[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-821
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4112/S. 2137
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Architect of the Capitol (except House items)
Congressional Budget Office
General Accounting Office
Government Printing Office
Joint Committee on Printing
Joint Committee on Taxation
Joint Economic Committee
Library of Congress
Office of Compliance
U.S. Capitol Police Board
U.S. Senate
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress/senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-108 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-058028-5
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
----------
Thursday, February 26, 1998
Page
U.S. Capitol Police Board........................................ 1
U.S. Senate: Office of the Secretary of the Senate............... 27
Congressional Budget Office...................................... 67
Thursday, March 12, 1998
Joint Economic Committee......................................... 79
Joint Committee on Printing...................................... 85
U.S. Senate: Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper....... 89
Joint Committee on Taxation...................................... 91
U.S. Senate: Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper....... 111
Library of Congress.............................................. 131
Office of Compliance............................................. 193
Thursday, March 19, 1998
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 217
General Accounting Office........................................ 247
Government Printing Office....................................... 257
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Bennett, Stevens, and Dorgan.
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
STATEMENTS OF:
WILSON LIVINGOOD, HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS AND CHAIRMAN, U.S.
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
GREGORY S. CASEY, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. SENATE AND MEMBER,
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
ALAN M. HANTMAN, AIA, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
GARY L. ABRECHT, CHIEF, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
opening statement of hon. robert f. bennett
Senator Bennett. This hearing will come to order.
Welcome. This is the Appropriations Subcommittee on the
Legislative Branch.
This is the first of three hearings which will be held on
the budget request for fiscal year 1999. The two other hearings
are scheduled for March 12, at 9:30 a.m., and March 19, at 9
a.m., in this room, SD-116.
Last year the total appropriation for the legislative
branch was approximately $2.25 billion in budget authority.
That was an increase of approximately 2 percent over the fiscal
year 1997 level. The budget requests for fiscal year 1999 total
over $2.4 billion. That is approximately a 9.6-percent
increase.
As the Congress continues to work toward a balanced
budget--which is within our grasp this year--it is going to be
difficult to provide for all of the requests made.
One issue which is of particular importance to me is the
year 2000 technology conversion. I have been actively working
to ensure that the agencies are prepared and that we do not
have a total computer failure in our banking systems.
As the chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Financial
Services and Technology, we have held five hearings about the
preparedness of the banking industry's systems. Last year I
introduced Senate bill 1518, the Computer Remediation and
Shareholder Protection Act [CRASH], to require publicly traded
corporations to disclose their computer systems' ability to
operate after January 1, 2000.
We must sweep in front of our own stoop first.
The Federal Government has responsibilities both internally
and externally to provide for the health, welfare, and safety
of American citizens. We must be responsible and be prepared.
As chairman of this subcommittee, I plan to be as
aggressive with our own agencies as I have been with the
executive branch and the private sector.
That is why I have asked the General Accounting Office
[GAO] to review the conversion plans of legislative branch
agencies. We must deal with the conversions now to ensure that
the legislative branch will be able to perform its
responsibilities when the time comes.
Before we begin, I would like to make some general
observations about the testimony we are about to hear.
First, the police are to be commended for presenting the
committee with a budget that more accurately reflects the
actual historical spending patterns of the U.S. Capitol Police.
In addition, the work that has been done by the Board and
Bob Greely to upgrade the security infrastructure of the
Capitol campus has been first rate.
After the Police Board testifies, we will hear from the
Secretary of the Senate, the Honorable Gary Sisco.
This is the second year in a row that the Secretary has
requested flat funding except for the COLA adjustment.
Not only has the Secretary been able to keep his budget
level, but the office has been aggressively pursuing a number
of projects crucial to the future of the Senate--namely, the
legislative information system [LIS], and the financial
management information system [FMIS].
More importantly, the Secretary's office has been exemplary
in responding to requests for information from this committee
as well as modifying and simplifying his budget to meet the
needs of this committee.
The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has been equally as
responsive in assisting this committee in juggling the
financial needs of the legislative branch.
Last year CBO requested a 1.9-percent increase in their
budget from the fiscal year 1997 level. When the House and
Senate were in conference and trying to find money necessary to
stabilize the GAO, CBO selflessly offered to further reduce
their almost modest budget.
The result was that CBO received only a 1.1-percent
increase over its fiscal year 1997 level. This year CBO has
requested an overall budget increase of 4.6 percent.
I would like to thank Senator Dorgan for his work on this
subcommittee. Your assistance last year, and in particular with
the GAO, was very, very helpful. I have come to depend on your
solid understanding of the issues facing this subcommittee. And
I look forward to the benefit of your counsel again this year.
I also understand that you have a new member of your staff
helping with your appropriations work. I would like to welcome
Shelly Feist to her first legislative branch appropriations
hearing.
Senator Dorgan, would you like to make an opening
statement?
statement of hon. byron l. dorgan
Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Senator Bennett. As you noted,
the request for the Legislative Branch Subcommittee for fiscal
year 1999 totals $2,466,030,600, an increase of 9.6 percent
over the discretionary amount enacted in last year's bill. For
the Senate items only, the amount requested for fiscal year
1999 totals $527,292,000, an increase of $23,855.000, or 4.74
percent, from last year's enacted level.
I am glad to see that the Senate is doing its part to hold
tight onto its budgetary reins. I expect that because the
budgetary constraints on the domestic discretionary budget will
be tight--together with the efforts to balance the budget in
the next few years--the 302(b) allocation to this particular
subcommittee will also be tight.
Mr. Chairman, I have seen several articles stating that the
House is interested in cutting President Clinton's budget
request for the legislative branch. I wanted to take a minute
at the start of our first hearing to remind everyone that,
unlike executive branch agencies, the Office of Management and
Budget [OMB] and the President do not have their own views and
ideas about levels of expenditure for the budget of the
legislative branch.
Therefore, because the House seems to be making a big to-do
about cutting President Clinton's budget request, I want to
make sure that everyone here is aware that none of the items in
the subcommittee's request are the President's request. This
budget has been submitted by the legislative branch for
inclusion in the President's budget and then resubmitted back
to us in full. The President and OMB do not question the
amounts in the budget, through these hearings, if we find that
certain requests are inflated, or cannot be justified, the
responsibility cannot be laid at the President's doorstep. The
budget for the legislative branch is Congress' own, not
President Clinton's.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing what I view to
be an excellent working relationship with you on this bill, and
I look forward to the testimony of each of our witnesses here
today.
Senator Bennett. Thank you Senator Dorgan.
Would you like to make a statement, Senator Stevens?
statement of hon. ted stevens
Senator Stevens. I would like to thank Senator Bennett for
his stewardship as chairman of the Legislative Branch
Subcommittee.
Senator Bennett as well as Senator Dorgan did a good job
last year of brokering a compromise with the House to keep the
legislative branch spending to a minimum while also providing
for some important maintenance projects.
With the substantial majority of spending in the
legislative branch dedicated to salaries, spending for
projects, particularly in the budget of the Architect, has been
the natural place to find savings.
We have made some of those savings in the past, but we will
have to be careful this year that we do not save money now at
the risk of spending more later to take care of maintenance
projects that were once small but became large because we
neglected them.
I would also like to commend Senator Bennett for his work
on the year 2000 computer conversion. I want to assure that
every subcommittee addresses this problem this year.
This is one area which has potentially devastating results
for all Americans if the Federal Government does not properly
solve the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to assisting you with your
work on this subcommittee.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
Our first witnesses are the U.S. Capitol Police Board. The
Honorable Bill Livingood, the House Sergeant at Arms is the
Chairman of the Board this year. He is accompanied by the
Honorable Gregory Casey, the Senate Sergeant at Arms; the
Honorable Alan Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol; and Chief
Abrecht, the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police.
I want to thank the Board for taking the time to recess
from their training seminar to appear today.
Last year, the police received a 2.7-percent increase over
their fiscal year 1997 level. They are requesting a 14.1-
percent increase in fiscal year 1999.
We look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Livingood.
summary statement of mr. livingood
Mr. Livingood. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
am pleased to appear before you to present the fiscal year 1999
budget request for the U.S. Capitol Police.
As this budget request shows, we have reached an
interesting point in the professional development of the U.S.
Capitol Police. More than at any time in the past, the U.S.
Capitol Police is undergoing a period of change in order to
meet the increasing demands of its mission. Not only must we
guard against new threats to the safety and security of the
Capitol complex, but the manner in which we meet these threats
is evolving.
In the past, the considered proper response to new security
threats was to add more police officers to the Department. That
was the case following the 1954 shooting in the House gallery
and the 1971 and 1983 bombings of the Senate wing of the
Capitol. Today, as we prepare to enter the next century, the
U.S. Capitol Police Board feels that the more effective and
efficient method of better securing the Capitol complex rests
with the increased use of technology. While the safety and
security of the congressional community and visiting public
will always primarily rely on highly qualified and highly
trained police officers, the application of state-of-the-art
security technology can certainly be used to augment the
officer in the field.
To this end, we have included five new components in the
general expenses appropriation that are key to setting this
initiative in motion: the hazardous materials program,
information security systems, life-cycle replacement of
physical security systems, physical security annual
maintenance, and new physical security systems installations.
Each is considered to be integral to the overall risk
management efforts of the U.S. Capitol Police because they are
needed to detect, deter, or mitigate the effects of security
threats.
Increased operational and administrative demands placed on
the Department translate into increased demands on our
personnel. Therefore, it is essential that we provide our
officers and support staff with the level of training they need
to keep pace with the changing nature of their jobs. The
requested level of funding for tuition expenses will be used to
provide outside professional instruction to our personnel on
topics ranging from labor/management relations to chemical and
biological attack response.
With regard to personnel issues, it has been a longstanding
goal of the U.S. Capitol Police Board to ensure that the men
and women of the U.S. Capitol Police maintain a pay parity with
their counterparts in other law enforcement agencies.
Therefore, the USCP fiscal year 1999 budget submission once
again includes a request to fund pay initiatives which provide
holiday pay, Sunday premium pay, and shift differential.
Because police departments need to be staffed 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, this type of differential pay is considered
standard and customary in law enforcement agencies. Therefore,
in order to fairly compensate our personnel who are required to
work throughout the night, on Sundays and holidays, the U.S.
Capitol Police Board feels it is imperative that this
initiative be fully funded.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state the support of
the U.S. Capitol Police Board for a funding request which is
included in the Architect's budget submission. Several
facilities currently used by the U.S. Capitol Police can no
longer adequately support the mission of the Department. The
current condition of some of these facilities creates life
safety and working condition concerns for our personnel.
Others, such as the offsite delivery center and the vehicle
maintenance facility, have simply outlived their usefulness and
are in need of significant repair and expansion or relocation
to another site.
This is especially true of the offsite delivery center due
to the increased level of use which is anticipated when we
begin screening House deliveries. In addition, our training
facilities are woefully inadequate. The entire primary training
facility of the U.S. Capitol Police consists of three converted
offices in the Ford House Office Building. It is simply
impossible to support the training needs of a 1,300-member
department with a mission as diverse and important as that of
the U.S. Capitol Police in three classrooms in an office
building.
In response to these concerns, the Architect has requested
an appropriation to commission a comprehensive study of the
facility requirements of the department. Known as the Capitol
Complex Integrated Security Facilities Program, this study will
serve as the blueprint on how to best address these facilities
concerns. In the interim, the Architect is requesting funding
to address the more immediate repair and Occupational Safety
and Health Administration regulations concerns. In view of
these pressing issues, the Board is requesting full funding for
all of the Architect's budget requests affecting the U.S.
Capitol Police facilities.
Over the course of the last year, we have met with and
heard the concerns of the committees of jurisdiction regarding
how to best protect against the varied threats and security
concerns we face today. This budget submission reflects a
reasonable, measured, and prudent approach to ensuring the
safety and security of the Congress, the Capitol complex and
the visiting public and the viability of the U.S. Capitol
Police. We will continue to work with you and the authorizing
committees as we address issues concerning risk management,
security, and law enforcement.
In closing, I would like to commend the men and women of
the U.S. Capitol Police. Regardless of the challenge, they
continually perform their duty in a diligent and professional
manner. The responsibilities which rest on the shoulders of our
personnel are daunting. Each day, they must ensure the safety
and security of the congressional community and thousands of
constituents by protecting them from crime and acts of
violence. In doing so, they allow the national legislative
process to proceed unhindered. However, in order to remain
viable, the level of support the U.S. Capitol Police receives
must be commensurate with the level and quality of service
expected by the Congress and the public. This budget request is
intended to meet that goal.
A detailed budget for the U.S. Capitol Police has been
submitted to the committee. I will be pleased to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Livingood.
Mr. Casey.
summary statement of greg casey
Mr. Casey. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
pleased to appear before you to discuss the fiscal year 1999
budget request for the U.S. Capitol Police.
Due to the leadership and support of this committee, and
the dedication of our personnel, the U.S. Capitol Police has
achieved notable success in undertaking new responsibilities
which address the evolving threats to the safety and security
of the U.S. Congress and those who work and visit within the
Capitol complex.
The U.S. Capitol Police currently faces a number of
management information system issues that require a
comprehensive study. The Board is continuing to seek an avenue
to address these issues in consultation with the committees of
jurisdiction. Our overall goal in seeking this study is to
provide the Police Board and the police command staff with the
data necessary to manage the department and its personnel in a
cost-effective and efficient manner. While the conversion of
House and Senate payrolls to the National Finance Center will
address a number of issues, such as providing comprehensive
payroll data reporting, several other systems, such as the time
and attendance and inventory control system, are antiquated and
not year 2000 compliant.
Included in this budget submission are funds to cover the
department's computer and telecommunications system expenses
which were previously included in the budget of the Office of
the Senate Sergeant at Arms. The Senate has provided the U.S.
Capitol Police with extensive equipment and technical support
over the past several years. However, I feel it makes good
business sense that the Police Board and the police command
staff have more direct control of the funds required to
purchase and operate these systems.
I join Mr. Livingood in stating my support for the
department's pay initiatives. We ask a lot from the men and
women of the U.S. Capitol Police, and I think it is important
that they be compensated at a level which is fair and
comparable to their counterparts in other law enforcement
agencies. The requested night differential, holiday pay, and
Sunday premium pay will ensure that we can maintain pay parity
with comparable agencies. The approval of this funding will
serve to provide the U.S. Capitol Police officers equality with
the employees of other legislative branch agencies who already
receive this type of compensation.
I also share concerns about the condition and functionality
of several facilities we provide to the Department to perform
its mission. I am pleased that the Architect has pledged to
study this issue, and I look forward to working with him to
complete this project and provide our recommendations to the
committees of jurisdiction. In the interim, your favorable
consideration of several repair and improvement requests for
current police facilities will ensure our personnel can be
provided with clean, safe, and functional working environments.
Also, the first phase of the K-9 training facility renovation
is underway. However, the Architect has requested funding for
fiscal year 1999 which is essential to completing the project
and making the facility fully operational.
During his testimony, Mr. Hantman will make a presentation
on the perimeter security plan. This plan provides a
comprehensive, integrated plan for making improvements which
are critical to protecting the Capitol complex from acts of
violence and terrorism. This plan has been reviewed and
approved by the U.S. Capitol Police Board, and we have provided
briefings to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
and the chairman of the House Oversight Committee. It should be
noted that several options were considered. However, we feel
that this plan if implemented in its entirety, will provide the
better risk management solution to longstanding perimeter
security concerns.
I am proud of the recent accomplishments of the U.S.
Capitol Police. This department is now involved in national
security-related activities that were once considered beyond
its ability. While the officer at the door will always be our
first line of security, there is a depth and diversity to the
U.S. Capitol Police that does not readily meet the eye. The
fact that the men and women of the department can quietly and
effectively handle such sensitive and important
responsibilities and operate as co-equals among members of
other Federal law enforcement agencies attests to the level of
professionalism they have attained.
I look forward to working with the members of the committee
as we continue to address the funding, support, and
administrative requirements of the U.S. Capitol Police. I will
be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Casey.
Mr. Hantman.
comments by mr. hantman
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my
colleagues on the Capitol Police Board and Chief Abrecht today
in presenting a comprehensive, integrated program for improved
security within the Capitol complex. Before I begin this
portion of the presentation, I would like to thank Bill
Livingood for his enthusiasm, energy, and expertise in enabling
us to move forward with the development of this proposed
program, as well as Greg Casey for his outstanding leadership
this past year as Chairman of the Board.
I have been Architect for just a little over 1 year, and am
fully aware of our security needs, due primarily to the
openness and cooperative approach my fellow Board members have
displayed in the planning and decisionmaking process. For this
I would formally like to thank them and their staffs for their
support and inclusive spirit. We have developed a high level of
mutual respect and confidence, and this has enabled us to build
a productive working team.
In a few weeks, I will be presenting to this committee my
proposed budget for fiscal year 1999, and its 5-year master
plan dealing with the programmatic needs of the Office of the
Architect of the Capitol, in support of the Congress and its
legislative branch agencies. The comprehensive plan that we
present to you today takes this philosophy of creating an
inclusive, multiyear approach to planning and problem-solving
and extends it to the critical area of security.
Other proposed short- and long-term projects, including the
Capitol visitor center, would be built to serve as important
parts of the systemic modernization and strengthening of the
integrated security infrastructure program which we present to
you today. Mr. Chairman, let me assure you and the other
members of this committee that improvements to our security
systems and structures is one of the main focuses of this
office, in support of the Capitol Police Board, and will remain
so.
memorandum of understanding between architect of the capitol and u.s.
capitol police
It may be helpful to briefly review the division of
responsibilities that have been established between the Capitol
Police's Physical Security Division and my office for the
development and implementation of the physical security
improvements within the buildings and their associated grounds.
A memorandum of understanding [MOU] has been developed with the
Capitol Police that established the division of
responsibilities, and the processes and procedures to be
followed when developing and implementing security projects.
This memorandum has proven to be an excellent matrix that has
fostered the development of a close working relationship
between the two organizations. For the benefit of the committee
and to place this agreement on the record, I have included a
copy with my testimony.
In summary, the MOU assigns the responsibility for design,
procurement, installation, and maintenance of physical security
barriers and other structures to the Architect of the Capitol
while the Capitol Police's Physical Security Division is in
charge of design, procurement, installation of other security
systems, including intrusion and duress alarms, x ray,
scanning, and other security systems for facilities. My office
continues to provide infrastructure support for the
implementation of these systems. This has resulted in a strong
working relationship between the two organizations.
perimeter security plan
Last year, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
directed the Capitol Police Board to develop a specific plan
for Capitol square as well as the streets surrounding the
Senate office buildings. The challenge was to sensitively
integrate a sophisticated security program into the historic
landscape of the Capitol Grounds and the fabric of the
incomparable complex of buildings that grace Capitol Hill. The
solution has been strongly influenced by the fact that the
Capitol is the peoples' building, and visitors must perceive it
as such with reasonable access being provided. Perimeter
fencing and other overly intrusive security measures have,
therefore, been avoided.
To meet this challenge, the Board organized a task force
made up of key staff from the Architect's office, the Senate
and House Sergeants at Arms, the Capitol Police, and nationally
recognized architectural and security consultants. The task
force reviewed the previous work done by various groups,
including the schematic design developed in the late 1980's
that became known as the whip's plan, and the 1995 security
evaluation requested by the Board and performed by the U.S.
Secret Service and Capitol Police.
The primary elements of the proposed plan include improved
security at all entrances to Capitol square through the use of
a combination of high impact vehicle barriers that are police
activated at the most critical locations, or card activated
egress from parking-related areas. These are used in
conjunction with a continuous string of security bollards
similar to those designed for, and installed at, the White
House. These bollards would replace the concrete planters and
sewer pipes that had been temporarily put in place in the
1980's. Together with new high-impact stone planters,
consistent with the Frederick Law Olmsted walls, and the
integration of electronic and other security systems at each
entrance, a continuously secure perimeter would be created
largely internal to the original Olmsted walls which, in most
areas, are too low to meet security height requirements and are
not of reinforced construction.
At each of the Capitol square access points, the
incorporation of modern electronic and other security systems
would be integrated with new barrier structures in the form of
planters designed to be consistent with the Frederick Law
Olmsted walls, and the replacement of the existing concrete
sewer pipes and planters with security bollards of a design
consistent with that being deployed at other Government
properties. The end result of the proposed changes would be
significant improvements of both the security needs and
appearance of Capitol square.
The Senate Rules Committee also directed the Board to
develop a plan specifically to address the Senate grounds and
office buildings. Although this matter relates solely to the
Senate, I have requested funding under our perimeter security
project in the Capitol Grounds appropriation for this purpose.
I bring this to your attention to clarify the extent of that
request. To resolve the security concerns, the Board recommends
that landscape elements and bollards similar to those
recommended for Capitol square replace the existing jersey
barriers, concrete planters, and pipe sections. This proposed
solution would maintain necessary levels of security while
softening the visual impact of these measures.
The proposed architectural vocabulary that has been
developed through this design effort will be consistently
applied to other Federal facilities within the Capitol complex,
such as the Library of Congress and the Supreme Court, as
appropriate, as their perimeter security programs are further
evaluated and separately funded.
The costs associated with the various components of the
perimeter security program total $20 million, and are included
in the Architect of the Capitol's Capitol Grounds appropriation
request for fiscal year 1999. Although the costs represent a
significant funding level for the legislative branch budget to
absorb during this time of diminishing resources, it should be
noted that it is not out of line with the magnitude of
expenditures programmed for other Federal facilities which have
in their aggregate been allocated over $1 billion for security
improvements in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 for
upgrading security.
If these recommendations are approved by Congress, the
funding will be required in fiscal year 1999, with the goal
that the complete program would be fully implemented no later
than the end of fiscal year 2001. Approximately $1.5 million
will be required initially to develop detailed design and
constructions documents to begin this process. A preliminary
construction schedule and cost estimate of the Capitol square
and Senate grounds security improvement program can be provided
for the record.
security projects in the architect of the capitol's budget
There are several additional projects included in the
Architect of the Capitol request for fiscal year 1999 that are
necessary to support the security efforts of the U.S. Capitol
Police. Two of these relate to providing needed life safety
improvements to police facilities, the offsite delivery center,
$50,000; as well as at the firing range in the basement of the
Rayburn Building, $50,000.
Specific needs to address security measures, other than the
perimeter security project, include funding for infrastructure
support for the electronic security measures being carried out
by the Physical Security Division, $1 million; improvements to
the police communications center, $1 million; work related to
the command center, $350,000; improvements to the chemical and
explosives storage facility at D.C. Village, $250,000;
modifications to the offsite delivery center that are needed to
improve the building and working conditions there, $150,000;
design funding for emergency systems in the Capitol, $100,000;
and, finally, funding to develop an integrated security program
for the Capitol complex, $475,000. This last project is very
important as it will provide funding to assist us and the
police in determining specific programmatic needs for a wide
variety of police activities, and then developing options for
providing the necessary facilities to support them.
architect of the capitol police-related projects
We have also requested funds in the Senate portion of the
bill for several building maintenance projects totaling
$1,058,000. These include several projects related to
maintaining the Capitol Police headquarters building:
replacement of worn out carpet, $380,000; roofing work and
installing fall protection, $350,000; and installation of storm
windows, $168,000. We are also requesting that the entrance to
the Russell Building at Delaware Avenue be modified for
increased security and improved control of ambient air, and
that is estimated to cost $160,000.
Last, two additional items requested are an additional
increment for the canine facility at D.C. Village, $200,000,
and funds to construct a kiosk at Delaware Avenue and C Street,
SW, to support the inspection of goods delivered to the House
loading docks, $52,000.
