosslyn Richardson (DO)
Westat Focus Groups
Walter Albano (LSD)
Bette Alberts (RSH/SB)
Marie Anderson (FIN)
Jane Bortnick Griffith (SPR)
Lizanne Dinoto (RSH/IQ)
Pamela Dragovich (CRD)
Mary Geraghty (RSH/IQ)
Penny Heavner (FIN)
Evelyn Howard (RSH/SB)
Lynne Kennedy (CRD)
Janet Kline (EPW)
DeMarie Lawrence (RSH/ERPO)
Patricia Raap (SPR)
Jill Roberts (RSH/SB)
Kent Ronhovde (RSH)
Mary Smith (EPW)
Karen Wirt (RSH)
New Member Seminars
Vee Burke (EPW)
Joseph Cantor (GOV)
William Cooper (ECON)
Claudia Copeland (ENR)
Linda Cox (RSH/SB)
William Cox (ECON)
Janine D'Addario (DO)
Stephen Daggett (FAND)
Susan David (RSH/AU)
Charles Doyle (ALD)
Susan Finsen (FIN)
Paul Gallis (FAND)
Kelly Garcia (RSH/SB)
Peggy Garvin (CRD)
Jane Gravelle (ECON)
Penny Heavner (FIN)
George Holliday (ECON)
Nancy Jones (ALD)
Robert Keith (GOV)
John Kelley (RSH/AU)
Donald Kiefer (ECON)
Janet Kline (EPW)
Michael Koempel (GOV)
David Koitz (EPW)
Lynne McCay (CRD)
Jennifer Manning (CRD)
John Moore (ENR)
Raphael Perl (FAND)
Charlotte Preece (FAND)
Richard Price (EPW)
Jill Roberts (RSH/SB)
Paul Rundquist (GOV)
Denis Steven Rutkus (GOV)
Wendy Schacht (SPR)
Judith Schneider (GOV)
P. Royal Shipp (EPW)
Stanley Sloan (FAND)
James Stedman (EPW)
Robert Sutter (FAND)
David Teasley (GOV)
Joyce Vialet (EPW)
Ruth Wasem (EPW)
Stephanie Williams (LSD)
______
The Librarian of Congress,
Washington, DC, July 23, 1997.
The Honorable Robert F. Bennett,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Committee on
Appropriations, United States Senate, S-125, The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bennett: On behalf of all the Library's staff, I want
to thank you for your leadership and support of the Library in the
Senate Legislative Branch bill. By a wonderful coincidence, the news of
the Senate levels arrived at the Library just as we began a briefing
for all of the Library's managers and supervisors about the Library's
updated five-year strategic plan.
I enclose a copy of the plan for your perusal. It sets out both
clear goals and challenges for all of us at the Library. Our principal
challenge is to sustain past gains while becoming a more efficient and
effective operation. The Senate appropriations bill for the Library
recognizes the importance of the Library's workforce, supports critical
areas of technological innovation, and provides additional needed
support for security of the Library's collections, data, and workforce.
We are grateful for both your personal support and your leadership
on the Committee on behalf of the Library and the entire Legislative
Branch.
Sincerely,
James H. Billington,
The Librarian of Congress.
Library of Congress Strategic Plan (1997-2004)
letter from the librarian of congress
With Congressional support and direction, the Library of Congress
has developed over 196 years a massive collection of more than 111
million items, cost-effective institutional networks, and a superbly
knowledgeable staff. It directly serves not only the Congress, but the
entire nation with the most important commodity of our time--
information.
At a time when our collective economic productivity is increasingly
based on information and our creative use of individual freedom
requires more lifelong learning, the Library of Congress has become
increasingly important to the country as a unique resource. Because of
its past stewardship and thanks to current technology, the Library can
be tapped not only by the Congress and people in the Washington
metropolitan area but by schools, libraries, and the private sector
everywhere.
Our National Digital Library effort--providing remote electronic
access to the multimedia Americana collections here and in other great
repositories--has already begun to revolutionize local public access to
information and to spur increased interest in learning. Access to this
great information bank is expected to stimulate and inspire young and
old, and to increase the interest in and demand for libraries, books,
and reading.
The future of all the Library's efforts depends on solid gains in
the Library's core activities: serving the Congress efficiently;
acquiring, organizing, protecting, and preserving a universal
collection; reducing arrearages on schedule; and making the Library's
newly renovated facilities increasingly useful and hospitable to the
Congress, scholars, and researchers.
Our staff has made great gains under the 1993-2000 strategic plan:
the National Digital Library effort is ahead of schedule; our
arrearages have been significantly reduced; the Library's historic
Jefferson Building is re-opening in April; the secondary storage plan
and the book preservation efforts have borne fruit; the financial
system is being modernized; collections security has vastly improved;
and technological progress is well beyond what we imagined when we
created the 1993-2000 plan. We fell short in some areas, particularly
those related to performance accountability and infrastructure support,
and must act decisively to address these issues; we remain accountable
to the Congress and the people.
As we adjust our strategic plan, we seek to strengthen and preserve
our primary asset, a diverse workforce--renewing it with fresh talent
that is both developed within the Library and recruited from outside.
We will work smarter with staff who are well trained, motivated, and
strongly supported in carrying out the Library's mission in the
Information Age. We will embrace change--stressing quality,
productivity, and tangible results in all phases of our work.
I am confident that we can and will do what is necessary.
James H. Billington,
The Librarian of Congress.
introduction
The opportunities for the Library of Congress to make major
contributions to the Congress and the nation are greater now than ever:
to provide services to the Congress as it faces increasingly complex
issues; to continue to acquire, organize, preserve, secure and sustain
our collections; to make our collections more accessible, both online
and off, to the country's schools, libraries, and the private sector;
and to make our renovated facilities a true center of scholarly
productivity and creativity.
In coordination with the Congress, we have re-examined our
management operations to improve our services and to identify
priorities critical to our future success. Out of these efforts, we
must strengthen accountability. To realize that end we have designed a
Management Improvement Plan with specific tasks, timetables, and goals.
We will continue to evaluate our operations and our services
critically.
We believe that the Library's greatest strength is the knowledge
and expertise of its workforce, which, despite job losses, has
preserved a widespread devotion to excellence and to the service of the
Congress and the nation. In the end, the talents and dedication of a
diverse Library staff will enable the Library to achieve and sustain
its leadership role in the 21st century.
Another great strength of the Library is its standing, not only as
the world's greatest repository of recorded knowledge, but also more
recently as a leader in the new age of digital information, through our
National Digital Library Program.
The Library's challenge, under the 1997-2004 strategic plan, is to
sustain past gains while becoming a more efficient and effective
operation. We will do this by using mission and strategic priorities to
identify funding and resource requirements. We will also identify
specific objectives and action items to use as performance measures.
Our strategic plan maps the changes that will ensure that the
Library--the research and information arm of the national legislature
and the world's foremost storehouse of knowledge--continues its worthy
tradition of collecting, preserving, sharing, and fostering creativity
and learning in support of the Congress, the public and the democratic
ideal. In so doing, the Library of Congress, in cooperation with other
strong institutions, will strive to spark a renaissance in learning.
vision for the 21st century
The Library leads the nation in ensuring access to knowledge and
information and in promoting its creative use for the Congress and its
constituents.
values
the eight values of the library of congress
Service.--Best possible service to our constituents.
Quality.--Highest quality in every aspect of our activities.
Effectiveness.--Resources applied in direct support of our mission.
Innovation.--New and creative methods to improve our services.
Fairness.--Fairness and respect in our treatment of all staff and
users.
Participation.--Widespread staff involvement in planning,
implementing, and improving our activities.
Communication.--Clear and consistent communication with staff and
constituents.
Excellence.--Encouragement and support of staff excellence.
mission
The Library's mission is to make its resources available and useful
to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a
universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future
generations.
priorities
The first priority of the Library of Congress is to make knowledge
and creativity available to the United States Congress.
The Congress is the lawmaking body of the United States. As the
repository of a universal collection of human knowledge and the
creative work of the American people, the Library has the primary
mission to make this material available and to identify, analyze and
synthesize the information it contains to make it useful to the
lawmakers who are the elected representatives of the American people.
The second priority of the Library of Congress is to acquire,
organize, preserve, secure and sustain for the present and future use
of the Congress and the nation:
--A comprehensive record of American history and creativity. The
record of American history and creativity has to be maintained
in order both to protect intellectual property rights (a
constitutional mandate statutorily exercised by the Copyright
Office) and to preserve the record of the past for the sake of
future creativity (the constitutional mandate ``to promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts'').
--A universal collection of human knowledge.\1\ A collection that
includes all languages and formats is essential to meet the
present and potential needs of the Congress (the statutory work
of the Congressional Research Service) and of the government
more broadly (Law Library, Federal Research Division, general
reference services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except for technical agriculture and clinical medicine, which
are covered by the National Agricultural Library and the National
Library of Medicine respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All other services and activities of the Library of Congress
support the core mission of maintaining and continuing to build
on the world's greatest treasury of recorded human knowledge.
The collections must continue to be comprehensive in order to keep
pace with the rapid proliferation of information. The Library of
Congress is the only library in the world that collects universally. If
this time-honored tradition were diminished, the present functioning
and future creativity of both the Federal government and the American
free enterprise system would suffer.
The third priority of the Library of Congress is to make its
collections maximally accessible to (in order of priority): the
Congress; the U.S. government more broadly; and the public.
It is unprecedented in human history--yet uniquely American--to
offer open public access to an institution that at the same time serves
in many ways as the working library of a government and a de facto
national library.
The unifying purpose of providing the public with essential library
services, such as cataloging and reference help, is to extend as much
access to useful information as possible to each of these three
constituencies. The National Digital Library is dramatically broadening
public access by making the most interesting and important documents of
American history and culture remotely available electronically for
local schools, libraries, businesses, and homes across America.
The unique and ambitious mandate that the Congress has given its
Library during the past two centuries is a stunningly original
expression of a broader American democratic ideal. For a democracy to
be dynamic and self-correcting, its governing institutions must be not
only continuously accountable to the people but also solidly based on a
body of knowledge that is both constantly expanding and available
equally to those who legislate and to those who elect the legislators.
Equal access to knowledge for both governors and governed, rich and
poor, represents an essential minimal form of empowerment in a
pluralistic democracy, and has found expression in our system of public
libraries and public schools. The Congress has assigned to the Library
a series of centralized national functions that are essential to the
health of these local institutions: setting bibliographic standards,
providing subsidized cataloging, storing the records and artifacts of
the copyrighted creativity of America, and creating and delivering
nationwide free reading materials for blind and physically handicapped
persons.
The Congress has now recognized that, in an age in which
information is increasingly communicated and stored in electronic form,
the Library should provide remote access electronically to key
materials. For the general public, the Congress has endorsed the
creation of a National Digital Library Program through a private-public
partnership that will create high-quality content in electronic form
and thereby provide remote access to the most interesting and
educationally valuable core of the Library's Americana collections.
Schools, libraries, businesses, and homes will have access to important
historical material in their own localities--together with the same
freedom readers have always had within public reading rooms to
interpret, rearrange, and use the material for their own individual
needs.
The fourth priority is to add interpretive and educational value to
the basic resources of the Library in order to enhance the quality of
the creative work and intellectual activity derived from these
resources, and to highlight the importance of the Library's
contributions to the nation's well-being and future progress.
Implicit in the broad and international inclusiveness of the
Library's clientele (both here and elsewhere) is another ideal of
American democracy: the desire to promote the free exchange of ideas.
There are three essential aspects to this priority that are
uniquely available through the Library of Congress: greater use by the
Congress, government officials, and the private sector of the vast
special (i.e., non-book) and foreign language collections that are
often unique to the Library and that have generally been underused
resources; greater use of the Library's Capitol Hill facilities by
scholars for the kind of interdisciplinary, cross-cultural,
multimedial, multilingual, and synthetic writing that is important to
Congressional deliberation and national policy-making, but inadequately
encouraged by either academic specialists, special interest groups, or
advocacy-oriented think tanks; and greater use by the general public
through programs that stimulate interest, increase knowledge, and
encourage more citizens to use the collections in more varied ways both
on-site and electronically.
The Library staff will increase its role as knowledge navigators by
helping more people find appropriate materials in a swelling sea of
unsorted information and pointing them to services and resources unique
to the Library of Congress. This requires not merely more development
and retraining of staff than the Library has previously been able to
do, but also facilitating in new ways more extensive and systematic use
by researchers of the distinctive materials that only the Library of
Congress has. Programs for the general public, such as exhibits or
publications, must demonstrate the value and usefulness of the
collections.
Enabling infrastructure
To accomplish its mission and support the Library's four
priorities, the Library must have an efficient and effective
infrastructure with five key components:
--The mobilization and motivation of human resources in all parts and
at all levels of the Library.
There are four important elements within this category:
recruiting, assessing, rewarding and holding accountable
employees on the basis of objective evaluations of knowledge,
skills and performance; training, developing and, where needed,
retooling the workforce to perform new functions in new ways;
promoting fairness, equal opportunity, and respect for
diversity at all levels and in all parts of the Library; and
fostering communication by using early and frequent
consultation to promote innovation and increase participation
in decision-making and in implementing change.
--The provision and delivery of electronic services in order to serve
the departments of the Library in the execution of the
Library's mission and priorities with speed, quality, and
economy.
--The allocation and use of space and equipment in order: to preserve
and make accessible the artifactual collections; and to
maximize the efficiency, productivity and wellbeing of the
staff.
--The operation of modern financial and information systems to
facilitate decisionmaking and ensure accountability.
--The operation of effective security systems that ensure adequate
access and at the same time provide maximum protection for the
staff and patrons, facilities, data, and collections.
operating assumptions
Congressional Support.--Library of Congress managers will work with
the Congress to secure appropriate financial and legislative support.
Library Management.--Library Management will make timely decisions
consistent with and in support of the Library's mission and priorities.
The Library's Infrastructure.--The Library's infrastructure will be
strong, responsive and activist. Human resources support will be
provided in a timely and efficient manner; current technology and
technology training support will be available on a timely basis;
technology forecasting will be fully integrated into the Library's
planning; space planning and the execution of plans will be
streamlined; financial information will be readily available to all who
need it; and improved security systems will be in place.
Library Leadership.--Relying on its incomparable collections, the
Library will continue taking a leading role in facilitating the
information revolution, creativity, and research--ensuring that 21st
century Americans will have a well developed, sophisticated and
increasingly global supply of information.
Copyright Office.--The Copyright Office, a major source of Library
of Congress collections, will remain an integral part of the Library,
and it will begin providing copyright deposits in digital form for LC's
selection and collections.
Emerging Technologies.--The Library of Congress will keep pace with
the new technologies to enable it to remain a leader in the field of
librarianship and the delivery of information and to ensure that its
collections are developed qualitatively in support of its mission.
Public-Private Partnerships.--The Library will rely on support from
a broad range of public-private partnerships and coalitions, both
nationally and internationally, to build and maintain the National
Digital Library Program and other Library programs. The transition to a
national digital library requires the Library to launch an enormous
cooperative effort with the American library community and to establish
a global digital library coalition to which many libraries and other
institutions contribute. The Library will establish policies that
encourage such partnerships.
Fundraising.--The Library will continue to seek public-private
funding to support its outreach programs.
Quantity of information.--Far more information will be generated in
more ways, more places, and more formats than in the past.
Congressional needs.--The knowledge/informational needs of the
Congress and the government will be more complex and extensive than
ever before.
strategic plan objectives
Priority I.--To make knowledge and creativity available to the
United States Congress.
Strategic Plan Objectives:
To fulfill all Congressional mandates so well that the Congress
confidently continues to rely upon the Library to meet those needs;
To meet or exceed needs and expectations of the Congress for
legislative research, analysis and information services at a level of
sustained excellence; and
To assure that the Congress is fully cognizant of the services and
resources of the Library of Congress, and has ready and reliable access
to them.
Priority II.--To acquire, organize, preserve, secure, and sustain
for the present and future use of the Congress and the Nation a
comprehensive record of American history and creativity and a universal
collection of human knowledge.
Strategic Plan Objectives:
To develop and maintain the Library's universal collections in all
formats and languages, acquiring them through copyright, gift,
exchange, purchase, and transfer, in the most timely and cost-effective
manner to support the Library's mission;
To ensure that the Library's collections, both physical and
electronic, are appropriately secure;
To achieve arrearage reduction goals;
To provide innovative and effective bibliographic, intellectual,
and physical control that is appropriate, timely, and of high quality
for all of the Library's collections;
To ensure the preservation of the Library's collections for current
and future use, using appropriate preservation treatment and
technologies;
To lead the development, maintenance, and dissemination (both
nationally and internationally) of standards needed for: effective
electronic interchange of documents and bibliographic data;
preservation; and the theory and practice of cataloging; and
To organize, sustain and make more usable the record of American
creativity through copyright registration, deposit, and recordation
systems.
Priority III.--To make the Library's collections maximally
accessible to the Congress, the U.S. government more broadly, and the
public.
Strategic Plan Objectives:
To lead in the area of electronic outreach by contributing to a
national digital library that provides both broad access to the
Library's collections and links to other significant, publicly
available information, regardless of its location and format;
To make the Library's collections available both nationally and
internationally through use of digital technology, lending, and
document delivery;
To provide high-quality service to users accessing the Library by
telephone, correspondence, and electronic means;
To sustain high-quality service to users of the Library's reading
rooms, research areas, and collections;
To broaden awareness and use of the Library's special and foreign-
language collections and reading rooms;
To sustain and improve high-quality service to blind and physically
handicapped patrons; and
To develop a plan to continue the National Digital Library Program
beyond the year 2000.
Priority IV.--To add interpretive and educational value to the
basic resources of the Library in order to enhance the quality of the
creative work and intellectual activity derived from these resources,
and to highlight the importance of the Library to the nation's well-
being and future progress.
Strategic Plan Objectives:
To foster creative scholarship in the Library's unique collections
including foreign-language and special-format materials;
To promote awareness of the Library and fuller and more varied use
of its resources through national and international copyright services,
exhibits, concerts, publications, associations, conferences, colloquia,
and other interpretive programs.
Enabling infrastructure.--To accomplish its mission the Library
must have an efficient and effective infrastructure.
Strategic Plan Objectives:
Financial Services
To provide financial services (budget, accounting, disbursal and
travel) to its clients and to conduct program activities, allocate
resources, and ensure accountability; and
To improve the Library's financial and legal framework, policies
and procedures.
Human Resources
To provide human resources leadership in service to the Library's
internal constituency;
To formulate and put in place a comprehensive personnel program
that will significantly improve timeliness, efficiency and
responsiveness to client needs; and
To promote equal employment opportunity at the Library of Congress
and facilitate resolutions of disputes fairly and quickly.
Security
To ensure the security of Library staff, visitors, facilities,
collections, and other assets.
Support Services
To promote occupational health and safety and to provide a healthy,
safe environment for staff and visitors;
To provide facility management, space, and interior design support;
To provide procurement and logistic support; and
To provide records management, mail distribution, printing, and
transportation services.
Technology
To align the Library's current information technology resources
with its overall priorities and develop technological architecture that
will support the Library's objectives;
To improve information technology customer satisfaction; and
To establish and enforce information technology standards that will
ensure compatibility of information technology systems.
the library of congress in the year 2004
We designed our strategic priorities and objectives (1997-2004) to
lead the Library into the 21st century and to promote cooperation with
and support for our constituencies. When we accomplish our objectives,
the Library, because of its staff and vast and comprehensive
collections, will be a major component of a worldwide information
network. Modern storage and retrieval systems will be in place, and our
integrated information system will support sustained, high-quality
service to the Congress, visitors, readers, the Copyright Office, and
the core functions and services of the Library. Our efficiency and
communication will be greatly improved; our staff, visitors,
collections, and facilities will be protected; and we will serve as a
security model for the nation's libraries.
Focused training, education, advancement, and redeployment of our
diverse staff and aggressive recruitment of high-quality talent will
enable us to fill the gap left by retirements. The resulting well-
motivated and gifted staff will harness the latest technology to
provide service in the most creative and efficient way.
The promise of the magnificently restored Thomas Jefferson Building
will be fulfilled; and the Jefferson Building will be the site of
distinguished exhibitions, seminars, educational conferences, and
altogether new forms of scholarly communication. Scholars, researchers,
and students will, more than ever before in the Library's 200-year
existence, be able to mine the Library's unique collections and to make
connections across barriers of language, medium, and discipline that
will make the Library the most vibrant center of intellectual activity
in the world.
The electronic outreach the Library will be making in every
Congressional district will significantly contribute to educational
renewal and to a fresh, mature appreciation of the richness and
diversity of our common American heritages. The model of the National
Digital Library will have helped stimulate a number of other national
public-private undertakings that will take advantage of much more of
the Library's immense basic resources as well as of the special skills
of CRS, the Law Library and the Copyright Office to increase the
creativity, productivity, and international competitiveness of the
United States.
moving forward
Using the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) as a guide,
the Library organized the strategic planning process into two parts.
Part one identified the mission, priorities, values, and expectations
to take us into the 21st century. Each service unit and support area
identified its role in accomplishing the mission, priorities, and
objectives. From these individual plans, the Library produced a single
unified strategic plan that will drive the planning, programming, and
budget process into the future.
In part two of the planning process, each service unit and support
area will develop specific action items to accomplish agreed-upon
priorities and objectives. Each action item will be assigned to a
service unit(s) or individual(s) and be subject to periodic review. The
items will also be used in developing performance plans.
In November 1996, the Library created a Planning, Management, and
Evaluation Directorate (PMED) to monitor the plan's implementation.
PMED and the Financial Services Directorate (FSD) will work jointly
with the Deputy Librarian to synchronize and monitor the planning,
programming, and budgeting process.
Following the completion of part two, the staff will create the
Library's Five-Year Resource Program, which will translate the plan
into affordable programs. The first year of the Five-Year Resource
Program will become the basis for subsequent budget requests.
opening statement of general scott
Senator Bennett. General Scott, we welcome you.
General Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I thank you for this opportunity to appear with Dr.
Billington to present the Library's 1998 budget.
Last September, Dr. Billington appointed me as the Deputy
Librarian responsible for the day-to-day operations of the
Library of Congress, which is a great national institution. In
my 7 months at the Library, I have found that all of the staff
have a strong will to succeed and that they are receptive to
new ideas.
Facilitative leadership
In that time, I introduced a 3-day workshop, called
Facilitative Leadership. All of the 557 managers and
supervisors have to date completed the workshop. What they
learned from the training was a better understanding of how to
get more people involved in the decisionmaking process, pushing
down accountability and responsibility.
This has been an exciting 7 months for me and we do face
many challenges. Some of the challenges I speak of I will
highlight in my statement.
Management improvement plan
We have developed a plan that encompasses the findings of
the GAO and the other audit agencies over the past few years.
This improvement plan has specific goals and timetables for
individual managers to improve performance in areas critical to
library operation--in collection security, in financial
management, in human resources, and in other key areas. We are
making progress in fiscal year 1997.
With your support, we can make even greater progress in
fiscal year 1998 and beyond.
These current management improvement efforts are all part
of our long-range strategic plan which also calls for new
automation systems across the Library to allow us to work
smarter and faster with fewer resources.
This is why in our 1998 budget request we have asked you to
make a 5-year commitment to an integrated automated system for
basic operations within the Library. Nearly every other major
American research library, including Brigham Young University,
has converted to modern, commercially available, integrated
systems.
Within this past year, these new commercial systems have
shown that they are now capable of handling a library the size
of the Library of Congress.
Automated system charts
I have four charts that I would like to use to show you
what we have done as far as our automated system goes, how it
is outmoded, what we desire, and then the costs spread over the
next 4 years. You do have these charts in your packet, but I
can hold them up and speak to the issues.
Currently, we have a system that resembles more of a
smokestack function than it does an integrated function. That
means that we do all of the Library's functions a function at a
time.
We have 2,000 employees who must rely on this inadequate
system at a tremendous cost of time, duplication of effort, and
the upkeep of outmoded technology.
As you see on your left, we have actually five large,
separate systems and many smaller systems that support the
Library's manual functions. Now again, these do not share data.
We do some of the inventory and some of the data by hand, which
makes it slow and cumbersome, and we have a lot of paper that
we have to file and store.
new Integrated system
All of this impairs not only our operations but it also
impairs collection security. So we want to replace the old
systems with a single, integrated system to support all of the
functions, such as acquisition, such as collection,
circulation, and certainly security and related activities.
So the new integrated system that we are asking for will
allow for centralizing control and security while streamlining
the workflow and helping to reduce and eliminate maintenance
costs.
As an example of how the current system is slow and time
consuming, you can see on your left [indicating] that if you
were to request a book and the item was not where it was
supposed to be, it could take up to 20 steps to locate that
item. Under the new system, that could be reduced to four
steps. Thus, as you can see, it would be a tremendous boon to
inventory and knowing where the collections are.
cost for Integrated system
This chart shows that we are asking you for $5.6 million in
1998 and another $9 million that would be spread over 5 years
to complete this project. Now all of these costs will include
the hardware, the software, the training, and the data
conversion that is necessary to do this. The new system will
enable us to redirect some labor to other critical areas--
circulation, arrearage, backlog, and you can see that we would
not expect to have that redirecting group of staff until about
the year 2000.
Putting this in would help us to meet the increased demands
on the Library's operations.
In addition to the automation, we also are asking that our
near-term goals and requirements be considered by you. We
depend on your funding $14.7 million in mandatory wage and
price increases, which is the largest single item in our
budget.
reduction in Work force
We are keenly aware of the competition for resources and
that Congress has given the Library very considerable
treatment. Despite the committee's best efforts, however, we
know we now have little flexibility left to absorb such costs.
During the last 5 years, we have had a net reduction in our
work force of 435 FTE's, many of them highly skilled
professionals. Without congressional funding for these
mandatories, we would be forced to cut another 178 positions.
That could mean a tangible erosion in services, services that
no other institution provides.
Talking book machines
It is also important that we ask you to give consideration
to our request for $2.5 million to acquire 10,000 additional
talking book machines. These machines will allow the Library
services for 750,000 blind and physically handicapped Americans
in every State to continue without interruption.
Again, we need your continuing investment in the future of
the Library, in our people, and in our technology. That would
enable us to do more than serve the Congress and the Nation
with fewer staff.
Thank you for this opportunity. Dr. Billington and I are
now available for your questions.
questions on ILS investment chart
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
Can we go back to your fourth chart there?
General Scott. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. As I understand it, the red bars are the
investment in the present system and they come down by the year
2004 to virtually nothing.
General Scott. The red bar is the investment for the new
system, what we estimate the new system would cost. It's for us
to put in the new system.
Senator Bennett. OK. Then I don't understand it properly.
That's why I am asking the question.
So the red bars are the investment in the new system. Then
what are the green bars?
General Scott. The green bar would show that we estimate by
the year 2000, as a result of this investment in this new
system, that we would recoup about $3.4 million in productivity
to reallocate to other necessary needed functions, such as the
arrearage and collections security.
Senator Bennett. I am glad to have that because I had
understood that the red bar is what you are paying for the
present system and that will come down to zero, and the green
bar as what you are investing in the new system and the amount
of money we have to pay as the combination of the two bars.
General Scott. No.
Senator Bennett. I get it now that the green bar should
actually be below the line as a saving.
General Scott. The red bar is what it will take for us to
put in the new system.
Senator Bennett. But the green bar is the saving?
General Scott. The green bar would be the savings.
Senator Bennett. Not an expenditure?
General Scott. Not an expenditure.
Senator Stevens. If it is reinvestment, you are really
using the people that you are freeing up by the modernization
in other aspects and you will not have to hire new people. But
it is a reallocation of manpower more than it is money as I
understand it.
General Scott. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Senator Bennett. OK. I am glad to get that clarification.
Electronic transactions
You say that you've got four times the hits on your home
page than you had in 1993. Did I understand that correctly?
Dr. Billington. Yes; well, that is total electronic
transactions.
Senator Bennett. Total electronic transactions. OK.
Has there been a corresponding or any kind of measurable
decrease in transactions that are not electronic that would
indicate there is any kind of shift away from traditional ways
of accessing the Library toward the electronic? Or could you
say that has all been incremental?
Dr. Billington. It is practically all incremental because
there has been very little change in the basic amount. We get
more than 1 million inquiries every year from around the
country and that has stayed fairly constant. These are the
traditional reference methods, with people telephoning in or
making use of the Library. There has not been a dramatic change
in interlibrary loans which we do free. Other libraries charge
for it.
So this electronic access is largely additive. It is very
exciting because it means a whole new universe is coming in to
use Congress' Library that has never really had access to it
before. It shows that the largest single component in those 42
million a month is for the THOMAS system, which shows an
interest in the functions of the Congress. But the national
digital library, the digitization of the core things in
American history for educational purposes is rapidly rising in
its usage, too.
Exhibits are also widely used. All of the Library's major
exhibits in the last, I guess, 4 years now have been put
online. They get greater usage all the time, classroom usage--
and so forth.
So there is a very well spread and rapidly developing thing
here. That is all incremental. Almost all of it is incremental,
added usage of the Library.
Year 2000
Senator Bennett. In one of my other assignments, I am
focusing on the challenges and costs of dealing with the year
2000 problem as it affects computers.
General Scott, as you look forward, are you going to have
some year 2000 programming problems? How much are they going to
cost to fix if they are there? Or are you free of that
situation?
General Scott. Yes, sir; we are not free of the year 2000
problem. We have started to examine the magnitude of the
problem and we have made some assessment that if we are
fortunate enough to get the ILS going, that will help us
resolve the year 2000 problem. If not, then we still will have
a year 2000 problem and we are still looking at the effort it
is going to take to resolve it without an ILS. But I don't have
a price tag that I can give you right now.
Senator Bennett. Do you have any kind of estimate? It is
not going to be in this bill. Is it going to be in a
supplemental or in next year's bill?
General Scott. I would like to defer that to Herb Becker or
I could give that to you for the record, sir.
Senator Bennett. Fine. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
The Librarian of Congress,
Washington, DC, June 25, 1997.
Honorable Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, S-128,
Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to provide the following responses
to the several questions you raised in our recent Senate Appropriations
hearing. We appreciate and share your concerns, and we are focussing
significant resources on these important matters.
Federal Communications Commission ruling on universal access
While interested parties have already convened major efforts to
educate potential beneficiaries, much is still unknown about the impact
on the Library of this May 7, 1997, ruling. The Universal Service Fund,
which could make up to $2.25 billion available annually, will require
an organizational structure and procedures which are not anticipated
until calendar 1998. Some 65 percent of the K-12 schools are already
wired to the Internet,\1\ and the Library's National Digital Library
(NDL) is already being utilized by a large number of schools. The
Library's NDL is providing well-organized and rich content on American
history and culture that is of broad interest to teachers, students and
parents. The Library has been working with teachers for several years
specifically to develop materials useful to them. However, the Library
does not see technology training as an appropriate part of our mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Center for Education Statistics survey, February 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are continuing to select from those items of broadest interest
and importance for the educational community, which is one component of
Secretary Riley's 1996 National Long-Range Plan for Educational
Technology. The Library will work in consultation with the Department
of Education on other elements of the plan as appropriate, but we see
our function as being limited to the historical library mission of
making quality content more widely accessible.
The Library's own cumulative growth over the last two years, as
judged by ``hits'' or electronic transactions recorded on our website,
has doubled each year since 1995. This growth mirrors the increase in
Internet users. Our current systems planning and investments are
predicated on this pattern of continuing growth. With the universal
service initiative, we will continue to monitor its impact closely and
revise our planning and resource requirements accordingly. As I stated
at the hearing, providing continuing access to our collections is not
nearly so costly as the one-time investment needed to digitize a wide
variety of different, often multi-media, formats from the Library's
collections that we are including in the NDL.
Impact of the Year 2000
Using a model similar to the GAO Year 2000 Conversion Model, the
Library is assessing the impact of the year 2000 on our automated
systems. Our financial, personnel, reader registration and other
commercially-supported systems will be compliant. Our office automation
systems will be migrated to newer office systems and will be
implemented with Year 2000 compliant software. Our telecommunication
(data/voice) systems have been assessed and are already compliant.
Copyright systems will be migrated to new software and hardware systems
which will be Year 2000 compliant. We have identified specific
replacement systems for each retrieval application, such as those in
the CRS SCORPIO system, which will be in place for Year 2000 operation.
The Integrated Library System (ILS) requested in fiscal year 1998
is indispensable to making the Library's major bibliographic and
inventory controls Year 2000 compliant. Our ILS request-for-proposal
provides that the new system comply with Year 2000 requirements that
the Senate has identified and endorsed. The most substantive support
the Congress can provide the Library to address the year 2000 problem
is to fund fully the 1998 ILS initiative.
We will insure that all other automation systems being replaced are
delivered with the capacity to manage this problem.
Computer Security
In response to the recent incident where CRS Issue Briefs were
compromised, we have thoroughly analyzed the events that allowed
unauthorized access. This specific incident happened because of an
application programming problem. That problem has been resolved. As a
standard practice, we report all automation system ``Incidents'' to the
National Computer Emergency Response Task Force (CERT) which tracks
trends and patterns in computer abuses. We have recently cooperated in
a pilot program with the National Institute of Standards (NIST) to
design an incident-handling system. In addition, with contractor's
assistance, we have recently completed a risk assessment of our
computer center, and with the help of KPMG, we recently completed an
Internet security scan. We are using this information and the
identification of high-risk vulnerabilities in these two studies to
draft a plan for systems security by the end of July 1997. Preliminary
plans suggest that we will need an additional $400,000 in the near
future for computer security upgrades. We will provide the Committee
with possible additional needs for the longer term and our over-all
program for systems security after our plan is completed.
We have implemented improved back-up and recovery procedures
through data-vaulting in a cooperative arrangement where we share space
in our computer center with the House for its back-up storage
equipment, and the House reciprocates. Our workstations are configured
with standardized communications software to mitigate against computer
viruses and abuses. AT&T provides the Library with a monthly audit of
``attacks'' against our telecommunications systems. The Library will
continue to participate in legislative branch initiatives to refine
CAPNET security.
Authority to Deter and Respond to Computer System Breaches
All legislative branch information technology offices should have
standardized measures to respond, through legal prosecution, to
computer security breaches. The Library will participate in any
procedural or statutory review that seeks appropriate standardization
within the legislative branch.
We look forward to continuing this discussion with you and the
committee, as well as our colleagues on the Hill. We will, of course,
provide more detail or answer any further questions you may have. Thank
you again for your continued interest in, and support of, the Library.
I have forwarded a copy of this letter to Senator Bennett and to
Senator Dorgan. Merely,
Sincerely,
James H. Billington,
The Librarian of Congress.
money raised through private Donations
Senator Bennett. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Dr. Billington, I wanted to ask you a
question about the amount of money that you have raised. You
have raised some private donations to the goal of digitizing
millions of Library of Congress items and developing a digital
library project. As I understand it, you have a private
donation goal of about $45 million.
Dr. Billington. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. And you have raised about one-half of that.
I want to ask two questions about that.
coordination of LOC's digital project with others
One, how is the Library coordinating its work on the
digital project with other libraries to prevent duplication of
effort?
Dr. Billington. First of all, we have taken the lead in
forming with 15 other major institutions a federation, a
digital library federation, in order to coordinate. We have
been working with them on standards, on setting standards, and
storage protocols. The Library in 1902 assumed for the print
culture the major burden of cataloging, which we still assume,
which is an enormous and invisible subsidy to the library
system of America, as it costs more to catalog a book than to
buy it. Likewise, what we are doing in the digital universe is
we are coordinating with the major repositories in this
federation.
Second of all, we have raised some private money
specifically for other institutions, one of which was North
Dakota State University, which was a successful competitor in
our Ameritech competition. Incidentally, the Library does not
pick the winners. We do not want to be in the business of
playing God in this respect. But we had some outside panels
that are very capable here. This competition stimulated
tremendous interest.
We had hundreds, well dozens, of interesting applications
from all around. There were 10 winners. We will have two more
of these competitions. It is money that we raise, not for the
Library, but to bring in others so that this is a genuine
national digital collection, even beyond the collections of the
Library of Congress.
So we have taken the lead. We have developed a kind of
archival protocol which, at the request of the other
institutions, we are maintaining and keeping up so that there
is a central reference point on this. The work we are doing
with the national digital library is setting, I think,
standards of searchability and standards of indexing that we
are, more or less, coordinating continually with other
institutions. So I think this is developing rapidly as a
cooperative undertaking.
cost of Digitizing materials
Providing online access is exciting because it means that
we are assuming, I think, a doubling of Internet traffic every
year. So we are already in our planning--while it is going to
take some upgrading in capacity to deal with--it will not take
as much as you would think. The real expense is digitizing
materials. That is $60 million, $45 million of which comes from
the private sector, is going to do. We are going to digitize 5
million items by the year 2000.
We have about 350,000 already digitized for which we are
getting 5.5 million transactions a month directly, and that has
only begun. We have 1.7 million items in the pipeline. We have
well over one-half now of the private money raised and we are
hopeful that we will be able to raise the rest. There is a lot
of interest in this and there is also an interest in developing
exciting cooperative projects, which we are discussing with a
number of people.
LOC's network relationships
What you are really seeing emerge is a new type of library
that is going to be available everywhere. You won't even have
to go to the library to get this material. It involves all
kinds of network relationships.
The Library is trying to enter in and play a facilitative
role, as General Scott has told us about. Facilitative
leadership does not mean you do it all yourself; rather, you
facilitate others to participate. So we already have now 10
other institutions who are digitizing their material with money
that we have raised for them.
There will be two more competitions. In addition, a lot of
people have been stimulated because of entering this
competition to think of digitizing their material. So it is a
very exciting cooperative operation.
Storage as a possible future expense
One of the possible future expenses, of course, is the
question of storage. We think that is going to be a distributed
activity. It is important that people not only get their
collections on the Internet but that they have a stored backup.
But we think that is something that other institutions will be
able to do, but requires maintenance.
So the burden of central storage is not going to be nearly
as great, we do not think, as the heavy startup burden. It is
the same thing with the integrated library system. For the year
2000 problem, it is going to be much easier to deal with that
if we have an integrated library system and we do not have to
make the adjustments on each of these smokestack systems we
presently have.
That is another reason for moving ahead with that.
Grant from the Kellogg Foundation
We think this is very exciting. It is going to involve some
added expense and there will be some unforeseen problems. But
these are being talked about in a cooperative spirit among the
major institutions. We are also involved, incidentally, in
determining what gets into the digital library--that is the
core of the Americana--we are involving teachers. We have a $3
million grant from the Kellogg Foundation which we have just
completed and we are hoping to devote some of that $60 million
to sort of seeding, to getting some of the top notch teachers
around the country to advise what it is people really want and,
indeed, to establish protocols of how you could use this for
teaching purposes.
We are not trying to prescribe a course on American
history. We are just simply trying to make accessible to the
electronic age what the Congress did just a century ago by
opening up public reading rooms and making its Library
accessible to the public who could get to Washington. We are
now trying to take the best of it, the most interesting and
important parts of it, those items of wide interest, make them
available to the general public, but particularly to the
schools and libraries in the electronic environment.
So we are not really delivering products. We are not going
to get engaged in all of that commercial activity. The market
will take care of that.
expense in Digitization
The fundamental expense is the problem of digitization
itself, which is extremely labor intensive when you are dealing
with the wide variety of formats and materials that we have.
While the price may come down to some extent, that is still
going to be a big expense.
But in other areas, the rapid development of technology and
the improvement in the competitive atmosphere which is
developing gives promise that, while there will be increasing
expenses so that you do not buy yourself into obsolescence,
there will also be offsetting economies as the market drives
this forward.
Fort Meade storage facility
Senator Dorgan. May I ask one additional question about the
plans that you have for Fort Meade and the additional record
storage? You were talking about 1999 in your statement.
Would you describe your long-term plans that provide for
expansion beyond that? If so, what are they?
General Scott. Yes; we do. If it is all right, I would like
to ask Linda Washington to come forward and explain that if it
is all right with you.
Senator Dorgan. Yes; and just briefly, please.
First book storage module
Ms. Washington. We are planning this now. We have
coordinated with the Architect of the Capitol the utilization
of the Fort Meade facility and we are planning to have our
first book storage module ready in mid-1999. Thereafter, we
will have another storage module every 2 years. So we do have a
5-year plan for utilization of the Fort Meade facility for book
storage and for storage of other material as well.
Dr. Billington. I think we expect to break ground, do we
not, by the end of this year, the Architect of the Capitol, on
the first of these?
Ms. Washington. Correct.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. Senator Stevens.
hooking schools to LOC information systems
Senator Stevens. Dr. Billington, you and I had an informal
discussion yesterday, and Senator Dorgan is on the Commerce
Committee, too. We were informed about the rapid acceleration
of hooking up the schools of the United States to the
information systems of the country, if not the world.
Basically, that means hooking them up to you. I want to
make sure that we have the funding now to handle that rapid
expansion of demand when it comes about. Were you there,
Senator, when they talked about the President's program to
utilize funds from the universal service concept to hook up all
of the schools of the United States? We are not talking about
just simple access. It means, I understand, a substantial
increase in the total number of classrooms that will be capable
of teaching children totally on computer.
Now what that does, in my mind, is say that you have to be
ready for that. Will you be ready for it?
Dr. Billington. Well, I think we will be ready to do our
part in that, which will be substantial. But as I already
indicated in my answer to the previous question, the way this
is developing--the way it has to develop--is in a cooperative
network environment. So I do not think all of the burden will
fall on us, but a very substantial amount will.
Our present planning assumes, as I say, a doubling of our
web site activity every year to the end of the century. I think
that is a realistic projection. It is impossible to give you
precise figures on this, but I would assume that for constant
service, related equipment, and updating in order to keep up
with demand, it will cost us perhaps $200,000 a year more. But
we don't foresee, you know, major breakdowns. We don't foresee
that there is going to be some wild escalation of prices. But
there are a lot of uncertainties in all of this.
Upgrading the systems
I think that we have begun already, for instance, technical
planning to upgrade the speed of our Internet connection. We
are currently installing increased server capacity, and
planning for the acquisition of more. We will soon be
implementing a high speed backbone network within our computer
center.
All of these are within plans, those actions that are in
our current equipment/software based budget, and assume that
the technology budget will not be either cut directly by the
Congress or indirectly by allocating technology funds to other
programs inside the Library.
Budget impact
We see three major impacts, budget impacts, resulting from
an increasingly digital world and the digital conversion of
conventional materials. That is the most predictably expensive
thing. We have front loaded a big effort to get these 5 million
items in NDL so that we can really make a major impact early on
in the educational life of the country. Also we are finding
that the experience we are getting is of great value to others
and to ourselves, and, with the national digital library, to
our other efforts. But that is the big expense because it is so
labor intensive.
additional Storage media
Second, additional storage media will be necessary for
these digital collections and data bases. We do not see
ourselves assuming the storage burden for everybody else, as
other players come into it, because that will be a distributed
cost, and the network costs in general are going to be
distributed costs.
Software development
The third expense is software development and maintenance
of necessary applications to organize, store, and provide
retrieval to the growing volume of digital information. That is
a much harder need to estimate.
But the real answer to your question is that this is a
major continuing adventure, really, and we are out there in the
frontier.
I do not think, though, at least we do not presently
foresee, that even this highly accelerated and increased usage
is going to cause major, additional expenditures or a very
serious breakdown.
Senator Stevens. Do you have anyone that is acting as
liaison with the administration's program to understand the
demand that is coming from their activities?
Dr. Billington. I think we have several committees. I would
refer this to Herb Becker who would be the best person to
respond to that as the head of our information technology
services area.
concerns for school hookup to the Internet
Senator Stevens. It is a simple question. Is there anyone
working with the administration to understand the scope of the
demands that will come on the Library as a result of the
initiative to hook up all of the schools to the Internet?
Mr. Becker. I should say that we are monitoring very
closely what the administration's program is. There are a
number of organizations that include people from the Federal
Government as well as the library and university community,
like the Coalition for Network Information, which track what is
going on, which have briefings and seminars and invite
administration leaders to talk about their plans.
There are a number of techniques for keeping up with what
is going on. There is a group that is part of the information
infrastructure task force, an applications group of which I am
the Library's member. We used to have formal meetings. Now we
communicate mostly by e-mail over the network. So we are aware
of the administration's goals that way.
I should also say that we, at the Library, in the
technology area, have continuing meetings with the
telecommunications industry who are involved in making these
infrastructure investments across the country to find out the
progress and the speed with which this is all happening.
Federal Communications Commission
Senator Stevens. Well, I urge you to get together with FCC
and understand what they are doing because they have decided
now to use a fund that is available. It won't be the private
sector directly. But the private sectors contribute to this
fund. That fund will be dedicated to this one, sole objective,
and their objective is to have it done by the year 2000. If
they have it done by the year 2000 and you are not ready for
that onslaught, we are going to face substantial costs which we
might be able to handle on an incremental basis now much
easier.
So I think you ought to find out about this. It is not
going to be an evolutionary thing with industry coming in and
hooking up as they want. The cable people thought they would do
it over a period of 10 years. The telephone people thought it
would be 10, 12, or 15 years. This plan now is to have it done
by the year 2000--2\1/2\ years away. It is going to happen and
it is going to happen with the use of this universal service
fund.
I am not going to belabor this but I think it is going to
bring you a wave that is a sunami in terms of the impact on the
demand for information services and you are the keystone of
that.
concerns on the Year 2000 problem
I will just leave it there, Mr. Chairman. But on the year
2000 problem that the chairman mentioned, I looked into that
substantially when I was chairman of the Governmental Affairs
Committee. My conclusion was that if institutions were
modernizing their computer systems and integrating the new
computers within the system, it was a fairly simple matter to
handle the year 2000 problem which, basically, was that the
numbers would run out at the year 2000 and you could not
compute beyond 2000.
The new computers did not have that impediment built in. I
guess their limit is the year 3000, which we don't need to
worry about yet, right? [Laughter.]
funding to avoid Year 2000 problem
Have you looked to see how much--and you have sort of
answered the chairman's question? Is there any additional
funding you need now to avoid having a year 2000 problem?
General Scott. I would like to take a crack at that. We
don't know exactly what we will need right now as far as money
goes.
Herb, would you say it would be another 4 or 5 months
before you complete all of your assessments?
Mr. Becker. Yes; that's true.
We have a great variety of systems in the Library. Some of
them are being modernized and a solution to the year 2000
problem is exactly what you have said, Senator. It goes away
with the replacement system.
Some of the systems are supported by commercial vendors and
they are developing new software. Our financial management
system is supported by AMS and the next release of that system,
which we will implement early in 1998, will be year 2000
compliant. So there are a variety of solutions.
One area where we have the biggest challenge is in what we
refer to as our legacy systems that support the direct library
activities for which we are proposing a replacement. The ILS
would replace those and modernize that whole environment and
deal effectively with the year 2000 problem.
Senator Stevens. I discussed the matter with Arnold
Penzias, who was the head of Bell Labs and now he has his own
company. He examined it for the Bell system and came to the
conclusion that it is manageable for those who are modernizing.
It is not manageable for those who are not in a modernization
program.
So I think if you have it in the forefront of your mind as
you modernize, we should not have any unforeseen demands for
money in the year 1999, which is what we would look at. Right?
We can be assured that in 1999 we are not suddenly going to
wake up and find out we need hundreds of millions of dollars to
replace systems now, are we?
General Scott. We do not foresee that. And, of course, as I
said, a lot of what we are counting on is getting this new,
integrated system.
Dr. Billington. I think the integrated library system will
do precisely what you say. It will give us a central system
that, in itself, will be modernized, rather than a lot of
inefficient and expensive submodernizations of other systems.
So if we can assume that we are going to be going ahead with
that, we will have a cost of this conversion that will be much
less and that we will try to compute for you in the next few
months when our internal study is done.
Senator Stevens. I am using more than my share of time but
I do have one last question, Jim, before I have to leave.
Dr. Billington. Yes, sir.
Digitizing materials
Senator Stevens. It is this. You are digitizing new
acquisitions immediately, right?
Dr. Billington. No.
Mr. Becker. No.
Senator Stevens. You are not? How do you determine whether
you digitize, then, in terms of new acquisitions?
Dr. Billington. We are not basically digitizing new
acquisitions. We are digitizing the most interesting and
important elements of past Americana for the national digital
library, our digital project. We will shortly be receiving a
great number of collection items in digital form. We already
have a public catalog and we are receiving digital materials.
Senator Stevens. Let me back up. One of the reasons you get
books is that we have a requirement about providing copies to
the Library of Congress. Should we change the law to make sure
that any books that are digital and that do have the digital
capability, are filed with you in both ways, both as printed
and digitized material?
You don't need to answer that now. You can answer it later.
[Clerk's note.--The information is provided in the
committee questions for the record.]
Fort Meade storage facility
Senator Stevens. The thing I am getting at right now is
this. With your digitized material, you are going to store the
stuff that has been digitized.
Dr. Billington. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Is that what the Fort Meade facility is?
Dr. Billington. Well, no, that is not what Fort Meade is
for. Fort Meade is for basically storing the large, archival
items, books, and other materials.
security plan for LOC systems
Senator Stevens. I don't know that the authorizing
committee has looked at the security plan. Has it looked at the
security plan?
Dr. Billington. At which security plan?
Senator Stevens. Security for your systems, both those that
are computerized and the storage as far as materials are
concerned. You do have a new security plan?
Dr. Billington. Yes; we do.
Senator Stevens. Has that been approved by the authorizing
committees?
General Scott. It has not been approved. We have had
preliminary discussions with the authorizing committee staff
about review of the plan when completed.
Senator Stevens. I would like to make sure that it is and
that there is a determination made that the existing law is
adequate to give you the authority that you need to protect the
security of these systems, particularly those that are totally
computerized and digitized.
System viruses
Some of the things I am hearing now concern a new
generation of viruses that can be entered into a system as
large as yours. Are we adequately protected?
Dr. Billington. We have a committee looking into that. We
corrected a recent element that was of concern to CRS. That has
been taken care of.
We have a committee that is looking into this very
thoroughly; this is an important area that we will have some
firm policies on that we will present to the committees.
Senator Stevens. The Department of Defense has some very
specific legislative protection and the capability to really
retaliate very quickly on anybody who gets involved in this.
You ought to have at least equal to that if you are the
information center of this Congress and of the Federal
Government. So I want to make sure you take it to the
legislative committee.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Security
Senator Bennett. Thank you. That was one of my questions as
well, the question of security.
I have a list of questions that I will submit for the
record and you can respond to them in writing. But I want to
underscore what Chairman Stevens said about the issue of
security.
General Scott. Right. And, as Dr. Billington said, we do
have a committee. We have corrected the recent incident in
which someone had misfiled some legislative information which
caused someone to have access to it.
But we are in the process now of identifying what needs to
be done and how much it would cost to make sure that we have
the necessary software and procedures to harden it up.
Senator Bennett. Senator Dorgan, do you have any further
questions?
Senator Dorgan. No, thank you.
Dr. Billington. I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, on
this other issue, that we will also take a hard look at the
administration plan to wire schools and libraries and what its
implications are. So I assume it will be useful to get back and
answer both Senator Stevens' concern and the subcommittee's
concern.
Nobody really knows and one isn't even entirely sure, as I
understand it, of all of the implications of the plan to get
the schools wired up. But we will try to get you an indication
of the study, do a special study on this problem and get it to
you some time in the next few months.
Additional committee questions
Senator Bennett. Fine. Thank you very much. We appreciate
your being here and look forward to receiving answers to some
of our written questions.
If there is nothing further, thank you and we will go on to
the Government Printing Office.
Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Scott. Thank you, sir.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Library for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
financial audit
Question. The Library recently received a clean opinion on their
financial statements. Were there any material weaknesses or reportable
conditions associated with the audit, if so, please explain.
Answer. The 1996 financial statement audit report represents a
major achievement for the Library as a result of receiving a ``clean''
opinion on the financial statements, but it also reiterates that more
work is needed to address all of the Library's internal control issues.
The independent accounting firm, KPMG Peat Marwick, identified one
material weakness and seven reportable conditions.
The accounting firm made 43 recommendations to address the need for
internal control improvements. Most of the recommendations relate to
conditions found during the 1995 audit that require more time to
implement. For example, eleven out of the 43 recommendations (26
percent) pertain to improving the safeguarding of the Library's
collections--a long-term task. The one material internal control
weakness addresses the security practices over information technology
systems. The Library has already taken steps to improve these security
practices (e.g., requiring that the Computer Security Officer sign off
on the separation clearance forms), and the Library is taking
additional steps to implement the recommendations.
The 1996 audit found two new reportable internal control
conditions--year 2000 compliant software changes were needed and that
the Inspector General's oversight functions were limited. The Library
is taking steps to address both of these findings.
internal control
Question. What has the Library done over the last year to safeguard
its assets? Does the Library believe that it now has the internal
controls in place to adequately safeguard the collections?
Answer. Over the last year the Library has implemented the
following measures to improve safeguarding of the collections: improved
and modernized cages and vaults holding high value collections;
increased locking of work places in selected areas; updated
instructions and procedures for administration of stack passes and key
cards; enhanced key control by completing an inventory of 5,000 keys
and documenting procedures for key control; imposed restrictions on
bringing personal items into selected reading rooms (patrons must use
cloak rooms and lockers for personal belongings); installed
electronically controlled access system in book storage areas on
Capitol Hill; inserted anti-theft strips in nearly 1 million additional
volumes, bringing the total number of volumes thus protected to over 5
million; and completed installation of closed-circuit video
surveillance cameras and other electronic security systems in newly-
reopened areas (reading rooms and stacks) of the Jefferson and Adams
Buildings.
Also in the past year, the Library began the multi-year task of
assessing risk to the collections (the Heritage Assets), of identifying
actions and practices to mitigate those risks that have not yet been
addressed, and of implementing those recommended actions and practices.
In addition, it is developing a methodology to review those internal
controls annually, as part of the annual audit process. A task force
comprising representatives from all parts of the Library that have
permanent or temporary custodial responsibility for the collections is
working with an outside auditing firm to develop a systematic risk
assessment of the Heritage Assets (something that has never been done
by a comparable institution and for which there is no existing model).
The task force has completed a full risk assessment of one collection
area (Geography and Map) and has moved on now to do the Copyright
Office.
While great progress has been achieved, the Library does not yet
have adequate internal controls in place for the over 112 million items
which comprise the Heritage Assets. Of the four major areas of
control--inventory, bibliographical, preservation, and physical
security--the area of greatest vulnerability, inventory, cannot
properly be controlled until the full implementation of the ILS, for
which the Library has requested funds in fiscal year 1998.
Bibliographical controls are addressed by the Library's Arrearage
Reduction Plan, which continues to be implemented according to
schedule. The single most important initiative for preservation control
is the building and proper outfitting of environmentally controlled
storage modules at Ft. Meade, for which funds have also been requested.
title 44 proposal
Question. How will the proposed Title 44 revisions affect the
Library's collections and its budget?
Answer. The draft proposal's treatment of the Library is unclear.
Specific Title 44 changes would await subsequent legislation.
Several likely changes to Title 44 contemplated by the proposal
would be detrimental to Library service to Congress, and to its
collections and programs. Examples:
--the possible end to the Library' statutory guarantee of
Congressional and other federal publications would greatly
hamper the Library's ability to serve the Congress. When
Congressional documents were discontinued through the fiscal
year 1996 appropriations process, the Library found it
necessary to obligate more than $150,000/year to purchase the
minimum necessary to fulfill Congress' research needs. This
means, for example, that the Law Library has had to reduce its
acquisitions of other legal materials by $1 for each dollar
spent on the purchase of Congressional documents. It would cost
upwards of $1,000,000 to purchase all federal publications, and
the Library would need additional resources to identify and
request federal documents needed for Congressional research,
for exchange purposes and for the collections.
--the proposed elimination of cooperative publications, and
vulnerability of our employees to personal civil liability for
engaging in cooperative publishing activities, would
effectively end private publications, based on the Library's
collections, that are now produced under contractual
arrangements that benefit the Library as well as the public.
--the implied repeal of the current copyright protection against
unauthorized foreign distribution of government publications
would end the Library's ability to license foreign distribution
of cataloging and other products.
capitol visitor center
Question. The Library recently testified before the House
Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development regarding the
Capitol Visitor Center. What costs does the Library anticipate it will
occur on a one-time basis and on a yearly basis if it is connected to
the Visitor Center as currently included in the Architect of the
Capitol's plan?
Answer. The means of financing for the construction of the proposed
Capitol Visitor Center has not been determined. H.R. 20 envisions
totally private funding for Center construction. The cost of
constructing the Library-requested auditorium and ancillary viewing
rooms are estimated to be approximately $10 million. The costs of
constructing a tunnel between the Center and the Thomas Jefferson
Building which would allow for the easiest movement of people and
materials is estimated at about $5 million with an additional $3 to $5
million needed for interior modifications to the Jefferson Building.
Once the Center is constructed, the Library of Congress will
participate by (1) providing unique materials from our collections for
the Center's exhibits on the history and role of Congress, and (2) by
showing items from our audio and visual collections in the auditorium
and other smaller viewing/listening rooms.
It is difficult to estimate resource requirements at this time
because the Center's exhibition and program cycles have not been mapped
out. We expect that we can do a fair amount of program participation
from existing resources. For large projects, such as major exhibitions
or programs in the auditorium, we would require additional resources,
which we expect would be primarily from private funding.
staff level
Question. In response to a question previously submitted, CRS
responded that it was not able to determine whether there had been an
increase as projected in requests from offices regarding the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. If that
is the case, how does CRS determine staff levels for specific analytic
expertise areas?
Answer. CRS division chiefs are responsible for identifying the
expertise they need to cover Congress' legislative agenda. They do so
through a variety of mechanisms, including assessment of issues or
policies which will have certain or likely congressional action in the
next Congress, evaluation of the expertise available in CRS, appraisal
of the current and expected workload of subject area specialists, and
identification of ways in which staff on board can be developed to
facilitate shifts in subject coverage. While these assessments and
projections are integral to day-to-day management of the research
activities in each subject division, there are also periodic formal
CRS-wide reviews.
These reviews, led by the Director, assure that hiring,
reassignment, and detail, and other resource allocation decisions are
made in the context of the legislative agenda and Service-wide needs.
After assessing critical work needs, managers submit to the
Director requests for staff resources and include information and
analysis as part of the request, including: (1) How does the requested
position help achieve the CRS' mission (e.g. new initiative,
maintaining workload); (2) What are alternative ways of providing the
service (details from other areas, reassignments, contracts, etc.); (3)
What is the relationship to our current or expected workload; (4) What
is the relationship to existing or anticipated shortage of expertise,
including the impact of projected retirements; (5) What is the
relationship to legislatively active subject areas and what is the
likelihood of the subject area staying on the legislative agenda; (6)
How would the position contribute to coverage of other related issues;
(7) What are the immediate and future costs of the additional resource;
(8) What are the current division and Service-wide capacities to
support the legislative agenda in the subject area; (9) What measures
has the division already taken to address the need; and (10) What is
the appropriate scope of recruitment and what is the likely impact on
diversity and upward mobility objectives.
All of these requests are discussed at a Research Policy Council
meeting, a weekly meeting held with the division chiefs, associate
directors, deputy director and the director. Other managers ask
questions and make suggestions about the request, and there is an
effort to reach consensus about the highest priorities. After this
meeting the director decides on the highest priorities that can be
addressed within current budget restrictions.
security management plan
Question. Has the Library completed its security management plan
and has it been presented to the authorizing committees?
Answer. The Library has completed a preliminary security management
plan. The plan has been reviewed by the new Director of Security, and
he is now making enhancements to it. The enhancements being made to the
preliminary plan are adding specific security actions and timetables,
and establishing milestones. The final plan will serve as the guiding
document for all our security efforts, including collections security,
physical security, information security and personnel security.
Finalization of the plan for presentation to the Library's
authorizing committees is being given top priority by the Director of
Security.
congressional publications
Question. What items and approximately how much does the Library
pay to the Government Printing Office to secure government documents
for its work and collections?
Answer. The Library is currently spending approximately $210,000 to
acquire Congressional publications needed for its collections,
international exchange, and use by Congressional Research Service (CRS)
staff. These publications include hearings, committee prints, the
Congressional Record, Statutes at Large, House and Senate journals, the
Economic Report of the President, the Budget, Statistical Abstracts,
and other documents.
management improvement plan
Question. One of the Management Improvement Plan recommendations
last year was for the Library to establish a position of Chief
Information Officer. Why has the Library's Executive Committee deferred
its decision to establish the position?
Answer. Deputy Librarian of Congress Donald L. Scott was appointed
to his position in October of 1996 and charged with managing the day-
to-day operations of the Library. General Scott required a six month
period to learn, review, and assess the structure, personnel,
operations, and present and future challenges of the Library's
Information Technology Services directorate. The Deputy has concluded
that ITS is a one-of-a-kind unit whose main operations are composed of
a mix of internally-developed and commercially-procured automated
systems. A great number of those legacy systems are in dire need of
replacement with an integrated, off-the-shelf vendor's system. Given
the challenges facing ITS, the Deputy Librarian concurs with the
external recommendation to establish a CIO position and will recommend
to the Executive Committee that the Library proceed with the
establishment and filling of this position beginning in July 1997.
police overtime
Question. The Library plans on reducing the amount of overtime
worked by its police force to 10 percent and hire additional police to
provide necessary coverage. What is the cost savings estimated for
fiscal year 1998 due to the hiring of additional police?
Answer. No cost savings are estimated because a new police FTE
costs more than equivalent overtime hours. A police person's assignable
(regular) work hours total 1,445 out of a total 2,087 payable hours a
year (non-assignable hours include leave and training time). In
addition, employee benefits (approximately 27.6 percent of total base
salary) do not increase for overtime hours. Therefore, one new police
FTE that costs $45,930 (including benefits) is equivalent to 1,445
overtime hours that cost $37,382. The Library is planning to reduce
excessive overtime to improve the effectiveness and quality of police
performance, but this effort will not decrease costs.
fiscal year 1998 budget priorities
Question. What are the Library's priorities in its fiscal year 1998
budget?
Answer. The two highest priorities are mandatory pay and price
level increases totalling $14.7 million. These increases are needed to
maintain current services. Without funding for mandatory pay increases
($10.7 million), the Library would need to cut 178 positions, which is
on top of the 435 FTE's lost since 1992--a cumulative cut of 13.6
percent since 1992. A price level increase is necessary to sustain our
purchasing power for goods and services including books, machine-
readable works, and other materials. The amount of material we can
afford to purchase from appropriated funds has declined seriously--from
930,747 pieces in fiscal 1992 to 707,695 pieces in fiscal 1996. We must
not permit further erosion in these acquisitions--particularly since
these reductions disproportionately hurt precisely those foreign
acquisitions which only the Library of Congress makes and which often
have growing importance for our international competitiveness. We
should not risk depleting what is, in effect, the nation's strategic
information reserve. It will have many uses tomorrow that we cannot
even imagine today.
The next two highest priorities would be the Integrated Library
System ($5.6 million) and security. Investing in technology would
enable the Library to re-engineer its major business process and
improve productivity. The new system would also improve collections
security. The Library is requesting $685,035 to hire additional police
officers and to fund various contract security initiatives. Additional
security funds are needed to handle the reopening of the Jefferson
building including staffing new police posts and installing security
equipment. Further, additional security funds are requested for two
reader registration stations ($393,410) and for inserting detection
targets into items received by the Copyright Office ($242,072).
ils installation
Question. How many FTE's will be saved once ILS is completely
installed?
Answer. The Library expects that current staffing levels will be
maintained through the year 2000, which will be the first year in which
the Integrated Library System (ILS) will have been fully implemented.
Major efficiencies will begin to be realized in 2001. During the first
few years we will need all existing staff to get the ILS up and
running.
From 2001-2005, the workforce is anticipated to be reduced
significantly through attrition. Therefore, once the ILS has been
installed and staff have been trained, we will need to reallocate the
majority of the positions eliminated by the ILS to a variety of
critical tasks that have long been understaffed, such as arrearage
reduction, collections inventory, and security.
Our initial estimates indicate 120 FTE could be reinvested in
crucial areas for arrearage reduction, collection security, and
inventory control when the ILS is completely installed and fully
operational by year 4 (2003). It must be emphasized that these
projections are very preliminary. Until the ILS has been chosen and
installed and staff have become familiar with the capabilities of the
new system--a prerequisite for the redesign of many Library Services'
business processes--the projections will remain rough estimates.
loc collection
Question. Would it be helpful for the Library to receive its
collection in both a hard copy and in digital form?
Answer. At present, the Library is working from the hypothesis that
some kinds of works should be deposited in hard copy only, some in
digital form only, and some in both formats. Currently when a work is
published in CD-ROM format and hard copy, copyright regulations require
that the CD-ROM version be deposited. However, it is most often the
case that the CD-ROM and hard copy editions of a work are sufficiently
different from each other that they must be registered and deposited
separately.
A new Copyright Office initiative--CORDS (Copyright Office
Electronic Registration, Recordation and Deposit System)--that will
become operational in 1998 will allow digital works to be submitted
through the Internet using public key/private encryption technology.
The system is in a test phase with Carnegie Mellon, Stanford University
and MIT Press as participants. In 1998 the types of works that will be
submitted electronically are technical reports, electronic journals and
newsletters, books, dissertations, and home pages and websites. From
1999-2004 the Copyright Office will systematically incorporate
additional categories of materials, working closely with CRS and
Library reading room staff to determine which formats best serve user
needs. If we determine that we need both hard copy and digital versions
of identical works, the Copyright Office has authority under Title 17
to amend its deposit regulations to require deposit of one copy of each
edition. The Law Library under its Global Legal Information Network
(GLIN) Project is currently receiving both a hard copy and a digitized
format of some countries' official gazettes. This procedure will
continue until preservation standards are established to replace hard
copies completely. The ultimate goal is to acquire only a digitized
format for primary sources of laws.
management improvement plan
Question. According to the MIP, the Library's Executive Committee
was to review on March 2, 1997 its previous decision not to establish a
Chief Information Officer position to provide leadership in technology
across the organization. What did the Executive Committee decide?
Answer. The Library's Executive Committee has deferred its decision
on establishing a Chief Information Officer position.
Question. Which senior Library official will have oversight
responsibility for the purchase and implementation of the Integrated
Library System (ILS), if approved by Congress, which the Library
estimates will cost more than $40 million and require training of more
than half the Library's staff?
Answer. If funds are appropriated by the Congress for the purchase
and implementation of the Integrated Library System, Deputy Librarian
Donald Scott will serve as the source selection authority for the ILS
procurement. Barbara Tillett will serve as ILS project manager.
streamlined management processes
Question. Who are the members of the Executive Committee and the
Senior Management Reporting Group, and what are their separate roles
and responsibilities?
Answer. The Library's Executive Committee (EC) is the primary
decision- and policy-making body for the institution. Its members are
responsible for the achievement of the Library's mission and its
priority work. The EC is also responsible for assuring that all key
issues are identified and addressed in a timely fashion. The head of
each of the Library's seven service units serves on the EC. When there
is lack of consensus on an issue, the committee presents options and
viewpoints to the Librarian or the Deputy Librarian for his decision.
Members of the Executive Committee are as follows:
James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress
Donald L. Scott, Deputy Librarian of Congress (chair)
Jo Ann Jenkins, Chief of Staff/Senior Advisor for Diversity
Rubens Medina, Law Librarian
Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director, Congressional Research Service
Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyright/Associate Librarian for
Copyright Services
Winston Tabb, Associate Librarian for Library Services
The following directors of the primary service functions within the
institution rotate serving as the infrastructure representative at
Executive Committee meetings. They are considered voting members in
terms of decision-making.
Herbert Becker, Director, Information Technology Services
Kenneth Lopez, Director of Security
Lloyd Pauls, Associate Librarian for Human Resources Services
Linda Washington, Director, Integrated Support Services
John Webster, Director, Financial Services
The Senior Management Reporting Group (SMRG), consisting of the
primary senior level managers, is the main managerial mechanism for
imparting critical information within the institution. The group's
weekly meetings are the forum in which the Executive Committee
communicates decisions, goals, and assignments. SMRG members are
responsible for sharing information on their individual areas of
responsibility, as well as bringing forward issues requiring
deliberation, coordination, or other action; congressional concerns are
given particular priority.
Members of the SMRG are as follows:
James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress
Donald L. Scott, Deputy Librarian of Congress (chair)
Herbert S. Becker, Director, Information Technology Services
Peter Braestrup, Senior Editor and Director of Communications
Jill D. Brett, Public Affairs Officer
Jo Ann Jenkins, Chief of Staff
Lana Jones, Acting General Counsel
Kenneth Lopez, Director of Security
Rubens Medina, Law Librarian of Congress
Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director, Congressional Research Service
Geraldine M. Otremba, Director, Congressional Relations Office
Lloyd Pauls, Associate Librarian for Human Resources Services
Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights/Associate Librarian for
Copyright Services
John W. Rensbarger, Inspector General
Winston Tabb, Associate Librarian for Library Services
Linda J. Washington, Director, Integrated Support Services
John D. Webster, Director, Financial Services
Andre Carl Whisenton, Director, Dispute Resolution Center
Harry Yee, Chief, Labor Management Relations Office
building compliance
Question. In February before the House Legislative Branch
Appropriations subcommittee, the Office of Compliance testified that
there were conformance problems, particularly electrical safety issues,
with the Library buildings. At the time, no estimates had been prepared
on the cost to bring the buildings into compliance. What has the
Library done to address the compliance problems? Have any cost
estimates been prepared? Will this impact the Library's fiscal year
1998 budget?
Answer. Electrical safety problems identified in Library of
Congress Buildings by the General Counsel, Office of Compliance, report
of June 28, 1996, ``Report on Initial Inspections of Facilities for
Compliance With Occupational Safety and Health Standards Under Section
215,'' are not the responsibility of the Library.
All electrical safety problems identified were in spaces under the
control of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC). These spaces included
mechanical equipment rooms, elevator equipment rooms, AOC shops, etc.
Consequently, the Library has made no cost estimates for correction of
the problems. Since this area of action falls under the jurisdiction of
the AOC, there will be no impact on the Library's fiscal year 1998
budget.
congressional accountability act
Question. At the time of the 1997 Senate appropriations hearing,
the Office of Compliance was preparing a study regarding the
comprehensiveness and effectiveness of various laws affecting the
Library of Congress as well as other legislative branch agencies. What
was the outcome of the study?
Answer. The study, presented to the Congress on December 31, 1996,
did not make any recommendations, stating that any recommendations this
early in the life of the implementation of the Act would be
``premature.'' Rather, the study describes how the legislative branch
entities enforce the rights and protections under the statutes they
studied and concluded that, ``* * * overall, the rights, protections,
procedures and relief afforded to employees at the GAO, the GPO and the
Library * * * are, in general, comprehensive and effective when
compared to those afforded other legislative branch employees covered
under the [Congressional Accountability Act].''
While not offering legislative remedies, the study did note some
areas where there are discrepancies between the letter and spirit of
the CAA and the administration of workplace-related laws at the
Library. The study made several references to the fact that Library of
Congress employees, uniquely within the federal government, have no
appeal to an administrative body independent from, and external to, the
head of the agency, with respect to fair employment and other claims.
In the absence of a legislative proposal from the Office of
Compliance, the Library will be seeking needed legislative changes
through its authorizing committees. These changes include: (1) creation
of an avenue to seek administrative relief in fair employment cases
through the Office of Compliance, as noted above; (2) technical changes
needed in the implementation by the Library of the Family and Medical
Leave Act; (3) placing the Library under the Americans with
Disabilities Act-public access procedures outlined for the Capitol
complex under the CAA; and (4) placing the Library under the labor-
management relations provisions of the CAA.
financial audit
Question. At the Senate Rules Committee hearing on March 20, 1997,
Dr. Billington stated that KPMG had been contracted to do the Library's
external audit and the audit report was due at the end of March. The
Library has been given a final copy of the report. Do you concur with
the findings? Please summarize them and provide the Committee with a
copy of the final report when it is completed.
Answer. The Library's consolidated financial statement report for
fiscal 1996 was issued on April 30, 1997, and a copy was sent to the
Committee. The independent accounting firm, KPMG Peat Marwick, gave the
Library an unqualified ``clean'' opinion on the financial statements
and made 43 recommendations for improvements. The Library concurs with
38 and partially concurs with 5.
The 43 recommendations address the one material internal control
weakness and seven reportable internal control conditions found by the
auditors. Most of the recommendations relate to conditions found during
the 1995 audit that require more time to implement. For example, eleven
out of the 43 recommendations (26 percent) pertain to improving the
safeguarding of the Library's collections--a long-term task. The one
material internal control weakness addresses the security practices
over information technology systems. The Library has already taken
steps to improve these security practices (e.g., requiring that the
Computer Security Officer sign off on the separation clearance forms),
and the Library is taking additional steps to implement the
recommendations.
The 1996 audit found two new reportable internal control
conditions--year 2000 compliant software changes were needed and that
the Inspector General's oversight functions were limited. The Library
is taking steps to address both of these findings.
Consistent with the 1995 audit report, the 1996 audit report again
found that the Library had two areas of noncompliance with laws and
regulations--operating gift revolving funds beyond the scope of
authority and retaining certain money from the Cooperative Acquisition
Program. The Library continues to request legislation to correct both
of these issues.
In summary, the 1996 audit report represents a major achievement
for the Library as a result of receiving a ``clean'' opinion on the
financial statements, but it also reiterates that more work is needed
to address all of the Library's internal control issues.
management improvement plan
Question. According to the Library's Management Improvement Plan
(MIP), the Executive Committee has had under consideration since June
1996 the elevation of a Chief Financial Officer's position to focus
attention on improving the Library's financial systems and controls.
When does the Executive Committee expect to make a decision on this
Booz Allen recommendation?
Answer. The Director of Financial Services is the Library's Chief
Financial Officer responsible for budget, accounting, financial
systems, and disbursing activities. As evidenced by the unqualified
audit opinion on our fiscal 1996 financial statements, the Library has
improved its financial systems and controls.
library technology
Question. When was the ILS Request for Comment issued? What is the
closing date?
Answer. The Request for Comment (RFC) was issued by the Library on
December 3, 1996. The 60-day comment period ended on February 3, 1997.
All nine vendors who responded to the RFC indicated their intent to
respond to the Request for Proposal.
Question. What is the estimated cost of staff training for the ILS?
Is it included in the $24,030,000 of earmarked existing resources? If
not, does the Library expect to commit other existing resources to
cover training costs?
Answer. The estimated cost of staff training related to the ILS is
$5,939,605. All of these costs are included in the $24,030,000 figure
with the exception of $64,992, which is requested for fiscal year 1999
to pay the selected vendor to ``train the trainers.''
unprocessed library arrearages
Question. From 1992 to 1997 the arrearages were reduced by 43.71
percent. What is the projected date for eliminating the remaining
arrearages?
Answer. If current staffing levels remain steady, the Library plans
to (1) eliminate the print and map arrearages by December 2000 and (2)
reduce the remaining arrearages 80 percent by December 2005.
systematic training and development
Question. According to the Booz-Allen management review, their
assessment of training and development capability revealed a strong
need for leadership-management training for all three levels of
management.
When do you estimate training in leadership and management
developed under the approved continuum concept will begin for: (1)
first-line managers; (2) middle management; and (3) senior management?
Answer. We have just concluded a comprehensive three-day
Facilitative Leadership Training Program for all Library managers and
supervisors. The program was designed to enhance management skills and
abilities, particularly those which help build more productive
relationships and achieve more focused results.
accountability mechanisms
Question. To ensure standard applications of the performance
appraisal across the Library, an audit is now being conducted of the
performance appraisal process for bargaining unit employees. The
objective is to make certain they are being conducted in accordance
with applicable collective bargaining agreements.
What is the estimated completion date of the audit? Please provide
the Committee with the findings of the completed audit.
Answer. We expect to complete the audit no later than December 31,
1997, and we will provide the Committee with a report of our audit
findings.
support functions' efficiency and responsiveness
Question. As a way of developing increased communications between
labor and management, the Library facilitated a meeting held with the
Executive Committee, Chief of Labor Relations, ALHR, three union
presidents, and two FLRA representatives. Tentative agreements
subsequently were reached with unions on final regulations implementing
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and
the Family Friendly Leave Act. In addition, they reached an agreement
on new fitness for duty procedures for bargaining unit staff.
Have the tentative agreements since been finalized? If so, have
they been implemented? Has the agreement on fitness for duty procedures
been implemented? If not, what is the estimated date for
implementation?
Answer. Bargaining has been completed and new Library regulations
issued implementing Americans with Disabilities Act, Family Medical
Leave Act, and Family Friendly Leave Act. In addition, bargaining has
been completed on new fitness-for-duty medical examination procedures,
and the new regulation will be issued shortly.
accident compensation
Question. Included in the 1998 budget request (Salaries--
Mandatory--Accident Compensation) are funds to cover $1,034,867 in
accident compensation for 1996. The Library's FTE level for that year
was 4,114. What was the cost of the Library's accident compensation for
each fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1996?
Answer. The cost of the Library's accident compensation for fiscal
year 1992 through fiscal year 1996 was as follows:
Fiscal year:
1992...................................................... $889,219
1993...................................................... 1,012,541
1994...................................................... 1,030,782
1995...................................................... 940,521
1996...................................................... 1,034,867
Question. What is the norm for an agency with a staff level of
approximately 4,000?
Answer. We consulted with the Department of Labor to determine the
norm for an agency with a staff level of approximately 4,000. Their
closest comparative figure was the Small Business Administration which
had an fiscal year 1996 accident compensation cost of $2,500,000 for a
staff of 4,800.
security report
Question. Computer Sciences Corporation issued its report assessing
the physical security of the Library of Congress on August 25, 1995. In
Dr. Billington's March 20, 1997, statement for the Senate Rules
Committee hearing, he states that the Library Security Management Plan
is in place. Does it incorporate all the recommendations of the
Computer Sciences Corporation report? If not, which ones are not
included and why?
Answer. Regarding the recommendations of the Computer Sciences
Corporation (CSC) report, the following is noted:
--The Security Management Plan was not intended to incorporate all
the recommendations of the CSC report.
--The majority of the over 800 CSC recommendations are being tracked
separately from the Plan.
--Tracking the implementation of CSC report recommendations is best
accomplished by a separate process due to the detailed and/or
technical nature of the many recommendations.
--Only those CSC report recommendations dealing with broad security
program management matters such as structure and policy are
included in the Plan.
The new Director of Security, who joined the Library this past
February, has reviewed the Security Management Plan and is in the
process of adding enhancements. The Plan will be continuously updated
to reflect changes in threat conditions, risk factors and security
technology.
management improvement plan
Question. Security of People, Facilities, Collections, and Data
Systems. March 31, 1997 is the estimated completion date for the risk
assessment for the Library collections using reports from Computer
Sciences Corporation and other consultants, plus broad input from
within the Library. Is it completed? Please provide the Committee with
a copy of the report.
Answer. The risk assessment for the Library collections is not
completed. Library Services, with the assistance provided by the firm
of KPMG Peat Marwick, is leading an Internal Control Review Task Force
with the charge of preparing a risk assessment of the Library's
collections. The March 31, 1997, estimated completion date shown in the
Library's Management Improvement Plan, underestimated the work required
to prepare a comprehensive risk assessment. The risk assessment, when
completed, will be comprised of a series of individual assessments
covering the major collections divisions. Preparation of the
collections risk assessment is expected to extend beyond this year
because it is a complex and time consuming undertaking. The task force
is focusing initially on completing a risk assessment for one division,
Geography and Map (G&M). Once the task force has completed the G&M
model, estimated to be by July 31, 1997, other collections divisions
will prepare their respective risk assessments. Risk assessment results
will be incorporated into the Library's Security Management Plan.
library security
Question. As referenced earlier, in fiscal year 1996, the Library
contracted with Computer Sciences Corporation to conduct a
comprehensive survey of collections security and police operations. As
part of its findings, the report indicated that Library police are
currently understaffed. The Library's goal is to reduce police overtime
(roughly 25 percent of total scheduled hours) to 10 percent of total
scheduled hours. Funds to achieve the goal are included in the
Library's 1998 budget request. What is the Capitol Police's percentage
of overtime and what do they consider an acceptable norm.
Answer. From discussions with the Capitol Police it was determined
that their percentage of overtime approximates the Library's overtime
goal of 10 percent of total scheduled hours which they consider an
acceptable norm.
revolving fund legislation
Question. With regard to the finding of the GAO General Counsel
concerning the Cooperative Acquisition Program, Dr. Billington recently
notified the Committee that: ``Absent proper statutory authorization to
operate the program under a revolving fund, the Library must
reluctantly cease operating the Cooperative Acquisitions Program by
October 1, 1997.''
This Committee recently approved the reprogramming of funds to
temporarily keep alive this program. What is the current status of your
legislative proposal?
Answer. The Library submitted draft legislation to Senate Rules and
House Oversight; Senate Rules held an oversight hearing in March and
the Library was asked to submit additional information. House Oversight
also has the draft and we have met with staff counsel to discuss it but
no action is scheduled at this time.
crs workload
Question. A comparison of the Library's fiscal year 1997 and fiscal
year 1998 Budget Requests shows the following regarding Workload
Statistics for CRS Requests and Services Provided Congress:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year budget request 1996
1992 1993 1994 1995 estimate/
actual actual actual actual actual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997................................................ 644,668 615,913 593,000 592,731 \1\ 593,00
0
1998................................................ 645,000 607,000 536,000 492,000 487,000
Variance (1998-97).................................. +332 -8,913 -57,000 -100,731 -106,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimate.
Why are there variances in actual workload statistics for fiscal
years 1992 through 1995?
Answer. For fiscal year 1992 the difference in numbers reported
results from rounding. For fiscal years 1993-1996, workload statistics
previously reported in the fiscal 1997 request were revised to exclude
some data on client use of automated services. CRS recently discovered
a programming error in capturing Internet electronic access for House
offices and committees, and the decision was made to exclude these
questionable data from reported workload. Therefore, statistics from
1993 through 1996 were revised to eliminate the questionable data.
Statistics for access to files via modem or hard-wired terminals in the
House, and all access from the Senate were found to be valid. The
client access data now include only Senate and House access of SCORPIO
databases via modem, Senate Internet access, and calls to the CRS Stats
Line.
Fiscal 1996 data do include initial client access to the CRS
Homepage on the World-Wide Web. This method of counting access is
extremely conservative, as it does not record retrieval of documents or
complex and lengthy searches. We are continuing to evaluate how we
should count electronic services, which is an increasing method of
delivering our products to congressional clients, and will very likely
revise the methodology as we gain more experience with the new delivery
electronic delivery systems.
Question. Based on the fiscal year 1998 budget request, for fiscal
year 1992 through fiscal year 1996 there was a cumulative reduction of
-24.49 percent in CRS Requests and Services Provided Congress. What is
the basis for the projected increase of 13,000 in fiscal year 1997?
Answer. The projection was made last fall, before the legislative
agenda and timetable for the 105th Congress was known. CRS projected a
slight increase based on historical experience which shows that in some
past Congresses, the first session workload for research and analysis
requests was higher than in the second session.
At this time we are tentatively projecting a fiscal year total of
between 485,000 and 495,000. This guesstimate is based on data trends
for the 105th through the end of March, coupled with actual experience
during the last quarter of the 104th 2d session. Actual numbers will
vary if the legislative agenda changes significantly as a result of
national or world events.
Question. Mr. Mulhollan's statement before the House appropriations
hearing on February 12, 1997, included the following: ``With the
overall reduction of CRS, committee staff, and staff of other
legislative branch resources, we developed a strategy to respond to
these losses and ensure that we avoid unnecessary duplication of effort
with the committees and legislative branch support offices. We
formulated and implemented a decision-making process within CRS for
resource allocation which ensures that we continue to devote our
resources to the highest priority work that supports the legislative
needs of the Congress.'' When was the new process implemented? Are
there plans to evaluate its effectiveness? If so, please describe, and
include a time table.
Answer. The purpose of the new resource allocation process, which
was initially implemented in fiscal 1996 and revised in January 1997,
is to assure that hiring, reassignment, and detail, and other resource
allocation decisions are made in the context of the legislative agenda
and Service-wide needs.
CRS managers use a standard format when requesting additional staff
or consultant services, and address specific criteria including an
assessment of (1) the division and Service-wide capacity to support the
legislative agenda in the subject area; (2) measures the division has
already taken to address the need; (3) whether staff could be
reassigned within the division or from elsewhere in the Service to meet
the workload needs; (4) the impact of any projected retirements on
research capacity; (5) appropriate scope of recruitment; (6) the impact
on diversity and upward mobility objectives; (7) infrastructure
requirements; (8) whether the need is most appropriately met through
staffing or through consultant services; and (9) the short and long
term budget impacts of the request. Decisions are made by the Director
after periodic submissions--expected to be quarterly--and after
discussion in the Research Policy Council, which consists of the
Director, the Deputy Director, the Associate Directors and the Division
Chiefs.
The resource allocation process also included an examination of the
distribution of non-personal resources, particularly database and print
subscriptions. The Research Policy Council agreed on a simplified
process and appropriate factors for making division and office
suballotments at the beginning of each fiscal year. The process
provides mechanisms to reduce or increase division allocations as needs
arise.
Evaluation of the process is ongoing; with each use, the Research
Policy Council improves information gathering and changes are made
accordingly.
crs personnel
Question. CRS is requesting funds to hire 60 additional FTE's over
the next three years (25 in fiscal year 1998, 25 in 1999, and 10 in
fiscal year 2000). During the subsequent six years they plan to return
to their current service level of 747 FTE's. At the February 12, 1997,
House appropriations hearing, Dr. Billington stated that the Library
had a very low turnover rate--about 3.7 annual rate for several years.
For each fiscal year from 1992 through 1996, what percentage of CRS
staff was eligible to retire? For each of those years, what percentage
of those eligible did retire?
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Percent of retirement
permanent eligibles who
staff eligible retired during
to retire (as the year (as
of 9/30) of 9/30)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.................................... 5.6 4.7
1993.................................... 9.2 4.4
1994 \1\................................ 10.9 31.2
1995.................................... 10.3 5.6
1996.................................... 11.1 10.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Retirement incentives of up to $25,000 were offered during fiscal
1994.
Question. CRS has conducted a survey to determine the planned
retirements of eligible CRS staff in future years. According to the
survey results, for each fiscal year from 1997 through 2000, what
percentage of eligible CRS staff plan to retire?
Answer. The retirement survey asked CRS staff, on a voluntary
basis, to estimate, as accurately as possible, retirement plans based
on current expectations. Each staff member who would be eligible to
retire through 2006 was asked to identify the time interval (a two-year
span) most likely to correspond with current retirement plans. Nearly
93 percent of staff eligible to retire by 2006 responded to the survey.
The raw results are provided below. We are now assessing the impact of
these retirements on the overall capacity of the Service to maintain
analytic expertise in the areas we believe critical to serving Members
and committees in the coming years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Percent of Percent of
retirements eligible staff eligible staff
projected by likely to likely to
Time period considered most likely for retirement staff (through retire in each retire in each
survey) for time period time period
time period (year by year) (cumulative)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997-1998....................................................... 21 5.5 5.5
1999-2000....................................................... 36 9.4 14.9
2001-2002....................................................... 41 11.0 25.9
2003-2004....................................................... 50 13.1 39.0
2005-2006....................................................... 90 22.8 61.8
2007 and beyond................................................. 116 31.1 92.9
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 354 92.9 ..............
No Response..................................................... 27 7.1 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 381 100 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
federal-state shifts
Question. During the 1997 Senate appropriations hearing, the
Library made reference to increasing congressional needs for research
and analysis regarding state and local government developments as the
Congress considers shifting responsibilities for many programs and
policies from the federal government to the state level. Has there been
an increase in requests from senatorial offices regarding the impact of
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-193) on state and local governments? If so, how
significant? Please provide a general description of the types of
information CRS has developed to respond to this need.
Answer. We are now developing the capacity to analyze requests on
specific issues, but cannot yet do so. Therefore, we do not currently
have data on the actual number of requests by Senate offices for the
specific issues associated with this legislation. However, we do have
distribution data to the whole Congress for the reports we have
prepared on these issues, which are elaborated below. Since August 1996
CRS provided 7,041 copies of these reports to congressional clients
through the Product Distribution Center.
To answer congressional inquiries on the new federal-state funding
and policy relationships and on state-specific information, we have
developed a number of products on the issues associated with the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996. At an overview level, we prepared a report which summarizes state
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs--CRS Report 97-
380 (Welfare reform: State Programs Under the Block Grant for Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families).
To answer questions about the new state block grant TANF, the CRS
welfare team developed an integrated data base about state TANF plans
and pre-TANF reforms that states are continuing under waivers. The
plans show that some states are delegating more authority to local
units of government. The data base enables us to provide details about
more than 70 elements of TANF programs, state by state.
In addition, specific reports provide information about aspects of
the reform law, such as Alien Eligibility for Benefits Under the New
Welfare and Immigration Law (CRS Report 96-617), the provisions
affecting Native Americans, Indian Tribes and the New Welfare Law (CRS
Report 97-86), Child Care for Low-Income Families: Federal Programs and
Welfare Reform (CRS Report 96-780), and New Welfare Reform and
Subsidized Public Sector Jobs (CRS Report 97-360).
To answer questions about state funding, we have compiled data
comparing TANF grants and child care funding with funds provided under
old law, state-by-state. This has included projections of some
supplemental TANF funds for states with above-average population growth
and below-average federal funding per poor person. A memorandum
entitled Grants to the States for Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families and Child Care provides state-by-state funding levels under
the new TANF and child care block grants.
An issue brief--Welfare Reform (IB93034) analyzes continuing
issues, such as proposals to continue benefits for legal immigrants
here when the law was enacted, the dispute over application of federal
(and state) labor laws to welfare recipients in ``workfare'' programs;
whether generous work exemption provisions of existing state waivers
can override TANF's work participation rules; what state spending will
count toward the requirement that state maintain 75 percent of their
historic spending level; the authority for states to administer TANF
through private, religious or charitable organizations; the President's
budget proposals related to the new law (extra spending of $22.5
billion over 5 years), and what role, if any, the federal government
should play in creating and/or subsidizing jobs for TANF recipients.
A number of reports have been written to (1) provide a side-by-side
comparison of TANF with the replaced programs of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) and Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
Training (JOBS) (New Welfare Law: Comparison of the New Block Grant
Program with Aid to Families With Dependent Children, CRS Report 96-
720); (2) summarize the omnibus welfare law (New Welfare Law: the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996, CRS Report 96-687); (3) describe new SSI rules for children
(Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for Children: New Rules, CRS Report
97-340), (4) discuss Child Support Enforcement: New Reforms and
Potential Issues (CRS Report 97-408), and (5) present new AFDC program
rules (Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC): Program Benefit
Rules, July 1, 1996 CRS Report 97-188).
copyright office processing time
Question. In fiscal 1996, the processing time went from nine weeks
to 14 weeks. What was the percentage of staff reduction for fiscal
1996?
Answer. The number of staff in fiscal year 1996 declined 1.1
percent from 506 to 500, continuing the loss of trained professionals.
Since the end of fiscal 1996, processing time for the bulk of routine
claims has claimed steadily to 18 weeks before a certificate is issued.
CORDS will enable the Copyright Office to process claims with far fewer
staff. However, in fiscal 1998 the percentage of CORDS claims will be
very low, and the savings will not be apparent until fiscal 2000. In
the meantime the Office will need the additional FTE's to hire
examiners and catalogers lost over the past few years to restore
processing time to acceptable levels.
copyright office retirement eligibility
Question. What is the Copyright Office staff retirement eligibility
rate for 1997 and 1998? Please provide similar retirement eligibility
data for the Copyright Office that you did for the CRS.
Answer. The eligibility rate in fiscal 1997 is 9 percent and 11
percent in fiscal 1998. The Chart shows the cumulative eligibility rate
through the year 2006, with a total eligibility of 42 percent.
copyright cords
Question. Contingent on (1) enactment of legislation that permits
the setting of higher fees; and (2) increased processing of claims
under the CORDS system, when do you estimate the Copyright Office could
reduce its fiscal year 1998 request for 502 FTE's and by how much?
Answer. Legislation that would permit the Copyright Office to set
higher fees has passed the House and is now before the Senate. Once
enacted, the legislation will require the Office to conduct a study
followed by administrative hearings to establish a new fee schedule
consistent with the objectives of the U.S. copyright system. Then
Congress has a 120-day period in which to disapprove the recommended
fee schedule. Therefore, we do not believe a fee increase could be
implemented before fiscal 1999. A fee increase could permit a reduction
in the net appropriation, but reduction in staff would only occur if
the workload declined.
CORDS will not enable the Office to reduce the 502 FTE's requested
in fiscal 1998. However, CORDS will enable the Office to avoid future
increases in staff costs by accommodating an increasing workload and by
processing claims more efficiently and in less time without adding as
many new FTE's. We estimate that the workload will increase to 635,000
by the year 2000, of which 50,000 will be processed under CORDS, while
the remaining 585,000 would still have to be processed using current
manual procedures.
management improvement plan
Question. In June 1996 the Library issued a Management Improvement
Plan (MIP-96) which was aimed at addressing many of the findings and
recommendations contained in the Booz-Allen and Price Waterhouse
reviews. It also included items related to the findings of the report
by the Computer Sciences Corporation regarding physical security of the
Library. An updated plan (MIP-97) was issued in February 1997.
MIP-97.--Sec. 1 Updated Library Plans and Programs Phase II of the
development of a Strategic Plan calls for the service units to identify
the key tasks necessary to accomplish the goals and identify
performance indicators, responsible authorities, resource requirements
and time frames needed for completion of each objective. The target
completion date for Phase II was March 31, 1997.
Is Phase II of the Strategic Plan completed? Please provide the
Committee with a copy of the completed Phase II report.
Answer. The first draft of Phase II has been completed. At the
present, the areas of Library that constitute the infrastructure (Human
Resources, Financial Services, Integrated Support Services, and
Information Technology Services) are modifying their own operational
plans in order to support the infrastructure needs of the service
units. Phase II will be finalized after the strategic planning
committee reviews all the plans and prioritizes the enabling
infrastructure's action items based on the available resources. We
anticipate this action to be complete by the end of this fiscal year.
additional submitted statements
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee has received statements
from the Association of Research Libraries and the American
Association of Law Libraries which will be inserted in the
record at this point.]
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of the Association of Research Libraries
On behalf of the Association of Research Libraries, the American
Library Association, the American Association of Law Libraries and the
Special Libraries Association, we urge the Subcommittee to support the
fiscal year 1998 budget request of the Library of Congress.
Last year, in landmark telecommunications legislation, Congress
recognized that libraries are primary points of access for the public
to participate in the information age. Libraries and librarians have
embraced this challenge with enthusiasm. Since many Federal Depository
Libraries are housed in academic and public libraries and libraries of
all types that utilize the resources of the Library of Congress, some
statistics regarding connections to the World Wide Web (WWW) are
important. In academic institutions: 83 percent of doctorate granting
institutions provide access to the World Wide Web; 67 percent of
Master's degree granting institutions provide access to WWW; and it is
important to note that access to the Internet outside the Library in
these institutions is extremely high, 95 percent and 76 percent
respectively. 44.4 percent of public libraries in the United States
were connected to the Internet in 1996 and it is anticipated that 60
percent will be connected by the end of 1997. Although only 23.7
percent of public libraries offer full WWW access to the public, the
discounted rates now being implemented by the Federal Communications
Commission are expected to increase this percentage rapidly. All of
these efforts are undertaken with an appreciation of the importance of
ensuring citizens with access to needed information resources as well
as necessary skills to fully participate in the information age.
The Library of Congress has invested in many technological efforts
to promote access to a diverse array of information resources to the
public throughout the United States. Programs and activities such as
the Library's digitized American Memory collections, the National
Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, those relating to
preservation and cataloging, and electronic information services such
as the Global Legal Information Network (GLIN), all serve
constituencies throughout the Nation. These and other programs of the
Library merit the Subcommittee's continued support.
For the last several years, there has been a rather significant
transformation in how information is created, managed, used, accessed,
and preserved. Libraries are at the forefront of this change and it has
required and will continue to require, investments in infrastructure--
technological and human resources. The Library of Congress fiscal year
1998 budget request of $387.6 million (including the authority to
obligate $30.4 million in receipts) positions the Library to realize
the benefits of the digital networked environment while ensuring that
important programs and services are maintained. This request would fund
mandatory increases, provide the necessary continuity for many
programs, and target selected strategic technological activities such
as the Integrated Library System (ILS) and the Global Legal Information
Network (GLIN).
Five LC programs are the focus of our interests: Services for the
Blind and Physically Handicapped; Electronic Initiatives; American
Folklife Center; Arrearage Reduction and Cooperative Cataloging; and
Collection Security.
National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped (NLS) is a critically important service to the Nation. This
national library service provides recorded and Braille materials to
777,000 blind and physically handicapped persons and is accomplished
via a cooperative network of 142 regional, subregional libraries
(state, regional, and public libraries throughout the nation) and two
multi-state centers that circulate these resources to eligible
borrowers by postage-free mail. Some 23 million items are borrowed
annually. The network of libraries also serves as distribution points
for specialized playback equipment and accessories. We support the
request for $2.5 million for the purchase of cassette book machines to
ensure the availability of these machines for the blind and physically
handicapped individuals.
Electronic Initiatives
There has been progress in achieving the goal of building a
networked-based, distributed program of access to library collections
throughout the country, and indeed the world. Recent investments in
digital initiatives indicate the need for: many years of sustained
support with a particular focus on technological, economic, and human
resource issues; changes in how libraries select and collect resources,
and how these collections are managed; and greater understanding of how
users access these resources.
Integrated Library System
Since the late 1970's, research libraries have invested in systems
which permit the integrated processing of records. Such systems or
integrated library system(s) (ILS), are in fact, fundamental building
blocks of digital libraries and electronic initiatives in libraries
throughout the United States. Research libraries have instituted such
systems to achieve greater efficiencies and productivity and
importantly, to better serve the user community. An ILS can integrate
key library functions including acquisitions, cataloging, inventory
control, serials management, circulation, binding and preservation,
searching of the library's holdings, management statistics, and more.
The experience of Yale University Library is illustrative of the
efficiencies gained in research libraries through the adoption of more
effective automated systems. The Yale University Library realized a 70
percent increase in cataloging throughput per full time equivalent
(FTE) over the past 10 years, from 762 to 1,325 titles per FTE per
year.
The Library's request for $6.1 million for automation projects
would include first year funding for an ILS, the Global Legal
Information Network (GLIN), and more. This request does not reflect the
necessary reprogramming of funds within the Library to move to an
integrated model. Such reprogramming is critical to the success of an
ILS and would not be unique to the Library of Congress. The Library
will benefit from the ``lessons learned'' by other research libraries
as ILS is now the dominate model in the community.
Digital Libraries
A variety and diversity of collaborative projects are underway to
explore the potential of digital libraries. Given the number of
institutions, collections, and differing constituencies that must be
served, there is a need for many models. A number of collaborative
projects and programs are exploring these models with an array of
public and private partners. The Library is participating in many of
these projects. One unique and valuable digital library effort at the
Library is the Global Legal Information Network (GLIN), an automation
project that began production in the spring of 1995. Under the
leadership of the Law Library of Congress, the de facto national law
library serving the needs of members of Congress and the American
people, GLIN is an international cooperative program in which
participating nations share the work of indexing and abstracting each
Nation's Official Gazette in exchange for electronic access to the laws
of other nations. GLIN is an on-going effort that improves upon
traditional acquisitions methods to provide ready electronic access to
valuable legal sources of information. Its timely and ready access to
the laws and regulations of other countries enables the Law Library to
better serve Congress and its constituents. Eleven member countries
currently participate in GLIN, and membership is expected to nearly
double in the coming year. We fully support all efforts by the Library
of Congress to expand GLIN to its full capability, and request the
Subcommittee's approval of the Library's appropriations request for
this valuable project for fiscal year 1998.
The Library is also participating in the National Digital Library
Federation. The Federation is a cooperative program among 16 public and
academic institutions. The Library's National Digital Library (NDL)
program focuses on American history and culture, adding an important
dimension to the work of the Federation and to the building of global
digital libraries. In 1996, NDL vastly increased the number of
collections on the WWW. There are more than 350,000 digital files
available with 1,700,000 digital files in production or under contract
for digitization. We applaud the Subcommittee for its support of the
Library's digitization efforts and believe that this support provides
leverage to the digital library efforts underway in libraries
throughout the Nation.
Finally, the Library is engaged in a collaborative effort between
ARL and the Association of American Universities. These associations
are pursuing a networked-based distributed program for coordinated
development for foreign acquisitions of research materials. Three pilot
projects are underway for materials that originate in Latin America,
Japan, and Germany. The Library of Congress has taken a leadership role
in the German pilot project, the cornerstone of which is building the
collections and electronic infrastructure to improve access to and
delivery of German research resources. This is but one example of the
Library's leadership in the acquisition of foreign research resources.
The overseas offices service libraries throughout the United States,
thus assisting in the building of these collections.
Recently the General Accounting Office noted that the Library of
Congress does not have the full legal authority to retain direct and
indirect funds from approximately 100 participating research libraries
throughout the United States. Our Associations welcome the opportunity
to work with the members of the Subcommittee to clarify the Library's
authority to continue this collaborative relationship that is both cost
effective to the Congress and participating libraries. Continued
investment in these initiatives will enable the Library, with other
partners, to build digital libraries that will greatly enhance the
education, research, and life-long learning opportunities for the
public.
American Folklife Center
The American Folklife Center and its Archive of Folk Culture are
uniquely qualified to collect and preserve the sound recordings,
photographs, histories, and traditions that document the threads that
make up our distinctly American society. The Center plays a key role in
preserving and presenting American Folklife to the Nation. ALA, ARL,
AALL, and SLA support the request for $966,5000 for this important
program and were actively engaged in the recent two-year
reauthorization. The Associations support continued authorization of
the Center.
Arrearage Reduction and Cooperative Cataloging
The Library of Congress, in collaboration with others in the
library community, continues to reduce the volume of unprocessed
materials. The Library was able to reduce the arrearages this year by
1.5 million items; a reduction of 47.2 percent since 1989. Cooperative
programs with others in the library community, and in particular, the
utilization of cataloging copy from other institutions has continued
and indeed has increased this past year. The Program for Cooperative
Cataloging is illustrative of collaborative efforts. 213 libraries are
participating in the Program and contributed 14,173 bibliographic
records, 97,964 name authorities, 8,074 series authorities, 2,026
subject authorities, and 780 classification numbers. With the
introduction of the ILS, even greater productivity and efficiencies
should be realized.
Collection Security
The Library requested several evaluations regarding the security of
the collections to ensure that these unique resources are secure. The
Library is in the process of implementing many of the consultants'
recommendations including implementing a Reader Registration System,
installation of anti-theft gates in the Library's reading rooms, and
more. As in past years, the library community supports the Library's
request for additional funding to improve the security of the
collections. Funding security measures is yet one more important facet
in making the resources of the Library publicly available. The
successful integration of the ILS within the Library will also
significantly enhance other security related measures.
ARL, ALA, AALL, and SLA look forward to working with members of the
Subcommittee and we appreciate your continuing support for the Library
and its programs that seek to provide public access to the Library's
varied and unique resources.
______
organizational biographies
The American Association of Law Libraries (AALL).--The American
Association of Law Libraries is a nonprofit educational organization
with over 5,000 members nationwide. Our members respond to the legal
and governmental information needs of legislators, judges, and other
public officials at all levels of government, corporations and small
businesses, law professors and students, attorneys, and members of the
general public.
The American Library Association (ALA).--The American Library
Association is a nonprofit educational organization of 58,000
librarians, library educators, information specialists, library
trustees, and friends of libraries representing public, school,
academic, state, and specialized libraries dedicated to the improvement
of library and information services. A new five-year initiative, ALA
Goal 2000, aims to have ALA and librarianship be as closely associated
with the public's right to a free and open information society--
intellectual participation--as it is with the idea of intellectual
freedom.
The Association of Research Libraries (ARL).--The Association of
Research Libraries is a not-for-profit organization representing 120
research libraries in the United States and Canada. Its mission is to
identify and influence forces affecting the future of research
libraries in the process of scholarly communication. ARL programs and
services promote equitable access to, and effective use of, recorded
knowledge in support of teaching, research, scholarship, and community
service.
The Special Libraries Association (SLA).--The Special Libraries
Association is an international professional association serving more
than 14,000 members of the information profession, including special
librarians, information managers, brokers, and consultants. The
Association has 56 regional/state chapters in the U.S., Canada, Europe,
and the Arabian Gulf States and 28 divisions representing subject
interests or specializations. Special libraries/information centers can
be found in organizations with specialized or focused information
needs, such as corporations, law firms, news organizations, government
agencies, associations, colleges, museums, and hospitals.
______
Letter From the American Association of Law Libraries
Washington, DC, June 12, 1997.
Honorable Robert F. Bennett,
Chair, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, S-125 Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the American Association of Law
Libraries, the American Library Association, the Association of
Research Libraries and the Special Libraries Association, we urge the
Committee to support fully the fiscal year 1998 budget request of
$30,477,000 for the Superintendent of Documents Salaries and Expenses
appropriation. We believe that this amount is necessary to maintain the
Federal Depository Library Program, through which citizens have no-fee
access to government information, as it moves towards a more electronic
program. This appropriation request was made by the Public Printer at
the June 5, 1997 hearing on the Government Printing Office. We ask that
this letter be added to the public record of that hearing.
Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program
Recognizing the need to centralize government printing and to
establish a mechanism to provide our Nation's citizens with no-fee
access to Federal government information, Congress passed the Printing
Act of 1895 that created the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP)
within the Government Printing Office. The FDLP has evolved over more
than one hundred years to become today one of the most effective and
successful partnerships between the Federal government and the American
people. The goals of the FDLP are based on principles that Congress and
the library community have long affirmed as being essential to our
democratic society. These principles were most recently expressed in
the Government Printing Office's Study to Determine Measures Necessary
for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository
Library Program (June 1996). This study was conducted at the request of
the conference committee on the Fiscal Year 1996 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act.
We urge this Subcommittee to reaffirm these important principles
and to support their implementation through adequate funding for the
FDLP:
Principle 1: The Public Has the Right of Access to Government
Information.
Principle 2: The Government Has an Obligation to Disseminate and
Provide Broad Public Access to its Information.
Principle 3: The Government Has an Obligation to Guarantee the
Authenticity and Integrity of its Information.
Principle 4: The Government Has an Obligation to Preserve Its
Information.
Principle 5: Government Information Created or Compiled by
Government Employees or at Government Expense Should Remain in the
Public Domain.
The public's access to government information and the future
success of the FDLP will only be achieved if the government, as creator
and disseminator of information, staunchly upholds these principles.
Under the direction of the Public Printer, the GPO Study was
successful in analyzing many of the complex issues regarding the
government's use of electronic information dissemination technologies.
Attached to this statement is a letter from our associations to the
Public Printer reiterating the continuing concerns of the library
community during the transition years to a more electronic-based FDLP.
Our two most critical concerns are the public's ability to locate
information in a distributed electronic environment and the fundamental
need to guarantee that electronic government information will be
permanently accessible.
We believe that, as the average user requires assistance in
navigating through the complex layers of technology and the confusing
maze of government to find the information they require, the role of
depository libraries and librarians is more important than ever before.
These libraries willingly invest substantial funds to provide highly
trained staff, adequate space, costly equipment, and Internet
connections so that the public has equitable, ready, efficient and no-
fee access to government information in both print and electronic
formats.
Your constituents, whose tax dollars fund the collection and
dissemination of information from agencies in all three branches of
government, use the resources of their local depository library daily
to access needed information. The results of GPO's most recent Biennial
Survey are startling. In 1995, an estimated 189,000 to 237,000 users
each week were provided expert service in locating and using depository
materials at the 1,370 partner libraries. These numbers represent
people from all walks of life and all levels of experience and
technical sophistication. Without the local resources and services
provided at depository libraries, these requests for government
information would go unmet.
Fiscal Year 1996 Enhancements to GPO Access Commendable
GPO is to be commended for the steady progress in moving towards a
more electronic FDLP. The development of the GPO Access system in terms
of both increased public use and the growing number of electronic
information products that are now available is laudable. With the
passage of the GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of
1993 (Public Law 103-40), Congress sought to develop an access point to
information from all three branches of government. In December 1995, we
applauded the decision of the Public Printer to provide free public
access to all GPO Access products and services. As a result of that
decision and the addition of many new titles to the system, recent
monthly usage statistics are dramatic. In March 1997, over 4 million
documents were downloaded from GPO Access.
GPO has added many new electronic online products that provide
timely and important information to your constituents. GPO Access
continues to grow and currently includes 48 titles from all three
branches of government in more than 70 databases. Some recent additions
include the Congressional Pictorial Directory; the Annotated
Constitution; the Code of Federal Regulations; historical Supreme Court
opinions from the U.S. Air Force's Federal Legal Information Through
Electronic (FLITE) file; and the Commerce Business Daily. These
databases exemplify GPO's commitment to the continued development of
GPO Access to meet the government information needs of the public.
Another example of this commitment is the development in fiscal
year 1996 of the Superintendent of Documents (SuDoc) Web site (http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs). With the rapid and pervasive growth of
electronic government information, one of the greatest challenges for
users is simply identifying and locating the database or source that
they need. GPO's SuDoc Web site provides centralized bibliographic
access to government resources in all formats through the online
Monthly Catalog. Another valuable finding tool, GPO's electronic
Pathway Indexer, links users to information resources at over 1,274
other federal agency Web sites and indexes over 112,000 pages. In
addition, GPO maintains a centralized database that allows users to
search through the Government Information Locator Service (GILS)
records of twenty-six federal agencies. These finding tools are
essential services in a distributed electronic environment.
GPO Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request Essential
To ensure the continued transition to a more electronic FDLP and
continued improvement of GPO Access to meet the government information
needs of the public, we urge the Subcommittee to fully support the
Public Printer's fiscal year 1998 appropriations request of $30,477,000
for the Superintendent of Documents Salaries and Expenses, of which
$25,886,000 will maintain the FDLP. While some may view the move to
electronic information as a means of cutting government costs, no data
exists to support this assertion. In fact, the opposite is likely to be
true particularly during the transition period.
Congress and agencies are channeling substantial funds into
developing information resource systems that take advantage of new
technologies. It is equally important, however, that the channels of
public access to government information remain open, efficient, and
technologically relevant. Libraries and your constituents are doing
their part by investing in technologies to assist them in accessing
electronic information. Congress and the Federal government must
continue to invest in systems and services like GPO Access that provide
the public with government information. It is essential that GPO
receive adequate funding for its many electronic initiatives so that
the substantial progress of the past year continues.
Erosion of Federal Government Information from the Public Domain
One of the most serious concerns of the library community is that
government entities, pressured by growing fiscal constraints or a
failure to understand their full responsibilities under Title 44,
circumvent the letter and spirit of the law. Unfortunately, librarians
have long found it necessarily to track down missing or fugitive
documents for your constituents. Now librarians and users are
increasingly frustrated by the steady removal of important government
resources from the public domain. The information needs of the American
public are not served when agencies move to contract with private
publishers and fail to supply these resources to the Superintendent of
Documents for distribution to depository libraries. Furthermore, wide
access and use of publicly-funded information is substantially impaired
when licensing agreements prevent or curtail redissemination. To
copyright or restrict distribution and use of government information is
anathema to the principles of access that we uphold.
The historical record of key government titles is also jeopardized
by the discontinuation of print formats in favor of electronic
distribution only. We have long recommended that format decisions
should be based on the value and usability of the materials, and not
solely on cost concerns. As directed by the Fiscal Year 1997
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, the distribution of two of the
most important historically-significant Congressional titles, the U.S.
Congressional Serial Set and the bound Congressional Record, has been
severely cut. ALA and AALL have formally expressed concern with the
impact of this decision on long-term public access.
The Serial Set will be limited to only one depository library in
each state. The bound Congressional Record, previously limited to only
one copy per state, has been eliminated altogether. In neither case has
a proven, comprehensive, permanent electronic replacement been
developed that ensures long-term public access with the ability to
migrate from one technological platform to another. We consider these
titles among the core documents of our democracy and vital to the
public's right to know. Electronic formats such as CD-ROM at this time
fail to meet the necessary standards to ensure permanent long-term
access and preservation, nor are they the official, authoritative
versions (see attached AALL Resolution and Scientific American
article). We welcome the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee on a
timetable to guarantee that these core Congressional materials are
usable, effective, permanently accessible, archivable and
authoritative.
Revision to Title 44 Needed Now
The GPO Study provides a necessary framework to assist Congress in
analyzing some of the very complex technical and policy issues that
must be addressed as revisions to Title 44 are debated. Despite
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB Circular A-
130, electronic information is not systematically made available to
depository libraries. We strongly urge members of the 105th Congress to
implement necessary changes to Title 44 so that there is no longer any
doubt that the definition of government information extends to
electronic resources. In addition, Congress must also continue its
oversight of the FDLP and develop incentives to assure that all
entities of the Federal government comply with the law.
There are complex implementation challenges and significant costs
ahead, particularly in terms of preservation and permanent public
access of electronic information. Valuable government information
resources, made available through agency Web sites, disappear daily. If
these are not systematically captured for permanent, continuous public
access, the information is useless to the American public. Any
revisions to Title 44 must establish a systematic and comprehensive
means for ensuring the preservation and permanent public access of
government information. In the print world, this role has been uniquely
filled by regional depository libraries. Their collections, located in
every state, guarantee that the public will have ongoing and long-term
access to publications from all agencies in the federal government. In
the electronic environment, however, no equivalent system exists.
Publishing agencies are not equipped to permanently maintain online
access to electronic data, nor is it in their mission to do so. Nor is
it within the mission or scope of the National Archives to provide the
general public with ready and reliable access to this information on an
ongoing basis.
Libraries play an important part in providing the public with
access to online services, and some libraries may have a role in
electronically storing and maintaining databases in cooperation with
publishing entities. But in the absence of a coordinated national
program to systematically capture, preserve, and maintain ongoing
access to electronic government data, important information is lost
everyday as files come and go from agency web sites and computer
servers. GPO has taken a lead in investigating partnership
opportunities with agencies and libraries to develop models for
permanent public access. These efforts must be supported with
appropriations and based in statute on the government's affirmative
responsibility to preserve and provide long-term public access to its
information.
Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of working with Congress to
draft revisions to Title 44 that will guarantee that new technologies
realize the potential of the information age by improving public access
to government information. Our associations consider the problems of
access to government information so pressing that in January we formed
an Inter-Association Working Group on Government Information Policy.
This group has identified the key issues that need to be addressed by
legislation. Our Goals for Revising U.S.C. Title 44 to Enhance Public
Access to Federal Government Information are attached.
In addition, we have recently transmitted to members of the Joint
Committee on Printing a legislative proposal from the library community
to amend Chapter 19, Title 44. This draft bill, the ``Federal
Information Access Act of 1997,'' meets our goals to improve the
public's ability to access and use government information, paid for by
their tax dollars, in all formats. We will be pleased to share the
progress of this important endeavor with this Subcommittee. We thank
you for your continued strong support for the Federal Depository
Library Program and for this opportunity to enter our statement into
the record of your recent hearing.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Oakley,
Washington Affairs Representative, American Association of Law
Libraries.
Carol C. Henderson,
Executive Director--Washington Office, American Library
Association.
Prudence S. Adler,
Assistant Executive Director, Association of Research Libraries.
David R. Bender,
Executive Director, Special Libraries Association.
______
Attachment 1
April 26, 1996.
Michael F. DiMario,
Public Printer, U.S. Government Printing Office, 732 N. Capitol Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20401.
Dear Mr. DiMario: Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the
recently released Report to the Congress: ``Study to Identify Measures
Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal
Depository Library Program.'' We are responding to your request to
submit written comments based on the oral remarks delivered at last
week's joint meeting between members of the Working Group and the
Advisors. Our comments today reflect the views of the members of the
American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library
Association, the Association of Research Libraries and the Special
Libraries Association.
We are pleased that our associations, which represent more than
75,000 professionals in public, academic and special libraries
throughout the country, were included in an advisory capacity during
the lengthy study process. We commend the Government Printing Office
for carrying out this legislatively-mandated study in a manner that
considered the views of all three branches of the government, the
library community and the private sector. It is especially noteworthy
that members of the Working Group consisted of representatives from key
agencies, including the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA), as well as many Congressional staff. It is hoped that one
outcome of this collaborative approach will be improved understanding
by all stakeholders of the serious issues of concern to libraries and
other users of government information as the transition to a more
electronic Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) proceeds.
The FDLP has existed for one hundred and thirty-nine years as a
very successful partnership program between the federal government,
libraries and the public. This partnership must become even stronger in
the future in order that the move to a more electronic program succeeds
in reaching its goal: that is, the use of new technologies to expand
the public's access to government information. We are pleased with the
draft report's principles for federal government information, including
the publics right to know and the government's responsibility to
disseminate and provide broad and permanent access to its information.
The well-articulated goals for an electronic FDLP, as noted in the
draft report, must be realized to ensure that these important
principles are achieved.
It is especially gratifying that many of the comments and concerns
addressed in our previous joint letter to you regarding the Transition
Plan were incorporated into the draft report. We do wish to offer some
additional general comments on the draft study as there continue to be
many areas of serious concern and importance to our members.
Time frame.--We are pleased that the draft report offers a more
realistic and technologically feasible five to seven year time frame
for the transition. The Transition Chronology proposed in the strategic
plan better reflects the nations technological infrastructure: the
ability of agencies to create and provide access to information
electronically; and the capabilities of libraries and users to
effectively utilize such information. We will urge members of the
Congressional authorizing and appropriating committees to support this
more realistic time frame so that no barriers develop during the
transitional years that would reduce the public's access to government
information.
Viability of print.--We are pleased that the draft study recognizes
the continued viability of a variety of formats, including print, to
meet user needs. Format decisions should be based on usage on the needs
of the user community, and also on an agency's own dissemination
requirements. While electronic information offers many advantages to
paper, including timeliness, the ability to perform full-text searches
and to manipulate data, certain types of materials will continue to be
more efficiently created, disseminated and used in paper format.
Another problematic area regarding format decisions concerns fee-
based products and services; namely, when an agency stops production of
a title in print and moves it into a fee-based online service. One
example of this is that depository libraries have in the past been able
to select the FBIS and JPRS reports in print formats but these are now
available online through paid subscriptions to the new World News
Connection service of the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS). It is planned that by the end of this year these important
materials while available only online while the printed and microfiche
reports will be phased out. Valuable materials that have traditionally
been available to depositories will no longer be included in the
program since NTIS does not offer no-fee access to the World News
Connection for depository libraries.
Redundancy and diversity.--We are pleased that the draft study
recognizes the principles of redundancy and diversity as articulated in
NCLIS Principle #5: The Federal Government Should Ensure a Wide
Diversity of Sources of Access, Private as Well as Governmental, to
Public Information. Redundancy--in access, in formats, and in
preservation--is both a necessity and an advantage. It provides a
safeguard in case of overloaded systems, natural or man-made disasters,
and even government shutdowns.
It is the government's affirmative obligation to ensure permanent
access to the information that it produces. In the electronic
environment diverse and multiple partners are needed to promote and
ensure access and preservation to government information long after its
initial creation and dissemination. At the same time a diversity of
other public, private and not-for-profit sources is critical to
ensuring that information remains available in useful and convenient
ways.
Centralization.--We are pleased that the draft study recognizes the
need for coordination and centralization to meet the goals of the FDLP.
The program in a distributed electronic environment requires
coordination to bring all participants together on issues of: (1)
standardization and guidelines to ensure ease of locating information
and guarantees of long-term access; (2) no-fee access to all government
information, including fee-based products and services; and (3)
usability. The complexities of these issues, particularly when many
agencies are creating their own web sites, seems to be underestimated
in the draft report. We commend GPO ACCESS as the legislatively-
mandated centralized point of entry to electronic government
information and the GPO locator service that assists the public in
finding information across diverse government entities. Users must have
timely and comprehensive funding aids to the growing vast universe of
electronic government information, and centralized coordination is the
most efficient means.
In addition to the above general comments on the draft study, we
firmly believe that the study's goal of ensuring broader public access
through electronic means will not be achieved unless the following
concerns are addressed. While details of the draft study and the
strategic plan remain to be worked out, these issues are critical to
the transition's success. We hope also that the collaborative approach
which GPO brought to the study itself will be maintained so that all
interested and involved partners, including our associations, may
continue to participate in the process.
More data needed.--We remain very concerned that although some
useful information was gathered during the study process, neither the
draft report, the models developed as part of the task force reports,
nor the strategic plan are based on substantive data regarding costs to
and capabilities of the government, libraries or the public to produce,
access and use predominately electronic information. We believe that a
technical scan is necessary and we will urge Congress to approve
funding for the Technical Implementation Assistance which the report
proposes.
No-fee access.--We strongly support the study's first goal
statement which ensures that the public has equitable, no-fee local
access to government information through depository libraries. The
draft study addresses this issue by suggesting that reimbursement to
agencies for fee-based services could come from the Superintendent of
Documents. There are no assurances, however, that there will be
continued adequate funding to support the transition plan.
Consequently, we are concerned that government information for which
agencies must recover costs, particularly fee-based products and
services, will become a new generation of fugitive information.
Long-term permanent access and preservation.--The draft report
acknowledges that issues relating to long-term access and preservation
of electronic government information require new relationships, indeed
new strategies between all stakeholders: GPO, agencies, NARA and
participating libraries. Yet the draft fails to identify what these
strategies may entail and the responsibilities for each partner. Long-
term access and preservation issues are critical to the success of the
FDLP: thus it is crucial that additional information regarding these
activities be provided.
In addition, the draft report includes the recommendation that GPO
will assume new responsibilities in the archival arena. Through many
years of maintaining preservation and archival programs and
collections, libraries have learned that these efforts require
significant investments in technological solutions (e.g.
deacidification and digitization pilots), personnel, and facilities. To
be successful in undertaking new preservation and archiving
responsibilities, GPO will need to provide additional detail regarding
how such tasks will be accomplished. We suggest that a comprehensive
study be undertaken among all partners to guarantee permanent long-term
access and preservation. For example, it is not clear how and when GPO
would support the ``periodic review and refreshing of data to different
mediums.''
The issues of long-term permanent access and preservation are
central to the transition to a more electronic program and thus we are
especially concerned that the draft study offers no specifics, no data,
no costs and no assurances. We reaffirm that these critical issues are
the responsibility of the government and that they must be
comprehensively addressed before the transition plan is implemented.
The questions are very basic ones: first, how do we assure that
electronic information will be available and usable next month, next
year, or in twenty-five, fifty, or even a hundred years from now; and
second, who will be responsible for ensuring long-term permanent
access. In shifting long-term access from depository libraries to the
government, as the draft study suggests, we must be assured that
funding will remain adequate so that the government can refresh and
migrate information. Otherwise, our national historical records will
disappear into a black hole and the advantages of electronic
information will be nullified.
Copyright-like restrictions.--Principle 5 states that Government
information created or compiled at Government expense or by Government
employees as part of their official duties, regardless of the format in
which it is published, is in the public domain. We strongly affirm this
principle and note that some agencies are imposing copyright-like
restrictions on electronic information. Worrisome patterns are already
being proposed; for example, in the case of agency restricting the
downloading of information or its electronic re-transmission. This is
an egregious barrier not only to the publics current and long term
access to information but also to innovative and creative forces in the
private sector to develop enhanced products and services. Further,
regarding the proposal of the National Technical Information Service,
libraries can neither restrict nor control users from placing
electronic information on the Internet.
Fee-based products and services.--In order to fulfill the goals of
an enhanced FDLP program, it is vital that materials not currently in
the program, such as those created by self-supporting agencies who are
by law required to recover their costs, be included. While the draft
report proposes models through which these materials would enter the
program, the key question is, of course, who is going to pay. GPO
suggests that the Superintendent of Documents would reimburse agencies
for the cost of including these products and services in the program.
However, there are no guarantees that Congress would assure the
necessary funding.
This issue addresses the troubling question of cost recovery and
quasi-business corporations. Regarding the NTIS proposal for example,
it is very troubling that libraries would be asked to become watchdogs
to ensure that these electronic materials do not leak out into the
public domain. We are also concerned that these or similar restrictions
could potentially be used by agencies for access to services for which
users have paid subscriptions. A strong affirmation on redistribution
without copyright-like restrictions for agency cost-recovery programs
is imperative.
Role and responsibilities of program libraries.--We are concerned
that since all depository libraries will soon be required to have
Internet access and since, according to the plan, most government
information will be available in electronic format, even the smallest
program library will by default become a ``regional'' for electronic
government information. Requiring all libraries to fulfill the regional
depository libraries' statutory responsibilities of access and service
will place undue burdens on selectives. In order to prevent this
occurrence, more flexibility must be built into the program that allows
libraries to provide access to electronic information in a manner they
can accommodate. We must all acknowledge the tremendous value of
program libraries and it is important to provide incentives for their
continued participation in the program.
Conclusion.--These comments on the draft study and the strategic
plan supplement our oral comments delivered at last week's joint
Working Group and Advisors meeting. We will submit additional comments
on the draft study and particularly on some of the specific Task Force
Reports within the next few weeks. In particular, we are troubled that
some proposed alternative models in several of the Task Force Reports
may not be wholly in accord with the study's affirmed principles and
goals and thus are very problematic to our members.
We are especially pleased to see the new draft language of the
definitions in Chapter 19, Title 44 that acknowledge that electronic
information is explicitly defined in the law as being a key component
of the FDLP. It is crucial that Chapter 19 be amended to reflect these
changes in definitions and the broader scope of the FDLP to assure that
the goals for a more electronic program are achieved.
We believe that funding for the technology grants will provide seed
money for small selective libraries which otherwise would be unable to
provide access to electronic products and services to members of their
local communities. One-time technology grants are a step in the right
direction although they may not be sufficient since technology itself
changes so rapidly as do user needs. To strengthen the justification
for these technology grants we suggest that GPO determine the number of
libraries that would be unable to provide access to the expanding array
of electronic FDLP materials without these start-up grants.
We would like to make the following recommendations: (1) that the
substantial progress and inter-agency dialog achieved throughout the
past year continue; (2) that GPO and agencies work together to
determine consistency regarding format and standards; and (3) that the
Working Group model continue with Information Resource Management
representatives from GPO the Library of Congress, the Office of
Management and Budget, and the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts as well as the library community and users.
We remain concerned that the draft study lacks clear incentives for
agencies to participate in the program, particularly when their budgets
are being cut. We also firmly believe that means of oversight and
compliance must be provided in a meaningful and effective way. Our
associations, representing the broader library community, are willing
to work with you to supplement and strengthen the study by offering
additional information in the following areas: the capabilities of and
impact on libraries and users; the role and responsibilities of
regional and selective depository libraries; and the troublesome
questions of oversight and compliance. Thank you very much for this
opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Oakley,
Washington Affairs Representative, American Association of Law
Libraries.
Carol C. Henderson,
Executive Director--Washington Office, American Library
Association.
Prudence S. Adler,
Assistant Executive Director, Association of Research Libraries.
David R. Bender,
Executive Director, Special Libraries Association.
______
Attachment 2.--Resolution on the U.S. Congressional Serial Set and the
Bound Congressional Record
WHEREAS, The U.S. Congressional Serial Set and the bound
Congressional Record together comprise a significant portion of the
official historical record of Congress; and
WHEREAS, The U.S. Congressional Serial Set has been produced since
1813 in a bound, numbered edition, and includes Senate and House
documents, congressional committee reports, presidential and other
executive publications, treaty materials, and selected reports of
nongovernmental organizations; and
WHEREAS, The bound Congressional Record has been produced since
1873 as the official record of the proceedings and debates of Congress
in a uniform, numbered edition, superseding its predecessors, the
Annals of Congress (1789-1824), the Register of Debates (1824-1837),
and the Congressional Globe (1833-1873); and
WHEREAS, The U.S. Congressional Serial Set and the bound
Congressional Record are important historical materials for the legal
and research communities, particularly for the compilation of
legislative histories needed to determine legislative intent in
interpreting federal statutes; and
WHEREAS, The U.S. Congressional Serial Set and the bound
Congressional Record have been available through the Federal Depository
Library Program, providing ready no-fee access to the official version
of these important titles in nearly every Congressional district; and
WHEREAS, The U.S. Congressional Serial Set and the print bound
Congressional Record, as official, authoritative records of the
deliberations of Congress, are produced on acid free permanent paper to
ensure their preservation for future research and scholarship; and
WHEREAS, The production and dissemination of these historically-
significant titles in microfiche, CD-ROM or other electronic formats do
not at this time meet required standards to ensure permanent long-term
access and preservation, nor are they the official, authoritative
versions; now, therefore, be it resolved that
RESOLVED, The American Association of Law Libraries urge Congress
to continue to fund the production of the U.S. Congressional Serial Set
and the bound Congressional Record in the permanent, print versions
required for long-term access and preservation; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the American Association of Law Libraries urge
Congress to recognize the historical significance of these print titles
as the official record of their deliberations, and to guarantee their
continued no-fee availability to the American public through local
depository libraries; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the American Association of Law Libraries transmit a
copy of this resolution to Members of the House and Senate Legislative
Appropriations Subcommittees, to other appropriate congressional
committees, and to the Public Printer.
Endorsed by the A.A.L.L. Executive Board, July 19, 1996.
______
Attachment 3
[From the Scientific American, Jan. 1995]
Ensuring the Longevity of Digital Documents
(By Jeff Rothenberg)
The digital medium is replacing paper in a dramatic record-keeping
revolution. But such documents may be lost unless we act now.
The year is 2045, and my grandchildren (as yet unborn) are
exploring the attic of my house (as yet unbought). They find a letter
dated 1995 and a CD-ROM. The letter says the disk contains a document
that provides the key to obtaining my fortune (as yet unearned). My
grandchildren are understandably excited, but they have never before
seen a CD--except in old movies. Even if they can find a suitable disk
drive, how will they run the software necessary to interpret what is on
the disk? How can they read my obsolete digital document?
This imaginary scenario reveals some fundamental problems with
digital documents. Without the explanatory letter, my grandchildren
would have no reason to think the disk in my attic was worth
deciphering. The letter possesses the enviable quality of being
readable with no machinery, tools or special knowledge beyond that of
English. Because digital information can be copied and recopied
perfectly, it is often extolled for its supposed longevity. The truth,
however, is that because of changing hardware and software, only the
letter will be immediately intelligible 50 years from now.
Information technology is revolutionizing our concept of record
keeping in an upheaval as great as the introduction of printing, if not
of writing itself. The current generation of digital records has unique
historical significance. Yet these documents are far more fragile than
paper, placing the chronicle of our entire period in jeopardy.
My concern is not unjustified. There have already been several
potential disasters. A 1990 House of Representatives report describes
the narrow escape of the 1960 U.S. Census data. The tabulations were
originally stored on tapes that became obsolete faster than expected as
revised recording formats supplanted existing ones (although most of
the information was successfully transferred to newer media). The
report notes other close calls as well, involving tapes of the
Department of Health and Human Services; files from the National
Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, the Public Land Law Review
Commission and other agencies; the Combat Area Casualty file containing
P.O.W. and M.I.A. records for the Vietnam War; and herbicide
information needed to analyze the impact of Agent Orange. Scientific
data are in similar jeopardy, as irreplaceable records of numerous
experiments conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and other organizations age into oblivion.
So far the undisputed losses are few. But the significance of many
digital documents--those we consider too unimportant to archive--may
become apparent only long after they become unreadable. Unfortunately,
many of the traditional methods developed for archiving printed matter
are not applicable to electronic files. The content and historical
value of thousands of records, databases and personal documents may be
irretrievably lost to future generations if we do not take steps to
preserve them now.
from here to eternity
Although digital information is theoretically invulnerable to the
ravages of time, the physical media on which it is stored are far from
eternal. If the optical CD in my attic were a magnetic disk, attempting
to read it would probably be futile. Stray magnetic fields, oxidation
and material decay can easily erase such disks. The contents of most
digital media evaporate long before words written on high-quality
paper. They often become unusably obsolete even sooner, as media are
superseded by new, incompatible formats--how many readers remember
eight-inch floppy disks? It is only slightly facetious to say that
digital information lasts forever--or five years, whichever comes
first.
Yet neither the physical fragility of digital media nor their
lemminglike tendency toward obsolescence constitutes the worst of my
grandchildren's problems. My progeny must not only extract the content
of the disk but must also interpret it correctly. To understand their
predicament, we need to examine the nature of digital storage. Digital
information can be saved on any medium that is able to represent the
binary digits (``bits'') 0 and 1. We will call an intended, meaningful
sequence of bits, with no intervening spaces, punctuation or
formatting, a bit stream.
Retrieving a bit stream requires a hardware device, such as a disk
drive, and special circuitry for reading the physical representation of
the bits from the medium. Accessing the device from a given computer
also requires a ``driver'' program. After the bit stream is retrieved,
it must still be interpreted. This task is not straightforward, because
a given bit stream can represent almost anything--from a sequence of
integers to an array of dots in a pointillist-style image.
Furthermore, interpreting a bit stream depends on understanding its
implicit structure, which cannot explicitly be represented in the
stream. A bit stream that represents a sequence of alphabetic
characters may consist of fixed-length chunks (``bytes''), each
representing a code for a single character. For instance, in one
current scheme, the eight bits 01110001 stand for the letter q. To
extract the bytes from the bit stream, thereby ``parsing'' the stream
into its components, we must know the length of a byte.
One way to convey the length is to encode a ``key'' at the
beginning of the bit stream. But this key must itself be represented by
a byte of some length. A reader therefore needs another key to
understand the first one. Computer scientists call the solution to such
a recursive problem a ``bootstrap'' (from the fanciful image of pulling
oneself up by the bootstraps). In this case, a bootstrap must provide
some context, which humans can read, that explains how to interpret the
digital storage medium. For my grandchildren, the letter accompanying
the disk serves this role.
After a bit stream is correctly parsed, we face another recursive
problem. A byte can represent a number or an alphabetic character
according to a code. To interpret such bytes, therefore, we need to
know their coding scheme. But if we try to identify this scheme by
inserting a code identifier in the bit stream itself, we will need
another code identifier to interpret the first one. Again, human-
readable context must serve as a bootstrap.
Even more problematic, bit streams may also contain complex cross-
referencing information. The stream is often stored as a collection, or
file, of bits that contains logically related but physically separate
elements. These elements are linked to one another by internal
references, which consist of pointers to other elements or of patterns
to be matched. (Printed documents exhibit similar schemes, in which
page numbers serve as pointers.)
interpreting a bit stream
Suppose my grandchildren manage to read the bit stream from the CD-
ROM. Only then will they face their real challenge: interpreting the
information embedded in the bit stream. Most files contain information
that is meaningful solely to the software that created them. Word-
processing files embed format instructions describing typography,
layout and structure (titles, chapters and so on). Spreadsheet files
embed formulas relating their cells. So-called hypermedia files contain
information identifying and linking text, graphics, sound and temporal
data.
For convenience, we call such embedded information--and all other
aspects of a bit stream's representation, including byte length,
character code and structure--the encoding of a document file. These
files are essentially programs: instructions and data that can be
interpreted only by appropriate software. A file is not a document in
its own right--it merely describes a document that comes into existence
when the file is interpreted by the program that produced it. Without
this program (or equivalent software), the document is a cryptic
hostage of its own encoding.