All of these requests were coordinated carefully between
the police and my agency, and they have been reviewed and
approved by the Capitol Police Board.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, and I would be
happy to respond to any questions you and the members of the
committee may have.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Hantman.
Mr. Abrecht.
summary statement of gary abrecht
Mr. Abrecht. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
am honored to appear before you today to discuss the 1999
budget request for the U.S. Capitol Police.
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 protective and law enforcement
services for the U.S. Congress, we must constantly strive to
meet varied and ever-present security threats while providing
the highest possible level of service.
During the past year, the U.S. Capitol Police has made
significant progress in our critical incident management
initiatives. Most notably, we are continuing to enhance our
ability to respond to and mitigate the effects of a chemical or
biological attack. We have conducted detection and response
training for our personnel and have acquired specialized
emergency equipment. In addition, we are coordinating our
efforts with our agencies who have technical knowledge in this
emerging field. While there is still much work to be done, I am
confident that the U.S. Capitol Police is taking a proactive
role in addressing this form of terrorism.
We have also made great strides in addressing more general
life safety issues. We have developed the Capitol Buildings
Emergency Preparedness Program and distributed emergency
evacuation brochures to every office within the Capitol
complex. These brochures, which comply with OSHA requirements,
will ensure that every staff member will know how to safely
evacuate in case of an emergency within their building.
An important part of our preparedness effort is the
formation of the critical incident command group. This group
brings together the U.S. Capitol Police, the House and Senate
Sergeants at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol, and the Office
of the Attending Physician to coordinate the response to an
emergency situation. This entire process was tested in
December, when we conducted the first-ever evacuation drill of
the U.S. Capitol Building in conjunction with the D.C. Fire
Department and Emergency Medical Service. Such drills are
beneficial to the staff, who can familiarize themselves with
evacuation routes and assembly areas, and also serve as a test
of our response and command capabilities.
I am pleased to report that the repair and upgrade of the
physical security systems within the Capitol complex is
proceeding smoothly. This effort is part of a three-phase, 5-
year plan to modernize the alarms, cameras, and security
equipment we utilize to protect the Capitol Building and
congressional community. Once this plan is fully implemented,
all of our security systems will be state of the art and they
will be fully integrated, thus allowing for improved police
operations and alarm response.
Clearly, the mission and responsibilities of the U.S.
Capitol Police Department are expanding and evolving.
Therefore, this year's general expenses budget request contains
several items which reflect the increasing level of U.S.
Capitol Police responsibilities. The first such item is the
Hazardous Materials Program, which incorporates our chemical
and biological response initiative. This initiative requires
very specialized equipment which is needed to detect and
mitigate the effects of such an attack. As this program
develops, the equipment, which will be purchased with the
appropriation, will be integral to our risk management efforts.
The second item concerns the information security systems.
In order to provide for the protection of national security
information possessed up here on the Capitol, the U.S. Capitol
Police conducts operations to ensure that Congress operates
free from the threat of surreptitious and clandestine listening
devices and monitoring systems. The equipment we currently
utilize is obsolete and in need of replacement. Therefore, the
funds requested for information security systems will allow us
to purchase the technological equipment needed to perform this
critical function at the highest levels.
Finally, we have requested funding for the physical
security systems program. As a result of the support and
leadership of this committee, funding was provided to implement
the three-phase plan I previously discussed. However, as this
equipment is installed, it is important that it be maintained
and placed on a planned life cycle replacement program. In
doing so, we can ensure that our physical security systems are
always fully operational and that we can methodically purchase
equipment which keeps pace with advancements in security
technology.
This has been a problem in the Congress for some time, I
think it is fair to say. We have been reactive. After each of
the bombings, for instance, in 1971 and 1983, security
improvements were made, and then no follow-on was done to that.
And the systems started to get older and older and older. And,
all of a sudden, they all die at the same time when you buy
them all at the same time. What we are looking for here is to
put this whole system on a life cycle replacement basis, so
that every year we buy a small number of x-ray machines, rather
than waiting for them all to drop off the cliff and replacing
them all at one time.
You can get a lot of advantages from doing that. You get
the latest technology each time when you buy something. Rather
than having all of one technology, you have new technology
every year. The same with all of our cameras. The same with all
of our alarm systems. All of this equipment needs to be on a
life cycle basis, so that every year some of it is replaced so
it is constantly all working.
This year we have also requested an increase in the funding
level for our fleet vehicles. In the past few years we have had
to divert money from this account to fund protective
operations. In doing so, we repeatedly had to extend the useful
life of several of our vehicles. In order to ensure that our
fleet is safe, modern, and able to meet the demands of police
work, these vehicles need to be replaced. This requested
increase will allow us to make a number of vehicle purchases
that have been repeatedly delayed.
And part of the cause of that is something that you
mentioned in your opening remarks--that we have not properly
funded the protective operations in the past, and I guess I
always hoped that the cost of that would go back down and we
would not need as much money as we had. And I think it is on
our ticket, if you will, that we did not fund those
sufficiently. We had to use our vehicle money to fund that. And
now we have really got ourselves into a bind. The point was
very well taken that we need to base it on historical fact and
then fund our protective operations at a level that they are
apparently going to cost.
I join the members of the U.S. Capitol Police Board in
requesting your favorable consideration of the Architect's
request to fund the proposed Capitol Complex Integrated
Security Facilities Program. This study will provide a means to
prepare a comprehensive plan to address several very serious
facilities problems. I think they have been discussed and you
have had an opportunity to see a couple of them.
However, I have an immediate concern about the current
condition of the K-9 training facility, the Rayburn firing
range, and the offsite delivery center. Each of these
facilities needs considerable repairs to address several
pressing life safety, OSHA, and general-use concerns. The funds
requested by the Architect will ensure that our personnel can
perform their duties in safe, functional facilities until these
larger issues of where these facilities ultimately ought to be
located are resolved.
And, finally, this year's budget request once again
includes a proposal to provide our personnel with shift
differential, holiday pay, and Sunday premium pay. Since police
departments must be adequately staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, this type of compensation is routinely provided to law
enforcement officers, including those of comparable executive
branch agencies. Interestingly, it is also provided to the
legislative branch service organizations which have 24-hour
operations, such as the Library of Congress, the General
Accounting Office, and the Architect of the Capitol. This
funding will rectify this inequity and ensure that our
personnel are fairly compensated.
I do not think there is any place in the country that I
know of where police officers are asked to work on Christmas
Day and not be paid some additional compensation for doing
that. But that is the situation here. My officers, when they
work on Christmas Day, while we are all at home unwrapping our
packages, they are just getting compensatory time. They are not
getting paid an additional nickel for working on Christmas Day.
And that just is not right, and I would hope that you would act
favorably on our request in that regard.
We have also included in our budget, as Mr. Casey has
mentioned, 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 as a result
of the disagreements with the House, they will need to be
restored to the Sergeant at Arms fiscal year 1999 budget.
And one of the things that scares me to death, as the
Police Chief, is that I am going to end up some day with
computers being switched off, with no radio systems. They have
to be in some budget. If not in mine, it needs to be in Mr.
Casey's. And this is obviously a matter of disagreement between
the two bodies and it is way above my pay grade. But I just
need the radios and the computers, and I am sure you will
understand that.
As you are aware, the achievement of a unified U.S. Capitol
Police payroll has been a longstanding goal of this committee
and of the department. I am pleased to report that we made a
significant step toward achieving that goal when we completed
the conversion of all House appropriated positions to the
National Finance Center for payroll purposes several months
ago. And this Sunday, March 1, we will convert the positions on
the Senate roll, thereby giving us a de facto unified payroll.
This accomplishment represents one of the most important and
beneficial administrative changes to affect the department. I
would like to thank the members of the committee and your staff
for providing the guidance and assistance required to
successfully complete this project. It will be a major
improvement in the administration of the department.
I am proud of the level and quality of service the men and
women of the U.S. Capitol Police provide on a daily basis.
Securing the Capitol complex is a daunting task. With the
support of Congress, we have faced and overcome many challenges
in the past. Many of the items included in this budget request
provide a glimpse of future risk management challenges and
concerns and give insight into how we are preparing to address
them. As this budget submission shows, we intend to build upon
past operational and administrative accomplishments and
undertake new initiatives in the most cost-efficient and
effective manner possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Abrecht.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Senator Stevens. I have to leave to go to another meeting.
Could I just do one thing before I leave? I want to apologize
to you, Chief, for having grabbed you right after that joint
session, when we were so disturbed about the press blocking our
exit from the joint session. Later I had a discussion with
other Members and with some of the wives and guests who were in
the gallery. And I want to submit to you a potential problem.
This is probably the largest gathering of officials of all
three branches of our National Government, executive, judicial,
congressional, and many other guests, including the leaders of
the military. It probably is, I would say, the most attractive
target to any terrorist group in the world. And yet if you look
at the possibility of getting out of that room, the exits are
all going the wrong way, people are going crossways. I really
do not know how we would get people out of that room, with the
President and the Vice President and all of the Cabinet, the
leaders of both parties in the Congress and the Joint Chiefs.
It is just a nightmare.
And the more we thought about the problem, of how all the
exits are now blocked by the press, we want to ask you to study
how would we get out of there, how would we get the Justices,
the Joint Chiefs, the President, the Vice President, the
Speaker, the majority leader, and all of the people who are in
there and their guests, how would we get out of there if there
was some calamity in that area?
That highlights the basic problem of just living and trying
to get through the rotunda on a daily basis. It is loaded with
tourists. We try to find ways around it. I end up sometimes
going over and going through the Speaker's passageway in order
to get through to the other side.
I think we are getting to the point where we are planning
all this access by the tourists outside, but we are forgetting
who lives inside and the dangers that are inside these
buildings. So I would urge you to study that, and tell us, one,
how are we going to deal with an emergency, and, two, how are
we going to deal with just the routine activities that come
from a joint session, when it is not the State of the Union
Message, and we are trying to exit over there and all of the
exits are blocked by the press. It just does not seem right.
And I think, somehow, my solution would be to put the press
down on the first floor. But I do not know how we are going to
do it. Somehow we are going to have to get out of there. And it
is extremely frustrating to try to do that.
We waited for 35-45 minutes for people who were in the
gallery to get back to my office. And my office is right off of
that rotunda, over there next to the Speaker's office. Now,
that is a long time.
I think that the system is broken down as far as just the
ability to empty that Chamber when we have a joint session. And
it is not your problem, I know, but I think it is our total
problem.
Mr. Abrecht. It is our problem, absolutely. I absolutely
agree with you, Senator.
In fact, interestingly enough, we were concerned about this
problem for several years. And that day, we had placed a video
camera up in the gallery around Statuary Hall in order to film
what a mess it was so that we could, frankly, use that as some
impetus to get some change.
We have the videotape and we have prepared some
correspondence to the Board, to say that this problem needs to
be addressed. It is a life safety problem. And you are
absolutely correct, there is no proper exit through that very
important corridor during this event. You are 100 percent
correct.
I actually took no offense at all. You were completely
correct when you approached me about it. And I wish I could
have told you I could do something right then, but it is a
systemic problem that needs some planning, rather than
addressing the way it is now. It will not work; you are
correct.
Senator Stevens. There was a novel written about 15 years
ago about an attack that went on during a joint session. You
ought to read it sometime. It is a nightmare. It is
increasingly a nightmare now, because of the increase in the
number of people who are coming in while we are trying to go
out. So I think we really need a plan to deal with that.
Mr. Abrecht. There will be a plan for the next joint
session.
Mr. Livingood. We have taken some action, too, already to
alleviate the problem you ran into specifically. And there were
some other plans that had been in place you did not see which,
of course, we did not have to use.
Senator Stevens. Yes.
Mr. Livingood. We had emergency plans to move the Congress
and guests. We had police officers positioned at various
locations. We had practiced this three times in the early
morning hours.
Mr. Casey. At 3 o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Livingood. Three o'clock in the morning. Just for this
purpose, sir, prior to this, because we realized this also.
The press were a problem, because we had an unprecedented
number.
Senator Stevens. Yes, indeed, there were.
Mr. Livingood. We have since, as the Chief said, discussed
this. I have discussed this on the House side with the Speaker,
and we have a contingency plan already that we probably like to
place at the next one. And it will require action of both the
House and the Senate.
Senator Stevens. Well, I think the participants over there
are contributing to it to a certain extent, because we used to
have order in terms of who went out and the right exit, more or
less. The President went first, then the Justices, then the
Cabinet, then the Joint Chiefs, and then Members of the House
and Senate would go out different ways. It is everybody for
himself now. There is no order there at all in terms of exiting
a joint session. And I think that must be restored.
But that is not your problem. That is internal, inside,
before they come out. But once they come out, the ability to
exit that joint session depends upon the access that is
provided by the police.
Thank you very much.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Mr. Casey.
additional committee questions
We do have a vote. So the subcommittee will stand in recess
until I can get over there and get back. I apologize to our
second witness, who is Gary Sisco, Secretary of the Senate. But
we have to delay until the Senate business concludes.
[A brief recess was taken.]
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
Question. How does base pay and benefits of the Capitol Police
compare with other legislative branch police and other local police?
Answer.
Legislative Branch Police Agencies
There are only two other Legislative Branch police forces: The
Library of Congress Police and the Government Printing Office Police.
Members of the Library Police are currently compensated using the
Capitol Police salary scale. They do, however, receive Holiday Pay when
required to work on a federal holiday. U.S. Capitol Police members
receive only compensatory time.
The base salary scale for the members of the Government Printing
Office Police is lower than the Capitol Police scale. They do however
receive Holiday Pay, a 15 percent shift differential, and Sunday
premium pay.
Other Local Agencies
There are seven other police agencies of reasonably similar size
and scope in the Washington Metropolitan area: Two executive branch
agencies (The United States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the
United States Park Police), two city departments (The Metropolitan
Police Department of the District of Columbia and the Alexandria Police
Department) and three county departments (Montgomery, Prince George's
and Fairfax).
While each has a different base salary scheme, the United States
Capitol Police salary is generally in the middle of the range when
officers of similar levels of experience are compared (e.g. starting
salary, five years of service, ten years of service).
Two notable discrepancies are found when base salaries are
compared: Capitol Police Officers with many years of service are the
lowest paid officers in the group, and ranking officials (Captains,
Inspectors and Deputy Chiefs) are paid substantially less than their
counterparts in the other agencies.
Comparing benefits is considerably more complicated than comparing
base pay, particularly since two states, the federal executive branch
and the District of Columbia are involved. For the purposes of the
issues before the Committee the following specific information is
provided:
Holiday Pay.--All seven Departments pay Holiday Pay when a member
is required to work on a holiday.
Shift Differential.--All seven Departments provide some type of
additional compensation for work outside normal business hours. The
amounts and hours of coverage vary. The scheme we have proposed is that
included in Title V of the U.S. Code covering most executive branch
employees, including the United States Secret Service Uniformed
Division and the United States Park Police.
Sunday Premium Pay.--The two executive branch agencies, the United
States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the United States Park
Police, provide this differential to their personnel. We have modeled
our proposal on theirs, which is found in Title V of the United States
Code.
Question. The Board should be commended for supporting the Police
budget officer, Bruce Holmberg in modernizing the accounting and budget
functions of the police. Please update us on your efforts to cross
service your accounting function. When will that be completed? Will
there be any reimbursement cost associated with cross servicing?
Answer. Our Office of Financial Management has had several meetings
with representatives of the GAO. Based on these meetings, indications
are that this arrangement would meet our requirements while not
imposing any burden on GAO. We are still in the process of providing
information on our requirements and will be entering into a Memorandum
of Understanding in the near future.
A preliminary decision was made to focus on the basic accounting
system for implementation by October 1 of this year. Later we will add
other modules including inventory systems and procurement.
There will be start-up costs and reimbursement associated with the
cross-servicing. We have the amount of $100,000 in our current budget
and have included this amount again in fiscal year 1999. At this time,
GAO believes that this initiative can be accomplished within these
amounts.
Question. The Police's financial, human resources and information
resources management systems and processes are currently being
reviewed. The Police need significant modernization of their systems.
Currently there are only 3 individuals in the budget office. Will these
3 individuals be able to implement the new systems? If not, are the
police prepared to devote the necessary resources to help implement
these new systems?
Answer. To date, we are still in the preliminary stages of
providing information. As the review progresses I am certain that we
will receive recommendations regarding the numbers and levels of staff.
GAO has expressed some concerns along these lines for the Office of
Financial Management. They have suggested a full-time detailee for the
duration of the accounting project. We are looking at options including
having GAO provide a detailee on a reimbursable basis.
Once the review is completed, we will take action consistent with
the recommendations.
Question. Please update the Committee on the unionization of the
force.
Answer. The following is a chronology of activities undertaken to
date:
October 1996.--Petition For Certification as exclusive bargaining
representative by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Fraternal
Order of Police, International Union of Police Associations.
January 31, 1997.--Board of Directors, Office of Compliance
Decision Order Excluding certain divisions of the USCP.
February 24, 1997.--Decision and Direction of Election issued by
Board of Directors, Office of Compliance.
April 1-2, 1997.--Election held at USCP Headquarters (Challenges
sufficient to affect results). International Union of Police
Associations eliminated.
May 12, 1997.--Decision and Direction on Challenged Ballots.
June 17-18, 1997.--Second Election Runoff between International
Brotherhood of Teamsters and Fraternal Order of Police.
June 23, 1997.--Union demand for negotiation of Collective
Bargaining Agreement received, with notice that proposed Ground Rules
will be submitted within 30 days.
June 27, 1997.--Certification of Representative certifies the
Fraternal Order of Police as exclusive representative of all employees
in the bargaining unit.
November 21, 1997.--Union's Ground Rules Proposal submitted to the
Department.
December 15, 1997.--Department Counter Proposal submitted to Union.
January 1998.--Negotiation of Ground Rules Agreement begins.
February 9, 1998.--Ground Rules Agreement signed.
March 1998.--Contract Proposals to be exchanged.
April 1998.--Counter-proposals, modifications, to be exchanged.
April 23, 1998.--Actual negotiation of Collective Bargaining
Agreement to begin.
In general, relations between the FOP and the Department management
have been business-like and cordial. The FOP has represented members of
the bargaining have been filed, all of which have either been settled
or resolved in the Department's favor. The volume of labor relations
work generated has been heavy, and the additional FTE for a Director of
Labor Relations is urgently needed.
Question. The Board has requested $362,000 for replacement
vehicles. Does the Board plan to retire the vehicles they are
replacing? If so, could you provide the Committee with an estimate of
the trade-in value of those vehicles and the total balance necessary to
meet the request.
Answer. The total amount requested for vehicle replacements is
$498,000. The trade-in value of the replaced vehicles is not factored
in to our estimate. Traditionally, we receive very little for the
vehicles that are traded because of their overall condition and high
mileage. The 16 vehicles that we plan to replace all have in excess of
75,000 miles ranging up to 110,000 miles. Of the eight motorcycles, 2
have been declared ``totaled''.
For the twenty-five vehicles planned for replacement, we have
received estimates ranging from $64,000 to $80,000. The net cost of the
new vehicles will range from $418,000 to $434,000 if the trade-in value
is received.
Question. Last year the Police Board requested and the AOC included
in its budget request $350,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $350,000 for
fiscal year 1999 for funds to renovate the K-9 facility. The
Appropriations Committees provided $200,000 in fiscal year 1998. Since
last year, the police officers have done a substantial amount of the
work at the K-9 themselves. Has the AOC's office done any work with the
$200,000 provided? Have they reevaluated the cost of that project in
light of the work that has been done?
Answer. Although the U.S. Capitol Police have performed a
creditable job in cleaning out the existing facility, none of the
mechanical, electrical, plumbing or other repairs have been undertaken.
These are presently under design. The plan for fiscal year 1998 is to
renovate the portion of the building that accommodates the canines by
replacing the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system, upgrade
the electrical system, install adequate kennel drainage and plumbing,
resurfacing the floor, and replacing doors, door frames, windows, etc.
as required to permit housing of canines in the building. During fiscal
year 1999, the administrative portion of the building will be renovated
with the $200,000 funding increment programmed for that year. The
fiscal year 2000 increment will focus on exterior site problem,
especially drainage around the building and the training field. The
final programmed increment of $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 will
complete the site work by addressing the parking, relocation of the
trailers, and any final work required.
Question. Last year the Committee gave the Office of the Architect
$100,000 of the $150,000 requested for OSHA repairs to the off-site
delivery facility. The Board is requesting the additional $50,000 this
year. Of the original $100,000, what work has been completed to date?
Is the total $50,000 still required to complete the project?
Answer. A preliminary survey of the off-site delivery facility (P
St. Warehouse) has been completed, and a scope of services has been
developed. An architect/engineer will be retained to complete a phased
plan for implementation of the OSHA repairs and related improvements.
Phased implementations of the repairs will begin in late spring or
early summer. The additional $50,000 requested in fiscal year 1999 will
be required to complete the project.
Question. In fiscal year 1998 the Police budget included a request
for $2,140,000 for telecommunications and computer upgrades. For fiscal
year 1999, the Police are requesting $1,477,000 for computers. Last
year the question was raised whether that substantial of an increase
for computers was a one-time increase or should we expect continuing
high budgets in this area. Can we expect the normal non-recurring
budget to be in the area of $600,000 per year?
Answer. There are several issues surrounding the fiscal year 1999
request for computer services. The first issue is that the USCP has
received support for computer services in the past from the Office of
the Senate Sergeant at Arms. At the direction of the Senate Committee
on Appropriations, the USCP has included this cost in its own budget
for fiscal year 1999, while the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms
has omitted this item from their own budget request.
The fiscal year 1999 request for USCP computer services totals
$1,007,000. Of this amount, $207,000 is for maintenance and service
contracts currently in effect through the Office of the Senate Sergeant
at Arms and some miscellaneous hardware and software. The remaining
$800,000 is for systems replacement in the USCP.
The systems referred to include the Inventory Control System, Time
and Attendance, Personnel Administration, Injury System, Congressional
Employee Locator System, Report Writing System and the Expense Control
System (accounting). The migration of the House and Senate payrolls to
the NFC will be completed in March, 1998. In addition, meetings are
currently on-going for a planned cross-servicing arrangement with the
General Accounting Office for the accounting system. Timelines are
being developed consistent with a planned effective date of October 1,
1998.
The remaining systems currently reside on an antiquated platform on
the Senate Computer Center's mainframe computer which is no longer
supported by the vendor. Further, these systems are not Year 2000
compliant, and due to their antiquated state, there are no plans to
make them compliant. Even today, we are beginning to experience some
problems in our applications which track leave categories and longevity
dates. In summary, these systems are inadequate, are no longer
supported by the vendor, are not Year 2000 compliant, and will not be
supported by the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms in the future.
The funds requested for the above systems replacement are to cover
costs of developing specifications, vendor analyses, systems and
applications development, testing, training, licensing fees, reporting
systems, maintenance and systems integration. Finally, an interface
will need to be developed to integrate data from the legacy systems to
the new systems.
The fiscal year 1999 request for telecommunications and computer
services is broken down as follows:
Monthly Service and Maintenance Costs:
Telecommunications........................................ $470,000
Computer Services......................................... 107,000
Purchases:
Computer Systems.......................................... 800,000
Hardware/Software......................................... 100,000
Question. What is your estimated total cost to address the year
2000 problem? What has been spent to date? What is being requested in
your fiscal year 1999 budget? What is your cost estimate beyond the
year 2000?