Trial-and-error might decode the intended text if the document is a
simple sequence of characters. But if it is complex, such a brute-force
approach is unlikely to succeed. The meaning of a file is not inherent
in the bits themselves, any more than the meaning of this sentence is
inherent in its words. To understand any document, we must know what
its content signifies in the language of its intended reader.
Unfortunately, the intended reader of a document file is a program.
Documents such as multimedia presentations are impossible to read
without appropriate software: unlike printed words, they cannot just be
``held up to the light.''
Is it necessary to run the specific program that created a
document? In some cases, similar software may at least partially be
able to interpret the file. Still, it is naive to think that the
encoding of any document--however natural it seems to us--will remain
readable by future software for very long. Information technology
continually creates new schemes, which often abandon their predecessors
instead of subsuming them.
A good example of this phenomenon occurs in word processing. Most
such programs allow writers to save their work as simple text, using
the current seven-bit American Standard Code for Information
Interchange (or ASCII). Such text would be relatively easy to decode in
the future if seven-bit ASCII remains the text standard of choice. Yet
ASCII is by no means the only popular text standard, and there are
proposals to extend it to a 16-bit code (to encompass non-English
alphabets). Future readers may therefore not be able to guess the
correct text standard. To complicate matters, authors rarely save their
work as pure text. As Avra Michelson, then at the National Archives,
and I pointed out in 1992, authors often format digital documents quite
early in the writing process and add figures and footnotes to provide
more readable and complete drafts.
If ``reading'' a document means simply extracting its content--
without its original form--then we may not need to run the original
software. But content can be lost in subtle ways. Translating word-
processing formats, for instance, often displaces or eliminates
headings, captions or footnotes. Is this merely a loss of structure, or
does it impinge on content? If we transform a spreadsheet into a table,
deleting the formulas that relate the table's entries to one another,
have we affected content? Suppose the CD in my attic contains a
treasure map depicted by the visual patterns of word and line spacings
in my original digital version of this article. Because these patterns
are artifacts of the formatting algorithms of my software, they will be
visible only when the digital version is viewed using my original
program. If we need to view a complex document as its author viewed it,
we have little choice but to run the software that generated it.
What chance will my grandchildren have of finding that software 50
years from now? If I include a copy of the program on the CD, they must
still find the operating system software that allows the program to run
on some computer. Storing a copy of the operating system on the CD may
help, but the computer hardware required to run it will have long since
become obsolete. What kind of digital Rosetta Stone can I leave to
provide the key to understanding the contents of my disk?
migrating bits
To prevent digital documents from being lost, we must first
preserve their bit streams. That means copying the bits onto new forms
of media to ensure their accessibility. The approach is analogous to
preserving text, which must be transcribed periodically. Both
activities require ongoing effort: future access depends on an unbroken
chain of such migrations frequent enough to prevent media from becoming
physically unreadable or obsolete before they are copied. A single
break in this chain renders digital information inaccessible, short of
heroic effort. Given the current lack of permanence of media and the
rate at which their forms evolve, migration may need to be as frequent
as once every few years. Conservative estimates suggest that data on
digital magnetic tape should be copied once a year to guarantee that
none of the information is lost. (Analog tapes may remain playable for
many years because they record more robust signals that degrade more
gradually.)
In the long run, we might be able to develop long-lived storage
media, which would make migration less urgent. At the moment, media
with increased longevity are not on the horizon. Nevertheless, the cost
of migration may eventually force the development of such products,
overriding our appetite for improved performance.
An ancient text can be preserved either by translating it into a
modern language or by copying it in its original dialect. Translation
is attractive because it avoids the need to retain knowledge of the
text's original language, yet few scholars would praise their
predecessors for taking this approach. Not only does translation lose
information, it also makes it impossible to determine what information
has been lost, because the original is discarded. (In extreme cases,
translation can completely undermine content: imagine blindly
translating both languages in a bilingual dictionary into a third
language.) Conversely, copying text in its original language (saving
the bit stream) guarantees that nothing will be lost. Of course, this
approach assumes that knowledge of the original language is retained.
Archivists have identified two analogous strategies for preserving
digital documents. The first is to translate them into standard forms
that are independent of any computer system. The second approach is to
extend the longevity of computer systems and their original software to
keep documents readable. Unfortunately, both strategies have serious
shortcomings.
On the surface, it appears preferable to translate digital
documents into standard forms that would remain readable in the future,
obviating the need to run obsolete software. Proponents of this
approach offer the relational database (introduced in the 1970's by
E.F. Codd, now at Codd & Date, Inc., in San Jose, Calif.) as a
paradigmatic example. Such a database consists of tables representing
relations among entities. A database of employees might contain a table
having columns for employee names and their departments. A second table
in the database might have department names in its first column,
department sizes in its second column and the name of the department
head in a third. The relational model defines a set of formal
operations that make it possible to combine the relations in these
tables--for example, to find the name of an employee's department head.
Because all relational database systems implement this same
underlying model, any such database can in principle be translated into
a standard tabular form acceptable to any other system. Files
represented this way could be copied to new media as necessary, and the
standard would ensure readability forever.
flaws of translation
Regrettably, this approach is flawed in two fundamental ways.
First, relational databases are less standardized than they appear.
Commercial relational database systems distinguish themselves from one
another by offering features that extend the relational model in
nonstandard ways. Moreover, the limitations of such databases are
already leading to the adoption of new models. The tables in a
relational database cannot transparently show structure. That is, the
database could not immediately make it clear that a corporation
consisted of one headquarters, five national offices, 25 divisions and
100 departments. Various object-oriented database models (which can
represent structure directly) are evolving to satisfy this need. Such
rapid evolution is neither accidental nor undesirable. It is the
hallmark of information technology.
Furthermore, far from being a representative example, relational
databases are practically unique. No other type of digital document has
nearly so formal a basis for standardization. Word processors, graphics
programs, spreadsheets and hypermedia programs each create far more
varied documents. The incompatibility of word-processing files
exemplifies this problem. It did not arise simply because companies
were trying to distinguish their products in the marketplace. Rather it
is a direct outgrowth of the technology's tendency to adapt itself to
the emerging needs of users.
As yet, no common application is ready to be standardized. We do
not have an accepted, formal understanding of the ways that humans
manipulate information. It is therefore premature to attempt to
enumerate the most important kinds of digital applications, let alone
to circumscribe their capabilities through standards. Forcing users to
accept the limitations imposed by such standards or restricting all
digital documents to contain nothing but text as a lowest common
denominator would be futile. The information revolution derives its
momentum precisely from the attraction of new capabilities. Defining
long-term standards for digital documents may become feasible when
information science rests on a more formal foundation, but such
standards do not yet offer a solution.
Translating a document into successive short-term standards offers
false hope. Successive translation avoids the need for ultimate
standards, but each translation introduces new losses. Would a modern
version of Homer's ``Iliad'' have the same literary impact if it had
been translated through a series of intermediate languages rather than
from the earliest surviving texts in ancient Greek? In theory,
translating a document through a sequence of standards should enable
scholars to reconstruct the original document. Yet that requires each
translation to be reversible without loss, which is rarely the case.
Finally, translation suffers from a fatal flaw. Unlike English and
ancient Greek, whose expressive power and semantics are roughly
equivalent, digital documents are evolving so rapidly that shifts in
the forms of documents must inevitably arise. New forms do not
necessarily subsume their predecessors or provide compatibility with
previous formats. Old documents cannot always be translated into
unprecedented forms in meaningful ways, and translating a current file
back into a previous form is frequently impossible. For example, many
older, hierarchical databases were completely redesigned to fit the
relational model, just as relational databases are now being
restructured to fit emerging object-oriented models. Shifts of this
kind make it difficult or meaningless to translate old documents into
new standard forms.
The alternative to translating a digital document is to view it by
using the program that produced it. In theory, we might not actually
have to run this software. If we could describe its behavior in a way
that does not depend on any particular computer system, future
generations could re-create the behavior of the software and thereby
read the document. But information science cannot yet describe the
behavior of software in sufficient depth for this approach to work, nor
is it likely to be able to do so in the near future. To replicate the
behavior of a program, there is currently little choice but to run it.
For this reason, we must save the programs that generate our
digital documents, as well as all the system software required to run
those programs. Although this task is monumental, it is theoretically
feasible. Authors often include an appropriate application program and
operating system to help recipients read a digital document. Some
applications and system software may remain ubiquitous, so that authors
would need only to refer readers to those programs. Free, public-domain
software is already widely available on the Internet. Moreover, when
proprietary programs become obsolete, their copyright restrictions may
expire, making them available to future users.
How can we provide the hardware to run antiquated systems and
application software? A number of specialized museums and ``retro-
computing'' clubs are attempting to maintain computers in working
condition after they become obsolete. Despite a certain undeniable
charm born of its technological bravado, this method is ultimately
futile. The cost of repairing or replacing worn out components (and
retaining the expertise to do so) must inevitably outweigh the demand
for any outmoded computer.
Fortunately, software engineers can write programs called
emulators, which mimic the behavior of hardware. Assuming that
computers will become far more powerful than they are today, they
should be able to emulate obsolete systems on demand. The main drawback
of emulation is that it requires detailed specifications for the
outdated hardware. To be readable for posterity, these specifications
must be saved in a digital form independent of any particular software,
to prevent having to emulate one system to read the specifications
needed to emulate another.
saving bits of history
If digital documents and their programs are to be saved, their
migration must not modify their bit streams, because programs and their
files can be corrupted by the slightest change. If such changes are
unavoidable, they must be reversible without loss. Moreover, one must
record enough detail about each transformation to allow reconstruction
of the original encoding of the bit stream. Although bit streams can be
designed to be immune to any expected change, future migration may
introduce unexpected alterations. For example, aggressive data
compression may convert a bit stream into an approximation of itself,
precluding a precise reconstruction of the original. Similarly,
encryption makes it impossible to recover an original bit stream
without the decryption key.
Ideally, bit streams should be sealed in virtual envelopes: the
contents would be preserved verbatim, and contextual information
associated with each envelope would describe those contents and their
transformation history. This information must itself be stored
digitally (to ensure its survival), but it must be encoded in a form
that humans can read more simply than they can the bit stream itself,
so that it can serve as a bootstrap. Therefore, we must adopt bootstrap
standards for encoding contextual information; a simple, text-only
standard should suffice. Whenever a bit stream is copied to new media,
its associated context may be translated into an updated bootstrap
standard. (Irreversible translation would be acceptable here, because
only the semantic content of the original context need be retained.)
These standards can also be used to encode the hardware specifications
needed to construct emulators.
Where does this leave my grandchildren? If they are fortunate,
their CD may still be readable by some existing disk drive, or they may
be resourceful enough to construct one, using information in my letter.
If I include all the relevant software on the disk, along with
complete, easily decoded specifications for the required hardware, they
should be able to generate an emulator to run the original software
that will display my document. I wish them luck.
______
Attachment 4.--Goals for Revising U.S.C. Title 44 to Enhance Public
Access to Federal Government Information
developed by the inter-association working group on government
information policy--may 1997
Congress currently is examining ways to improve public access to
government information and public accountability of government entities
through revisions to Title 44 of the United States Code and other
applicable statutes. We affirm that any changes to Title 44, the
Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), or federal government
information policies must incorporate the following fundamental
principles and goals of public access.
GOAL 1: The law must broaden, strengthen, and enhance public access to
all forms of government information.
PRINCIPLES:
The public has the right to access the information produced by
their government. All government information in all formats should be
published initially by the government and be made available, with no
restrictions, to the public through libraries.
To foster an informed citizenry capable of fully participating in
our democratic process and provide for economic development, the public
must be ensured easy and equitable access to federal government
information from the legislative, executive, and judicial branches at
no cost to the citizen.
To guarantee the availability of its information, the government
should disseminate it in usable formats to the public, libraries, and
other information providers and provide timely, equitable, effective,
no-fee public access to its information through depository libraries.
Government information created or compiled by government or
contractor employees or at government expense must remain in the public
domain with no copyright-like restrictions. The public's access to
government information must not be denied or impeded by exclusive
arrangements that apply copyright-like restrictions on the use or
redissemination of government information. Republication of government
information is the right of all citizens, and no obstacles should be
placed in the way of that right.
AREAS OF REFORM:
Legislation must guarantee the public's fundamental right to
government information. Providing for the dissemination of and access
to government information is an affirmative responsibility of every
entity of the federal government. The definition of ``government
information'' under Title 44 should include information from all
government agencies, military agencies, independent regulatory
agencies, government corporations, government-controlled corporations,
and other establishments in the executive, legislative, or judicial
branches of the federal government, as well as information created,
compiled, or published under government contract.
Legislation must provide for the availability or dissemination of
information in the most appropriate format(s). The format of
dissemination must take into account the use of the information and the
reliability of the format over time. Legislation should provide for
multiple formats for some types of government information to meet
users' needs and ensure the integrity, long-term preservation and
permanent public access to the information.
The definition of ``government information'' to be made available
to the public and included in the depository program must include all
information, regardless of form or format, which is created or compiled
by employees of a component of the government, or at government
expense, or as required by law, except that which is required for
official use only, is for strictly administrative or operational
purposes having no public interest or educational value, or is
classified for reasons of national security.
Legislation must clarify the definition of ``government
information'' to explicitly include electronic information products and
services. The definition of government information must include the
broadest possible array of publicly funded information of public
interest or educational value and should not be limited only to those
materials originally intended for public dissemination (e.g., sales
publications, brochures).
Legislation must specify that agency information products and
services, including those developed under a fee-based mandate or
statute, must be made available to the public at no fee through
depository libraries. Legislation should ensure that access to
government information is not hindered by exclusive arrangements that
apply copyright-like restrictions on use or redissemination of
government information.
Legislation must ensure that, regardless of any other agreements or
mandates, government information created or compiled at taxpayer
expense must be made available to the public at no fee through
depository libraries. This includes: government information accessible
only through government contracts with private commercial services;
cooperative publications, or government information created, compiled,
or disseminated through contracts, cooperative research and development
agreements, or other formal arrangements.
GOAL 2: The law must strengthen the role of the Superintendent of
Documents and the Federal Depository Library Program in
providing public access to government information.
PRINCIPLES:
The government must provide a strong, centralized, coordinated, and
managed program that provides for the acquisition, bibliographic
control, dissemination, and long-term public access of government
information at no cost to the public through depository libraries.
To facilitate broad public access to electronic government
information, the government must develop, adopt, and utilize
government-wide standards for the production, dissemination, and access
to government information in electronic formats.
AREAS OF REFORM:
Legislation should strengthen the Federal Depository Library
Program, the Superintendent of Documents Sales Program, and the GPO
Access online service as essential mechanisms for ensuring public
access to government information. [To reflect the impact of electronic
technologies on public access, the name of the FDLP should be changed
to the ``Federal Depository Library and Public Access Program.'']
The law must unequivocally state that electronic information be
made publicly available and included in the FDLP.
Library services included in the FDLP must span the entire life-
cycle of government information (creation, dissemination, access, use,
preservation, and evaluation) and include: cataloging and bibliographic
control; administration of access to online electronic information
products; distribution of physical publications and tangible electronic
products; preservation and permanent public access; development of
standards; training; feedback and participation in the design and
evaluation of government information products and services; and other
services that enhance public access to government information. These
services must be centrally coordinated to facilitate public access and
to meet most effectively the needs of libraries and the public.
Legislation must provide the statutory basis for appropriations for
broad public access to government information. This includes the
distribution of physical publications to depository libraries at no
charge, and to all others at no more than the incremental cost of
printing and distribution. Likewise, electronic access to government
information should be provided at no fee to the broadest possible
audience; in cases where access fees are required, no-fee access must
be guaranteed to the public through depository libraries. Adequate
appropriations to the FDLP must be included to provide depository
libraries with copies of publications and access to online databases.
The Superintendent of Documents should be empowered to reimburse
publishing agencies at the incremental rate for replicating depository
copies of tangible products. Appropriations must cover the costs of
producing and disseminating products through the FDLP as well as any
costs for software licenses that accompany electronic products.
Legislation must make it clear that regardless of any other legal
or administrative requirements, government information must be made
accessible to the public through the FDLP; specifically, an agency's
mandate to recover costs does not relieve it from fulfilling its
depository obligations under Title 44.
Legislation must provide for a centrally managed procurement and
production system for government information products and services.
Such a system should facilitate the identification of information
products for inclusion in the FDLP. It is essential also that the
system provide for appropriate penalties and enforcement power to
ensure agencies' compliance with their FDLP obligations under Title 44.
Legislation must require that each branch of government develop a
standardized system to describe their electronic information products
and services at the database level (e.g., GILS/Government Information
Locator Service) in consultation with the national libraries and the
judicial branch libraries. These records should provide interactive
links to online databases and information resources.
Legislation should provide for the utilization of advisory
council(s) that include members from all three branches of government,
librarians, and the public.
GOAL 3: The law must establish the affirmative responsibility of the
federal government to preserve and provide permanent public
access to its information, and to ensure the authenticity of
government information.
PRINCIPLES:
The government has an affirmative obligation to guarantee: the
preservation of government information to ensure its availability for
future generations; permanent public access to government information;
and authenticity and integrity of its information to ensure that it is
``official.''
AREAS OF REFORM:
Legislation must provide for the central coordination of permanent
public access to government information. The federal government,
including the Superintendent of Documents working in cooperation with
the federal agencies, the National Archives and Records Administration,
the Library of Congress and other national libraries, depository
libraries, and other library partners, must be responsible for
establishing and maintaining a system of permanent public access to all
formats of government information. Implementation of this should
include a distributed system that provides for adequate redundancy and
is based on official/contractual agreements between partners. The
Superintendent of Documents should be responsible for coordinating and
overseeing the formal contracts and interagency agreements that ensure
the preservation and permanent public access to government information.
Legislation must account for the public's need to be assured that
the information that the government provides is authentic. Policies and
practices should provide for ``official'' versions of government
information on which the public can rely in conducting its business and
affairs.
GOAL 4: The law must resolve the constitutional or inter-branch issues
regarding the oversight and administration of the life-cycle of
government information (creation, acquisition, production,
bibliographic control, dissemination, and permanent public
access) to establish clear accountability and facilitate public
access to government information from the legislative,
executive, and judicial branches.
PRINCIPLES:
Congress must continue to provide effective oversight in a manner
that will ensure that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches
of government comply with the principles of public access.
AREAS OF REFORM:
Legislation must provide for strong congressional oversight of
government information policies and practices and the power to effect
government-wide standards that facilitate public access. Legislation
should underscore the important role of Congress in providing public
access to government information. As the branch of government closest
to the people, Congress must ensure local access to federal government
information nationwide.
Legislation must provide enforceable compliance mechanisms for
procurement and production systems. Enforcement authority should be
established encompassing all three branches of government to ensure
compliance with the public access and dissemination requirements of the
law.
Legislation must include incentives for agencies and libraries to
participate in the depository program. Statutory authority should be
provided to ensure agency participation in programs designed to
facilitate and provide public access to government information.
document of the inter-association working group on government
information policy
The Inter-Association Working Group on Government Information
Policy is a cooperative team of representatives from several major
library associations working to enhance public access to government
information through the revision of U.S.C. Title 44. Together, these
associations represent more than 80,000 librarians, information
specialists, library trustees, libraries, and others interested in
library issues.
For more information, please contact: Francis Buckley, IAWG Chair;
Director, Shaker Heights Public Library, 216/991-2030 or
[email protected].
Mary Alice Baish, American Association of Law Libraries, 202/662-
9200 or [email protected].
Anne Heanue, American Library Association, 202/628-8410 or
[email protected].
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, PUBLIC PRINTER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
WAYNE P. KELLEY, SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
WILLIAM M. GUY, BUDGET OFFICER
CHARLES C. COOK, SUPERINTENDENT, CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING
MANAGEMENT DIVISION
introduction of Associates
Senator Bennett. For this next panel we welcome Michael
DiMario, the Public Printer, and he is accompanied by Wayne
Kelley, the Superintendent of Documents from the Government
Printing Office.
I have no opening statement.
Senator Dorgan, do you?
Senator Dorgan. Nor do I, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. Fine. We will go directly to our
testimony.
Mr. DiMario. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also with me is Mr.
Bill Guy, who is our budget officer.
Senator Bennett. I'm sorry. I apologize. I was not looking
in this direction.
Mr. DiMario. Mr. Guy sits to my left. We also have Mr.
Charles Cook, who is the head of our Congressional Printing
Management Division, who is in the audience but is available to
us.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Mr. DiMario. In the interest of time, I will briefly
summarize my prepared statement which has been submitted for
the record.
Senator Bennett. Without objection, it shall be included in
the record.
Public Printer's statement
Mr. DiMario. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the time you
took from your busy schedule recently to visit GPO and observe
our operations. We look forward to working with you through the
subcommittee. We also invite other members of the subcommittee
to come down and visit, to see our operation, because I think
that is an important aspect of understanding what we do.
For fiscal year 1998 we are requesting a total of $114.5
million for those programs requiring annual appropriations
directly to GPO. This includes $84 million for the
congressional printing and binding appropriation and $30.5
million for the salaries and expense appropriation for the
Superintendent of Documents.
The total amount we are requesting is an increase of $3.8
million, or 3.4 percent, over the funding approved in fiscal
year 1997.
For congressional printing, we are seeking $2.4 million
more than was approved this year due to workload increases
anticipated for the second session of the 105th Congress as
well as cost increases due to employee pay and expenses for
supplies, utilities, and maintenance.
For the Superintendent of Documents salaries and expenses
appropriation, we are requesting $1.4 million more to fund
unavoidable cost increases as well as the continued
transformation of the Depository Library Program to an
electronic basis.
My prepared statement includes information on GPO's mission
and programs to assist you in your review of our appropriations
request.
I specifically want to direct your attention to the fact
that our use of electronic printing and information
technologies over the past two decades has generated
substantial savings for Congress and the taxpayers while
improving public access to congressional and other Government
information.
Twenty years ago, our congressional printing budget was the
equivalent of $209.5 million in today's dollars. Today our
budget request is for $84 million, a reduction of nearly two-
thirds. That reduction was achieved primarily through our
utilization of successive generations of electronic printing
and information technologies to serve Congress.
A major outcome of the productivity improvements generated
by these technologies has been an ability to downsize our
operation significantly. Since the mid-1970's, our work force
has been reduced by more than 55 percent, from over 8,200
employees to the current 3,626 employees.
We are continuing to manage downsizing to achieve savings
without interrupting critical services to Congress and the
public. Our use of electronic technologies means that Congress
can achieve improved information services for its own use and
for public access. The GPO infrastructure supporting Congress
is capable of receiving congressional data in electronic format
in order to reduce production costs. Already we are receiving
more than 60 percent of Congressional Record copy from the
Senate in electronic format.
We provide the necessary standardization of congressional
information products as well as the systems for widespread
public dissemination of this important information. We are
prepared to assist the Senate and the House in electronically
disseminating committee materials and we have a pilot program
for online access to committee hearings.
Our GPO Access online service currently averages more than
4 million document downloads per month. Now we measure this
differently than the Library of Congress does. They are
measuring hits on their system. We are measuring actual
downloads of documents. So that is an important distinction.
GPO Access provides widespread public access to congressional
and other Government documents.
We are successfully moving our Depository Library Program
toward a predominantly electronic basis as originally directed
by this subcommittee. Altogether, GPO's systems and services
are dedicated to supporting Congress' move to increase
utilization of electronic formats. We have the resources and
experience to help make the cyber-Congress a reality.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. And
I would submit my formal statement for the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael F. DiMario
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to present the funding requirements of the Government
Printing Office (GPO) for fiscal year 1998. In addition to our funding
request, I am also providing additional information on GPO's mission
and programs.
fiscal year 1998 appropriations request
For fiscal year 1998, we are requesting $114.5 million for those
programs that require annual appropriations directly to GPO. This is an
increase of $3.8 million, or 3.4 percent, over the funding approved for
fiscal year 1997. However, it is also $1.2 million, or 2.6 percent,
less than the amounts appropriated 5 years ago. The request includes
$84 million for the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation
and $30.5 million for the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the
Superintendent of Documents. The increase is due primarily to general
price level increases, although for congressional printing there are
also workload increases in various product categories that are typical
for a second session of Congress.
gpo's appropriated funding
Unlike the other agencies that come before this Subcommittee, only
a small part of our annual budget is appropriated directly to GPO. Our
budget instead is financed through a businesslike revolving fund, which
is reimbursed by payments from customer agencies, sales to the public,
and transfers from our appropriated funds. For fiscal year 1996, the
total operating expenses charged against our budget were $835.4
million. Appropriated funds from Congress provided $113.7 million of
this amount, or 13.6 percent. They included $82.4 million for
Congressional Printing and Binding and $31.1 million for the Salaries
and Expenses of the Superintendent of Documents. All other GPO
activities were financed through the revolving fund by customer agency
payments and revenues from sales to the public. Each year, in addition
to our appropriations request, we request congressional authorization
for operation of the revolving fund.
The Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation is critical to
the maintenance and operation of our inplant printing capacity, which
is structured to serve Congress's printing needs. The appropriation
covers the costs of congressional printing, such as the Congressional
Record, bills, reports, hearings, documents, and other products. Each
year, a substantial volume of this work is requisitioned by Congress.
In fiscal year 1996, nearly 2 billion copy pages of congressional
products were produced at an average cost of about 4 cents per page,
inclusive of all prepress (database preparation) work, printing,
binding, and delivery.
The majority of the Superintendent of Documents Salaries and
Expenses Appropriation is for the Federal Depository Library Program
(FDLP). While some of the funding for this program is for salaries and
expenses, the majority is for printing and distributing publications
(including publications in CD-ROM and online formats) to depository
libraries. As long as Federal publications meet the requirements for
depository distribution established by law, the copies must be
distributed. In this sense, the volume of this work is controlled by
the publishing activities of Federal agencies and Congress.
congressional printing and binding appropriation
Our request of $84 million for the Congressional Printing and
Binding Appropriation is an increase of $2.4 million, or 2.9 percent,
over the amount approved for fiscal year 1997. However, it is $5.6
million, or 6.2 percent, less than the amount appropriated 5 years ago,
without adjusting for inflation. Of the total request, $21.2 million,
or 25 percent, is for the Congressional Record, including the Index and
the permanent edition. Hearings constitute the second largest component
of our request, totaling $17.1 million, or 20 percent. Legislative
bills together total $11 million, or 13 percent.
Estimated Requirements and Workload.--Based on historical data, in
the second session we expect to see increases in certain categories of
work, such as Congressional Record pages, but decreases in other
categories, such as hearings. Overall operating costs are anticipated
to increase marginally due to the increased cost of employee pay and
benefits, utilities, maintenance, materials, and supplies. We will
continue to work to offset these increased costs with savings from
technological improvements and adjusting staffing requirements.
The most significant price level changes anticipated are for the
production of the Congressional Record, where due to cost decreases
associated with improved production processes and the increased
submission of Record text electronically from Congress, we anticipate a
3.5 percent reduction in costs for data preparation. In most other
product categories, we anticipate marginal price increases to recover
the cost of current services, although most of the increases are at or
below the rate of inflation. Altogether, price changes account for
approximately $.7 million of the requested $2.4 million increase.
We anticipate workload volume increases during the second session
for Congressional Record pages, committee reports, business and
committee calendars, bills, document envelopes and franks, and
documents. We anticipate workload reductions for committee prints,
hearings, miscellaneous publications (since there will be no printing
of the Congressional Directory and other publications in the second
session), miscellaneous printing and binding (such as letterheads and
envelopes), and details to Congress based on trends for reduced
requirements.
study on privatizing the congressional record
In the House report accompanying the Congressional Printing and
Binding Appropriation for fiscal year 1997 (H. Rpt. 104-657), we were
required to conduct a study, using independent outside experts, to
determine if opportunities exist for outsourcing the Congressional
Record and the Federal Register. This requirement was based on the
rationale, as provided in the report, that ``the Congressional Record
and the Federal Register workloads are somewhat predictable and
sufficiently routine so that it may be possible that one or both
products can be outsourced'' (pp. 28-29). The report also directed us
to consider the option of converting to a two-shift operation in GPO's
printing plant.
The Chairman of the JCP has suggested that anticipated reforms to
Title 44 may diminish the need for such a study at this time, and that
the rapid evolution of technology may impact the need for this study. I
concur. Technology initiatives in both the Senate and the House may
result in changes to the operations for the production of the
Congressional Record. It may not be possible at this time to accurately
project all of the technology developments and procedural changes that
might result from these plans.
In addition, the basic premise behind the requested study--that the
workloads for the Record and the Register are ``somewhat predictable
and sufficiently routine''--is not wholly accurate. As I have testified
many times, these workloads are in fact far from predictable and
routine; the Record one night may be 20 pages long, and the next night
400 pages, necessitating daily workload scheduling and production
changes. These variances are at the heart of the reason why the Record
and the Register are produced in GPO, and not contracted out. I believe
what the study is likely to conclude is this very point, at a
potentially significant expense to the taxpayers.
salaries and expenses appropriation
Our request of $30.5 million for the Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents is an increase of $1.4
million, or 4.8 percent, over the amount approved for fiscal year 1997.
The increase is primarily due to price level increases and pay raises
and related costs. Of the total request, $25.9 million, or 85 percent,
is for the FDLP; $3.6 million, or 12 percent, is for the Cataloging and
Indexing Program; $555,000, or 2 percent, is for International
Exchange; and $486,000, or 1 percent, is for distribution of
publications to recipients required by law.
Estimated Requirements and Workload.--Price level changes and cost
increases due to pay raises and related expenses represent $858,000, or
about 62 percent, of the requested increase of $1.4 million. The
majority of this amount, $631,000, is for price level changes
calculated at the assumed rate of inflation for the year (2.7 percent).
The remaining $526,000, or 38 percent, of the requested increase is for
program changes related to workload, including improvements to GPO
Access in order to continue the transition of the FDLP to an electronic
basis. We are projecting a decreased number of paper copies distributed
to depositories, staffing reductions due to increased efficiencies, and
other program cost reductions.
gpo's mission in the information age
An abiding commitment to public access to Government information is
deeply rooted in our system of Government. GPO is one of the most
visible demonstrations of that commitment. For more than a century, our
mission under the public printing and documents statutes of Title 44 of
the U.S. Code has been to fulfill the needs of the Federal Government
for information products and distribute those products to the public.
Formerly, our mission was accomplished through the production and
procurement of traditional printing technologies. However, a generation
ago we began migrating our processes to electronic technologies, and in
1993 Congress amended Title 44 with the GPO Electronic Information
Access Enhancement Act (Public Law 103-40) to require us to disseminate
Government information products online. This Act is the basis of GPO
Access, our Internet information service.
Today, GPO is dedicated to producing, procuring, and disseminating
Government information products in a wide range of formats. In GPO the
Government has a unique asset that combines a comprehensive range of
conventional production and electronic processing services, procurement
facilitation, and multi-format dissemination capabilities to support
the information life cycle needs of Congress, Federal agencies, and the
public.
We provide printed and electronic information products and services
to Congress and Federal agencies through inplant processes and the
purchase of information products from the private sector. In fact, we
buy approximately 75 percent of all information products requisitioned
from us in one of the Government's most successful procurement
programs. We disseminate Government information through a low-priced
sales program and to Federal depository libraries nationwide where the
information may be used by the public free of charge. We also
disseminate a growing volume of information via the Internet. We
catalog and index Government information products, and we distribute
them on behalf of other Federal agencies. Information on all of our
programs and services, as well as access to a large and growing range
of Government information, is available through our home page on the
World Wide Web, at http://www.gpo.gov.
We conduct all of our services in a non-partisan, service-oriented
environment that emphasizes the primacy of the customer's requirements
for timeliness, quality, security, and economy, and we are committed to
achieving the greatest access and equity in information dissemination
whether through printed publications, CD-ROM, or online. At the bottom
line, our programs reduce the need for duplicative and costly
production facilities throughout the Government, achieve significant
taxpayer savings through a centralized procurement system, and enhance
public access to Government information.
gpo and congress
GPO was originally established to provide Congress with immediate,
reliable service in a work environment under its direct control. That
mission continues today. We produce the daily and permanent editions of
the Congressional Record, bills, committee and business calendars,
hearings, committee reports, committee prints, documents, stationery,
and a wide variety of other products that are essential to the
legislative process in Congress. We produce this work in our central
office facility on North Capitol Street in Washington, DC, through the
creation and storage of electronic databases of publications for
printing and dissemination, as well as the provision of CD-ROM, online
access, and print-on-demand services. All of this work is funded
through an annual appropriation for Congressional Printing and Binding.
Our Congressional Printing Management Division (CPMD) serves as
GPO's liaison with the Congress for printing and information product
needs. CPMD staff provide assistance to Members and officials of
Congress as well as committees and support staffs regarding the
printing and electronic availability of congressional information
products. The CPMD is also responsible for managing approximately 59
GPO employees detailed to congressional committees and offices to
assist with printing requirements. To ensure the timely delivery of
printed materials, there are 19 congressional receiving clerks, who are
part of the CPMD staff, assigned to congressional buildings. In
addition, the CPMD coordinates and maintains distribution lists for all
agency requests for congressional products.
Support for the Cyber-Congress.--We have built a core capability
for electronic information and communications services to support
Congress's information needs. Today, our state-of-the-art electronic
systems are characterized by a complex of direct electronic linkages
via CAPNET to a variety of congressional offices on Capitol Hill for
data interchange. Once considered only the by-product of the print
production process, digitized electronic databases of congressional
information are now the primary product: they are the databases from
which the official versions of documents are produced in print, CD-ROM,
and online access formats and made available to the public through GPO
Access, as well as other systems such as the Library of Congress's
THOMAS information system.
Our electronic systems and staff expertise position us to continue
supporting the development of the cyber-Congress, including the
proposed Legislative Information System for the Senate and a comparable
House Document Management System. We are committed to supporting
Congress's effort to provide more committee materials online to the
public.
More than 60 percent of Congressional Record files from the Senate
are currently submitted electronically. We are currently working with
the Senate Appropriations Committee to provide online dissemination of
appropriations hearings. We operate a print-on-demand system in the
Senate Document Room that has reduced the requirement for printing
extra copies of legislative products, eliminating the need for storage
space and providing for effective future distribution. This system, and
another print-on-demand system located at our central office facility,
are both networked to congressional databases resident at GPO.
Advantages from Electronic Support.--Our electronic systems provide
a standardized system for use by both Houses of Congress, resulting in
compatibility of production processes and uniformity in the resulting
products. They provide for the interchangeable use of databases to
produce different congressional publications, generating significant
savings. Our systems are a centralized resource where production and
dissemination equipment and staffing can be concentrated, yielding
significant economies of scale. Finally, they facilitate both
production and dissemination. Databases prepared for printing are
easily converted into databases suitable for CD-ROM distribution and
for online dissemination via the Internet to libraries, schools,
offices, and homes nationwide and around the world.
Savings from the Use of Technology.--Productivity increases
resulting from technology have enabled us to make substantial
reductions in staffing requirements while continuing to improve
services for Congress. In the mid-1970's, on the threshold of our
conversion to electronic photocomposition, we employed more than 8,200
persons. Today, we have 3,626 employees on board, fewer than at any
time in this century. In the past 4 years our staffing has been reduced
by 25 percent. The reduction was accomplished while at the same time
modernizing and improving our services.
Electronic technologies have significantly reduced the cost, in
real economic terms, of congressional publications. In fiscal year
1978, the appropriation for Congressional Printing and Binding was
$84.6 million, the equivalent in today's dollars of $209.5 million. By
comparison, our approved funding for fiscal year 1997 is $81.7 million,
a reduction of nearly two-thirds in real economic terms. This has
yielded a savings to the taxpayer of well over $100 million per year.
The vast majority of the reduction is due to productivity improvements
and staffing reductions made possible through the use of improved
technology.
gpo and federal agencies
GPO's Printing Procurement Program.--Approximately 75 percent of
the printing and information products requisitioned from GPO are
procured from the private sector. GPO historically has retained for
inplant production only work which cannot be procured on a controlled,
timely, and cost-effective basis. The vast majority of the work
procured from the private sector is for Federal agencies in the
executive branch. We provide procurement services through our central
office facility and through a network of 20 regional and satellite
procurement offices nationwide. All work for Federal agencies is paid
for by the agencies themselves. The payments are processed through
GPO's revolving fund.
Our printing procurement program saves a significant amount of
money for the taxpayers. The program operates on a highly competitive
basis, driving prices down. Approximately 10,000 firms--or about a
quarter of the nationwide printing industry, representing nearly
200,000 employees--are registered on GPO's Master Bid List according to
their equipment, staffing, and production capabilities. About 3,500 of
these firms do business with us on a regular basis, ensuring intense
competition for Government printing and information product contracts.
By consolidating the Government's specialized printing procurement
skills and resources in GPO, agencies save money in their printing
programs. Moreover, agencies achieve savings without giving up
essential controls when they work through us. Most of our printing
procurements are conducted through direct deal term contracts,
permitting agencies to place their printing orders directly with the
contractor. Our centralized program utilizes a service infrastructure
that allows agencies to directly control the vast majority of their
printing needs from the point of origination. Electronic versions of
printing procurement bid solicitations are now accessible from the
Internet via GPO's World Wide Web home page.
CD-ROM Services.--Since 1988 we have been a leading Government
producer of CD-ROM technology, providing agencies with a complete range
of CD-ROM production services. We have received the annual CD-ROM Award
from the Special Interest Group for CD-ROM Applications and Technology
(SIGCAT), the largest CD-ROM user group in the world, in recognition of
the CD-ROM services we provide. The General Accounting Office has cited
our CD-ROM program as one of the most cost-effective in the Government,
specifically noting that GPO's CD-ROM products are among the least
expensive for users.
World Wide Web Services.--For the World Wide Web, we provide
database development services, mounting on our servers, database
maintenance, access based on agency needs, promotion of the service,
training, and user support. GPO Access features a unique service in
making most databases available not only in ASCII format but in
Portable Document Format (PDF), which provides a searchable database
that exactly replicates the printed product.
The New Commerce Business Daily.--We recently entered into an
alliance with the Department of Commerce in the development of a new
Commerce Business Daily (CBD). The new CBD has made it easier and more
timely for agencies to electronically submit notices for inclusion in
CBD, significantly reduced the cost per notice for these submissions
(from $18.00 to $5.00), allowed for the continuation of a billing and
reporting process for these charges, provided support to both agencies
and users of the CBD, reduced the time necessary to typeset and compose
the printed version, and enhanced the delivery of the final copy to the
printing contractor for the production of the daily printed issues. It
has also enabled commercial value-added providers who offer CBD
products to receive the daily CBD information much faster, in an
enhanced format, and at a 20 percent reduction in cost. On April 21,
1997, our CBD partnership with the Commerce Department was the
recipient of a ``Hammer Award'' from the National Performance Review.
Inplant Services.--In addition to procuring printing for Federal
agencies, GPO produces work in our central office plant and regional
printing plant in Denver. A significant portion of the agency work
produced inplant is associated with the Federal Register, and includes
the List of Sections Affected and the Code of Federal Regulations.
Other work includes U.S. passports, postal cards, the U.S. Budget, and
other jobs that are performed by GPO due to concerns for cost,
timeliness, and control over sensitive Government information.
The continued need for GPO's regional printing plants has declined.
In response, we have closed plants in Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco,
and New York, and previously a separate printing and reproduction
facility at the Washington, DC, Navy Yard was consolidated with GPO's
central office facility. A facility in Alaska, transferred from the
GSA, has also been closed. The remaining plant in Denver continues to
satisfy regional production and security printing needs.
gpo and information dissemination
The Printing Act of 1895, which is the basis for the public
printing and documents statutes of Title 44 of the U.S. Code, relocated
the Superintendent of Documents function from the Interior Department
to GPO. By linking the authority for the distribution of documents with
GPO's printing operations, Congress created an effective system for
ensuring comprehensive public access to the publications produced by
the Government. As the success of GPO Access demonstrates, this linkage
continues to be an effective means for the development and
dissemination of electronic databases in the Information Age.
The information dissemination programs of GPO's Superintendent of
Documents include the distribution of publications to approximately
1,400 Federal depository libraries nationwide, cataloging and indexing,
distribution to recipients designated by law, and distribution to
foreign libraries designated by the Library of Congress which in turn
agree to send copies of their official publications to the Library
pursuant to international treaty. These programs are funded by the
annual Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of
Documents.
The Superintendent of Documents also operates a nationwide sales
program. This program, the Government's single largest information
dissemination network, operates 24 bookstores in major metropolitan
areas around the U.S. as well as an extensive order service equipped to
receive mail, phone, fax, and Internet-based orders for publications
nationwide and worldwide. This program is funded entirely by revenues
earned on sales of publications. The Superintendent of Documents also
distributes publications for Federal agencies which reimburse us for
comprehensive warehousing and dissemination services. Altogether, we
distribute about 100 million copies of Government publications per year
through these programs (not including information made available
online).
GPO Access.--GPO Access provides free access to more than 70
Federal databases, including the Congressional Record, the Federal
Register, the Commerce Business Daily, Supreme Court opinions,
congressional bills and reports, and other publications, as well as
Government Information Locator Service (GILS) records for a growing
number of Federal agencies. The first online service of its kind
established by Congress, GPO Access allows users to locate a wide
variety of electronic products available via the Internet and to order
Government publications online. GPO Access is the only Government
online service providing access to a wide range of information from all
three branches of the Federal Government, and the only service
providing official access to this important Government information. In
April 1997, retrievals topped 4.5 million. During peak usage periods
there are more than 15,000 GPO Access sessions per hour.
GPO Access has drawn praise from a variety of sources, including
the library community (which gave GPO Access the 1995 James Madison
Award), the Federal technology community, the legal community, and
others. In December 1996, in a guest column in Roll Call,
representatives of the Congressional Accountability Project and the
Heritage Foundation together called GPO Access ``an enormous success.''
In January 1997, OMB Watch released a report on Government Information
Locator Services which noted that ``GPO Access has become the largest
single location for GILS services and records in the Federal
Government,'' and that ``GPO should be seen as an example to agencies
that are struggling with their GILS implementation.''
federal depository library program
Principles.--The dissemination of Government information to
libraries for the use of the public began in 1813, making the FDLP
America's oldest ``freedom of information'' program. From its
beginning, the FDLP has been built on several underlying principles:
--A well-informed citizenry, cognizant of the policies and activities
of its representative Government, is essential to the proper
functioning of democracy.
--The public has a right to Government information which has been
prepared and published at public expense.
--The Government has an obligation to ensure the availability of, and
access to, public information at no cost to the user.
--The publications provided through the FDLP are a permanent and
official source of Government information.
--The public, participating libraries, and the Government all benefit
from the efficiencies afforded by a centralized distribution
system, such as the FDLP, which ensures the wide availability
of Government publications at no charge to the user.
Statutory Requirements.--Libraries are designated as depositories
by Senators and Representatives as well as by law. Under the law, we
send the libraries copies of all Government publications processed
through GPO that are not purely of an administrative nature,
cooperatively sponsored, or classified for reasons of national
security. These copies are paid for by the annual Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents. If Federal agencies
themselves produce publications that belong in the FDLP, they are
required by law to pay for the production and distribution of those
copies sent to the depositories. In return for receiving Government
information products at no cost, the libraries must make them available
to the public without charge and provide appropriate assistance to
users.
The majority of the depository libraries are selective depositories
which tailor their Government publications acquisitions to local needs,
choosing from among 7,000 organizational and series categories. Fifty-
three libraries, or roughly one per State (depending on size and
resources, some States have no regionals while others have more than
one), are regional depositories that receive every publication
distributed by the FDLP. They are required to retain permanently every
Government publication they receive.
Users.--Based on 1995 data, we estimate that 750,000 to 950,000
persons use FDLP information each month. A 1989 study estimated a
minimum of 670,000 depository users per month in academic and public
libraries.
Workload.--In fiscal year 1996, nearly 16.4 million copies of about
57,000 titles were distributed to depository libraries in paper and
microfiche. In addition, we distributed 639 titles in tangible
electronic formats, mostly CD-ROM. All GPO Access databases and
services are available to depository users. Our locator services point
to an additional 971 agency titles, and there are 1,148 Monthly Catalog
records hot-linked to agency Internet sites.
Library Participation.--There are now 1,372 depository libraries,
including the 53 regionals. Of these, 55 percent are academic
libraries, making the FDLP a major component of the Nation's education
and research programs. Another 20 percent are public libraries, 11
percent are law school libraries, 6 percent are State libraries, 5
percent are Federal agency libraries, and the remaining 3 percent are
special libraries. All Federal depositories are now expected to offer
public users access to computer work stations with a graphical user
interface, CD-ROM capability, Internet connections, and the ability to
access Government information via the World Wide Web. However, there
are still some depositories which cannot fully handle all electronic
Government information offerings.
Continuing Justification for the FDLP.--The FDLP will continue to
be needed even as Federal agencies put more information on the
Internet. The FDLP, funded out of legislative branch appropriations, is
the means by which Congress asserts its historical role in keeping the
American public informed about the activities of the Government.
Depository libraries have developed skills and collections based on
the needs of their local constituents. This affords the public a local
setting in which they can use Government information at no charge,
regardless of whether they own or can operate a computer, and be
assisted by trained Government information professionals.
As authorized by Public Law 103-40, GPO creates a variety of
electronic ``Pathway'' locator services, which enable users to identify
and connect to agency electronic resources. Since these activities are
funded by the FDLP appropriation, the locator services sponsored by the
FDLP may be used at no cost by the public. Within our suite of locator
services, the Monthly Catalog on the Web is unique in how it locates
both physical items in depository libraries and agency products on the
Internet.
The FDLP is the vehicle which provides permanent public access to
Government information. Copies of physical items are permanently held
for public use in the regional depository libraries. GPO, acting in
partnership with other Program stakeholders, including the National
Archives and Records Administration and libraries which elect to
participate, is leading an effort to ensure that agency Internet
products are permanently retained and made accessible to the public.
It will be many years, if ever, before all Government information
is available electronically. In the meantime, it is essential to have a
single program which is charged with acquiring and distributing the
vast array of printed products which the Government produces. Neither
libraries nor the public would be well served by having to contact
scores of individual agencies for the information they need.
Fugitive Documents.--Many publications produced by the Government
fail to be included in the FDLP. Documents that belong in the Program,
but which are excluded, are known as fugitive documents. Their absence
from depository library collections impairs effective public access to
Government information. While many studies of the fugitive document
problem have been conducted, the exact number of publications that are
not in the FDLP has been difficult to isolate. Sometimes administrative
errors are made by GPO in document selection and distribution. Most
commonly, however, documents become fugitives from the Program due to
their production outside of GPO, such as in agency printing plants.
There is also a growing number of fugitive documents due to increased
agency use of electronic systems to produce and disseminate their own
documents.
Although no study has resulted in a definitive answer, we estimate
that more than 50 percent of all tangible Government information
products are not being made available to the FDLP. Of these, we
estimate that there are about 55,000 scientific and technical documents
and reports which are neither printed through GPO nor furnished by the
issuing agencies to the FDLP as required by law. The issuing agencies
do, however, provide either a printed copy or an electronic image file
of each of these documents to the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) of the Department of Commerce.
In fiscal year 1996, NTIS took in about 160,000 scientific,
technical, and business-related titles, most but not all of which were
published by the Government. We estimate that about 70 percent, or
112,000, of NTIS's total intake belongs in the FDLP. Compared with the
57,000 titles in the FDLP in fiscal year 1996, this leaves about 55,000
fugitive titles which should have been provided to GPO by publishing
agencies, had they fully complied with Title 44 requirements.
In addition, there is an unknown number of fugitives which are
primarily general, public interest materials produced by agencies other
than through GPO. It is virtually impossible to estimate the total
number of these titles, but they may well number in the thousands and
include such publications as decisions of the Federal district courts
and courts of appeals, Federal Election Commission financial disclosure
statements, and reports produced by the Library of Congress's
Congressional Research Service.
Recently, four major factors have contributed to increasing losses
of key general interest publications for the FDLP: (1) electronic
information dissemination via agency web sites without notification to
the FDLP; (2) decreasing compliance with statutory requirements for
agencies to print through GPO or to provide copies of publications not
printed through GPO to the FDLP; (3) the increasing trend for agencies
to establish exclusive arrangements with private sector entities that
place copyright or copyright-like restrictions on the products involved
in such agreements; and (4) increasing use by agencies of language in
44 U.S.C. 1903 that permits publications to be excluded from the FDLP
if they are ``so-called cooperative publications which must necessarily
be sold in order to be self-sustaining.''
Fugitive documents defeat the purpose of the FDLP and undermine the
public's ability to access information critical to their lives.
Historically, the FDLP has relied heavily on the ability of the Program
to automatically obtain material as it is produced or procured through
GPO. With the growing emphasis on electronic dissemination, and
decreasing compliance with statutory requirements for agencies to use
GPO, identifying and obtaining information for the FDLP is becoming
increasingly difficult.
FDLP Compliance Issues.--When an agency uses GPO for production or
procurement of a publication (defined in section 1901 as
``informational matter which is published as an individual document at
Government expense, or as required by law''), GPO ensures that
distribution is made through our own processes. If a publication is
produced elsewhere than GPO, the publishing agency is required to
supply the requisite number of copies to GPO, at its own expense, for
dissemination to depositories.
GPO is confronted with two kinds of compliance issues today. First,
a number of Federal agencies are seeking new methods of printing
information gathered at public expense. These methods do not involve
GPO and, as a result, they impede or prevent effective public access to
critical Government information. I have reported previously to Congress
on several such instances, including such publications as Big Emerging
Markets, U.S. Export Administration Regulations, and U.S. Industrial
Outlook.
Other efforts are ongoing by agencies that often involve allowing
third parties to copyright the information or impose copyright-like
restrictions on it. The result is that the information does not get
produced or procured through GPO, and the agencies do not provide
copies to GPO for distribution to depositories.
A recent example of this is the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute. For many years the National Cancer Institute (NCI) procured
its Journal (JNCI), a major publication devoted to cancer research,
through GPO and it was distributed to depository libraries. In January
1997, however, the NCI notified GPO that it had signed a Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) with Oxford University Press,
under which ``the name of the publication will be retained, and Oxford
will assume all responsibility for printing the Journal and will hold
copyright to the Journal's content''. According to the letter received
by GPO, the JNCI ``has been privatized, and effective January 1, 1997,
ownership of the Journal will be transferred from the National Cancer
Institute to Oxford University Press-USA, Inc.'' The letter also stated
that ``[b]ecause the Journal is no longer a publication of the U.S.
Government, copies of the Journal and JNCI Monographs will not be
provided to the Depository Library Program nor will sales copies be
available at the GPO bookstore.'' At the time of this notification, GPO
was receiving 827 copies of each issue of JNCI for distribution to
depository libraries. We have no further information on the terms and
conditions of the CRDA between NCI and Oxford University Press because
the NCI's legal counsel has informed us that the details of the CRDA
are not public information.
The second compliance issue involves publications in electronic
formats. Several agencies have taken the position that Title 44 does
not apply to Government information in electronic formats. OMB's
Circular No. A-130, ``Management of Federal Information Resources,''
requires agencies to cooperate with GPO for print publications, but
only ``encourages'' cooperation for publications in electronic formats
and provides agencies with a rationale for exempting electronic
information products from the FDLP based on cost.
An example of this is our recent experience with the NTIS Order Now
CD-ROM. NTIS recently converted its printed sales catalog to a
quarterly CD-ROM subscription called Order Now. NTIS did not procure
this product through GPO. Although NTIS makes this catalog available
online on a no-fee basis to depository libraries, the online product
does not include the two years' worth of abstracts and indexes
available on the CD-ROM. This makes the CD-ROM more complete and useful
than either the online or former printed products. NTIS expressed a
willingness to make the CD-ROM available as a benefit to the public and
as a promotional tool for their sales program, provided GPO pays the
retrieval software licensing fees. After due consideration, it was
decided that the Superintendent of Documents could not pay these fees,
and that since the CD-ROM was not procured through GPO, NTIS was
obligated to provide copies to the FDLP under section 1903 of Title 44.
In a letter to the Staff Director of the JCP concerning this matter,
NTIS made the statement that ``[a]t no time did we consider this to be
a question of compliance with Title 44,'' apparently based on the fact
that the publication in question is electronic rather than print.
However, without the NTIS Order Now CD-ROM, it will be more expensive
for depository libraries to locate and purchase scientific and
technical documents. More broadly, such attempts to evade the
requirements of Title 44 represent a serious challenge to free public
access to Government information through the FDLP.
We believe that the spirit and intent of the law since the FDLP's
founding in 1813 has been to make information produced at taxpayer
expense available to the public through depository libraries regardless
of format. In a 1990 opinion, GPO's General Counsel stated, ``[i]t is
our opinion that Congress did not intend to carve a distinction based
upon the technology employed to disseminate the Government publication
and that Title 44 U.S.C. Sec. 1903 governs regardless of whether the
publication is in the traditional ink-on-paper format or some new
medium.'' Congress itself created GPO Access in large part to provide
for online dissemination of Government information to depositories.
While we make every effort to work closely with agencies to ensure the
inclusion of their information products in the FDLP in all formats, the
continuing agency practice of not providing electronic products to the
FDLP is creating gaps in information availability to the public.
Transitioning the FDLP to a More Electronic Basis.--In spite of the
contention that electronic information products are not required to be
included in the FDLP, Congress has encouraged us to transition the
Program to a more electronic basis. The Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996 required GPO to conduct a study
to identify measures necessary for a successful transition to a more
electronic FDLP. In response to direction from Congress for broad
consultation, GPO formed a group comprising representatives from GPO,
the JCP, the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, the Senate
Rules and Administration Committee, the House Oversight Committee, the
House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, OMB, the Congressional
Research Service of the Library of Congress, the National Archives and
Records Administration, Federal publishing agencies, the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts, the depository library community, and
others. The final report, titled ``Study to Identify Measures Necessary
for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository
Library Program,'' was submitted to Congress in June 1996.
Study Conclusions.--Two major conclusions emerged from the study.
The first was strong support for retaining the authority for a broad-
based public information program in the legislative branch. High value
was placed on the presence of the FDLP in every congressional district
to directly serve the public in local library settings.
There was also strong support for having a single entity in the
Superintendent of Documents to coordinate library-related information
dissemination activities. The depository library community has
consistently affirmed the utility and cost-effectiveness of a ``one
stop shopping'' approach to acquiring Government information. The study
participants agreed that it is not only possible but desirable to
increase the dissemination of electronic information to depository
libraries within the overall structure of current law and program
operations, and that having a central entity to assist libraries and
the public in accessing electronic Government information in a
distributed environment is more vital now than ever.
Strategic Plan.--The Strategic Plan included in the final Study
Report proposes a gradual transition during the period fiscal year
1996-2001. Under the plan, the FDLP will provide official Government
information products in a variety of formats to depository libraries.
Incorporating electronic Government information into the FDLP will
augment the traditional distribution of tangible products with
connections to Government electronic information services such as
Internet sites. Electronic information will be accessible to the public
directly or through depository libraries from a system of Government
electronic information services administered by GPO, other Government
agencies, or institutions acting as agents for the Government. The FDLP
will identify and connect users to electronic information services of
other agencies or, when appropriate, obtain electronic source files
from agencies for mounting on GPO Access. Tangible Government
information products will be distributed to libraries, including CD-
ROM's, diskettes, paper, or microfiche, as appropriate to the needs of
users and intended usage.
The FDLP will ensure that electronic Government information
products are maintained for permanent public access, in the same spirit
in which regional depositories provide permanent access to print
products. Effective public use of Government information, especially in
the less-structured environment of the Internet, also depends on the
ability of users to identify and locate the desired information.
Through continuation of its cataloging services, and the development of
``Pathway'' information locator services, the FDLP will meet this need.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
Financial management
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. We on the committee
want to commend the GPO for your ongoing efforts to improve
financial management operations. We understand you now produce
financial statements that can be audited and that for years you
have received a clean opinion on those statements.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. Further, you have committed yourself to
comply with the goals and objectives of the Legislative Branch
Financial Managers Council, and that includes adopting the
Federal Government's accounting and internal control financial
system standards. That will help us in our goal to get
auditable statements, consolidated financial statements for the
entire legislative branch. It is a continuing source of
amazement and frustration to me, coming from the business
community to Government, to discover that there are no
auditable financial statements in many areas of Congress.
We hope to continue our good working relationship with you
and in conjunction with the Joint Committee on Printing, your
authorizing committee, to see if we can find other ways to
further refine the internal operations.
Year 2000 problem
You were here in the room and heard our conversation about
the year 2000 problem with the Library of Congress. As Chairman
Stevens said, the year 2000 problem basically divides the old
computer people with programs written in Cobol from the new
computer people. The new computer people say it's no problem at
all, we can fix it in a matter of an hour or so. But the old
computer people say hundreds of millions of dollars and 2 years
is not enough.
How many of your computer systems are Cobol dependent and,
therefore, subject to panic? Do you anticipate any specific
dollar figure to remedy this?
Mr. DiMario. At this point in time, we are in the process
of working on the problem. We have compiled an inventory of
computer applications which will be affected by the turn of the
century. Some of our applications and data bases have been
identified for total replacement while others will be or are
being modified to accommodate the date problem.
GPO has acquired two off-the-shelf software packages to
facilitate the changes and these packages have worked well with
Cobol applications. However, we are still looking for a good
package that will assist us in identifying changes to many of
our older Cobol ALC programs, and natural programming code of
Software AG's ADABASE data base management system, that need to
be changed.
We are doing all of that. But we are also changing the way
we do business internally. We are planning to implement a
client server environment utilizing Oracle and NT tools, and we
are designing relational tables and populating them under
Oracle and NT. As this effort progresses, we are moving toward
data warehousing for the entire GPO.
So at this point in time, we do not foresee major year 2000
dollar impacts, but we are attempting to do it incrementally
before that point in time so that we avoid those kinds of
problems.
Senator Bennett. How much money in the fiscal year 1998
budget request is tied to this problem, the year 2000 problem?
Mr. Guy. Our budget request is for the services that we
provide to Congress, largely. Our other operations are funded
through reimbursements from the agencies that we support and
from sales to the public. So we would be recovering costs tied
to the year 2000 problem indirectly through our overhead
charges, which are allocated to all activities.
Senator Bennett. But you don't have a single number in the
budget for that?
Mr. DiMario. No, sir.
What we have is an appropriation request for congressional
printing and binding. We are in the process currently and have
acquired a specific server to accommodate the legislative
branch, but we are absorbing those costs within the existing
congressional printing and binding funding.
Revolving fund losses
Senator Bennett. Your workload has been declining in recent
years. You have been continually incurring losses--$21.8
million in fiscal year 1994, $3 million in fiscal year 1995,
$16.9 million in fiscal year 1996, and you are projecting
losses for 1997. Do you have any plans to avoid losses in 1998?
Mr. DiMario. We are continuing to reduce our costs and to
attempt to avoid losses in that way. But the losses are
generated largely because we do not have all the work flowing
into the office that we had anticipated in a given time.
As an example, we anticipated for this particular session
of Congress a greater amount of work coming to us from Congress
than we have received.
Senator Bennett. Do we solve your problem by staying in
later at night and giving bigger speeches?
Mr. DiMario. Yes; to some degree. [Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. But that may be self-defeating.
Mr. DiMario. The funding that we request is based on our
anticipated workload.
Under our system of charges and accounting, if we do not
have the work, then we will show a loss. What that means is
that we will fund the activities in GPO not through the
appropriation but through retained earnings that we have from
previous years. That becomes a subsidy.
So it is not a loss in the sense of going beyond an
appropriation or something of that sort. We are actually under
the appropriation and we have come back and accommodated that
at the end of certain fiscal years by adjusting reimbursements
to actual cost.
With respect to fiscal year 1996, I might point out that of
the $16.9 million that was the loss shown, $10 million of that
was in our sales program. Mr. Kelley, being well aware of that
problem, has attempted through a new planning structure to
relieve that situation. We believe we will be in a break-even
situation or slightly profitable one within the sales program
by the implementation of this program. To a large degree, it
focuses on controlling inventory. We have had excess inventory
and we are trying to reduce the inventory, and we are trying a
new procedure to accommodate that.
Wayne may want to add to this.
Senator Dorgan. If I may ask you, what kind of retainer
exists that you can call upon? You indicated that when you
exercise an operating loss, you can call upon some retained
earnings.
I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. Not at all.
Mr. DiMario. We operate through a revolving fund, and when
we have work, we have to reimburse the revolving fund based on
the work that we do. The revolving fund over a period of time,
40 years, had built up a reserve.
Senator Dorgan. How much of that reserve now exists? I
guess that was my question.
Mr. Guy. The retained earnings is $85 million. That is used
for several purposes. It is used for working capital,
primarily, to fund the operation of the Government Printing
Office. We have revenues of about $850 million a year and we
need a certain amount of working capital because we produce the
work, provide the services, and then we get paid.
So most of that is tied up and necessary for the operation.
Billing practices
Senator Bennett. I just have one further question relating
to your response to Senator Dorgan.
Under current practice, you have up to 3 years in which to
bill for work. I found that a little surprising, that you can
work until 3 years later to send a bill.
Do you have a reason for this long billing period and does
anybody complain about it?
Just help me understand that, please.
Mr. DiMario. There are complaints and we are attempting to
deal with that issue by working out firm pricing arrangements
with the agencies.
But as a general rule, when agencies come to us or the
Congress comes, if we are procuring work--and we procure about
75 percent of our work--in the end we are dependent on knowing
what that specific contract calls for.
Senator Bennett. When you say you are procuring your work,
what does that mean?
Mr. DiMario. We buy the work through private sector
contracts. We enter into contracts with contractors around the
United States.
Senator Bennett. My verb for that would be that we
subcontract, not that we procure.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir; we subcontract. If we were in the
private sector, that is precisely what we would call it. We are
subcontracting to these individuals and we are acting as a
contractor to the agencies.
Senator Bennett. OK.
Mr. DiMario. In this process, we are dependent on the
contractors providing invoices to us for their work under the
contracts that are let. We, in turn, have to pay those
contractors who may go back and forth.
As a general rule, we do not bill the agency until the
contractor is paid. We have started the practice--and it is
totally within the law--because we have come to be cash short
at times in this revolving fund, of advance billing the
agencies. This provides us the money up front for the product
that we are going to provide that we are billing for.
That is accommodating the situation to a large degree. But
there has been this past history of not billing for a
substantial period of time. We have worked actively with our
largest customer, the Department of Defense, to work on an
acceptable structure in that regard.
Do you have anything to add to that?
Mr. Guy. Well, most of the work is billed promptly.
Mr. DiMario. Right.
Mr. Guy. Some of the jobs do take a while to complete and
in some cases we will bill in advance. In other cases, we will
wait until the job is actually delivered to the customer before
giving the customer a final bill.
Senator Bennett. Do you have any further questions?
Senator Dorgan. Nothing further. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
Mr. DiMario. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Additional committee questions
Senator Bennett. We appreciate your coming in. We
appreciate all the hard work you do.
Mr. DiMario. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
revolving fund/gpo year end losses/printing rates
Question. Section 309 of Title 44 requires that the revolving fund
be reimbursed for the full cost of services. The GPO revolving fund has
sustained losses since fiscal year 1991. For fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 1996, the losses were:
GPO Revolving Fund
[In millions of dollars]
Surplus/loss
Fiscal year 1994 actual....................................... -21.8
Fiscal year 1995 actual....................................... -3.0
Fiscal year 1996 actual....................................... \1\ -16.9
Fiscal year 1997 est.......................................... ?
\1\ Increase in printing rates went into effect in May 1996.
The fiscal year 1996 revolving fund sustained a loss of $16.9
million, more than five times the fiscal year 1995 loss of $3 million.
How much of the losses for 1994, 1995, and 1996 are generated by
congressional printing, executive branch work, and judicial branch
work? What steps has GPO taken to prevent similar losses in fiscal year
1997?
Answer. The estimated distribution of the losses follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative Branch:
Congressional Printing and Binding........................ ($8,500,000) ($3,000,000) ..............
Other Legislative Branch Agencies......................... (1,478,730) (235,208) ($614,046)
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Legislative Branch............................ (9,978,730) (3,235,208) (614,046)
=================================================
Judicial Branch............................................... (86,893) (14,071) (33,175)
Executive Branch.............................................. (18,158,377) (2,988,721) (7,015,779)
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Printing and Binding........................... (28,224,000) (6,238,000) (7,663,000)
=================================================
SuDocs........................................................ 6,450,000 3,213,000 (9,248,000)
-------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... (21,774,000) (3,025,000) (16,911,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printing and Binding revolving fund losses were allocated to the
branches of government indirectly based on the proportion of total work
billed to each. These losses were the result of several factors. The
primary cause of the under recovery in Printing and Binding was that
rates were frozen since 1990. While cost savings were being achieved
through reductions in the workforce and other measures, significant
cost increases had to be absorbed, such as pay raises and supplier
price increases. Workloads also decreased.
Section 309(b) of Title 44 requires that the revolving fund be
reimbursed for the cost of all services and supplies furnished. In a
letter to the Public Printer, dated April 16, 1996, Chairman Thomas
indicated that the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) expects the Public
Printer to comply with the provisions of section 309.
Unliquidated obligations, totaling $6.2 million, reimbursed the
fund for the full cost of Congressional work in fiscal year 1996. Since
rates were not adjusted until May of 1996, the full cost of executive
agency work could not be recovered from them because they did not
obligate the necessary amounts through requisitions. During fiscal year
1994 and fiscal year 1995, CP&B appropriation accounts also incurred
costs which significantly exceeded reimbursements to the fund. The
unliquidated obligations, totaling $11.5 million, were reimbursed to
the fund during fiscal year 1997. In addition, $1.3 million was
reimbursed to the fund during fiscal year 1997 from S&E appropriation
accounts for under recovered cost during fiscal year 1994-1996. Losses
which were not reimbursed have been financed through reductions in
retained earnings in the revolving fund.
In order to prevent similar losses in fiscal year 1997, GPO is
reducing staffing levels, investing in technology, and managing rates.
However, many factors affecting workload and operating costs are beyond
the control of GPO. Unless workload increases substantially and GPO is
able to serve a larger share of the Government's printing requirements,
it may not be possible to avoid losses in fiscal year 1997.
Question. At the beginning of fiscal year 1997, what was the GPO
estimate of the revolving fund revenues and expenses? Was it revised at
the end of the second quarter? If so, what were the adjusted estimates?
Answer. At the beginning of fiscal year 1997, GPO budgeted revenue
of $843 million and total expenses of $840 million. Through the first
half of fiscal year 1997, revenue totaled $403 million and expenses
totaled $408 million. This compares to total revenue of $443 million
and expenses of $453 million for the first six months of fiscal year
1996. Based on experience to date, revenue is now expected to fall
significantly short of the budgeted level. Workload volume has fallen
short of projections.
Question. Does GPO now estimate the revolving fund will sustain a
loss for fiscal year 1997? If so, how much of a loss?
Answer. In order for losses to be avoided, workloads will have to
increase significantly. GPO cannot control the level of work requested
by customers. If workloads do not increase substantially, price
increases will be necessary. Congressional workloads are expected to
increase substantially for the remainder of the year. Agency workloads
will largely depend on compliance with the requirement to procure
printing through GPO. A significant volume of publications that were
previously printed through GPO and sold through the Superintendent of
Documents Sales Program are being diverted to other agencies, such as
NTIS, UNICOR, GSA and DAPS, or being ``privatized''.
depository library transition plan
Question. By the end of fiscal year 1998 (assuming funding at or
near the fiscal year 1996 level), GPO plans to provide about 50 percent
of FDLP information electronically. In his Senate testimony last year
on the fiscal year 1997 budget request and in his House testimony this
February on the fiscal year 1998 budget request, Mr. DiMario made the
following statement: ``Significant progress toward a more electronic
FDLP can be made by the end of fiscal year 1998 with essentially flat
funding. For the out years, fiscal year 1999 and beyond, there are too
many variables involved to accurately project program funding
requirements at this time.''
In the GPO Budget Justification for fiscal year 1998 on page III-6
for 2h (Workload--Misc. Services), it states that the increase
($1,141,000) represents additional expenses needed to transfer the
Federal Depository Library Program to an electronic format. Does GPO
consider this essentially flat funding?
Answer. The request is essentially flat compared to the amount
requested for fiscal year 1997, and compared to fiscal year 1996 and
fiscal year 1995 appropriations. The fiscal year 1998 request of
$30,477,000 is $350,000 less than what was initially requested for
fiscal year 1997; however, it is $1.4 million more than what was
approved for fiscal year 1997. The request is essentially flat compared
to the $30.3 million appropriated for fiscal year 1996, and the $31.6
million appropriated for fiscal year 1995 (net of a $600,000
rescission). These numbers have not been adjusted for inflation.
As the program transitions from ink-paper to electronic formats,
the workload mix is changing. This will cause some object classes, like
``Other Services,'' to increase and others, like printing, to decrease.
A major portion of the fiscal year 1998 funding request is for ``Other
Services'' in support of the transition to a more electronic Federal
Depository Library Program, including source data file acquisition,
preparation, and loading of agency databases into the GPO Access
system.
Question. When will GPO be able to project program funding
requirements for fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2001?
Answer. GPO will submit funding requests for the Federal Depository
Library Program for fiscal year 1999 to the Congress in December 1997.
We anticipate an overall S&E funding request in the $30 million range
for fiscal year 1999. However, in this period of rapid change there are
too many variables, such as the initiatives to amend 44 U.S.C., changes
in agency printing practices, technological developments, and the like,
to allow any early projections for the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2001 requests to be more than purely speculative.
Question. All Federal depositories are now expected to offer public
users access to computer work stations with a graphical user interface,
CD-ROM capability, Internet connections, and the ability to access
Government information via the World Wide Web. However, as of 1995
nearly 25 percent of the depository libraries lacked Internet access
for public patrons.
What is the status of this directive? Have there been any new
developments or changes in its implementation?
Answer. For fiscal year 1997, House Report 104-657 provided a
$50,000 reduction in the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation and a
$1,050,000 reduction in the Congressional Printing and Binding
Appropriation by converting the Bound Congressional Record to CD-ROM.
The Report also directed GPO to produce and distribute the permanent
Congressional Record at the direction of the Joint Committee on
Printing. Accordingly, correspondence was sent to the Chairman, JCP on
March 28, 1997, asking for the distribution requirements of the Record
both in CD-ROM and paper. We have not yet received a response.
GPO has been advised of very serious concerns within the depository
library community about the discontinuation of the paper format bound
Congressional Record in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP).
Depository librarians view the bound Congressional Record as an
essential reference resource which should be maintained in the FDLP in
paper format. There are also legitimate questions about the permanency
of the CD-ROM format, from an archival medial standpoint, as well as
issues concerning computer hardware and software obsolescence. The
depository library community considers the permanent Congressional
Record one of the core documents of our democracy, one which should, at
a minimum, be preserved in paper format for the free use of the public
in at least one library in every state.
house clerk's proposed document management system
Question. In Mr. DiMario's testimony on February 11, 1997, before
the House Legislative Subcommittee, he voiced several serious concerns
about this plan. During his appearance, Mr. DiMario was advised to
contact the House Clerk and request a meeting since the two of them had
not previously discussed the earlier report or the Clerk's proposed
Document Management Plan.
Has Mr. DiMario met with the House Clerk yet? If so, what was the
outcome?
Answer. Yes, Mr. DiMario recently had a cordial meeting with the
House Clerk to discuss the House's proposed document management system.
A new channel of communications has been opened. The Public Printer
pledged support for the Clerk's efforts. Over the past three decades,
GPO has built a core capability for electronic information and
communications services to support Congress' information needs. Today,
GPO has state-of-the-art electronic systems characterized by a complex
of direct electronic linkages via CAPNET to a variety of congressional
offices on Capitol Hill for data interchange. Once considered only the
by-product of the print production process, digitized electronic
databases of congressional information are now the primary product:
they are the databases from which the official versions of documents
are produced in print, CD-ROM, and online access formats made available
to the public through GPO Access as well as other systems such as the
Library of Congress's THOMAS information system.
upcoming rules committee hearing on title 44
Question. The Rules Committee has scheduled hearings on Title 44
U.S.C. for April 24 and April 30, 1997. The focus of the hearings will
be the reform of Title 44 U.S.C. and the implementation of means to
assure that the American public retains access to information created
by the Federal Government at taxpayer expense.
Has GPO, or any other group, conducted a study or review to
determine why GPO customers are seeking alternative printing options
which has resulted in GPO's reduced customer base. For example, when
was the last evaluation conducted of customer satisfaction with the GPO
work product in terms of timeliness, quality, security, and economy in
printing?
Answer. The vast majority of GPO's customers are not actively
seeking alternative printing options. Misunderstanding resulting from
statements in the National Performance Review, which referred to GPO as
a ``monopoly'', and a controversial opinion by the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Council, which characterized GPO as having ``extensive
control'' over executive branch printing, have created an ambiguous
environment regarding administration policy and direction. This has
encouraged agencies to seek alternatives.
There has been misinformation generated over the last couple of
years by groups such as the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) and the General Services Administration (GSA) regarding Title 44
and the value of the services that GPO provides. This, and claims that
these groups can provide better prices and a less restrictive printing
environment, has resulted in much uncertainty and confusion, which has
caused some customers to question the need to come to GPO. Some
publications previously printed and sold through GPO have been diverted
to other agencies.
There has been an increasing tendency for some agencies to attempt
to benefit financially from the value of the information they create at
taxpayer expense, through such means as copyright-like restrictions.
There has been a tendency for certain agencies to occasionally
overbuild in-house printing capacity; and, to contract independently
for printing, at higher cost. GPO's centralized printing procurement
contracts allow the government to aggregate demand, promote broad
competition, and obtain the best prices. GPO also offers performance
control and other support services that would be too expensive for each
agency to duplicate.
The last survey of customer satisfaction was performed by GPO's
Office of the Inspector General in 1995. A comprehensive survey of
GPO's performance, including timeliness, quality, and economy was sent
to 111 of GPO's Executive Branch agency customers. The IG's final
report, ``Results of the Office of Inspector General Survey of Customer
Satisfaction in the Executive Branch,'' was issued in August 1995.
During the survey period, the customer agencies rated GPO's service and
performance to be satisfactory or better. Results from interviews
conducted with GPO's ten largest billing Executive Branch agencies
indicated that, despite some areas of concern, GPO performs a valuable
service for them. The GPO entities involved have taken actions to
investigate and improve these problem areas.
In 1994, Customer Services surveyed customers to solicit feedback
regarding the success of GPO's efforts to improve total operations and
to measure how its customers perceived the quality of service they were
receiving. Surveys were distributed each quarter to approximately one-
fourth of the customer base, comprising a mix of large, medium, and
small customers (as determined by the most recent year-end billings).
The surveys were compiled and analyzed each quarter. Although the
results of each survey indicated general overall satisfaction, any
problem areas indicated were examined and brought to the attention of
the applicable GPO area. Quarterly survey results were then compared to
gauge the success of overall efforts to improve service. The results of
each survey were provided to upper management and applicable Customer
Services personnel.
Because of discussions with OMB, the possible rewriting of Title
44, and the comprehensive nature of the IG's 1995 survey, we have
refrained from taking any additional formal customer satisfaction
surveys at this time. While we continue to monitor customer
satisfaction on a daily basis, we will resume the formal surveys when
appropriate. A GAO survey of Federal Agencies in 1987 found that the
vast majority of agencies were satisfied with GPO services.
GPO's workload has declined largely because agency printing budgets
have been seriously impacted by reductions in appropriations. There has
been a shift in format from paper to electronics. This has resulted in
a substantial decrease in both the number and size of orders. GPO's
printing procurement and information dissemination programs continue to
offer the best value and fulfill important public policy goals.
gpo 1998 budget request
Question. For fiscal year 1998 GPO is requesting $114.5 million for
those programs that require annual appropriations directly to GPO. This
is an increase of $3.8 million, or 3.4 percent, over the funding
approved for fiscal year 1997. The request includes $84 million for the
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation and $30.5 million for
the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of
Documents. According to GPO, the increase is due primarily to general
price level increases, although for congressional printing there are
also workload increases in various product categories that GPO states
are typical for a second session of Congress.
The following budget items show significant changes to the budget
base.
--GPO projects more than a 16.7 percent increase in the number of
copies of the Daily Record over the 1997 level.
--GPO projects a 50 percent increase in the number of copies of
Business and Committee Calendars.
--GPO projects a 23.2 percent increase in the number of Committee
Reports.
For the Daily Record, the Business and Committee Calendars, and
Committee Reports, what was the percentage increase in production for
the second session over the first for the 101st, 102nd, 103rd and 104th
Congresses?
Answer. The percentage increase in the Second Session production
(pages) over the the First Session production for each Congress is
shown in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress
-------------------------------------------
101st 102d 103d 104th
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Record................ 26.3 14.6 25.0 24.1
Business and Committee
Calendars.................. 43.2 101.8 52.6 50.9
Committee Reports........... 11.8 50.5 22.6 38.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
personnel
Question. GPO has an FTE limitation in its appropriations language.
For the past two years it has been stated in terms of an end-of-the-
year staff on board level. For fiscal year 1997 the target is 3,600.
GPO projects it will be at 3,550 by the end of fiscal year 1998. During
Mr. DiMario's testimony this February before the House Legislative
Appropriations Subcommittee, he stated that GPO currently had 3,674 on
board.
What is your current on board staff level? Do you still expect to
reach a level of 3,600 on board by September 30, 1997?
Answer. As of April 30, 1997, the total on board level was 3,645
employees and the rate of FTE utilization was 3,578 for the month of
April. The appropriations language refers to FTE's (Full Time
Equivalent) employment at the end of the fiscal year. FTE's are
normally less than on board employment because some employees take
leave without pay and some employees work part-time. Only paid
employment is counted in FTE's. GPO expects to comply with the ceiling
established by the appropriations language and, based on April data, is
already below that level.
Question. At a previous Joint Committee on Printing hearing in
1995, several questions were asked about GPO supervisory staff levels.
At the time, Mr. DiMario stated that regarding senior level super
grades, in 1992 there were 32 and in 1995 there were 22 (a 31.3 percent
reduction). However, in the fiscal year 1998 Budget Justification (page
V-3), a Summary of Employees by Organization indicates the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Organization 1993 Staff 1996 Staff Decrease
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Offices................ 102 102 ...........
Office of Administration......... 843 690 -18
Procurement Services............. 775 588 -24
Production Services.............. 1,921 1,500 -22
Customer Services................ 232 200 -14
Superintendent of Documents...... 912 719 -21
--------------------------------------
Grand Total................ 4,785 3,799 -21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can both of these statistics be accurate?
Answer. The above table does not identify the number of senior
level employees at GPO, but rather is a summary of total employees by
organization at the end of each fiscal year. The numbers stated by the
Public Printer at the hearing were accurate. As of April 21, 1997,
there were 19 senior level employees on board.
Question. Not all of the segments at GPO have shared the burden of
downsizing, and those which did, did not share the burden equally.
Please explain.
Answer. The Executive Offices for fiscal year 1996 includes 10
employees returning from OWCP (Office Workers Compensation Program) and
who have light duty assignments in various office throughout GPO. In
fiscal year 1993, employees on this category were not reported in the
Executive Offices total, but instead were included in the organizations
to which they were assigned for duty.
energy conservation
Question. Last year GPO proposed legislative language to achieve
energy conservation as part of the Fiscal Year 1997 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act. The language was not acted on by Congress.
Please briefly describe last year's efforts, and the current status
of this legislation.
Answer. GPO requested authority to enter into contracts for energy
conservation services with performance guarantees. These services are
estimated to have a potential annual savings of $500,000. The savings
would be used to replace inefficient and worn out air conditioning
equipment, which is environmentally unsafe, and to upgrade necessary
electrical equipment. The Architect of the Capitol was provided this
authority when it was included in the National Energy Conservation
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287) by Public Law 103-211, dated February 12,
1994; but, GPO was not included.
In the last session of Congress, the necessary language was passed
by the Senate, but was not included in the House-passed version. The
provision was deleted in conference. GPO was asked to work through the
House Commerce Committee on the amendment. GPO has been working with
staff of the Commerce Committee on the request.
privatizing the congressional record/federal register
Question. In the House report accompanying GPO's Congressional
Printing and Binding Appropriation for fiscal year 1997 (H. Rpt. 104-
657, pp. 28-29), GPO is required to conduct a study, using independent
outside experts, to determine if opportunities exist for outsourcing
the Congressional Record and the Federal Register. According to Mr.
DiMario's testimony before the House subcommittee last February, GPO
recently posted a notice in the Commerce Business Daily.
When do you expect to award the contract and what is the estimated
completion date?
Answer. GPO does not have the authority to procure consulting
services in excess of $50,000 without the approval of the Joint
Committee on Printing (JCP), based on a resolution passed by the JCP in
1987. GPO estimates that the cost of the study could be as much as
$600,000. In order to comply with House Report 104-663, GPO wrote to
the Chairman of the JCP requesting approval for the procurement, but
approval has not been given.
by-law distribution
Question. About 2,190 copies of the Congressional Record are
distributed without charge to recipients designated by Senators.
Please provide a copy of the Senate distribution list.
Answer. The list has been provided to the committee.
pilot project for online access to committee hearings
Question. GPO is currently piloting a system for providing online
access to congressional hearings that will assist House committees in
fulfilling the recent House rules change requiring online dissemination
of committee materials.
Please provide additional information on this project as well as
the feasibility, benefits and drawbacks of it being adapted to Senate
Appropriations Committee hearings.
Answer. A small pilot was initiated in January 1997, involving GPO,
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House Committee on
Science, and the Senate Appropriations Committee. Its purpose was to
explore the feasibility/cost-effectiveness of providing complete
hearings and committee prints online via GPO Access. The advantage was
sought to include even submitted material in encapsulated PostScript
(EPS), to enable citing the online Portable Document Format (PDF)
version as a facsimile of the official printed version. GPO believes
that the preferable approach would be for congressional leadership to
stipulate (with GPO's assistance/participation), standardized data
structures for submission of data to be included in these publications.
Such an approach would result in all data being searchable and
reproducible in a variety of formats. The pilot procedures have already
been successfully employed and could be continued to make critical
publications available electronically on an interim basis. The
procedures necessitate scanning images to arrive at EPS versions that
sometimes require inordinate amounts of computer disk space and tend to
exceed some committees' present computer configurations. The pilot is
expected to determine whether these functions would be performed by
committees, by GPO, or a combination of both, while providing a basis
for cost analysis.
In addition to this pilot, World Wide Web (WWW) ``home pages'' have
been incorporated into GPO Access for all House and Senate committees.
These WWW pages facilitate listings of, and access to, all publications
processed by the committees through GPO. These pages also include
extracts from appropriate congressional publications which provide
access to committees' membership, jurisdiction, and rules of procedure.
The Uniform Resource Locators (URL's) for these pages can be used by
committee WWW sites to minimize unnecessary and duplicative processing
of publication data. Further development of GPO Access was undertaken
at the request of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to
permit remote WWW sites to link directly to documents resident on GPO's
servers. The software has been developed and GPO is in the process of
incorporating unique identifiers within each resident document to
facilitate its use. A WWW page (http://www.access.gpo.gov/getdoc.htm)
is under development to explain how to establish links. This page
describes the HTML coding necessary to link directly to documents
resident on GPO's WAIS Servers. HTML code from these pages can be
copied to remote web sites (such as the House or Senate), to allow
direct linking to all documents resident on GPO's WAIS servers. Two
different CGI scripting interfaces are described: (1) a text link, (2)
a graphic button. External sites desiring to link to a specific
document on GPO's servers may choose either of the two interfaces. This
method can be used for linking to both text and PDF documents within
multi-document databases as well as linking to text and PDF versions of
single-document databases.
gpo long-range planning for the year 2000
Question. In the GPO 1998 budget request, long-range planning for
increased printing requests for the year 2000 is not addressed. Such an
increase is likely in view of the fact that in 1989 the Bicentennial
Commission ordered 3.7 million pocket-sized copies of the Constitution.
Please describe any long-range planning which GPO has done
regarding: (a) printing increases due to the year 2000, (b) conversion
of computer systems for the year 2000.
Answer. Regarding printing increases, GPO has requested input from
Congressional offices. As the Government printer, GPO does not usually
suggest to the Congress or Agencies what to print. The printer's role
is to respond to requisitions for printing from the customer source.
The printer must maintain up-to-date technology which will enable, or
facilitate economic creation of the desired product. The GPO does
maintain up-to-date technology or the ability to procure printing
related commodities providing for economy of scale. GPO's long-range
planning includes provisions for the continued improvement in the
performance of our mission.
Some ideas for printing for the year 2000 would include vehicles
which could provide for the reproduction and/or creation of some first
class, high quality, printed products as described below:
--Produce two special ``Year 2000 Calendar'', one for the House and
another for the Senate, as had been printed until a few years
ago.
--Produce an edition of ``The `Capitol'--Year 2000'' which could
commemorate the ending of one century and the beginning of
another century. This publication is usually printed as a
Senate Document.
--``The Constitution of the United States of America'' and ``Our
Flag'' are two other examples of publications which could be
provided with a ``Year 2000'' theme. These publications could
have wide distribution and would surely provide the recipient
with a sense of pride in our Government.
--The ``Biographical Directory'', ``History of the Committee on Ways
and Means'', ``Guide to Former Members Papers, 1789-1987'',
``Bicentennial Publications on House Record'', ``Research Guide
to Members Papers at Archives'', ``The U.S. Capitol--a Self
Guided Tour'', ``History of the House'', ``Establishment of the
House'', and ``Senate Bicentennial Minutes'' are other
publications which could be suitably designed for a Year 2000
commemoration. These publications and other similar
publications were printed to commemorate the Bicentennial of
the Congress.
--Another suggestion is to prepare an electronic data base of the
``Serial Set'' material (House and Senate Documents and
Reports) for the past century. This would provide legacy data
for on-line research for centuries to come.
GPO has completed a year 2000 impact assessment on mission critical
systems. We have compiled an inventory of computer applications which
will be affected by the turn of the century. Some of our applications
and databases have been identified for total replacement while others
will be, or are being, modified to accommodate the date problem. GPO
has acquired two off-the-shelf software packages to facilitate the
changes. These packages have worked well with COBOL applications.
However, we are still looking for a good package that will assist us in
identifying changes to many of our older COBOL/ALC programs and Natural
Programming code of the Software AG's ADABASE Database Management
System that need to be changed. GPO is planning to implement a client/
server environment utilizing ORACLE and NT tools. We are designing
relational tables and populating them under ORACLE/NT. As this effort
progresses, it will set up a Data Warehouse for the entire GPO and
thereby reduce the Year 2000 modification effort for the report
producing and end-user data access programs. Our goal is to complete
this effort well in advance and test all modifications before year
1999. Additionally, we plan to upgrade our mainframe operating system
from IBM MVS/XA to MVS/ESA, which will be critical to effectively
transition to the year 2000.
government performance and results act [grpa]
Question. Is GPO covered by the GPRA? Please describe any steps GPO
has taken to comply with the Act?
Answer. For purposes of the GPRA, ``the term `agency' means an
Executive agency under Section 105 * * *''. Section 105 of Title 5,
United States Code, defines the term ``executive agency'' as ``an
Executive department, a Government corporation, and an independent
establishment.'' Since GPO does not fall within any of the above
categories or definitions, we must conclude that it is not subject to
the provisions of the GPRA.
Last year, a strategic plan on the Federal Depository Library
Program was included in the final Study Report, covering the period
fiscal year 1996-2001. In 1993, GPO developed a comprehensive strategic
plan, but this has not been updated. GPO has testified frequently
before various committees of Congress on strategic issues facing the
agency, most recently in relation to proposals for Title 44 reform. GPO
has developed performance objectives for priority areas and includes
them in the annual report.
Question. In response to questions previously submitted regarding
the year 2000 computer problem, GPO stated that they have purchased two
off-the-shelf software packages, they are looking for a third package
for older equipment, and anticipate completing all testing by fiscal
year 1999. How much money does GPO expect to spend in fiscal year 1998
to fix the year 2000 problem?
Answer. GPO expects to spend about $1 million in fiscal year 1998
to fix the year 2000 problem. This includes upgrading the mainframe
computer, certain application programs, and modifications to software.
Question. The workload at GPO has been declining in recent years.
At the same time, GPO has been continually incurring losses--$21.8
million in fiscal year 1994, $3 million in fiscal year 1995, and $16.9
million in fiscal year 1996 ($7 million if losses from the
Superintendent of Documents is excluded.) What is GPO projecting for
losses in fiscal year 1997? Excluding the Superintendent of Documents
program, how does GPO plan to avoid losses in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Losses in fiscal year 1997 through May total $5.9 million,
primarily in the Materials Handling Operations and Printing
Procurement. These losses are due to a reduced workload in the Plant
and a reduction in the volume of work procured for certain agencies,
such as Treasury and the Postal Service. A reduction in paper prices
has been a significant factor in losses because GPO is reimbursed
partially through surcharges based on the cost of paper. GPO's
objective is to break-even for the remainder of the year, but actual
results will depend largely on adequate workload levels and a reversal
of some of the adverse trends cited above. Upcoming Congressional
recesses could result in temporary workload reductions. Demand is not
falling in a uniform, predictable manner, but rather fluctuates in a
general downward trend. In order to avoid losses, controllable costs
will continue to be reduced. Investments in technology will enable
continued attrition while allowing services to be improved. Major
technology investments are the Integrated Processing System in
Documents, an information network in Printing Procurement, and the
computer-to-plate system in the Plant. We are expanding electronic
means and services. Improved compliance by Executive agencies with
title 44 requirements to utilize GPO programs would increase revenue,
reduce government-wide costs, and increase the availability of
government information to the public.
Question. Under current law and practice, GPO has up to three years
in which to bill for work. What is the reason for this long billing
period and what would be required for GPO to be able to bill for work
within the year the work was performed?
Answer. GPO generally bills for work after it is completed and
actual costs are known. Often, jobs are not ready to print at the time
of requisition, usually because the customer requires additional pre-
press work such as revisions. An example is congressional committee
hearings where the final production of the hearing record may take
several months, perhaps overlapping fiscal years. Sometimes commercial
printers do not bill GPO promptly for the work they perform, which
delays GPO's billing process.
The major goals of any change in billing procedure should be to
reduce administrative cost, simplification, and control. GPO can
advance-bill an estimated amount, rather than the actual cost, before
the work is completed. The amount billed would be intended to reimburse
the complete cost of a job, regardless of when the work is required and
performed. GPO can work with congressional committees and offices to
speed up the billing process for their products. The alternative to
close out all congressional jobs every year, regardless of their
status, and to reissue new requisitions for uncompleted work annually,
would impose significant administrative costs on GPO and Congress.
GPO has made a number of improvements to alleviate the delayed
billing problem by use of deposit accounts, credit cards, firm pricing,
and automating some of the billing functions using personal computers.
Congressional rider billings to agencies are now being processed daily
rather than after all of the orders for the year are complete. For
commercially procured work, where billings are not received from the
printing contractors, GPO estimates the job costs and bills the
ordering agencies approximately six months after the scheduled delivery
date. We have also implemented a firm pricing policy which establishes
the amount to be billed when the order is received. Agencies can
request that GPO provide a firm price so they can obligate the proper
amount of money. We honor all firm price quotes regardless of actual
cost.
GPO has been encouraging agencies to use the VISA IMPAC credit card
as a method of payment for printing and binding orders. GPO began
accepting credit card payments from agencies in May 1994 and the dollar
volume has steadily increased to about $300,000 per month. Use of the
credit card coupled with a firm price from GPO reduces the billing and
collecting cycle time to one day.
Another payment option that GPO offers is a GPO Deposit Account.
Under this option, the customer agency deposits an amount of money with
GPO and places printing and binding orders against these funds. GPO
reduces the Deposit Account by the cost of the orders and sends the
ordering agency a statement at the end of each month which includes a
detailed listing of the print jobs and their actual cost and the
deposit account balance at the end of the month.
GPO has been able to offer these new streamlined payment options by
automating many of the functions involved in the billing and accounting
processes. The major goal of these initiatives is to reduce the
accounting staff and paperwork at GPO and throughout the rest of the
Federal Government, while improving the accuracy and timeliness of
accounting information. GPO can work with Congress to utilize these
initiatives to speed up the billing process for congressional products.
Question. GPO estimated that there was a $9.2 million deficit in
fiscal year 1996 for the Superintendent of Documents account. Please
explain why there was a loss and provide details surrounding the
program GPO plans to implement to avoid future losses in this program.
Answer. The shutdowns of Federal Government operations during the
budget impasse and the Government closure in Washington, DC, due to
inclement weather negatively impacted order and sales activity for
fiscal year 1996, leading to unanticipated revenue declines. While the
Sales Program was not closed during the second Government budget
shutdown, many of our customers nationwide mistakenly believed it was.
The January 1996 snow storm caused the entire region to shutdown for
four days, including GPO's telephone order system in Washington, DC,
and publications shipping facility in Laurel, MD.
In the latter half of the year a concerted effort was made to
remove from the inventory all publications considered unsalable,
resulting in a high unsalable publications expense in fiscal year 1996.
Several steps aimed at preventing a future build up of unsaleable or
surplus publications have been taken. These include the establishment
of new product ordering guidelines and the formation of a team to
review product requisitions.
Since the beginning of fiscal year 1997, the sales program has
taken steps to improve sales and decrease expenses. Sales revenue has
increased from last year. Several of these projects have already
resulted in changes that have been fully implemented. Others are
expected to take longer to implement and produce results.
Question. In previously submitted questions GPO stated that it
estimates congressional workloads to increase substantially for the
remainder of the year. How do you estimate your workload levels?
Answer. Workload levels are estimated by analyzing the level of
demand for each category or classification of work for previous years.
GPO considers such factors as first session year of a Congress; second
session year of a Congress; Presidential election years; first year of
Presidential term; second year, etc. Consideration is also given for
known atypical circumstances. Congressional workload during the first
quarter of fiscal year 1997 was very low by historical standards.
Therefore, a return to a more normal workload level was expected to
result in increased workload. We have seen a significant increase in
workload over the past several months in some areas.
Question. In testimony before the Rules Committee this year, it was
stated that the ``reserves'' are at a critically low level. What is
considered ``critically low'' and what are the problems associated with
such a ``low'' level.
Answer. The minimum acceptable cash balance is $15 million. When
cash drops to that level, the Comptroller implements GPO's cash
management plan which requires issuance of partial billings and advance
billings to GPO's customers. These actions cause processing of
additional GPO invoices by our customers and in extreme cases could
cause us to delay paying suppliers until cash is restored to an
acceptable level.
GPO spends an average of $3.6 million per day for normal operating
expenses and plans to spend more than $8 million during the remainder
of fiscal year 1997 for capital improvements. If cash falls below the
$15 million minimum, certain expenditures may have to be deferred until
such time as the cash balance is increased.
Question. A previous question asked if the revolving fund revenues
and expenses were revised at the end of the second quarter, and if so,
what were the adjusted estimates? Your response did not address these
questions. Was the revolving fund estimate revised at the end of the
second quarter of fiscal year 1997, and if so what are the revised
estimates? Based on these revisions, will GPO break even this year? If
not what further steps is GPO planning to take to break even?
Answer. At the beginning of fiscal year 1997, GPO budgeted revenue
of $843 million and total expenses of $840 million, with a net surplus
of $3 million. These amounts have been included on the Monthly
Financial Estimates and JCP Financial Package throughout fiscal year
1997. However, during the second quarter we reassessed the GPO's
revolving fund financial operations and revised the year-end fiscal
year 1997 projection from a $3 million surplus to a $.3 million
surplus. Actual financial results of operations through May of fiscal
year 1997 are a loss of $5.9 million. These losses are due to reduced
workload in the Plant, a reduction in the volume of work procured, and
reduced paper prices. GPO achieved a small net income in the month of
May and the objective is to break-even for the remainder of the year.
Actual results will depend largely on adequate workload levels. We are
continuing to attrit the workforce in an effort to balance this major
controllable cost with anticipated revenues. GPO management will
continue to monitor the workload and revenues in the final quarter to
determine whether additional financial cost control measures become
necessary.
Question. In response to a previous question, you state that
workloads will have to be increased significantly in order for GPO to
avoid losses. Are there not other steps GPO can take to avoid these
losses?
Answer. Financial results are very closely correlated with changes
in workload levels. Apart from efforts to increase workload, customer
service, and enhanced services, GPO is reducing costs and investing to
become more efficient. GPO has achieved significant reductions in
employment and overtime over the past four years, and continued cost
reduction is planned. Planned investments focus on the use of
information and communications technology.
Question. Does your response to a previous question suggest that
GPO plans to do more work in-house than it originally planned?
Answer. Based on experience to date, GPO does not expect in-house
workload to exceed the level planned, but does expect an increase in
the remainder of the year over the first four months.
Question. How will that affect the agency's printing procurement
program?
Answer. The increase in plant workload is expected from increased
customer requirements for core products generally performed in-house,
not from diverting work usually procured.
Question. How does the Government Printing Office forecast its
revenues and expenses? Are they based solely on the previous year's
level of activity, or is there some other more reliable measurement
upon which GPO bases its estimates?
Answer. Revenue, in particular, cannot be forecast with reliability
because of the many uncontrollable and unpredictable factors involved.
The following factors are considered in forecasting revenue and
expense, many of which are largely qualitative in nature:
--Past trends in workload, including cyclical patterns.
--The impact of information technology on workload mix.
--Known or anticipated changes in workload planned by customers.
--Initiatives that might impact on compliance with title 44.
--Activities of competing agencies, such as DAPS and NTIS.
--Economic factors, such as paper prices, and rate adjustments.
--The impact of capital investments.
--Projected workforce level.
--Cost factors, such as wage agreements and supplier price increases.
Question. It has been suggested that agencies be required to
prepare an annual printing plan as part of their budget submission.
Would GPO find this a helpful tool for its internal programming
purposes? What other uses could GPO find for such a plan? Please
provide the committee with an outline of the question which should be
asked in such a planning tool.
Answer. This would help GPO planning. GPO could assist OMB in the
technical evaluation of these plans. They could provide information to
aid the process of determining whether to establish, maintain or expand
internal capacity or to rely on commercial sources through GPO's
printing procurement program. GPO can be a resource for availability
and estimated cost information to aid in this decision making process.
The following information would be useful:
How do you estimate prospective printing costs?
--How are cost saving options considered, including optional
production methods, papers, trim sizes, and new technologies?
--Do you utilize the expertise of the Government Printing Office?
If your plan includes in-house production,
--How are costs determined?
--Do demands fluctuate?
--How do you balance capacity with demand?
--How are costs compared with what is available from the private
sector?
--Is the private sector able to provide required service levels? At
what cost? How is this determined?
--Did you utilize the expertise of the Government Printing Office?
--How do you plan to take advantage of new technologies?
The Superintendent of Documents would find annual agency printing
plans a useful tool in tracking down fugitive publications for
distribution to the Depository Libraries. The Sales Program would find
these plans helpful in alerting us in advance to new products, changes
in publication scheduling for recurring products, and the discontinuing
of existing products. This would be particularly useful for planning
sales promotions and in forecasting anticipated customer demand. The
following information would be helpful, if included in the plan:
--Title of publication or subscription.
--Expected date of publication.
--Is publication for in-house use only? If not, what is the Target
market for that product?
--Expected size and binding type if printed.
--If not printed, then expected alternative format.
--Planned distribution method; free, Internet only, sales by agency,
sales by GPO, Depository Library program, distribution by other
second party in government or private industry.
--Is product to be co-produced and distributed with a private
company?
--Will agency do any advertising prior to making the publication
available for distribution?
--Is publication required to be produced by law?
--Is publication of public interest or educational value?
Question. You have forwarded to the Joint Committee on Printing a
proposal to acquire computer to plate technology. What is benefit of
that technology?
Answer. The two major benefits of computer-to-plate technology are:
(1) the GPO will be able to continue to significantly reduce its
workforce in areas of the plant directly involved in the printing
processes; and (2) GPO will retain the capability of delivering a
comparable volume of quality print products to Congress at reduced
labor costs, without diminishing its ability to produce electronic
products. Potential labor cost reductions and the large volume of time-
critical work which can be processed with fewer GPO personnel resources
insures the cost-effectiveness of this equipment.
Other benefits:
--Establish networked, high-speed, fully-automated platemaking
capabilities, saving both labor and materials.
--Greatly reduce the need for negatives and manual imposition,
thereby eliminating redundant images of the same data, as well
as several steps in the production process.
--Greatly reduce film and chemical disposal/recycling and
environmental concerns.
--Greatly reduce film and plate handling and the corresponding
damage/spoilage.
--Greatly reduce film contact problems due to the elimination of
film.
--Improve scheduling as well as increase productivity.
--Create electronic storage of imposition where none previously
existed.
Question. What cost savings do you anticipate with its
implementation?
Answer. The estimated annual savings of two-thirds of the staffing
will be accomplished over a period of three years. It is assumed that
about one-third of the savings will be achieved in the first year; two-
thirds in the second year; and a full $7,345,000 in the third year. The
reason that the savings are so large is that in order to make a plate
GPO must first create negatives and then use them to make a plate. The
direct to plate system eliminates the need to make a negative and also
streamlines the plate making process. The operating and maintenance
cost of some current equipment will be saved, and total space
requirements will be reduced, as cameras and processors are surplused.
Recognizing that the savings will be achieved gradually, it still
makes good sense to proceed with procurement to gain the benefits in
the production process. The revolving fund has enough cash to purchase
the direct to plate systems which are estimated to cost $1,625,000. The
cost of the equipment will be capitalized and appear on GPO's statement
of financial position as a fixed asset. The equipment will be
depreciated over a 5 year period which will generate depreciation
expense of $325,000 per year ($1,625,000/5 = $325,000) which will
appear on the statement of income and expense each year for five years.
Question. How long will it take for those savings to be realized?
Answer. The system will pay for itself in about one and one-half
years. Labor cost reductions will begin in the first year and will be
fully accomplished within three years of installing the new technology.
The reduction in labor will be accomplished through normal attrition,
retraining, and voluntary reassignments.
Question. Is there a specific volume of work which must be
maintained in order for this technology to be cost effective?
Answer. A specific volume of work would have to be maintained
during the short pay back period to insure that acquisition of the
technology was cost-effective. However, since computer-to-plate (CTP)
requires only a bare minimum of employees, cost effectiveness is
assured. The large volume of agency work being processed provides
additional assurance.
Question. Are there other technological changes which must occur
before this technology is effective or useful (e.g. Should the House
and Senate be electronically transmitting all their proceedings to GPO
in an identical language before this technology can be useful)?
Answer. This has no bearing on whether GPO's employment of CTP
technology would be useful or cost effective. No other technological
changes are necessary to make GPO's employment of CTP technology useful
and cost effective.
Question. If so, would it not be more practical for other steps to
be taken before the JCP approves your request?
Answer. JCP approval of the pending request will permit continued
attrition of the workforce presently assigned to these activities and
materially reduce labor costs, without adversely impacting the
capability to process a comparable volume of work.
Question. The Joint Committee on Printing has asked the House
Appropriations Committee to reconsider its request that GPO undertake a
study to determine what Congressional printing needs could be
outsourced. This request was made in light of current review of Title
44 and other policy considerations currently affecting GPO. If the
request to fund the acquisition of computer to plate technology is
approved, will that lock GPO and the Congress into a situation where
economically it will be impractical or impossible to consider
outsourcing Congressional printing needs in the future?
Answer. Although the CTP request before the JCP has a 5-year
depreciation period, the system will pay for itself through savings in
a much shorter period of time. Additionally, a large volume of
Executive Branch publications are expected to be processed utilizing
this same CTP equipment. Whether the work is outsourced or continues to
be produced by GPO, any CTP expenditures would be completely recovered
by the time such outsource contracts can be fully implemented.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF JAMES F. HINCHMAN, ACTING COMPTROLLER
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
ACCOMPANIED BY:
J. DEXTER PEACH, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL FOR PLANNING AND
REPORTING
JOAN M. DODARO, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL FOR OPERATIONS
RICHARD L. BROWN, CONTROLLER
introduction of Associates
Senator Bennett. We will now go to the General Accounting
Office.
We welcome the General Accounting Office. I am not sure I
have the right names here. I do not want to repeat my gaffe of
last time.
We have James Hinchman, who is the Acting Comptroller
General of the United States, and he is accompanied by Mr.
Dexter Peach, Assistant Comptroller General for Planning and
Reporting; Ms. Joan Dodaro, Assistant Comptroller General for
Operations; and Mr. Richard Brown, Controller.
Thank you. We commend GAO for its ability to handle a 25-
percent reduction in your budget over the past 2 years. I
understand that that kind of downsizing can be painful. But in
my visits with you, I have found you willing to accept it and
implement it without complaint. That is kind of rare around
here. We want to make it clear that it does not go unnoticed
and unappreciated.
You have maintained the number of products you produce,
increased the timeliness of your jobs, and reduced the job
duration and cost while absorbing that 25-percent cut. So it is
appropriate that you are the watchdog of Congress. If you have
been able to do it yourself now, go out and get them to do
likewise, whoever the them may be in the circumstance.
We look forward to your testimony.
Senator Dorgan, do you have an opening statement for this
group?
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I only want to observe that
the GAO in my judgment does really outstanding work. The work
that they have done for me and others and for the committees on
which I have served has really been extraordinary work. I have
felt a great regret in the past several years where on a number
of occasions the GAO, I think, was unfairly victimized by
statements by some in Congress--not many, but by a few. I think
it unfairly characterized GAO's work.
My own impression is that this watchdog agency provides the
kind of service to Congress that we cannot get elsewhere. We
spend through the Appropriations Committee well over $1
trillion, over $1.5 trillion a year, and the ability to call on
an agency like the GAO to evaluate how is this money spent,
what the taxpayer gets for this expenditure is critical.
I am not convinced that we did the right thing in making
the kind of sizable cuts that were made. But the climate here I
guess required that that be done. I just would express regret
at some statements that have been made over the last several
years which I felt were not fair.
The GAO may be like every other agency. It may have its
failings as well. It may be that I am not aware of these. But
my own experience has been a first rate experience with this
organization and I hope very much that we can find the
resources to continue the GAO as the premier watchdog agency,
that all of us can have confidence in and that we can continue
to trust due to your important work.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Mr. Hinchman.
Mr. Hinchman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared
statement, and with your permission, I would like to summarize
it briefly this morning, if that is acceptable.
Senator Bennett. You have not only our permission but our
encouragement.
Mr. Hinchman. Thank you, Senator. I ask that my statement
be put in the record.
Senator Bennett. Without objection.
highlights of statement
Mr. Hinchman. I only want to make two very brief points.
First, I believe we are accountable to you for our stewardship
of the taxpayers' dollars that you give us. I want to say a
couple of words about this year's appropriation.
As you pointed out, we are completing a downsizing of the
agency primarily due to a 25-percent funding reduction over 2
fiscal years. We are now below 3,500 staff. That is the lowest
level since before World War II. It represents a one-third
decrease from the 5,300 level where we were in 1992.
I think we have downsized successfully and maintained our
productivity and our contribution to the work of the Congress.
We now have in place a spending plan for this year which is
consistent with the 25-percent funding reduction, and we will
successfully complete the downsizing this year within the
funding which has been provided.
The initial indications are that this year's performance
will be equal to last year's, and that we will be able to
maintain the productivity to which we have been committed in
order to support the oversight and legislative agenda of
Congress.
So, overall, I think our report to you about our
stewardship is a positive one. Our downsizing has been
difficult, but successful, both in terms of reducing
expenditures and in terms of maintaining institutional
capability and level of service to the Congress.
My second point is just a brief word about our 1998
request. Having completed that downsizing, our goal now is to
stabilize the agency and normalize its operations at the new,
reduced level of staffing. For that purpose, we have asked for
an increase over this year's funding.
The most important part of that request is for our
mandatory cost increases--those increases we cannot control.
Essentially, those are statutorily mandated pay adjustments and
statutorily and regulatorily mandated increases in the
contributions that we make for employer retirement plans and
employee life and health insurance plans.
We know that resources continue to be limited and that you
face difficult budget decisions. We are striving to be prudent
stewards of our resources. But if we are to stabilize the
agency and normalize its operations, we do need the resources
to meet these uncontrollable cost increases.
prepared statement
I think those are the two points that we have to make
today. With that, let me stop, and any of us would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James F. Hinchman
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be
here today to testify on GAO's fiscal year 1998 budget request. GAO has
undergone major changes over the last few years, including significant
cutbacks in people and resources. Our budget request for 1998 reflects
needs that have resulted from some of those changes.
The General Accounting Office was created to help ensure that
taxpayers' dollars are wisely spent. We seek to fulfill this mission by
encouraging honest, efficient management and full accountability
throughout the federal government. We serve U.S. interests by providing
Congress, other policymakers, and the public with accurate information,
unbiased analyses, and objective recommendations on the use of public
resources.
The issues we examine span the breadth of national and
international concerns, including health care, financial management and
accountability, law enforcement and banking, information technology,
national security, energy and the environment, aviation security,
defense procurement, education and employment, transportation, tax
administration, income security, housing, international relations and
trade, and many others.
About 78 percent of GAO's work during fiscal year 1996 was done at
the request of Congress. GAO is required by law (Public Law 67-13) to
do work requested by congressional committees and assigns equal status
to requests from committee chairs and ranking minority members. More
and more in recent years, congressional legislation has mandated GAO
audits and evaluations, and to the extent possible within resource
constraints, GAO also responds to requests from individual members.
Finally, GAO undertakes assignments independently in accordance with
its basic legislative responsibilities.
While audits and evaluations are the most visible aspects of GAO's
work and absorb the largest share of its resources, GAO has other
important functions. We prescribe accounting standards for the entire
federal government, in conjunction with the Office of Management and
Budget and the Department of the Treasury, and issue generally accepted
government auditing standards for all levels of government entities. We
also issue legal decisions on matters involving government revenues and
expenditures, such as protests against the award of federal government
contracts.
fiscal year 1996 accomplishments and highlights
During the past year, we marked two important milestones. We bid
farewell to Charles A. Bowsher, who retired as Comptroller General at
the end of his 15-year term on September 30, and celebrated our 75th
anniversary of service to Congress and the nation.
GAO is proud of its long tradition of service to Congress, the
contributions it has made toward improving federal government
operations, and congressional actions based on GAO recommendations. In
fiscal year 1996, GAO provided Congress and federal agencies with
recommendations for measurable financial benefits and management
improvements and with numerous testimonies, audit and evaluation
products, and legal opinions.
As a result of GAO's recommendations and audit findings, the
legislative and executive branches took actions with financial benefits
of over $17 billion. These actions included budget reductions, costs
avoided, appropriation deferrals, and revenue enhancements that are
directly attributable to or were significantly influenced by GAO's
work.
Further, we made other recommendations and documented audit
findings that resulted in or contributed to improvements in the
effectiveness and efficiency of government operations and services.
Although these improvements cannot always be quantified in monetary
terms, their impact is significant because they lead to a better-run,
more streamlined government. Past experience shows that about 70
percent of our key recommendations are implemented within 4 years,
through the passage of implementing legislation and agencies'
corrective actions.
In all, we produced 1,306 audit and evaluation products. These
products include 908 reports to Congress and agency officials, 217
formal congressional briefings, and 181 congressional testimonies
delivered by 68 GAO executives before 85 congressional committees and
subcommittees. We also provided 29 statements for the record to
congressional committees and subcommittees and produced 3,041 legal
decisions.
actions taken to absorb the 25-percent budget reduction
As you are aware, our budget was reduced in fiscal years 1996 and
1997 by a total of 25 percent from the 1995 level. Since employee
compensation constitutes about 80 percent of our budget dollars, most
of the actions taken to manage the budget reductions necessitated a
loss of people. Today, as a result of those reductions, GAO's staffing
is at its lowest level since before World War II.
To manage the reduction in staff, we continued the hiring freeze
which has been in place since 1992, obtained Congress' permission to
pay ``buyouts'' to employees willing to leave voluntarily, and offered
early-out retirement to eligible staff. Several hundred staff were also
involuntarily separated as a result of the closure of three field
offices and the elimination of many administrative, technical, and
support positions, mostly at headquarters. In addition, GAO transferred
its claims function to the executive branch. At the end of fiscal year
1996, we had about 3,500 staff on board, which amounted to a 35-percent
workforce reduction since fiscal 1992.
In addition to reducing staff, we also substantially reduced
funding in other areas. For example:
--Promotions and awards were frozen during the last 2 years, and GAO
has not funded bonuses since fiscal year 1992.
--We reduced the amount budgeted for office rent by over $11 million
through the closure of offices and the consolidation of local
audit sites and offices at our headquarters building.
--We reduced funding for travel, training, subscriptions, supplies,
and equipment by almost 40 percent.
--We have reduced funding for information management technology by 38
percent since fiscal year 1995 and have deferred most of our
capital investment.
In all, funding reductions already taken at GAO will total over $1
billion over the next 5 years.
fiscal year 1998 budget request
Having worked hard to successfully implement this 25 percent
reduction in our appropriations in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, we
believe an increase in our funding is essential in fiscal year 1998 if
we are to stabilize our organization and maintain our capacity to serve
Congress effectively. We are therefore asking that the Subcommittee
consider a fiscal year 1998 budget of $368,828,000 to support our staff
of 3,500 people and an full-time equivalent staff level of 3,450. The
increase included in this request is for five purposes: mandatory pay
and benefits increases; price-level increases to cover the higher costs
of transportation, printing, supplies, personnel services, and other
essential mission support goods and services; pay-related costs for
promotions and employee recognition, which we have foregone in recent
years; information technology upgrades; and maintenance and repair of
GAO's headquarters building.
Mandatory pay and benefit increases are the most important piece of
our request. Without the funding to cover uncontrollable costs such as
locality pay, cost of living, and personnel benefits increases, we will
have to reduce our staff level even further. The people who work at GAO
are our most valuable resource, and a further reduction in staff will
hamper our ability to maintain our current level of operations.
It is also important to offset other uncontrollable inflationary
increases, such as the higher cost of travel and transportation,
printing, and supplies. Without the funding to cover these costs,
further funding reductions will be necessary, impairing our capacity to
function effectively.
In addition, funding for promotions and employee recognition will
help us to retain and recruit the talent needed to continue our support
of Congress. We are losing many of our key people to executive branch
agencies and professional firms offering pay incentives, such as
promotions, bonuses, and awards, that GAO has been unable to offer for
several years.
Investment in our information technology program is needed to
replace older and nearly obsolete computer equipment and software, as
well as to upgrade our systems to support GAO's new reengineered job
processes. While the network and data collection software applications
are in place and fully operational, we need to upgrade workstations,
software, applications, and network operating system hardware and
software. We need these upgrades to ensure continued efficient
operation and to maximize the productivity gains that information
technology makes possible.
Finally, the GAO building, built in the early 1950's, continually
requires maintenance and repair to ensure a safe, healthy, and
efficient work environment for our people.
concluding remarks
For over 75 years, GAO has assisted the Congress in carrying out
its legislative and oversight responsibilities, shifting its focus and
updating its operations to accommodate changing congressional needs.
Through the results of our work in many diverse areas, GAO has given
Congress a high rate of return on its investment, in which Congress can
take justifiable pride. Each year, GAO's goal is to identify at least
$10 billion in financial benefits. Although this amount fluctuates from
year to year, between fiscal year 1992 and 1996, financial benefits
totaled over $103 billion, or nearly $50 for every dollar appropriated
for GAO.
We recognize, Mr. Chairman, that resources are limited throughout
government. GAO is committed to holding down costs wherever possible,
as our record demonstrates, and we have sought to be prudent in our
budget submission. However, if GAO is to maintain its long tradition of
service to Congress, the agency needs the resources necessary to
maintain a strong and effective organization. This includes the funds
necessary to pay for mandatory increases in people-related costs and
increases in the prices of the goods and services we buy. We also need
to address those capital investment and facility maintenance needs that
should not be deferred.
This concludes my statement. We would be happy to answer any
questions the Members of the Subcommittee may have.
GAO building usage study
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
I would like to talk about your building. I understand from
my visit there that you have one floor that presumably you
won't need.
Mr. Hinchman. That's correct.
Senator Bennett. Also you have an asbestos removal problem
on that floor. Does it make sense for you to do an internal
study of yourself on this and report back to the House and
Senate as to whether or not you will eventually need that
space, or the alternative of having a tenant move in there and
charge the tenant for the cost of the asbestos removal and the
renovation? Or have you already come to a determination as to
which way you think you ought to go?
Mr. Hinchman. I think we ought to do the study and report
back to you.
Obviously, the original plan for the renovation of the
building was developed at a time when we were a larger agency.
As you correctly point out, it is now clear that we will not
need one floor of the facility, and I think it is appropriate
for us to examine all of the alternatives for the use of that
floor and to report to you. I think we can do that in a
relatively brief period of time.
Consolidated financial statement
Senator Bennett. OK. Under the Chief Financial Officers
Act, the CFO Act, you have been very involved. Do you have any
summary you can give the committee on your experience with this
act and how you are fulfilling your responsibilities? Any
general observations about how it is working?
Mr. Hinchman. The goal of the Chief Financial Officers Act,
as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, is to get the financial
management and reporting of the Federal Government in order. I
think that basically means bringing to it the discipline that
has characterized financial management and reporting in the
private sector, and in State and local government, for that
matter, for decades.
In order to carry out that responsibility, we are pursuing
three major initiatives. First, we are working with OMB and
Treasury to develop standards for financial management and for
accounting and auditing of those financial systems. Second, we
are working with the inspector general community and OMB to
develop a comprehensive plan for auditing those financial
reports. That is going to take a large effort, not only by us
but by the inspector general community and by private
accountants as well, working under contract for the inspectors
general. Then, finally, we are doing some of the most important
agency audits ourselves. We are currently auditing major
components of the Treasury Department, for example, and major
financial management issues in Defense.
Hopefully, out of all of that will come a consolidated
financial statement for the United States next spring. I think
everyone is committed to that goal, and we will be required to
render an opinion on that statement.
I think that will be an important milestone. I don't know
what that opinion is going to say. But I do know that we will
have made enormous progress toward the goal of providing the
kind of accountability for our financial resources that we
expect of private companies in this country and that the market
demands of State and local government.
Biennial budgets
Senator Bennett. I was very impressed by the testimony of
Mr. Raines before the Governmental Affairs Committee. He
addressed this issue. The subject was the question of a 2-year
budget. He said if you give me a 2-year budget, I can then put
the ``M'' into ``OMB.'' Right now I do nothing but the ``B.''
Coming from the private sector, as he does, he said that
the idea of an annual close of books is terrifying to many of
these agencies. Where I come from, you want a monthly close,
which is just beyond conception. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hinchman. Yes.
Senator Bennett. I was enormously impressed with him. Based
on that brief experience, I am telling people he is the most
impressive Director of OMB of either party that I have ever
seen. I am delighted to hear you say that you are working
closely in that effort.
Mr. Hinchman. Yes; and with him and with Mr. Koskinen, his
deputy for management.
Senator Bennett. Senator Dorgan.
process for selecting Comptroller General
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Hinchman, you have been serving as the
Acting Comptroller General since September of last year.
Mr. Hinchman. Yes, sir; since September 30.
Senator Dorgan. Is the process underway to find a permanent
successor to Mr. Bowsher? Can you describe where we are in that
process?
Mr. Hinchman. Under the statute, a commission composed of
10 congressional leaders is responsible for developing a list
of individuals to recommend to the President for the
Comptroller General position. That commission is composed of
the President pro tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House, the majority and minority leader of each House and the
chair and ranking minority member of our two oversight
committees, Governmental Affairs in this body and Government
Reform and Oversight in the other body.
From that list, the President either selects a name or
sends the list back for further names. Once he has found a
person he finds acceptable, he then nominates that person who
then goes through a full confirmation process before the
Senate.
The commission has not yet met. However, there have been
discussions among both members of the commission and their
staffs, laying the groundwork for that process.
Senator Dorgan. I guess you probably cannot answer this,
but it is bizarre to me that 9 months after Mr. Bowsher left,
the commission established to, at least, recommend names has
not even met.
Mr. Hinchman. I leave it to the members of the commission
to decide what their schedule is.
Senator Dorgan. I did not really expect you to answer that
question.
Mr. Hinchman. I have spent the last 6 months throughout our
agency talking about our responsibilities during this interim
period. I think we see ourselves, all 3,500 of us, as trustees,
stewards accountable to this committee and to others for our
management of this agency over this interim period. We leave it
to you to decide when it is time for us to have a new
Comptroller General and who that new Comptroller General should
be.
Senator Dorgan. That was very diplomatic. [Laughter.]
need for Congressional commission to meet
It seems to me, though, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to
begin to stimulate and agitate. The leadership of an agency, of
any agency, is important. I am not suggesting that there is not
now leadership. But establishing a permanent solution for
leadership is very important.
It appears to me that there has been a dropping of the ball
here if, after 9 months, we do not even have a commission
meeting and making some recommendations.
I don't know what the reason for that might be. But maybe
you and I should look into this.
Senator Bennett. I don't know, either. But I agree with you
completely. I understand that in this circumstance, the statute
says the old Comptroller General cannot serve until his
successor is in place. He serves for--is it 15 years?
Mr. Hinchman. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. The 15 years is up and then he is gone. So
you don't have here the circumstance that you have elsewhere
where the person can hang around until his successor is in
place.
I am as appalled as you are and agree with you that we
probably ought to start stimulating our respective leaders.
Senator Dorgan. Perhaps we could agitate with a joint
letter indicating that this commission which, apparently,
exists should meet and should make recommendations. I think
there should be a goal here established of, at least, by 1 year
after Mr. Bowsher has left that a leader be selected for the
GAO.
I don't have other questions. Again, I appreciate the work
of the General Accounting Office. I will continue, as a Member
of Congress, to call on you and rely on the services that you
provide for us. We appreciate very much your work.
Mr. Hinchman. Thank you, sir.
Year 2000 problem
Senator Bennett. We will have some other questions that we
will submit to you in writing.
So that we have a degree of continuity through this whole
hearing this morning, let me ask you about the year 2000
problem and how you are prepared to deal with it and if you
have any money in this 1998 request for that.
Mr. Hinchman. We have included within our strategic plan
for information and resource management a solution to the year
2000 problem. We are addressing that problem, both by making
the changes that we need to make in software which we expect to
continue to have in use by the time we reach 2000, and by
assuring that software which we acquire for replacement
purposes between now and then does not include that problem.
I feel comfortable that we have that problem under control.
We are also, by the way, doing an extensive amount of work
in assisting executive branch agencies in addressing that
problem as well, and have a large body of work underway to
identify where that problem exists and how it can be solved.
Additional committee questions
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much for coming in. Thank
you for all you do.
I share Senator Dorgan's admiration for the work product
you produce.
Mr. Hinchman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
Question. What is the status of your downsizing efforts?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997 GAO completed its downsizing efforts,
which began in fiscal year 1992 with a GAO-wide hiring freeze. Since
fiscal year 1992, we have dropped from about 5,325 to about 3,500
staff--a reduction of approximately 34 percent. To accomplish this
reduction of more than a third of our staff, we conducted two voluntary
separation incentive programs involving buyouts and early outs; closed
12 field offices and 2 overseas locations; reduced administrative,
professional and support staff through a reduction-in-force (RIF); and
transferred the claims adjudication function and staff to the executive
branch.
In anticipation of becoming a smaller organization, we began in
1995 to re-design our job processes, with a goal of producing quality
work more quickly and at lower cost. This was a project we had been
working towards for several years. The budget climate provided added
incentives to continue to assess how we do our work and how we can get
it done employing fewer and fewer resources.
Our production shows that we are clearly doing more with less--our
staff is working harder and more efficiently, and we are taking
advantage of available technology. After completing the downsizing, we
believe that our diminished resources are better aligned (headquarters
issue areas and regional core groups) and better balanced (support
staff versus mission staff).
Because of the downsizing, we have been able to bring all our staff
back from audit sites and temporary space into the main GAO building
without having to complete asbestos removal and renovation of all seven
floors of the GAO building.
Our fiscal year 1998 budget request reflects funds needed to
stabilize the agency and return to ``normal'' operations. A first step
to returning to normal was to reinstate human resource systems that had
been frozen or otherwise stopped in recent years. We lifted a 5-year
hiring freeze, and have added a few staff to fill critical specialized
vacancies. We also had a limited round of promotions, ending a 2-year
freeze.
We need to continue to upgrade technology (workstations, software
applications, and network system hardware) to allow staff to maximize
the productivity gains that information technology makes possible.
We also need to complete work on abating and renovating the GAO
building to make it a more positive work environment for our staff.
In addition, we have requested funding to reinstate our employee
awards and recognition system, which we have not used since 1992, and
to implement a revised incentive awards program, dormant for several
years. If we are able to accomplish these initiatives, we may be able
to stem the tide of key people leaving GAO for positions with executive
branch agencies and professional firms offering these incentives.
Question. Last year the committee recommended that GAO produce an
assessment of its downsizing experience, including lessons learned and
recommendations that could be helpful in other downsizing situations.
Please summarize that assessment.
Answer. As GAO experienced its downsizing, we learned several
lessons that might prove useful to other agencies facing similar
circumstances. Of primary importance was advance knowledge and
foresight regarding the nature and extent of pending reductions which
allowed GAO to plan actions to maintain productivity and efficiency,
and to take advantage of emerging technological capabilities, while we
reduced personnel and operating costs. We believe it is vital to make
necessary decisions quickly and decisively and ensure they are
communicated to affected staff. Once downsizing actions are complete,
it is important to stabilize the organization and return to normal
operations as quickly as possible. A discussion of our experiences were
included in a letter, dated May 16, 1997, to the Chairman, Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, United States
Senate.
letter from joan m. dodaro
Assistant Comptroller General of the United States,
General Accounting Office,
Washington, D.C., May 16, 1997.
The Honorable Robert F. Bennett,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Committee on
Appropriations, United States Senate.
Dear Mr. Chairman: During our 1997 Senate appropriations hearings,
the Committee recommended that GAO produce an assessment of our
downsizing experience, including lessons learned and recommendations
for similar or different procedures in different situations. This
letter responds to that request.
As you know, in July 1995, the Committee committed to reducing GAO
funding by 25 percent from fiscal year 1995 levels by the beginning of
fiscal year 1997, a period of about 14 months. We were fortunate that
the Congress allowed us to spread the cuts over two fiscal years, and
that we were given the authority to develop new reduction-in-force
(RIF) regulations allowing us to minimize disruption to our operations.
To operate under this reduced budget, we had to lower our staff
level from about 4,350 to 3,500 staff. This was successfully
accomplished (as of September 30, 1996, GAO had 3,492 staff on board)
through an early out/buyout program, the transfer of our claims
function to other agencies, the closure of three field offices, a RIF
of support staff, and normal attrition. To meet our staffing objective
while maintaining a high level of productivity, we re-engineered our
work processes and enhanced our use of technology. This enabled us to
successfully perform our mission responsibilities while adjusting to a
dramatically smaller workforce. As we implemented these changes, we
learned several lessons that might prove useful to other agencies
facing similar circumstances.
Anticipate Change
By the early 1990's, it was becoming clear that budgetary restraint
was necessary. After discussion with our Appropriations Committees, and
facing an uncertain financial future, we began to take steps to reduce
both personnel and operating costs. To reduce personnel costs, we
initiated a hiring freeze (begun in 1992); conducted an ``early-out/
buyout'' program (1993) during which about 400 staff left voluntarily;
and closed 8 field office locations (1993). To reduce other operating
costs, we introduced videoconferencing GAO-wide (1993) which reduced
travel costs; and subsequently connected all GAO offices agency-wide
computer network and voice message telephone system, reducing the need
for some support functions and staff.
All these steps were taken or underway prior to the 25 percent
budget reduction. Had we waited until the 25 percent cuts were
finalized, our position during the ensuing reductions would have been
much more difficult, requiring a much larger involuntary reduction-in-
force. Accordingly, it might be wise for agencies to anticipate
reductions and take cost-cutting steps before they are mandated.
Move Quickly and Decisively
In June 1995, the Comptroller General appointed a high level team
of managers to assess the impact of potential funding reductions, and
to recommend how to downsize the agency. The team was given a short
deadline, reporting back in late July. On August 7, 1995, the
Comptroller General adopted the recommendations, which included closing
three additional field offices, offering buyouts and early outs as
approved by Congress, and a RIF of support staff. These recommendations
were sudden, dramatic, and quite sobering.
At the same time, the Comptroller General issued a memo to all
staff outlining the downsizing steps that would follow. The memo also
established time periods for each activity and assigned responsibility
for carrying out the recommended tasks. Throughout late 1995 and all of
1996, this timetable was adhered to scrupulously. Management
decisiveness and determination was an important ingredient in
efficiently and effectively implementing a painful set of decisions
which cost hundreds of effective and productive staff their jobs.
Ensure Constant, Effective Communication
In the year leading up to the major downsizing announcement, GAO
had attempted to keep employees informed about events in Congress that
could affect the agency, especially its funding levels. The normal
means were used: staff meetings, memoranda, electronic mail, and video
conferences. Unfortunately, in the midst of congressional budget
deliberations, and before Congress had finalized our funding level,
misinformation and rumors often outnumbered facts.
Once the downsizing plan was announced, an extensive agency-wide
communications strategy was established to communicate the truth.
Initially, the focus was on the recommendations of the downsizing team,
especially to those in the most adversely affected units. The Senior
Executive Service (SES) core was educated on the plan to help them
effectively address staff concerns. Numerous meetings and briefings
were held so that all staff could learn about the downsizing firsthand
from the implementing managers and ask questions as it moved forward.
In addition, the team that was established to develop new RIF
regulations held a first round of briefings for all interested staff to
learn of their concerns and then a second round to describe proposed
regulations and obtain staff comments on them.
Technology was a big asset in communicating quickly and efficiently
all personnel. Important information, including draft RIF rules was
posted on the agency-wide computer network, making it immediately
available, unfiltered, to everyone. Similarly, telephone voice mail
served us well in communicating efficiently.
Ensure Personnel Records and RIF Rules are Up-to-date
Key components in a RIF include the RIF rules, staff position
descriptions, employee appraisal scores, and other employee information
such as veteran's status and employment dates. For agencies
anticipating a RIF, it is imperative that RIF regulations and employee
data are up-to-date and accurate. It is also important to insure that
the information is verified well in advance of the RIF, and that last
minute changes to position descriptions or job assignments are not
made. Inaccurate employee records, or assignment changes increase the
mistrust in an already negative atmosphere, and can lead to legal
challenges.
Educate Managers About RIF Ramifications
A RIF is traumatic not only to the affected staff, but also to the
managers who deliver the bad news. The way managers deal with RIFed
staff can affect the implementation of the RIF. GAO briefed the
managers in the units where the RIF's were to occur on what was going
to happen. Our Office of Counselling and Career Development briefed
these managers on what reactions to expect from employees, and
distributed a handbook suggesting ways to handle emotional reactions
and potential security issues. The handbook also contained numerous
questions typically asked by staff facing a RIF, and suggested
responses to various situations. We believe that preparing our managers
in this way contributed to the relative lack of problems in our RIF.
Provide Assistance to Affected Staff
The most difficult aspect of downsizing was the traumatic affect it
had on hundreds of individuals who had served GAO well over the years.
The agency contacted each RIFed employee and offered them a full range
of services, including counseling, job search and development, resume
assistance, outplacement, and other services to staff affected by the
downsizing decisions, both in headquarters and the closing field
offices. The services started shortly after the August announcement was
made, and continued until about three months after the last
involuntarily separated staff had left the agency. Most of the eligible
staff took advantage of the services. Information available to us
indicate that the services helped many former staff members make a
successful transition to other employment.
In addition to outplacement and career counselling services, GAO
provided detailed information to staff on severance pay and retirement
benefits that would accrue to those who were RIFed or left
voluntarily--information vital to helping them choose the best option
for them.
Providing such information and services is obviously important for
the people whose lives have been disrupted by job loss. It is also
important to those who remain to know that their colleagues are
receiving assistance.
Return Human Resource Functions to Normal as Soon as Possible
Anticipating reduced funding levels, GAO took numerous steps
outlined above. In addition, we eliminated our pay-for-performance
system bonuses in 1993, and froze promotions and reassignments in 1995
and 1996. In essence, several of our human resource functions were
temporarily suspended. We believe it is necessary for the morale of the
remaining staff to return human resource functions to normal operation
as quickly as possible after the RIF. In GAO's case, in March we
promoted evaluators for the first time in 2\1/2\ years, and have begun
hiring a limited number of specialists and technical experts to replace
attritions.
GAO has emerged from a dramatic reduction ready and able to provide
quality service to the Congress. We have taken steps to further
streamline our job management processes to allow us to be more
responsive to the Congress and to maintain our productivity. Smaller
than at any time since World War II, we have been able to retain the
integrity and efficacy of the agency, as we look forward to future
challenges.
Sincerely,
Joan M. Dodaro,
Assistant Comptroller General for Operations.
Question. Over the past few years the GAO has been making large
investments in technology. How much has GAO spent on Information
Technology since fiscal year 1996?
Answer. Our information technology budget funds a variety of
services, under lying agency operations, including mainframe computing
services for administrative systems, local and long distance voice
communications, video conferencing services, network customer support,
and maintenance and support for hardware and software. In fiscal year
1996, GAO spent $24.7 million on information technology (IT). The
current estimate for fiscal year 1997 IT spending is $21 million.
Since fiscal year 1996, GAO has spent very little on IT
investments, deferring most technology investments because of budget
limitations. We have restricted our investments to critical hardware
and software purchases to support GAO's network and improve network
management and labor support for (1) upgrades to the data collection
and analysis application and (2) preparatory efforts to convert our
network operating system to Novell's Netware 4.x, our desktop operating
system to Windows 95, and applications suite to Office 97, replacing
our existing, but obsolete, installed base of software (e.g.,
WordPerfect 5.2, which is no longer supported by the vendor).
Investments in earlier fiscal years (specifically, dating back to
fiscal year 1992), allowed GAO to implement a wide area computer
network linking staff throughout the agency; integrate video-
conferencing and voice mail into its operations; implement an automated
data collection and analysis application streamlining routine audit
assignment tasks and providing greater access to GAO workpapers;
reengineer the audit process to streamline the way work is done and
ensure consistent high quality products; and publish and distribute GAO
reports electronically on the Internet. Because this technology was in
place, GAO was able to reduce the average cost of jobs, increase the
percentage of products delivered on time, improve product quality, and
increase measurable financial benefits resulting from GAO's audit
findings and recommendations--despite significant budget and staffing
reductions.
Question. What is GAO requesting in the fiscal year 1998 budget for
technology?
Answer. GAO is requesting $5.1 million for crucial investments
needed to operate and maintain GAO's technology base. The increase
would be targeted primarily to (1) replacements of and/or improvements
to aging microcomputer workstations and network hardware (such as
servers, routers and storage devices), (2) completion of efforts to
migrate GAO to Windows 95 and MS Office 97, and (3) initial design
efforts to migrate some of GAO's administrative systems from costly
mainframe systems to a client/server environment. The investments are
necessary for GAO to ensure efficient operation and maximize
productivity gains and timeliness made possible through technology--and
to continue to be responsive to congressional information needs.
Question. Has video conferencing saved enough travel money to
offset its costs?
Answer. GAO has installed video conferencing in headquarters and
all its field offices and has a pilot on desktop video in Seattle,
Portland, Richland, and Sacramento. GAO uses video conferencing in
carrying out mission work and for training and other administrative
activities. In terms of mission work, video conferencing has allowed
dispersed workgroups in headquarters and field offices to conduct
meetings--focusing on key decision points in an audit assignment,
coordination between audit sites, and development and review of
briefing documents and draft reports without the need to travel. In
addition, GAO has used video conferencing to coordinate with other
government agencies and the Congress. GAO has also used video
conferencing for training and found the approach both timely and
effective. And, GAO uses video conferencing for management and
administrative matters, such as staff meetings, when it is cost
effective to do so.