Answer. Approximately $700,000 was spent in fiscal year 1997 by the
Office of the Sergeant at Arms to replace all computer hardware and
office automation software. Although this was not directly related to
the year 2000 problem, by replacing all the hardware, it is now year
2000 compliant and allowed PC based applications to become year 2000
compliant.
The amount of $800,000 is requested in fiscal year 1999 to replace
systems that are operating on an antiquated platform in the Senate
Sergeant at Arms's computer center which are no longer supported by the
vendor. There are no plans to invest in making these systems and
applications year 2000 compliant.
If the requested funding is received and all systems applications
are re-engineered and placed into production, there should be no
additional cost for the year 2000.
Question. Have the Capitol Police developed any contingency plans
in the event the systems fail on January 1, 2000.
Answer. Yes. There are two options dependent on actions and
approval of the Senate Sergeant at Arms. The first option would require
the Sergeant at Arms to retain the current development application UFO
on the mainframe computer where dates would be expanded and code
written to deal with failures. Secondly, code is currently being
written to move the data files off the mainframe to existing PC based
servers. Should funding in fiscal year 1999 not be approved, one of
these options will have to be implemented until funding to re-engineer
the applications is obtained.
Question. How many data interfaces does the Police have with
external organizations? Describe how the Police is working with those
organizations to develop mutually agreed-to data formats for exchanging
information.
Answer. The USCP has two data interfaces with external
organizations. Discussions between the Capitol Police Systems
Administrator and Metropolitan Police have determined that the
interface to the Metropolitan Police Department's WALES/NCIC system
does not include date processing and is not in danger of failing. The
system has already been upgraded to provide license expiration dates
into the year 2000. The Capitol Police is replacing all dumb terminals
with PC's running Emulation software which are Year 2000 compliant.
The National Finance Center interface has the same PC based
Emulation software used for the Metropolitan Police connection. The
USCP relies on two applications from the Architect of the Capitol used
for communication with the National Finance Center which are planned by
the AOC for replacement to make them year 2000 compatible. The National
Finance Center provides data files on tape each pay period. A request
is being prepared to have those data files include a 4 digit year.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan
personnel increase
Question. Last year's bill included funding for 1,255 FTE's. This
year, you are requesting two additional FTE's--one for public relations
and one for the labor-management office. Please explain why these two
new positions are needed, and how these functions are currently handled
and staffed.
Answer. We have requested one FTE to serve in the Public
Information Office. Currently, this office is staffed by one Sergeant
who is responsible for managing the entire public information and
public relations effort for the Department.
At the direction of the Capitol Police Board, the Department is
undertaking a comprehensive crime prevention effort which will address
the safety and security needs of the House and Senate offices within
the Capitol Complex as well as state and district offices around the
country. There is a significant need for this program, however, it will
greatly increase the workload of the Public Information Office beyond
the capability of the one person assigned there. The civilian who will
fill this position will assist in preparing informational items and
scheduling seminars and presentations for members and staff.
As a result of the Congressional Accountability Act, a collective
bargaining unit has been established within the Department and we are
in the early stages of negotiating a contract with the union. We are
currently using an outside expert on a contract basis to assist us, but
we need to establish a Labor Relations Office to handle the ongoing
contract administration, grievance process, etc.
unionization status
Question. What is the current status of unionization efforts in the
Capitol Police under the Congressional Accountability Act?
Answer. The following is a chronology of activities undertaken to
date:
October 1996.--Petition For Certification as exclusive bargaining
representative by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Fraternal
Order of Police, International Union of Police Associations.
January 31, 1997.--Board of Directors, Office of Compliance
Decision Order Excluding certain divisions of the USCP.
February 24, 1997.--Decision and Direction of Election issued by
Board of Directors, Office of Compliance.
April 1-2, 1997.--Election held at USCP Headquarters (Challenges
sufficient to affect results). International Union of Police
Associations eliminated.
May 12, 1997.--Decision and Direction on Challenged Ballots.
June 17-18, 1997.--Second Election Runoff between International
Brotherhood of Teamsters and Fraternal Order of Police.
June 23, 1997.--Union demand for negotiation of Collective
Bargaining Agreement received, with notice that proposed Ground Rules
will be submitted within 30 days.
June 27, 1997.--Certification of Representative certifies the
Fraternal Order of Police as exclusive representative of all employees
in the bargaining unit.
November 21, 1997.--Union's Ground Rules Proposal submitted to the
Department.
December 15, 1997.--Department Counter Proposal submitted to Union.
January 1998.--Negotiation of Ground Rules Agreement begins.
February 9, 1998.--Ground Rules Agreement signed.
March 1998.--Contract Proposals to be exchanged.
April 1998.--Counter-proposals, modifications, to be exchanged.
April 23, 1998.--Actual negotiation of Collective Bargaining
Agreement to begin.
In general, relations between the FOP and the Department management
have been business-like and cordial. The FOP has represented members of
the bargaining unit in several grievances which have been resolved. A
number of Unfair Labor Practice charges have been filed, all of which
have either been settled or resolved in the Department's favor. The
volume of labor relations work generated has been heavy, and the
additional FTE for a Director of Labor Relations is urgently needed.
pay
1998 COLA Increase
Question. The Capitol Police is requesting $2.3 million for
mandatory pay and related costs. Last year, you requested $1.4 million
for the COLA. Was the COLA approved?
Answer. Yes it was. The President signed Executive Order 13071 on
December 29, 1997 effecting a 2.3 percent across-the-board cost of
living increase for federal executive branch employees. Locality based
comparability pay for the Washington DC area was increased by a net
amount of 0.15 percent.
Sunday/Holiday Pay and Night Differential
Question. The Capitol Police is requesting $2.44 million for Sunday
and Holiday pay and Night Differential. Is additional authorizing
legislation required if funding were provided?
Answer. In the administrative provisions of last year's
appropriation bill, the USCP was directed to establish and maintain
unified schedules of rates of basic pay for members and civilian
employees whose appointing authority is an officer of the House as well
as the Senate. This schedule will take effect upon approval of the
Committee on House Oversight and the Committee on Rules and
Administration. A proposed schedule has been developed and is currently
pending before these committees.
If the requested funding for Sunday and Holiday and Night
Differentials is approved, the Board will amend the unified schedule to
include these rates and re-submit to the committees for approval.
Question. How does the current pay and benefit package of the
Capitol Police compare to local area law enforcement agencies, and
would an appropriation of your full request of $2.44 million bring
parity with the Capitol Police and other local law enforcement
agencies?
Answer. Legislative Branch Police Agencies.--There are only two
other Legislative Branch police forces: The Library of Congress Police
and the Government Printing Office Police. Members of the Library
Police are currently compensated using the Capitol Police salary scale.
They do, however, receive Holiday Pay when required to work on a
federal holiday. U.S. Capitol Police members receive only compensatory
time.
The base salary scale for the members of the Government Printing
Office Police is lower than the Capitol Police scale. They do however
receive Holiday Pay, a 15 percent shift differential, and Sunday
premium pay.
Other Local Agencies.--There are seven other police agencies of
reasonably similar size and scope in the Washington Metropolitan area:
Two executive branch agencies (The United States Secret Service
Uniformed Division and the United States Park Police), two city
departments (The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of
Columbia and the Alexandria Police Department) and three county
departments (Montgomery, Prince George's and Fairfax).
While each has a different base salary scheme, the United States
Capitol Police salary is generally in the middle of the range when
officers of similar levels of experience are compared (e.g. starting
salary, five years of service, ten years of service).
Two notable discrepancies are found when base salaries are
compared: Capitol Police Officers with many years of service are the
lowest paid officers in the group, and ranking officials (Captains,
Inspectors and Deputy Chiefs) are paid substantially less than their
counterparts in the other agencies.
Comparing benefits is considerably more complicated than comparing
base pay, particularly since two states, the federal executive branch
and the District of Columbia are involved. For the purposes of the
issues before the Committee the following specific information is
provided:
Holiday Pay.--All seven Departments pay Holiday Pay when a member
is required to work on a holiday.
Shift Differential.--All seven Departments provide some type of
additional compensation for work outside normal business hours. The
amounts and hours of coverage vary. The scheme we have proposed is that
included in Title V of the U.S. Code covering most executive branch
employees, including the United States Secret Service Uniformed
Division and the United States Park Police.
Sunday Premium Pay.--The two executive branch agencies, the United
States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the United States Park
Police, provide this differential to their personnel. We have modeled
our proposal on theirs, which is found in Title V of the United States
Code.
civilian merit increase program
Question. You are requesting $75,000 for a civilian merit increase
program. What is the purpose of this program? How is it different from
other legislative branch entities?
Answer. Merit pay is a performance recognition program whereby
employees receive compensation in recognition of extraordinary
performance or contributions. Merit increases are distinguished from
longevity increases, also referred to as ``within-grade'' increases, in
that the focus is to reward employees for extraordinary performance and
not time in grade.
Merit pay authority has been and is utilized by the other employing
authorities under the House Employees Position Classification Act, i.e.
House Officers, (Clerk, CAO, etc.) pursuant to the ``Classification
Guidelines.
national finance center update
Question. What is the status of the integration of the House and
Senate Capitol Police payroll systems at the National Finance Center?
Answer. When I appeared before this Committee last year, I
indicated that the personnel and payroll systems for House-funded
positions were scheduled for conversion to NFC on March 30, 1997. I am
pleased to report that this transfer took place on that date and that
100 percent of eligible employees were paid, with a continuing record
since of 100 percent payment processing through the NFC automated
system.
Further, on March 1, 1998, the Department will complete the
conversion of all Senate-funded USCP positions to the NFC system. For
the first time in the history of the USCP, the conversion of House and
Senate-funded positions to NFC will achieve the long pursued goal of a
unified payroll, the results of which will confer major impact on the
Department's ability to more effectively manage many of its
administrative functions.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the long-standing
support of this Committee in making a unified payroll for the USCP a
reality. I can tell you from making my rounds periodically at roll
call, that this change has had a profound impact on the morale of the
troops as complaints about payroll have virtually stopped.
general expense budget
Question. The request for the General Expense budget is $8.4
million, an increase of $5.3 million from last year's enacted level. It
is my understanding that several new components have been requested in
this budget, which make up a significant amount of the requested
increase, and are necessary due to the increased level of Capitol
Police responsibilities and their expanding and evolving mission.
Please give a brief description of the new components requested in
your General Expense budget and the need for these new programs.
Answer.
Object Class
Increase
Travel............................................................ $345
Anticipated increase in official travel of the department due
to expanded role related to the mission. This object class
has been under estimated in recent years, forcing the
department to reprogram money from other object classes and
accounts.
Rent, Communications and Utilities................................ 54
This increase is attributed to increased costs of copier
leases, cell phone costs and other equipment leases.
Other Services:
Hazardous Materials Program................................... 260
Tuition for officers and civilians............................ 133
Medical and Physical Standards Development.................... 100
Information Security Systems.................................. 500
Net decreases in other estimates.............................. (55)
Telecommunications............................................ 470
Computer Services.............................................2,415
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal....................................................1,007
Supplies and Materials............................................ 158
The requested increase is to cover increased costs of fuel,
oil, uniforms and operational supplies.
Capitol Assets:
Life-cycle Replacement of Physical Security equipment and
systems.....................................................1,662
Vehicle Replacements.......................................... 362
Specialty Equipment........................................... 202
Electronic Equipment.......................................... 25
Net increases in other estimates.............................. 39
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal....................................................2,290
Question. The largest increases are $1,007,000 for computer
services and $2.3 million for capital assets. What computer services
are needed? Since there is a study of police management and financial
systems being conducted, shouldn't we wait for that study before
funding additional computer expenditures?
Answer. There are several issues surrounding the fiscal year 1999
request for computer services. The first issue is that the USCP has
been supported for computer services in the past by the Office of the
Senate Sergeant at Arms. At the direction of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, the USCP has included this cost in its own budget for
fiscal year 1999, while the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms has
omitted this item from their own budget request.
The fiscal year 1999 request for USCP computer services totals
$1,007,000. Of this amount, $207,000 is for maintenance and service
contracts currently in effect through the Office of the Senate Sergeant
at Arms. The remaining $800,000 is for systems replacement in the USCP.
The systems referred to include the Inventory Control System, Time
and Attendance, Personnel Administration, Injury System, Congressional
Employee Locator System, Report Writing System and the Expense Control
System (accounting). The migration of the House and Senate payrolls to
the NFC will be completed in March, 1998. In addition, meetings are
currently on-going for a planned cross-servicing arrangement with the
General Accounting Office for the accounting system. Timelines are
being developed consistent with a planned effective date of October 1,
1998.
The remaining systems currently reside on an antiquated platform on
the Senate Computer Center's mainframe computer which is no longer
supported by the vendor. Further, these systems are not Year 2000
compliant, and due to their antiquated state, there are no plans to
make them compliant. Even today, we are beginning to experience some
problems in our applications which track leave categories and longevity
dates. In summary, these systems are inadequate, are no longer
supported by the vendor, are not Year 2000 compliant, and will not be
supported by the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms in the future.
The funds requested for the above systems replacement are to cover
costs of developing specifications, vendor analyses, systems and
applications development, testing, training, licensing fees, reporting
systems, maintenance and systems integration. Finally, an interface
will need to be developed to integrate data from the legacy systems to
the new systems.
This management review is currently in the planning stages. Given
the current state of our systems and the timing of the Year 2000 issue,
there is a universal consensus that new systems will be required.
Regardless of the specific recommendations of the management review,
funding will be needed as soon as possible to resolve the current
situation.
Question. Please provide me with more detail regarding the $2.3
million for capital assets. Specifically, what physical security
equipment and systems need to be replaced?
Answer. Of the $2.3 million increase for capital assets, $1,663,000
is for a life-cycle replacement schedule for physical security
equipment and systems. The no-year funding provided to date is
dedicated to replacing existing systems that are failing and obsolete.
The funding does not allow for the wholesale replacement of all
security systems. Additionally, there is no funding identified for new
security systems and equipment requests, or the upgrade of security
systems on a periodic basis on projected equipment life-cycles.
The request for fiscal year 1999 puts into place a process and
annual budget to allow for the continued replacement of older
equipment, to procure new systems for new requirements, and establish
an orderly security equipment upgrade. It prevents the need for
wholesale replacement of security systems through no-year funding by
establishing a fully funded physical security program.
Of the remaining $637,000, an increase in vehicle replacements is
requested in the amount of $362,000. This amount will allow for the
USCP to ``catch up'' with its original schedule of replacements. In the
past two fiscal years, funds for this object class were necessarily
diverted to cover the costs of protective services.
Finally, $266,000 is requested to purchase weapons, training
equipment, thermal imagers, night sights and miscellaneous equipment.
Item
Replacement CCTV Monitors..................................... $35,000
Replacement CCTV Cameras...................................... 50,000
Purchase SCIF Alarm Systems................................... 60,000
Duress Alarms for Committee................................... 63,000
Replacement Metal Detectors................................... 100,000
Upgrade Members Duress Alarms................................. 125,000
Preventative Maintenance Contract............................. 130,000
Card Access Systems Installations............................. 150,000
Intrusion Alarm Systems....................................... 250,000
Replacement X-ray Machines.................................... 700,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Physical Security Equipment and Services......... 1,663,000
crimes against persons and property
Question. In looking at a summary of offenses involving property on
the Capitol grounds for the period fiscal years 1996-1997, I note that
the total number of crimes involving burglaries, stolen automobiles,
office thefts, has increased over 30 percent.
To what do you attribute this escalation in crimes against
property, and what steps are you taking to increase security on the
Capitol grounds in an effort to bring these statistics down?
Answer. You are correct that property crime bounced back up last
year after a large decline the previous year. To put it in perspective,
it's still 5 percent below the previous year, fiscal year 1995, and 30
percent below fiscal year 1993.
As we saw the property crime numbers going back up, we took a
number of steps to get them back to the lower level of fiscal year
1996. We seem to be back on track. So far this fiscal year, with almost
five months gone, we're showing a decrease of 30 percent over the same
period last year. Swings on the order of 30 percent in property crime
is more than one would expect from year to year. One possible
explanation is the two-year Congressional cycle. The biennial office
moves, particularly on the House side, create an opportunity for theft
as equipment is left in the hallways and large numbers of contract
employees are brought in to do the work. Also, the new staff may not be
as security-conscious as those who have been around for a while. We are
taking steps which include a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to staff,
distribution of literature and having building patrols visit offices.
We are having our divisions coordinate with CID more intensely and
increasing plainclothes surveillance. We have had discussions with the
Architect of the Capitol regarding control of contractors.
We take crime in the complex very seriously and move aggressively
when we see patterns of crime which need to be addressed.
capitol complex integrated security facilities program
Question. Mr. Hantman, could you explain the Capitol Complex
Integrated Security Facilities Program, and the amount of funding
included in your budget request for this program?
Answer. The U.S. Capitol Police have identified a need to provide
an integrated security facilities program for their physical facility
needs. Several facility related issues have arisen that are very
critical to the operations of the Capitol Police and the safety of
Members, staff and visitors. These items require careful scoping and
planning to be addressed before large sums are invested in facility
improvements. These facility problems need to be addressed as soon as
possible. Rather than addressing these piecemeal, funds are requested
to hire a contractor to provide a conceptual master design plan to
determine how best to address these critical problems. The U.S. Capitol
Police Board views these needs as a critical element of the overall
security plan for the Capitol Complex.
The Police facilities have remained essentially unchanged for the
past twenty years. During this period, the Department has grown both in
size of personnel and statutory responsibility. The Police have
compensated by utilizing other resources which are no longer available.
For example, FBI training facilities at Quantico, Virginia made
available to the Police in the past by the FBI for Entry Level Training
of new Recruits, Officer Survival and Dignitary Protection training are
no longer available due to the FBI's own training requirements.
The first major concern is the Off-Site Delivery Inspection Center
located at Half and ``P'' St. S.E. (South Capitol Street Warehouse).
The Off-Site Delivery Center will soon be required to screen vehicles
delivering items to the House Office Buildings. This additional
responsibility will compound existing safety concerns, and exceed the
capabilities of the existing facility. Required increased staffing will
create an additional work space problem.
This facility is also causing significant employee health and
safety concerns. It is housed in a fairly dilapidated leased warehouse.
Further, it lacks adequate ventilation for the exhaust fumes from the
vehicles being inspected. Funds were requested by the Architect's
office in fiscal year 1998 to address these concerns. The bathrooms,
locker areas and office space are unacceptable, and funds also have
been requested by the Architect's office in fiscal year 1999 to improve
these conditions. Both of these temporary improvement projects were
requested in fiscal year 1998. Partial funding was provided for the
compliance issues but the locker and associated modifications were
deferred.
The second issue to be studied is the lack of adequate training
facilities. At this time, the Training Division has access to a total
of only three training classrooms. None of these areas is large enough
to accommodate essential programs such as Physical Conditioning and
Defensive Tactics.
All three current classrooms are located in the Ford House Office
Building. Two of the three existing classroom spaces are immediately
adjacent to occupied congressional staff offices. Their close proximity
to occupied staff offices severely inhibits the Police's ability to
conduct essential practical exercises and scenario training in police
legal labs and officer survival training. The existing space has no
provisions for locker rooms, or shower facilities following physical
conditioning training. Police officers are forced to change clothes in
the buildings public restrooms.
Finally, there currently exists a critical need to acquire exterior
training areas to conduct Vehicle Pursuit and Evasive Tactics,
Motorbike, Bicycle Patrol, Civil Disturbance Unit, Ceremonial Unit,
Officer Safety and Survival, Dignitary Protection, Motorcade Movement
and Security, Physical Conditioning, and Defensive Tactics training.
Storage facilities for training aids will also be required.
Lastly is the proposed relocation of the Vehicle Maintenance
Facility. This facility is far too small to allow for safety zones to
be established around grinders, welding equipment, eye wash stations,
lift and fire extinguishers. In general, this facility has continual
problems with the roof leaking and the inability of the air-
conditioning system to properly cool a building with metal sides and
roof. Additionally, while the need for a larger facility is critical,
safety and environmental considerations pose the greatest concerns. The
building is infested with mice and other insects, and all efforts by
the AOC to exterminate them have proven to be unsuccessful. This
facility is located within the perimeter of the coal yard. Coal dust
from the coal yard creates poor air quality and results in a coal dust
coating on everything contained within this facility. The lack of a
vehicle exhaust ventilation system further contributes to these health
concerns.
The above concerns are separate from anticipated repairs and
expenditures required to bring these facilities into compliance with
the existing standards established by the Occupational Safety and Heath
Administration (OSHA).
Once the Master Plan is completed, it will address how the Capitol
Police can best address resolving these facility issues. These plans
would then form the basis for requesting design funds for new or
renovated facilities. These funds are requested on a ``No Year'' basis.
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Secretary of the Senate
STATEMENT OF GARY SISCO, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
SHARON ZELASKA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
STUART F. BALDERSON, FINANCIAL CLERK OF THE SENATE
summary statement
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will reconvene. Our
second witness is the Honorable Gary Sisco, Secretary of the
Senate. We welcome you, sir. This is your second year
testifying.
You heard my opening statement where I said the appropriate
nice things about what you have been doing. We will be happy to
hear your testimony.
Mr. Sisco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate those
remarks. That is on target for what we have been trying to do
in running the office for the time that I have been here.
With me today is Sharon Zelaska, Assistant Secretary, and
Stuart Balderson, who is the Financial Clerk for the Senate.
Unless we get into questions and details which stump me, I will
be the only one speaking today. But Sharon and Stu represent
more than 200 people who work in the Office of the Secretary,
who are responsible for delivering day-to-day services to the
full Senate. And we appreciate all the work that they have
done.
My full statement has been filed with the committee, and it
is almost identical to the one that we presented to the Rules
Committee, modified by a little more emphasis, obviously, on
the finances and the dollars, with a little more detail there.
And the statement represents reality in terms of how we are
trying to operate the office.
fiscal year 1999 Budget request
So what I would like to do this morning is just to present
the budget request for fiscal year 1999. I want to discuss the
funding of our two mandated systems, the legislative
information system [LIS] and the financial management
information system [FMIS], and where we stand there and what we
have done with the money. I want to touch on issues of staffing
key positions in the legislative departments and in the
Disbursing Office, and then respond to any questions that you
all might have.
I have proposed an operational budget of $15.205 million
total for fiscal year 1999. And as you indicated, it reflects
only a 2.9-percent increase over the fiscal year 1998 budget,
which is totally attributable to our projected COLA. The $1.511
million for expenses is level funding from last year. We will
continue to try to hold the line on that.
Through careful management we have consolidated some jobs;
we have consolidated a couple of departments--and, I think,
through just good, old-fashioned hard work on the part of the
people who work in the Office of the Secretary, we have
maintained the services and tried to improve them, without
asking for any additional money or any additional positions up
to this point.
However, looking down the road, with the work that we have
got to do on these mandated systems, while continuing to do the
day-to-day job, I am asking for up to 15 positions to be
created, but no additional funding for those. We will attempt
to--and I think that we can--absorb those into this funding
request that is before you and that's the reason I have not
asked for any extra money.
Additionally, we are not asking for any additional funding
for the nonpersonnel costs related to the LIS or the FMIS for
fiscal year 1999. We believe that we have on hand allocated
funds for things that we need to do and to respond to things
that we need to do to implement those two systems and to
operate them.
Strategic planning
Strategic planning is of great interest to the Senate. We
are basically there, looking at trying to take advantage of new
technologies. But also we are trying to keep improving methods
of conducting Senate business. I told someone that this was a
pretty good place before I arrived here, in terms of the way it
works and the checks and balances. So if something is not
broken, we are not going to try to fix it. But we are going to
try to adapt new technology where it makes sense, and bring the
Senate forward there.
Legislative information system
And that leads me to systems. For the legislative
information system, we have estimated the total cost through
the year 2000 to be $8.909 million. Now, I have tried to arrive
at a total cost for the system--not only in my budget, but in
the Sergeant at Arms' budget and then the implementation of
it--to where we could have a feel, before we ask for the
authorization of a project, what the total cost to the Senate
would be.
Of that, the estimated allocation of $4.104 million would
be from my budget, for the project office and the systems
design requirements. And $4.805 million was our estimate for
what the Sergeant at Arms would spend for hardware, software
procurement, and then to get the system implemented.
The committee has previously, as you know, provided $5
million in funding for this system, that was in the emergency
supplemental appropriation for last year. As I said, we will
not ask for any new money for that. The money that we have
spent to date was derived from transfers and the
reappropriation of money that was previously appropriated for
the Senate. So this will not impact us. It will take about $8.9
million, $4.1 million from my budget and about $4.5 million
from the Sergeant at Arms budget, to get the LIS implemented,
the way we see things currently and looking down the road.
We have spent $1,052,917 for LIS in fiscal year 1997. This
was done with the committee's approval from existing
appropriations for our office. It reflected an effort to use
available funds, to minimize any possibility that we would even
have to request any more in the future.
The amount of $518,886 has been expended in the first
quarter of fiscal year 1998. And that, of course, will come out
of the $5 million.
When LIS is complete, it will provide an online electronic
access to all the legislative information from one source and
in one format. And it will serve as a repository of all of the
information in the legislative process in the Senate.
We are on schedule with that project, I am pleased to say.
It has the benefits of establishing data standards for exchange
of information between the House and the Library of Congress,
the Government Printing Office, and eventually, the National
Archives, to facilitate the smooth flow and tracking of
information from point A, at which something is introduced into
the system, to point Z, when it is filed with the National
Archives.
Amendment tracking system
We are beginning to see some benefits from the work that we
have done and the work the staff has done. We have an amendment
tracking system that is available now to Members and staff.
In the past, when an amendment was introduced on the floor,
it would be assigned a number, as you know, and then copies
would be made of it. And it would then be hand carried, or
picked up, from each of the offices for anyone who was
interested in seeing what the amendment really said, and to be
able to analyze the impact it would have on the bill and to
make a judgment call in terms of what a Senator's position
would be on it. And that would take some time.
Now, with the amendment tracking system, and with an
optical scanner, when the amendment is assigned a number, up to
approximately 12 pages can be scanned and, within 20 minutes,
on every PC connected within the Senate, the amendment will be
before the legislative assistant, for the Senator to see. That
is available now.
automated Rollcall votes
Also, we have automated the rollcall votes. They are
automated in the same format that they are printed in the
Congressional Record. But instead of having to wait for the
next day to see how a vote turns out or to analyze it or have
it available for whatever purposes, it is available within 1
hour on the system, on the LIS, right now.
Committee scheduling
Another innovation this year is the complete committee and
subcommittee schedule. We discussed that some last year. We
were prepared to give a demonstration then, and we are prepared
to give a demonstration now, but there is no hookup in this
particular room to do it. So I invite the committee, anyone
individually or collectively from the staff, that at any time
you want to have a detailed demonstration of that, you go in,
search by the Senator and get a complete committee schedule for
the committees or subcommittees that Senator is a member of.
You can go in by committee name, and you can get the
schedule of that committee, as far as they have been reported
to the daily digest, which is within our office and is
responsible for tracking all of the hearings. You can also go
in and ask for conflicts, and it will pull together and print
out each of the committees by, say, Senator Bennett. If you
went in under your name and asked for conflicts, it would print
the ones that were all scheduled at the same time.
And we think it is particularly helpful as a planning tool
for a chairman to call a meeting or to see when the members of
his committee might be most readily available to have hearings
and to facilitate the whole process. So that is available.
I have left with the staff, in lieu of a live
demonstration, this little booklet that I will not attempt to
go through today in this hearing, but it shows the reports that
are in there. And, again, this was announced in January and it
is available for your staff. And we stand available and ready
to do a live demonstration any time anyone would want one.
User response
We are regularly surveying legislative directors,
secretaries, chiefs of staff, and obviously Senators, to ask
what do you most need in the legislative system, what would
help you do your job most effectively, what sources are you
using now. And we are incorporating all those responses into
the design of the legislative information system.
Our primary question on everything that we are doing is how
does this help an individual Senator do his or her job on a
day-to-day basis, positively, negative or neutral, and then we
make a decision on whether or not to try to do it. Because that
is why we are here.
Senator Bennett. Do you have any sense of usage?
Mr. Sisco. We do. On the last survey, 52 offices responded.
And 87 percent of the respondents used the legislative
information system, in its current stage of development, as
their first and primary source of inquiry into the whole
process. And at this point, obviously, it is not fully
implemented and not fully known, but when that happens, I think
we will see regular usage.
We have got to educate people that the tool is out there to
be used.
Senator Bennett. Yes; that is my concern, how many offices
know that it is there and pay attention to it and use it in any
sense. I guess you cannot monitor the number of hits you get,
because you get a lot of hits from outside the Senate?
Mr. Sisco. On the home page in the web site, we can monitor
the hits though we do not know the source. But on LIS, the only
way I know to do it is just to continue to announce it, and
reannounce it. We are thinking of putting it on the internal
Senate TV from time to time, and just basically market it as a
tool that is available. And, over time, I think, when people
see the benefits from using it instead of doing things
manually, by the old way or the existing system, then I think
it will catch on.
Senator Bennett. Good.
Financial management information system
Mr. Sisco. In the financial area, FMIS, I have not put the
estimated budget together yet, because we are still in the
process of developing the project plan. However, the
requirements for the system will be completed next month and
signed off on by everybody in the Senate whom it impacts. And
that is everybody in our office, under the leadership of
Stuart, the Financial Clerk, the Sergeant at Arms people in the
computer center, and the Rules Committee. And, again, we have
got a project office that involves Senate input.
But we have $7 million that was first appropriated in
fiscal year 1995. And when I arrived about 17 months ago, we
had spent $194,000. We have spent another $10,000 since then.
So we have about $6.8 million of that left. We have spent about
$200,000. And, again, most of the activity has been in terms of
coming up with correct systems design requirements from the
people who have been doing the job in the Disbursing Office,
and making sure we have got the requirements right before we go
out and spend the money.
And so your recognition, Mr. Chairman, of the fact that--
especially in the financial area and in every area, where we
have got an impact on these new systems, people have to do the
job, but also they have had this extra burden of designing and
making sure these requirements are what fit the Senate--it is
appreciated that that is recognized. Because it requires a lot
of extra work on everyone's part.
The financial management information system will take us
from a cash basis to an obligation and accrual basis. It will
produce an auditable financial statement, and it will make a
consolidated financial statement available for the whole
Senate. It will also, being a replacement system with
commercial, off-the-shelf software where at all possible, solve
the year 2000 problems for the financial system and will take
that out of the loop. That is primarily the Sergeant at Arms'
responsibility, in terms of making sure that the hardware and
software is year 2000 compliant.
But I will digress from what I want to say here and tell
you that we have looked at the captioners' equipment, the
Official Reporters of Debates, the library, the Historian's
Office, some of the offices within our own operations, and have
addressed the year 2000 problems that are not computer based.
And we are in good shape there. They are either already year
2000 compliant, or it is not a problem, or we have one
situation that we will address in the near term.
Before September 30, 1999, as part of FMIS, Stuart and his
people will replace the general ledger and consolidate the
purchasing system into that system, under the Disbursing
Office. And also by then, we will have the payroll system
upgraded, and it will be year 2000 compliant, as I said.
We will then be in a position--after converting everything
over, as much as possible with commercial off-the-shelf
software instead of customized software--to take the Senate
operations into post-year 2000, into the next millennium, and
then begin to take advantage of some of the client/server-based
software and operations that we are not able to now with so
many of our things that are on the mainframe. So it will
position us to get even greater benefits that we have not yet
identified but that we know are out there.
So that is the status of the financial management
information system.
Succession planning
One other thing that I think is key is succession planning.
We have people within the Chamber and within the Disbursing
Office, within all of our offices, who are eligible now to
retire or will be eligible very soon. For some of these jobs,
to get to the first position, which is very visible in the
Chamber, it takes 4 to 8 years, based on historical facts, for
someone to come in, train on the job, and work themselves up to
occupy those chairs. And there is similar experience that is
required in other offices.
So we are looking at that. And what we are trying to do is
look at the average age and the average length of service for
the first person in each of the department head positions, and
then the second, and on down the line, to where we have
succession planning and we have experienced people in here, so
that death or disability or retirement does not grind the
Senate to a halt. Not this budget, but our future budget will
have to take that into account, even though we will allocate 4
or 5, at this point, of the new 15 positions that we are
requesting, to supplementing those positions. The rest of them
will be in the Disbursing Office.
Capitol visitor center
Finally, just a word about the Capitol visitor center. It
was addressed by the Capitol Police Board. It was addressed
yesterday in the Rules Committee by the Sergeant at Arms and
the Architect of the Capitol in their testimonies. It is very
important. Senate bill 1508 was introduced last fall by
Senators Lott, Daschle, and Warner, with a lot of work done
prior to that being introduced. A lot of work was done by the
Architect, and myself, and the Sergeant at Arms, and all of our
staffs. So it would authorize the Architect to construct the
Capitol visitor center.
There is a House bill that was introduced last year also. I
see the benefits in security--there are great benefits there--
but also in terms of the Capitol, the visitors' experience to
the Capitol, and how it can be improved to make it a better
experience for visitors who come here from within the country,
and also our foreign visitors, just to facilitate the flow of
people, with places to eat and to change diapers of their
children, and the restroom facilities, and all those kind of
things.
So I would encourage that the bill be passed. And, in my
opinion, it is long overdue.
On the funding of that, presently the Capitol Preservation
Commission has $25.3 million. That was all raised from private
funding. It is invested, and it is growing at about $1 to $1.2
million a year, depending on the yield they get. That is about
one-fifth of the $125 million, the present estimated cost.
It can be done, in my opinion, and if you look at other
projects around the country, it can be done with private
funding. But it does need to be authorized and dealt with, from
an appropriated funds standpoint, enough to make sure the
project is authorized and gets out of the chute, and then all
of the other things can then kick into place. And I believe it
can be funded by private funding.
There is a bipartisan effort on that within the Senate. And
if we can pass it here, I think it would help to bring the
House along to do their part, and we could go ahead and get on
with that project.
Those are the highlights. I have tried to take out of the
full testimony things that I feel relate more to dollars, more
to money, and give just a quick, hard assessment of where we
are. I will answer any questions about the full testimony or
anything else.
prepared statements and additional committee questions
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. I
appreciate your diligence. I think you have covered it very
well, unless anyone on your staff has something to add.
[No response.]
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sisco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Sisco.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Sisco
budget summary
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998:
Payroll Budget............................ $13,431,000 89.9
Operating Expense Budget.................. 1,511,000 10.1
-------------------------
Total................................... 14,942,000 100.0
=========================
Suggested fiscal year 1999 budget request:
Payroll Budget............................ 13,694,000 90.1
Operating Expense Budget.................. 1,511,000 9.9
-------------------------
Total................................... 15,205,000 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
available Budget
fiscal year estimate
Item 1998 fiscal year Difference
(Public Law 1999
105-55)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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....... 35,000 ........... -35,000
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 5,000 ........... -5,000
Preservation....................
Book preservation............ 5,000 ........... -5,000
Office of Public Records 10,000 ........... -10,000
(Public Law 92-342).........
Travel and registration fees 60,000 ........... -60,000
(Public Law 94-59)..............
Consultants (not more than two) 75,000 ........... -75,000
(Public Law 95-26)..............
Legal reference volumes and 90,000 ........... -90,000
dictionaries (Senators' offices)
(Public Law 92-51)..............
Contractual legal and 270,000 ........... -270,000
administrative services and
miscellaneous expenses..........
Disbursing office: Payroll forms, 15,000 ........... -15,000
notary fees, supplies, and
insurance.......................
Orientation and training (Public 10,000 ........... -10,000
Law 95-94)......................
Newspapers....................... 25,000 ........... -25,000
Senate service awards (S. Res. 23,000 ........... -23,000
21, Sept. 10, 1965).............
Postage.......................... 1,000 ........... -1,000
Education of Senate pages (Public 58,000 ........... -58,000
Law 98-51 and Public Law 98-125)
(S. Res. 184, July 29, 1983)....
Stationery....................... 50,000 ........... -50,000
Senate Commission on Art (Public 33,000 ........... -33,000
Law 100-696, Nov. 18, 1988).....
Representation expenses (Public 50,000 ........... -50,000
Law 100-71, July 11, 1987)......
Office of Captioning Services 163,000 ........... -163,000
(Public Law 101-163, Nov. 21,
1989)...........................
Senate Chief Counsel for 420,000 ........... -420,000
Employment......................
Executive office................. ........... $718,100 +718,100
Administrative services.......... ........... 463,800 +463,800
Legislative services............. ........... 329,100 +329,100
--------------------------------------
Totals..................... 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 prints all introduced, submitted and reported legislation.
In addition, this office assigns numbers to all bills and resolutions.
Legislative Activity
The legislative materials processed by the Bill Clerk during the
first sessions of the 105th and 104th Congresses is included in Table
1--Legislative summary.
Relations with GPO
The Government Printing Office has responded in a timely manner to
the Bill Clerk's request for the printing of bills and reports,
including the printing of priority matters for the floor. The record on
specific GPO printings for the first session is summarized below:
--Star Prints: The number of Star Prints (reprints) authorized was
21.
--``Bates List'': Overnight rush printing was ordered on 51 pieces of
legislation.
Legislative Information System (LIS)
LEGIS.--The office continued working with the KPMG Program Office
reviewing the legislative information that is processed by this office,
including the redesign of the status input screens.
Amendment Scanning.--This office began scanning pending proposed
amendments less than 10 pages which can be viewed and printed by all
Senate staff via the Senate home page on the World Wide Web. During the
Second Session, phase two of the project will include the following
improvements:
--The ability to scan all amendments proposed on the Senate floor.
This will provide the Senate public with near real-time access
to proposed amendments.
--Data entered into LEGIS will automatically be retrieved into the
amendment scanning system, so duplicate data entry will be
eliminated.
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,
reported on daily, and are published in the Congressional Record.
Chamber Activity
The Senate was in session a total of 153 days, for a total of 1,093
hours and 07 minutes. There were 6 quorum calls and 298 record votes.
Committee Activity
Senate committees held 824 hearings and 247 business meetings
(total 1,071), contrasted with 892 hearings and 278 business meetings
(total 1,170) during the 1st Session of the 104th 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.
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.
During 1997, 50 enrolled bills (transmitted to the President) and
13 concurrent resolutions (transmitted to Archives) were prepared,
printed, proofread, corrected, and printed on parchment.
A total of 323 additional pieces of legislation in one form or
another, was enacted or agreed to by the Senate, requiring processing
and printing from this office.
executive clerk
The Executive Clerk prepares an accurate record of actions taken by
the Senate during executive sessions (proceedings on nominations and
treaties) which is published as the Executive Journal at the end of
each session of Congress. The Executive Clerk also prepares daily the
Executive Calendar as well as all nomination and treaty resolutions for
transmittal to the President.
Nominations
During the first session of the 105th Congress, there were 825
nomination messages sent to the Senate by the President, transmitting
25,828 nominations to positions requiring Senate confirmation and 13
messages withdrawing nominations previously sent to the Senate during
the session. Of the total nominations transmitted, 500 were for
civilian positions other than lists in the Foreign Service, Coast Guard
and Public Health Service. In addition, there were 3,105 nominees in
the ``civilian list'' categories named above. Military nominations
received this session totaled 22,223 (8,141 in the Air Force, 6,246 in
the Army, 6,157 in the Navy and 1,679 in the Marine Corps). The Senate
confirmed 25,576 nominations this session and 2 nominations were
returned to the President pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 6 of
Senate Rule XXXI at the sine die adjournment of the 105th Congress.
Treaties
There were 32 treaties transmitted to the Senate by the President
during the first session of the 105th Congress for its advice and
consent to ratification, which were ordered printed as treaty documents
for the use of the Senate (Treaty Doc. 105-1 through 105-32).
The Senate gave its advice and consent to 15 treaties with various
conditions, declarations, understandings and provisos to the
resolutions of advice and consent to ratification.
Executive Reports and Roll Call Votes
There were 13 executive reports relating to treaties ordered
printed for the use of the Senate during the first session of the 105th
Congress (Executive Reports 105-1 through 105-13).
The Senate conducted 30 roll call votes in executive session, 22 on
or in relation to nominations and seven on amendments to and final
passage of the Chemical Weapons Treaty.
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 the legal record
of the Senate. The Senate Journal is published each calendar year.
In March of 1997 the Journal unexpectedly lost its Assistant
Journal Clerk, Mark Lacovara, along with his 28 years of knowledge and
experience, due to ill health and an early retirement. The Journal
operated with a two-person staff for the next four months and still has
a two-person floor rotation.
Scott Sanborn replaced Mark Lacovara in mid-July and will soon
become a part of the floor rotation. This will bring the office to a
three-person rotation, enabling the Clerks to spend one hour on the
floor and two in the office. The three-person rotation restores early-
1997 production capability, and allows work on an extra project taken
on in January 1994 (the typesetting and formatting element).
The 1997 volume will go to the Government Printing Office for
distribution no later than the end of March of this year. The
legislative days are finished in their initial form and the data is
entered into our database. This allowed keeping 1998 current. The
completion of 1997 will not interfere with progress during 1998.
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 records 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
incorporates into those measures 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. The office is also responsible for verifying the accuracy of
the information entered into the LEGIS system by the various offices of
the Secretary. In addition, this office is very involved in the
Secretary's multi-year, comprehensive program to redesign and rebuild
the Senate's system for the collection and management of its
legislative information (LIS).
Summary of Activity
The first session of the 105th Congress completed its legislative
business and adjourned on November 13, 1997. During 1997, the Senate
was in session 153 days, for a total of 1,093 hours, and conducted 298
roll call votes. There were 248 measures reported from committees, 385
total measures passed, and were 111 items remaining on the Calendar at
the time of adjournment. In addition, there were 1,639 amendments
submitted. These and other statistics important to this office are
reflected in Table 1--Legislative summary.
Legislative Information System (LIS)
The LEGIS Re-engineering or LEGIS 2000 Project has now been
absorbed into the new LIS initiative and the legislative staff has been
involved in the development of the system requirement documents over
the past year. When implemented, it will require training and
retraining to convert from the current mainframe to a document
management system (DMS). Some offices under the Secretary, especially
the Journal Clerks and the Enrolling Clerk, should derive much benefit
from the ability to capture and manipulate data that is currently
inaccessible or very difficult to attain. This new system will allow
the legislative staff to provide even more information to Senate
offices and the public in a more timely manner.
Amendment Scanning
In 1997, the Secretary's office began scanning amendments, as they
are offered, in the Amendment Tracking System.
Committee Scheduling
Efforts have been under way this year to improve access to the
Daily Digest's committee scheduling information. During the recess,
prior to reconvening, Daily Digest staff and others from the
Secretary's offices attended a demonstration arranged by the Sergeant
at Arms. Vendor representatives demonstrated a product that could be
modified for the Digest.
office of official reporters of debates
The Official Reporters of Debates prepare and edit for publication
in the Congressional Record a substantially verbatim report of the
proceedings of the Senate, and serve as liaison for all Senate
personnel on matters relating to the content of the Record. The
transcript of proceedings, submitted statements and legislation are
transmitted daily to the Government Printing Office. The Chief Reporter
functions as editor in chief and the Coordinator functions as technical
production manager of the Senate portion of the Record.
Accomplishments
The Official Reporters continue to use the computer-aided
transcription system. During 1997, all verbal proceedings occurring on
the floor of the United States Senate were transcribed and transmitted
to the GPO via transcript of proceedings (paper) and electronically
through the fiber-optic system. As mentioned in previous reports, the
workload of this office has not decreased but, by providing GPO
electronic as well as paper copy, the overall workload at GPO is
reduced and, thus, the overall cost of production of the Record should
be reduced.
In addition to submitting all verbal proceedings to GPO via
electronic means, we are continuing to encourage all Senate offices to
provide, in addition to paper copy, either by e-mail or disk, an
electronic version of all submitted statements. Currently,
approximately 60 to 80 percent of written statements are submitted
electronically. Although the submissions are not at the optimal 90 to
100 percent range, more Senate offices are cooperating as we continue
an ongoing effort to communicate our needs and educate staff on the
process and methods for e-mailing electronic statements.
Personnel Changes
In September of 1997, we lost the services of Coordinator of the
Record Scott Sanborn, who was selected to become a member of the Office
of the Journal Clerk. Scott was a valuable asset to this office and our
loss is definitely the Journal Clerks' gain. However, Eileen Milton,
one of our transcribers and an equally able member of our staff, was
appointed to replace Scott as Coordinator of the Record.
Eileen is a quick study and is performing her tasks exceptionally
well. Eileen Milton's elevation to Coordinator of the Record left a
vacancy in the transcribers' section of this office. In addition,
transcriber Don Corrigan announced that he would be retiring at the end
of February, 1998. This will translate to the loss of two of the three
transcribers, with Eileen Connor, the Supervisory Transcriber, the
remaining transcriber to instruct and guide new transcribers.
Morning Business
The Morning Business Unit has dealt effectively with a marked
increase of items being processed through their office. The number of
communications has surged exponentially since the passage of Public Law
104-121 (the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996), and the
office processed approximately 800 executive communication items during
the recess period alone. In addition, President's Messages are expected
to grow in volume due to the passage of Public Law 104-130 (the line-
item veto law), which requires the President to inform the Senate each
time he strikes items from legislation. Recent court decisions
concerning the line item veto may affect the workload.
Goals
The goals for the coming year include continuing to transmit
electronic files to GPO of all verbal proceedings on the floor of the
Senate, increasing the volume of submitted (not spoken on the floor)
statements by informing and educating staff of the e-mail process and
the proper format for submitting statements, training replacement
transcribers in the process of rapidly and accurately producing the
Record, as well as learning other tasks performed by the Coordinator,
and looking into the possibility of creating a Web page to inform staff
of Record format, our e-mail address, and procedures involved in
submitting statements for inclusion in the Record.
Cost Savings
Amendments.--The text of all amendments are printed under the
``Amendments Submitted'' portion of the Record. During 1997, we
continued the practice of not printing amendments over 10 pages in
length in the body of the proceedings of the Senate but only in the
``Amendments Submitted'' portion. When an amendment over 10 pages is
proposed on the floor, it is referenced to the ``Amendments Submitted''
portion, saving the costs of duplicate printing. Two-thousand and
twenty-nine (2,029) pages of duplicate amendments were not printed,
equating to a cost savings of approximately $123,580. The cost of a
Record page, as estimated by the GPO, is approximately $466 per page
for the first two pages and $270 per page for each additional page.
Application of provision of paragraph 13 of Laws and Rules for
Publication of the Record.--The effort has continued to enforce the
provisions of this paragraph of the Rules, the so-called two-page rule,
which says, in effect, no extraneous matter in excess of two Record
pages shall be printed in the Record without the cost of printing of
the material being announced on the Record at the time of submission.