GAO has conducted two assessments of its videoconferencing program.
The assessments found videoconferencing an effective means of helping
GAO accomplish its mission and identified benefits, including
significant savings in travel costs and time. Participants in the
assessment reported that video conferencing was typically as effective
as traveling to meet ``in person.'' Participants also reported
extensive non-quantifiable benefits that enhance product quality and/or
reduce cycle time. They include having key decision makers present at
the same time, enabling developmental staff and specialists to be
present, making decisions in a more timely manner, improving
coordination and teamwork between sites, avoiding potential rework, and
providing more timely training. Our assessment report covering fiscal
1993 noted that GAO avoided 650 days of travel time and approximately
$400,000 of travel expenses during that period. While these figures
have not been updated, given the increased usage of video conferencing
and increased costs to travel, the dollar savings should be even
greater. (Current agency-wide operating costs--which include
maintenance, technical support, as well as recurring and usage charges
for telecommunications services--are $750,000.)
Question. Much of GAO's work is done at the request of the
Congress--either by statute or individual request. Of the total number
of jobs completed last year, how many were statutorily required and how
many were requested by Members or Committees?
Answer. During fiscal year 1996, GAO issued 1,306 audit and
evaluation products. Of these products, 1,139 or 87 percent were
requested by committees or members of Congress (1,021), or mandated
(118). The remaining 167 or 13 percent resulted from important, self-
initiated work undertaken as part of GAO's basic legislative
responsibilities.
During fiscal year 1996, 78 percent of GAO's available audit
resources were spent on work requested by the Congress and 22 percent
on self-initiated work.
Question. Once a request is made, does GAO make a determination as
to what jobs should be done and what jobs should not be done?
Answer. The source of a request for GAO work is a major factor in
determining what jobs should be done. In this regard, GAO is required
by law to respond to legislative mandates and to undertake work
requested by congressional committees. As a matter of policy, GAO
assigns priority to requests from both committee chairs and ranking
minority members. Requests from individual Members are undertaken to
the extent resources are available. GAO also undertakes important self-
initiated work. The ability to pursue such issues that auditors or
investigators uncover in the course of their work is essential to the
maintenance of generally accepted standards of independence and
impartiality. Such self-initiated work has been instrumental in
alerting the Congress to emerging problem areas ranging from the
identification of growing problems in the thrift industry in the mid-
1980's to more recent work highlighting the need for management reforms
in federal programs especially susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement.
GAO's planning process also guides decisions on which assignments
to pursue. GAO has developed an agency-wide strategic plan that
emphasizes several broad areas of importance to guide the work of the
entire agency for the next two or three years. In addition, each of
GAO's issue areas prepares multi-year strategic plans after consulting
with congressional staff (both majority and minority) agency, academic,
industry, and other experts to identify important national issues.
Decisions on assignments included in these plans are influenced by such
factors as the extent of congressional interest, the possibility for
cost savings, and the potential for significantly improving government
programs.
Question. Do you inform requesters of the cost of their request
before the work is performed?
Answer. GAO has reengineered its job management process using best
practices found in the public and private sectors to increase its
efficiency and to enhance its ability to produce timely, high quality
products at reduced cost. For congressional requesters, the new process
means greater focus on them and a more business-like working
relationship. Requesters receive a prompt response and GAO meets with
them early in the process to reach agreement on the scope, approach,
and associated resource implications of completing requested work. GAO
follows up the meeting with a written commitment to deliver its work
within agreed-upon timeframes.
Using its new job management process, GAO has substantially reduced
an assignment's average and median duration and cost, while increasing
significantly its ability to meet the date it commits to for producing
a product. For example, the median duration of a GAO assignment in
fiscal year 1996 has decreased by 18 percent when compared to fiscal
year 1995 and 47 percent when compared to fiscal year 1994. Similarly,
the median cost of a GAO assignment has decreased by 19 percent and 40
percent, respectively. GAO expects further improvements in these
efficiency measures as more of its jobs go through, and benefit from,
the redesigned process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan
Question. Please specify the consequences if GAO received no
additional funding or a funding reduction in fiscal year 1998.
Answer. Faced with the twenty-five percent funding reduction over
fiscal years 1996 and 1997, GAO developed a plan in concert with
Congress to reduce agency staffing to 3,500. To achieve this reduction,
we maintained the hiring freeze imposed in 1992, managed an early
retirement program, offered separation incentives to staff willing to
retire or leave GAO, closed several field offices, transferred
functions and staff to the Executive Branch, and conducted a reduction-
in-force for administrative and support staff. During this time we also
reengineered our work processes and benefited from technology
enhancements made in prior years, thus helping us maintain productivity
as we downsized.
This plan was executed with the understanding that at the end of
the 2-year period, we would stabilize at 3,500, promote and reward
staff, undertake necessary technology improvements and become a
smaller, more stable organization. The downsizing plan did not allow
for reductions below the 25 percent level. To absorb mandatory pay
increases and uncontrollable price increases or further, unplanned
reductions would seriously affect our ability to maintain our current
workload and meet the needs of our congressional customers.
Zero Additional Funding
In considering the various funding scenarios, it is important to
realize that, to stay even, GAO's fiscal year 1998 budget would need to
be increased by about $18 million just to fund mandatory increases in
personnel and other uncontrollable costs such as pay raises and the
anticipated, January congressionally-approved increase in agency
retirement contributions.
Because of these mandatory increases, level funding would seriously
impact GAO's ability to serve the Congress. GAO would lose much of what
remains of its flexibility in undertaking assignments for congressional
committees. In many issue areas, we would likely be forced to extend
waiting times before we could begin assignments and we would find it
difficult to respond to requests for rapid turn-around evaluations.
On the personnel side, level funding would mean that GAO could only
support a staffing level somewhat under 3,300--more than 200 full-time
equivalent staff below our authorized level. GAO would maintain the
hiring freeze imposed in 1992, and continue the freeze on awards and
recognition programs imposed in fiscal year 1993. We would be unable to
correct the skills imbalance in specialized areas created through
continued downsizing. Funding for technology would be limited to a
maintenance level, while not allowing needed upgrades to keep pace with
technological capabilities widely available in the private sector and
other agencies of the government. Additional reductions will be imposed
in all program areas, which affect staff morale and our ability to
maintain productivity levels, and our need to retain qualified,
motivated staff.
A Funding Reduction
A funding reduction would begin to erode GAO's ability to carry out
its statutory responsibility to serve the committees of Congress.
Serious imbalances in GAO staff resulting from such a reduction would
make our ability to undertake assignments problematic; some assignments
would have to be refused for lack of expertise or lack of personnel to
carry them out, and waiting times would increase. More specifically,
further staff erosion, combined with an inability to replace lost staff
expertise in technical areas like information management technology and
accounting would place GAO's mandated financial audit work as well as
work on high risk information systems at risk.
A funding reduction in fiscal year 1998 would necessitate
reductions in GAO's staffing level. The continued hiring freeze, our
inability to promote and reward good staff, and the necessary budget
cutbacks in technology, training, and travel would almost certainly
have a significant negative effect on staff morale. The likely outcome
would be increased attrition of our most skilled staff and further
serious delays in getting the agency back to normal operations.
Question. GAO is required by law to respond to legislative mandates
and to undertake work requested by congressional committees and the
majority of its resources are devoted to these purposes. GAO also has
authority to conduct self-initiated work as part of its basic
legislative responsibilities.
Why is it important for GAO to be able to conduct some work on a
self-initiated basis?
What benefits have resulted from GAO's self-initiated work in prior
years?
Answer. Over the past several years, the proportion of GAO's
resources spent at the specific request of the Congress has ranged from
70 to 80 percent of available audit resources. The remaining audit
resources are devoted to important, self-initiated work undertaken as
part of GAO's basic legislative responsibilities. Specifically, during
fiscal year 1996, 78 percent of GAO's available audit resources were
spent on work requested by the Congress and 22 percent on self-
initiated work. Although there is no congressional sponsor at the start
of GAO's self-initiated work, the majority of this work is ultimately
addressed to congressional committees because of their interest and
legislative or oversight responsibilities.
Self-initiated work is essential to any audit organization. The
ability to pursue issues that auditors or investigators uncover in the
course of their work is essential to the maintenance of generally
accepted standards of independence and impartiality. Self-initiated
work undertaken by GAO has been instrumental in alerting the Congress
to emerging problem areas and has provided information and analysis on
some of the most pressing matters faced by the Congress such as the
growing problems in the thrift industry in the mid-1980's, the more
recent gaps and weaknesses in the regulation, accounting, and
management of derivative products, and serious financial management
systems and information problems across government. Every year, this
work leads to significant financial benefits and improvements in the
efficiency and effectiveness of government operations.
Question. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(better known as Kassebaum/Kennedy) enacted last August requires that
GAO contract for a comprehensive study of the effects of Medical
Savings Accounts (MSA's), both on the individual and small group health
insurance markets. GAO is to report to Congress not later than January
1, 1999.
What is the nature of the study, and what is its status?
Answer. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(Public Law 104-191) requires that GAO contract with an organization
with expertise in health economics, health insurance markets, and
actuarial science to conduct a comprehensive study regarding the
effects of medical savings accounts in the small group market on: (1)
selection, including adverse selection, (2) health costs, including any
impact on premiums of individuals with comprehensive coverage, (3) use
of preventive care, (4) consumer choice, (5) the scope of coverage of
high deductible plans purchased in conjunction with such accounts and,
(6) other relevant items.
In order to provide the best possible information to Congress about
MSA's, we designed a study that consists of 4 parts: A study of
insurers; A study of MSA enrollees; A study of financial institutions;
and A study of small employers.
In February 1997, we issued a Request of Proposal to firms having
the competence and necessary experience to perform this complex work.
In early April, we completed the proposal evaluation process and
qualified four firms to bid on task orders to perform this work; these
firms are well-known for their experience in the conduct of large scale
health insurance-related surveys and analyses.
We also completed and awarded the first two of what we anticipate
as at least six task orders. At this time, work is underway on the
survey of insurers, and the design of the survey of MSA enrollees. We
expect to provide Congress preliminary information on the MSA insurance
market in the fall of 1997.
Question. Downsizing an organization the size of GAO can be a very
complex management task. People don't always leave from the places that
are most beneficial. Are your people able to move effectively from one
area of expertise to another, or are you finding some areas where
expertise is becoming very thin? If you are not able to hire for
another year, and in fact have to reduce staff even more, will there be
some functions critical to GAO's mission that will not be able to
operate?
Answer. The closure of three regional offices as well as many
suboffices, the elimination of one headquarter's division, the
retirement of many experienced staff, and the reduction-in-force of
almost thirty percent of our support staff have resulted in many staff
reassignments throughout the agency. However, one of the impacts of the
downsizing has been the disproportionate loss of employees who are
skilled in technical areas. For example, we have reassigned staff from
other parts of the organization into technical positions such as
accountants, financial systems specialists and information systems
analysts wherever possible, but we have not been able to compensate for
the loss of capability experienced in these critical disciplines over
the past four years. It has now reached the point where we must hire
some additional staff with the right skills from outside GAO if we are
to meet our responsibilities under the Chief Financial Officers Act and
properly support Congressional efforts to reform the government's
financial and information management systems. We also need to begin to
develop a strategy for hiring other technical experts in certain areas
where we have critical staff shortages, such as statistics and health
care. Although this re-balancing effort will take some time, it is
essential that we begin this fiscal year.
If GAO maintained the hiring freeze imposed in 1992, we would be
unable to correct the skills imbalance in specialized areas created
through continued downsizing. Further funding reductions would begin to
erode GAO's ability to carry out its statutory responsibility to serve
the committees of Congress. Serious imbalances in GAO staff resulting
from a further funding reduction would make our ability to undertake
assignments problematic; some assignments would have to be refused for
lack of expertise or lack of personnel to carry them out, and waiting
times would increase. More specifically, further staff erosion,
combined with an inability to replace lost staff expertise in technical
areas like information management technology and accounting would place
GAO's mandated financial audit work as well as work on high risk
information systems at risk.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENTS OF:
JANET S. ZARGORN, CHAIR, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING
COMMITTEE ON THE LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
HON. BILL ORTON, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH
Senator Bennett. I understand there is one additional
witness. Senator Dorgan has to leave, but I am happy to welcome
an old friend.
We welcome Janet Zargorn from the American Bar Association,
accompanied by former Congressman Bill Orton, who is always
welcome.
We understand you have an issue you want to raise with the
committee regarding the Library of Congress and we will be
happy to receive whatever you have to tell us.
Ms. Zargorn. Thank you. I am the chair of the American Bar
Association Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress.
On behalf of the ABA I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
allowing me to make this very brief remark.
The Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress was
created 60 years ago to support the Law Library of Congress'
goal and mission. It is an institution which we believe is the
preeminent legal resource in the entire world.
I know you have already heard their appropriation request
this morning from Dr. Billington. So I will summarize my
remarks.
We believe that the Law Library of Congress is one of the
critical institutions in preserving American democracy and that
the Library of Congress and the Law Library in particular serve
Congress as its research arm in many ways. But it also serves
the public. Right now, it is engaged in a very unusual
challenge, which is trying to help many of the emerging nations
and countries of the world to access their own statutes and
regulations and, in fact, use the U.S. democratic process and
our legislative process as a role model.
I am a law librarian, so as a law librarian, I can say that
I think, as we sit on the edge of the digital century, it is
critical to cost effective research, but certainly to
increasing access to information that we use technology. I
think that the Law Library of Congress through its global legal
information network has really assumed a leadership role. I am
very proud of it.
We at the American Bar Association are doing what we can to
help support them. We don't think there is any more powerful
statement that America can make than actually showing the rest
of the world that our citizens and our Congress have free and
open access to all of our laws, our statutes, our regulations,
our legal cases and briefs, and by, in a very nonthreatening
way, helping them to do the same for their citizens.
While we understand at the bar that you have a lot of
demands for very scarce appropriation dollars, I think the Law
Library has done a very good job in using the dollars that they
have had. They have cut costs to the maximum. But at this
moment in time, we hope that the committee will consider their
request favorably for their appropriation because we think they
need to preserve both their American law collection as well as
to move forward on automation so that we will have the ability
to export this technology and our unparalleled legal resources
as a model for the rule of law throughout the world.
I would like to ask the committee's indulgence and ask that
Bill Orton be allowed to speak for a moment.
Senator Bennett. Of course.
prepared statement
Ms. Zargorn. We are very honored that he had agreed to join
me on the committee and to help me with my work in behalf of
the Law Library. He will become a formal member of the
committee in August.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet S. Zagorin
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the American
Bar Association (ABA) appreciates the opportunity to present
testimony on the fiscal year 1998 Legislative Appropriations
budget. My name is Janet S. Zagorin. I am Chair of the American
Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on the Law Library of
Congress. This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the
ABA at the request of N. Lee Cooper, President of the
Association.
In my non-volunteer life, I am a law librarian. I am
currently the Director of Practice Development of the New York-
based law firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify on behalf of the ABA in support of
the budget request of the Library of Congress and its Law
Library.
With over 348,000 members, the ABA is the world's largest
professional organization. Due in large part to a sophisticated
volunteer network, the ABA has been able to play a crucial role
in ensuring that our government is committed to leadership in
the development and maintenance of a first-rate library. It is
our hope that the Library of Congress and its Law Library
continue to receive adequate funding.
The ABA has given special focus to the Law Library of
Congress through its Standing Committee on the Law Library of
Congress, which was created in 1932 because the Association was
committed to its growth as the nation's principal repository of
legal literature and sources. And we have watched in awe as
that collection has become one of the most prestigious and
comprehensive legal collections in the world. It is an archive
of the best that the world's legal minds have produced, and
also a living resource that reflects our vision of democracy
and promotion of the rule of law throughout the world. As
Americans consider the globalization of our economy, the spread
of democracy, and the advancement of fundamental freedoms and
human rights, Congress' commitment to the Law Library of
Congress becomes more imperative.
The Library of Congress has requested $387.6 million for
fiscal year 1998 (which includes $30.4 million in authority to
use receipts), a net increase of $25.7 million or 7.1 percent
over its current budget. More than half of this request, or
$14.7 million, is needed for mandatory pay and unavoidable
price increases for goods and services. Since 1993, the Library
has been forced to absorb many such increases and now, as it
prepares for 1998 and beyond, there is no flexibility left to
absorb these costs. These kinds of cuts adversely affect every
department of the Library, including its Law Library. While we
appreciate Congress' continued interest and support for the
Library of Congress during these austere fiscal times, we urge
you to prevent further erosion of its workforce and resources.
Of the remaining $12.3 million in the requested increase,
$6.1 million is targeted for automation projects that will
improve the Library's efficiency and effectiveness both in
internal operations and in public access to the collections.
One such project is the Global Legal Information Network
(GLIN), developed and directed by the Law Library.
GLIN is an innovative effort involving government partners
throughout the world who share via the Internet the full text
of their nation's laws and regulations. It performs the dual
function of expediting the Law Library's research services to
Congress as well as promoting international communication,
exchange, and comprehension of legal information.
As the Library of Congress continues to meet new
technological demands, its challenge to remain a leader in
serving the Congress and the nation, without adequate
resources, becomes more difficult. While economic realities are
forcing our major public institutions to be more competitive,
current technology is simultaneously providing opportunities to
be cost-effective. GLIN, as part of the entire digital effort
of the Library of Congress, reflects the Law Library's efforts
toward that end. Moreover GLIN, a true multinational database,
enables the Law Library of Congress to enhance its leadership
role in providing expertise on matters of interest to Congress
and the nation.
Although the Congress is the priority client of the Library
of Congress and its Law Library, I know that you will agree
that this important institution renders a great deal of
valuable service to the nation. That service should be
supported by the Congress because it enhances the lives of all
of us. Given the challenges of today's world and the great
resources of the Library, it should be made more--not less--
accessible.
I know that you are facing many difficult choices as you
search for savings in the Legislative Branch budget, but I hope
that you will spare our nation's Library in that search. As it
has in recent years, the Library has requested only the vital
essentials and a modest increase to continue to meet the
demands of its strategic plan and a rapidly changing world. Its
Law Library, likewise, must be able to continue to maintain its
role as a global legal information center.
Faced with the necessity of developing a leading presence
in the electronic age while maintaining its preeminent legal
collection, the Library of Congress must have adequate funding
to continue to serve our nation's law makers, the legal
community, and the public. We believe that proper funding is
vitally important to ensure the integrity of the Law Library's
collections and the services dependent upon them.
Finally, as we celebrate the valiant restoration and
reopening of the Thomas Jefferson Building, we are reminded
that the Library of Congress is a tremendous source of pride
for the nation and a true symbol of its founding ideals. At a
time when nations all over the world are questioning their
leaders, their systems of justice, and their very foundations,
it is imperative that we support the primary institution that
preserves the knowledge and ideas that sustain us as a
community and a nation.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the American
Bar Association appreciates your courtesy in allowing me to
appear before you today. We hope that you will look most
favorably upon the budget request of the Library of Congress
and its Law Library.
Senator Bennett. You are always welcome, Bill.
Mr. Orton. Thank you. I have a request of the committee
before giving testimony.
As you know, having been away from the Congress for less
than 1 year, I am under restrictions for postemployment
activities in contact with Congress. I don't believe that my
support of an appropriation for the Library of Congress
violates that, but I have received an opinion from the House
Ethics Committee that there is an exception for sworn testimony
before committees of Congress. So I would request, if you
could, to swear me in so that I could meet that exception and
there would be no question about my appearance here.
Senator Bennett. We will be happy to do that. I am
interested because sometimes we have suggested to witnesses
that they be sworn, and they take exception to that. They
resent that.
You will just have to trust my memory.
Raise your right arm. Do you swear that the testimony you
shall give before this committee shall be the truth, so help
you God?
Mr. Orton. I swear.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. You are now appropriately
protected.
Mr. Orton. Thank you. [Laughter.]
It is a pleasure and I will be very brief. I did not submit
prepared testimony.
I support the testimony of the American Bar Association's
standing committee. I just want to make the point that, as a
former Member of Congress, while I was in Congress, recognizing
that the principal purpose of the Library of Congress is to
support Congress and provide for the needs of Congress, I had
an opportunity on many occasions to use the Library's services.
I know that they are not only the preeminent law library but
the employees there are striving to do the very best job for
the least dollar that they possibly can do. And having served
on the Budget Committee in the House, and I know you have
served in the Senate, it is my impression that we have cut more
than the fat out of the Library of Congress.
They have had to assume expenses, the normal increasing
expenses as a result of inflation, and so on, out of other
portions of their budget, and there is just no more room left
to take any more.
They are requesting an increase and, as they move to
digital operation so that they can go online with all of the
various services which will have tremendous cost savings to the
Congress as well as the public, it does cost money to do that.
And particularly, since I am here in specific support of the
Law Library of Congress, as they are developing the global
legal information network, GLIN, as part of their digital
process, it is costly to do this. But it is extremely
beneficial.
I served on the Foreign Affairs Committee and also
independently with the Center for Strategic International
Studies, CSIS, as a member of the St. Petersburg Commission,
and on that commission I know that in Russia, as I have met in
meetings with them, we have, as the commission--I know that the
Nation of Russia has relied upon the information from the
Library of Congress and the Law Library of Congress as they are
trying to develop their statutes so that they will be able to
fully interface their open market society with the Western
countries, including the United States.
So it is an area where we can't afford to be foolish in our
cuts, simply to cut money and balance the budget. There has
been no stronger supporter of a balanced budget in Congress
than myself. But I also believe I am one of the strongest
supporters of the Library of Congress and I am here to support
their full request for the increase that they have put in as a
line item increase.
I would encourage you, if at all possible, to include that
in your appropriation.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
As I said in my opening comments at the beginning of the
hearing and certainly including the Library of Congress, as a
member of this subcommittee, working with Chairman Mack when
there was a change in control, we did work hard to reduce
legislative branch appropriations in the 104th Congress, and we
feel pretty good about what we accomplished.
Having accomplished that, I am not sympathetic to the
demand that is coming out of the House that we now freeze at
those levels. I think a freeze implies that we did not exercise
our stewardship in the 104th Congress. I think we did, and
appropriate increases relating to mandatory pay increases and
appropriate inflation now make sense from the base level that
we laid down.
So I am sympathetic to what you are saying here and wanted
you to know, in case you had not picked up that earlier comment
on my part, that this subcommittee, speaking not only for
myself but for the other members of the subcommittee with whom
I have had obvious conversations, is not disposed to go along
with the House call for a freeze.
subcommittee recess
Your testimony is very helpful. We will pay close heed to
it.
Mr. Orton. Thank you.
Ms. Zargorn. Thank you very much for your time.
Senator Bennett. Thank you for coming in.
The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., Thursday, June 5, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m., in room S-128, the
Capitol, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Bennett and Dorgan.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
STATEMENTS OF:
GLEN NAGER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
RICKY SILBERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DENNIS DUFFY, GENERAL COUNSEL
JAMES STEPHENS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE HOUSE
PAM TALKIN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE SENATE
BETH HUGHES-BROWN, BUDGET OFFICER
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will come to order.
This morning we are scheduled to hear testimony from the
Office of Compliance, the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant
at Arms, and the Architect of the Capitol in their budget
requests for 1998. We will start with the Office of Compliance.
We have as witnesses, Mr. Glen Nager, Chairman of the Board,
and Ms. Ricky Silberman, Executive Director.
I want to commend the Office of Compliance for carefully
reviewing their budget and keeping their budget request not
only within bounds of inflation, but they actually have a 0.3-
percent reduction from their fiscal year 1997 level.
That is the good news in statistical terms. The bad news in
overall terms is it is only $9,000. Folks who would love to
spend that elsewhere will find that that is relatively small,
but nonetheless you start out with a small budget and any kind
of reduction is much appreciated.
Mr. Nager, we will go with you.
statement of Chairman of the Board of Directors
Mr. Nager. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
obviously an honor for me to be here. Today marks the first
time that the Office has appeared before this committee and it
is the first time I have had an opportunity to appear before
you.
As a private citizen for most of my life, and as a public
servant for a small portion of it now in this part-time
position, it is a special honor to be here before you today.
The Office of Compliance was established by the
Congressional Accountability Act as an independent office
within the legislative branch. It has a Board of Directors of
private citizens who are experienced in the labor and
employment laws made applicable to Congress by the
Congressional Accountability Act.
As Chair of the Board, my first responsibility was to
appoint the four officers who would serve on a full-time basis
and provide the full-time management for the Office. We have
assembled that team and I think it is a remarkable team that
has done remarkable work in the first 2 years, including work
with respect to the budget to try to keep this as lean an
agency as we can and still perform the required statutory
functions.
If the chairman would allow me the honor, I would like to
introduce these officers to you.
Senator Bennett. We would be delighted.
Mr. Nager. The Executive Director is Mrs. Ricky Silberman.
Sitting behind me starting with my right is Mr. Dennis Duffy
who is the General Counsel of the Office, Beth Hughes-Brown who
is our Budget Officer, and then behind me is Mr. Jim Stephens
who is the Deputy Executive Director for the House of
Representatives, and Pam Talkin who is the Deputy Executive
Director for the Senate.
During our first 2 years as a Board, we have devoted the
bulk of our time to putting out the regulations required for
each of the laws that the Congressional Accountability Act
applied to the legislative branch. The Office has implemented
mediation and counseling programs designed to facilitate
compliance with those regulations and the underlying laws. As
of December 31, 1996, all of the regulations that the
Congressional Accountability Act asked the Board to promulgate,
have been promulgated and either have been approved by the
Congress, or are awaiting approval by the Congress.
With that initial phase completed, the Board now is turning
to its other principal task which is the adjudication of cases
that have been filed and have not, unfortunately, been resolved
in the mediation and counseling processes that precede Board
consideration.
The bulk of the Office's activities, though, are in the
mediation, counseling, and case processing areas, and these
operations are under the direction and responsibility of the
Executive Director--including identifying the funding needs of
the Office. So, if I might, I would like to turn to Ms.
Silberman to discuss the operations of the Office and our
budget request.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, sir.
testimony of the Executive Director
Ms. Silberman.
Ms. Silberman. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be
here and to thank you and the committee and its staff,
particularly Christine Ciccone, for your guidance and support.
Getting this fledgling agency started has been no small task,
but we are now 2 years into it. The chairman described us as
lean. I hope we are not lean and mean, but we try to be lean
and tough and fair.
The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 applied for
the first time 11 employment and labor laws to the legislative
branch and created the Office of Compliance, an independent
agency with a unique structure and responsibilities, to
implement, administer, and enforce the CAA. Today I would like
to very briefly summarize how the work of the Office and the
Board has been organized in order to fulfill the important
promises of this landmark legislation, and why we come before
you today with the budget request that we do.
Under the CAA, the Board, composed of five experienced
labor and employment lawyers appointed by the bipartisan
leadership of both Houses who serve on a part-time basis, has
responsibility for promulgating regulations, conducting
statutorily mandated studies and reports, and considering
adjudicative appeals arising from complaints filed under the
CAA, as well as other specifically designated decisions.
Operational responsibilities are assigned to the four
statutory appointees whom Chairman Nager introduced. We are
appointed by the Chair with the Board's approval. As the
Executive Director, I am the statutory chief operating officer
of the Office, and the Deputy Directors for the Senate and the
House have their own statutory roles. With the General Counsel,
together we are responsible for, among other things, the
alternative dispute resolution and adjudicative systems, the
education and information function, which is enormously
important, the liaison function with the Senate and House, and
for developing recommendations to the Board for substantive
regulations.
Additionally, the CAA assigns responsibility to the
Executive Director for promulgating procedural regulations, and
to the General Counsel for the inspection and prosecutorial
functions arising under OSHA and ADA and the investigation and
prosecution of unfair labor practices under the labor-
management relations section of the CAA.
Thus, the Congress has assigned certain responsibilities to
the Board, certain responsibilities to the Executive Director,
and certain responsibilities to the General Counsel. One of the
great challenges that we have had in organizing and staffing
the Office has been to keep those functions and
responsibilities separate which, by statute and principles of
constitutional and administrative law, must be separate, while
at the same time maintaining the flexibility to get the job
done with as few full-time staff as possible.
Although the Office is operating with far fewer people than
we originally thought necessary to fulfill the mandates of the
CAA, we have with this small, lean, full-time staff promulgated
hundreds of pages of regulations, researched and written
reports and studies, developed and disseminated voluminous
educational materials, and I am proud to say have met every
statutory obligation imposed by the CAA in a timely manner. I
think that is because we recruited and hired staff who not only
have the requisite qualifications but also the talent and
versatility to perform the various functions mandated under the
CAA.
I should add here that the decision to out-source mediators
and hearing officers was based on principles of both separation
and cost effectiveness, as well as the necessity of having
their great experience and wide-ranging expertise available to
us on an as-needed basis.
Alternative dispute resolution and case processing
I want to take just a couple of minutes to describe the
Office's core function which is what we are spending a lot of
the money that you are giving us on, and that is the
alternative dispute resolution and case processing system which
is predicated on the notion that an informed, regulated
community, and early resolution of disputes is best for
everyone, that is, both employees and employers.
Thus, the system is designed to be front-loaded with
information and counseling so that disputes can be resolved as
early as possible. To that end, the Office provides information
on the rights and responsibilities under the CAA with
briefings, printed materials, brochures, posters, factsheets,
manuals, a web site which has been used as a model for other
agencies, a 24-hour automated telephone information response
system and trained counselors who answer questions and give
advice informally. The formal process begins with counseling,
followed by mediation, both of which are prerequisites to
filing a complaint under the CAA either in Federal court or in
the Office of Compliance.
Strict confidentiality is maintained during both counseling
and mediation, and that is mandated under the statute. The
Congress made very clear that that is something that they felt
was very important, and that is something that we have sought
to maintain, and have, in fact, maintained.
Our adjudicatory process consists of a hearing in which an
independent hearing officer ascertains the facts, applies the
law, and renders a written decision which can then be appealed
to the Board. The requirements of confidentiality of
independent experienced mediators and adjudicators as well as
the availability of the same remedies as provided in Federal
court ensure the essential perception and reality of the
credibility, neutrality, and fairness of our processes.
Our written testimony describes these functions and
accomplishments in detail, and I thought you might be
interested in a very brief snapshot of how well the alternative
dispute resolution and adjudication systems, the core functions
of the Office, are working. They went into effect on January
23, 1996.
Between January 23, 1996, when the act went into effect and
May 31, 1997, the Office has received over 2,400 calls and
visits from employees and employing offices requesting
information. The vast majority of the employees making
inquiries did not find it necessary to go further in the
process. In fact, as of May 31, only 184 formal requests for
processing, which is the way the actual complaint is started,
were filed and many of these were resolved satisfactorily very
early in the process. Following the counseling period, there
have been 138 requests for mediation and 85 cases have been
closed or settled during the counseling and mediation period.
We still have 59 cases in which that period is ongoing, so we
cannot draw conclusions about these cases yet.
The bottom line is that in the 17 months since the act went
into effect, 15 complaints have been filed with the Office,
five hearings have been held, and the decisions of the hearing
officers in those cases are now being appealed to our Board. I
think it is significant that of the 184 formal requests for
counseling, only two legislative branch employees have filed
cases in Federal district court.
In the 18 short months since this Office came into
existence, much has been accomplished. We have endeavored to
fulfill our statutory mandate faithfully, effectively, and in a
cost-efficient manner. Although we come before you today better
able to assess our experience and project from that experience
our future needs, of course, there remains the uncertainty that
is a concomitant of sailing in unchartered waters--which is
what we have been doing from the beginning. But at this point I
think it is fair to say that the processes are working
extremely well. This speaks not only to the good work of the
Office but more importantly to the commitment of Congress to
the important principles of the Congressional Accountability
Act.
prepared statement
The Chairman and I are here to answer your questions, and I
thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ricky Silberman
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present the budget request of the Office of Compliance (Office) for
fiscal year 1998. The Office of Compliance, an independent office
within the legislative branch of the Federal Government, is authorized
by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) to apply the
rights and protections of eleven labor and employment laws to covered
employees of the legislative branch. The Office is charged with
implementing and enforcing the provisions of the CAA, providing
education and information regarding the provisions, and administering a
neutral dispute resolution and adjudication process for claims arising
under the Act.
To carry out these functions, the Office is requesting $2,600,000
for fiscal year 1998, a decrease of $9,000 from the Office's fiscal
year 1997 appropriation, with no increase in staff, based on an
analysis of the agency's actual expenditures during its first year of
operations. The request includes: funding for 19 full-time equivalent
positions (FTE's); funding for a 3 percent cost of living increase for
salaries; a reduction of 20 percent in personnel benefits; and a 23
percent reduction in other services, primarily for hearing officers,
mediators, and court reporting services.
This request is based on two assumptions: that the Office of
Compliance will remain co-located with the Library of Congress, and
that the Office's caseload will remain at roughly its current level.
Additional funding and staffing will be requested should either of
these assumptions prove erroneous.
Additionally, sections 210 and 215 of the CAA, which mandate
investigations and allow for hearings with regard to both the public
services and accommodations provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, went into
effect on January 1, 1997. Although the Office is requesting the same
number of FTE positions as in fiscal year 1997, we cannot predict how
the major new ADA and OSHA functions will affect staffing requirements.
Finally, pursuant to section 230 of the CAA, we submitted a study to
Congress on December 30, 1996, on the application of the employment and
labor laws incorporated in the CAA to the General Accounting Office,
the Government Printing Office, and the Library of Congress. Should
Congress decide that GPO, GAO and/or the Library of Congress should be
covered under all of the provisions of the CAA, additional funding and
staffing will be requested for the Office of Compliance.
office of compliance's authority and responsibilities
The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) established an
independent Office of Compliance (``Office'') in the federal
legislative branch. In addition to the five-member Board of Directors
who serve on a part-time basis, the CAA establishes four statutory
officers: the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Directors for
the House and Senate, and the General Counsel.
Under the CAA, the Office is charged with establishing and
administering alternative dispute resolution procedures, including
adjudicative hearings and appeals for covered legislative branch
employees. The CAA requires the Office's Executive Director, subject to
Board approval, to adopt rules governing the procedures of the Office,
and requires the Board to adopt substantive regulations for
implementation of the CAA.
The Office is also charged with providing education and information
to Members of Congress, other employing offices, and employees of the
legislative branch. Additionally, the Office of the General Counsel is
charged with enforcement of the sections of the CAA dealing with unfair
labor practices, safety and health, and disability access. This
includes investigation and prosecution of claims under these sections,
and periodic inspections to ensure compliance with health and safety,
as well as disability access requirements.
In general, the CAA applies the rights and protections of eleven
labor and employment statutes to covered employees within the
legislative branch: the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970, chapter 71 of title 5 of the U.S. Code (relating to Federal
service labor-management relations), the Employee Polygraph Protection
Act of 1988, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and chapter 43 of title 38 of the U.S. Code
(relating to veterans' employment and reemployment).
On January 23, 1996, key provisions of the law took effect,
covering the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Capitol Guide
Service, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Office of the Attending
Physician, the Office of Compliance, and their employees. On October 1,
1996, section 220, the labor management section of the CAA took effect,
as did the OSHA and ADA sections on January 1, 1997.
Before discussing our request in detail, the following describes
the primary functions and processes of the Office, highlighting our
major accomplishments of fiscal year 1996 and noting the changes we
anticipate in the upcoming fiscal years.
dispute resolution process
Information, Counseling, and Mediation
The Office provides covered employees in the legislative branch
with a neutral, confidential, and efficient process for resolving
disputes relating to employment rights and protections. Employees and
employing offices may, at any time, seek informal advice and
information on the procedures of the Office and the rights,
protections, and responsibilities afforded under the CAA. The Office
responds to all inquiries on a confidential basis, and tracks both the
number and the nature of the inquiries.
Under the CAA, employees must request counseling and mediation
under the auspices of the Office of Compliance before filing a formal
complaint. If the employee's concerns are not resolved during the 30-
day counseling period and the employee requests mediation in a timely
manner, the Office provides neutral, trained mediators to assist the
parties in resolving the dispute. The period for mediation is generally
30 days, but may be extended at the request of the parties. Pursuant to
section 416 of the CAA, all counseling and mediation is confidential.
Adjudication
After counseling and mediation, if the dispute remains unresolved,
the employee may choose either to pursue the claim through the
adjudicative hearing process under the auspices of the Office, or file
suit in Federal District Court. An employee who elects the adjudicative
procedures of the Office must file a formal complaint with the Office.
The Executive Director appoints an independent Hearing Officer to
consider the case and render a written decision, which may be appealed
to the Office's Board of Directors. The Board of Directors issues
written decisions, which may then be appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The administrative hearing process
offers speedier resolution and confidentiality, while offering the same
remedies as civil action.
Since January 23, 1996, when the CAA's dispute resolution process
went into effect, a total of 2,420 requests for information were made
to the Office directly, or to the Office's information line. In fiscal
year 1996, a total of 61 formal counseling requests were filed. Of
these, 23 were resolved during, or were not pursued past, this early
stage of the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process. Twenty-five
requests for mediation were received in fiscal year 1996. Two hearings
were held, involving nine complainants.
In the first eight months of fiscal year 1997, a total of 123
formal counseling requests were filed. A total of 113 requests for
mediation have been received thus far in fiscal year 1997, some
resulting from cases initiated in fiscal year 1996. Sixty-two cases
were either resolved during, or not pursued past, the counseling and
mediation stages of the ADR process. Three hearings have been held, and
two more are scheduled.
Although we are still working with limited statistics, the data
demonstrate the effectiveness of the ADR process provided under the
CAA. Because sufficient information is provided on an informal basis,
the vast majority of potential claims never reach the counseling stage.
Other claims are resolved in counseling, and thus do not require
mediation. Mediation has been most effective in resolving many cases
either through settlement, or by providing the employees with
information that satisfies them that further proceedings are not
warranted. Complaints have been filed in only a very few of our cases,
necessitating hearings after the mediation stage. The ADR system is
working as Congress envisioned.
The Office has developed a computerized case-tracking system in
order to meet statutory time frames, efficiently manage and report to
Congress as mandated.
inspections, technical assistance and investigations
Occupational Safety and Health
Pursuant to section 215 of the CAA, the Office of the General
Counsel (OGC) conducts regular periodic inspections--at least once each
Congress--of all facilities in which employees covered by the CAA work.
On the basis of these inspections, the OGC reports on compliance with
the provisions of section 5 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970, as applied by section 215 of the CAA. The OGC also assists the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol and other covered entities, by
arranging for inspections and other technical assistance at their
request.
In fiscal year 1996, the OGC completed the initial inspection of
all facilities of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Capitol
Guide Service, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Office of the Attending
Physician, the Office of Compliance, the Library of Congress, and the
General Accounting Office, between January and June of 1996. The report
submitted to the 104th Congress detailed findings on almost 20 million
square feet inspected. I am pleased to transmit with this testimony a
copy of this report (which was printed and bound by the Government
Printing Office, as were the other attached reports).
Effective January 1, 1997, under section 215 of the CAA, the
General Counsel is responsible for receiving and processing requests
for inspections, and for inspecting and investigating facilities and
issuing citations regarding violations of occupational safety and
health standards.
Public Accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act
Pursuant to section 210 of the CAA, the Office of the General
Counsel conducts regular periodic inspections--at least once each
Congress--of all facilities in which employees covered by the CAA work.
On the basis of these inspections, the OGC reports on compliance with
the rights and protections against discrimination in the provision of
public services and accommodations established by the Americans with
Disabilities Act, as applied to covered facilities by section 210 of
the CAA. The OGC also assists the Office of the Architect of the
Capitol and other covered entities by arranging for inspections and
other technical assistance at their request.
Between January and June, 1996, the OGC completed the initial
inspection of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Capitol
Guide Service, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol (including the Senate Restaurant
and the Botanic Garden), the Office of the Attending Physician, and the
Office of Compliance, and submitted a report on the findings to the
104th Congress. A copy of the report is transmitted with this
testimony.
Effective January 1, 1997, the General Counsel is authorized by
section 210 of the CAA to receive complaints of alleged violations of
the public accommodation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. He is to investigate such charges and, if warranted, issue and
prosecute complaints against any entity responsible for correcting the
alleged violation.
Labor-Management Relations
Effective October 1, 1996, the Office has carried out the Board's
investigative authorities under section 220(c)(1) of the CAA, involving
issues concerning the appropriateness of units for labor organization
representation, the duty to bargain, and exceptions to arbitrators'
awards. Since that time, three representation petitions have been
filed, two pre-election investigatory hearings have been held, and two
elections have been conducted.
The General Counsel is responsible for receiving and investigating
allegations of unfair labor practices filed under section 220 of the
CAA, and for filing and prosecuting complaints of unfair labor
practices with the Office.
The Office of the General Counsel has received a total of 188
requests for information and/or technical assistance since July 1,
1996, under sections 210, 215, and 220. Most of these have been
regarding the OSHA and ADA provisions of the CAA. Eight requests for
inspection have been filed under section 215 (safety and health), and
five unfair labor practices charges have been filed under section 220.
education and information
The CAA mandates an ongoing education and information effort by the
Office. The Office provides to Congress, other employing offices of the
legislative branch, and covered employees information on the laws
applied by the CAA, the Office of Compliance, and its procedures for
dispute resolution and adjudication of claims, as well as any other
information the Office deems necessary.
During fiscal year 1996, a 330-page reference manual was
distributed to approximately 600 employing offices that included
summaries of the eleven laws applied by the CAA, a question and answer
section for each law, and a complete set of the Office's procedural and
substantive rules, updates, and other materials. Periodic updates to
the manual are distributed to all employing offices throughout the
year. In addition, a poster providing information on the eleven laws
applied by the CAA, the Office's address, and phone numbers was
distributed to all employing offices; an informational brochure
containing brief summaries of the eight laws applied by the CAA on
January 23, 1996, employee rights and protections, and the procedures
of the Office was mailed to the residences of the 26,000 employees
covered by the CAA. Briefings were presented by the Office to employing
office staff to provide information and guidance on the CAA; the
sessions were videotaped for use in district offices and for loan to
new employing offices; and introductory briefings on the CAA were
conducted for covered employees. The first quarterly newsletter, The
CAA News, containing updated information on the CAA was mailed in
October to the residences of the 20,000 employees covered by the CAA.
A world wide web site was developed and implemented for
disseminating Office of Compliance information via the Internet. The
web site (www.compliance.gov), is maintained on a GPO server and is
accessible via GPO's ACCESS system; it is updated on an ongoing basis.
An interactive telephone information line was established which directs
callers to recorded information, or to an Office staff member who can
discuss claims and provide resource referrals, and keeps statistics on
how many calls are received by category. The CAA also requires the
Office to publish statistics on the use of the Office by covered
employees. We anticipate publishing the first such report based on
statistics for the year ending June 30, 1997, and annually thereafter.
regulation writing
The CAA requires the Executive Director, subject to Board approval,
to adopt rules governing the procedures of the Office. The CAA further
requires the Board to adopt, subject to Congressional approval,
substantive regulations implementing provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Employee Polygraph
Protection Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act,
Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Federal Service Labor-
Management Relations Statute, as applied by the CAA.
During fiscal year 1996, the Office reviewed thousands of pages of
executive branch regulations, solicited comments and consulted
extensively with interested parties in developing substantive
regulations and procedures. Comprehensive procedural rules for the
Office were developed, published for comment, and adopted and issued on
December 22, 1995. The substantive regulations implementing the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Employee
Polygraph Protection Act, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, as applied by the CAA, became effective on January
23, 1996. The regulations for the implementation of the three remaining
laws made applicable, i.e., OSHA, Titles II and III of the ADA, and the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, were developed,
published for comment, and adopted by the Board between February and
December 1996. The procedural rules were then amended to provide for
implementation of sections 210, 215 and 220.
studies and reports
The CAA mandates several studies to be completed during fiscal year
1996 and 1997. Under section 230 of the CAA (2 U.S.C. Sec. 1371), the
Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) was required to
undertake a study on the application of the rights, protections, and
procedures under the eleven employment and labor laws in the CAA to the
General Accounting Office, the Government Printing Office, and the
Library of Congress and their employees. Pursuant to section 309 of the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, the Board
was made responsible for this study, which was presented to Congress on
December 30, 1996.
Section 102(b)(2) of the CAA required the Board to submit a report
to Congress on the applicability to the legislative branch of
employment laws, beginning on December 31, 1996, and every two years
after that. The report was submitted to Congress on December 30, 1996.
Sections 210(f)(2) and 215(e)(2) of the CAA required the General
Counsel of the Office to submit, at least once every Congress, a report
to Congress and the Office of the Architect of the Capitol containing
the results of the periodic inspections required by the CAA. These
studies, discussed in the Inspections, Technical Assistance, and
Investigations section above, must also outline the steps necessary to
remedy a violation, describe the consequences of each violation, and
estimate the cost and time needed to correct the violation. The initial
section 210 and section 215 studies were presented to Congress on June
28, 1996.
Much of the research for and writing of the section 102(b) and
section 230 studies were completed in fiscal year 1996. For the section
230 study, the Office conducted outreach and collected data from the
three instrumentalities, as well as other interested parties. For the
section 102(b) study, all new and existing legislation was surveyed,
including regulations relating to the terms and conditions of
employment of employees and access to public services and
accommodations. Reports on both studies may be found on the Office's
home page (http://www.compliance.gov), and I am pleased to present a
copy of each to you with this testimony.
The Board has approved an interim section 102(b) study on those
sections of the CAA laws not specifically incorporated into the CAA. We
anticipate the publication of this interim study early in fiscal year
1998. In addition, as noted, section 102(b) of the CAA mandates the
examination of all new and existing legislation on a biannual basis.
The second full 102(b) study will be conducted during fiscal year 1998,
and the report will be issued in early fiscal year 1999.
administrative and financial improvements
Accomplishments in fiscal year 1996
Early in fiscal year 1996, the Office occupied a small suite of
offices in the Adams building of the Library of Congress on a temporary
basis. It was expanded with considerable assistance from the Library
and its staff in January of this year.
The Office developed a budget and accounting system that complies
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, tracks expenditures by
primary process or function, complies with appropriations law, and,
voluntarily, with FAR guidelines. The new system was implemented on
October 1, 1996. The Office also implemented the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996, which required all new vendors to be paid via
electronic fund transfer (EFT) effective on July 26, 1996. Although
requiring that existing vendors be paid via EFT is not mandatory until
January 1, 1999, the Office has already achieved upwards of 85 percent
compliance with this requirement. The Office also prepared and
submitted its first President's and Legislative Branch budgets and
justifications.
With considerable help from Library of Congress financial, budget,
and personnel staff, we planned for and effected a change in the agency
that provides administrative support--from GSA to the LOC. The Library
now provides disbursement and budget support, obligations and voucher
processing, and payroll services through the National Finance Center.
The Office has on-line access to both the Library's Federal Financial
System and Reports Management System, for purposes of producing reports
and analyzing budget status.
The Office developed and installed a completely internal Local Area
Network (LAN). The primary consideration in the design of the LAN was
strict compliance with section 416 of the CAA, which requires
confidentiality in most of our processes; therefore, its design allows
for no external physical connectivity. The e-mail, word processing,
spreadsheet, and other software used by Office staff reside on the LAN.
The cabling for the network was provided and installed by the Library
of Congress and the Architect of the Capitol. The majority of the
equipment was obtained from the Office of Technology Assessment.
In order to ensure consistency with statutory time frames,
efficiently manage and report to Congress as mandated, the Office's
computerized case-tracking system has been developed and also resides
on the LAN, in test mode. The system is both flexible and highly
secure, also in accordance with the confidentiality requirements of
section 416 the CAA, allowing even Office staff to access data only on
a ``need-to-know'' basis.
The Office implemented a phone system, voice mail system, and the
world wide web site and interactive information line discussed in
Education and Information above. The Office has Internet access, access
to Westlaw on-line legal information services, and access to the
Architect of the Capitol via e-mail, and we are linked to the Library
of Congress's Federal Financial Services on-line system, all of which
are via stand-alone computer (not connected to the LAN). The Office
also developed and implemented a disaster recovery system for its
confidential data. All files are backed up regularly on magnetic tape,
and stored off-site.
The Office established a small internal library of legal
publications. For other publications, the Office relies on the
collections of the Library of Congress.
fiscal year 1998 request
The Office of Compliance's fiscal year 1998 budget request of
$2,600,000 reflects a $9,000 (-0.3 percent) decrease from the fiscal
year 1997 appropriation of $2,609,000. The request is predicated on two
assumptions--that the Office will remain housed within the Library of
Congress, and that the current workload will remain fairly constant.
Since its inception, the Office has been located in the Adams
building of the Library of Congress. Pursuant to an agreement with the
Library, the space was expanded to accommodate our initial operations.
On this basis, no additional funding for moving expenses, rent,
utilities, or system and phone wiring has been included in this
request. If the Office is required to relocate in fiscal year 1998,
additional funding will be sought in a supplemental request.
Although the Office is requesting the same number of FTE positions
as in fiscal year 1997, we should again note that the CAA has not been
in effect long enough to accurately predict future needs. It is
similarly difficult to predict how the added responsibility of the ADA
and OSHA functions will affect staffing requirements. In addition, on
December 30, we submitted a study to Congress on the application of the
employment and labor laws incorporated in the CAA to the General
Accounting Office, the Government Printing Office, and the Library of
Congress. Should Congress decide that GPO, GAO and/or the LOC should be
covered under the CAA, additional funding and staffing will be needed
for the Office of Compliance.
Similarly with respect to projected costs for mediators, hearing
officers, and court reporters, this budget request was extrapolated
from fiscal year 1996 actual data that represented only two months of
hearings and five months of mediations. Moreover, the Office's new
functions under sections 210 and 215 of the CAA will include
investigations and hearings with regard to both the public services and
accommodations provisions of the ADA, and OSHA, and the labor
management sections of the CAA. These functions could increase the need
for mediation and hearing-related services.
Costs for employee benefits are expected to be approximately
$88,000 less in fiscal year 1998 than had been projected for fiscal
year 1997. Our fiscal year 1997 request had been based on the average
benefits ratio experienced by other agencies which did not turn out to
be an accurate predictor.
We continue to hire permanent full-time staff who are capable of
performing the range of functions for which the Office has
responsibility. Thus, we are requesting a total of $35,000 for the
services of temporary employees, who will be needed to fill in on a
targeted basis.
Based on fiscal year 1996 actual expenditures, increases in
postage, courier services, long distance data communications, and
office supplies are requested, as is an increase in printing and
reproduction, necessitated by the numbers of publications required to
fulfill our statutory mandate for education and information. We are
also requesting a $14,000 increase in equipment over the fiscal year
1997 request.
The Office is requesting a total increase of $10,000 for cost-
reimbursable services specified in our interagency agreement (IAG) with
the Library of Congress, including copying, manual labor, and graphics
design.
No specific amount is requested for the Awards and Settlements
appropriation, as the Office can predict neither the numbers nor
amounts of awards in advance. In the first eight months of fiscal year
1997, the Executive Director approved disbursements of a total of
$36,429 to five complainants.
conclusion
In the less than two years since this Office came into existence
much has been accomplished. We have endeavored to fulfill our statutory
mandate faithfully, effectively, and in a cost efficient manner.
Although we come before you today better able to assess our experience
and to project from that experience our future needs, of course there
remains the uncertainty that is a concomitant of sailing in uncharted
waters. But at this point, it is fair to say that the processes are
working extremely well. This speaks not only to the good work of the
Office, but, more importantly, to the commitment of Congress to the
important principles of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, my regrets for being late. I
have been involved in some meetings on the disaster bill which
is obviously consuming the interests of my constituents and me
and that has delayed me. I apologize.
Senator Bennett. More than understandable.
Senator Dorgan. I do not have any questions at the moment,
but I appreciate very much the testimony and the good work of
the witnesses.
Senator Bennett. I do not have any serious questions that
we need to spend a lot of time on. We will submit some
questions in writing that we would ask you to respond to.
space in Library of Congress
I understand you are housed in space within the Library of
Congress and that there are a number of items in your budget
that go to reimburse the Library. Could you briefly summarize
what those are and give us your view as to what the future may
hold in terms of where your offices might be and what that
might do to future expenses?
Ms. Silberman. Right now we have an administrative support
services contract with the Library of Congress. We felt that
that was the most cost-efficient way to get such things done as
payroll and disbursements, because we are contiguous. They have
given us very, very good service in these things. We switched
from GSA to the Library of Congress.
With respect to our space, it is kind of an awkward
question, Mr. Chairman. We are very happy in the space. We do
not know how happy they are to have us continue to be in that
space.
Senator Bennett. If it is nice space, they want it back.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Silberman. Well, I am sure that is true. Like with
everything else on Capitol Hill, space is the most difficult
issue, and I have to tell you that when I came up here after 11
years with the EEOC in the executive branch, I had absolutely
no idea that the first 5 months of my tenure would be consumed
by finding this homeless agency some space. I will not go into
that story now. It is not really for public consumption.
At any rate, suffice to say that we are happy where we are.
We understand that there are certain questions that need to be
explored with our landlord. We do not think we are probably the
best people to explore those questions, but if we have to move,
there is no doubt that that will mean added costs for us which
we did not factor into this budget request. The balance of
interests with respect to how those costs are best allocated is
not something we can speak to.
What we wanted was space that was close to the constituents
so that if people needed information and help, they could come
to us easily, that was relatively secure in terms of the
confidentiality requirements--and the Library has done a
wonderful job in helping us to make that happen--and that was
most cost efficient. We have done that now.
Additional committee questions
Senator Bennett. OK, fine. Thank you very much for coming
in. Our best wishes to you. It sounds from your testimony that
your primary emphasis is on prevention not adjudication. I wish
I had the same feeling about many of your sister efforts in the
private world where the gotcha mentality seems to reign and
they are not so interested in preventing things from happening
or helping people understand. I commend you for that and look
forward to visiting with you next time.
Ms. Silberman. Thank you so much.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
Question. The Office of Compliance determined that generally the
rights of employees at GPO, LOC and GAO were comprehensive and
effective. However, the Office did note that some gaps exist--what are
these gaps?
Answer. The study under section 230 of the CAA evaluated the rights
and protections at the instrumentalities by making comparisons with the
rights and protections under the CAA. Following this methodology, the
study identified the following gaps:
Substantive rights.--Employees at GPO are not covered under the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act or the Employee
Polygraph Protection Act of 1988.
Adequacy of administrative processes.--LOC employees have no right
of appeal to the EEOC or to any other administrative body external to,
and independent from, the Library when the Librarian of Congress denies
a complaint of employment discrimination. Nor can a Library employee
appeal to an outside agency when the Library takes action against the
employee in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. GPO is not
subject to the investigatory or enforcement authority of any outside
agency in the occupational safety and health area. Nor can a GPO
employee apply to an outside regulatory agency if the Public Printer
denies the employee's complaint of discrimination on the basis of
disability, or if the employee wishes to enforce rights under the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.
Adequacy of judicial processes and relief.--Employees at GPO, like
most federal civil service employees, do not have a private right of
action for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act or the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Furthermore,
while GAO and Library employees have been granted a private right of
action under the Family and Medical Leave Act, they may not be entitled
to a jury trial, because courts ordinarily do not provide jury trials
in cases against the federal government without express statutory
authority, and no statute expressly authorizes jury trials in cases
brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act. For similar reasons,
jury trials may be unavailable to employees of all three
instrumentalities in cases under the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Equal Pay Act. Employees of
the three instrumentalities, like most federal civil service employees,
are also not entitled to recover compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1981 or liquidated damages under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act. Finally, while GAO employees may have their
discrimination complaints adjudicated administratively, and may then
obtain judicial review in a court of appeals, a judicial decision has
left some uncertainty as to whether GAO employees may pursue a
discrimination complaint as a civil action.
Adoption of substantive regulations.--In issuing an order to
establish its labor-management program, GAO exercised discretion under
the General Accounting Office Personnel Act to establish limits on
appropriate bargaining units and on the scope of bargaining that are
more restrictive than the provisions of the Federal Service Labor-
Management Relations statute, 5 U.S.C. chapter 71, as made applicable
by the CAA.
Question. Are there instances in which GAO, GPO, or LOC are
governed by laws enforced by executive branch agencies, and in other
instances where the same agency has the law enforced by a legislative
branch agency, i.e.: the Office of Compliance?
Answer. The situation described in the question is present at GAO
and LOC, but not at GPO. With respect to GAO and LOC, certain laws are
enforced by executive branch agencies (i.e., executive branch agencies
may impose regulations, hear and decide employee complaints, conduct
investigations, and/or take enforcement actions), while other laws are
enforced by the Office of Compliance. With respect to GPO, some laws
are enforced by executive branch agencies, but no laws are enforced by
the Office of Compliance with respect to GPO. Furthermore, some laws
are to be implemented by the three instrumentalities themselves,
without enforcement by either an executive branch agency or the Office
of Compliance.
The following chart lists the laws made applicable to Congress by
the CAA, and identifies where executive branch agencies enforce these
laws with respect to GAO, GPO, and LOC, where the Office of Compliance
enforces the laws, and where neither an executive branch agency nor the
Office of Compliance enforces the laws.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive branch or legislative branch agencies that enforce the law with respect to--
Laws made applicable to Congress by -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the CAA GAO GPO LOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment discrimination laws...... Regulatory authority is exercised by the EEOC, except that, under the Americans with Regulatory authority is exercised by the Librarian
Comptroller General and the GAO Personnel Appeals Disabilities Act, regulatory authority is of Congress.
Board (PAB). exercised by the Public Printer.
Fair Labor Standards Act............ Office of Personnel Management (OPM).............. OPM............................................... Department of Labor. Also, OPM may hear some
employee claims.
Family and Medical Leave Act........ OPM until 12/30/97. Beginning on 12/30/97, under OPM. Also, the Merit Systems Protection Board OPM until 12/30/97. Beginning on 12/30/97, under
an amendment made by the CAA, regulatory (MSPB) may hear some employee claims. an amendment made by the CAA, regulatory
authority will be exercised by the Comptroller authority will be exercised by the Librarian of
General. The PAB may hear some employee claims. Congress.
Occupational Safety and Health Act.. Office of Compliance, beginning on 12/30/97. (Now, The law is to be implemented by GPO. Also, reports Office of Compliance, beginning on 12/30/97. (Now,
reports must be filed with the Labor Department.). must be filed with the Labor Department. reports must be filed with the Labor
Department.).
Federal Service Labor-Management Regulatory authority is exercised by the Federal Labor Relations Authority................. Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Relations Statute. Comptroller General and the PAB.
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Office of Compliance, beginning on 12/30/97....... Law does not apply................................ Office of Compliance, beginning on 12/30/97.
Notification Act.
Uniformed Services Employment and Office of Compliance, beginning on 12/30/97. (Now, The law is to be implemented by GPO. (Also, the Office of Compliance, beginning on 12/30/97. (Now,
Reemployment Rights Act. OPM, Labor Department, Office of Special Counsel, Labor Department may investigate and seek the Labor Department may investigate and seek
MSPB.). compliance by informal means.). compliance by informal means.).
Employee Polygraph Protection Act... Office of Compliance, beginning on 12/30/97....... Law does not apply................................ Office of Compliance, beginning on 12/30/97.
Public access provisions of the Regulatory authority is exercised by the Regulatory authority is exercised by the Public Regulatory authority is exercised by the Librarian
Americans with Disabilities Act. Comptroller General. Additional administrative Printer. Additional administrative remedies and of Congress. Additional administrative remedies
remedies and procedures become effective on 12/30/ procedures become effective on 12/30/97 under an and procedures become effective on 12/30/97 under
97 under an amendment made by the CAA, but the amendment made by the CAA, but the Public Printer an amendment made by the CAA, but the Librarian
Comptroller General remains responsible for remains responsible for implementation. of Congress remains responsible for
implementation. implementation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, at all three instrumentalities, certain civil service
laws outside the scope of the CAA are enforced by executive branch
agencies. For example, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
enforces laws on position classification and grading with respect to
GPO and LOC. OPM, the Office of Special Counsel, and the Merit Systems
Protection Board also enforce laws on prohibited personnel practices,
adverse actions, and RIF's with respect to GPO. OPM's regulations on
premium pay and on flexible and compressed work schedules apply to GAO,
and OPM's regulations on benefits and annual and sick leave apply to
all three instrumentalities.
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Secretary of the Senate
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY SISCO, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
SHARON ZELASKA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
STUART BALDERSON, FINANCIAL CLERK OF THE SENATE
LOUISE CAMPANALE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM AND LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM
opening remarks
Senator Bennett. The next panel will be the Secretary of
the Senate. We will have the Honorable Gary Sisco. Gary, I ask
you to introduce whomever you have with you.
Mr. Sisco, we want to welcome you before the committee.
This is your first time testifying as Secretary of the Senate.
The Office of the Secretary has been actively pursuing two
large projects: Implementation of the financial management
system and the legislative information system.
Mr. Sisco. That is correct.
Senator Bennett. We look forward to hearing about your
progress in these areas and whatever other information you wish
to share with us.
Senator Dorgan, do you have any opening remarks?
Senator Dorgan. No; I welcome Mr. Sisco and appreciate the
service he is giving the Senate. We have great cooperation from
his office, and since this is his first appearance, we are here
to say welcome and we are anxious to hear your testimony.
introduction of Associates
Mr. Sisco. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Senator Dorgan, I do
thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee
today to present the fiscal year 1998 budget request for the
Office of the Secretary. This is a short summary which should
run only 10 to 12 minutes, and the longer statement has been
submitted previously in writing.
This is my first appearance before the committee, and it is
an honor and a pleasure to have served as the Secretary of the
Senate since October. I look forward to working with this
committee and each Senator and the full Senate in the future.
With me this morning are three people whom I want to
introduce: Sharon Zelaska, who is the Assistant Secretary, who
supervises the day-to-day administration of the Secretary's
office, and by law she would perform most of my duties in the
event of my absence. She came to the Senate in February,
bringing two decades of experience in the Congress and in the
executive branch of Government.
Also here is someone familiar to you, Stuart Balderson, the
Financial Clerk of the Senate. He has submitted to you a
separate report concerning the overall budget of the Senate and
the requests there. My testimony this morning will be limited
to the Secretary's office itself.
Also here with me this morning is Louise Campanale. Ms.
Campanale, who comes to us from one of the major big six
national accounting and consulting firms and who has an M.B.A.
in accounting with a lot of experience, has joined the office
as a special assistant to me for financial and legislative
systems development to make sure we move these two systems
along.
In addition to Sharon, Stuart, and Louise, there are other
people here, and there are more than 200 capable and dedicated
staff who make up the departments of the Secretary's office. I
just want to go on record that I think their contributions have
been highly valued. They have been easy to work with and they
are essential for us to continue to perform the constitutional
responsibilities of the Senate.
As Secretary, I serve as the Senate's chief legislative,
administrative, and financial officer. My responsibilities are
established variously in statutes, in rules, resolutions, and
precedents of the Senate, and in direction from the Senate
leadership and the committees, of course. But all of our
responsibilities have a common focus and that is to enable or
assist the Senate in fulfilling its role within our
constitutional form of Government.
In this statement this morning, though, my main emphasis is
where we are now and where we are going in the future with your
support and the support of the Senate.
proposed Budget for fiscal year 1998
I have proposed a budget for the Office of the Secretary
for fiscal year 1998 of $14,942,000, of which 89.1 percent, or
about $13,431,000 is for salaries and $1,511,000 is for
expenses. Compared to last year, there is a freeze on expenses
and the salary request is a 5.64-percent increase.
This increase includes $342,000 for cost-of-living
allowances, $75,000 for potential overtime as we take on these
new responsibilities, $150,000 for new positions, and $150,000
for merit-based salary increases. There is no increase, as I
said, for the total expenses, but there are some realignments
based on past spending patterns and some increases that are
narrowly focused to bring us into target with what we want to
do today and looking forward.
Broadly stated, the priorities that I am operating under
and that are driving the budget are, first, to preserve the
best and improve the rest of our current legislative,
administrative, and financial services to the Senate.
Second, to implement, under strategic planning--working
very closely with the Rules Committee and the Sergeant at
Arms--in the areas of improved financial management and
legislative information management.
Third, to achieve our vision--the Senate and the House
vision--for the Capitol visitor center.
I think the budget request being presented is sensitive to
the demand of the leadership of the Senate, the Appropriations
Committee, and the American public that Government become more
efficient. But, we did not put it together with the emphasis on
cutting for cuts' sake. We exist to serve the Senate.
In 1995 to 1996, the Secretary's office absorbed a
reduction across the board of 12 percent. For the current
fiscal year, 1997, my predecessor requested what was
essentially a freeze of the 1996 budget, and since 1995 we have
taken on significant new responsibilities without any
significant new funding, and we have got two major initiatives
coming up.
For these reasons and others, I am not looking for cuts, as
I said, for the sake of cuts, but wherever I can, I am going to
save dollars and make us more efficient. For example, after my
arrival in October, at the end of 1996, we consolidated the
Office of Printing Services with the Document Room, resulting
in a new Printing and Document Services Division, and we had
some significant salary and office space savings by that
consolidation and it made sense at the time.
Strategic planning
Strategic planning was initiated under the direction of the
Committee on Rules and Administration long before I came to the
Senate, but since I have been here, I have been active in the
process and I am fully committed to it, as are the leaders and
the Sergeant at Arms.
Through strategic planning, the Senate has directed us to
take on infrastructure and operational issues that have been
pending before, as well as to assume some new important
responsibilities. Where the Senate has asked that we undertake
large scale projects, new or reallocated resources will be
needed.
Strategic planning has focused at the outset on four major
operational and technological areas. Two we have mentioned--the
financial management and legislative information systems--are
the focus right now. Two others are human resources management
and procurement reform.
Financial management information system
On financial management, I am renaming FMS-II as FMIS. It
is a new day. I am not superstitious, but I think it is time to
rename it and move on.
The objective of the financial management information
system, or FMIS, is to develop and implement an obligation- and
accrual-based financial management system that will provide for
accounting and tracking and reporting and analysis of our
financial information, which can produce an auditable
consolidated financial statement for the entire Senate. FMIS
will benefit all the Senate offices and the committees and
everyone who works here by allowing all of us to control and
track expenditures of their individual accounts.
FMIS will replace, by October 1, 1999, several obsolete
systems, including the Disbursing Office's general ledger
system, which now operates on a cash basis rather than an
accrual basis, and the Sergeant at Arms' accounting system for
payables, which is isolated from the Disbursing Office system.
The installation of a new general ledger system also will
resolve--prior to it being a problem for us--the year 2000
problem. Within the same timeframe, the Disbursing Office's
payroll system will be made year 2000 compliant. So, that would
not be a problem for us.
As you are already aware, the old FMS-II experienced
significant delays from its outset. In 1995 you appropriated $7
million for the system, and the 1997 act extended availability
of those funds through the year 2000. Candidly, when I took
office last October, little progress had been made and only
$200,000 had been spent.
I have a handful of top priorities. FMIS is the No. 1
priority and I plan on catching it up to implementation as we
move forward.
Legislative information system
The legislative information system, or LIS, like FMIS is a
comprehensive Senate-wide information system that has long been
needed. The Senate continues to rely on the information system
that has been dated from the 1970's. Last year the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act mandated that we do it and that we
implement it.
The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1997, as I
said, directs the Secretary to develop and implement LIS under
the oversight of the Committee on Rules and Administration. We
are committed through the strategic planning and just through
day-to-day management to have it online as soon as possible but
no later than December 31, 1999. It will be a system that will
be about preparing, storing, retrieving, and tracking and
distributing legislative information to each Senate office and
each committee, and each other interested person who is tied to
the system, through their own personal computers on their own
desks.
An early phase of LIS became available as of last week. We
have installed the amendment capture distribution system, the
new equipment and software allowing the bill clerks to scan the
floor amendments in the Chamber as they come to the desk. The
clerks add the amendment numbers. They will add the bill
numbers. They will add who the sponsor is, and then they will
electronically scan that and it will enter the system. Then
Senators and staff can view it from their own personal
computers.
The chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee
announced that about 10 days ago and we have a followup letter
that went out yesterday on that particular phase of the
legislative information system. Through the testing that we
have done, we have had really good feedback from some Member
offices. I think maybe it was in your office, Senator Dorgan.
The legislative information system will begin with the
floor functions, but it has significant potential for many
other additional kinds of information that can be added once we
get it installed. It can be designed to provide ready access
effectively to anything that may aid a Senator in being
knowledgeable to create informed public policy.
As you know, no funds have been provided specifically for
LIS to this date. I was given authority--the Secretary was--
last year to extend surplus funds from FMS-II subject to the
committee's approval. I have not made a request to date but
will need to do so unless we receive the $5 million for LIS
that is in the supplemental appropriations bill. If that
passes, we will not be requesting any more money for LIS. If it
does not, we will ask for transfers over from the financial
management money that was allocated previously.
At this point, the system cost is subject to a number of
variables that we will flesh out during the strategic planning
process and that we are evaluating. For example, the system
implementation that we originally planned to be done by Senate
staff might instead be more effectively done by an outside
contractor. We are looking at those things.
Senate library
I will touch on the Senate library. In 1994 the
Appropriations Committee provided full funding for the
relocation of the Senate library in the amount of $4,900,000.
Our intent remains the same, which is to create a state-of-
the-art library facility in space that is more conveniently
located to Senators' and committee offices. The Rules Committee
has designated space in the Russell Building, which I found
would be quite sufficient, right next to the CRS offices that
are over there now. The Architect of the Capitol is at present
doing asbestos removal from that space, and it is in the
planning process. So, we will come with a new plan for that. I
think it will be in Russell. We propose that it would be in
Russell, as opposed to the more elaborate $4.9 million plan,
and that will keep the volumes that are needed in the Capitol
in the Capitol, but the others will be in the Russell Building
in redesigned space there. I think we can do that with less
money than has been approved.
Personnel management
One other area that I want to note is personnel management.
In terms of the internal personnel management of the
Secretary's office in 1997, I think we have got a particularly
important personnel challenge in the future.
During 1996, as you know, the Secretary's office introduced
its first job classification and compensation system through
the Hay Group, and new market salary ranges were established
for specific positions. In light of the requirements of the
Congressional Accountability Act, it was absolutely necessary
for that to have been done. But there remain questions as to
how certain jobs in the Secretary's office which do not have
any direct counterpart in the executive branch or in private
industry could be compared.
This committee in its report last year commended the
efforts but noted that certain positions with little
comparability to private sector occupations are essential to
the Senate's constitutional responsibilities.
The Hay system, we found, is useful in organizations with
one-of-a-kind jobs, but I do not think it gave enough weight to
the institutional knowledge of the Senate that is required in
certain positions here. Therefore, since October I have
exercised my discretion to modify the Hay system and to make
adjustments for some positions, recognizing institutional
knowledge and some other unique circumstances, and I would plan
under good management to continue to do so in the future.
Further, we will begin adjusting salaries for specific
positions in the Secretary's office and awarding increases to
specific employees on a merit basis. Though the new system is
still under study--and I should receive it by the end of this
month, the end of June--its essential feature will be to link
future salary increases to merit, productivity, skill, service,
or other factors that are measurable and that demonstrate the
value of that employee to the Secretary's office and to the
full Senate.
Succession planning
The positions within our office that depend on
institutional knowledge and experience present us with a major
challenge for the future. We have people in these key
positions, and particularly within the legislative departments,
but not exclusively there, who are or will be eligible to
retire in the near future. Positions with duties in the
Chamber, as well as some others, can require 4 to 8 years of
on-the-job training to master--at the clerk's desk in the
Chamber, for example. We need to plan now to maintain the
constitutionally essential functions that these departments
perform.
I went into that in more detail in the full statement, but
basically there are five or six people here in key positions,
in the Chamber or otherwise in the Senate and the Secretary's
office, that are critical, but who are eligible for retirement
now or who could retire in 1 year or 2. In some cases there is
a gap because no people have been brought in underneath for on-
the-job training to move up over time.
So, accordingly, I am beginning a process to plan for
succession into these essential positions in future years with
no disruption in any critical function, looking first from
within the Secretary's office itself and hiring from the
inside. But this might require us, or probably will require us,
to identify a number of prospective new hires who are highly
qualified, possibly with experience in a related field, who are
able to commit to a career in the Senate or for a long-term
basis as they learn how to meet the professional standards that
these individual positions require. Not this year, but our
future budget for salaries will take that into account. The
1999 budget will take that into account.
Capitol visitors center
Last and quickly, the Capitol visitors center. November 17,
1800, was the date that Congress met in the Capitol for the
first time. So, for nearly 200 years the Capitol has stood as
the world's greatest visible symbol of representative democracy
for people coming here from within the country--our citizens--
and for others from around the world.
At the request of the leaders and the Rules Committee, I
have at least temporarily taken the lead in preparing a Senate
bill that would authorize construction and fundraising for a
Capitol visitors center. We have had a series of meetings with
the Architect of the Capitol on various issues, with the Senate
historian and curator, with the Sergeant at Arms and with the
House Clerk and the Sergeant at Arms of the House to consider
educational components, and also--a big, big point, I think--
the security component of the new Capitol visitors center and
what that could do for us there.
I believe that the hard construction costs can be raised
without the use of taxpayers' funds, other than the front-end
funding to allow the project to begin. Further, the visitor
center will not impact my budget directly, even though key
staff, myself, and others within the Secretary's office will
need to make some major contributions of our time.
We have got $24 million, or just in excess of $24 million,
in privately raised money now in the existing Capitol
preservation fund, and there is little doubt in my opinion, and
the opinion of others that I talk with, that this money can be
raised to build the Capitol visitors center from private
sources and that the fundraising effort would be successful in
doing that. If, however, sufficient funds for the project are
authorized and set aside and appropriated at the outset, to be
used as needed to draw against whatever money we have now or
that we raise privately, then the visitor center can be begun
without delay and built within the targeted completion date of
November 2000. Even though that is aggressive, it will be a
nice thing to open on the 200th anniversary of the moving of
the Government here from Philadelphia. It would let the
Architect go ahead and let construction contracts and proceed
while we raise the money. While the appropriated funds can be
drawn, they would be repaid or offset as we raise money.
So, I am preparing that with everyone's input on the Senate
side, and am looking to the leadership of the Senate and the
House to pass that as soon as we can. I am personally committed
to it and my staff and I will assist in every way that we
possibly can.
prepared statements
So, that took a little longer than I hoped for, but that
completes my statement and I am, of course, available for
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Sisco
budget summary
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 budget:
Payroll Budget............................ $12,714,000 89.4
Operating Expense Budget.................. 1,511,000 10.6
-------------------------
Total................................... 14,225,000 100.0
=========================
Suggested fiscal year 1998 Budget request:
Payroll Budget............................ 13,431,000 89.9
Operating Expense Budget.................. 1,511,000 10.1
-------------------------
Total................................... 14,942,000 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPENSES--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
available Budget
Item fiscal year estimate Difference
1997 Public fiscal year
Law 104-107 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical office:
Books and documents......................................... $2,500 $2,500 ..............
Photographic supplies....................................... 7,000 7,000 ..............
Library:
Online information services................................. 47,000 47,000 ..............
Microform publications...................................... 31,000 35,000 +$4,000
Books....................................................... 12,000 12,000 ..............
Subscriptions............................................... 20,000 20,000 ..............
Standing orders............................................. 20,000 20,000 ..............
CD-ROM...................................................... 4,000 4,000 ..............
Audio/visual materials...................................... 500 500 ..............
Office of Conservation and Preservation......................... 3,000 5,000 +2,000
Book preservation........................................... 5,000 5,000 ..............
Office of Public Records (Public Law 92-342)................ 8,000 10,000 +2,000
Travel and registration fees (Public Law 94-59)................. 12,000 60,000 +48,000
Consultants (not more than two) (Public Law 95-26).............. 25,000 75,000 +50,000
Legal reference volumes and dictionaries (Senators' offices)
(Public Law 92-51)............................................. 80,000 90,000 +10,000
Contractual legal and administrative services and miscellaneous
expenses....................................................... 295,000 270,000 -25,000
Disbursing office: Payroll forms, notary fees, supplies, and
insurance...................................................... 29,000 15,000 -14,000
Orientation and training (Public Law 95-94)..................... 10,000 10,000 ..............
Newspapers...................................................... 25,000 25,000 ..............
Senate service awards (S. Res. 21, Sept. 10, 1965).............. 23,000 23,000 ..............
Postage......................................................... 1,000 1,000 ..............
Education of Senate pages (Public Law 98-51 and Public Law 98-
125) (S. Res. 184, July 29, 1983).............................. 58,000 58,000 ..............
Stationery...................................................... 50,000 50,000 ..............
Senate Commission on Art (Public Law 100-696, Nov. 18, 1988).... 28,000 33,000 +5,000
Representation expenses (Public Law 100-71, July 11, 1987)...... 30,000 50,000 +20,000
Office of Captioning Services (Public Law 101-163, Nov. 21,
1989).......................................................... 235,000 163,000 -72,000
Senate Chief Counsel for Employment............................. 450,000 420,000 -30,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 1,511,000 1,511,000 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
legislative departments
Bill Clerk
The Bill Clerk records 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 assigns numbers to all bills and resolutions.
Legislative activity.--The legislative materials processed by the
Bill Clerk during the last two Congresses are included in the following
comparative chart.
LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
104th Congress 103rd Congress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days in Session......................... 343 291
Hours in Session........................ 2,875"/55 2,513"/15
Measures Passed......................... 822 938
Measures Reported....................... 509 608
Roll Call Votes......................... 919 724
Senate Bills............................ 2,199 2,569
Senate Joint Resolutions................ 65 232
Senate Concurrent Resolutions........... 74 80
Senate Resolutions...................... 324 294
Quorum Calls............................ 5 8
Amendments Submitted.................... 5,439 2,655
House Bills............................. 472 498
House Joint Resolutions................. 31 54
House Concurrent Resolutions............ 68 80
Senate Reports.......................... 398 433
Roll Call Votes......................... 919 724
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated, the volume of legislative materials processed by the
Bill Clerk during the 104th Congress was 76 percent higher than during
the 103rd Congress, a result largely due to a substantial rise in the
number of amendments submitted and roll call votes recorded, despite a
general decline in the number of bills introduced over the past six
years.
Relations with GPO.--Although relations with GPO's Congressional
Desk remained good, the work product was affected by the retirement of
experienced printers, coupled with cutbacks in overall staff. The
record on specific GPO printings for the 1996 calendar year is
summarized below:
--Star Prints.--The number of Star Prints authorized was down to 13,
continuing a three-year trend in such printings.
--``Bates List''.--Overnight rush printing was ordered on 34
occasions.
--``Committee Discharges'': The Secretary discontinued printing of
``committee discharge'' bills, saving approximately $200,000
during the 104th Congress.
Projects.--Two significant projects occupied the Bill Clerk in
``spare'' moments during the 104th Congress:
--LEGIS 2000: The system used by the Bill Clerk for entry of status
information is being reviewed and will be incorporated into the
Legislative Information System (LIS).
--Amendment Scanning: After a year of discussion, the scanning of
proposed amendments will be a reality as of June, 1997. The
effect this may have on our workload is unclear; current plans
are to incorporate this additional work into the Bill Clerk's
daily routine.
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,
and are published in the Congressional Record.
Chamber Activity.--The Senate was in session a total of 132 days,
for a total of 1,036 hours and 45 minutes. There were 2 quorum calls
and 306 recorded votes.
Committee Activity.--Senate committees held 522 hearings and 184
business meetings (total 736), contrasted with 795 hearings and 227
business meetings (total 1,022), during the 2nd Session of the 103rd
Congress.
All hearings and business meetings (including joint meetings and
conferences) are scheduled through the Office of the Senate Daily
Digest and are published in the Congressional Record and entered in the
LEGIS hearings file. Meeting outcomes are also published by the Daily
Digest in the Congressional Record each day.
Government Printing Office.--Continuing a practice in preceding
Congresses, the Daily Digest office discusses with the Government
Printing Office problems encountered with the printing of the Daily
Digest section. Corrections or transcript errors have become very
infrequent.
HEARING/BUSINESS MEETING STATS-1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business
Hearings meetings Totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January................................ 14 3 17
February............................... 43 8 51
March.................................. 122 32 154
April.................................. 59 19 78
May.................................... 89 23 112
June................................... 76 34 110
July................................... 67 27 94
August................................. 7 7 14
September.............................. 60 29 89
October................................ 10 2 12
November............................... 3 ......... 3
December............................... 2 ......... 2
--------------------------------
Totals........................... 552 184 736
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEARING/BUSINESS MEETING STATS-1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business
Hearings meetings Totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January................................ 18 2 20
February............................... 100 25 125
March.................................. 161 26 187
April.................................. 99 17 116
May.................................... 133 26 159
June................................... 86 49 135
July................................... 67 26 93
August................................. 50 21 71
September.............................. 52 22 74
October................................ 22 13 35
November............................... 2 ......... 2
December............................... 5 ......... 5
--------------------------------
Totals........................... 795 227 1,022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, as applicable.
During 1996, 54 enrolled bills (transmitted to the President) and
11 concurrent resolutions (transmitted to the Archives) were prepared,
printed, proofread, corrected and printed on parchment.
A total of 476 additional pieces of legislation were enacted or
agreed to by the Senate, requiring processing and printing from this
office.
Executive Clerk
The Executive Clerk prepares a record of actions taken by the
Senate in executive session (proceedings on nominations and treaties)
which is published as the Executive Journal at the end of each session
of Congress. A daily Executive Calendar is prepared when nominations,
treaties, or resolutions are pending.
Nominations.--During the second session of the 104th Congress,
there were 523 nomination messages sent to the Senate by the President,
transmitting 26,211 nominations to positions requiring Senate
confirmation. There were 11 messages withdrawing nominations previously
sent to the Senate during the first and second sessions. Of the total
nominations transmitted, 223 were for civilian positions other than
lists in the Foreign Service, Coast Guard, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and Public Health Service. In addition,
there were 1,558 nominees in the ``civilian list'' categories named
above. Military nominations received this session totaled 24,430 (6,213
in the Air Force, 8,720 in the Army, 7,165 in the Navy and 2,332 in the
Marine Corps). The Senate confirmed 33,176 nominations this session. A
total of 748 nominations were returned to the President pursuant to the
provisions of paragraph 6 of Senate Rule XXXI at the sine die
adjournment of the 104th Congress.
Treaties.--Fourteen treaties were transmitted to the Senate by the
President during the second session of the 104th Congress for its
advice and consent to ratification, which were ordered printed as
treaty documents for the use of the Senate (Treaty Docs. 104-23 through
104-36).
The Senate gave its advice and consent to twenty-eight treaties--
ten without reservation and eighteen with various conditions,
declarations, understandings or provisos.
Executive Reports and Roll Call Votes.--Twenty-five executive
reports relating to treaties were ordered printed for the use of the
Senate during the second session of the 104th Congress (Executive
Repts. 104-11 through 104-36).
The Senate conducted four roll call votes in executive session,
three on or in relation to nominations and one on the START II treaty.
Operations of the Executive Clerk.--This office was contacted early
last year with concerns about the military serial numbers (i.e., Social
Security numbers) appearing in the Congressional Record as part of the
nomination process. Since the Record is available on the Internet there
was apprehension about the possible fraudulent use of names and social
security numbers. At the suggestion of this office, and with the
agreement of all four branches of the Armed Forces, only the last four
digits will be used, thereby eliminating any foreseeable problems in
the future.
In an effort to modernize the publication of the Executive Journal
it was decided to obtain a desktop publishing system. This required the
acquisition of new computer hardware in December, which delayed
publication of the 1996 Executive Journal.
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 that is in effect the
index of legislative action. The Senate Journal is published each
calendar year.
Publication of Senate Journal.--The 1996 Senate Journal was
completed on December 18, 1996. The Journal totaled 882 pages
representing 132 days of Senate session. This compared with a total of
1,244 pages for 1995, representing 211 days of Senate session. The fall
break gave us a chance to ``catch up'' since 1994 was the first year we
type-set the Journal ``in-house''.
Legislative Clerk
The Legislative Clerk sits at the Secretary's desk in the Senate
Chamber and reads aloud bills, amendments, the Senate Journal,
Presidential messages, and other such materials when so directed by the
Presiding Officer of the Senate. The Legislative Clerk calls the roll
of members to establish the presence of a quorum and to record and
tally all yea and nay votes. 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 that measure any amendments that may be
agreed to. This office retains custody of official messages received
from the House of Representatives and conference reports awaiting
action by the Senate. In addition, this office is responsible for
verifying the accuracy of that information entered into the LEGIS
system by the various offices of the Secretary.
Summary of Activity.--The second session of the 104th Congress was
typical for a presidential election year. The Senate completed its
legislative business as early as possible before the elections and
adjourned on October 3, 1996. During 1996, the Senate was in session
132 days, over 1,000 hours and conducted 306 roll call votes. There
were 260 measures reported from committees, 476 total measures passed
and there were 267 items remaining on the Calendar at the time of
adjournment. In addition, there were over 2,300 amendments submitted.
Official Reporters of Debates
The Official Reporters of Debates prepare and edit for publication
in the Congressional Record a substantially verbatim report of the
proceedings of the Senate, and serve as liaison for all Senate
personnel on matters relating to the content of the Record. The Chief
Reporter functions as editor-in-chief of the Senate portion of the
Record, and the Coordinator of the Congressional Record functions as
technical production manager of the Senate portion of the Record.
Electronic Submission.--The Reporters continued the practice of
having all spoken words of floor proceedings transcribed by this office
sent to GPO over the fiber optic system. Although this system has not
decreased the workload of this office, it should result in substantial
cost savings in the preparation of the Record by GPO, in that they no
longer have to rekeyboard the transcript prepared by this office.
Additionally we are encouraging Senate offices to submit electronic
versions of Record statements as well via the Senate's cc-mail system.
The extra steps within this office of processing and formatting to
conform with Record style will continue, however. At this point it
should be noted that this processing of electronic files would not be
possible without the continued cooperation of GPO in providing this
office with a detailee. The current GPO detailee provides immeasurable
contribution by entirely processing the electronic transcript files for
shipment to GPO; this frees the Chief Reporter and Coordinator of the
Congressional Record to, among other things, request of offices a data
version to accompany the printed statement when none is provided, and
to deal with the resulting heavy volume.
Morning Business.--The Morning Business section experienced a
marked increase in items processed for the Congressional Record; the
statistics reflect a 140 percent increase in Executive Communications
due to the passage of Public Law 104-121 (The Contract with America
Advancement Act of 1996) which requires that every regulation be sent
to the Congress for review. Further, concurrent resolutions were up 100
percent; amendments were up 74.7 percent; President's Messages were up
67.6 percent; resolutions were up 57.3 percent; joint resolutions, up
44.4 percent; petitions, up 40.4 percent; and bills up 39.7 percent.
Cost Savings.--During 1996, the office adhered very strictly to
policies preventing duplicate printing of amendments offered during
debate. In January 1996, a 10-page maximum was established for an
amendment to be printed in the body of the Record at the time the
amendment is offered. (During the prior year the limit was 15 pages.)
Amendments in excess of 10 pages are referenced at the time of offer
and printed one time only in the Morning Business portion of the Record
under ``Amendments Submitted.'' This policy has produced substantial
cost savings. Vigorous enforcement of the provisions of paragraph 13 of
the Laws and Rules for Publication of the Record, the ``two-page
rule'', entailed many telephone calls and trips to the floor, informing
staff and Senators of the procedure necessary to have extraneous
materials printed in the Record that exceed the two-page limit, but has
resulted in substantial savings.
Parliamentarian
The Parliamentarian advises the Chair, Senators and their staff,
committee staff, House members and their staffs, and administration
officials on all matters requiring an interpretation of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the precedents of the Senate, and provisions of
public law affecting the proceedings of the Senate.
The Parliamentarian's office advises the Chair, Senators and their
staff and committee staff, as well as 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 or
precedents of the Senate, unanimous consent agreements, or provisions
of public law affecting the proceedings of the Senate. The office is
responsible for the referral of all legislation introduced in the
Senate, all legislation received from the House, and 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 atmosphere that surrounded the parliamentary process in 1996
resulted in an unprecedented number of questions that the
Parliamentarian's office was asked to resolve. These questions often
required hours of meetings with competing groups of staff. At every
stage of the budget cycle, this office was called upon to arbitrate
large numbers of budget-related questions. The Byrd Rule on extraneous
matter in reconciliation bills led to intensive analysis. Concern about
the budget deficit promises to keep the budget process (with all of its
parliamentary complexity) in the forefront of the legislative agenda.
Printing and Document Services
Printing and Document Services documents Senate printing expenses
and functions as GPO liaison to schedule and/or distribute Senate bills
and reports to the Chamber, Senate staff, and the public; provides page
counts of Senate hearings to commercial reporting companies, orders and
tracks all paper and envelopes provided the Senate, provides general
printing services for Senate offices, and assures that Senate printing
is in compliance with Title 44, U.S. Code, as it relates to Senate
documents, hearings, committee prints, and other official publications.
Background.--In February 1996, the Office Services staff were
merged into the Office of Printing Services. In December 1996, Printing
Services was merged with the Document Room, forming the new Office of
Printing and Document Services. From an administrative standpoint, the
responsibility for printing and/or distribution of most of the Senate's
official Title 44 printing is now housed within one office. The
coordination of all Senate documents, hearings, committee prints, and
miscellaneous publications between the Senate and GPO is our
responsibility, as is the distribution of Senate and House legislation.
Additionally, virtually all Senate blank paper, letterhead, and
envelopes are ordered through this office.
The merger and move from the Capitol into the Hart building also
made eminent sense from a practical standpoint. The office is closer to
its ``customers,'' in that ninety-five per cent of the offices served
are located in the Senate office buildings. This provides better access
for Senate staff, and more timely deliveries to Senate offices.
Total Publications.--During the second session of the 104th
Congress, 504 publications (hearings, committee prints, Senate
documents, Senate Publications) were printed. This compares with 657
publications printed during the second session of the 103rd Congress,
or a decrease of about 23 percent.
Hearings Transcripts and Billing Verifications.--Billing
Verifications are the vehicle by which reporting companies request
payment from a committee for their transcription services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase/
1995 1996 decrease
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billing verifications........................................... 1,195 782 -35
Transcribed pages............................................... 210,839 66,188 -32
Average pages/committee......................................... 10,039 2,545 -25
Transcribed pages cost.......................................... $690,336 $440,875 -36
Average cost/committee.......................................... $32,873 $16,957 -48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper, Letterhead, and Envelopes.--Printing and Document Services
provides and maintains an accounting of blank paper, letterheads, and
envelopes for all Senate offices. The total blank sheets and
letterheads ordered in 1996 were about 72.5 million sheets, a decrease
of almost 58 million sheets compared to 1995. Envelope use continued to
decline. In 1996, the Senate used about 7.6 million envelopes, compared
to about 12 million in 1995.
Service Center.--In September 1995, at the direction of the Rules
Committee and the Joint Committee on Printing, the Secretary's Office
undertook responsibility for management of the GPO/JCP Service Center.
The Service Center (now located in SH-B-07) is staffed by experienced
GPO printing specialists who provide Senate committees and the
Secretary's Office with complete publishing services for hearings,
committee prints, and preparation of the Congressional Record. Services
include keyboarding, proofreading, scanning, and composition.
During 1996, the Service Center assisted 14 committees with the
preparation of 116 hearings, committee prints, and Senate documents
including the Tribute to Reverend Halverson, and the Tributes to
Senator Dole.
Congressional Record.--Total approximate cost to produce the Record
was $13.1 million. Based upon the percentage of content and
distribution quantities, the proportional Senate cost was $5.9 million,
the House cost was $6.8 million, and all other recipients $412,400. Per
copy cost is about $8.57 (Record costs are based upon GPO estimated
appropriation costs, not including costs to produce the Record Index or
microfiche copies).
Legislation.--The office captures data regarding all printed
versions of all measures considered in the Senate. Beginning in the
105th Congress, it will capture House measures as well. For brevity,
the following information is summarized by major category of
legislation, such as Senate bills. Each category includes the
successive versions in which all measures were printed during their
legislative cycle (such as a Senate bill which is introduced, placed on
the Calendar, read the second time, read the third time and passed),
including Star Prints. Information relating to specific versions of all
legislation is available. The following table is for the second session
of the 104th Congress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Measure Count pages Senate cost Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Bills...................................................... 859 22,851 $1,500,000 $2,200,000
Senate Reports.................................................... 199 8,404 600,000 825,000
Senate Resolution................................................. 136 710 45,500 64,000
Senate Joint Resolution........................................... 22 1,044 75,400 101,800
Senate Concurrent Resolution...................................... 41 540 42,600 47,400
House Bills (in Senate)........................................... 328 11,440 528,200 1,050,000
House Joint Resolution............................................ 17 86 3,600 7,800
House Concurrent Resolution....................................... 41 218 14,800 19,900
House Conference Report........................................... 34 9,004 800,300 907,500
Treaties/Executive Reports........................................ 33 1,765 149,400 152,900
Public Laws....................................................... 236 5,044 400,000 450,200
---------------------------------------------
Totals...................................................... 1,946 61,106 4,200,000 5,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Services.--The Document Services section coordinates
requests for printed legislation and miscellaneous publications with
other departments within the Secretary's Office, Senate committees, and
the Government Printing Office, to ensure the most current version of
all material is available, and that sufficient quantities are in
storage to meet projected demand.
The primary responsibility of this section is to provide services
to the Senate. However, it also serves the general public, the press,
and other government agencies. Requests for material are received at
the walk-in counter, through the mail, by FAX, and recorded messages.
Recorded messages and FAX messages operate twenty-four hours a day, and
are filled the same day they are received, as are mail requests.
Summary of Annual Statistics.--The following chart summarizes
activities and trends in Document Services from 1987 through 1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent over
Calendar year/Congress/session Calls Percent Mail Walk-in Staff Total previous
received change requests requests requests requests year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988: 100/2nd................... 107,871 20,579 104,000 79,163 N/A 203,742 N/A
1989: 101/1st................... 114,580 24,415 103,540 85,488 N/A 213,443 +5
1990: 101/2nd................... 154,497 23,322 105,823 96,330 N/A 225,475 +6
1991: 102/1st................... 158,714 29,301 112,700 94,503 N/A 236,504 +5
1992: 102/2nd................... 144,478 21,634 187,790 64,543 N/A 273,967 +16
1993: 103/1st................... 135,035 23,679 143,468 64,752 N/A 231,899 -15
1994: 103/2nd................... 128,463 20,460 128,314 54,919 4,934 203,693 -12
1995: 104/1st................... 134,062 22,704 112,463 45,466 10,182 180,633 -11
1996: 104/2nd................... 110,742 15,140 136,352 35,479 8,043 186,971 +4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCUTECH DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Printed Cost
Count Run length pages pages each Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995:
Totals.................................. 1,042 93,136 31,682 1,800,000 $0.39 $36,459
Daily average........................... 5.5 490 167 9,583 N/A 191.89
1996:
Totals.................................. 762 43,710 43,478 3,200,000 1.46 63,727
Daily average........................... 4.6 342 225.4 12,784 N/A 255.86
Agencies printing--1995:
Totals.................................. 81 237,265 9,908 2,400,000 .20 47,227
Daily average........................... 1.5 4,313.9 180.1 42,931.1 N/A 858.68
Agencies printing--1996:
Totals.................................. 284 302,625 84,852 5,100,000 .34 101,834
Daily average........................... 1.8 1,800 527 31,622 N/A 632.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Captioning Services
The Office of Captioning Services provides real-time captioning of
televised Senate floor debates for hearing-impaired persons. The office
also provides the unofficial transcripts available to offices on the
Senate Intranet.
Real-time captioning refers to the live electronic subtitling of
the audio portion of a television program by specially trained court
reporters utilizing computers and specialized translation software. The
Office of Captioning Services was established in 1991 to provide access
to Senate debates to the hearing impaired in conjunction with passage
of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The captioning text is also
provided to Senate offices on the intranet. The office provides other
captioning services for the Senate and Senators upon request.
Technology Update.--Real-time captioning software upgrades during
1996 provided stability and reliability and additional functionality.
Upgraded broadcast router display panels in each of our two control
rooms improved our ability to monitor our work product, systems status
and activity in the Chamber. Quality is advanced through continuous
tracking of translation data and weekly peer reviews.
administrative offices
Disbursing Office
The Disbursing Office compiles Senate budget estimates for
presentation to the Committee on Appropriations, maintains and
disburses all Senate appropriated funds and all Senate payrolls,
interprets and carries out all matters related to budgeting,
appropriations, compensation, payroll deductions, retirement, life and
health insurance, and other employee benefits authorized for members
and staff.
Front Counter--Administrative and Financial Services.--The Front
Counter is the main service area of all general Senate business and
financial activity. It is the receiving point for most incoming expense
vouchers, payroll actions, and employee benefits related forms, and is
the initial verification point to insure that paperwork received in the
Disbursing Office conforms to all applicable Senate rules, regulations,
and statutes. 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. Numerous
inquiries are handled daily, ranging from pay, benefits, taxes, Senate
laws and regulations, in our commitment to provide the highest degree
of customer service.
The Front Counter issued approximately 1,500 cash advances for
official Senate travel; received more than 25,000 checks from Senate
entities; administered oath and personnel affidavits to more than 3,000
new Senate staff; maintained brochures for 28 Federal health carriers,
and distributed approximately 2,500 brochures to staff during the
annual FEHB open season.
Payroll Section.--The Payroll Section maintains the Payroll/
Personnel 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; processing overtime payments; 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 Section and transmitting the
proper Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) information to the National Finance
Center, while maintaining earnings records for distribution to the
Social Security Administration, and maintaining employees' taxable
earnings records for their W-2 statements, which are prepared by this
section.
In 1996, the Payroll Section designed a new Payroll Information
Notice (PIN) and new W-2 mailer. The new PIN forms are cheaper to
produce and mail, and are more informative, and qualify for U.S. Postal
Service mailing discounts. The combined savings to the Senate from both
forms are more than $20,000 annually.
Employee Benefits Section.--The Employee Benefits section
administers Senate employees' health and life insurance and retirement
programs for the Senate. The section's work includes research and
verification of prior Senate or other federal service for new
appointees. The section prepares these forms for payroll input and
after they are returned, verifies the accuracy of the information when
the Official Personnel Folder is received. Employment verifications for
loans, the Bar, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of
Defense, and for outside insurance are completed. Unemployment claim
forms are completed, and employees are counseled. Department of Labor
billings for unemployment paid to Senate employees are checked and
submitted by voucher to the Accounting Section to be paid. Designations
of Beneficiaries for life insurance, retirement, and for unpaid
compensation are filed and checked by the section.
Seminars were held for outgoing and incoming Members' staffs, as
well as Committees facing reorganization. Information disseminated
included retirement, health and life insurance, unemployment, and
Ramspeck privileges.
Since 16 Members left office, the section's work in the end of 1996
included approximately 700 new appointments; 700 termination packets,
counseling and processing, retirement planning and processing, and
providing records to other agencies hiring former Senate employees.
Since most of the Members leaving were long term Members who were
retiring, our retirement caseload set a new record (250 retirement
cases).
Audit Section.--The Audit Section is responsible for auditing
vouchers, answering questions regarding voucher preparation, monitoring
payments related to contracts, training new Office Managers and Chief
Clerks in Senate financial practices, training Office Managers in the
use of the Senate Office Accounting System (SOAS), and producing the
Report of the Secretary of the Senate. The Section also maintains the
Senate's central vendor file (MODA) and monitors the Fund Advance
Tracking System (FATS) by ensuring that advances are charged correctly,
vouchers repaying such advances are entered, and balances adjusted for
reuse of the advance funds.
The Audit Section received and audited approximately 82,200
vouchers in 1996. This is a 7 percent decrease from 1995. These include
vouchers from: Senators' Offices--51,200 vouchers (62 percent of all
vouchers) of which 22,650 (28 percent of all vouchers) were for travel;
Sergeant at Arms--14,700 (18 percent of all vouchers); Stationery &
Gift Shop--7,500 (9 percent of all vouchers); and Others--8,800 (11
percent of all vouchers).
Training sessions were conducted for 28 new Office Managers/Chief
Clerks and 25 SOAS users.
Accounting Section.--The Accounting Section compiles the annual
operating budget of the United States Senate for presentation to the
Committee on Appropriations, and ensures adherence to appropriation
limitations established by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,
and Title 2 of the United States Code. The Accounting Section
accomplishes its control of appropriation limitations through the
maintenance of the general ledger of the Senate.
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. Also reported to the
Department of the Treasury on a monthly basis is the Statement of
Transactions According to Appropriations, Fund and Receipt Accounts
that summarizes all activity at the appropriation level of every penny
disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate through the Financial Clerk of
the Senate. All activity by appropriation account is reconciled with
the Department of 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 Section 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. The
Section also performs quarterly reporting to the Internal Revenue
Service and annual reporting and reconciliation with the IRS and the
Social Security Administration. Payments for Senate employee
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
to any of the health, life and retirement plans from previous
accounting periods are also processed by the Accounting Section.
Internally, the Accounting Section prepares and transmits ledger
statements monthly to all Member offices and all other offices showing
payroll and non-payroll expenditures. These ledger statements detail
all of the financial activity for the appropriate accounting period
with regard to official expenditures in detail and summary form. On a
semiannual basis all committee ledgers are reconciled with the
Accounting Section records, and the results are reported to the
Committee on Rules and Administration. Also, on a semiannual basis, the
Accounting Section prepares necessary reports and information to be
included in the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. On a monthly and
semiannual basis, a complete reconciliation of the Senate payroll is
performed.
Currently, more than 9,000 active ledger accounts are tracked daily
through the Disbursing Office Voucher Entry System (DOVES). All voucher
reimbursement payments, checks written, deposit and adjustment entries
are processed in this system. While routine maintenance and
enhancements to the DOVES system continue, the primary focus is to
prepare for the replacement of the Senate general ledger system. The
Senate currently operates on a cash basis accounting system. With the
implementation of the new general ledger system (FMS-II) there will be
a conversion to an accrual and obligation-basis accounting system.
Office of 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
management; job analysis; compensation planning, design, and
administration; leave administration; records management; job
advertisements and postings; employee handbooks and manuals; employee
relations; and organizational planning and development.
Several key personnel programs were developed and implemented
during 1996, with a primary goal of ensuring consistency and equity
throughout the organization and complying with the requirements of the
Congressional Accountability Act.
Job Classification and Compensation System.--The Office of the
Secretary's first job classification and compensation system was
implemented in June 1996. This new system was a joint endeavor between
an Office of the Secretary Steering Committee and a Project Team
comprised of the Office's Director of Human Resources and Hay
Management Consultants (or the Hay Group). The team used Hay's point
factor job evaluation system to evaluate the content of each job within
the Office. Widely recognized as the most advanced and effective way to
determine equitable compensation, the Hay Method is used to establish
consistent relationships, expressed in precise points, for jobs within
and between organizations. These points were then compared with
compensation data from Hay's National Survey of All Organizations,
market rates were determined, and salary ranges were established. These
salary ranges--representing the continuum along which each employee can
expect to progress based upon merit, or quality of performance--were
provided to each employee. Now, in addition to ensuring compensation
equity throughout the Office of the Secretary, employees have greater
visibility into job worth and pay and greater individual control over
future compensation decisions and career development.
Employee Handbook.--The Office's Employee Handbook underwent a
major revision on October 1, 1996, to incorporate policy stemming from
the Congressional Accountability Act and, where appropriate, to clarify
or strengthen some earlier provisions. Major changes include (1) rules
governing the acceptance of gifts, including foreign gift rules and
travel; (2) mass mailing reporting requirements; (3) the public law and
Office policy on employment of relatives; (4) Office compensation
practices, including the overtime provisions of the Congressional
Accountability Act, new employee pay classifications, and time and
attendance reporting; and (5) leave policy, including a new ``leave
year,'' carryover provisions, and a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Reserve account.
Time and Attendance System.--In order to accurately report time
worked, the Office developed a new time sheet, appointed time keepers
for each department, and conducted training for time keepers and/or
department heads. This system allows time to be maintained, calculated,
and reported on the employee's personal computer and cumulative data to
be maintained and tracked for major time-off categories and for extra
time worked.
Library
The Senate Library is a legislative and general reference library
which provides both traditional and computerized information services
and cataloging and maintains a comprehensive collection of
congressional, governmental and other publications for the use of
Senate offices and the press.
Information Services.--Information Services was established as a
function from the merger of two previously separate functions,
Legislative Tracking and Reference Services. This merger was in
response to changing patterns of client demand for library services.
Reference requests for the period 1989 through 1995 increased (75
percent) while the number of legislative tracking requests declined (38
percent) during the same period. The decline in legislative tracking
requests was due to the availability of online access to the
information in Senator's offices. This anticipated shift allowed the
Library to focus resources on the research needs of the Senate.
Technical Services.--Organizational changes, including reassignment
of work flow, modification of tasks, and revisions of position titles
and job descriptions, were undertaken to facilitate the final stage of
a three-year process to fully implement the Library's integrated
library system (DataTrek). Centralization of the acquisitions,
cataloging and circulation functions on DataTrek has resulted in the
closing of two separate in-house databases as well as the mainframe-
based SLCC database, formerly maintained by the Senate Computer Center.
These changes have redirected resources toward providing quicker and
more efficient access to collection resources, thereby allowing Library
staff to respond more effectively to Senate requests. Anticipated
vendor-developed software will allow direct access to our catalog by
Senate offices via the Senate Intranet.
Acquisitions.--The reality of flat and reduced budgets for the past
three fiscal years, coupled with the rising cost of publications,
resulted in a reduction in the overall number of books, standing
orders, subscriptions and microform titles purchased. In 1996, the
number of congressional documents also declined from the previous year,
due in part to an increased effort by committees to hold down printing
costs, which resulted in fewer documents printed. The decline in books
and congressional materials was offset by an increase in the number of
executive branch publications received cost-free through the Depository
Library Program administered by the Government Printing Office.
Consequently, acquisitions of all types of material increased 9 percent
over the pervious year.
Cataloging.--The number of bibliographic records added to the
library catalog in 1996 was 5,800 an increase of 26 percent over the
previous year. This was the result of a concerted effort to complete
the retrospective cataloging of executive branch publications. In
addition, 26,000 item records were created, each containing the barcode
and other information needed to permit the borrowing of these materials
by Senate staff.
Conservation and Preservation.--The Office of Conservation and
Preservation provided valuable assistance by funding a cleaning project
in the Library's space located in the basement of the Adams Building of
the Library of Congress. This cleaning, which had last been done about
ten years ago, is necessary for the long-term preservation of Senate
materials. In addition, the OCP repaired and cleaned numerous 19th and
early 20th-century volumes in order to permit their use by Senate
staff.
Public Relations.--Library personnel participated in 30 orientation
seminars sponsored jointly by the Secretary of the Senate and the
Sergeant at Arms. These seminars are the primary means to inform Senate
staff of services available through the Library. The Library launched
its homepage on the Senate Intranet in March 1996. On September 24,
1996, the Library hosted a reception to celebrate the 125th anniversary
year of the establishment of the Senate Library in 1871. Senators
Thurmond, Hatfield, Byrd, Cochran, Simon and Robb were in attendance
along with an estimated 350 patrons, colleagues and friends of the
Library.
Library Relocation.--In December 1995, the plan to relocate the
Senate Library was placed on hold pending a review by the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration. In October 1996, the Secretary
of the Senate requested that the Library explore options to move staff
and portions of the collection to designated space in the basement of
the Russell Senate Office Building. A new proposal was submitted in
November 1996.
Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment
The Office of Senate Chief Counsel for Employment is a non-partisan
office established at the direction of the Leadership in 1993, after
enactment of the Government Employees Rights Act, which established a
hearing process for allegations of employment discrimination in the
Senate followed by court review. With enactment of the Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995, which brings the Senate under 11 federal
laws regulating the employer-employee relationship in the private
sector, the Office provides legal advice and representation to Senate
employing offices in all areas of employment law.
Background.--The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel For Employment
(``SCCE'') is a non-partisan office formed in 1993 at the direction of
the Leadership. It is charged with providing legal advice and
representation of Senate offices in all areas of employment law.
Collectively, the office's attorneys have more than 55 years of
experience at major national law firms representing clients in
employment litigation and labor law matters.
Pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), each Senate
office is a separate employer; the Senate as a body cannot be sued
under that law. Accordingly, each of the 180 offices of the Senate is
an individual client of the SCCE, and each office maintains an
attorney/client relationship with the SCCE.
Compliance with the Congressional Accountability Act.--Most
provisions of the CAA became effective in January 1996. A primary
responsibility of the SCCE is to advise Senate management about their
obligations under the CAA, and the number of requests the SCCE received
for legal consultation in 1996 was more than twice the number in 1995.
The SCCE advised Senate offices about the CAA and assisted them in
complying with it through four principal means: addressing the
Senators, giving large group seminars for AA's and office managers,
providing legal advice to offices on an individual basis, and preparing
and distributing written information. Specifically, the SCCE did the
following:
--Spoke to Senators at 4 policy lunches (2 Republican and 2
Democratic) to advise them of their legal obligations under the
CAA;
--Gave a 90-minute orientation speech to Senators-elect regarding
employment and labor laws;
--Presented 14 large group seminars (75-200 attendees) to
Administrative Assistants, Chiefs of Staff, Office Managers,
Staff Directors and/or Chief Clerks regarding employment laws
and the implementation of the CAA;
--Met individually with 98 of the Members' offices, at their
requests, to advise them about how to comply with the CAA while
minimizing costs;
--Responded to more than 1,850 telephone requests from Members'
offices for information/advice about employment law matters.
Most of these requests required at least one face-to-face
meeting with the office's Chief of Staff and/or Office Manager;
--Prepared sample employee handbooks and other forms for offices' use
in complying with the CAA, including a sample employee
handbook, employee performance evaluations, a sample time
sheet, sample job descriptions, exempt/non-exempt
questionnaire, etc.; these were prepared and provided in both
hard copy and on disk;
--Prepared and distributed to all Senate offices a management guide
pertaining to the Occupational Safety and Health Act;
--Prepared a several-hundred page manual for Senators-elect entitled
``Management's Rights and Obligations'' under the CAA; and
--Prepared and distributed a manual for all Senate offices to inform
them of their obligations under the CAA.
Defense of Senate Offices in the Federal Court and at Hearings.--
The second major activity of the SCCE in 1996 was defending Senate
offices in federal court and at hearings involving alleged violations
of employment laws. The SCCE defended Senate offices in 15 such cases,
under the CAA and the predecessor Government Employees Rights Act.
These cases were brought against Members' offices (both sides of the
aisle), the Sergeant at Arms, and the Secretary of the Senate. The SCCE
either won or successfully negotiated a resolution to 13 of the 15
cases with the remaining two cases still pending.
In other instances, the SCCE negotiated and prepared separation/
termination agreements for Senate offices. These involved situations
where a Senate office learned, either directly from the employee or
indirectly, that the employee was considering initiating a case against
the employing office. Working with the employee and/or his/her
attorney, the SCCE successfully resolved the matter.
Representation of Capitol Police in Union Organizing Drive.--The
SCCE has assisted the General Counsel for the Capitol Police in his
representation of the Capitol Police Board in the unionization of the
Capitol Police.
Advising the Senate about CAA Regulations.--A fourth major activity
of the SCCE in 1996 was to advise the Senate about the CAA regulations
proposed by the Office of Compliance.
Office of Conservation and Preservation
The Office of Conservation and Preservation develops and
coordinates programs directly related to the conservation and
preservation of Senate records and materials for which the Secretary of
the Senate has statutory authority. Responsibilities of the office
include deacidification, phased conservation for books and documents,
collection surveys, and contingency planning for disaster response and
recovery.
Leadership.--For more than twenty years, this office has bound a
copy of Washington's Farewell Address for the annual Washington's
Farewell Address ceremony. In 1996, the volume was bound for and read
by Senator Daniel K. Akaka.
Seven marbled paper slipcases were fabricated for the book, The
United States Capitol: Photographs by Fred J. Maroon, and were
presented to visiting dignitaries.
Three hundred seventy-two items were matted and framed, including
resolutions, photographs, letters and photographic compilations.
At the direction of the Secretary of the Senate, and through the
Office of Interparliamentary Services, fifteen photo albums
illustrating a congressional trip to Canada and Southeast Alaska were
embossed with Senator's names.
At the request of the Secretary of the Senate's Office, four books
titled, The Senate 1789-1989, were embossed and presented to the French
National Assembly on behalf of the United States Senate.
Senate Library.--In 1996, conservation treatments were completed
for 276 volumes. 374 books were prepared and sent from the Senate
Library to the Government Printing Office (GPO) for binding.
In consultation with the Senate Librarian, monies from the 1994
Book Preservation Fund (established for the preservation of the Senate
Library books) funded cleaning of books housed in the Senate Library
vault located at the Library of Congress, Adams Building.
Office of the Senate Curator.--The office assisted the Office of
the Senate Curator in the preparation and installation of two exhibits.
As in past years, the office again repaired, matted and framed a
quantity of graphics for display in various areas of the Senate wing of
the Capitol.
Historical Office.--At the request of the Senate Historian, our
office bound thirteen volumes of the circa 1940 Acceptance of the
Statue of Huey P. Long for Senator Russell B. Long.
Miscellaneous Projects.--We continue to utilize our spray
deacidification system, encapsulator, and dry mounting press. This year
we deacidified 153 items, encapsulated 145 items, and dry mounted 115
items.
At the request of the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
Senator Hatfield, four books about the Vietnam War were bound in
leather for presentation.
At the request of Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, we bound two leather
books, and matted and framed one item with Senator's signatures for
Senator Exon's retirement from the United States Senate.
At the request of the Democratic Policy Committee, ninety-eight
folders were embossed with the name of each of the committee members.
The office continued conservation treatment of Appropriation Bills
from 1877 to 1943. We completed twelve books, last year, with seventy-
eight books remaining for conservation treatment. These books are part
of the Appropriations Committee collection.
Office of Senate Security
The Office of Senate Security was established in 1987 by Senate
Resolution 243 (100th Congress, First Session). The office is
responsible for the administration of classified information,
personnel, communications and computer security programs in Senate
offices and committees. Under the policy direction of the Leadership,
it serves as the Senate's liaison to the Executive Branch in matters
relating to the security of classified information in the Senate.
Personnel Security.--OSS initiated requests for personnel security
clearances on 165 Senate employees during 1996. OSS conducted or hosted
81 security briefings for Senate staff. An OSS Web Page was developed
to facilitate the dissemination of security information to Senate
offices.
Counterintelligence.--OSS conducted, with the FBI, a review of the
foreign intelligence threat to the Senate, and the OSS Director
attended a foreign counterintelligence course taught by the FBI.
Document Control.--2,563 classified documents were processed
through OSS' automated document control system. 3,418 classified
documents, no longer required for the conduct of official Senate
business, were destroyed. Secure storage of classified material in the
OSS vault was provided for 120 Senators, committees and support
offices. This arrangement keeps to a minimum the number of different
storage areas throughout the Capitol and Senate office buildings,
thereby affording classified material greater security.
Secure Meeting Facilities.--OSS secure conference facilities were
utilized on 704 occasions during 1996. 340 hearings/meetings/briefings
were conducted in OSS' three conference rooms. In addition, OSS
provided to Senators and staff secure telephones, secure computers, a
secure facsimile machine, and secure areas for reading classified
material on 364 occasions.
Technical Surveillance Countermeasures.--At the request of the
Department of Defense, the Deputy Director presented classes on TSCM
techniques at the Interagency Training Center (ITC). The ITC is the
Intelligence Community TSCM training facility.
Automation Projects.--A new local area network was installed during
1996. The new network includes hardware and software for all office
applications, including a new classified document control system. Two
PolicyNet terminals were installed at OSS, to provide Senate employees
access to a classified, interagency computer network. PolicyNet
provides on-line access to intelligence reporting and analysis, permits
secure video conferencing, and facilitates multimedia presentations.
Classified Document Imaging System.--The processing and storage of
classified material for the Senate is one of the most important tasks
performed by the office. OSS receives approximately 2,200 classified
documents from 98 different departments, agencies and commercial
sources yearly. The office maintains about 3,400 classified documents
consisting of 103,000 pages for 106 Senate offices.
The current archive space for classified documents is reaching
critical mass. The physical aspects of OSS data storage needs to be
reduced. Migrating these documents into electronic form exponentially
reduces the documents into a set of very manageable compact disks. This
would eliminate the physical document as the media for long term
storage of Senate classified material.
A system analysis will be conducted to identify the appropriate
hardware and software to accommodate the new function. As OSS recently
upgraded the office local area network, the new network should be able
to accommodate additional hardware and software to implement a document
imaging system.
Senate Stationery Room
The Stationery Room provides stationery and other office supplies
for Senators committees, and offices of the Senate. At the request of
Senate offices, stationery items not carried by the store can be
obtained through special order.
Fiscal year 1996 statistical operations
Gross sales............................................. $2,961,635
Sales transactions...................................... 88,367
Generated purchase orders............................... 58,584
Vouchers processed...................................... 6,785
Metro fare media sold................................... 5,547
For fiscal year 1996, gross sales were down by $275,593 though the
number of sales transactions increased by 25,955.
The Stationery Room customer base consists of approximately 242
offices and or other legislative organizations which are located in
nine buildings, many of which have multiple locations. In addition to
offices' official requirements, the Stationery Room also accommodates
staff members' personal purchases.
The Stationery Room carries approximately 1,250 items in inventory,
supplied by 200 vendors throughout the United States.
Stationery Room personnel spent considerable time during 1996
preparing, planning and coordinating activities associated with
election of 15 new Senators and their entry into the Senate community.
Interparliamentary Services
Interparliamentary Services is responsible for administrative,
financial, and protocol functions for all Interparliamentary
conferences in which the Senate participates by statute: the North
Atlantic Assembly; Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group;
Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group; and Interparliamentary
Union. It also handles arrangements for special delegations authorized
by the Leadership and for other Senate delegations.
The Office of Interparliamentary Services has completed its
fifteenth 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 to other Senate
delegations.
The statutory interparliamentary conferences are: North Atlantic
Assembly; Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group; Canada-United
States Interparliamentary Group; and Interparliamentary Union.
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, IPS is frequently consulted
by individual Senators' offices on a broad range of protocol questions.
Occasional questions come from state officials or the general public
regarding Congressional protocol.
On behalf of the Leadership, the staff arranges receptions in the
Senate for Heads of State, Heads of Government, Heads of Parliaments,
and parliamentary delegations. Required records of expenditures on
behalf of foreign visitors pursuant to Section 2 of H.R. 1827-33 are
maintained in the Office of Interparliamentary Services.
As in previous years, all foreign travel authorized by the
Leadership is arranged by the IPS staff. In addition to Delegation
trips, IPS provided assistance to eight individual foreign trips. 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 receives and prepares for printing the quarterly financial
reports for foreign travel from all committees in the Senate.
In May, the 37th Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S.
Interparliamentary Group was held in Southeast Alaska. Arrangements for
this successful event were handled by the IPS staff.
Planning is underway for the 36th Annual Meeting of the Mexico-U.S.
Interparliamentary Group which will be held in 1997. Also, in 1997,
advance work, including site inspection, will be undertaken for the
38th Annual Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group Meeting and the 1999
British-American Parliamentary Group Meeting, both to be held in the
United States.
In 1996, IPS moved its office from S-414A of The Capitol to SH-808.
interparliamentary services--trips in 1996
March 31-April 9--Codel Hatfield: Costa Rica, Brazil, and Chile.
(Senators Hatfield, Pell, Simpson, Heflin, and Murkowski).
April 3-12--Codel Daschle: Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania,
Macedonia, Slovenia, and Croatia. (Senators Daschle, Hatch and Reid).
April 15-19--Interparliamentary Union--Spring Meeting. Chairman:
Senator Burns. (No Senators attended).
May 3-5--Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group--Zacatecas, Mexico.
Chairman: Senator Hutchison. Vice Chairman: Senator Dodd. (Senators
Hutchison, Murkowski, Brown, and Coverdell).
May 10-14--Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group--Southeast Alaska.
Chairman: Senator Murkowski. Vice Chairman: Senator Murray. (Senators
Murkowski, Chafee, Pryor, Grassley, Gorton, Jeffords, Mack, Burns,
Bennett, Inhofe, DeWine, and Grams).
May 16-20--North Atlantic Assembly--Spring Meeting. Vouliagmeni,
Athens, Greece. Chairman: Senator Roth. Vice Chairman: Senator Heflin.
(Senators Roth, Heflin and Akaka).
June 29-July 8--Codel Cochran: Indonesia, Vietnam, and Hong Kong.
(Senator Cochran).
September 16-21--Interparliamentary Union--Fall Meeting--Beijing,
China. Chairman: Senator Burns. (No Senators attended).
November 8-17--Codel Daschle: Japan, Vietnam, China, Hong Kong and
Taiwan. (Senators Daschle, Glenn, Leahy, Dorgan and Kempthorne).
November 16-21--North Atlantic Assembly--Fall Meeting--Paris,
France/London, England. Chairman: Senator Roth. Vice Chairman: Senator
Heflin. (Senators Roth, Heflin, Hollings, Sarbanes, Hatch, Warner,
Grassley, Specter, Murkowski, Breaux, Mikulski, Akaka and Bennett).
interparliamentary services: official foreign visitors in 1996
January 22--Members of Parliament of South Africa (11)
January 31--Delegation of Russian Officials (5)
January 31--North Atlantic Assembly Defense & Security Committee
(19)
February 8--Standing Committee of the Nordic Council (9)
February 13--Members of Parliament of Ukraine, Romania, and Slovak
Republic (18)
February 13--Congressional Scholars from Brazil (2)
February 29--Secretary General and Members of Parliament of Romania
(4)
March 12--Members of Parliament of Belarus (12)
March 29--His Royal Highness The Duke of York (1)
May 7--Members of Parliament of Ukraine (5)
May 8--His Excellency Dr. Janez Drnovsek, Prime Minister of the
Republic of Slovenia (3)
May 23--Ms. Sue-chung Chang, Section Chief, National Assembly of
Taiwan (1)
June 20--His Excellency Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Posts and
Telecommunications of Sri Lanka (6)
June 26--His Excellency Lennart Meri, President of the Republic of
Estonia His Excellency Algirdas Mykolas Brazauskas, President of the
Republic of Lithuania His Excellency Guntis Ulmanis, President of the
Republic of Latvia (12)
June 27--Mr. Ming-chuan Chen, Council for Economic Planning and
Development of Taiwan (1)
July 9--Delegation of Parliamentarians from Russia, Ukraine,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan (14)
July 10--Delegation from National People's Congress of China (4)
July 10--Delegation of European Parliament Members (16)
July 25--Delegation from Chamber of Deputies and Senate of Romania
(3)
July 25--Members of Parliament of South Africa (4)
July 29--North Atlantic Assembly Bureau Meeting (10)
July 31--His Excellency Mohammed Hosni Mubarak, President of the
Arab Republic of Egypt (6)
September 19--His Excellency Dan Meridor, Minister of Finance of
Israel (5)
September 23--Mr. Roman Romanovich, Deputy Secretary of the Russian
Federation Council (1)
September 27--Her Excellency Wu Yi, Minister of Foreign Trade and
Economic Cooperation, People's Republic of China (10)
October 4--Members of Parliament of Bangladesh (10)
October 9--Members of Parliament and Government Officials from
France (12)
November 15--Members of Parliament of Uzbekistan (3)
Senate Gift Shop
The Senate Gift Shop provides for the sale of United States Senate
memorabilia and gift items to the general public, Senators and their
staff, and foreign visitors in accordance with Public Law 102-392,
October 6, 1992.
The Senate Gift Shop completed its first full year of operation
supporting two locations. The main store opened in October 1992 in Room
180 of the Russell Senate Office Building, and the second, a sales
counter, opened in November 1995, in the Capitol Building across from
the Appointment Desk.
The Gift Shop provides unique, Senate-specific mementos for sale at
convenient locations. Sales have dramatically increased in the last
twelve months and, for the first time, exceeded $1,000,000 for a fiscal
year. As in previous years, the Gift Shop will be introducing a number
of new products in 1997.
The continued sales growth makes it necessary to consider
increasing and improving the warehousing and mail order areas that are
now available.
The Gift Shop is currently working with the Stationery Room on
separating and upgrading the current computer system that is now a
shared unit. We are considering several different methods of achieving
this and will take into consideration growth projections and the
potential future needs of both the Gift Shop and the Stationery Room.
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 under 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 public inspection, review, and reproduction of these
documents.
Byrd Amendment.--The final filings under the Byrd Amendment (a
filing obligation repealed by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995)
generated submissions from 36 Federal agencies totaling 141 reports
with 276 pages.
Federal Election Campaign Act.--The Act required Senate candidates
running for election in 1996 to file quarterly, pre-election and post
election reports in an election year. Candidates running for election
in a year other than 1996 filed semi-annual reports. Filings totaled
6,791 documents containing 95,584 pages.
Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act.--This law was repealed
effective January 1, 1996. From October 1995 through January 1996,
9,205 reports totaling 56,599 pages were filed, processed and made
available to the public.
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.--The Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995 superseded the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act effective
January 1, 1996. The goals we established and met were: (1) to develop
forms and informational material for outreach to the filing community;
(2) to determine the scope and nature of automation for the resulting
filings; (3) to review the filings for accuracy and completeness; and
(4) to provide the appropriate context for the information to the
public and press examining the reports. As of September 30, 1996, 3,557
registrants represented 8,188 clients and employed 11,702 individuals
who met the statutory definition of ``lobbyist.'' The lobbying
documents were microfilmed and indexed into a temporary data base
pending the development of an automated data base system to include
imaging (for paper copies received) and electronic components. The
Public Records staff has reviewed the filings and is notifying those
whose forms are incomplete.
Public Financial Disclosure.--A total of 2,821 reports and
amendments were filed containing 16,089 pages. There were 484 requests
to review or receive copies of the documents.
Senate Rule 35 (Gift Rule).--On January 1, 1996, the revised Senate
Rule 35 took effect as a result of passage of S. Res. 158 on July 28,
1995. The Rule contained four new filing requirements for Senators and
Senate staff. The office received over 1400 reports totaling 1560 pages
during fiscal year 1996.
Registration of Mass Mailing.--Senators file mass mailings
registrations quarterly. The number of pages filed were 781.
Public Inquiries.--From October, 1995, through September, 1996, the
Public Records office staff assisted more than 2,700 individuals
seeking information from reports filed with the office. This figure
does not include telephone assistance. A total of 115,217 photocopies
were sold in the period.
Automation Activities.--During 1996, Public Financial Disclosure
reports were scanned using optical imaging technology. Due to passage
of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the lobbying function will be converted
from microfilming to optical imaging (for paper reports) before the
Federal Election Campaign Act application. The office has been working
to develop an automated data base that is able to accept non-paper
transmissions (electronic filing) as well as paper filings.
Senate Historical Office
Serving as the Senate's institutional memory, the Historical Office
collects and provides information on important events, precedents,
dates, statistics, and historical comparisons of current and past
Senate activities for use by members and staff, the media, scholars,
and the general public. The Office advises senators, officers, and
committees on cost-effective disposition of their non-current office
files and assists researchers in identifying Senate-related source
materials. The Office keeps extensive biographical, bibliographical,
photographic, and archival information on the more than 1,700 former
senators. It edits for publication historically significant transcripts
and minutes of selected Senate committees and party organizations, and
conducts oral history interviews with retired senior Senate staff.
Vice Presidents of the United States, 1789-1993.--Working with
Senator Mark Hatfield, the Historical Office completed a series of 44
chapter-length essays tracing the career of each Vice President through
1993. The Government Printing Office published the resulting 700-page
book in April 1997.
Fiftieth-Anniversary Histories of the Republican and Democratic
Policy Committees.--In cooperation with the Senate Republican Policy
Committee, the Office completed an 80-page narrative history of that
organization for publication in mid-1997. Work also advanced on a
companion volume detailing the first half-century of the Democratic
Policy Committee.
Minutes of the Republican and Democratic Party Conferences, 1903-
1964.--The Office is editing for publication the official minutes of
each party conference, dating from the start of the twentieth century
through the mid-1960's. Democratic Conference minutes are ready,
subject to Conference review. Work is proceeding on a companion volume
for the Republican Conference.
Documentary History of the United States Senate.--The Historical
Office is currently at work on two volumes in this ongoing project
designed to bring together fundamental sources illuminating development
of the Senate's constitutional powers and institutional prerogatives.
Volume One deals with the impeachment process; Volume Two details the
evolution of the Senate's rules.
Biographical Guides.--The Historical Office continued to maintain
and update its large biographical databases, including the Biographical
Directory of the United States Congress, 1774 to present (Senate
entries), Senators of the United States: A Historical Bibliography, and
Guide to Research Collections of Former United States Senators, 1789 to
present.
Oral History Program.--During the year, the Office conducted oral
history interviews with the following former Senate officials:
Secretary of the Senate Kelly Johnston, Senate Legal Counsel Michael
Davidson, Enrolling Clerk Brian Hallen, Democratic Secretary C. Abbott
Saffold, and Charles Caldwell, a staff member of former Senator Ralph
Yarborough (D-TX).
On-line Reference Service.--In March the Office began providing on-
line reference assistance to Senate offices and the public via the
Internet. The Office offers information on the Senate's history and
practices, and biographical and bibliographical information on former
members.
Senate Chronology.--The Office began a chronology outlining
significant events in the Senate's institutional history. This work,
currently comprising 1,200 entries, is approximately half-way to the
point where it can be considered reasonably comprehensive.
Senators' Office Records Management and Disposition Assistance.--
The 104th Congress saw sixteen senators depart. The Office provided
extensive assistance to these closing offices.
Committee Records Management and Disposition Assistance.--By year's
end, the Office had processed 1,700 cubic feet of committee records for
transfer to the National Archives.
Educational Outreach: Historical Information for the Senate Home
Page.--Beginning with September, the Office produced a home-page
feature entitled ``This Month in Senate History.'' The entries for each
month highlight approximately twenty institutionally significant events
that have occurred during that month throughout more than 200 years of
Senate history. The Office also participated in the construction of a
``Quick Time Virtual Reality Tour of the Senate.''
Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress.--The Historical
Office provides staff support to this eleven-member permanent
committee, which meets twice a year to advise Congress on the
management and preservation of its records.
Photographic Collection.--The Office maintains a collection of
approximately 30,000 still pictures that includes photographs and
illustrations of most former senators, as well as news photographs,
editorial cartoons, pictures of committees in session, and related
images documenting Senate history. The Office provided photographic
reference assistance to congressional offices, scholars, journalists,
and publishing houses, and furnished photographic images to individual
requestors. The photo historian instituted a system ensuring coverage
of the contemporary Senate by photographing each committee while in
session, collecting formal portraits of each incumbent Senator, and
identifying and capturing significant Senate events.
Office of the Senate 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 those
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
became the designated recipient of objects with Senate association
received by the Preservation Commission.
Exhibitions and Publications.--The Curator's office maintained an
active exhibition program, installing four new exhibits in the Senate
wing of the Capitol, including a major presentation on ``Isaac Bassett:
The Venerable Doorkeeper, 1832-1895.'' An exhibit panel for the
painting The Battle of Lake Erie was developed, as part of a continuing
effort to provide educational information to visitors. In addition, the
office installed the second in a series of interactive exhibitions.
In the area of publications, the office redesigned and reprinted
the small booklet on the Lyndon Baines Johnson Room (S-211), and the
brochures The United States Capitol and Congress and Postmarked
Washington D.C.: Visitors to the Capitol, and finalized printing of the
publication on the Dedication and Unveiling of the Statue of Richard
Brevard Russell, Jr.
Historic Chambers.--The Curator's staff continued to maintain the
Old Senate and Old Supreme Court Chambers, coordinating periodic use of
both rooms for special occasions. Along with general care and
maintenance, other concerns included reconditioning two historic clocks
and repair of water damage to the Old Senate Chamber ceiling. Work was
completed on a permanent ramp in the Old Senate Chamber, which meets
ADA compliance for historic structures.
Collections: Acquisitions and Management.--A number of significant
works and documents were donated to the Senate collection, including a
portrait of Senator Hattie Caraway (D-AR), the full-length painting of
Senator Mike Mansfield (D-MT), a portrait of Senator Lee Slater Overman
(D-NC), the ``Isaac Bassett Papers,'' and objects from the
Smithsonian's Warshaw Collection of Political Memorabilia. A major
collection of 68 drawings detailing the filming of the movie Advise and
Consent was obtained for the collection, and the Curator's office
acquired 111 19th century prints.
In the area of collections management, the staff processed incoming
and outgoing loans for the Senate leadership, continued to loan and
monitor the approximately 280 reproduction prints in offices under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Senate, assisted several Senator's
offices with loans, and continued to research and catalogue the
extensive Clifford and Jim Berryman political cartoon holdings.
Conservation and Restoration.--The office completed the first phase
of the reorganization and reinterpretation of the vice presidential
bust collection, had professionally cleaned and conserved the 20 vice
presidential busts in the Senate Chamber, and began conservation on the
frame for the painting The Electoral Commission and the frame and
painting Leiv Eiriksson Discovers America.
Collaborations, Educational Programs, Events.--The staff continued
to assist the seminar program under the Secretary of the Senate and the
Senate Sergeant at Arms by presenting three new lectures to Senate
staff. The office collaborated with the Senate Historical office in a
new educational venture with C-SPAN, presenting short historical
programs, narrated by a Senator or Senate officer, highlighting some
aspect of the Senate's history or art.
Automation.--The office worked closely with the Senate Computer
Center to expand the Curator's homepage on the internet and develop a
virtual tour of the Capitol using QTVR technology.
Plans for 1997.--Conservation concerns continue to be a priority,
with plans to conserve several major paintings in the Senate
collection. Two new exhibits are scheduled, along with explanatory
labels for several works of art. Publications planned include booklets
on the history of the Foreign Relations Committee Room, the Presidents
Room, and the Vice President's Room. Editing and fact-checking of the
Guide to Senate Fine Arts is scheduled, as is work on the second volume
highlighting the Senate's collection of prints. A comprehensive
disaster preparedness, management, and response plan will be developed
for the Senate collection.
Senate Page School
The Senate Page School provides for the education of Senate pages
pursuant to Public Law 98-51, Public Law 98-125 and Senate Resolution
184, July 29, 1983.
Summary of Accomplishments.--The Senate recess this past fall
provided the Page School with the opportunity to offer additional
instructional time during the months of October-December. Normally,
school is conducted between the hours of 6:15-9:45 A.M. For the three
months of recess, school was conducted from 7:15-11:15 A.M.
Additionally, school was in session on average an additional half day a
week. School also met on three Saturdays during the fall 1996 semester.
Field trips were taken to various historic sites, government
buildings, museums, and theatrical performances. Speakers included
college and military representatives. Dr. Ogilvie, Chaplain of the
Senate, Kelly Johnston, then Secretary of the Senate, and Bob Dove,
Senate Parliamentarian, shared information about their work in the
Senate.
New equipment and software were purchased and installed. Six
computers for student use were installed in the math classroom to
accommodate the math curriculum. CyberPatrol, a software package which
allows regulated access to the Internet was ordered and a CD tower
which will allow for further networking has been delivered. A color
printer has also been delivered.
A new precalculus text, a replacement physics text, and an updated
American history text were purchased. An advanced composition test was
also selected and purchased, as well as a workbook for all English
classes.