Submission of material exceeding the two-page rule has declined since
the education process has started. When Senators are informed of the
cost involved, their staff will either withdraw the material or
substantially reduce the size to conform to the two-page rule.
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.
During the last year the Parliamentarian's Office continued to
perform its normal legislative duties. These include advising the
Chair, Senators and their staff as well as committee staff, House
members and their staffs, administration officials, the media and
members of the general public on all matters requiring interpretation
of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the precedents of the Senate,
unanimous consent agreements, and provisions of public law affecting
the proceedings of the Senate. The Office of the Parliamentarian is
responsible for the referral of all legislation introduced in the
Senate, all legislation received from the House, and all communications
received from the executive branch. The office worked extensively with
Senators and their staffs to advise them of the jurisdictional
consequences of particular drafts of legislation, and evaluated the
jurisdictional effect of proposed modifications in drafting.
The office continues to analyze and advise Senators on a great
number of issues arising under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
requiring 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 Parliamentarian's Office was
constantly asked to answer questions during consideration on the Senate
floor of the budget resolution and the reconciliation bill it produced.
1997 has seen the continued development of Kevin Kayes as the First
Assistant Parliamentarian into an equal partner in the triumvirate of
Parliamentarians.
As always, Sally Goffinet, the Parliamentary Assistant, continues
to provide invaluable service in all administrative and clerical
matters. She also performs with a high degree of professional
competency the substantive work of referring to committee most
executive communications received by the Senate, and answering a
significant number of questions about procedure. These responsibilities
often entail legislative or legal research.
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 to Senate offices, 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
Printing and Document Services has the responsibility for
coordinating the printing and/or distribution of most of the Senate's
official Title 44 (U.S.C.) printing. 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. Virtually all blank
paper, letterhead, and envelopes throughout the Senate are ordered
through this office. Additionally, commercial reporting companies are
remunerated for transcribing all Senate hearings through our billing
verification service.
Efforts are underway to consolidate, restructure, and cross-train
personnel. During this past year, two positions have been eliminated
through attrition, thereby saving approximately $40,000 per year.
Total Publications
During the first session of the 105th Congress, 369 publications
(hearings, committee prints, Senate documents, Senate publications)
were printed. This compares with 354 publications printed during the
first session of the 104th Congress, or an increase of about 4 percent.
Hearings Transcripts and Billing Verifications
Billing verifications are the vehicle by which reporting companies
request payment from a committee for their transcription services.
During 1997, we provided commercial reporting companies and the
corresponding Senate committees a total of 1,105 billing verifications
of Senate hearings and business meetings (including hearings which were
canceled or postponed, but still requiring payment to the reporting
company). This averages 53 hearings or meetings per committee. Compared
with 782 billing verifications in 1996, there was an increase of about
41 percent in the number of hearings processed.
Commercial reporting companies charged the Senate approximately
$585,956 to prepare 89,020 transcript pages of the spoken portions of
Senate hearings (compared to 1996 figures of $440,875 to prepare 66,188
transcribed pages) for an average annual cost of about $29,903 per
committee, and an average of 4,239 spoken transcript pages per
committee during 1997. In 1996, the average annual cost per committee
was $16,957, and an average of 2,545 spoken transcript pages.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase/
1996 1997 decrease
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billing Verifications............ 782 1,105 +41
Transcribed Pages................ 66,188 89,020 +34
Average Pages/Committee.......... 2,545 4,239 +67
Transcribed Pages Cost........... $440,875 $585,956 +33
Average Cost/Committee........... $16,957 $29,903 +76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requisitions
Printing and Document Services prepared 5,916 printing requisitions
during fiscal year 1997, authorizing GPO to print the Senate's work,
exclusive of legislation and the Record. This is an increase of about
14 percent over fiscal year 1996.
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 1997 were about 102.5
million sheets, an increase of 30 million sheets compared to 1996. In
1997, the Senate used about 7.9 million envelopes, compared to 7.6
million in 1996.
Mini Document Room
Printing and Document Services serves the combined leadership by
coordinating the distribution of all Senate-introduced and Calendar
bills, reports, resolutions, and conference reports, including all
legislation which has passed the House. Distribution is made to the
Chamber, the Secretary's Office and leadership offices. Data entry into
the legislative database and DocuTech databases is the responsibility
of this section.
Cost Accounting Projects and Duties
In addition to the ability to advise offices about turnaround and
the method of reproduction, while assuring compliance with Title 44
U.S.C., this office provides accounting information needed by offices.
Ultimately, this data enables the Secretary to provide oversight
information to the Rules Committee and the Joint Committee on Printing.
The 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-B07) 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.
As a result of these services, committees have been able to
decrease or eliminate overtime costs associated with the preparation of
hearings, and can now publish in a more timely manner. Committees may
also realize additional savings because the work done in the Service
Center is chargeable to the committee as performed (as opposed to
having a full-time staff member or detailee assigned to printing
functions). Finally, by providing the ability to process what would
otherwise be backlogged work, use of the Service Center may preclude
the need to assign additional staff or GPO detailees to publishing
duties.
During 1997, the Service Center assisted 19 committees with the
preparation of 263 hearings, committee prints, and Senate documents,
including the Tributes to Senator Thurmond and the Tributes to Senator
Tsongas. This represents three-quarters of all Senate committees which
have printing responsibilities. From another perspective, the Service
Center has assisted with 71 percent of the publications printed in
1997.
Congressional Record
In 1997, 13,089 pages were printed for the Senate and 14,203 pages
were printed for the House (including Digest, Extension of Remarks,
Proceedings, and Miscellaneous pages) for a total of 27,292 pages. This
is a total of 867 fewer pages than in 1996. There were a total of 1.4
million copies printed and distributed in 1997, including 462,060 to
the Senate, 319,115 to the House, and 662,825 to Executive Branch
agencies and the public.
The total approximate cost to produce the Record was $12.8 million.
Based upon the percent of content and distribution quantities, the
proportional Senate cost was $5.9 million, the House was $6.4 million,
and all other recipients $532,000. Per copy cost was about $8.86
(Record costs are based upon GPO estimated appropriation costs, not
including costs to produce the Record Index or microfiche copies).
During 1996, GPO developed separate costs for Record pages which
were telecommunicated to GPO and for those pages keyboarded at GPO. The
cost of telecommunicated pages is $408. Keyboarded pages are $448.
These costs apply to all categories of pages (Proceedings, Digest,
etc.) for the House and Senate portions of the Record. The number of
telecommunicated pages is currently available to us, and we are working
with the Joint Committee on Printing to also obtain keyboarded page
information. Once available, the combined figures will enable the
Senate, House, and GPO to pinpoint Record expenses and areas in need of
further automation and expense reduction.
Legislation
The office captures data regarding all printed versions of all
measures considered in the Senate. Beginning this Congress, all
versions and distribution of House measures are included. For the sake
of 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, reported,
and printed as passed), including star prints. Information relating to
specific versions of all legislation is available, as is the additional
number of copies ordered printed for the Document Room (see Docutech
Project) and committees.
The following table is for the first session of the 105th Congress.
The ``Number of Pages'' column refers to the number of original pages,
including blanks, within the categories listed. The total number of
printed pages is not shown, but is available. Costs are rounded to the
nearest hundred, and are based upon estimated GPO appropriation rates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
Measure Count of Pages Senate Cost Total Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Bills................................................ 1,796 35,986 $2,300,000 $3,400,000
Senate Reports.............................................. 163 8,541 632,000 875,000
Senate Resolutions.......................................... 210 806 61,500 84,400
S.J. Res.................................................... 45 185 12,800 19,400
S. Con. Res................................................. 98 535 37,700 54,200
House Bills................................................. 3,578 56,072 1,500,000 5,300,000
H. J. Res................................................... 137 602 15,400 60,000
H. Con. Res................................................. 247 1,095 24,600 111,700
H. Conf. Rept............................................... 20 4,572 418,600 473,800
Treaties/Exec............................................... 49 2,635 229,400 234,400
Public Laws................................................. 72 1,461 208,400 235,700
---------------------------------------------------
Totals................................................ 6,415 112,490 5,400,000 10,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 that 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, the section also serves the general public, the
press, and government agencies. Requests for material are received at
the walk-in counter, through the mail, by fax, and via recorded
messages. Recorded 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 is a summary of activities and trends in
Document Services from 1987 through 1997.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calls Public mail/ Staff phone/
Calendar year/Congress/session received fax fax Fax request
(inquiries) requests requests breakdown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988: 100th/2nd............................................. 107,871 20,579 79,163 NA
1989: 101st/1st............................................. 114,580 24,415 85,488 NA
1990: 101st/2nd............................................. 154,497 23,322 96,330 NA
1991: 102nd/1st............................................. 158,714 29,301 94,503 NA
1992: 102nd/2nd............................................. 144,478 21,634 64,543 NA
1993: 103rd/1st............................................. 135,035 23,679 64,752 NA
1994: 103rd/2nd............................................. 128,463 20,460 54,919 4,934
1995: 104th/1st............................................. 134,062 22,704 45,466 10,182
1996: 104th/2nd............................................. 110,742 15,140 35,479 8,043
1997: 105th/1st............................................. 60,296 12,739 23,672 7,261
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is noted that the decreases for 1997 result from the
availability of legislation on the Internet.
Docutech Project
The following tables summarize quantities and costs associated with
on-demand (supplemental) printing of bills and reports during the
second session of the 104th Congress, and the first session of the
105th Congress. The first table compares work printed at the request of
Document Services during the last two years. The second and third
tables indicate work printed for other government agencies by GPO in
order to more fully employ the machine. Costs are based upon a charge
of two cents per page.
TABLE 1.--LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
105th 104th
Congress, Congress,
First Session First Session
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days in Session......................... 153 211
Hours in Session........................ 1,093 1,839
Measures Passed......................... 385 346
Measures Reported....................... 248 249
Roll Call Votes......................... 298 613
Quorum Calls............................ 6 3
Senate Bills Introduced................. 1,568 1,514
Senate Joint Resolutions................ 39 45
Senate Concurrent Resolutions........... 70 37
Senate Resolutions...................... 163 206
Amendments Submitted.................... 1,639 3,113
House Bills............................. 224 204
House Joint Resolutions................. 19 16
House Concurrent Resolutions............ 44 26
Written Reports......................... 158 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCUTECH DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Run Original Cost Total
Count Length Pages Printed Pages Each Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996:
Totals.................................... 762 43,710 43,478 3,200,000 $1.46 $63,727
Daily Averages............................ 4.6 342 225.4 12,784 NA $255.86
1997:
Totals.................................... 946 31,593 45,832 2,100,000 1.33 41,995
Daily Averages............................ 4.4 146 212.2 9,712 NA 194.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGENCIES PRINTING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Run Original Cost Total
Count Length Pages Printed Pages Each Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997:
Totals.................................... 277 234,764 32,349 3,300,000 $0.28 $65,379
Daily Averages............................ 2.1 1,792 246.9 24,950 NA 499.08
1996:
Totals.................................... 284 302,625 84,852 5,100,000 .34 101,834
Daily Averages............................ 1.8 1,80 527 31,622 NA 632.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND BUSINESS MEETINGS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997--105th Congress, first 1995--104th Congress, first
session session
-----------------------------------------------------------
Business Business
Hearings Meetings Totals Hearings Meetings Totals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January............................................. 22 24 46 58 31 89
February............................................ 57 11 68 82 16 98
March............................................... 127 18 145 167 26 193
April............................................... 123 8 131 60 10 70
May................................................. 99 15 114 137 22 159
June................................................ 65 49 114 85 25 110
July................................................ 100 48 148 79 20 99
August.............................................. 2 ........ 2 42 15 57
September........................................... 90 31 121 57 48 105
October............................................. 110 25 135 40 24 64
November............................................ 29 18 47 43 22 65
December............................................ ........ ........ ........ 42 19 61
-----------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................................ 824 247 1,071 892 278 1,170
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
office of captioning services
The Office of Captioning Services provides real-time captioning of
Senate floor proceedings for deaf and hard-of-hearing persons. The
office also provides the unofficial transcripts of Senate floor
proceedings to offices via the Senate Intranet.
Overview of Activity
Requests from Senate offices to provide additional services
increased during 1997. We did not provide any additional services when
compared to 1996.
We continue to depend on the Senate Library and increasingly on the
Internet to verify information. We added to our reference collection
and updated some existing reference materials in 1997.
Caption quality continues to be our number one priority. We conduct
peer reviews on a weekly basis. The office average for accuracy was up
slightly for 1997.
Technology Update
The Senate Recording Studio continues to refine a system that
captures Office of Captioning Services captions and marks them with
day/date/time and speaker information prior to storage in a database.
This database can be searched by Senators and staff using key words.
Once the text is located, a Senator's speech can be listened to on
computers configured to handle audio events from a web page. Other
enhancements to this service are anticipated during 1998.
Captioning Services' role in this project has been to identify
phrases that trigger key events in the marking of the captions and
reviewing the text for indexing errors.
The technology used for real-time captioning is not
WindowsTM compatible and needs to be updated or replaced. In
addition, our current software is believed to not be year 2000
compliant.
Administrative Offices
disbursing office
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. The Front Counter is the first
line of service provided to Senate Members, officers, and employees.
All new Senate employees (permanent and temporary) who will be working
in the Capitol Hill Senate offices are administered the required oath
of office and personnel affidavit and provided with verbal and written
information regarding their pay and benefits. Authorization is
certified to new employees for issuance of their Senate identification
card. Cash advances are issued to Senate staff authorized for official
Senate travel and travelers' checks are available for sale to assist
the traveler. Numerous inquiries are handled daily, on subjects ranging
from pay, benefits, taxes, Senate laws and regulations, in our
commitment to provide the highest degree of customer service. Senate
entities, in the course of their official duties, receive cash and
checks as part of their daily business. The Front Counter maintains the
Senate's internal accountability of funds used in daily operations.
Reconciliation of such funds is executed on a daily basis. These funds
are submitted through the front counter and become part of the Senate's
accountability of federally appropriated funds and are then processed
through the Senate's general ledger system.
Activities
The Front Counter administered oath and personnel affidavits to
more than 3,200 new Senate staff, maintained brochures for 26 federal
health insurance carriers and distributed approximately 3,000 brochures
to staff during the annual FEHB open season, issued approximately 1,500
cash advances for official Senate travel and received more than 20,000
checks from Senate entities.
Payroll Section
The Payroll Section maintains the Human Resources Management System
and is responsible for: processing, verifying and warehousing all
payroll information submitted to the Disbursing Office by Senators for
their personal staff, by Chairmen for their committee staff, and by
other elected officials for their staff, issuing salary payments to the
above employees, maintaining the Automated Clearing House (ACH) FEDLINE
facilities for the normal transmittal of payroll deposits to the
Federal Reserve, distributing the appropriate payroll expenditure and
allowance reports to the individual offices, issuing the proper
withholding and agency contributions reports to the Accounting Section
and transmitting the proper Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) information to
the National Finance Center (NFC) while maintaining earnings records
for distribution to the Social Security Administration, and maintaining
employees' taxable earnings records for their W-2 statements, which are
also prepared by this section. The Payroll Section is also responsible
for the payroll portion of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
Activities
January 1997 started with the processing of more than 2,200 open
season changes. The Payroll Section processed all the forms in
conjunction with the open seasons for Federal Employees' Health
Benefits (FEHB), Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), and the Thrift
Savings Program (TSP). The year's second TSP open season produced an
additional 1,200 forms for processing during July and August 1997.
During January 1997, 4,500 salary increases in conjunction with the 2.3
percent cost of living increase were also processed.
The U.S. Senate started participating in the National Directory of
New Hires for the Federal Parent Locator Service, a project sponsored
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Planning for the transfer of the U.S. Capitol Police payrolls from
the U.S. Senate Human Resources Management system to the National
Finance Center began in September.
The Payroll Supervisor attended the Southern Users' Integral
Conference that was held in New Orleans, Louisiana. The basic function
of the Users Conference was to prepare Integral users for the final
move to year 2000 technology. Although this was a regional conference,
18 states and the District of Columbia attended.
Upgrade For Year 2000 Compliance
One effective method of handling year 2000 compliance would be to
upgrade to Integral version 9.5.3. The length of the segments has
doubled in size. This means an increase in processing speed and an
increase in data being held within each segment. The programmers will
have a definite game plan to follow. Version 9.5.2 has been Beta tested
by a medical research center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. When Version
9.5.3 comes up, most of the problems found from the first two updates
of 9.5 and the Beta testing will have been resolved. Our programmers
will have the opportunity to review the problems of the Beta tests and
the solutions used to correct the problems.
Future Activities
Payroll will continue with the upgrade to the 9.5 and year 2000
compliance. Payroll will also continue to work with the group of
consultants to verify that we are continuing to move in the right
direction for a Human Resources Management system. Once Payroll is year
2000 compliant and the FMIS is operational and can be upgraded to
include the entire allowance system, then Payroll will be in the
position to move to client server system and a biweekly payroll if
applicable.
Employee Benefits Section
The Employee Benefits Section's (EBS) primary responsibilities are
administration of Senate employees' health and life insurance and
retirement programs. The section's work includes research and
verification of prior Senate or other federal service for new
appointees. EBS prepares these forms for payroll input after they are
returned and 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 in EBS. Unemployment claim
forms are completed, and employees are counseled. Department of Labor
billing for unemployment paid to Senate employees are checked in EBS
and submitted by voucher to the Accounting Section to be paid.
Designations of beneficiaries for FEGLI, CSRS, FERS, and for unpaid
compensation are filed and checked by EBS.
Activities
The annual Federal Employees' Health Benefits (FEHB) Open Season
resulted in more than 600 employees changing plans.
The FEHB Open Season Health Fair was attended by approximately 900
employees. Because the office has received so many requests for this
information, the Fair was open to all employees on the Hill, including
House and Architect employees.
During the two Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) Open Seasons, the employee
changes remained about the same as normal, one change for every seven
employees.
Mortgage rates, still dropping, kept employment verifications
coming in at a rapid pace, averaging 140 per month.
Unemployment verifications, termination packages, transcripts of
service for employees going to other federal agencies, and other tasks
associated with employees changing jobs were all heavy this year, as
approximately 700 staffers terminated as of January 2, 1997. Another
700 entered on duty on the new staffs, and this required prior
employment research and verification, new health and life insurance,
retirement, and TSP enrollments, and the associated requests for
verification. In addition, 34 offices requested a Senate transcript of
service for all of their active employees, resulting in approximately
1,500 transcripts.
Seminars were held for outgoing and incoming Members' staffs, as
well as committees facing reorganization. Information about retirement,
health and life insurance, unemployment, and Ramspeck privileges was
available at the seminars.
Requests for counseling, retirement planning and processing were
very heavy in 1997. Since most of the Members leaving were long term
Members who were retiring, our retirement caseload set a new record,
with the caseload for January (30 FERS and 50 CSRS) totaling over half
of a normal year's load. Total retirement cases processed equaled 213
(78 FERS and 135 CSRS), a 63 percent increase over the previous year
and a new record.
The annual Integral Conference was held in San Francisco,
California in August. We used the Conference to review the 9.5 upgrade
for our Human Resources Management System, and to begin planning and
strategies to implement it. This related to the recently completed
Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. (BAH) review of the Senate's Human
Resources (HR) needs and the combined BAH and KPMG reviews of future
directions for our payroll system, as well as system requirements
reviews.
The 9.3 release of the Integral Human Resources Management System
was finished, which achieved some of the year 2000 compliance
requirements, and upgraded many aspects of the payroll system
processing. The next step, moving to the full Year 2000 compliant
version (9.5) was delayed. During this time, BAH consultants reviewed
the Senate's Year 2000 plans, which was expanded to include a review of
the HR needs. The Benefits Section worked with BAH to ensure that the
full implications of the requested changes were included and that the
full capacity of the current system was appreciated. It was finally
agreed that the best approach was to continue with the work on the year
2000 update, which is well on its way.
Next, KPMG was assigned the task of reviewing what system changes
could be added to the 9.5 upgrade without risking the deadline. A
payroll cycle change was reviewed, and the final decision was that time
and current resources could not adequately ensure the deadline would be
met if the changes were implemented in conjunction with the year 2000
update. The section has worked as closely as possible with KPMG to
review the changes required to meet these requirements, and work will
progress in 1998. It is anticipated that after the year 2000 update is
completed (by October 1, 1999), work on a new version of the payroll
system will begin. A study is under way to decide whether to keep the
system on a mainframe computer or switch to a client/server
environment. In either case, a distributed HR system will be
implemented and a pay cycle change to biweekly can move forward.
With the U.S. Capitol Police transferring from the Senate to the
NFC payroll system on March 1, 1998, this section has participated in
the planning of the transfer. All aspects of the movement of about 650
staff off the Senate payroll have been addressed, including all payroll
and benefits records and computer data. One major part of the project
completed in 1997 was the generation and correction of retirement
records for each of the 650 police personnel. Records required
correction due to the many changes in computer systems and tracking
over the years.
Future Activities
In light of the new Retirement Open Season, which is scheduled for
July through December 1998, the Benefits Section has been evaluating
computer modeling programs to help with the anticipated load of 1,000
employees and Members seeking information to decide whether to remain
in the old Civil Service Retirement System or to switch to the Federal
Employees Retirement System. The section will prepare and give
seminars, set up and staff a PC room so employees can use the computer
models, and counsel these employees and Members to ensure that they
have all the pertinent information required to make an informed choice.
The TSP is scheduled to add two new investment funds in October
1998. The Benefits Section will work with the Computer Center to alter
current HRMS screens and ensure that withholdings and electronic tapes
are correct, as well as hold seminars and distribute printed
information to all employees and Members to inform them of the new
investment opportunities.
Audit Section
The Audit Section is responsible for auditing vouchers and
answering questions regarding voucher preparation, identifying
duplicate payments vouchered by offices, monitoring payments related to
contracts, training new office managers and chief clerks about Senate
financial practices, training office managers in the use of the Senate
Office Accounting System (SOAS), and producing the Report of the
Secretary of the Senate. The Section also maintains the Senate's
central vendor file (Member, Office Direct Access or 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. An ``aging'' process
is also done to ensure that the advance is repaid in the time specified
by the advance regulations.
Activities
This section performed training sessions for individual offices: 37
new office managers/chief clerks and 31 new SOAS users.
The section assisted the audit staff of the Committee on Rules and
Administration with the drafting of the regulations for advance
payments for the Senate as authorized by the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1998.
The section participated with the team chosen to evaluate the
Senate's business practices with an eye toward the Senate moving toward
ever more efficient business practices. This involved many meetings
with the Sergeant at Arms, Committee on Rules and Administration, and
the consultants from Booz-Allen. Decisions made by these groups then
had to be discussed with the Senate user community for their input.
With the addition of two staff to the Audit Section, restoring the
staffing to normal levels, the time needed for the payment of expense
claims was significantly reduced.
A system was established through using cc:Mail and voice mail for
the research of vouchers. Office managers and chief clerks were
provided a cc:Mail address and a phone number to use to make inquiries
concerning payment status for an expense. This procedure allows
designated staff, to monitor the inquiry line rather than having
multiple staff being interrupted as each call was received. This change
has increased efficiency in the overall operations of the section.
Another new procedure was established to send messages regarding
voucher corrections via cc:Mail to Senate offices. Beginning in May,
the Audit Section designed a standard cc:Mail message with check boxes
and fill-in-the-blank areas to inform Senate offices when corrections
were needed on expense vouchers. The message provided information on
the corrections made and on problems with the vouchers that required
action by the office managers. This procedure reduced the amount of
time spent in trying to contact Senate offices and waiting for a
response, thereby enabling expense vouchers to be processed more
expeditiously. The number of outgoing messages regarding voucher
corrections, from May through December, 1997, was 5,565.