A PSAT preparation course was offered this fall to interested pages
and the PSAT was administered on the national testing date. Foreign
language tutors worked with students in the areas of French, Latin,
Spanish, and German. The Page School staff remained the same as in the
previous year. The four teachers taught a combination of eleven courses
this year. All faculty attended ``The Critical Thinking Workshop''; the
science teacher participated in the Space Policy Institute workshop
conducted at George Washington University; the English instructor
attended a workshop entitled ``Developing Writing and Thinking Skills
Across the Curriculum,'' and was selected to participate in a summer
offering at the Holocaust Museum; the social studies instructor
attended the 1996 History Forum in Williamsburg, Virginia last fall.
Summary of Plans.--Students will complete their semester
curriculum. Needs of the incoming students will determine the second
semester schedule. Supervised study exists for pages attending Page
School less than a semester. Extended day schedules, tutoring by
teachers on an as-needed basis, and individualized small group
instruction will continue. These various strategies will provide for
the delivery of the curriculum.
Foreign language tutors will accommodate the needs of the incoming
pages. Field trips to Williamsburg and Baltimore are planned for the
second semester. The focus is on historic and political significance as
well as architecture. College visits are incorporated where possible as
a critical component of the junior year curriculum.
The self-study phase of the accreditation process by the Middle
States Association of Colleges and Schools will be completed by the
staff. Plans to host the accreditation visitors will be finalized, and,
hopefully, the visit will take place spring 1997.
Staff development opportunities will be explored. A review will be
conducted in all subjects to determine which, if any, textbooks need to
be replaced. Software will be reviewed and new requests will be
investigated. The Windows scheduling component of the records
management system will be installed.
Information Systems Department
The staff of the Department of Information Systems provide
technical and user support for the Office of the Secretary of the
Senate. Information Systems staff also work closely with the Government
Printing Office (GPO), the Senate Computer Center (SCC), and the Senate
Office of Telecommunications (Telecom) on technical issues and joint
projects. The Department provides technical and user support for the
ten computer systems in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate (five
Novell LAN's; three Windows NT LAN's; a retail computer system in the
Stationery Room; and a FileNet imaging system in the Office of Public
Records).
Improvements to the Secretary's LAN's.--The Senate chose Windows NT
as the standard network operating system several years ago and the
Secretary's Office will use Senate-supported systems whenever possible.
Every new system installed in 1996 was a Windows NT system, and
additional conversions from Novell to Windows NT are planned. This may
allow the Office of the Secretary to rely on the Senate Computer Center
and I-Net for some system support.
The Secretary's Novell LAN supports approximately 175 users in the
Capitol and the Senate Hart Buildings. The LAN operating system was
upgraded, new servers were installed in October, and all 386 PC's were
replaced with new Pentium computers.
Telecom and the Secretary's IS staff worked together this year to
migrate the Office of the Secretary from the older technology of
accessing the mainframe via coax cabling and controllers to accessing
it via IP and the fiber optic cabling backbone now in place. Also the
Secretary's network cable configuration was upgraded to switched
ethernet.
Several technology resources were made available for use by all
Secretary staff: laptop computers and portable printers; a high-end
scanner; a low-end color printer; Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw commercial
information services; and Internet e-mail and World Wide Web access.
Several departments have had repetitive tasks automated using the
macro scripting language in Word Perfect. When a new version of
WordPerfect is installed, all the macros must be updated and re-coded.
These scripts should be written in a programming language independent
of any application. Microsoft Visual Basic 4.0 and Delphi were
purchased and computer staff will begin recreating WordPerfect macros
in Visual Basic when feasible.
For a variety of reasons several Departments have their own
computer systems. In most cases the separate systems hold unique
applications. In some cases, separate LAN's were set up for security
reasons.
The Official Reporters' and Captioners' LAN.--The Official
Reporters and Captioners have a separate Novell server. They use
specialized software called Computer Aided Transcription (CAT) for
translating their steno code into English. The Xscribe CAT software was
upgraded to the newer version. Also in 1996 we upgraded the Novell LAN
operating system and installed a new server and, to support their heavy
printing needs, a high-end printer was purchased and installed.
The Senate Gift Shop's LAN (in two separate locations).--At the
request of GAO, for security reasons, the Gift Shop LAN cannot be
connected to the Secretary's LAN or to the Senate Fiber Network (SFN).
The Gift Shop LAN houses their inventory and transaction records. Plans
are underway to set up some workstations in the Gift Shop that would be
connected only to the Secretary's LAN to provide cc:mail and internet
access.
The Page School's LAN.--The Page School currently has a Novell LAN,
but a Windows NT LAN will be installed in the near future. Users
include the administrative staff, teachers, and students.
Administrative staff use the Blackbaud program for students records and
grades. These records are confidential. In 1996 Internet access and e-
mail was provided to students and staff and CyberPatrol, a software
package which regulates access to the Internet was installed to prevent
access to unacceptable sites. A CD tower was purchased and will be
installed in early 1997.
The Office of Senate Security's LAN.--The Office of Senate Security
inventories and tracks all classified information that comes into the
Senate. In the Fall of 1996 their system was completely upgraded from a
Novell system to a new Windows NT LAN with top-of-the-line equipment
and a new Document Management System was purchased. For security
reasons, the computer systems in Senate Security cannot be connected to
any other system in the Senate so two PC's connected to the Secretary's
LAN (and not to their LAN) have been installed so that staff can have
access to cc:mail and the internet.
The Senate Disbursing Office LAN.--In 1996 the Disbursing Office
installed a Windows NT LAN in Disbursing for desktop applications, and
attempted to install a server to run DOVES, the general ledger. The
office automation upgrade was fine, but the upgrade of the DOVE's
server caused data to be corrupted and after almost two-weeks of
attempts to salvage the upgrade the Disbursing Office had to roll-back
to their original system. Thus, the Disbursing Office still maintains
one separate 3-Com LAN for DOVES.
The Office of Public Records (OPR).--OPR uses FileNet, a UNIX-based
document management and imaging system, for maintaining public records
such as lobbying forms; campaign finance reports; and financial
disclosure reports. PC's are available to the public for searching,
viewing, and printing these documents. The FileNet workflow system
includes scanning the original document into the database, inputting
some data regarding the document, and then microfilming it for archival
purposes. In 1996 we installed a unique, high-end, Kodak 990D scanner
that handles the dual functions of digitizing images and microfilming
documents.
When the Lobbying Disclosure Act was signed into law, a system to
capture only the minimum identifying data on each report filed was
created. A complete database system for lobbying is being developed.
A working group has been established to tackle the many issues
currently facing OPR, including: upgrading the System Hardware and the
FileNet; finishing applications for on-site public access to the
records; and developing a system for remote public access via the
internet.
One staff member of the Department has been assigned to OPR as
full-time Systems Administrator, and the Senate Computer Center has
assigned a full-time programmer to write an application to allow the
public access to various filings, including: Financial Disclosure
Reports, Campaign Finance Reports, and Lobbying Reports. Currently only
the Financial Disclosure part of the application is finished.
Development continues on the other modules.
Senate-wide information technology projects authorized by the Secretary
The Strategic Planning Process Initiative.--The strategic planning
project was initiated by the Rules Committee in early January 1996. The
first meeting set up a structure for the project. A management team,
consisting of the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms, and
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee (or their
representatives). A Working Group of representatives of these offices
began meeting and identified several items which we felt were
significant and should be looked at during this process, including: an
integrated legislative information system; an integrated financial
management system; internet services; desktop strategies (technology at
each person's workstation); security; constituent mail systems;
customer service and support; video conferencing; and infrastructure.
Advisory groups studied each issue and produced final reports.
Consultants with an expertise in strategic planning have been hired
to formalize the strategic planning process in the Senate.
The Senate Legislative Information System Initiative.--The
Legislative Information System (LIS) initiative will automate the
preparation of legislative information moving closer to a paperless
process and provide comprehensive search mechanisms for helping users
access the information they need without having to know where that
information is stored. Legislative information is currently created and
maintained by several different offices in the legislative branch, and
official information (legislative information that has reached the
Floor) is not available online until the next day.
Other legislative branch agencies are currently redesigning their
legislative information systems. With proper cooperation and
communication among the legislative branch agencies we can develop
systems that work together, without unnecessary duplication, and that
meet everyone's needs. To achieve our objectives, this project will
require a sustained, multi-year effort by the Senate, in coordination
with the House, and supported by the legislative branch support
agencies.
The 1996 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act required the LOC to
undertake a study and submit a plan for developing a single, integrated
legislative information system. The goal was the development of a
system that would reduce duplication and at the same time improve the
quality of the legislative information available to the entire
Congress. In 1996 we successfully worked with the appropriators to have
the authority and funding for this project addressed in statute (see
Title I, Sec. 8 of the 1997 Legislative Branch Appropriation Act).
Designing the System.--The Senate, through a standard RFP
procurement process, contracted with KPMG/Peat Marwick to provide a
design concept for the Legislative Information System, and at the
option of the Senate, to draft a detailed requirements document for
inclusion in a solicitation should the Senate decide to proceed with
the actual development of the System. Specifically, KPMG performed the
following functions:
Developed of an overall, high-level, design concept:
--Conducted an operational analysis of the existing legislative rules
and procedures;
--Analyzed and assessed the needs of the potential users of the
System;
--Analyzed and recommended potential system designs and architectures
to capture information from document creation and that include
workflow and tracking capabilities;
--Analyzed existing applications for potential integration into the
new system and recommended development of new internal
applications, where needed;
--Identified aspects of the existing legislative process which are
not subject to automation; and
--Explored the benefit and feasibility of integrating existing
commercial legislative and news services into the Legislative
Information System.
Developed an overall program plan:
--The final deliverable by KPMG was an overall implementation plan
based upon the design concept approved by the Senate. This
program plan included a project schedule; identified resources
required to develop the System; and established a multi-year
project budget with a detailed breakdown of first-year
expenditures. KPMG finished their study and provided the
program plan on January 24th. The Secretary of the Senate, the
Sergeant at Arms, and the Staff Directors of the Rules
Committee met and accepted the final report.
A Program Office, staffed by KPMG and Senate staff, was established
in early 1997 and a project manager was hired. The program office and
project manager will set up a management structure for the remainder of
the LIS project; detail the scheduling and staffing for six
subprojects; manage and track the projects through their completion;
produce a detailed RFP for publication; and provide oversight on the
development of the LIS system.
Full Text Amendment Scanning Project.--KPMG developed functional
requirements for an amendment scanning system. They recommended using a
document management system similar to what might be used in the larger
LIS system. Based on KPMG's design, the SCC developed the amendment
scanning system in two months. The Bill Clerks receive the xeroxed copy
of the amendment and scan it in within minutes of its introduction on
the Floor. The amendment number, bill number, and sponsor are added to
the record and the amendment is available for viewing by all Senate
staff with a browser and Acrobat Reader. A pilot test is underway and
in a few weeks it will be released to the full Senate.
The Senate/House SGML Data Standards Initiative.--The Secretary of
the Senate and the Clerk of the House are working together to establish
a standard for data exchange. That standard will be the Standard
General Markup Language (SGML). Each Legislative Branch agency was
surveyed about their ongoing SGML projects. We contracted with The
Mulberry Group, to analyze agency survey responses and make
recommendations as to our next step. Based on the findings of the
Mulberry report and negotiations between the Clerk and Secretary, the
next step is to begin work on developing a SGML DTD (an agreed upon
structure) for Bills. A Committee of representatives from the Senate
(including staff from the Secretary, the SAA, and the Legislative
Counsel), House, Library, and GPO will work together on this project.
Internet Technologies: The Senate WWW Home Page.--The Senate World
Wide Web (WWW) Home Page was one year old on October 20, 1996. The Page
had been averaging 50,000 hits a day and that number rose to about
70,000 per day in September 1996. The Secretary's Office is responsible
for the legislative and institutional content of the Home Page.
The Financial Management System (FMS-II) Project.--This project
will take the Senate from a cash-based to an obligation-based
accounting system. It will provide online data entry of purchase and
voucher information, and storage and retrieval of scanned images of
supporting documentation for viewing side-by-side with voucher data.
The Secretary has hired a high-level Project Manager to run this
project.
As a first step in the ``paperless'' bill paying process envisioned
under the FMS-II project, the project team, in previous years,
developed the Senate Office Accounting System (SOAS), a Paradox-for-
DOS-based standalone system, used by Senate offices to prepare vouchers
and track office accounts. This system eased the administrative burdens
of bill paying for Office Managers and introduced the concepts of
obligation-based accounting to the Senate. During 1996, the project
team continued to enhance SOAS, provide ``follow-up'' training for new
users, troubleshoot hardware and software problems, and write
procedures for using the system.
The project team arranged access to SOAS for departing Senators so
that vouchers can be prepared for invoices received after the Senator's
term expires. SOAS records were copied from each Senator's office
requesting it, and were copied to either a PC in the Disbursing Office
available by appointment to Office Managers from these offices, or to
the PC of a former Office Manager who accepts a job in a new Senator's
office. Although requested, the project team did not copy data to the
personal PC's of any former Office Managers.
A first version of the Senate Time and Attendance Reporting System
(STAR) was virtually completed by January 1996. This system was
developed before the governing regulations were issued by the Office of
Compliance. The initial version had a standard Monday-Sunday workweek.
Deployment was halted when it became apparent that users needed a
system that provided for variable workweeks. Incorporating such
flexibility required a near total rewrite of the system that was
completed only near the end of 1996. The new version not only allows
offices to have different workweeks, but allows offices to establish
different workweeks for each employee. The new version of the system
has been in operation in two pilot offices since June 1996 while it was
under development. In December 1996 it was deployed to three additional
pilot offices. These offices have had some suggestions for change and
enhancement that are being incorporated as it is deployed further. The
system will be provided to additional pilot offices during the Spring
of 1997.
During 1996, the Request for Proposals that was issued in 1995 for
the central accounting system, which will be the core of the overall
new Senate Financial Management System, was canceled and a different
solicitation--a Letter of Interest--was issued to the seven vendors
with such products on the GSA Schedule. Responses were received from
five companies. Evaluations were put on hold pending the Secretary's
employment of a high-level Project Manager.
During the year, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into
with the Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service,
Center for Applied Financial Management for assistance in evaluating
proposals and in installing and implementing the new system.
Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress.--An 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 appointees of the Majority and Minority
Leaders, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Senate Historian.
A Task Force on the Impact of Technology on Archival Documentation
of Congress will compile an inventory of major computer systems in use
in the Senate and the House of Representatives, identify permanently
valuable information, and make recommendations for data migration and
preservation. The Task Force in conjunction with representatives of the
Clerk of the House is in the process of identifying all types of
electronic data in the Secretary's office that need to be archived. A
draft report is due to the full committee in June.
______
Biographical Sketch of Gary L. Sisco
Gary L. Sisco was elected and sworn in as Secretary of the Senate
on October 1, 1996. Born and raised in Bolivar, Tennessee, he was
educated at the University of Mississippi, where in 1967 he earned a
bachelor of science degree in civil engineering, and The George
Washington University, where in 1970 he earned a master of science
degree in administration.
Secretary Sisco served in the United States Army from 1968 to 1970.
In 1970, he rejoined IBM's Memphis, Tennessee, Data Processing
Division, where he had been employed prior to entering military
service. A year later, he joined the staff of Senator Howard H. Baker,
Jr. (TN). He left Senator Howard Baker's staff as executive assistant
in 1973, when Lamar Alexander appointed him manager for his 1974
campaign for governor of Tennessee. Mr. Sisco then served, from 1975 to
1977 as administrative assistant to U.S. Congressman Robin Beard (TN).
From 1977 until 1996, Mr. Sisco was in the real estate investment
business in Nashville, Tennessee. Secretary Sisco is married and has
three children.
______
Prepared Statement of Stuart F. Balderson
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present to your
Committee, the Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1998 budget estimates for the Senate
have been included in the Budget of the United States Government for
Fiscal Year 1998. 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
$522,751,000, which reflect an increase of $39,156,000, or 8.10 percent
over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997 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 1997 are $483,595,000. 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 1998 are divided into three
major categories as follows:
Senate Items............................................ $83,847,000
Contingent Expense Items................................ 394,928,000
Joint Items of the Senate............................... 43,976,000
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the increase for fiscal year 1998 over
the fiscal year 1997 enacted levels is a result of: (1) $15,989,000
increase in the budget estimate for Senators' Official Personnel and
Office Expense Account to fully fund the allowances which are under-
funded as a result of the consolidation of population categories,
increases in the populations of various states, and the increase in the
Legislative Assistance Allowance authorized in the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 1993; (2) $5,034,000 for the anticipated 2.8
percent cost of living increase for fiscal year 1998, and the
annualization costs of the fiscal year 1997 cost of living adjustment;
(3) $3,737,000 for personnel adjustments other than the cost of living,
attributable primarily to Expenses of Inquiries and Investigations, and
to the Capitol Police, including $141,000 for Capitol Police
comparability increases; (4) $210,000 for estimated overtime costs,
excluding Capitol Police; (5) $3,453,500 increase in agency
contributions applicable to the cost of living adjustments and other
personnel increase requests; (6) $10,732,500 increase in non-payroll
expense requests, attributable primarily to the Office of the Sergeant
at Arms and Doorkeeper.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the consideration of your Committee, the
Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 1998.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. You anticipated a number of the
questions that I was intending to ask. We appreciate that and
we appreciate your service.
Hearing tracking service
Let me stray a little bit to ask you a question you are
probably not prepared for, so you might want to think about it.
But in the legislative information service, think about how
difficult it would be to add a tracking service of hearings so
that someone could call in--someone being not only the public,
but more particularly perhaps a Senator's office--and say what
hearings are scheduled on x number of days and what conflicts
exist between Senators. You could track that Senator Dorgan,
for example, had this hearing coinciding with a Democratic
leadership meeting that is taking place simultaneously and he
has to shuttle back and forth between the two of them. A
chairman of a subcommittee could access and realize that if
this hearing were scheduled at 10 o'clock, the members of the
subcommittee would run into these kinds of conflicts. If the
hearing were at 11 o'clock, they would be alleviated somewhat
and so on.
Do you have a view as to how tough that would be to
implement?
Mr. Sisco. My view is that that would be fairly simple to
implement, to design, and incorporate into it. I think the key
to that would be having everyone participate and actually input
their own schedules where there would be good information in
it.
We have retained KPMG Peat Marwick to do a design document
with all the requirements for LIS, and this and anything else
that you would want we can put in there and see what would be
required to do it. But my take is that that would be an
excellent thing to do and would be easy to do.
Senator Bennett. I would appreciate your doing a little
work on that.
As I go around to my fellow Senators in my assignment from
Senator Lott to talk about ways in which the Senate can be
restructured to make it more efficient, I find other Senators
list this as one of their most serious complaints. Their
schedules are constantly conflicting. I realize you probably
cannot train committee chairs to ever pay any attention to
anybody's initiatives but their own, but if this service were
available and some kind of moral suasion out of the leader's
office could be brought to bear on committee and subcommittee
chairs to get them to check with this and try to make their
schedule a little more compatible to the circumstances of the
committee members, we might begin to move in the direction that
people would like us to move around here.
I would appreciate it if you would give that some thought,
and then at some point we might visit again about it.
Mr. Sisco. I will.
Senator Bennett. Some quick housekeeping questions. When
your office receives a voucher, how long does it take before
the vendor is paid?
Mr. Sisco. When I got here, it was 6 to 7 weeks. There were
five or six positions in the Disbursing Office that were not
filled and they were short-handed. We addressed that. Stuart
Balderson and his people have done an excellent job. We have
added some people and without raising unrealistic expectations,
we are now down below 2 weeks.
The first goal was to pay our bills within 30 days, which
ought to be done with no problem. Second, to make sure that we
pay them on time. Third, to get discounts, and just move them
up on a responsive basis.
Right now I am informed that we are under 2 weeks and that
is what we plan to continue to do. If anyone in the room knows
anything to the contrary, I would like for them to see Stuart
and me afterward.
Senator Bennett. OK, very good.
Are the amount of discounts available for prompt payment a
significant amount of money? Are we talking about--what
percentage if the bill is paid within 10 days?
Mr. Sisco. I have not personally looked at that. I was
going on the assumption that with the funds there and with the
obligation there, that once we got caught up and we were
looking at the financial system, that whatever money there is
there for prompt payment or for discount, that we ought to get
it.
Senator Bennett. Prior to your coming, the office began to
look into cost savings that could be generated by consolidating
the Office of the Stenographers and the Hearing Impaired
Transcribers. Do you have any information on where that study
is or what became of it?
Mr. Sisco. Senator Bennett, I have read that study and it
probably has some merit just from an organizational standpoint
or an efficiency standpoint. But candidly, it is not a high
priority of mine--it has not been and it is not right now--with
everything else that we have got going. It is something that I
will continue to review, but again the critical thing there, I
think, is service--getting the information from the floor and
getting it transcribed timely and accurately and getting it in
written form. But I do not have a plan for that right now.
Senator Bennett. OK, thank you very much.
As I say, I think you covered the other questions in your
statement. If we decide you did not, we will send you a
question or two in writing. But we appreciate your being here
and we appreciate your service to the Senate.
Mr. Sisco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
STATEMENT OF HON. GREGORY S. CASEY, SERGEANT AT ARMS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
LORETTA SYMMS, DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS
LARRY HARRIS, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
CHRISTOPHER DEY, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
DUANE RAVENBERG, HEAD OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
introduction of Associates
Senator Bennett. We now go to the Sergeant at Arms' office,
and I understand in the proper tradition of the modern Senate,
the Sergeant at Arms has some charts. [Laughter.]
Mr. Casey. You would expect nothing less, would you?
Senator Bennett. We cannot have a debate on the floor of
the Senate without a bunch of charts.
Mr. Casey. I have some props too.
Senator Bennett. OK, very good.
For the record, Greg Casey is the Sergeant at Arms and he
is accompanied by Ms. Loretta Symms, the Deputy Sergeant at
Arms, and Mr. Larry Harris, the Administrative Assistant. Mr.
Casey, we are happy to have you here and look forward to seeing
your charts and watching your visual aids.
Mr. Casey. I hope I do not disappoint you, Mr. Chairman,
with the charts.
I would like to introduce one other individual joining me
at the table, the Chief Financial Officer for the Sergeant at
Arms, Mr. Christopher Dey.
Senator Bennett. Mr. Dey, we welcome you as well.
summary statement
Mr. Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Greg Casey, the
34th Sergeant at Arms and the Doorkeeper of the Senate, and it
is an honor for me to be with you today. I am familiar with all
the staff sitting along the back wall and compliment the
chairman on having such competent individuals with him.
Mr. Chairman, when the majority leader told me he was going
to make me the Sergeant at Arms, he gave me a very clear two-
part mandate. The first was to make sure that the financial
operations of the Sergeant at Arms were properly run. The
second was to look at the management functions to make sure
that we could increase the service to the Senators in a cost-
efficient manner.
With the help of retired Senator Hank Brown, we put
together a skilled evaluation team that built on an audit that
was done of the Sergeant at Arms in 1994. The evaluation team
concluded that we did, in fact, have the necessary financial
tools in place to ensure that we are running in a proper
fashion.
That evaluation team also told us, however, that we needed
to get on with the massive restructuring of the Sergeant at
Arms' office.
As part of the study for that evaluation team, I had this
organizational chart prepared. This chart represents the
current operations of the Sergeant at Arms. As you can see, it
is a vertically oriented conglomerate of nonintegrated
functions. This is not an organization. It is a group of
organizations that have been strung together over the last 20
years or so.
In it, more than 25 separate managers reported directly to
the Sergeant at Arms, and in this nominal chain of command, as
many as 70 employees were not accounted for. Duplication of
effort was common. Consistency in compensation, evaluation, and
performance measurement did not exist. What little planning and
communication existed between these various departments served
only the interests of the individual units. There was little
concern for the organization as a whole or for the Senate as a
customer.
In this format, Member offices were subjected to four
separate inventories by four separate departments. Under this
format, we had one SAA department developing a technology that
was totally inconsistent with the technological standard being
developed in another Sergeant at Arms' department.
In this structure, printers are procured and maintained by
the computer center, copiers procured and maintained by the
service department, and fax machines procured and maintained by
telecommunications. I am sure there are many in this room who
have a single machine in their house that performs all three of
those functions.
I think it should be obvious that advances in technology
and the passage of time have erased whatever reason we had to
build this kind of a stovepipe structure.
To improve our productivity, Mr. Chairman, we needed to do
more than nibble at the edges of change in this organization.
We needed to do some profound, systemic reengineering.
Interestingly enough, this is not the first time that the
Senate of the United States has come to exactly that same
conclusion. This is the commission report on the operations of
the Senate, 1976-77. It was an exhaustive study of how the
Senate does business. Included in that is an extensive study of
administrative operations, including our own.
Here is the conclusion. ``The administrative structure of
the Senate is antiquated, fragmented, and lacking clear lines
of authority and responsibility.''
Among its recommendations was that, ``The administration of
the Senate services needs to be reorganized within a unified
modern management structure with clear lines of authority and
responsibility.''
Unfortunately, the structure that was so maligned in this
report 20 years ago is essentially the same structure I just
showed you on the chart.
Now, in 1995 the Senate Rules Committee contracted with
Performance Engineering Corp. They gave them the charge to come
back with a review of the Senate's information technology
infrastructure. This is that report. In short they said--and I
quote--``The Sergeant at Arms should develop a new
organizational structure.'' The report gave us a list of things
that we should probably pursue in order to implement that new
organization. Unfortunately, that report went largely unheeded.
Now, the need for changing the way we do business as a
Government and a Senate is not new. Congress recently passed
several laws that require Federal agencies to adopt strategic
planning and performance measurements, such as the Clinger-
Cohen Act, the CFO Act, the Government Performance and Results
Act, among others.
I even have a quote from Vice President Al Gore's
``National Performance Review'' talking about the need for
dynamic change.
There is also a great deal that we do in the Sergeant at
Arms and the Senate as a whole, Mr. Chairman, that simply must
be changed because the Congressional Accountability Act makes
us change it.
Mr. Chairman, I think it was clear from the get-go that the
Sergeant at Arms' office needed to change the way we did
business, and we are.
Our vision for the future is this. I think you can see from
this chart that we have really sort of changed our approach. In
the organization that we are building, we focus on improved
service quality, increased efficiency, maximum responsiveness
to clearly identifiable customer bases within the confines of
available resources. While this is still very much a work in
progress, you can see that this is a totally different model--
this is a horizontally integrated model--than the one that you
just saw. We can focus on planning, product development
delivery, customer service, and quality assurance. We do this
with a Sergeant at Arms institutionwide approach rather than a
unit-by-unit one, recognizing that we have a clearly
identifiable customer base and that is who we need to serve.
One of the differences between what we are creating and
what we were before is that all of our engineers will be in the
technical operations division, whereas now we have engineers
spread all over our operation working on piecemeal bits of
technological answers to problems that people bring to our
attention. We are going to put our engineers in one place and
say that your job is to develop a technological vision for the
future of the Senate. That is what we are going to do there.
Also, we have gathered together a centralized customer
support program, and so for the first time, there will be one
person who is going to be the central point of contact for
every office in the Senate helping to develop answers to
questions that Senate offices may have before they become
problems. We are going to do that over here in the customer
relations program.
We have developed an office operations division. Anybody
who works in an office knows it is very difficult to know who
you call when you have a problem. We have all experienced that.
Instead of trying to educate all the offices as to whom that
may be, we are developing a 228-HELP line so that all you have
to know is to call 228-HELP. When you get that line, we will be
able to give you the answer that you need.
Mr. Chairman, moving from where we are now, where we have
been for two decades, to this new organization is going to be a
challenge. We have started it step by step in a logical
fashion. It is going to take us some time. The challenge is not
only making the reorganization work, but that we are not going
to be allowed to miss a step in performing those services under
the old organization as we get there.
I have some interesting statistics in how our workload has
also gone up considerably that I will give you near the end of
the presentation.
Even so, I think we have taken some logical first steps,
but there are far too many for me to go into them all here.
Time does not allow us to do that unless, of course, you ask me
to do that. But I would like to give you just a few examples.
We have created a Capitol division, and within the Capitol
division, which basically takes care of the Capitol and the
historical functions of the Sergeant at Arms, we have the
Doorkeeper. The Doorkeepers are one of the oldest parts of the
Sergeant at Arms' operation. As it is one of the most
historical changes to the Sergeant at Arms, we decided to start
there in implementing our management philosophy.
We reengineered their operations. We trained them. We set
down some standards. We have invested in our Doorkeeper corps.
As a result, we believe that we get a far more professional
Doorkeeper corps providing far better service, and we have done
this while also reducing the FTE's in the Doorkeepers by 20
percent.
As we proceed, we are going to analyze each element in the
Sergeant at Arms' office in the same way, applying the same
kind of management philosophy, analyzing each position and each
responsibility as we go, hopefully, with similar results. We
are going to find out that we are going to have to do things a
lot better. We are also discovering that we are going to have
to do things a lot differently.
A case in point is long distance billing. We went before a
bipartisan meeting of office managers, and they complained
about the huge amount of paperwork that goes along with long
distance billing. We did some investigating and found that we
were spending $1 for every 90 cents we collected. It did not
make a whole lot of sense, so we simply eliminated the charge-
back provision.
But I think nothing is more indicative of the kind of
change we are talking about than what we are proposing to do
with support for State offices. Currently we have an arbitrary
set of numbers that restricts State offices to a particular
square footage, along with some artificial barriers on the kind
of equipment that you can use in those offices.
Now, the Sergeant at Arms' office provides every State
office that you have with furniture and equipment at no cost to
those individual offices, whether you have 5 offices or 10
offices. We are on the line to have to support those offices.
That did not make any sense to us. In the age of increased
communication, it makes sense that your offices and others are
going to put more of their resources in their home States where
both the services are delivered and where the voters are.
Rather than trying to artificially restrict the expenses for
those offices arbitrarily, which is 40 percent of our expense
budget, providing for those State offices, we came up with the
solution that we offered to the Rules Committee. The Rules
Committee has granted permission for us to move ahead with
developing the following program.
We will give each Senator a budget, much the same as we do
with the computer budget, and say that, you can do this how you
see fit, allowing you to develop the kind of offices that you
want, the kind that best meet your constituent philosophies. We
believe in the long run this is not only going to be a better
solution for the Senators, but it is going to be a better
solution for the taxpayers as well.
We also created a project management tracking system. This
is the first time this has ever been used here in the Senate.
What it gives you, the oversight committees, is the ability to
look at the way we are spending money in the Sergeant at Arms'
office, to know what the purpose is, to know how much money we
have spent, and to know whether we are on target or not. It
gives us, the managers, the same information so that we, at a
glance, can know what we are doing, how we are doing it, and
whether or not we are keeping up with where we are supposed to
be. This good management practice has been incorporated into
quarterly reports, the first of which your office should have
already received.
Now, the beauty of this is twofold. No. 1, this is going to
give you a report on major expenditures, the projects and
initiatives in the Sergeant at Arms' office, without regard to
the organization. This particular project deals with enterprise
management. It will be the same project in the new organization
as it was in the old organization.
Additionally, we think this is going to be important for us
as we move away from product development into more project and
contract management for the future.
As I alluded to earlier, the human resource management part
of the Sergeant at Arms' operation has not served the Senate
very well. If we are to demand more from our employees, we must
be prepared to provide our employees with the tools they need
to improve and the incentives required to award that
improvement.
To that end, we have hired a top-notch human resource
professional and we have begun an extensive management training
program. We now have a standard system on pay outlines Sergeant
at Arms-wide, something we did not have before. We just
finished training 120 front-line managers in the Sergeant at
Arms' operations on how to perform on a consistent basis our
personnel evaluations, as well as ADA training and FMLA
training.
Yesterday we awarded a job classification and salary range
study, much the same as what the Secretary's office had done
last year.
We have instituted an employee awards program and already
presented five merit awards in the first 6 months of this year.
We are planning other programs that will award performance and
help us retain the kind of skilled and technical professionals
we are going to need in the new millennium.
Other near-term efforts include a career path program
within the Sergeant at Arms' operations, family/friendly leave
programs, and the institution of individual technical training.
The recent flooding in the Midwest also highlighted some
problems that we had. We need to be rapid and flexible in
supporting affected Members' offices when they are faced with
such disasters. We found that we not only needed to change our
own regulations and the way we respond to Members' needs, but
we had to get some changes made in Federal law. With your help
and the help of Senator Dorgan, those technical corrections
were in the disaster supplemental that got vetoed, but I am
confident that those technical corrections will make it into
law.
Senator Bennett. I doubt that those were the reasons for
the veto.
Mr. Casey. Good, glad to hear that. [Laughter.]
That makes me feel better.
But I think the point there is that we need to be far more
capable in our response to the needs of our Members, and I
think what we have put together is a program to do just that.
As the Senate's primary contracting officer, our General
Counsel has implemented progressive contract management
techniques. These have resulted in significant savings to the
Senate and the taxpayer. This check is a check that we
presented to the majority leader and Senator Warner in April.
It basically represents our share or the taxpayers' share of
the proceeds that came about from what is known as a
gainsharing practice. This practice creates financial
incentives for both the contractor and for the client to
increase productivity. We received national attention and kudos
from all across the country for our efforts in this area, and
our General Counsel deserves congratulations for that effort.
We hope this will be the first of many such aggressive contract
renegotiations.
We also did some renegotiations which I did not mention
earlier with regard to telecommunications and our
telecommunications department was able to generate significant
savings there as well.
OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER FISCAL YEAR 1998 BUDGET REQUEST
[In millions of dollars by fiscal year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current organization Proposed organization
Description ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and maintenance.......................... 95.3 95.2 102.6 106.1 109.3 95.3 95.2 95.2 95.2 95.2
Capital expenditures................................ 4.6 18.1 17.0 13.1 14.4 4.6 18.1 17.0 13.1 14.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budget.................................. 99.9 113.3 119.6 119.2 123.7 99.9 113.3 112.2 108.3 109.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the budget request which
you have been given for fiscal year 1998 was prepared prior to
the implementation of this reorganization. It neither reflects
the cost savings we anticipate through better management, nor
the organizational groupings under which we will soon be
operating.
Even so, we developed this budget last fall integrating our
new operation philosophy. We divided our budget into operations
and maintenance and strategic initiatives, or capital budget.
Our prepared budget request for fiscal year 1998 is $113
million, an increase of $13 million over 1997, or 13 percent.
----------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER FISCAL YEAR 1998 BUDGET REQUEST--CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
[In millions of dollars by fiscal year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecom infrastructure........................................ ........ 2.0 4.0 2.8 2.4
Telecom network upgrades...................................... 1.7 11.0 7.2 6.5 8.5
Year 2000 compliance.......................................... ........ .8 1.0 .4 .1
Financial systems............................................. 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.1
LEGIS reengineering........................................... 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8
Other......................................................... .5 1.1 1.1 .6 .6
-------------------------------------------------
Total capital expenditures.............................. 4.7 18.1 17.1 13.1 14.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Our ongoing operations and maintenance budget is
essentially flat at $95 million. That reflects the nominal
reduction in FTE's that we anticipated last fall when we began
this reorganization. Virtually all of the increases are the
result of easily identifiable capital expenditures for
strategic initiatives, infrastructure, and capital
improvements. They aggregate a total of $18 million in 1998, an
increase of $13 million.
As you can see, they are mainly in the area of telecom
infrastructure, finishing up work in the Russell, and moving
into the Dirksen Building, as well as wiring, and providing
network telecoms for State office operations. This was
identified as a need because we had a lot of offices whose
systems were too slow, and I think you are probably aware of
exactly what we are talking about.
There is a series of longer-term options that we can go
into, but you can see that it is clearly identifiable where
that money is to be spent.
In 1998 we have a request on salaries of $35.1 million.
That is a 3-percent increase over 1997 and essentially reflects
the cost of living.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will go out on a limb here. Had we
been able to prepare our budget submission today and its
outward projections subsequent to the completion of our
reorganization, it would have reflected the reduction in FTE's
and O&M which is now being realized. Even some of the increases
in capital expenditures we believe would be moderated, as the
ongoing information technology strategic planning in which we
are now engaged adds a discipline to technological improvements
that currently does not exist.
It would have looked more like this, had we been able to
prepare the chart. The difference is rather striking. In 2001,
the budget we had originally prepared was $123.1 million. This
one was $109.6 million.
Now, obviously this is based on some preliminary
information. We have to finish this kind of a budget analysis
of the new organization when that organization is completed
before we can submit that to you as the plan for where we
really want to go.
As indicated earlier, we were able to significantly reduce
the FTE requirements for our doorkeeper operation by
implementing some sound management philosophy. Although it is
premature to forecast year-end figures right now, the Sergeant
at Arms' organization is currently running 50 to 80 FTE's below
what we had anticipated, and we are currently $3 to $5 million
below projections on salaries.
I would remind you that with some of these savings, we are
going to ask for reprogramming which will be necessary to
offset the deferred organizational infrastructure that I
referenced earlier, in particular, the human resource aspects
of it.
Now, what this does not include or this organization does
not include is the product of the ongoing strategic planning
that is being led by the Rules Committee in conjunction with
the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the Senate. There
will be probably some suggestions for major changes and some
major cost shifts between these offices or inclusions that are
not reflected here.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be here today. I am
also very proud of the dedicated men and women who serve the
Senate in the Office of the Sergeant at Arms. As you can see,
we have embarked on a fairly aggressive program, and as we move
forward to address these challenges, I could not ask for a
finer group of people with which to work, and in that regard, I
am truly blessed. I would like for them to raise their hands,
my crew who are here.
[A show of hands.]
prepared statement
Mr. Casey. This is truly a fairly remarkable group of
people, Mr. Chairman, and I am blessed to have them working
with me.
I look forward to working with you and Senator Dorgan, and
I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gregory S. Casey
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm Greg Casey. On six September of 1996,
the Senate elected me the 34th Sergeant At Arms and Doorkeeper. It is
an honor for me to appear before you today.
Mr. Chairman, when the Majority Leader told me he was going to
nominate me for this position, the Leader gave me a clear two part
mandate. First, evaluate the financial operations to insure their
propriety. Second, evaluate and manage the operations in such a way as
to increase service to the Senate in the most efficient and productive
manner possible.
Retired United States Senator Hank Brown graciously agreed to help
lead a skilled evaluation team to assist in this effort. Building on a
General Accounting Office audit done in 1994, the team concluded in
their January 1997 report: ``* * * we concur with the GAO and believe
that the Sergeant at Arms financial operations have the necessary
internal controls in place to insure proper financial management.''
They also emphasized the critical need to begin strategic planning
and reorganize and reengineer the operations of the Sergeant at Arms.
As part of this evaluation, I had prepared this organizational
chart of the current operations of the Sergeant At Arms. As you can
see, it is a vertically oriented conglomerate of non-integrated
functions.
More than 25 separate managers report directly to the Sergeant At
Arms and more than 70 employees worked outside this chain of command.
Duplication of effort was common, consistency in compensation,
evaluation and performance measurements was not.
What little planning and communication existed between departments,
served the interests of each unit and not the organization as a whole
or its customers.
In this format, member offices are subjected to four separate
inventories by four separate departments; one each for
telecommunications, computer and general office equipment and one for
furniture.
One SAA department was developing a product that was inconsistent
with the technical operating standards being developed by another
department.
In this structure, printers are procured and maintained by the
Computer Center, copiers by the Service Department, and fax machines by
Telecommunications Department. At home I have one machine that can do
all three things.
Clearly, technology and time has erased the lines of distinction
that existed in the creation of this stovepipe structure. To improve
our productivity we need to do more than nibble at the edges of change,
we need to make systemic changes in the way we do business.
Interestingly, we found this wasn't the first time that conclusion
had been reached. ``The Commission on the Operation of the Senate;
1976-1977'' was an exhaustive review of Senate operations to include
the administrative operations of the Sergeant At Arms itself. It found:
``The administrative structure of the Senate is antiquated,
fragmented, and lacking in clear lines of authority and
responsibility.
Summary of Recommendations.--The administration of the Senate
services should be reorganized within a unified modern
management structure having clear lines of authority and
responsibility.'' (Commission on the Operation of the Senate,
1976-1977)
Unfortunately, the organizational structure of the Sergeant at Arms
maligned in this 20 year old report is essentially the same as the
current structure I just described.
In 1995, the Performance Engineering Corporation was contracted to
perform a review of the Senate's Information Technology Infrastructure.
They concluded that the ``Sergeant at Arms should develop a new
organizational structure * * *'' and went on to suggest on how to
proceed. That report went largely unheeded.
The need for changing the way we do business is not new to
government or the Senate. Congress recently required that all federal
agencies adopt strategic planning, performance measurements, and employ
best business practices in their operations. These laws include the
Clinger-Cohen Act, the CFO Act, Government Performance and Results Act,
among others.
Quoting from Vice President Al Gore's ``National Performance
Review'',
``The idea of reengineering * * * is critical. We don't want
to automate the old, worn processes of government. Information
Technology was and is the great enabler for reinvention. It
allows us to rethink, in fundamental ways, how people work and
how we serve our customers.''
In addition Mr. Chairman, there is simply much that we do here that
the Congressional Accountability Act requires us to change.
Mr. Chairman, I think what must be done is clear. The Sergeant at
Arms office must change the way it does business and we are. We are
rethinking how we work and serve our customers, changing and improving
outdated processes, implementing performance measurements for our
employees, contractors and the organization as a whole.
Our vision for the future organizational structure is this (chart).
It is a single, integrated organization focused on improved service
quality, increased efficiency and maximum responsiveness to customer
needs within the limits of available resources.
While this is still a ``work in progress'', you can see how
different this model is. In this model, planning, product development
and delivery, customer service and quality assurance are emphasized
enterprise wide, not unit by unit.
We've gathered the dispersed engineering resources into a single
unit, focused not on piecemeal solutions to individual problems but on
proactive long term, Senate wide technology solutions.
For the first time, we'll have centralized customer support to
provide each Senate office with one point of contact for all Sergeant
at Arms services.
We intend to provide one-stop ``228-HELP'' line for all services,
similar to systems now in use by Fortune 100 companies. We are in the
field as we speak identifying and evaluating such systems.
Mr. Chairman, moving from the old to the new isn't going to happen
overnight. In addition to the challenges of our reorganization, we
still have to perform our ongoing operations. This requires that the
timing of our reorganization effort be measured and thoughtful. One
step at a time.
Even so, we have already taken many steps forward.
Within the nearly completed Capitol Division we've concentrated
activities and services critical to the operations of the Capitol
Building and Senate Floor. It's under the direct responsibility of the
Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Loretta Symms.
In this division you'll find the Doorkeepers, whose charge of
maintaining order and decorum on the Senate floor is the most
historical duty within my operation. It is here we have tested our
management philosophy; planning, reorganizing and reengineering,
training and investment. As a result, we believe we provide a higher
level of more professional service with a twenty percent reduction in
FTE's.
As we proceed, we intend to analyze each and every service we
provide applying similar best business practice techniques to increase
productivity. This will not only involve doing what we do better but
wholesale changes in the way we do business.
One area where that becomes most obvious is in the support of
member's state offices. As you know, approximately forty percent of the
Sergeant At Arm's expense budget is spent in support of state offices
and it goes up every year. Currently, state office support is based on
a square footage allotments and some artificial restrictions on
computers and office equipment.
Now, although state operations are limited by square footage, the
Sergeant at Arms provides each state office with furniture and
equipment it may or may not need because it comes at no cost to the
individual offices. It's wasteful and unresponsive.
Instead of providing services under this confusing allocation
scheme, the Rules Committee has granted our request to develop a new
process that gives Senate offices the responsibility and flexibility to
meet their own needs and constituent services philosophies. Under our
new approach, each Senator will be provided a state office budget to be
used as the individual Senator sees fit within broad guidelines. We
think this will result in a more cost effective arrangement for both
the members and the taxpayer.
A bi-partisan group of office managers asked if anything could be
done to reduce the paperwork associated with telecommunication billing.
We found we were spending a dollar to collect ninety-five cents. We
eliminated the charge back process.
We will soon adopt the use of government Credit Cards for the
procurement of small purchases, something the federal government has
already adopted because it reduces administrative costs.
We developed the Technology Review Panel to increase the
communication and consistency in technical standards, and eliminate
duplication and/or conflict of effort.
We created a Project Management tracking system to give the
oversight committees and us sound business information on the progress
and status of our expenditures and operations. The first of these
quarterly reports has already been submitted to the committee.
The current report reflects our current structure and budget. As we
proceed with our reorganization and strategic planning efforts, you
will see changes in priorities and respective resources. However, the
project reporting will allow the committee to be fully and regularly
informed as to our progress. This will become more important as we
moves toward more project and contract management and less internal
product development.
As mentioned earlier, Sergeant At Arms Human Resource Management
has not served the Senate well. If we are to demand more from our
employees, we must be prepared to provide them with the tools they need
to improve and the incentives required to reward improvement.
To that end, we have hired a top notch Human Resource professional
and begun an extensive management training program. We have
standardized a system wide pay outline and just finished training 120
front line Sergeant At Arms managers on how to perform personnel
evaluations.
A job classification and salary range study contract is about to be
awarded.
We have instituted an employee awards programs and given away at
least five merit awards in the first six months and have other programs
that will reward performance and help us retain skilled technical
professionals.
Additional near term efforts include a career path program, more
family friendly leave programs and individual technical training.
The recent flooding in the Midwest highlighted the need for more
rapid and flexible support to affected member's state office
operations. We found we needed to change not only our internal
regulations, but a federal statute delayed our ability to respond.
Thanks to your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member,
Senator Dorgan, we were able to have a technical correction to the law
included in the recent disaster supplemental.
As the Senate's primary contracting officer, the General Council
for the Sergeant At Arms has implemented progressive contract
management techniques that resulted in substantial savings to the
Senate and the taxpayer. This ``gain sharing'' practice creates
financial incentives for both the contractor and the client to increase
productivity and has received national attention. This check was
presented to the Majority Leader and Senator Warner in April.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the budget request for fiscal year
1998 you are considering today was prepared prior to the reorganization
we have been discussing. It neither reflects the cost savings we
anticipate through better management nor the organizational groupings
we will soon be operating under.
Even so, Mr. Chairman, we developed this budget to reflect our new
operational philosophy, dividing it into the categories of Operations
and Maintenance and Strategic Initiatives.
Our prepared budget request for fiscal year 1998 is $113 million,
an increase of $13 million over 1997.
Our ongoing O&M budget is flat, at $95 million. It also reflects
the nominal reduction in FTE's we anticipated last fall would result
from our reorganization effort. Virtually all of the increase is the
result of easily identifiable capital expenditures for strategic
initiatives, infrastructure and capital improvements, which aggregate
$18 million in 1998, an increase of $13 million from 1997.
The 1998 request of $35.1 million for salaries itself is a 3
percent increase over the current year and essentially represents the
cost-of-living increase.
Mr. Chairman, had we been able to prepare this budget submission
and its out year projections subsequent to the completion of our
reorganization, it would have reflected the reduction in FTE's and O&M
budget now being realized. Even some of the increases in the capital
expenditures would be moderated as the ongoing Information technology
strategic planning effort begins to introduce a discipline on
technology improvements that currently does not exist.
It would have looked more like this chart, which actually indicates
reduced budgets in the out years. This is based on some very
preliminary results from the reorganization to date.
As indicated earlier, we were able to significantly reduce the FTE
requirements of the Doorkeeper operation by implementing our management
philosophy. Although it is premature to forecast year end figures at
this point, the Sergeant At Arms organization is currently running 50
to 80 FTE's below projection and $3 to $5 million below projection on
salaries. Some of those savings, however, will be required to offset
the deferred organizational infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt.
Additionally, the Senate-wide strategic planning effort lead by the
Rules and Administration Committee may also have an effect on our
current year budget.
Again, I am honored to appear before the committee and appreciate
the time you have allowed. I am very proud of the dedicated men and
women who serve the Senate in the Office of the Sergeant at Arms. As we
move forward to address the staggering challenges that face us in the
coming months, I could not ask for a finer group of people with which
to be affiliated. In that, I am truly blessed.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Dorgan, and look forward to your continued leadership and support.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement and I would be
happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
______
Biographical Sketch of Hon. Gregory S. Casey
Gregory S. Casey was elected the 34th Sergeant at Arms and
Doorkeeper of the United States Senate on September 6, 1996. As such,
he is the chief law enforcement and protocol officer of the United
States Senate, and the principal administrator of most of the support
services provided to Senators and their staffs.
Prior to his election as an officer of the Senate, he served six
years as Chief of Staff for U.S. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, where he
managed every aspect of the Senator's operation in Washington, D.C.,
and Idaho.
Four years prior, Mr. Casey was the President and CEO of the Idaho
Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI), an organization
representing the business interests of more than 65 percent of the
total commerce conducted in the state of Idaho. As IACI President, he
was Idaho business' chief spokesman.
During that time, he also served as an officer or member of the
board of several organizations including the Idaho Council on Economic
Education, The Idaho Foundation for Free Enterprise, The Boise Futures
Foundation, Buy Idaho and Idaho Business Week and, in 1989, he was
elected to the six member Executive Committee of the National Council
of State Manufacturing Associations.
From 1981 until 1986, Mr. Casey served on Congressman Larry Craig's
Washington, D.C. staff, in positions ranging from Staff Assistant,
Legislative Director, to Administrative Assistant and Chief of Staff.
He was also active in various campaign organizations. During this
period, he served as Vice President of the House Administrative
Assistants Association and as Director of the Congressional Leaders
United for a Balanced Budget (CLUBB) organization.
Previous to joining Mr. Craig, he was Vice President and General
Manager of Pioneer Title Company of Ada and Canyon Counties and prior
to that, the Executive Vice President of the Homebuilders Association
of South West Idaho. He has served on the board of directors for
several civic organizations including the YMCA and The American Legion
Boys State.
Mr. Casey is a graduate of the University of Idaho with a degree in
Political Science and has completed graduate programs in Legislative
Affairs through the Library of Congress.
Mr. Casey is a fifth generation Idaho native and is married to the
former Julia Laky of Boise, Idaho. They have a son, Greg Junior.
Overlapping management
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, and I commend you on
your presentation and, more importantly, on the tremendous
amount of work that has gone on behind it and gone on in an
effort to bring us to this point.
I will make a general comment which you may want to respond
to later, but will not have to here. Again, wearing my hat from
the majority leader as chair of the task force to talk about
ways in which the Senate can be made more efficient, I would
like you to think about, if you have not already, those
portions of overlapping management between the Sergeant at Arms
and the Secretary of the Senate.
I think we have two excellent officers in those positions,
yourself as Sergeant at Arms and Mr. Sisco as Secretary of the
Senate, and the traditional kinds of turf battles that one runs
into and expects in the Federal Government probably can be
minimized with the quality of leadership that you and Mr. Sisco
provide.
Have you ever sat down in a quiet room with him, put your
feet on the ottoman, looked at the ceiling, and said, why are
there two offices and where is a really clear line of
demarcation? Because a lot of what you do I think he might do.
A lot of what he does you might do. I think the two offices
started out with no overlapping functions, and as they have
grown over the centuries, overlapping functions have been
created by the previous holders of these two offices who did
fight turf battles.
Mr. Casey. I have heard that. [Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. As I say, I will not expect a detailed
response from you now, but as you are going through your
reinvention and reengineering activities, it must occur to you
that there are some functions you might just spin off
altogether in your organizational chart and say to Mr. Sisco,
here, you can do this more efficiently than we can. There may
be some things that he could spin off to you. Maybe at some
future point, perhaps long after I am here, you who are both
younger than I, might say there will just be a single office,
whatever it is called, that provides all of the management and
support for the Senate.
Do you have any quick reaction to that? And if you do not,
I will understand that, but I want to get you thinking in those
terms.
Mr. Casey. Anybody who has ever heard me talk about this
before, I usually have a chapter in the book. Christine is over
there laughing. She knows. I have a chapter in this book I can
read you about that very thing, if you want.
Senator Bennett. And I can read the book.
Mr. Casey. The Secretary and I have sat in a room, not
asking why the two of us are here. There are very distinct
reasons there is a Secretary and there is a Sergeant at Arms
and there are roles that these people should play. Over the
years, as this book correctly points out, things have been
added to both our jobs and not added in maybe as logical a
fashion as it should.
We have sat down with the Rules Committee and are engaged
in a strategic planning process right now, and part of the
questions that we are asking ourselves is should this go here
or should this go there. So, it is an extremely difficult thing
to sort through.
But yes, Gary Sisco and the Rules Committee staff and I and
also the Architect have had exactly those conversations.
Senator Bennett. Yes; you have to include the Architect in
that.
Mr. Casey. We are having those conversations in the hopes
that we can give you some solid things. In fact, I have tried
to get Gary to take a couple things already. [Laughter.]
So, we have already had those discussions and we will
continue to have those discussions. I think you are absolutely
right. There is a feeling that the two of us have that we are
here in a short tenure and our job is to serve the institution
and not to build our own empires. So, I am very confident we
will be able to give you some good news, Mr. Chairman, while
you are still the chairman.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I am confident I will be
chairman for a little while.
Customer service
A relatively minor item but it is always the minor items
that rise up and bite you in terms of your customer service.
Mr. Harris. He reminds us every day about that.
Mr. Casey. I remind him every day of that.
Senator Bennett. Where is the phone book?
Mr. Ravenberg. Senator, the phone book is in the final
stages of proofreading right now. There has been a tremendous
amount of changes that occurred, as you well know, in the past
year and that has caused us some delay. We expect to get that
to GPO by the end of this week.
Mr. Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for asking that
question. [Laughter.]
May I just emphasize, I have been asking exactly the same
question.
Senator Bennett. OK, well, in the overall scheme of what
you put up on your chart here, it is a very minor item. In
terms of the day-to-day operation----
Mr. Casey. I learned from my friends in the police
department, if you take care of the little things, the big
things will take of themselves. We are sorry that it has taken
us so long.
Senator Bennett. Senators are used to having an interim
phone book sometime in March, and I will not tell you how to do
your business, but it might not be a bad idea for you to think
about even a mimeographed copy, something, more quickly than
the major phone book.
Also on the list of minor things, but high visibility,
particularly with some of our friends in the press, talk about
the consolidation of the barber shop and the beauty salon and
how much you think this will save and where it is.
Mr. Casey. We asked the Rules Committee to allow us to
proceed with a two-part program. Part one was to consolidate
the two operations into one, to have that consolidated
operation submit to us a plan that closed the gap between what
they bring into the rollover funds and what they cost us in
actual expenditure.
I put together a task force to make that evaluation, hoping
they would come back with a very clear one-two-three step
process. The task force came back with a split decision.
So, by the end of this month, I have asked the two managers
in charge to put together a plan that consolidates those two
operations and closes the gap. I want a fundamental glide path
plan that closes the gap between what it costs us and what we
have in those rollover funds, to include increasing prices if
that is what is necessary, reducing staffing if that is what is
necessary, doing advertising if that is what is necessary, or
extending their hours. That should be to me by the end of this
month.
If we cannot come up with a plan that does that--and the
Rules Committee has given me the OK--I will go back to the
Rules Committee and ask to exercise the second alternative
which would be to outsource.
Senator Bennett. You may have discussed this in detail in
your presentation, but let us highlight it. We understand you
intend to request a transfer of $5 million from salaries to
contingent expenses. Did you cover that?
Mr. Casey. I do not know that I quantified the number that
we will intend to transfer, but that is essentially correct.
Senator Bennett. And that was to get increased flexibility
into each individual Senator's office? That was part of that
particular approach?
Mr. Casey. No; I do not think we are going to ask for a
transfer of funds for that.
We are going to, hopefully, be able to convert some of the
moneys that we are saving in our management into other
infrastructure developments like some of our human resource
programs. The other moneys that we are talking about on
strategic initiatives are asked for in this budget here.
Senator Bennett. So, the transfer----
Mr. Casey. Would be from salaries to expenses.
Senator Bennett. OK. Does this mean that in future years,
the salary base will go down by $5 million?
Mr. Casey. I believe we are going to be able to continue to
see a reduction in the FTE's required to meet our operations.
What we are finding is that we simply have redundancy in so
many of our functions. I cannot tell you right now, Mr.
Chairman, how far that is going to go down because we are
implementing. At the same time we are reducing and analyzing
the old ways of doing business, we are adding some new ones.
I do not know how much the 228-HELP line is going to
require. We have folks within our institution right now who do
that, but they do it unit by unit. Can I save by bringing them
together in one unit or is it going to require the same amount
of personnel? So, I am not able to answer that question until
we get this thing fully implemented.
Full-time equivalent positions
Senator Bennett. Well, in fiscal year 1999, your FTE's
start going back up again. They come down by six in fiscal year
1998. In 1999 they go up a little bit. In 2000, well, you are
kind of level in there.
Mr. Casey. I do not believe our FTE's will go above 800.
Senator Bennett. So, this is your best estimate but you are
hoping to get to 800 and stay there.
Mr. Casey. We are now probably at 775 or below.
If you are asking me what I think is going to happen--and
it looks like the trends are that way--our O&M will be flat,
our FTE's will begin a gradual decline. Our infrastructure
capital expenditures will spike in 1998 and 1999 and begin to
level out. I believe with that spike that we put forward on our
capital expenditures, I will be able to continue the O&M and
the FTE trend line down.
I believe that we are going to continue to see a decline in
our FTE's and probably get down to around maybe 100 less than
the FTE's we show on the chart. That is the difference between
the chart I had to give you based on the old organization last
fall and this new one that we are working on.
I have not finished the total reorganization, so I cannot
give you this kind of a book. When that is done, we will get
that to you as soon as we can.
Senator Bennett. Well, that, of course is every manager's
dream of what happens with your capital expenditures, that you
get a very substantial return on the investment later on in
terms of a more efficient operation.
Mr. Casey. We can point to where we have redundant services
now as to where we can get a significant savings, but we have
not implemented it yet. So, it is projection so far.
Senator Bennett. Again, I commend you for what you are
doing. This is the kind of presentation that I hear on those
very rare occasions where I am allowed to return to my former
life in private industry and have a management team come in and
make a presentation to the board. This is a first-class effort.
Mr. Casey. Thank you, sir.
Senator Bennett. I commend you and all the happy people
that accompany you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. If there are no further comments from any
witness, I have no further questions. Thank you.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
ACCOMPANIED BY STUART PREGNALL, BUDGET OFFICER/DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL
SERVICES
opening remarks of Senator Bennett
Senator Bennett. We will now hear from the final panel, the
Honorable Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol. Our final
panel this morning consists of the Honorable Alan Hantman,
Architect of the Capitol, and Mr. Hantman is accompanied by
Stuart Pregnall, the Budget Officer and Director of Financial
Services, and others from the Architect of the Capitol, which
we expect you, Mr. Hantman, to introduce if they are called
upon.
Not to be outdone by the Sergeant at Arms, Mr. Hantman is
appropriately accompanied by charts and graphs. We appreciate
your being here. This is the first time, we must note for the
record, that Mr. Hantman has testified before this committee.
We welcome you in that circumstance and look forward not only
to hearing from you today but for a long time to come.
We understand the Office of the Architect has been working
on upgrading its financial management system. Mr. Pregnall,
that is undoubtedly why you are here, to report on the progress
of that. We, of course, have particular interests in
projections of capital costs necessary to maintain the
buildings which house Congress and congressional functions,
even some functions that have been assigned to Congress for
reasons that may be a little obscure this far from the time
that it was actually done.
So, Mr. Hantman, we again welcome you not only to the
committee but to your office formally and look forward to your
testimony.
summary statement
Mr. Hantman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning to you and all assembled.
As you know, I officially assumed my duties on February 3,
some 4 months ago, and as you can appreciate, the process of
mastering the complexities of my new position might take a bit
longer than that. But in these 4 months, my first priority has
been preparing for this series of budget presentations. I
forget if this is my seventh or eighth in the 4 months so far.
As you are well aware and as I am learning, the role of the
office is complex and multifaceted. It can fairly accurately be
summarized by stating that the core mission of the AOC is to
provide for the Congress, on a bicameral, nonpartisan basis,
expertise and advice relating to preserving the physical
environment and operating the infrastructure supporting the
Congress. Implicit in this mission is to me the assumption that
in providing this expertise and advice, that I am part of a
congressional team that shares the same goals of preserving the
physical environment and operating the infrastructure
supporting the Congress in a responsible and cost-effective
manner.
I welcome the opportunity of working with the members of
this committee, of discussing the issues at hand, and of
developing solutions that serve the Congress well.
As you know, the AOC appropriations request for the fiscal
year 1998 was prepared under the stewardship of William Ensign.
It is that budget request that I present to you today and I
present it to you in the context of the first 5-year capital
budget ever prepared by this agency. I fully concur with Mr.
Ensign's statement that there is a need to provide the Congress
with a 5-year capital improvement budget to assist the Congress
in making the wisest and best informed financial judgments
based on a formal evaluation of future cost implications and
with the assurance that we have undertaken a rigorous
examination of related needs.
I applaud Mr. Ensign for having initiated the systematic,
agencywide planning effort which has also included in-depth
involvement of all of the agency's clients. On the Senate side,
this included the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the
Senate.
The projects included in this budget, therefore, include
all the needs that have been identified to date. I have
evaluated these needs, reviewed the priority levels assigned to
them, and assessed their budgetary implications.
Before I address the budget, however, it might be helpful
if I shared some of my thoughts and findings to date regarding
this agency and its performance as I currently see it.
Condition of the physical plant
With respect to the quality and condition of the physical
plant, for a facility that is as heavily used as the Capitol,
for a complex of older buildings such as this, it is in
surprisingly good shape. The condition of the physical plant is
directly tied to the institutional knowledge, the skill levels,
and the dedication of the work force. This is a major reason
that significant segments of our infrastructure have held up
this well, despite having outlived its normal life expectancy.
It has been patched and repatched and held together until there
is finally material failure.
We have a little show and tell over here. If you just pick
up that finial over there. This is from the Library of
Congress. We are still doing work, as you can see from the
scaffolding up on the Library of Congress. This indicates that
our sheet metal workers have been up there on many occasions
patching and repatching, sealing and resealing, until finally
the joints are giving way and there is just no way to support
the integrity of any of these decorative or waterproofing
pieces.
We have many other pieces in our little box of show and
tell over there. There is a section of copper which is really
the status of the existing roof. Again, it shows the
deterioration of the material itself which over time has been
patched and repatched. The sealant is no longer holding. In
fact, that is why we are redoing the entire dome.
We have situations like this throughout the Capitol,
including the Capitol dome itself.
This, as you can see, is a pipe. We have lots of these
throughout the Capitol, pipes that are totally occluded, very
little room to go through, rusting out in major pieces. We have
vent lines and drain lines that are totally sealed and not
functioning at all throughout all of our major buildings.
This, believe it or not, sir, is what is left of a valve,
totally gone. It used to look something like this, but over
time--we talked about water just before the session started--
the chlorine and the minerals in the water in Washington, DC,
tend to leach out zinc and other minerals and metals. It causes
premature failure of sprinkler heads and lots of systems
throughout the Capitol. So, we really have to look at ways to
try to preclean the water, make sure this does not happen
again, and constantly monitor elements that, in fact, should
have much longer life expectancies than they do here on Capitol
Hill.
We have a team of sheet metal workers working on the
Capitol roof, patching as necessary. Many other systems have
outlived their useful life, have been patched up, and now
require replacement. Good maintenance alone cannot solve these
problems.
training needs of AOC supervisors
As far as staff supervision is concerned, there are many
aspects to this. Projects get done and in most instances they
seem to get done well. But too many supervisors and foremen
have little or no supervisory training, and they have
difficulty working effectively with their subordinates. Much
training needs to be done in this area.
Construction management employees
An issue that also needs to be resolved is the temporary
employees in our construction management division. They have
been temporary for 10 or 20 years right now. There are some
very capable people there and their status needs to be
resolved. I will be coming back to you at a later date with
further thoughts on this and other issues.
AOC management needs
As far as management systems are concerned, they are not at
all uniform across the campus, nor are they as professional as
they need to be. Existing policies and procedures need to be
reexamined and standardized. The human resources department has
deteriorated over the last several years, along with our
piping. It has been a major source of discontent for AOC
employees.
A new human resources director, Hector Suarez, who is with
us here today was hired 2 months ago. Hector, are you here? OK.
He is determining how best to rebuild the department and
bring it into the 21st century and he will be filling several
HR vacancies we currently have with strong and needed additions
to the department.
Outsourcing and privatization
With respect to outsourcing and privatization, this issue
is wound up with the status of changes that have already been
made or are currently contemplated, as well as with other
outstanding issues that have yet to be resolved. I have no
interest in continuing past policies and procedures that
negatively impact the performance of this agency.
That is why I have taken a show-me attitude toward the
Arthur Andersen study that was completed in the last quarter of
1996. Arthur Andersen was commissioned to develop a methodology
to enable the AOC to calculate in-house costs and consider
qualitative factors such as unique workplace characteristics,
compare this information equitably with the private sector.
They then analyzed the results of this comparative methodology
and provided the AOC with recommendations on whether to
privatize or reengineer various segments of its function.
But the Arthur Andersen study is just one piece of the AOC
equation, and as such it needs to become part of an overall
strategic plan for the future of this agency rather than as a
blueprint in and of itself.
In the past 4 months, I have had interviews with many
people. I have met one on one with approximately 40 of the key
people in the agency, had group meetings with virtually all AOC
employees, including shop workers, Power Plant employees,
restaurant workers, night custodial employees, operating
engineers, and so on. I brought two people with me to these
group meetings: Art McIntye, our Inspector General, to deal
with issues of fraud, waste, and abuse, and Kathy Gause, our
EEO Director, to deal with issues concerning the Compliance
Board and fair labor practices. Both of these people are
generally well trusted by our employees.
We often met first with line workers and then separately
with the supervisory staff so that neither group would be
inhibited in sharing their perspectives on how we could work
more effectively on problem areas in general and in opening a
dialog with management.
I often found the level of frustration and discontent to be
high. Employees have been in limbo for more than 2 years, ever
since George White retired and when he was ill before that, and
they are very concerned about privatization issues.
I learned much from this series of meetings. This
information, when coupled with the Arthur Andersen report,
provides two major elements of the information necessary to
allow this agency to make informed decisions and
recommendations.
The third component will be provided directly by AOC
customers. We are reaching out to a cross section of Members of
Congress and their staffs who interact with AOC employees to
ask how we are doing on a wide range of interface areas, to ask
if the level of service needs to be improved, or if, in fact,
we can live with vacuuming carpets and dusting every other day
instead of every day, or if we can save money on the scope of
services that we are currently providing, whether they should
be provided internally or by outside contractors, what security
concerns might there be. All of these issues need to be
addressed and understood from our clients' perspective.
AOC and Sergeants at Arms responsibilities
We are also meeting with both the Sergeants at Arms to
review the services we each provide to see if there can be some
consolidation of overlapping responsibilities. There is
confusion on what does respond and report to the Sergeants at
Arms or to the AOC, for instance, with respect to cleaning. The
Sergeant at Arms cleans the Senate portion of the Capitol
Building. The AOC cleans the rest of the Capitol Building and
all of the Senate office buildings. Does this make sense? Do we
need to consolidate?
AOC consolidation plan
We are also investigating the possible centralization of
shop staff used by each major superintendent's jurisdiction. We
intend to leave day-to-day quick response capabilities with
each superintendent, but perhaps preventative maintenance
forces might be centralized or privatized if that is found to
be effective and efficient.
Our goal is to reshape this agency to become as efficient
as possible while still providing a level of service required
by our customers and at levels that are appropriate to the
Capitol. We are currently in transition and union issues may
impact how we operate going forward.
AOC project request
The above, Mr. Chairman, was all background to the critical
issue of the 1998 budget. My overall assessment is that that
budget prepared by my predecessor is basically valid. I have
examined each of the 132 projects with the responsible
designers and consultants. A file has been prepared on each to
justify the need and the priority, and these are some of the
examples of them. Some we have talked about already such as the
Dirksen renovation, the $34 million project, and the rationale
and the necessity for it. We have an entire report in here, and
as we talked about on our walk-through, the necessity for that
project.
There is a project on plumbing renovations in the Capitol
Building, some photographs of piping in the Capitol Building on
the Senate side and the condition that it currently is in.
Clearly if we find sections like that, we replace it, but we
have an ongoing budget that needs to address these type of
issues. So, $400,000 on an annual basis going forward for a
total of some $2 million is what we are estimating at this
point for that project.
Other projects, minor ones. Replace the fire pump in the
Russell Senate Office Building. It is a wonderful looking piece
of equipment, but it no longer provides the power to deal with
the sprinkler systems and the fire standpipe systems that we
need. The pressure cannot be developed in this. So, that is a
$75,000 piece of work.
We have a carton back here with every one of the 132
projects. We can review each of them with anybody who would
care to do so.
This is the Senate call system. It has diodes and tubes and
things that are clearly outdated. They no longer respond. You
cannot get replacement parts for them any longer. So, we are
looking for design money to be able to look at alternative
systems and develop a full budget for ultimate replacement of
those systems.
We could go on and on. Here is deterioration of the Capitol
itself, columns that are deteriorating on the west front. We
are requesting funding to take a look at the deterioration and
what we need to do on the columns, the column capitals, in the
Capitol Building itself and other buildings.
The issue here is a good part of our budget really deals
with studies and design issues that we want to get into so that
we can come back to you more intelligently and say, OK, these
are our studies, these are the results, this is what we want to
do as a result of those studies, and these are the real dollars
that we need going forward.
Since it would be helpful if the individual budget numbers
that we are presenting to you were understood in the context of
past and projected future budgets, I prepared a series of
charts to help illustrate these relationships. I believe they
are important because they deal not only with the proposed 1998
budget, but also with the budget pattern of the last 5 years
and the 5-year master plan as well. If I may direct your
attention to the charts, Jack Boertlein, our assistant in the
budget department, will assist in the presentation.
Operating budget and capital projects
The first chart has two components to it. Operations is
shown in blue and capital projects are shown in red. Please
note that the operating budget has held fairly steady since
1993. It went from $137 million in 1993 to $148 million in 1995
to a requested $147 million for 1998. Increasing utility costs
are a part of this. Mandated raises are also part of this. The
growth over time--COLA increases and raises and all have been
absorbed basically by decreases in staff sizes and other
efficiencies.
The 1998 operating budget represents a 6-percent increase
over 1997 and it is a worst case scenario. Clearly our mandate
is to explore ways to achieve greater efficiencies through
appropriate means such as privatizing, outsourcing,
consolidating, achieving better utility rates, et cetera. The
operating budget will be decreasing as we bring these
recommendations to you through the year.
The capital budget in red has, however, been steadily
decreasing, from $32.8 million in 1993 to $27.9 million in
1995, to one-half that amount or $14.4 million in 1997. In my
view this is no way to effectively preserve an aging
infrastructure such as ours.
In 1998, the first year of the 5-year plan, it proposes an
increase to $54 million. I have examined the appropriateness
and priority of many of these projects, made some
modifications, and reprioritized them as we just discussed, but
let us discuss the breakdown of this 1998 budget itself.
The next chart shows two main categories: operating on the
left and capital costs on the right. Operating costs represent
73 percent of the budget, 46 percent of that for pay and
benefits. We will be evaluating those, as I indicated, going
forward.
Utilities make up 15 percent of the budget, and we believe
there are savings there as well, including administrative
measures such as suggesting to people they shut lights off when
they leave the room.
The capital budget represents 27 percent and it is divided
into client-initiated projects, AOC-initiated projects, and
cyclical maintenance projects. I will talk more about this in a
moment.
The next chart that we have here illustrates the 16 percent
FTE staff reduction over the last 5 years, from 2,407 people in
1992 to 2,034 FTE's in 1997. This again is a worst case
scenario for 1997-98. I do not yet have a complete answer to
whether the 16-percent reduction indicates that there was a lot
of fat in the agency--and there may still be more fat to cut--
or whether the agency is as lean and mean as it really can be
at this point in time. I am working with my managers to analyze
their current staffing levels with an eye toward achieving
greater efficiencies.
As a point of information, cuts in many other Federal
agencies over the same time period have been below the 16-
percent level that we have achieved to date.
Cyclical reinvestment budget
Let us go back to the capital budget, if we can. The green
bars represent the level of cyclical reinvestment as a part of
the overall capital budget. The yellow represents new
facilities, new projects. Here you can clearly see the pattern
of actual decreasing reinvestment in our buildings and
infrastructure from 1993 through 1997, and the proposed
increases from 1998 onward. You can also clearly see the
magnitude of new projects in the master plan shown in yellow.
Many of these projects are related to the Library of Congress
and their proposed facilities out at Fort Meade, or film
storage, things of that nature.
It is reasonable to ask how does anyone know how much to
reinvest in a complex such as ours. We can clearly look project
by project to see what needs to be done, each project approved
on its own merits, and that is clearly what we intend to do.
But what is a reasonable benchmark to measure total budgets
against?
The next chart attempts to show this, to put it in some
kind of a perspective.
Back in 1991-92, three university campuses were contacted
to discuss their cyclical reinvestment budgets. Basically we
have a campus here. What type of complex of buildings is more
appropriate for us to benchmark against? The campuses were in
Illinois, Michigan, and Stanford. They average 1.7 percent of
the value of their buildings and infrastructure each year, the
replacement value basically. The replacement value for our
Capitol complex of some 13 million square feet was estimated at
that time to exceed $3 billion. At 1.7 percent per year, that
would be over $50 million in an annual reinvestment.
Another check on this 1.7 percent is the IRS depreciation
allowance for commercial properties. They currently allow 40
years for full properties. That would imply a 2.5-percent per
year depreciation level, or conversely a reinvestment. Clearly
for equipment, they allow 15 years, which is certainly less
than the 40-year building depreciation as well.
What this graph attempts to do is plot a $50 million annual
investment level in blue--and that is accelerated at 3 percent
escalation per year--and measure that against the 1993 to 1997
actual reinvestment costs that we have spent, showing $14.4
million in 1997 as the low point. The dotted red line plots the
proposed reinvestment portion of the 5-year master plan with
$54 million in 1998 and goes on from there.
Clearly what we see is if the $50 million is anywhere close
to correct, over the last 5 years, we should have invested $250
million in our infrastructure. We basically invested $100
million and are digging ourselves into a hole which the next
few years, hopefully, will help solve and realistically relate
to.
The following chart lists additional corroborating
benchmarks related to this 1.7 number. The top of the chart,
our current replacement value in 1997-98 is $3.6 billion. The
first benchmark relates to the 1.7 percent we discussed. Army
Corps of Engineers talks about 1.75 percent as a budget
objective. University Federal research cost recovery, the OMB
A-21, calls for a 2-percent replacement value or reinvestment.
Conservative commercial depreciation we talked about at 40
years, 2.5 percent. National Research Council of the Academy of
Sciences has a low of 1.5 and a high of 3 percent. Our 1998
proposed budget numbers relate to 1.4 percent of the estimated
replacement value at this point in time.
Capitol complex replacement value
Senator Bennett. Let me interrupt you----
Mr. Hantman. Please.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. And I apologize for that--
long enough to ask how you calculated the replacement value. Is
that on a per square foot basis?
Mr. Hantman. We took the actual construction costs of each
building, each component of Capitol Hill, and brought it
forward--what is it--CPI--we used?
Mr. Pregnall. We used the Consumer Price Index for those
projects that began before the building construction cost index
was established. I think the BCI was established in the early
1900's. Before that time we used the CPI.
Senator Bennett. But you did not say x number of square
feet at current building costs of so much per square foot----
Mr. Pregnall. No; we did not.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. And it would cost us to
replace this in the market x amount.
Mr. Hantman. We did not do that. Clearly we are talking
about unique individual buildings here.
Senator Bennett. I understand that, but how difficult would
it be to make that calculation simply as a ballpark----
Mr. Hantman. If we wanted to take 13 million square feet
and take current costs of commercial office buildings--it
certainly would not be the quality of what we are talking
about.
benchmark for Monumental construction
Senator Bennett. You could not replace it with that kind of
construction. The citizenry would not allow it. But there is, I
am sure, a benchmark for monumental construction. Maybe the
Ronald Reagan Building is considered monumental construction.
Mr. Hantman. This is true.
Mr. Pregnall. The difficulty with that type calculation is
that does not take into consideration architectural and
artistic finishes such as you have in this room. How would you
calculate the cost of recreating this room? That would not be
included in a square foot cost calculation.
Mr. Hantman. We could look at the Ronald Reagan Building
and see what those costs were and talk about 13 million square
feet.
Senator Bennett. I think the committee would be well served
by having a ballpark understanding of what it would be, and
understand that we are sophisticated enough to realize that we
are not talking about putting up an IBM headquarters on this
campus. Again, the citizenry would demand that the National
Capitol, if it were to be replaced, would be replaced in a
monumental form and the cost of doing that would clearly be
higher than the cost of an ordinary office building no matter
how nice. But $3.6 billion is a big enough figure that I think
you ought to have some justification for it other than just the
one benchmark method of arriving at it.
Mr. Hantman. Fine. We will get back to you on that then,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I apologize for interrupting.
Mr. Hantman. No problem. No problem at all.
As a point of information, several weeks ago we had a
contingent from Australia come in, basically the folks who
built, designed, and run their Federal office buildings in
Canberra, less than 10 years old. They allocate on a flat sum
basis 1 percent of replacement value even for a building
complex that young. That is just a normal appropriation on an
annual basis.
Cyclical maintenance project
Perhaps the next chart. This pie chart shows the 1998
cyclical maintenance projects in red. It shows $21 million for
some 57 projects. This includes restoration of the Senate
legislative garage, plumbing renovations for the Russell
Building, repair of failed waterproofing over ST-71,
rehabilitation of the Capitol dome. It also includes the USBG
Conservatory, the $8 million, in that number right now.
The AOC-initiated improvements are in green, and they
amount to some $24 million for 50 projects. That includes ADA
requirements, HVAC, electrical, telecom, sprinkler renovations
in the Dirksen Building, electrical telecom systems in the
Russell Building as examples.
The blue indicates client-initiated projects, some 23 of
them for $6.9 million. Infrastructure for security
installations, mail room renovations in the Dirksen Building,
centralized control room in the Senate recording studio, et
cetera.
Senator Bennett. When you say client-initiated, you mean--
--
Mr. Hantman. Others have asked us to do that.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. The Secretary of the Senate
and the Sergeant at Arms?
Mr. Hantman. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Mr. Hantman. Now, for our clients' new projects, the yellow
over there, these are also requested by clients, but these are
new as opposed to renovation or restoration projects. The K-9
facility at D.C. Village, copyright deposit facility at Fort
Meade, et cetera.
Reprioritized projects
One thing that I have done to Mr. Ensign's breakdown, which
is indicated by this pie chart, is to reprioritize them. I
think the next chart clearly indicates the way we restudied
this bundle of projects, starting with life safety up at the
top at 12 percent of the budget. These are projects related to
fire protection, air quality, employee, and visitor safety. It
includes installation of sprinkler systems, fire pump upgrades,
chiller plant replacement, things of that nature. If we only
got $6.2 million those would be the projects we would put it
toward.
The next two headings we might switch. ADA could come next
or security could come next, either way. The projects under ADA
are related to improvements of building and facility access for
the handicaped, restroom modifications, elimination of
barriers, some $2 million, or 4 percent of the budget.
Security has 11 projects, $3.5 million. Projects related to
the protection of Members, staff, visitors, and property,
replacement of the north and south drive delta barriers on the
Capitol Grounds, replacement of the security planters, Library
of Congress upgrade of security systems, things of this nature
are in that security category.
The next major category represents 27 percent of the
budget. This is cyclical maintenance, eight projects at $14.4
million. These include projects that will increase building
system functionality while replacing deteriorated or outdated
systems. These include electrical and telecommunication system
renovations in the Cannon Building, replacement of legislative
call system and clocks throughout the complex, sound system
replacements, committee and hearing rooms. I think Cannon is on
the other side of the complex. We are talking about Russell
here.
Botanic Garden Conservatory is shown here also, some $8
million or so for that complex.
Cyclical maintenance is the rest, 22 percent of it, some 49
projects at $12 million. Now, cyclical maintenance projects are
those that will replace deteriorated or outdated systems with
no significant increase in functionality. This is your pointing
and caulking of facades. It is changing roofs, nothing
improves. It is just the basic core needs. The Capitol dome is
a part of that, garage floor repairs. It does not gain us
anything, but they are things that need to be done.
Let me review the other categories fairly quickly.
Technology management systems provide the AOC with more
efficient and effective operations. This includes computer-
aided facility management, integrated management system we will
be talking about, implementation of AOC-net, CAD data base, et
cetera.
The next is improvement projects for the AOC, some $1.2
million, installation of lighting systems, extend the chilled
water lines to the Conservatory, rotunda lighting upgrade,
things of that nature.
And the last is some $4.3 million for client improvements,
conceptional facilities master plan for the police, completion
of the K-9 facility, screening/holding facility, et cetera.
So, this kind of breaks it down, and the next chart just
summarizes that, talking about the total AOC budget in the
bottom chart of some $43 million versus the $53 million dealing
only with Senate and joint activities.
Five-year capital budget plan
If I could move on to our last chart, it shows the 5-year
capital budget. Now, this last chart plots the breakdown of
cyclical and new projects for the 5-year master plan. It shows
cyclical maintenance in blue, AOC new projects in yellow, and
client projects in green.
Senator Bennett. If I may, the cyclical maintenance is both
improvement and stability maintenance.
Mr. Hantman. Basically yes.
Senator Bennett. In your previous chart you had those
divided but those two numbers are joined for the blue number
here. Is that correct?
Mr. Hantman. Well, we have new projects over here.
Senator Bennett. Go back to your pie chart.
Mr. Hantman. OK.
Senator Bennett. This is what I am trying to correlate. You
have got improvement cyclical maintenance at 27 percent on the
pie chart, and cyclical maintenance at 22 percent.
Mr. Hantman. Correct.
Senator Bennett. Those two numbers are combined in the blue
bar on the bar chart. Is that correct?
Mr. Hantman. That is correct.
Senator Bennett. OK, that is all I wanted to clarify.
Mr. Hantman. I have reviewed these projects in depth, I
validated their need, and I have reprioritized as we have
discussed.
There will continue to be changes over the 5-year period,
including schedule shifts, adjustments to reflect some of the
concerns raised by members of this committee, possible changes
that may come out of meetings with the Sergeant at Arms, the
Secretary of the Senate as we review areas of responsibility
and possible overlaps in service. The 5-year capital budget
will be reviewed, revised, and updated each year to allow the
Congress to maintain a broad overview of ongoing needs.
Visitor center
Outside the scope of this budget, of course, is a project
called the visitor center project which is proposed to be built
with private funds. There are no dollars in our budget for that
at this point in time.
I have met with the design team. We have begun reviewing
the scope of the center and the functions proposed within.
Reviewing the nature of the exhibits that might potentially be
designed is really the critical path in any visitor center
project. A group of 30 to 35 or so from both Houses of Congress
visited the Newseum a couple of weeks back. I think it is in
Arlington.
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Mr. Hantman. What we found, from talking with the people
who ran that project, the people who designed the exhibits,
that of the $48 million cost for the total project, one-half
was for capital projects. The other one-half, some $24 or $25
million, was for the exhibits themselves. That turned out to be
the critical path that took them some 4 or 5 years to resolve.
The wealth of information that we have to draw on that will
describe our democratic processes, going back to the foundation
of our Nation, is mind-boggling. The concept of winnowing that
down to something that everybody can agree on that deserves to
be in a confined space and be shown to the public and be
accessible to the public is going to be a real challenge. I see
that as being the critical path. Certainly the Sergeant at Arms
and the Secretary of the Senate have offered and are very much
involved in this process as well.
prepared statement
That is pretty much the presentation, Mr. Chairman. I would
welcome any questions. We can review in detail individual
projects, total projects, where we are going, or any specific
issues you might want to raise.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman
Mr. Chairman, I am Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol. Under
provisions of Public Law 101-163, enacted November 21, 1989, I was
named the primary candidate of three candidates sent to the President
for consideration by the bipartisan, bicameral Architect of the Capitol
search commission. I have been greatly honored by the faith the
commission placed in me through their recommendation, by the
President's formal nomination, and by the subsequent confirmation by
the Senate. I officially assumed my duties on February 3rd of this
year. As you can appreciate, the process of mastering the complexities
of my new position will take a little time. In this process, however,
one of my first priorities has been reviewing the fiscal year 1998
budget which was prepared by my predecessor.
role of the office of the architect of the capitol
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a brief moment to describe
broadly the present role of the agency. The Office of the Architect of
the Capitol (AOC) is the agency responsible for the structural and
mechanical care, maintenance, cleaning, and operation of the buildings
and facilities supporting the Congress, including the Capitol Power
Plant. This responsibility extends to the Botanic Garden, the
structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library of
Congress Buildings and grounds, as well as the Supreme Court Building
and grounds. The office also undertakes the design and construction of
new facilities and alteration of existing facilities.
The core mission of the AOC is to provide for the Congress, on a
bicameral and non-partisan basis, expertise and advice relating to
preserving the physical environment and operating the infrastructure
supporting the Congress. In so doing, the AOC utilizes staff and
consultant architectural, engineering and professional expertise to
provide the Congress with appropriate, timely and cost effective
recommendations. The AOC also manages trade and service personnel who
are charged with ensuring that the building systems operate efficiently
and reliably in support of Congressional activities. The AOC also
administers a wide variety of contracts for building and design
services.
Critical to achieving this mission is the institutional knowledge
that has accrued in the agency. The value of the long term role of the
Architect as an advocate for the physical environment was recognized by
the Congress when it established a ten year renewable term for the
Architect. Such an advocacy role is no less appropriate for the core
professional and trades staff. The merit of maintaining a long-term
view for preserving and protecting the historical environment is self-
evident. To the credit of the agency, Congressional activities have
never been interrupted by failure of any major building system.
It goes without saying that many of the Congressional buildings are
national treasures and require intimate knowledge and significant
forethought for their preservation. The U.S. Capitol, which is ``the
people's building,'' for example, is a unique combination of National
capitol, museum, office building, meeting center, ceremonial site, and
tourist attraction. The building's systems are required to support all
of these activities, and its architectural design, decorative arts and
historical significance must all be carefully considered before
undertaking any work or implementing any changes to the building.
Another benefit of the neutral, bicameral role of the AOC is the
ability to provide technical and professional coordination in
connection with ``joint'' activities. Over the years, the role of the
office has broadened as a result. There are now functions and
activities, such as the shuttle service and telecommunications, as well
as Inaugural and Rotunda ceremonies, conducted or supported by the AOC,
that are often not recognized as being within the scope of the office's
professional, architectural and engineering roles, yet the Congress has
acknowledged the merit of the AOC's neutral, bicameral coordination
capacity.
For over 200 years, an officer discharging the role of the
Architect of the Capitol has provided to the Congress credible
expertise on these matters. During this time, the ongoing and ever-
changing institution of the Congress has been served by an agency that
has responded to changing Congressional needs.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure you that I am reviewing our
operations and will be preparing suggestions for improving service
delivery, quality responsiveness to the Congress, and cost
effectiveness. During this process, I will involve the Superintendents
of the Senate Office Buildings and the Capitol Building as their roles
and functions pertain to supporting the needs of the Senate. If this
means proposing changes in the role of the agency or how it relates to
other Congressional entities, I will bring these suggestions to the
appropriate oversight bodies for consideration. I will of course keep
this Subcommittee informed of any suggestions that may affect Senate
funding and operations.
background information--fiscal year 1997 budget request
As I have stated, the AOC appropriations request for fiscal year
1998 was prepared under the stewardship of William Ensign who assumed
the position of Acting Architect of the Capitol upon the retirement of
George M. White on November 21, 1995. In his presentation last year
before this Subcommittee for the fiscal year 1997 appropriation
request, Mr. Ensign, in recognition of the need for immediate budget
restraint, brought forward a budget of $152,363,000, which represented
a $6,088,000 reduction, or four percent less than the fiscal year 1996
appropriation of $158,451,000. This was partially achieved through a
five percent, 108 full time equivalent (FTE) staff reduction, bringing
the total FTE count down to 2,043. This resulted in an overall staff
reduction over the prior five years of more than 15 percent, a
reduction that was generally mirrored by the reduction in Senate staff.
Of particular interest to this Committee, the funding request for
Senate and Joint activities was reduced to $120,773,000, a $4,677,000
reduction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Reduction Reduction Fiscal year
1996 budget amount percent 1997 budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC..................................................... $158,451,000 $6,088,000 4 $152,363,000
Senate and Joint Activities............................. $125,450,000 $4,677,000 4 $120,773,000
FTE total............................................... 2,151 108 5 2,043
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In requesting these reductions, Mr. Ensign stated that it was ``* *
* important to recognize that the requested reductions will necessitate
deferring many needed improvements to Legislative Branch facilities.
Many cyclical maintenance programs will also be deferred.'' He further
stated ``* * * that this one year hiatus would give the agency an
opportunity to conduct comprehensive agency-wide planning and
coordination of cyclical maintenance projects and building system
enhancements in a thorough systematic and programmed manner.''
Mr. Ensign also had prepared an ``Architect of the Capitol
Efficiency Initiative'' in response to 1996 direction from both the
House and Senate ``* * * to develop proposals for downsizing,
streamlining and privatizing various activities and report back to
Congress in the fiscal year 1997 budget cycle.'' This initiative
outlined eleven goals aimed at improved service delivery at reduced
costs. While I have been briefed on the details of these goals, I have
not had time to learn enough about the existing organization and its
strengths and weaknesses, to adequately explore the range of options
relative to staffing profiles, or to assess the validity of the
specific goals that were presented. This office is now actively
proceeding to investigate the existing organization in the context of
overall Congressional support services.
There are two major components to this budget request: an Operating
Budget and a Capital Budget, as described below. The total budget that
I bring to this Committee today amounts to $201,294,000, comprised of
$147,323,000 for operating costs and $53,971,000 for capital costs.
That amount, adjusted to reduce the House items, totals $161,891,000,
of which $117,841,000 is for operating costs and $44,050,000 is for
capital costs.
fiscal year 1998 operating budget
Increases in the costs that comprise the operating budget--that is,
those costs that support operations and maintenance, including
salaries, are relatively small, in the range of six percent overall.
The requested increase compares to several years of gradual declines in
dollars appropriated for operating the Capitol complex. In fiscal year
1995, for example, the operating budget totaled $148,277,000. This
fiscal year we are operating with an appropriation level of
$138,964,000, a 6.3 percent decrease from fiscal year 1995, not
adjusted for inflation.
The requested increase for fiscal year 1998 falls into several
categories. Nearly two thirds of the operating increase is due to
mandated pay costs and the government's share of benefits costs. Nearly
ten percent relates to increased utility costs for the Capitol complex.
An agency-wide uniform program is being proposed, which accounts for
six percent of the increase. And the Librarian of Congress has
requested that this agency increase the level of support and services
in the three Library Buildings, and that cost increase accounts for
five percent of the increase.
The following table indicates these increases by appropriation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Change
budget estimate ----------------------
Base costs ------------------------------------------
FTE Dollars FTE Dollars Dollars Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Buildings: Operating Budget............ 394 29,059,000 394 31,234,000 +2,175,000 7.5
Capitol Grounds: Operating Budget.............. 77 4,770,000 77 5,008,000 +238,000 5.0
Senate Office Buildings: Operating Budget...... 609 36,010,000 609 37,063,000 +1,053,000 2.9
Capitol Power Plant: Operating Budget.......... 99 30,749,000 99 31,876,000 +1,127,000 3.7
Library Buildings and Grounds: Operating Budget 146 8,343,000 146 9,450,000 +1,107,000 13.3
Botanic Garden: Operating Budget............... 51 2,902,000 51 3,210,000 +308,000 10.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of particular interest is the operations of the Senate Restaurants.
I am reviewing these functions and will be making recommendations to
the Committee on Rules and Administration.
fiscal year 1998 five year capital budget
The fiscal year 1998 capital budget request I present to you today
was prepared under William Ensign's stewardship and flows from the
first five-year capital budget prepared by this agency. This five-year
budget is grounded in a comprehensive and systematic agency-wide
planning effort with in-depth involvement by all of the agency's
clients. On the House side, these included the Sergeant at Arms, the
Chief Administrative Officer and the Clerk of the House. On the Senate
side these included the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the
Senate. The U.S. Capitol Police provided a detailed outline of their
needs, and the Librarian of Congress was also extensively involved. A
total of 205 capital projects have been identified for the five year
period, requiring a total funding level of $353,516,000.
While within the relatively short time I have held this office I
clearly cannot be fully conversant with all the details on each of
these projects, I have spent many hours reviewing all 205 projects. The
reviews have included examining the scope, estimates, and priorities of
the projects and visiting project sites. As a result of these reviews,
I have concluded that the requested projects are needed and by-in-large
the costs estimated are accurate, but in several cases may actually be
somewhat conservative. I have categorized the projects into nine areas,
reordered the priorities for some of the projects and, to provide more
detail to the appropriations committees, I have subpriortized the
projects.
I fully concur with Mr. Ensign's statement that there is a need to
provide the Congress with a five-year capital improvement budget to
assist the Congress in making the wisest and best informed financial
judgments ``* * * based on a formal evaluation of future cost
implications and with the assurance that we have undertaken a rigorous
examination of related needs.''
The projects included in this budget, therefore, reflect all the
needs that have been identified to date. I intend to continue to
evaluate these needs and to update them to ensure that the capital
budget is responsive to programmatic changes, the condition of the
buildings and their systems, and any other needs that may arise.
At last year's House of Representatives Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch Appropriations Hearing a question was raised by Congressman
Fazio, the Ranking Member, regarding the potential of a future
``balloon payment'' that might result from the accumulated costs of
deferred maintenance. This question was right on target. The five-year
capital budget that is being presented today establishes a multi-year
funding plan that offers the Congress a clear view of what it will cost
to maintain the Legislative Branch infrastructure in proper operating
condition. The capital budget also identifies improvements that respond
to new legally imposed standards and guidelines, such as improvements
to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Occupational Safety and Health Act. There are also several projects
that will enhance the operations of the Congress, as well as new
projects requested by our clients to serve their programmatic needs.
Balancing the needs of maintaining the existing infrastructure while
keeping pace with technological enhancements and program needs is
clearly costly. But I firmly believe that deferring these
infrastructure reinvestment costs in the short to mid term can
ultimately lead to far greater costs in the future. We are all also
aware of the effect that technological pressures can have on aging
building systems, especially from the perspective of being capable of
delivering new telecommunications technologies.
These projects are prioritized for your consideration as follows:
Priority 1--Critical.--This category totals $36,856,000 and
includes programs essential to the integrity of the Capitol complex
infrastructure, including the following needs: assuring the structural
and operational integrity of the Capitol complex infrastructure and
building systems; assuring that programs essential for security, fire
and life safety, and environmental and hazardous materials protection
are provided; and assuring that programs under Congressional direction
are carried out.
Priority 2--Highly Desirable.--This category totals $7,631,000 and
includes costs for highly desirable enhancements to the programs
outlined in the ``Critical'' priority level, as well as new program
initiatives that would improve the delivery of services.
Priority 3--Desirable.--This category totals $376,000 and includes
costs for programs that are desirable to implement, but that could be
deferred in the near term without major interruption to current
services.
Priority 4--Client Request.--This category totals $9,108,000 and
includes costs for new facilities or building renovations or
enhancements to support programs that have been requested specifically
by clients such as the Library of Congress, the U.S. Capitol Police,
and congressional officers such as the Senate Sergeant at Arms and
Secretary. Although funds to carry out the projects are requested in
the Architect of the Capitol's budget, the responsibility for
justifying these projects remains with the requesting client. However,
in my revised prioritization I have included my recommendation of the
client requested projects in our ranking categories.
It is important to note that over $9 million of the nearly $54
million requested in fiscal year 1998 are for capital projects related
directly to client requests, i.e., $3,300,000 for the Library of
Congress and $2,965,000 for the U.S. Capitol Police.
It is also important to recognize that these requirements do not
simply disappear if deferred. If projects requested for fiscal year
1998 are deferred, the costs to accomplish them will rise due to added
deterioration, increased maintenance costs to sustain the systems in
the interim, inflation, and fluctuations in market conditions. The
deferred projects also will then add to the fiscal year 1999 funding
need, which has already been identified at $68 million. It is
recognized that the total funding in the request is very large when
compared to past years' submissions. Here is why:
Replacement of Aging Building Systems.--Several of the buildings in
the Capitol complex are reaching an age and condition that require
major renovation or replacement of building systems. For example, the
Ford House Office Building was renovated in the mid-1970's. Now, over
twenty years later, some of its building systems are reaching the end
of their useful life expectancies. Various improvements are therefore
recommended for the Ford Building. Similar factors affect the Jefferson
and Adams Library of Congress Buildings. Building systems that were
evaluated in the late 1970's and early 1980's (during development of
the Renovation and Restoration project) as being in adequate condition,
now require substantial improvement. Likewise, systems in the James
Madison Memorial Building that were originally designed and constructed
in the mid 1970's are beginning to require replacement.
Technological Advances.--Technology is changing far more rapidly
than existing building infrastructures can support and adapt to. This
is especially true in the rapidly expanding area of telecommunications,
but there is a corollary effect that is felt in any building system
that uses any sort of electronic technology for operation or support.
The latter is a more subtle factor in building system maintenance,
repair and replacement cycles. The subtlety lies in building systems
that operate quite well for a time on a particular version or vintage
of electronic technology. However, as these electronic systems wear
out, compatible replacement components are not always readily
available. Building systems that appear to be relatively ``new'' may
require electronic upgrades to keep them operating. As an example of
this type of project, funds are requested to upgrade the infrastructure
supporting the Dirksen Building's telecommunications systems.
Regulatory Compliance Requirements.--Programs essential for
complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, security, and environmental and hazardous
material protection have received very high priority in terms of
advancing the timetables for completion. Although efforts have been
underway for several years in all these areas, recent external factors
have caused this Office to reexamine the policy of meeting these needs
over a longer term. Passage of the Congressional Accountability Act has
reinforced our resolve to ensure that the Capitol complex is free of
barriers and hazards to the Members, Senators, staff and visitors.
Also, terrorist activity throughout the world has increased, and as a
result there is a heightened sensitivity toward threats to security at
the Capitol complex. These external factors have led this Office to
include several projects in the fiscal year 1998 capital budget.
Infrastructure Reinvestment.--Replacement Value--In 1991, the AOC
sought to validate the level of funding that was being requested for
reinvesting in the Capitol complex infrastructure. Cyclical maintenance
funding methodologies which had been developed and used by three major
universities were applied to the Capitol complex to determine the
appropriate level of funding required to maintain these facilities. The
result of applying these methodologies yielded an annual investment
rate that averaged 1.7 percent of the replacement value of the Capitol
complex. Based on the average investment rate of 1.7 percent, an annual
reinvestment of approximately $57.5 million should be made in the
physical plant of the Capitol complex in fiscal year 1998. The Capitol
complex is valued conservatively at $3.6 billion. When the cost of new
facilities are deducted from the capital funding levels presented for
each of the five years in the capital budget, the remaining
reinvestment levels are below this amount. As an order of magnitude
point of reference, an annual investment of $36 million would represent
approximately one percent of the hypothetical replacement value of the
Capitol complex. I have reviewed other benchmark data and found that
annual renewal investment rates realistically range from 1.5 to 3.0
percent. In comparison, the fiscal year 1998 request related to
existing facilities of $52 million is a 1.4 percent investment rate.
The following table summarizes the funding levels presented in the
five-year capital budget, and indicates the value of the amounts
requested as cyclical maintenance items for reinvestment in the
physical plant, client requests, and new initiatives requested to
enhance existing support systems or those that may be requested in
response to advances in technology. These five year projections will be
reviewed, modified and updated each year as new information becomes
available through detailed studies and evolving needs and priorities.
FIVE-YEAR PLAN FUNDING LEVELS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyclical Client Continuing and
Fiscal year maintenance requests initiating \1\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.................................................. $20,960,000 $8,908,000 $24,103,000 $53,971,000
1999.................................................. 25,308,000 12,995,000 29,857,000 68,160,000
2000.................................................. 30,189,000 40,000,000 24,417,000 94,606,000
2001.................................................. 22,573,000 27,900,000 22,253,000 72,726,000
2002.................................................. 12,260,000 8,200,000 7,533,000 27,993,000
2003-2007............................................. 17,765,000 ............ 18,295,000 \2\ 36,060,0
00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Including Regulatory Compliance Requirements and Technological Advances.
\2\ To complete above projects.
Mr. Chairman, I also wish to point out that this budget was
prepared with the intent of requesting planning and design funding well
in advance of large renovation and construction projects. Only design
funding is requested for these large capital projects in fiscal year
1998 in order to prepare detailed designs and firm cost estimates for
justifying appropriations requests for construction in later years.
The following table indicates the capital budget increases for
fiscal year 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Capital projects 1997 budget 1998 request Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Buildings: Capital Budget............................... $3,400,000 $10,830,000 +$7,430,000
Capitol Grounds: Capital Budget................................. 250,000 1,610,000 +1,360,000
Senate Office Buildings: Capital Budget......................... 4,280,000 14,958,000 +10,678,000
Capitol Power Plant: Capital Budget............................. .............. 1,895,000 +1,895,000
Library Buildings and Grounds: Capital Budget................... 1,410,000 6,305,000 +4,895,000
Botanic Garden: Capital Budget.................................. .............. 8,452,000 +8,452,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assure the Chairman that I will work closely with him and the
Committee staff between now and the time the Committee marks up this
portion of the appropriations bill to achieve a rational and adequate
funding level to support the needs of the Congress.
human factor
I have noted earlier in this Statement that it is premature for me
to draw specific conclusions on how to best comply with the
Congressional direction to downsize, prioritize and streamline the
agency. It is projected that the portion of the budget presented here
today that is related to salaries and benefits will be a worst case
scenario, since staffing levels will not be increasing. When detailed
recommendations about agency structure and composition are developed, I
will present them for your consideration. At that time, whatever
staffing efficiencies that are recommended to achieve the mid- to long-
term savings we are striving for, will include recommendations relative
to employee considerations.
Achieving any goals that involve significant privatization or
downsizing will mean a work force reduced beyond what has been realized
in the past several years. Consequently, another goal identified
previously must be to proceed in the most humane and caring way for our
dedicated, long-term employees. I am reviewing our organization and
responsiveness in areas affecting human resources management and equal
employment opportunity. I will also review previously implemented
measures, such as employee involvement in organizational issues through
the Architect's Workteams which involve all employees through their
elected representatives.
I will also be evaluating the previously proposed Employee
Protection Plan which called for Congressional approval of severance
pay coverage, authority to declare ``early-out'' eligibility, and
competitive status for all employees who may be released from our
employ. That proposal also called for separation incentives to
encourage turnover, waiver of the 2 percent reduction in annuity for
each year under age 55 (perhaps modified), and other incentives for
employees to volunteer for separation. I understand that some of these
approaches have been instituted with Congressional authority by other
government agencies, and I will evaluate whether they may be needed to
provide us with the proper incentives and flexibility to deal fairly
with agency employees during any transition brought about by downsizing
or privatization measures. I also understand that in the past some
confusion has existed over why these protections need to be made
available to our employees. There are two reasons, one legal, one
philosophical. First, our employees, unlike those in the Senate, are
covered under title 5 of the U.S. Code, the AOC Human Resources Act of
1995, and other statutes governing our employees' rights. These
statutes place certain restrictions on how we could undertake any
downsizing efforts. The Employee Protection Plan was developed to
accommodate some of those restrictions. The philosophical difference
between our employees and those of the Senate lies in the notion that
is strongly held by our employees that employment here is a civil
service career: they come to work here, earn their pay, contribute to
their government retirement fund, and eventually, after a long career,
retire. On the other hand, many Senate employees come and go as their
Senators are re-elected and majority parties change.
There is one aspect of the human factor that I wish to bring to
your attention. As I learn more and more about this agency I have noted
that it has a deep core of institutional knowledge that extends from
top management down through the trades shops. It would seem appropriate
to balance the desirability of downsizing the agency with the necessity
of retaining this vital knowledge. I hope to be able to offer some
thoughts on this subject in the near future.
next steps
As you can appreciate, the task ahead of assessing the agency with
a fresh perspective and striving to arrive at cogent and feasible
conclusions is a major one. I will be taking into consideration many
factors, including the evaluation, recently performed for the agency by
Arthur Andersen, an independent consulting firm. This evaluation
provides benchmarking parameters comparing the nature and cost of
services provided by the agency with those that could be provided by
the private sector. Arthur Andersen data indicates that many of our
services are quite competitive with private sector costs and services.
I have been briefed by the Arthur Andersen team and it appears that
their assumptions and study parameters are valid.
I also intend to undertake a rigorous examination of our services
and how the delivery of those services is viewed by our clients: Are we
viewed as efficient and timely? In what areas do our clients feel we
can improve? Do we clearly communicate to our clients how services are
provided, and who should be contacted to initiate service requests? Do
we follow up to make certain that our service efforts take care of our
clients' needs?
I have begun these efforts, and I assure this Committee that I
intend to continue with these assessments expeditiously.
summary
I would like to conclude with two observations, one related to the
capital budget request and one related to the agency's mission and
services.
With respect to the capital budget, I readily acknowledge that the
amount requested is large, and given the current pressures to balance
the Federal budget it will be extremely difficult to meet these needs.
It is essential that this Committee and the Congress realize, however,
that many of these projects are clearly necessary to properly conserve
the ``peoples building'' and supporting structures for future
generations. The need for funding these projects will continue.
With respect to the agency's mission and services, I am committed
to undertaking a timely evaluation of the specific reports and
proposals that were prepared by my predecessor. I am equally committed
to improvements in service delivery across the range of congressional
support, and to making reasoned and validated adjustments to increase
cost efficiency.
I wish to assure you that I will report to you periodically on our
progress as we examine all these issues. I believe that we can be more
effective and more cost-efficient and still continue to fulfill the
core mission of the agency. And with respect to our dedicated
employees, I believe that we can be sensitive and humane as we proceed
toward these ends. The Office of the Architect of the Capitol will
continue to be professional and effective in meeting the challenges
ahead.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I shall be pleased to
respond to any questions that you and the Committee may have.
______
Biographical Sketch of Alan M. Hantman
Born on October 13, 1942, in New York City, Alan M. Hantman, AIA,
was appointed by President Bill Clinton on January 6, 1997 and
confirmed by the Senate on January 30, 1997, to be the tenth Architect
of the Capitol.
Alan M. Hantman was graduated from the City College of New York
with a bachelor's degree in architecture and earned a master's degree
in urban planning from the City University of New York Graduate Center.
He is a member of the American Institute of Architects, the Building
Owners and Managers Association, the New York Building Congress, and
the National Trust for Historic Preservation. He is certified by the
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards and is currently
licensed in the states of New York and New Jersey.
Prior to his appointment he was Vice President of Facilities
Planning and Architecture for the Rockefeller Center Management
Corporation of New York City for 10 years and then served as their
consultant. He received the Sidney L. Strauss Award from the New York
Society of Architects for his work at the Center. He previously worked
as a development consultant, assistant chief architect, and project
manager at major architectural and real estate services firms.
Mr. Hantman is the first Architect of the Capitol to be appointed
under the new selection procedure established by legislation in 1989.
Inaugural sound system
Senator Bennett. Well, I congratulate you on your
presentation. It has been lucid and succinct and very clear.
I have a few questions. I may submit some more for you in
writing to respond to. I will start with perhaps some minor
ones, but once again high visibility.
Have you undertaken any studies regarding the sound system
that is used for the inauguration?
Mr. Hantman. We had a meeting last week--when I say we, I
talk about the Senate Rules, Sergeants at Arms, the Secret
Service--kind of a postmortem of the last inauguration with
respect to security issues, life safety issues. We are
beginning that process to review that going forward. We
actually have a request for $100,000 in our fiscal year 2000
budget which would be the year before the next inauguration.
Our problems basically are that we normally do not start
the process until the year of the inauguration, which does not
give us enough time to really go through the issues whether it
is reviewing the structure for the podium itself or the sound
system. That $100,000 would include the research and
investigation of an appropriate sound system and other issues
related to the inauguration. But we are discussing them now. We
are asking for funding in the fiscal year 2000 to actually go
out and start doing that 1 year in advance of the inauguration
itself.
Year 2000 system problems
Senator Bennett. We have spent time in the committee
talking about the year 2000 problem. Do you have some 2000
problems?
Mr. Hantman. We have an abacus, Mr. Chairman, that we are
going to use very carefully.
Senator Bennett. If you had an abacus, we would not have a
year 2000 problem.
Mr. Hantman. Exactly.
Mr. Pregnall. Mr. Chairman, we have two types of year 2000
problems that I am prepared to talk about, those affecting our
financial systems, but we also have electronic systems that
perhaps our Director of Engineering might speak to in terms of
elevators, the subway system, and other electronically operated
systems throughout the Capitol complex. Our energy management
control system turns on and turns off fans on a 24-hour basis.
Those little chips that affect that system may have a year 2000
problem as well. So, we have a two-pronged effort in analyzing
and developing a plan to make sure that come the year 2000, the
agency can support the needs of the Congress.
With respect to our financial systems, about 1\1/2\ years
ago, we began implementing a task force to look at upgrading
all of our legacy systems in the agency. Bill Ensign
consolidated the accounting and budget functions under my
predecessor's hat, and I now wear that mantle. We decided to
begin emulating the rest of the Federal Government in terms of
its financial processing, meeting the intent of the CFO Act,
Government Performance and Results Act, and so forth.
In looking at that, we discovered that our existing
financial systems do not meet current Federal requirements, and
not only that, they were standalone, homegrown, built-up
systems that did not talk to each other. We also learned that
we had a year 2000 problem in all of those systems. That
clearly was our biggest concern in terms of meeting the year
2000 deadline.
We sought solutions for that, including cross-servicing
with other agencies in the legislative branch, agencies in the
executive branch that had systems. We looked at some other
options as well going into our existing legacy systems and
specifically reprogramming them to achieve a year 2000 fix even
though they were not now compliant with Federal systems.
Based on all of the analysis that we did and after talking
this through with many people throughout the legislative
branch, we decided to adopt a somewhat unique solution. We have
an existing procurement system, which is a private sector-based
system. It also has accounts payable, inventory, and other
functions that we can use as a year 2000 fix and buy us a
little bit of time until we can proceed with a full federally
compliant financial management system. We have a funding
request in the fiscal year 1998 to begin the procurement and
implementation of that full integrated management system.
During the discussion over the past 6 months, we have come
across another opportunity based on some input from the
legislative branch Financial Managers Council. This is a group
representing all the budget officers for legislative branch
agencies. The staff from Appropriations sit on it ex officio I
believe as well. This is sort of a guidance group that we
developed about 1\1/2\ years ago.
We are looking at cross-servicing or possibly sharing an
application for a standard general ledger system, a fully
Government compliant SGL, that would bring us into full
compliance with CFO, GPRA, the Federal Financial Management
Improvements Act of 1996. If we can pursue this option with our
somewhat unique solution for procurement, accounts payable, and
inventory, we will be a step ahead of most of the other
legislative branch agencies, and that is the course of action
we are pursuing at this time.
We are proceeding with the implementation of our year 2000
fix with existing applications by implementing the fully
integrated features in our procurement system. During fiscal
year 1998 we will be exploring, especially with the Government
Printing Office which has a similar type function that we have,
acquiring a general ledger system. They have a year 2000
problem with their general ledger as well. So, we are both
quite interested in pursuing this. That would bring us into
full compliance for the time being with all Federal financial
requirements.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Alan M. Hantman
The Architect of the Capitol,
Washington, DC, June 16, 1997.
The Honorable Robert F. Bennett,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, Committee
on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on a matter related to our present
financial systems. The present systems will be affected by the year
2000 coding problem that affects so many computer applications. Thus,
there is an immediate need to change out the present systems. I also am
aware that the Committee has directed this office to consult with the
General Accounting Office and the Library of Congress on this matter as
it relates to our long term financial systems needs. I want to assure
you that I support the stated goal of converging on a standard
financial accounting and management system for the legislative branch.
Based largely on the initial guidance of the General Accounting
Office and the Library of Congress, this office has spent much of the
past year defining functional requirements for our new financial
systems. We have also drafted a schedule for acquisition and
implementation of this new system. As we have proceeded with this
process, because of the imminence of the year 2000 problem with the
existing systems, we have became quite concerned over the timing of the
planned system implementation effort.
This concern is apparently shared by the GAO and LOC, since both
have provided cautionary advice to us over the last year concerning our
office's ability to acquire and implement a totally new, fully
integrated financial system within the next two fiscal years. Although
we have remained hopeful that cost savings for implementation might be
achieved through an advantageous cross-servicing agreement with another
Legislative Branch or other government entity, we are still somewhat
concerned about the potentially high costs even under such an
arrangement. For these reasons, we have requested $650,000 in our
fiscal year 1998 budget funding for system acquisition and
implementation costs.
We have explored potential interim measures that would enable the
AOC to meet its financial requirements through the year 2000 without a
major expenditure of funds and/or resources. We have discovered that
there is a year 2000 fix for the software that is used by our
Procurement Division that can interact with our Accounting Division.
The existing Procurement application (referred to as CAS software) is
an integrated software package which contains financial modules (for
Procurement, Inventory, Accounting, and Budget functions) capable of
supporting most of our agency's immediate needs. We must upgrade our
agency's existing CAS Procurement application to address the year 2000
fix. We therefore intend to use the additional financial modules in the
CAS software package as an interim fix for addressing the full scope of
our year 2000 problem. It has an added benefit of achieving more than
just a year 2000 fix. The various modules provide a total system
integration solution for our agency's Procurement, Accounting,
Inventory and Budget functions which will eliminate the dual, and
sometimes triple, manual data entry currently performed by many of our
personnel.
We have compared the cost of fixing the existing systems with the
cost of the CAS solution. Fixing the present procurement and accounting
systems would cost more than $100,000, and would gain no increased
functionality or bring the agency any closer to meeting our stated
financial system goals. The cost of the CAS solution is approximately
$130,000, and would significantly increase functionality between
procurement, accounting, inventory and budgeting processes. We are very
comfortable that the incremental cost increase of pursuing the CAS
solution will provide the agency with the best possible solution to the
year 2000 problem.
We intend to proceed within the next week based on our immediate
need to achieve a year 2000 fix. Under this timetable, the full CAS
software application package can be installed for our agency by the
beginning of fiscal year 1998. Additionally, funds are available for
this purpose. We intend to proceed with this interim fix with the
understanding of and commitment to the greater long-term solution in
consonance with the Committee's direction.
I shall, of course, be pleased to provide you with any additional
information on this matter you may deem desirable.
Cordially,
Alan M. Hantman, AIA,
Architect of the Capitol.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
What is the timeframe for your ability to produce auditable
financial statements?
Mr. Pregnall. In order to produce auditable financial
statements, Mr. Chairman, we first have to have that general
ledger system in place and collecting data and then producing
information. If we are successful during fiscal year 1998 of
implementing a general ledger system, we will collect data
during fiscal year 1999. We will have financial statements at
the end of 1999, albeit they will be somewhat clumsy and
incomplete because it will only have 1 year of information
included.
Our goal is to be able to produce auditable statements by
the year 2000. Now, we do not expect to get a clean audit the
first time out of the block. Other legislative branch agencies
have not been able to do this. It usually takes one or two
runthroughs to get a clean audit based on financial statements,
but our goal right now is to have a first go in the year 2000
and shoot for having a clean audit by the year 2001 or 2002.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Additional committee questions
I have no further questions. As I say, we may submit some
to you for inclusion in the record.
Let me conclude as I began with welcoming you and
commending you for the work you have done and the staff that
you have assembled and retained. We look forward to working
closely with you to resolve the various problems.
I am one who believes very strongly from my experience in
the private sector that the most foolish financial thing you
can do is cut down on routine maintenance for a short-term
financial benefit, only to face very substantial long-term
requirements as your physical plant collapses.
We face a problem here in that unlike a private enterprise
we cannot tear down the deteriorating physical plant and build
a new one. As I say, the American people would not permit us to
do that even if we were to suggest it. The reverence they have
for this building, I think well deserved, is sufficiently
strong enough that tearing it down is not an option.
Mr. Hantman. I would not have suggested that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. I understand.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the office for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
privatization
Question. What is the status of your review regarding functions
within the Office of the Architect of the Capitol which could be
privatized?
Answer. In the few months I have been in office, I have been in the
process of learning as much as possible about the overall operations of
the agency. Internally, I have held meetings with virtually every
employee of the agency to open lines of communication about what they
see as needs and to let them know what I have learned in my short
tenure. In order to learn about how our services are perceived by our
customers, I have also held meetings with key staff and office managers
on both sides of the Congress to learn their perspectives on the
agency: are we doing a good job? Are there areas where we need to be
doing a better job? I am asking questions and getting responses at that
level. And I have opened dialogue with my colleagues, the Senate
Sergeant at Arms and Secretary of the Senate, and their counterparts on
the House side as well, to see if there are areas were we might jointly
improve operations and to see if there are areas where we have
overlapping responsibilities and might achieve efficiencies. And I have
begun the process of following up on my initial job interviews for this
position with key Senators and Representatives of the House, as well as
our oversight committees, to gain their views. Finally, I have sought
outside expertise in looking at the overall operations of the agency.
We have an initial study done by Arthur Andersen that has provided a
third view of the agency.
All of this information is being processed, and we are still
gathering more. Once I have collected all this data, I intend to
examine it from the framework of an overall strategic planning effort:
let us make sure that we are clear in our mission goals and that we
have the organization and resources to meet that mission. The
organization I foresee will definitely have some mix of privatized and
in house services, but I am not knowledgeable enough at this point to
say precisely how much or even what services might be privatized.
Clearly, we have much work ahead of us in the near future to move this
plan forward. I will continue to keep this Subcommittee and its staff
informed of our progress, and will seek input at appropriate junctures.
visitor center
Question. Mr. Hantman, have you reviewed the plans for the Visitor
Center? Do you have any suggestions or modifications to the plan? What
is the estimated cost of this project and construction time? How much
has already been raised in private funds? What are the long-term
maintenance costs to your office? Will the Visitor Center impose any
addition or reduction in responsibilities for your office?
Answer. I have reviewed the plans for the Capitol Visitor Center
and have met with the associate architects on the project. Although I
raised a few questions with them on some details, I believe the design
of the core and shell of the project is basically quite sound.
In my judgment it would be prudent to assume that the entire
project will cost approximately $125 million, which would allow for
cost escalations, plan modifications resulting from the design of
exhibits and security enhancements, certain Capitol interface
conditions and the cost of exhibit design itself. A construction period
of 3\1/2\ to 4 years is anticipated.
No private funds have as yet been raised for the project, there
being as yet no authority to solicit them. My understanding is that
approximately $24 million in private funds now held by the Capitol
Preservation Commission may be applied to the project in whatever way
would be most useful to its financing.
We believe that if net revenues generated by the cafeteria, gift
shop and other income generating activities of the project are
allocated to operating the Visitor Center, the project could be self-
supporting. The structural, mechanical and custodial care of the
project will be added to the responsibilities of the Capitol
Superintendent, but it may be possible to privatize many aspects of the
management of the Visitor Center.
operating and capital projects budget
Question. Mr. Hantman, now that you have had time to review the
operating and capital projects budget submitted by your predecessor, do
you have any changes that you would recommend for the fiscal year 1998
budget of the Architect of the Capitol?
Answer. I have held lengthy review sessions to personally look at
the capital and operating budget requests. As a result of these
reviews, I can say that there are only a few very minor dollar changes
that I would make at this time. I have revised the overall
categorization of the projects to define them in terms of life safety
issues, security issues, infrastructure reinvestment issues, and so on.
These project categories convey more clearly the type of work that we
are intending to do and give the Committee an indication of the type of
result that can be expected from expending these dollars: a life safety
project will clearly result in a safer building environment; an
infrastructure reinvestment project will extend the useful life of a
facility by repairing or replacing worn out components.
The other major point that I would make is that the five year
capital budget is an ongoing process. We will review it in light of the
final action taken during this appropriations cycle, and also look at
new needs that may be identified as upcoming requirements. Thus, when
we come before this Committee for the fiscal year 1999 budget request,
you can be assured that we have not simply rolled forward projects
deferred this year and added them to what we now think will be needed
next year.
integrated management system
Question. The budget includes a request for $650,000 for an
integrated management system to develop a fully integrated financial
management system. When do you estimate that system to be completed?
Answer. The funds requested in the fiscal year 1998 budget for the
IMS in the amount of $650,000 were originally estimated to be
sufficient to procure and begin implementation of the system. Based on
guidance from the LBFMC, we are now concerned that the requested
funding level is insufficient. Additionally, and with guidance and
concurrence with the LBFMC, we are proposing to utilize the fiscal year
1998 funds to explore the possibility of acquiring through cross-
servicing or shared applications a government-approved general ledger
application. This would bring the agency into compliance with current
federal financial systems. If we can successfully pursue this approach
during fiscal year 1998, we would be in a position to allow the next
generation of federal financial systems now being sold in the market
place to mature. We would then seek funding to procure and implement a
wholly integrated IMS.
conclusion of hearings
Senator Bennett. If there is no further business, the
subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., Tuesday, June 10, 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
Abrecht, Chief Gary L., U.S. Capitol Police......................
45, 71.........................................................
Prepared statement........................................... 74
American Association of Law Libraries, letter from............... 183
Archer, Hon. Bill, Chairman, Joint Committee on Taxation......... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Association of Research Libraries, prepared statement............ 179
Balderson, Stuart, Financial Clerk of the Senate, Office of the
Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Senate........................... 265
Prepared statement........................................... 295
Becker, Herbert S., Director, Information Technology Services,
Library of Congress............................................ 105
Billington, Dr. James H., Librarian of Congress, Library of
Congress....................................................... 105
Prepared statement........................................... 108
Blum, James L., Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office..... 91
Brown, Richard L., Controller, General Accounting Office......... 227
Campanale, Louise, Special Assistant, Financial Management
Information System and Legislative Information System, Office
of the Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Senate.................... 265
Casey, Hon. Gregory S., Chairman, U.S. Capitol Police Board;
Sergeant at Arms, Office of the Sergeant at Arms and
Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate........................................
45, 299........................................................
Biographical sketch.......................................... 310
Prepared statements..........................................
49, 307....................................................
Cook, Charles C., Superintendent, Congressional Printing
Management Division, Government Printing Office................ 199
Cylke, Frank Kurt, Director, National Library Service for the
Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress.......... 105
Del Balzo, Gail, General Counsel, Congressional Budget Office.... 91
Delquadro, David M., Personnel Officer, Congressional Budget
Office......................................................... 91
Desautels, Mark G., Assistant for Intergovernmental Relations,
Congressional Budget Office.................................... 91
Dey, Christopher, Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Sergeant
at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............................ 299
DiMario, Michael F., Public Printer, Government Printing Office.. 199
Prepared statement........................................... 201
Dodaro, Joan M., Assistant Comptroller General for Operations,
General Accounting Office...................................... 227
Dorgan, Hon. Byron, U.S. Senator from North Dakota, questions
submitted by................................................... 239
Duffy, Dennis, General Counsel, Office of Compliance............. 249
Ford, Hon. Wendell H., prepared statement........................ 5
Frenze, Christopher, Executive Director, Joint Economic Committee 7
Greigg, Stanley L., Director, Office of Intergovernmental
Relations, Congressional Budget Office......................... 91
Guy, William M., Budget Officer, Government Printing Office...... 199
Hantman, Alan M., Architect of the Capitol; and member, U.S.
Capitol Police Board...........................................
45, 315........................................................
Biographical sketch.......................................... 332
Letter from.................................................. 334
Prepared statement........................................... 326
Harris, Larry, Administrative Assistant, Office of the Sergeant
at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............................ 299
Hinchman, James F., Acting Comptroller General of the United
States, General Accounting Office.............................. 227
Prepared statement........................................... 229
Hodges, Polly E., Budget and Finance Officer, Congressional
Budget Office.................................................. 91
Hughes-Brown, Beth, Budget Officer, Office of Compliance......... 249
Jenkins, Jo Ann C., Chief of Staff, Office of the Librarian,
Library of Congress............................................ 105
Kelley, Wayne P., Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Of- fice.............................................. 199
Kies, Kenneth J., Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation.... 13
Livingood, Hon. Wilson, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of
Representatives, member, U.S. Capitol Police Board............. 45
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Lopez, Kenneth E., Director of Security, Library of Congress..... 105
Medina, Rubens, Law Librarian, Library of Congress............... 105
Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress............................................ 105
Prepared statement........................................... 123
Nager, Glen, Chairman of the Board, Office of Compliance......... 249
O'Neill, Hon. June E., Director, Congressional Budget Office..... 91
Prepared statement........................................... 92
Orton, Hon. Bill, former U.S. Representative from Utah........... 243
Pauls, Lloyd A., Associate Librarian for Human Resources, Library
of Congress.................................................... 105
Peach, J. Dexter, Assistant Comptroller General for Planning and
Reporting, General Accounting Office........................... 227
Peters, Marybeth, Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress.... 105
Prepared statement........................................... 121
Peterson, Eric C., Staff Director, Joint Committee on Printing... 1
Pregnall, Stuart, Budget Officer/Director of Financial Services,
Architect of the Capitol....................................... 315
Ravenberg, Duane, Head of Telecommunications, Office of the
Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate................... 299
Saxton, Hon. Jim, Chairman, Joint Economic Committee............. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Schmitt, Bernard A., Deputy Chief of Staff, Revenue Analysis,
Joint Committee on Taxation.................................... 13
Schmitt, Mary M., Deputy Chief of Staff, Law, Joint Committee on
Taxation....................................................... 13
Scott, Gen. Donald L., retired, Deputy Librarian of Congress,
Library of Congress............................................
105, 152.......................................................
Silberman, Ricky, Executive Director, Office of Compliance....... 249
Prepared statement........................................... 253
Sisco, Hon. Gary, Secretary of the Senate, Office of the
Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Senate........................... 265
Biographical sketch.......................................... 294
Prepared statement........................................... 271
Stephens, James, Deputy Executive Director for the House, Office
of Compliance.................................................. 249
Symms, Loretta, Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Office of the Sergeant
at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............................ 299
Tabb, Winston, Associate Librarian for Library Services, Library
of Con- gress.................................................. 105
Talkin, Pam, Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, Office of
Compli- ance................................................... 249
Warner, Hon. John W., Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing...... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Washington, Linda J., Director, Integrated Support Services,
Library of Congress............................................ 105
Webster, John D., Director, Financial Services, Library of
Congress....................................................... 105
Williams, Kathy A., Budget Officer, Library of Congress.......... 105
Zargorn, Janet S., chair, American Bar Association Standing
Committee on the Law Library of Congress....................... 243
Prepared statement........................................... 244
Zelaska, Sharon, Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Office of the
Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Senate........................... 265
Zimmerman, Daniel F., Chief, Systems Development and Research
Unit, Congressional Budget Office.............................. 91
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Page
Additional committee questions................................... 336
AOC:
And Sergeants at Arms responsibilities....................... 319
Consolidation plan........................................... 319
Management needs............................................. 317
Project request.............................................. 319
Supervisors, training needs of............................... 317
Background information--fiscal year 1997 budget request.......... 327
Capitol complex replacement value................................ 322
Construction management employees................................ 317
Cyclical maintenance project..................................... 323
Cyclical reinvestment budget..................................... 321
Five-year capital budget:
Fiscal year 1998............................................. 328
Plan......................................................... 325
Human factor..................................................... 331
Inaugural sound system........................................... 332
Integrated management system..................................... 337
Monumental construction, benchmark for........................... 322
Next steps....................................................... 331
Office of the Architect of the Capitol, role of the.............. 326
Operating and capital projects budget............................ 337
Operating budget:
And capital projects......................................... 320
Fiscal year 1998............................................. 328
Outsourcing and privatization.................................... 317
Physical plant, condition of the................................. 316
Privatization.................................................... 336
Reprioritized projects........................................... 324
Visitor center...................................................
325, 337.......................................................
Year 2000 system problems........................................ 333
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
Accounting:
Function/management review................................... 86
System....................................................... 88
Additional committee questions................................... 83
AOC MOU.......................................................... 87
Bombs............................................................ 81
COLA/comparability costs......................................... 84
Computer and telecommunications.................................. 85
Computers, upgrading............................................. 76
House services................................................... 86
Jurisdiction..................................................... 77
K-9 facility.....................................................
80, 87.........................................................
Library and Supreme Court Police forces, consolidating........... 80
Library of Congress merger....................................... 89
New positions.................................................... 84
NFC status....................................................... 87
Other services increase.......................................... 85
Parity issues, remaining......................................... 85
Pay parity....................................................... 79
Initiatives.................................................. 84
Physical security................................................ 89
Supplemental spending plan................................... 87
Property crimes.................................................. 78
Scheduled leave/threshold........................................ 84
Senate/House positions........................................... 87
Systems acquisition.............................................. 90
Transportation of persons........................................ 77
U.S. Capitol Police fiscal year 1998 budget request.............. 50
Unified payroll.................................................. 88
Unionization status.............................................. 88
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
Additional committee questions................................... 103
ADP and other spending, reductions in............................ 101
Budget request................................................... 91
CBO's revenue projections, changes in............................ 102
Fiscal year 1998 request......................................... 94
Joint Committee on Taxation and other agencies, relationship with
the............................................................ 103
Major new work efforts during 1996............................... 93
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Accomplishments and highlights, fiscal year 1996................. 229
Additional committee questions................................... 234
Associates, introduction of...................................... 227
Biennial budgets................................................. 232
Budget request, fiscal year 1998................................. 230
Comptroller General, process for selecting....................... 233
Congressional commission, need for to meet....................... 233
Consolidated financial statement................................. 232
GAO building usage study......................................... 231
Highlights of statement.......................................... 228
25-percent budget reduction, actions taken to absorb the......... 230
Year 2000 problem................................................ 234
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Additional committee questions................................... 213
Appropriations request, fiscal year 1998......................... 201
Associates, introduction of...................................... 199
Billing practices................................................ 212
By-law distribution.............................................. 219
Congressional printing and binding appropriation................. 201
Congressional Record, study on privatizing the................... 202
Congressional Record/Federal Register, privatizing the........... 218
Depository library transition plan............................... 215
Energy conservation.............................................. 218
Federal depository library program............................... 206
Financial management............................................. 210
Government Performance and Results Act [GRPA].................... 220
GPO:
And Congress................................................. 203
And Federal agencies......................................... 204
And information dissemination................................ 205
Appropriated funding......................................... 201
Long-range planning for the year 2000........................ 219
Mission in the information age............................... 203
1998 budget request.......................................... 217
Hearings, pilot project for online access to committee........... 219
House clerk's proposed document management system................ 216
Personnel........................................................ 217
Public Printer's statement....................................... 199
Revolving fund losses............................................ 211
Revolving fund/GPO year end losses/printing rates................ 213
Salaries and expenses appropriation.............................. 202
Title 44, upcoming Rules Committee hearing on.................... 216
Year 2000 problem................................................ 210
JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING
Congressional printing and binding appropriation................. 5
GPO's revolving fund............................................. 4
JCP budget increase.............................................. 5
Staff, introduction of........................................... 1
Title 44:
Costs relating to violations................................. 3
Legislative proposal to revise............................... 2
Reform....................................................... 3
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
Additional committee questions................................... 35
Appropriation request, details of fiscal year 1998............... 16
Budget request................................................... 13
Summary of fiscal year 1998.................................. 15
Joint Committee on Taxation:
Review of operations during calendar year 1996............... 18
Summary of anticipated workload for calendar year 1997....... 20
Luxury boat tax.................................................. 31
Macroeconomic estimates.......................................... 32
Responsibilities, additional..................................... 28
Revenue estimating............................................... 29
Tracking experience.............................................. 30
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
Opening statement................................................ 7
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Accident compensation............................................ 174
Accountability mechanisms........................................ 173
Additional committee questions................................... 166
Automated system charts.......................................... 153
Budget:
Impact....................................................... 161
Priorities, fiscal year 1998................................. 169
Building compliance.............................................. 172
Capitol visitor center........................................... 168
Congressional Accountability Act................................. 172
Congressional publications....................................... 169
Copyright CORDS.................................................. 179
Copyright Office:
Processing time.............................................. 178
Retirement eligibility....................................... 179
CRS:
Personnel.................................................... 177
Workload..................................................... 175
Digitization, expense in......................................... 160
Digitizing materials............................................. 164
Cost of...................................................... 159
Donations, money raised through private.......................... 158
Early history.................................................... 110
Electronic transactions.......................................... 155
Enabling infrastructure.......................................... 117
Facilitative leadership.......................................... 152
Federal Communications Commission................................ 163
Federal-State shifts............................................. 177
Financial audit..................................................
166, 172.......................................................
First book storage module........................................ 160
Fort Meade storage facility......................................
160, 165.......................................................
ILS:
Installation................................................. 170
Investment chart, questions on............................... 154
Integrated system:
Cost for..................................................... 154
New.......................................................... 153
Internal control................................................. 167
Internet, concerns for school hookup to the...................... 162
Kellogg Foundation, grant from the............................... 159
Legislation, proposed............................................ 118
Library of Congress:
Buildings and grounds........................................ 117
Collection................................................... 170
Digital project with others, coordination of................. 158
Information systems, hooking schools to...................... 161
Network relationships........................................ 159
Planning efforts............................................. 111
Security..................................................... 175
Systems, security plan for................................... 165
Technology................................................... 173
Today........................................................ 111
Vision for the 21st century.................................. 107
Management improvement plan......................................
153, 169, 170, 173, 175, 179...................................
Our challenge: To prepare for the concentrated loss of CRS
experts........................................................ 126
Our highest priority: Sustain the scope and enhance the CRS
services, quality of........................................... 124
Police overtime.................................................. 169
Revolving fund legislation....................................... 175
Security......................................................... 165
Management plan.............................................. 169
Report....................................................... 174
Software development............................................. 162
Staff level...................................................... 168
Storage:
As a possible future expense................................. 159
Media, additional............................................ 162
Strategic plan................................................... 107
Streamlined management processes................................. 171
Support functions' efficiency and responsiveness................. 174
System viruses................................................... 165
Systematic training and development.............................. 173
Talking book machines............................................ 154
THOMAS........................................................... 107
Title 44 proposal................................................ 167
Unprocessed Library arrearages................................... 173
Upgrading the systems............................................ 161
Work force, reduction in......................................... 154
Year 2000........................................................ 156
Concerns on the problem...................................... 163
Funding to avoid problem..................................... 163
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
Additional committee questions................................... 260
Administrative and financial improvements........................ 257
Alternative dispute resolution and case processing............... 252
Dispute resolution process....................................... 254
Education and information........................................ 256
Fiscal year 1998 request......................................... 258
Inspections, technical assistance, and investigations............ 255
Library of Congress, space in.................................... 259
Office of Compliance's authority and responsibilities............ 254
Regulation writing............................................... 256
Studies and reports.............................................. 257
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Secretary of the Senate
Administrative offices........................................... 279
Associates, introduction of...................................... 265
Budget:
Proposed for fiscal year 1998................................ 266
Summary...................................................... 271
Capitol visitors center.......................................... 270
Financial management information system.......................... 267
Hearing tracking service......................................... 295
Legislative:
Departments.................................................. 272
Information system........................................... 268
Personnel management............................................. 269
Senate library................................................... 269
Strategic planning............................................... 267
Succession planning.............................................. 270
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
Associates, introduction of...................................... 299
Customer service................................................. 312
Full-time equivalent positions................................... 314
Overlapping management........................................... 311
(all)