The Audit Section passed a milestone during the April-May time
period when 19,000 vouchers were processed, with 11,500 being processed
in May alone. The 11,500 represents the highest number of vouchers
processed since records have been kept. The section received 89,685
vouchers for calendar year 1997, which represents an 8.3 percent
increase over figures for the prior year. The totals by office are as
follows: Senators--57,090 (63.5 percent); Sergeant at Arms--14,171
(15.8 percent); Stationery Room and Gift Shop--8,816 (9.8 percent); all
others 9,608 (10.7 percent). The following figures were also obtained
for the period of January-December:
Average number of vouchers received in a week..................... 1,736
Lowest number of vouchers received in a week...................... 959
Highest number of vouchers received in a week..................... 2,542
Average number of vouchers received in a day...................... 361
Lowest number of vouchers received in a day....................... 97
Highest number of vouchers received in a day...................... 789
Automation Report
Nearly all Senate offices are now utilizing the SOAS application
for electronic voucher generation, record keeping, and budgeting for
the Senators' official personnel and office expense account.
The section made changes to the database system for the generation
of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate to accommodate the changes
in the Fiscal Year 1998 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act that now
calls for the expenses of franked mail to be debited against Member and
committee funds, not to the official mail account.
Accounting Section
The Accounting Section compiles the annual operating budget of the
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 U.S. Code. The Accounting
Section accomplishes its control of appropriation limitations through
the maintenance of the general ledger of the Senate.
Activities
During fiscal year 1997, the Accounting Section processed 90,442
expense reimbursement vouchers for payment on 61,152 United States
Treasury checks issued. The section also processed 1,548 deposits for
items ranging from receipts received by the Senate operations to
canceled subscription refunds from Member offices. General ledger
maintenance also prompted the entry of 8,072 adjustment entries that
include all appropriation and allowance funding limitation
transactions, all accounting cycle closing entries, and all non-voucher
reimbursement transactions such as payroll adjustments, stop payment
requests, travel advances and repayments, and limited payability
reimbursements.
Working closely with the Audit Section and with the support of the
Secretary of the Senate, the Accounting Section has worked diligently
over the past year to improve service to our customer base: Member
offices, committees, leadership and support offices. Staff attrition in
recent years had impacted the timeliness of voucher payments to staff
and vendors. With the support of the Secretary of the Senate,
additional resources have been acquired and processing time has been
improved by nearly ten business days. Workflow reorganization planned
for this year should maximize our existing resources and this should
reflect in customer service. A voucher payment status line has been
implemented in the past year to assist office managers manage their
vendor and staff reimbursement requests. The payment status line is a
voice mail system that office managers can call to check the status of
payments, which helps the Accounting and Audit Sections manage the flow
of calls and assign specific staff to monitor the line.
Financial Systems
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, deposits and adjustment entries
are processed using this system. The DOVES system was designed in the
late 1980's to be a short term (2-3 years) general ledger system for
the Senate. The system has been modified substantially throughout the
years and is functional, but is quickly outliving its usefulness.
Routine system maintenance and modification are performed in
conjunction with staff of the Senate Computer Center and require
significant Accounting Section resources. The system currently resides
on an outdated 3Com local area network. The 3Com servers used in this
LAN are no longer manufactured, necessitating a transfer to a new
operating environment.
Future Financial Systems
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 there will be a conversion to an accrual and obligation
basis accounting system. Consequently, current staff must be trained in
use of this system, and new staff must have experience with this
system. The Accounting Section worked closely with Management Concepts,
Incorporated to develop a specialized, week-long course on the
government standard general ledger and standard government financial
reporting. The course included staff from the Accounting, Audit,
Payroll and Administrative and Financial Services Sections. This is the
first step in what will become ongoing human resources development and
training of existing and new financial management staff.
Planning for the conversion to the KPMG Federal FAMIS 4.0 general
ledger product will continue to be the top priority for the Accounting
Section management and staff in the coming fiscal year. Conversion,
which is projected to occur during fiscal year 1999, requires extensive
planning and coordination between the FMIS project office, the Senate
Sergeant at Arms staff and the Accounting Section. As part of the
conversion, the Senate's data classification structure will be
significantly altered to enable the creation of standard financial
reports and enhanced expense category tracking using the Office of
Management and Budget's object classification code structure. The new
general ledger system will also enable the Senate to begin making
vendor and staff reimbursement payments electronically, which should
greatly enhance customer service. The Accounting Section looks forward
to the implementation of the new general ledger system and planning all
aspects of FMIS and continuing to improve our service capabilities to
best meet the financial management needs of the Senate.
Financial Management System Development Section
The Financial Management System Development project team focused on
five activities this year: Continued support of the Senate Office
Accounting System (SOAS); deployment of the Senate Time and Attendance
Reporting System (STAR); development and implementation of new
procedures; development of new processes and requirements for FMIS; and
support of the Disbursing Office LAN.
Activities--Senate Office Accounting System (SOAS)
SOAS, a Paradox-for-DOS-based standalone system, is used by 106
Senate offices to prepare vouchers and track office accounts. In
January 1997, it was installed in the offices of the 15 newly elected
Senators. In the fall, SOAS access to fiscal year 1998 was installed in
all offices. For the Secretary, SOAS version 4.0 was installed in the
Historical Office, the Chief Counsel for Employment and the Office of
Public Records.
Senate Time and Attendance Reporting System (STAR)
STAR, a Paradox-for-DOS-based standalone system, is installed in 91
Senate offices to track time and attendance records, and to produce
overtime reports submitted to the Disbursing Office to authorize
payment for overtime. A number of enhancements suggested by offices
were implemented this year, assisted by a programmer from the Senate
Computer Center who supports the leave tracking function of the system.
Training sessions for all offices where STAR is used were offered.
Development and Implementation of New Procedures
The Disbursing Office implemented three new procedures that have
been very popular with offices this year. The project team wrote
procedures and provided the technology to make these ``quick hits''
possible. These were:
--Sending messages regarding voucher corrections via cc:Mail. In May,
we designed a standard cc:Mail message with check boxes and
fill-in-the-blank areas that the Audit Section uses to inform
offices of corrections on vouchers. The message provides
information on corrections made and on problems for which the
office must respond. This replaced the previous system of
``telephone tag'' and is very popular among the office managers
because they can deal with voucher problems at their
convenience.
--Sending voucher payment data electronically to office managers for
use in reconciling SOAS records to DOVES records. This saves
office managers a significant amount of time because payment
data used in their monthly reconciliation process is posted
automatically and therefore, there is no need to re-key the
Disbursing Office payment data.
--Creating two avenues for offices to inquire about voucher status:
cc:Mail and Voice Mail. The Audit and Accounting Sections share
responsibility for responding to these inquiries in a timely
manner. This system is popular with office managers because
they can make inquiries outside of the normal Disbursing Office
hours.
Development of New Processes and Requirements for FMIS
During the summer and early fall we worked with Booz-Allen and
Hamilton (BAH) to plan and conduct a series of Business Process Re-
engineering sessions attended by staff from the Disbursing Office,
Sergeant at Arms (Finance, Purchasing, and Operations), and the Rules
Committee. These daily meetings, during most of September and October,
resulted in a series of process flows diagrams showing the steps
between purchasing, receiving of goods and services, invoice receipt,
voucher preparation, auditing, sanctioning by the Rules Committee, and
payment. The office supervised the production of minutes and process
flow diagrams from these meetings, which were distributed to the
participants on paper and through a FMIS home page on Webster. The
process flow diagrams were presented to the FMIS user group, a small
group of office managers and chief clerks who met with staff weekly
during October and November. The processes and discussion at both sets
of meetings are forming the basis of a new set of FMIS system
requirements.
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.
Merit Review Program
The Office of the Secretary designed and implemented a new pay
delivery system in 1997, a merit review (or performance-based) program.
As the name implies, this is an incentive compensation system designed
to motivate employees to perform well and to reward them in relation to
their performance. The Office's merit review program will now be
conducted annually in the last quarter of each fiscal year. While some
organizations choose to review performance on the anniversary of each
employee's employment, we have decided to review all employees at the
same time every year to improve the budget planning and utilization
processes, to provide more flexibility for developing compensation
strategy from one year to the next, and to ensure that each employee
receives the same opportunity for a salary increase.
Performance Evaluation
The point of reference for performance-based compensation is, of
course, a performance appraisal. Formal evaluations of employee
performance were sporadic and infrequent in years past. Therefore, a
new evaluation instrument, ``The Employee Feedback and Development
Plan,'' was developed. The plan is somewhat different than traditional
performance appraisals in that it elicits continuous feedback and
communication. It is used by the supervisor throughout the performance
period and is finalized at year-end. Feedback to employees is timely
and nonthreatening, management has the opportunity to provide adequate
direction as employees are performing their jobs, desired performance
is identified and reinforced, undesirable performance and results are
identified at a time when change can more easily be made, and the focus
of the more formal discussion (at year-end) is the present and the
future, not the past. The plan also features performance objectives
that focus on the employee's current work requirements, a non-
traditional rating scale that encourages supervisors to ``call it like
it is,'' and rating factors that stress organizational values.
Intern Program
The Office hosted 30 interns during the summer of 1997. Serving in
13 different departments, these interns made many worthwhile
contributions to the goals and objectives of our organization and
received a unique educational and work experience.
senate library
The Senate Library provides legislative, legal and general
reference services to the United States Senate. The core collection
consists of a comprehensive collection of congressional publications
dating from the Continental Congress. In addition, the Library
maintains executive and judicial branch materials with an extensive
collection of books on politics, history and biography. These sources
plus a wide array of in-house and commercial online systems, assist
Library staff in providing timely and accurate information services.
Administration
The Library's major administrative achievement was the
implementation of the merit review program with the development of
performance objectives, annual staff evaluations and an incentive
compensation program based on merit. The second significant
accomplishment was the reduction in Library operating costs by
$11,314.21. These reductions, the most substantial in Library history,
were accomplished through a strictly focused acquisitions policy which
will not compromise service but will allow for the continued purchase
of core materials as the costs increase.
Library Relocation
The Library staff and the Architect of Capitol completed
preliminary design plans in September 1997 for the new Russell building
facility and the Capitol suites. The design firm of Meyer, Sherer and
Rockcastle of Minneapolis will assist in the planning of both the
Russell building and the restoration of the Library's third floor
Capitol rooms. The Russell building work began in late December 1997
and completion of the project is scheduled for February 1999. The
facility will use compact shelving, provide work areas for 20 Library
employees and reading sites for 14 Senate staff. Upon completion, the
entire Library staff and collection will move to the Russell building
and the renovation will begin on the Library's Capitol rooms. That work
will include upgrades to air handling and electrical systems, extensive
plaster work and new shelving. The proposed completion date for the
Capitol project is August 1999. With the two facilities, the Library
will continue to provide high quality information services to both the
Capitol and the Senate office buildings.
Information Services
Activity for 1997 remained at a high level with over 46,000
requests answered, over 7,000 items delivered and 5,200 faxes sent. In
addition, nearly 9,000 patrons used Library materials in the Reading
Room and staff provided over 41,000 legal, news and business database
searches. Increased use of improved online systems, particularly LIS,
by Senate staff provided quality information resources to the Library
and to the entire Senate. Library service was greatly enhanced through
the use of electronic mail, faxing by personal computer and the
installation of a patron terminal.
Technical Services
In mid-September, DataTrek, the integrated library system,
collapsed from a power supply failure to the server. The reason for the
power interruptions was not determined, though several system and plug-
in boards were corrupted. After 11 weeks of attempted solutions, INET
and the Senate Computer Center finally decided to replace the server,
which brought the system back online. During that time, work backlogs
affected every aspect of operations including cataloging, loan records,
overdue notices, acquisitions, and subscriptions check in. Once
operational, the backlog was completely erased through very dedicated
efforts of the Technical Services staff.
The Library has also instituted several new and efficient
acquisitions procedures. The Internet is now a purchasing tool for
missing and out of print books and also a primary source for government
documents. When these government documents are downloaded for the
collection, the website is included in the catalog record. Thirdly, the
direct delivery of newspapers to the Library has streamlined the
claiming of missing issues.
Acquisitions is being impacted by the continued reduction in
government printing, the increased use of microfiche and the increase
in desktop publishing in Congressional offices. These developments have
placed additional burdens on libraries hoping to maintain their
collections. The issues include limited numbers of paper copies being
printed, unpredictable distribution and unreliable Internet sources.
The Library makes a concerted effort to secure copies of essential
documents, but we are discovering that many escape our best efforts,
potentially affecting the quality of the collection. The Library's
comprehensive legislative collections have always served as the
Senate's internal archives, and as offices, particularly committees,
cope with limited space, the quality and continuity of that collection
becomes increasingly more important.
The 6,700 bibliographic records which were produced and added to
the catalog in 1997 was an increase of 16 percent over last year.
Technical Services production was especially impressive when
considering the technical problems encountered during the fourth
quarter. Major cataloging efforts were directed towards older materials
with the long range goal of having the entire collection accessible
online. Currently, patron access to the Library's online catalog is
limited to terminals in the Library and a near term goal is to provide
access to all Senate staff through Webster.
office of the senate chief counsel for employment
The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (SCCE) is a
non-partisan office established at the direction of the Joint
Leadership in 1993 after enactment of the Government Employee Rights
Act (GERA), which allowed Senate employees to file claims of employment
discrimination against Senate offices. The Congressional Accountability
Act of 1995 (CAA) applies the requirements, responsibilities and
obligations of 11 employment laws to Senate offices. The SCCE provides
legal advice and representation of Senate offices in CAA matters.
Background
Each of the SCCE attorneys came to the office after having
practiced as employment law litigators in major national law firms
representing Fortune 100 corporations. The services the office provides
are the same legal services the attorneys provided their clients while
in private practice. The activities of the SCCE during 1997 can be
divided into the following categories: Litigation (Defending Against
Lawsuits), Legal Negotiations of Settlements of Threatened or Extant
Lawsuits, Preventive Legal Advice, Union Drives and Negotiations, OSHA/
ADA, Layoffs and Office Closings, Management Training and
Administrative/Miscellaneous Matters.
Litigation (Defending Against Lawsuits)
During 1997, the SCCE represented employing offices of the Senate
in hearings, proceedings, investigations, and negotiations relating to
labor and employment laws.
Legal Negotiations of Settlements and Preventive Meetings
At times, a Senate office will become aware that an employee is
contemplating suing, and the office will request the SCCE's legal
advice or that the SCCE negotiate with the employee's attorney to
obviate the need for litigation.
On a daily basis, the SCCE advises and meets with Members, chiefs
of staff, and office managers at their request. The purposes of the
advice and meetings are to prevent litigation and to minimize liability
in the event of litigation. Since January 1997, the SCCE has had more
than 1,671 conferences and over 386 meetings.
Union Drives and Negotiations
During 1997, the SCCE represented Senate offices in connection with
union drives. One drive is ongoing.
OSHA/ADA
In January 1997, OSHA and titles II and III of the ADA became
applicable to the Senate. The SCCE provides advice and assistance to
Senate offices by assisting them with complying with the applicable
OSHA and ADA regulations, representing them during Office of Compliance
inspections, advising State offices on the preparation of the Office of
Compliance's Home State OSHA/ADA Inspection Questionnaires, and
assisting offices in the preparation of Emergency Action Plans. Senate
offices request the SCCE to provide legal representation during such
inspections to ensure that they comply with the law and that the Office
of Compliance does not exceed its jurisdiction.
Layoffs and Office Closings
The SCCE has provided legal advice and strategy to individual
Senate offices and Committees regarding how to minimize legal liability
in compliance with the law when offices reduce their forces.
In addition, pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (WARN), offices that are closing must follow certain
procedures for notifying their employees of the closing and for
transitioning them out of the office. The SCCE tracks office closings
and notifies those offices of their legal obligations under the WARN.
Management Training
The SCCE gives legal advice seminars to Chiefs of Staff and Office
Managers on a group basis to inform them of their legal duties and
responsibilities under the CAA. During 1997, the office averaged two
seminars per month. The topics addressed in the seminars were:
preventing and addressing sexual harassment; complying with the Family
and Medical Leave Act; complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act;
rights and obligations under union laws; complying with the Americans
with Disabilities Act; advertising, interviewing and hiring without
violating the law. The office also writes and distributes reference
manuals to educate managers about their obligations under employment
laws.
In an attempt to find a more efficient and cost-effective way of
providing Members' state offices with this necessary training, the SCCE
has begun broadcasting its seminars to the state offices live via the
Internet. The broadcast is both audio and visual, and it allows two-way
communications.
Administrative/Miscellaneous Matters
The SCCE provides assistance to Senate offices by preparing
employee handbooks, office policies, supervisors' manuals, sample job
descriptions, interviewing guidelines, and job evaluation forms to
assist Senate offices in complying with employment laws and thereby
minimizing the potential for litigation.
The SCCE also reviews all regulations issued by the Office of
Compliance and advises the Senate as to whether the regulations should
be approved, modified, or not approved.
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. Initiatives include mass
deacidification, conservation of books and documents, collection
surveys, and contingency planning for disaster response and recovery.
Work prepared for Senate Leadership
For more than twenty years the office has bound a copy
``Washington's Farewell Address'' for the annual Washington's Farewell
Address ceremony. In 1997, the volume was bound for and read by Senator
Bill Frist.
At the direction of the Secretary of the Senate, and through the
Office of Interparliamentary Services, marbled paper slipcases were
fabricated for the book, ``The United States Capitol: Photographs'' by
Fred J. Maroon, and these were presented to 19 dignitaries during
Senate trips.
At the request of the Senate Democratic Leadership, 125 folders
were embossed with the name of each Senator. At the request of the
Secretary of the Senate, 100 ID cases were embossed with each Senator's
name and home state. Four hundred ninety-four items were matted and
framed, including resolutions, photographs, letters, and photographic
compilations for five different Senators.
Inaugural Ceremonies
The office assisted the Inaugural Committee by matting and
embossing 305 photos, and embossing 15 photo albums for the Joint
Committee on Inaugurations.
Senate Library
In 1997, conservation treatments were completed for 225 volumes of
a 7,000 volume collection. The office also prepared and sent 609 books
from the Senate Library to the Government Printing Office (GPO) for
binding.
In consultation with the Senate Librarian, monies from the Book
Preservation Fund helped the Senate Library purchase replacement copies
for the Statutes at Large.
Office of the Senate Curator
The office assisted the Office of the Senate Curator in the
preparation and installation of two exhibits on Isaac Bassert, former
doorkeeper, and Arthur Scott, Senate photographer.
The office also assisted the Office of the Senate Curator and
Senator Hutchison's Office with matting and framing of 15 historical
engravings, 7 oversize Audubon prints, and 19 architectural drawings,
for display in the Senate Courtyard conference rooms, located on the
west front of the U.S. Capitol.
Historical Office
This year the office undertook the posterity binding of two oral
history interviews: Brian Hallen, former Senate Enrolling Clerk and
William A. Ridgely, former Senate Financial Clerk and Assistant
Secretary of the Senate.
Miscellaneous Projects
The office continues to utilize our spray deacidification system,
encapsulator, and dry mounting press. This year the office deacidified
49 items, encapsulated 51 items, and dry mounted 156 items.
For the Senate Photographic Studio, the office embossed 22 photo
albums illustrating a congressional trip to Europe. For Senator Kerrey
of Nebraska, our office fabricated a blue leather retirement book to be
presented to Senator Exon of Nebraska. For Senator Abraham of Michigan,
our office embossed a condolence book for the Princess of Wales. For
Senator Cleland of Georgia, our office matted and framed a needlepoint
and a photograph to be presented to the White House.
The office continues conservation treatment of appropriation bills
from 1877-1943. This year the office completed 49 books. There are
approximately 300 books remaining for treatment. These books are a part
of the Appropriations Committee collection.
office of senate security
The Office of Senate Security (OSS) is responsible for the
administration of classified information, personnel security,
counterintelligence and classified computer security programs in Senate
offices and committees. OSS also serves as the Senate's liaison to the
Executive Branch in matters relating to the security of classified
information in the Senate.
Classified Meetings
OSS secure conference facilities were used on 947 occasions during
1997. This is a 34.5 percent increase in the use of OSS facilities over
1996 levels.
Document Control
Classified document transactions continue to increase. OSS
completed 7,875 document transactions for calendar year 1997, which is
an increase of 13.8 percent over 1996 levels.
Personnel Security
OSS workload in the personnel security area remained steady during
1997. Personnel security investigations were initiated on 158 Senate
employees. Of those investigations, 47 were ``periodic
reinvestigations'' to update security clearances granted five or more
years ago. 109 investigations were completed, and the remainder of the
investigations (49) are pending completion by the Department of Defense
or the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Security Education
OSS conducted or hosted 67 security briefings for Senate staff.
Topics covered included: security managers' responsibilities, office
security management, and introductory security briefings.
senate stationery room
The Senate Stationery Room's principal functions are to provide for
sale stationery items for the use of Senate offices and others
authorized to use the service, to maintain an inventory and select a
variety of stationery items adequate to meet the needs of the Senate
personnel and purchase supplies either through competitive bids, GSA or
special orders for these same items, to maintain individual stationery
accounts for Senators, Committees, Officers, etc., and to issue bills
and statements and receive reimbursement for all purchases, to deliver
merchandise to Senatorial offices, and to advertise for bids and award
contracts for Senate stationery supplies.
Fiscal year 1997 statistical operations
Gross sales...................................................$3,243,549
Sales transactions............................................ 89,567
Generated purchase orders..................................... 6,626
Vouchers processed............................................ 7,372
Metro fare media sold......................................... 5,624
The statistical operations of the Stationery Room for fiscal year
1997 saw increases in all categories from the last fiscal year. Gross
sales were up by $281,914. Sales transactions were up by 1,200.
Purchase orders generated were up by 1,042. Vouchers processed for
vendor payments were up by 587. Metro Fare Media sold were up by 77.
For fiscal year 1997, staffing level for the Stationery Room
remained at fifteen, which is down by four staff positions since fiscal
year 1994. The Stationery Room personnel continue to take on multiple
job assignments when staff shortages exist due to illness or vacation.
The Stationery Room customer base consists of approximately 242
offices and other legislative organizations which are located in nine
buildings, many of which have multiple locations. In addition to
offices with official requirements, the Stationery Room also
accommodates personal purchases from employees within the legislative
community.
The Stationery Room carries nearly 1,290 items, supplied by
approximately 200 vendors.
Fiscal year 1997 was a very busy and productive year for the
Stationery Room staff. First and foremost was the production of a
welcome package which was presented to each new Senator at the
orientation program. This package consisted of information about the
Stationery Room and its polices and procedures.
During the second quarter of fiscal year 1997, the Stationery Room
was the recipient of the 1996 Outstanding Sales and Service Award
presented by the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority for its
participation in the Federal Metropool Program.
Considerable time was spent during fiscal year 1997 to develop a
plan of action for the implementation of new technology transitions
that will occur by the end of fiscal year 1998. This plan has been
devised to provide the least disruption to the Stationery Room
customers, while providing for the office's transition into the 21st
century.
interparliamentary services
The Office of Interparliamentary Services has completed its 16th
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, or 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; Interparliamentary Union; and British-
American Parliamentary Group.
In May, the 36th Annual Meeting of the Mexico-U.S.
Interparliamentary Group was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Arrangements
for this successful event were handled by the IPS staff.
As in previous years, all foreign travel authorized by the
Leadership was arranged by the IPS staff. In addition to official
delegations, IPS provided assistance for 17 individual foreign trips by
Members. Several other trips were scheduled, but were canceled or
postponed after most of the advance work had been completed. Also,
Senators and staff authorized by Committees for foreign travel
continued to call upon this office for assistance with passports,
visas, travel arrangements and reporting requirements.
IPS receives and prepares for printing the quarterly financial
reports for foreign travel from all committees in the Senate. In
addition to preparing the quarterly reports for the Majority Leader,
the Minority Leader, and the President Pro Tempore, IPS staff also
assist Senate staff and committees in filling out the required reports.
Known to many in the Senate as the ``protocol office,''
Interparliamentary Services maintains regular contact with the Office
of the Chief of Protocol, the Department of State, and with foreign
Embassy officials. Official foreign visitors are frequently received in
this office and assistance is provided to them 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, foreign dignitaries and parliamentary
delegations. Required records of expenditures on behalf of foreign
visitors pursuant to section 2 of Public Law 100-71 are maintained in
the Office of Interparliamentary Services.
Planning is underway for the 39th Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S.
Interparliamentary Group which will be held in 1998. Also, in 1998,
advance work, including site inspection, will be undertaken for the
38th Annual Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group Meeting and the 1999
British-American Parliamentary Group Meeting, both to be held in the
United States.
senate gift shop
The Senate Gift Shop, established in October of 1992, provides a
variety of gift items and products, many of which contain educational
and historical information pertinent to the U.S. Senate and the U.S.
Congress. Gift Shop services are available to Congressional members,
staff, constituents and visiting tourists.
Two of the most successful new items offered in 1997 were the 105th
Congressional Plate and the Capitol Box. These items were created and
marketed to benefit the Capitol Preservation Commission and assist in
raising the awareness of the Capitol Visitor Center Project.
This year marked the completion of the four-year series of the
Congressional Holiday Ornaments (1994-1997). The 1997 ornament proved
to be one of the most popular ornaments of the series. The Gift Shop is
now planning a new four year series which will begin in 1998 and will
highlight the early years of the republic. The ornaments will display
images of historical structures that have served the Senate and House
of Representatives and will include Federal Hall (1789-1790) in New
York, Congress Hall (1790-1800) in Philadelphia, and the Capitol
Building as it appeared in 1800. The fourth and final ornament of the
series will be of the present day Capitol. All of the various ornaments
will be packaged with educational and historical information.
The Gift Shop in the Capitol has become a distribution point for
many educational and historical brochures. These documents created by
the offices of the Senate Curator and the Senate Historian have proved
to be a most popular item with visitors. The Gift Shop plans to
continue expanding this service as more brochures become available and
in the near future expects to have publications in foreign languages.
office of public records
The Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains
records, reports, and other documents filed with the Secretary of the
Senate involving the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended, the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, the Senate Code of Official Conduct
including Rule 34, Public Financial Disclosure, Rule 35, Senate Gift
Rule filings, Rule 40, Registration of Mass Mailing, Rule 41, Political
Fund Designees, and Rule 41(6), Supervisor's Reports on Individuals
Performing Senate Services, and Foreign Travel Reports.
The office provides for the inspection, review, and reproduction of
documents in accordance with the above statutes and Rules. From
October, 1996, through September, 1997, the Public Records office staff
assisted more than 3,000 individuals seeking information from reports
filed with the office. This figure does not include assistance provided
by telephone, nor help given to lobbyists attempting to comply with the
provisions of the new Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. A total of
140,590 photocopies were sold during fiscal year 1997. The office works
closely with the Federal Election Commission, the Senate Select
Committee on Ethics, and the Clerk of the House concerning the filing
requirements of the aforementioned Acts and Senate rules.
Automation Activities
During fiscal year 1997, public financial disclosure reports were
scanned using optical imaging technology. With respect to both lobbying
and campaign financing filing areas, the office has worked to develop
an automated database that is able to accept non-paper transmissions
(electronic filing) as well as imaged paper filings.
Federal Election Campaign Act, as Amended
The Act requires Senate candidates to file semi-annual reports in a
non-election year. Filings totaled 6,791 documents containing 95,584
pages for fiscal year 1997.
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 replaced the Federal Regulation
of Lobbying Act, substituting organizational registrations instead of
individual ones, semi-annual reports for quarterly ones, and inclusion
of executive branch lobbying activity. As of September 30, 1996, 4,051
registrants represented 8,897 clients and employed 14,946 individuals
who met the statutory definition of lobbyist. The lobbying
registrations and reports were microfilmed and indexed into a temporary
database pending completion of an automated database system to include
imaging (for paper copies received) and electronic components
(discussed above).
Public Financial Disclosure
The filing date for Public Financial Disclosure Reports was May 15,
1997. The reports were available to the public and press by Friday,
June 13th. Copies were provided to the Select Committee on Ethics and
the appropriate state officials. A total of 2,402 reports and
amendments were filed containing 12,427 pages. There were 421 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 Senate Office of
Public Records received over 2,900 reports totaling 3,100 pages during
fiscal year 1997.
Registration of Mass Mailing
Senators are required to file mass mailings on a quarterly basis,
and the number of pages for fiscal year 1997 was 605.
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. The
Office maintains a collection of approximately 30,000 still pictures,
slides, and negatives that includes photographs and illustrations of
most former Senators, as well as news photographs, editorial cartoons,
photographs of committees in session, and other images documenting
Senate history.
Editorial Projects
Vice Presidents of the United States, 1789-1993.--Working with
former Senator Mark Hatfield, the Historical Office prepared a series
of forty-four chapter-length essays tracing the role of each of the
nation's former vice presidents operating within the institutional
context of the United States Senate. Each chapter includes biographical
information on the individual, how he came to run for vice president,
and his impact on that office. The Office completed publication
arrangements with the Government Printing Office early in 1997 and the
book appeared in April as Senate Document 104-26.
A History of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, 1947-1997.--To
commemorate the fiftieth anniversaries of the Senate Republican and
Democratic Policy Committees, the Historical Office has prepared
narrative histories of the committees, their members, their staffs, and
their impact on legislation in the U.S. Senate. In June the Government
Printing Office published the first of these two volumes. Work is
nearing completion on the companion volume on the Democratic Policy
Committee.
Minutes of the Republican and Democratic Party Conferences, 1903-
1964.--In 1992 the Senate's party leaders agreed to a recommendation of
the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress that the Historical
Office preserve, edit, and publish the official minutes of each party
conference, dating from the start of the twentieth century to a period
thirty years before the present. The Office completed work during 1994
on the minutes of the Senate Democratic Conference covering the years
1903-1964. In 1997, the Office concluded work on a companion volume for
the minutes of the Republican Conference for the years 1911-1964. Both
volumes are now ready for publication, subject to final approval by the
respective conferences.
Oral History Program
The Historical Office opened for scholarly research the transcripts
of oral history interviews with Kelly D. Johnston, former Secretary of
the Senate and staff director of the Senate Republican Policy
Committee. A series of interviews with Charles Ferris, former staff
director of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, were also completed
and are being processed. Interviews were also conducted with C. Abbott
Saffold, former Senate Democratic Secretary. The Office continues to
work with other oral history projects, at universities and state
historical societies, that are focused on individual Senators' careers.
Member Services
``Senate Historical Minutes''.--At the request of the Senate
Democratic Leader, the historian prepared and delivered a ``Senate
Historical Minute'' at each of thirty Senate Democratic Conference
weekly meetings. These 300-word ``minutes'' are designed to enlighten
members about significant events and personalities associated with the
Senate's institutional development. Each ``Minute'' was subsequently
published the day after its delivery in The Hill newspaper and then
collected in a booklet, ``Thirty Minutes of Senate History,'' that will
be distributed to all Senate offices early in 1998.
``Records Management Handbook for United States Senators and Their
Archival Repositories'' was updated and extensively revised,
particularly those sections dealing with electronic records. The Senate
Archivist worked with the National Archives and the Senate Computer
Center to revise this work's electronic records sections. This
publication will be reissued in 1998.
Educational Outreach
Since September 1996, the Office has produced a Senate home page
feature entitled ``This Month in Senate History.'' The entries for each
month highlight approximately twenty institutionally significant events
that occurred during that month in Senate history. Starting in May
1997, the Office also produced a brochure containing the same
information, which are provided to Senate offices for distribution to
constituents and other visitors.
Work continued on a series of eight-page brochures (one per state)
presenting brief accounts of how each state has been represented in the
Senate and Capitol since its admission to the Union. Each brochure
includes names and service dates of the state's former members,
significant events and personalities in the joint histories of the
state and the Senate, references to state-related works of art in the
Capitol, and suggestions for further reading. Text for thirty-three of
these brochures has been completed and edited, and preliminary text has
been drafted for the rest. Several members' offices have adapted their
states' text for presentation on their World Wide Web home pages.
During 1998 the Office will complete the remaining brochures and will
work with other Senate offices interested in providing the information
on the Internet.
As part of the staff seminars conducted under the auspices of the
Secretary of the Senate, Historical Office staff have continued to
deliver periodic addresses on various aspects of the Senate's history.
The Historian discussed ``Housing of the Senate, 1789-1983,'' and the
history of the current Senate chamber. The Associate Historian spoke on
``The Senate and the Press,'' and ``Senate Investigations,'' and
offered a tour of historic Congressional Cemetery. The Assistant
Historian addressed ``The Senate and Treatymaking.'' The Senate
Archivist continued regular seminars for committee and personal staffs
on records management and disposition.
Inaugural Proceedings
The Historical Office once again assisted the Joint Congressional
Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, providing and reviewing historical
information for the Inauguration Ceremonies Program. Office staff also
participated in a ``chat room'' conducted by C-SPAN on the Internet,
answering questions from the public on the history of inaugural
procedures at the Capitol, and explained the historical role of
Congress in the inauguration in a C-SPAN broadcast.
Declassified Records
Presidential Executive Order 12958, ``Classified National Security
Information,'' provides for the automatic declassification, in April
2000, of executive branch-created classified national security
information that is over twenty-five years old, unless it has been
reviewed and exempted under one of the several categories provided for
in the order. In 1995, the Senate Archivist located all affected
materials among committee records housed at the Center for Legislative
Archives. The project continued in 1996 as each committee was contacted
to obtain approval for declassification review by specialists who will
be working in the National Archives. All committees with such holdings
granted approval during 1997, and work has begun at the Center with an
initial survey by declassification staff of the records of the Joint
Atomic Energy Committee.
Photographic Collections
In 1997, the Office sought to expand its collection by actively
seeking photographs of former Senators, and by creating a photographic
record of historically significant contemporary Senate events. The
photo historian worked closely with the Senate Curator's Office to
develop a photographic exhibit of the work of Arthur Scott, a former
news photographer, Senate official photographer, and the Senate's first
photo historian. The exhibit, located in the Capitol building, is seen
daily by hundreds of visitors. An on-line exhibit of select Scott
photographs was made available on the Senate's World Wide Web home
page.
office of 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 that fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate
Commission on Art.
Exhibitions and Publications
The office continued to maintain a series of popular exhibitions on
Senate art and history, as well as assisting the Senate Historical
Office with a new exhibit. An explanatory panel was installed for the
painting The First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation as part of
a continuing effort to provide educational information to visitors.
The office coordinated efforts to redesign and standardize the many
educational publications issued by the Secretary of the Senate to the
public. Brochures prepared included The Vice President's Room, The U.S.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Art in Stamps, and The Vice
Presidential Bust Collection. The staff worked on a new publication,
The United States Congress and Capitol: A Handbook For Conducting
Walking Tours, specifically developed and designed to aid Senate staff
in interpreting the Capitol to their visitors.
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.
Collections: Acquisitions and Management
Several significant works were donated to the Senate collection,
including an 1897 sterling silver desk set, a bronze bust of Senator
Strom Thurmond by artist Frederick Hart, and 12 boxes of historic
Inaugural material. Eighteen sketches detailing the filming of the
movie ``Advise and Consent'' were acquired, as well as 17 historical
engravings and photographs.
The staff processed 29 loans for the Senate leadership, and
continued to loan and monitor the 455 reproduction prints in the Senate
collection. The reorganization of the vice presidential bust collection
in chronological order was completed.
Conservation and Restoration
Several significant paintings and frames received conservation
treatment, including The Electoral Commission of 1877, Leiv Eiriksson
Discovers America, Daniel Webster, and four historical paintings of
Revolutionary War scenes by American artist John Blake White. Five
marble busts in the Old Supreme Court Chamber received conservation,
and an historic sideboard in the collection was restored. New exhibit
cases were installed to protect the two Native American sculptures on
the third floor of the Capitol from further damage.
A ``Furniture Conservation Survey Report'' was completed by an
independent consultant for the Senate's collection of historic
furnishings and decorative arts; it documents the current condition of
these works and provides long-term recommendations for the care of the
objects.
Collaborations, Educational Programs, Events
The staff supported the Senate's seminar program by presenting four
new lectures and assisting with others. At the direction of the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration the office worked on refurbishing
three Senate courtyard rooms. The staff assisted the Joint
Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in a variety of
capacities.
Automation
The Curator's home page on the Internet was substantially expanded
and as a result, the site saw an eightfold increase in hits. The office
assisted in designing and posting a virtual tour of the Senate using
Quick Time Virtual Reality (QTVR) technology, and work began on a new
interactive exhibition.
Objectives For 1998
Conservation concerns continue to be a priority, with plans to
conserve various marble sculptures. Two new exhibitions are scheduled,
along with identification labels for all works of art, and small
explanatory pylons for several historic rooms. Progress will continue
on the long-planned Guide to Senate Fine Arts. Work will proceed on a
comprehensive disaster preparedness, management, and response plan for
the Senate collection. A collections management and care policy will be
established, and a training manual produced. Plans and projects will be
developed for the year 2000 to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the
first meeting of Congress in the Capitol.
senate page school
The Senate Page School serves all appointed Senate pages. It exists
to provide a smooth transition from and to the students' home school,
providing students with a sound program, both academically and
experientially during their stay in the nation's capital, within the
limits of the constraints imposed by their work situation.
Schedule
The Senate recess provided the Page School with the opportunity to
offer additional instructional time during the months of October
through January. Normally, school is conducted between the hours of
6:15-9:45 A.M. unless the Senate convenes early. When the Senate
convenes early, the school day is then shortened. For the three months
of recess, school was conducted from 7:15-11:30 A.M. Additionally,
school was in session on two Saturdays for educational field trips to
extend the learning experience.
Field Trips/Speakers
Field trips were taken to Mount Vernon, the White House, the
National Aquarium and the Museum of Art in Baltimore, the Museum of
Art, the National Zoo, Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell in
Philadelphia, Longwood Gardens and the Hagley Museum, the Folger
Shakespeare Library, the Manassas Battlefield, Williamsburg, and the
National Archives. Students attended performances of ``The Crucible''
at the Theatre on the Hill in Christ Church, ``Paper Moon'' at Ford's
Theatre, and ``The Nutcracker'' at the Warner Theater.
Speakers included ROTC recruiters who provided for interested
students information about educational opportunities available through
the military, and an admissions officer at the College of William and
Mary discussed the college admissions process.
Multi-media/Textbooks
CD's of ``The Crucible'' and ``The Scarlet Letter,'' which are
studied as a part of the American Literature curriculum, were
purchased. The color printer was also installed. A larger CD tower
which will allow for greater networking has been ordered. Additionally,
all school computers were upgraded to Windows 95.
Copies of ``Robert's Rules of Order'' were ordered to prepare
students to more effectively utilize the Student Council. All other
texts were reviewed and deemed appropriate for continued use.
Testing/Courses/Instructors
A PSAT preparation course was presented to all students this fall
by staff and the PSAT was administered on the national testing date.
Foreign language tutors worked with students in the areas of French,
Spanish, German, Russian, and Japanese. The Page School staff remained
the same as in the previous year. The four teachers, Lynne Sacks
(English), Michael Bowers (social studies), Stephen Perencevich
(mathematics), and Duncan Forbes (science) taught a combination of
eleven courses this year, and all continue to be effective teachers.
Janice Yocco, the secretary, provides excellent support and service to
the principal, the staff, and students. Ms. Sacks and Mr. Forbes are
pursuing advanced degrees and are enrolled in graduate courses. Also,
Ms. Sacks was the recipient of a National Endowment for the Humanities
(NEH) grant last summer and did an independent study as a result. All
staff participated in extensive computer training offered by the Senate
Computer Center.
Facility
The facility continues to be in fine shape. Built-in office
furniture and cabinets for the school office were installed in
November. These new furnishings provide storage, are more professional
in appearance, and create a safer work environment because there are no
exposed cords.
Summary of Plans
Schedule
Students completed their semester curriculum and the closing
ceremony was conducted on January 23, 1998, the last day of school for
the semester. Orientation and course scheduling for the second semester
pages was conducted on Monday, January 26, 1998.
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.
Field Trips/Speakers
Field trips to the Newseum and Harpers Ferry are planned for the
second semester. The focus is on historic and political significance.
College visits are incorporated where possible as a critical component
of the junior year curriculum. Other field trips will be added as time
permits.
Multi-Media/Textbooks
Each year a review is conducted in all subjects to determine which,
if any, textbooks need to be replaced. Software will be reviewed and
new requests will be investigated. Bulletin boards and new sturdy
computer workstations have been requested. Twelve new Compaq Deskpro
4000 computers and six HP printers will be installed in mid February.
Testing/Courses/Instructors
Staff development opportunities have been explored and Duncan
Forbes will be attending an Advanced Placement Seminar on Chemistry
next summer. Kathryn Weeden, the principal, is planning to attend a
leadership academy presented by the National Association of Secondary
School Principals in July. Foreign language tutors will accommodate the
needs of the incoming pages. It is predicted that we will maintain the
services of the French, Spanish, Russian, and German tutors and will
add a Latin tutor as we become aware of foreign language needs in the
next page class.
Evaluation
The Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools sent a team
of evaluators to visit the Page School December 3-5, 1997. An extensive
self study was conducted by the Page School staff prior to the visit.
The report from the association will be received by the end of
February. Upon receipt, the report will be read and assessed, and plans
will be made to facilitate any recommendations deemed critical to the
improvement of the school.
information systems department
The Department of Information Systems provides technical and user
support for the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. Information
Systems staff also work closely with the Senate Sergeant at Arms and
the Government Printing Office on technical issues and joint projects.
In late 1997 the Information Systems Department was abolished and the
computer support staff were transferred to the Assistant Secretary's
office.
Mission Evaluation and Staffing Changes
The authorized staff level for computer support is four--one
supervisor and 3 PC/LAN specialists. The staff level dropped from five
to four when the PC/LAN specialist assigned full-time to the Office of
Public Records was assigned to that department permanently. In 1997 the
Secretary's Office continued to replace nonstandard systems with
Senate-standard technologies, the objective being to rely more on the
technology support contracts of the Sergeant at Arms.
Upgrades and Installations
The Secretary's Office is moving from the unsupported Novell
platform to Senate-standard Windows NT. In 1997 a new server was
purchased for the Secretary's LAN and it was installed with the Windows
NT Server 4.0 operating system. New Pentium computers and HP printers
were purchased for staff in all departments. The new PC's with Windows
95 and the Corel WordPerfect 8 Office Suite were installed for all
legislative and Floor staff and configured to connect to the NT server.
New PC's have been installed in the Offices of the Secretary and
Assistant Secretary, the Office of Human Resources, the Office of the
Chief Counsel for Employment, the Page School, and the Office of Public
Records. A schedule has been established to complete the PC
installations and the migration of the rest of the departments on the
Secretary's Novell LAN to the NT server by the end of June. The
installation of the new PC's in the Disbursing Office and the upgrade
of the Stationery Room and Gift Shop computer systems are proceeding in
coordination with the FMIS office.
In addition, several items were purchased to assist departments
with their individual missions. Two scanners were purchased, one for
the Historian, who needs to scan images, and one for the Executive
Clerk, who needs to scan the text of nominations; two color laser
printers, one for the LIS project and one for the Curator; and a
variety of high-end graphics items were purchased for the Curator to
produce kiosk exhibits, including a new Macintosh system.
Office Automation Improvements
The installation of new workstations for the legislative staff
presented an opportunity to review and improve some of the existing
workflow processes. This is particularly true of the Enrolling Clerk's
office, where the Clerks previously had to log off the network to work
on bills in XyWrite and where backups were stored on 90 megabyte
Bernoulli disks. The new workstation configuration allows them to
access XyWrite from Windows 95 and the Bernoulli drives were replaced
by 1 gigabyte Jaz Drives. In addition, the Enrolling Clerk used to
retrieve the electronic file of a Bill from GPO via a gateway PC
running DOS scripts. An FTP solution was installed which is faster and
more reliable. This FTP solution has proved to be very successful and
will soon replace the GPO gateway used by other legislative staff to
send Congressional Record material to GPO.
The Journal Clerk's operation has been reviewed and will be
reworked to provide more functionality while retaining control over the
Journal document. Currently information is pulled from the
Congressional Record and a series of WordPerfect 5.2 macros translate
GPO's microcomp bell codes to WordPerfect formatting codes. The
formatting process will be reworked to use the features of WordPerfect
8 to replace the outdated macros.
Year 2000 Compliance
A complete inventory of all software and hardware in use in the
Secretary's Office is being compiled as new PC's are installed in each
department. An initial assessment of the inventory as it relates to
Year 2000 compliance has been completed.
Most of the computer hardware in the Secretary's Office is Year
2000 compliant. The possible exceptions are some Compaq 386 machines
which are being used as gateways. The low-end Pentiums being swapped-
out during the migration this Spring will replace the 386's.
The major projects underway in the Senate (LIS, FMIS, and HRIS)
will replace many of the currently non-compliant software systems in
the Secretary's Office. There remain some commercial off-the-shelf
packages and internally-developed applications are being evaluated for
Year 2000 compliance. In many cases vendors have verbally assured us
that their software is compliant, but the Secretary's Office is
obtaining written assurance from these companies.
______
Interparliamentary Services--Trips in 1997
May 16-18--Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group; Santa Fe, New
Mexico; Chairman: Senator Hutchison; Vice Chairman: Senator Dodd.
(Senators Hutchison, Hatch, Shelby, and McCain).
May 27-June 1--North Atlantic Assembly--Spring Meeting; Luxembourg,
Luxembourg; Chairman: Senator Roth; Vice Chairman: Senator Biden.
(Senators Roth and Hatch).
June 27-July 2--Codel Murkowski; Hong Kong--Handover Ceremonies.
(Senators Murkowski, Glenn, McConnell, Robb, Feinstein, and Thomas).
June 28-July 5--Codel Lott; Scotland, England, Belgium, Hungary,
Bosnia-Herzegovina. (Senators Lott, Hollings, Coats, Lieberman, DeWine,
Frist, and Hagel).
July 5-9--Senate NATO Observer Group; Czech Republic and Spain;
Chairman: Senator Roth; Co-Chairman: Senator Biden. (Senators Roth,
Biden, Mikulski, and Smith).
August 24-31--British-American Parliamentary Group; London and
York, United Kingdom; Chairman: Senator Stevens; Vice Chairman: Senator
Byrd. (Senators Stevens, Byrd, Sarbanes, Cochran, Gorton, Bryan,
Hutchison, and Roberts).
September 11-15--Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group; Nova Scotia
and Prince Edward Island, Canada; Chairman: Senator Murkowski; Vice
Chairman: Senator Murray. (Senators Murkowski, Murray, Sarbanes,
Grassley, Coats, Akaka, DeWine, and Enzi).
October 9-17--North Atlantic Assembly--Fall Meeting; Bucharest,
Romania--Stops also in Estonia and Germany; Chairman: Senator Roth;
Vice Chairman: Senator Biden. (Senators Roth and Bennett).
Nov. 30-Dec. 11--Global Climate Change Conference; Kyoto, Japan;
Chairman: Senator Hagel. (Senators Hagel, Chafee, Baucus, Kerry,
Lieberman, and Enzi).
______
Interparliamentary Services: Official Foreign Visitors in 1997
January 14--Mr. Chee Heung Chor, Member of Parliament of Malaysia
(1)
February 4--Delegation of Russian Legislators (4)
February 10--Mr. Vukasin Obradovic, Editor-in-Chief of newspaper in
Serbia (1)
March 11--Secretary General of Mongolian Parliament and Delegation
(6)
March 11--His Excellency Mohammed Hosni Mubarak, President of the
Arab Republic of Egypt (7)
April 3--Members of Parliament of South Africa (8)
April 3--Members of Parliament of Tajikistan (6)
April 8--The Right Honorable Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of
Canada (6)
April 8--Canadian Chairmen of Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group
(2)
April 11--Ms. Wan-chen Chen, Member of Parliament of Taiwan (1)
April 15--Mr. Jose Luis Torres-Ortega, Member of Parliament of
Mexico (1)
April 25--His Excellency Ryutaro Hashimoto, Prime Minister of Japan
(8)
April 28--Members of Parliament participating in USIA Multi-
Regional Project (12)
April 29--Delegation of Hong Kong Legislative Council Members (8)
April 29--Her Excellency Qian Qichen, Foreign Minister of China
(12)
May 1--His Excellency Jose M. Aznar, President of Spain (5)
May 13--His Excellency Vaclav Havel, President of the Czech
Republic (7)
May 14--Members of Parliament, Senate of Italy (7)
June 3--Members of Parliament, Near Eastern Arabic-Speaking
Countries (5)
June 18--His Excellency Armando Calderon Sol, President of El
Salvador (5)
June 19--Speaker and Clerk of Malawi National Assembly (2)
June 24--Defense and security analysts from Former Soviet Union and
China (19)
June 26--His Excellency John Howard, MP, Prime Minister of
Australia (7)
July 14--Deputy Principal Clerk, Senate of Canada (1)
July 16--Deputy Clerk of Legislative Assembly of Victoria,
Australia (1)
July 17--His Excellency Eduard Shevardnadze, President of Georgia
(10)
July 24--His Excellency Prof. Dr. Roman Herzog, Federal President
of the Federal Republic of Germany (9)
July 28--Delegation of National Assembly Members of the Republic of
Korea (5)
August 8--Members of Parliament, Taiwan Senate (11)
September 9--Members of Parliament, French Senate (8)
September 10--Delegation of Hong Kong Officials (6)
September 18--His Excellency Yaakov Neeman, Minister of Finance of
Israel (6)
September 19--General Secretary of the Scottish Labor Party (1)
September 23--Delegation of European Parliament Members (11)
September 30--His Excellency Laszlo Kovacs, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Hungary; His Excellency Dariusz Rosati, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Poland; Mr. Karel Kovanda, Deputy Foreign Minister of the
Czech Republic (14)
October 6--Delegation of Japanese Diet Members (8)
October 6--Chief of Staff of Parliament, Republic of Georgia (3)
October 8--His Excellency Ezer Weizman, President of the State of
Israel (9)
October 9--Delegation from Santa Domingo (51)
October 30--His Excellency Jiang Zemin, President of the People's
Republic of China (23)
November 10--Delegation of Japanese Diet Officials (21)
November 12--Members of Parliament of Turkey (3)
December 4--President of National Council of Slovenia (1)
December 4--Delegation of Kuwaiti Junior Diplomats (15)
______
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 1999.
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1999 budget estimates for the Senate
have been included in the Budget of the United States Government for
fiscal year 1999. 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
$527,292,000, which reflect an increase of $23,855,000, or 4.74 percent
over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1998 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 1998 are $503,437,000. 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 1999 are divided into three
major categories as follows:
Senate Items............................................ $84,582,000
Contingent Expense Items................................ 397,410,000
Joint Items of the Senate............................... 45,300,000
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the increase for fiscal year 1999 over
the fiscal year 1998 enacted levels is a result of: (1) $13,068,624
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, and increases in the Official Office Expense
Allowance to incorporate the allowance for franked mail expenses
authorized by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1998; (2)
$5,680,500 for the anticipated 3.1 percent cost of living increase for
fiscal year 1999, and the annualization costs of the fiscal year 1998
cost of living adjustment; (3) $1,755,376 for personnel adjustments
other than the cost of living, attributable primarily to the budget
request of the Sergeant at Arms (which was offset by a reduction in
administrative expenses), the budget request of the Capitol Police,
including $1,270,000 for pay differentials and $104,000 for Capitol
Police comparability increases, and the reduction in the budget request
for Expenses of Inquiries and Investigations; (4) $3,697,500 increase
in agency contributions applicable to the cost of living adjustments
and other personnel increase requests; (5) $347,000 decrease in non-
payroll expense requests, attributable primarily to a decrease in the
budget request for the Sergeant at Arms.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the consideration of your Committee, the
Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 1999.
______
Additional Committee Questions
Question. When will the Senate be able to produce auditable
financial statements?
Answer. The first auditable financial statements will be for fiscal
year 2000. During fiscal year 1999, the Disbursing Office will install
the new Senate general ledger and procurement systems, convert to
obligation- and accrual-basis accounting, and conform back office
policies and procedures as the first phase of FMIS. The next phase will
incorporate other modules of an integrated system necessary to produce
financial statements, such as a fixed asset module which will enable
determination of the cost basis and depreciation schedule of assets to
be capitalized on the balance sheet of the Senate.
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the
appointment of a new Comptroller General of the United States.
Answer. The Comptroller General is appointed to a 15-year term by
the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Because the
General Accounting Office, which the Comptroller General heads, exists
primarily to provide research, review, and analysis for Congress, the
applicable statute, 31 U.S.C. 703, establishes a bicameral commission
to recommend three or more individuals to the President for
appointment. I am assisting the Majority Leader in his capacity as
chairman of the commission. The commission has carefully reviewed the
qualifications of a large field of candidates, and, on January 22,
1998, recommended three individuals to the President. All three are
highly-qualified and are supported by a majority of the commission. To
date, the President has not acted on the commission's recommendation.
Question. The Secretary's testimony indicates that some statutory
changes may be required to modify the way in which expense categories
for Senators are prepared in order to convert to an OMB object
classification. Are there any other changes of this type which may be
required in order to implement FMIS? When do you expect to submit
recommendations?
Answer. At this point, the system design and requirements and the
project plan for FMIS are not ready. When a draft project plan is
ready, we will prepare a list of statutes and practices of the Senate
that could be reviewed in connection with the FMIS implementation,
whether to meet current federal financial accounting standards or to
facilitate use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software. That list
will be transmitted to your Committee and to the Committee on Rules and
Administration. Close consultation with both Committees will lead to
recommendations as to whether the Senate should consider changing
existing statutes or practices, or should modify the project plan.
Question. In your testimony you mention that succession planning
will be important for your office to fulfill its constitutional
responsibilities in the future. Do you have a plan? Does your fiscal
year 1999 budget request include any funds for your succession
planning? If so, how much? What will this cost in future years?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Office of the
Secretary does not include any funds specifically for succession
planning. We have, however, requested authorization for up to fifteen
new positions, primarily in the Disbursing Office to implement FMIS,
but partly to plan for succession in selected departments. To the
extent possible, the costs of these new positions will be absorbed
within the requested budget. The basic plan is to ensure that each
department, and particularly the thirteen in which the department head
is already eligible to retire, is staffed with one and preferably two
individuals who have the institutional knowledge, skills, and abilities
required to assume the responsibilities of the department head; in many
cases, to acquire such knowledge, skills and abilities takes several
years of on-the-job training and experience. To that end, we are
promoting from within as much as possible, and we are selecting highly-
qualified new hires who are committed to the Senate as a career. We are
also studying other employee development and progression alternatives
with a view toward developing generalists in the legislative
departments who could be capable of succeeding more than one department
head. Succession planning will impact future years' budgets in that
staffing requirements in some departments will be determined by both
the immediate workload and the need to ensure that one or two
individuals are trained to assume the department head position.
Question. What is the status of S. 1508, the Visitor Center
legislation? What is the House's position?
Answer. The Capitol Visitor Center Authorization Act has been
introduced as H.R. 20 by Representative John Mica, and as S. 1508 by
Majority Leader Trent Lott, Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle, and
Chairman John Warner of the Committee on Rules and Administration. S.
1508 is now before the Rules Committee. H.R. 20 was the subject of a
hearing before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
on Public Buildings and Economic Development on May 22, 1997, at which
witnesses from inside and outside Congress all agreed on the need for
the visitor center.
While both the House and Senate bills contemplate that the capital
construction costs (including the initial furnishing and equipping)
will be provided by the existing Capitol Preservation Fund, and by
additional private fund-raising overseen by the appropriate House and
Senate committees, questions continue to be raised concerning the
Capitol Visitor Center's follow-on costs, including care, maintenance,
staffing, and educational programs. In the successful effort to
eliminate the federal budget deficit, Congress has set the example by
holding the line on Legislative Branch appropriations. Accordingly,
there may be some reluctance to proceed with the project if to do so
would incur substantial operating expenses with long-term impact on the
Legislative Branch budget. Both H.R. 20 and S. 1508 take this concern
into account by providing that the Capitol Visitor Center will not
become a new item in the Legislative Branch appropriations. Rather, a
new account for visitor center revenues and expenses is to be
established, separate from the existing House, Senate, and joint item
accounts. The visitor center will produce substantial revenue from
retail operations serving the public, specifically restaurants and a
sales shop, and a preliminary assessment by the Architect of the
Capitol indicates that those revenues, estimated conservatively, will
more than offset operating expenses. Moreover, the visitor center is a
vital part of the Capitol Police Board's long-term plans for the
security of the Capitol Building and Grounds. If it is not constructed,
post-2000 expenditures for security, which must be funded from
Legislative Branch appropriations, will be significantly higher than
amounts reflected in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bills.
To resolve these questions, last October, Chairman Walsh of the
Legislative Branch subcommittee of the House Committee on
Appropriations, recommended the hiring of an independent consultant to
prepare a detailed evaluation of the full costs of the Capitol Visitor
Center project, considering all relevant matters including the costs of
operating the center as intended, the projected revenues from retail
operations, and the costs and benefits of integrating the security
plans. I am advised that the Senate Rules Committee, concurring with
Chairman Walsh and in order to expedite the overall project, intends to
contract for the study from the Senate contingent fund, possibly before
the end of March 1998.
Question. Congratulations on your progress with LIS. It is a system
which will be very useful for the Senate far into the future. Given
that it is relatively new and you are continually making significant
improvements, what efforts are being taken to keep staff informed about
developments with this new resource?
Answer. Thank you for your complimentary remarks. LIS is one the
very most important technological innovations in the history of the
Senate. When the system is fully implemented and its capabilities are
fully known on the part of Senate staff, LIS will be an extremely
valuable tool to virtually every individual staff member who has
legislative responsibilities. The Office of the Secretary is,
therefore, building upon and expanding its efforts to fully inform the
entire Senate community of the LIS features and capabilities. We are
also making special efforts to publicize new developments in the
system.
One such effort is to conduct surveys, which serve the dual
purposes of informing Senate staff of available features and assessing
user needs. About half of all Senate offices participated in the most
recent survey, with detailed responses coming from legislative
directors, legislative assistants, legislative correspondents, research
assistants, and others. The responses clearly confirm that the ability
to retrieve information on-line is a significant requirement for Senate
staff to carry out their duties, as two-thirds of respondents use the
existing services multiple times each day and virtually all do so at
least several times a week. The survey asked detailed questions about
the types of legislative information that offices need on-line. Nearly
all respondents say that they ``always need'' or ``often need''
summaries and analyses of legislation, votes taken, and legislative
status and calendar information. Most indicate that they ``always'' or
``often'' need full texts of legislation, full texts of reports, full
texts of the Record, member statements in the Record, and news
articles.
The survey further found that the existing LIS, even with its
limited capabilities at this stage of development, is used by 87
percent of respondents--a far higher usage rate than for any commercial
source. Asked for one preferred source of on-line legislative
information, more respondents indicated LIS than the combined responses
favoring the three commercial sources in use in the Senate (Lexis-
Nexis, CQ/Westlaw, Legi-Slate). The reasons given for preferring LIS
included ``easy use,'' ``quick response time,'' ``has the information I
require,'' and ``the search system does what I need.''
In another effort to promote LIS, the Project Office has prepared
an LIS brochure, describing the system services that are currently
available. The brochures have been distributed to all Senator and
Committee offices, the cloakrooms, and the Democratic and Republican
Policy Committees, and are also available at convenient sites such as
the Copy Center. The Project Office has also circulated ``Quick Cards''
that briefly and conveniently instruct how to access the Amendment
Tracking System, Committee Scheduling Information, and Vote
Information. An innovation still in progress is an electronic mailing
list, to be used to inform staff of new developments and upgrades to
LIS, and also inform staff of scheduled training classes.
Training classes, a function of the Project Office and the Senate
Computer Center, provide instruction geared to Senate staff at all
levels. Attendees receive LIS training materials and reference manuals
that they may retain as information sources for use by the entire staff
in their offices.
Because of the critical importance of LIS, the Office of the
Secretary is adding two staff positions to focus on LIS communications,
education and training.
Finally, and in addition to all of the organized efforts, I will
continue to brief Senators personally concerning the progress of LIS,
and will be pleased to arrange LIS demonstrations for Senators.
Question. $5 million of fiscal year 1997 funds were provided for
LIS to remain available until September 30, 2000. How much of those
funds have been obligated to date?
Answer. $3,051,903. The total obligations for LIS to date are
$4,104,000. In fiscal year 1997, however, $1,052,917 was obligated and
expended for LIS from other appropriations to the Office of the
Secretary, with the Committee's approval. The use of other available
funds in fiscal year 1997 reflected an effort to minimize any
possibility that we may have to request additional appropriations
earmarked for LIS before the system is implemented.
Question. $7 million of fiscal year 1992 funds were provided for
FMIS to remain available until September 30, 2000. How much of those
funds have been obligated to date?
Answer. $204,574; however, new contract terms awaiting finalization
will immediately obligate an additional $536,000.
Question. Last year this Committee questioned whether the Office of
Reporters of Debate and Captioning Services would be consolidated. Have
you taken any action in that regard?
Answer. Consolidation of the Official Reporters and the Captioners
was considered by my predecessor, but no action was taken. It is my
feeling that any possible consolidation of these two departments should
be considered in conjunction with the new technologies that are
appearing on the fairly short-term horizon. Technological change that
allows for continuous speech recognition holds out the prospect of
revolutionizing the way in which the Record is produced. For the
present, it seems that the most appropriate course is to defer any
permanent restructuring of the reporting function while we monitor
progress in the technologies.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
STATEMENT OF JUNE E. O'NEILL, PH.D., DIRECTOR
ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES BLUM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Senator Bennett. Our third witness is Dr. June O'Neill,
Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Dr. O'Neill, we welcome you here today. We appreciate your
patience, and apologize for the interruption in the hearing
because of the vote. But we are delighted you are here and look
forward to your testimony.
Dr. O'Neill. I am certainly very pleased to be here today,
Mr. Chairman. And James Blum, who is our Deputy Director, is
appearing with me.
I will move straight to a summary of our budget request for
fiscal year 1999 and submit my formal statement for the record,
if that is all right.
Senator Bennett. Absolutely.
Dr. O'Neill. We have also brought today copies of our
annual report on the economic and budget outlook and our annual
report on our activities for 1997. I brought those for the
committee members.
Senator Bennett. Do you agree we are going to have a
balanced, unified budget this year?
Dr. O'Neill. Well, it certainly looks like that.
Senator Bennett. OK. The President is busy spending it.
Dr. O'Neill. It is always a problem, I guess, when you see
that success is at hand.
Senator Bennett. This is the nice way to be a politician,
when you have a little money to spend.
Congressional Budget Office's fiscal year 1999 request
Dr. O'Neill. Our budget request for fiscal year 1999 is
$25.9 million. And that allows for a net increase of 4.6
percent, or $1.1 million, over our fiscal year 1998
appropriation. Personnel costs account for 85 percent of the
total CBO budget, and they are driving our requests. Nearly 96
percent of the approximate $1.5 million in gross cost increases
facing CBO in fiscal year 1999 are increases associated with
pay and benefits.
In order to offset the pay and benefit increase that we
anticipate, CBO has reduced other parts of its budget. We have
been able to absorb more than 20 percent of the personnel cost
increases, primarily by cutting spending for automated data
processing [ADP] equipment. And we have cut that spending by
$305,000, which is close to a 13-percent reduction in ADP. Our
request funds our staff ceiling of 232 full-time equivalent
positions. And we are not asking for any additional positions.
Although CBO should be able to maintain its current
workload with the funds requested here, the agency does
confront several uncertainties in fiscal year 1999. And I will
briefly point those out.
areas of concern surrounding the Congressional Budget Office's budget
request
A principal concern is our ability to offer the salaries
and benefits needed to remain competitive in today's tight
labor market. The current job market compels CBO and other
employers to worry about both the recruitment of new workers
and the retention of current employees. The problem is
particularly acute at CBO, because our work requires a staff of
economists and other quantitatively skilled professionals, all
of whom are in particularly high demand right now. Newly minted
economists now command surprisingly high salaries. Recruitment
has become time consuming and often very frustrating as more
and more often we lose qualified people to employers who can
sometimes pay as much as 50 percent more in compensation.
The difficulty of attracting new staff has added to
pressure to retain our experienced employees. Retention,
however, has also become more difficult as our experienced
analysts have become the focus of other employers' recruiting
efforts. In the past few months, for example, CBO has lost
three of its managers to more senior and higher-paying
positions.
We are not suggesting that because of our turnover rates we
deserve extraordinary consideration. Nevertheless, we operate
under something of a disadvantage compared with other Federal
employers who are able to provide locality pay increases and
give lump-sum bonuses to attract and retain exceptional
workers. Given those circumstances, I believe CBO's merit pay
request for fiscal year 1999 is critical to our remaining
competitive in the employment market.
A further concern for CBO is the uncertain costs associated
with relocating important ADP systems. At present, CBO relies
on the mainframe computer of House Information Resources [HIR]
to run its budget data base applications. However, the HIR
mainframe is slated to be retired, and CBO, along with other
users, will have to make other arrangements. HIR and its
mainframe computer have provided excellent service. Our
challenge is to duplicate, as closely as possible with a new
vendor, the service we currently receive from HIR.
We do not yet have a firm estimate of how much it will cost
to evaluate our options for moving CBO's systems or to prepare
for the transition; both types of costs are likely to occur in
fiscal year 1999. Our request includes $100,000 for those
purposes, although that could prove to be a conservative
estimate.
conclusion
CBO is keenly aware of the Congress' intention to restrain
Federal spending, including that in the legislative branch. In
response, CBO's recent budget requests have been quite modest,
with requested increases usually less than the projected rate
of inflation. Our present request is our best estimate of the
amount we need to provide our current level of services. We try
to be prudent, and we plan to absorb over 20 percent of our
mandatory pay and benefit increases through reductions in other
parts of our budget. We believe, however, that our requested
increase of 4.6 percent is necessary if we are to continue to
serve the Congress in the manner it has come to expect.
prepared statement and additional committee questions
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of June E. O'Neill
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present the fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO). The mission of CBO is to provide the Congress with
the objective, timely, nonpartisan analysis it needs for economic and
budget decisions, and the information and estimates required for the
Congressional budget process. CBO does not make policy recommendations;
instead, it presents the Congress with options and alternatives in a
wide range of subject areas, all of which have economic and budgetary
impacts.
Our fiscal year 1999 request is for $25,938,000, an increase of 4.6
percent, or $1.1 million, over our fiscal year 1998 appropriation of
$24,797,000. The level of funding we are requesting would support 232
full-time-equivalent positions (FTE's), our current staff ceiling. No
additional staff are requested. The 1999 request includes a 7 percent
increase in spending for personnel, which comprises 85 percent of CBO's
budget. That increase is partially offset by a 13 percent drop in
spending for automated data processing (ADP), updates to computer
systems, and data purchases. Administrative spending increases by 3
percent in our budget, about the same rate as inflation.
Although the amount we are requesting is our best estimate of the
resources needed to maintain CBO's current level of services, we are
aware of some uncertainties that could affect our resource needs. CBO's
experience with hiring during the past year has heightened our concern
about being able to offer the salaries and benefits necessary for us to
remain competitive in the job market. CBO is also facing the relocation
of important data processing systems, at an unknown cost, as the House
moves to eliminate its mainframe computer by 2000. In addition, the
Congress continues to consider expanding the private-sector mandate
provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which could
increase CBO's duties under the act.
Before discussing our fiscal year 1999 request--and the
uncertainties surrounding it--in more detail, I would like to talk a
moment about the state of the federal budget and CBO's budget
estimates, which may have caused some Congressional concerns last year.
I would also like to tell you about CBO's Web site, launched last
September, which should help us meet the demand on Capitol Hill for
more immediate access to our information.
budget deficit outlook and recent cbo estimates
The federal budget deficit narrowed significantly in fiscal year
1997, and the budget outlook for the baseline projection period through
2008 now appears quite bright. Unfortunately, those favorable
developments were not foreseen early in 1997 either by CBO's estimators
or by other forecasters in the government or the private sector.
The Economic and Budget Outlook
On January 28, at a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, the
Congressional Budget Office released the first volume in its series of
annual reports to the Congress, ``The Economic and Budget Outlook:
Fiscal Years 1999-2008.'' CBO projects single-digit deficits for fiscal
years 1998, 1999, and 2000, followed by a small surplus in 2001 and
growing surpluses through 2008. Continued good news about the economy
and other factors that affect revenues and spending are responsible for
the further improvement in the budget outlook since CBO's last baseline
report in September 1997.
However, as CBO pointed out in its September report, there are
three reasons to be cautious about the current bright outlook for the
next 10 years. First, the economic and other assumptions underlying
CBO's baseline could prove to be too optimistic. For several years, the
economy has performed better and budget outcomes have been more
favorable than CBO and other forecasters anticipated. But the next few
years could mirror the early 1990's, a period in which the economic and
budget outlook sharply deteriorated. For example, a significant
worsening of the Asian crisis could slow economic growth in the United
States to a greater degree than CBO now expects.
Second, CBO's baseline projections assume that the Congress and the
President will comply with the provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997. The caps on discretionary spending called for by the act require
that appropriations in 2002 be held to a level about 10 percent below
the level needed to keep pace with anticipated inflation between now
and 2002. Between 1990 and 1997, total discretionary spending dropped
by 12 percent in real terms, with real increases in nondefense
appropriations offset by substantial cuts in defense spending. Cuts of
that kind are unlikely to be repeated in the coming years. Indeed, over
the next five years, it seems inevitable that pressures for additional
discretionary spending will arise, making it difficult to adhere to the
budget agreement.
A third reason for caution is that a problem still looms beyond the
10-year horizon because of the retirement of the baby-boom population
and the continued growth expected in the costs per beneficiary of
federal health programs for the elderly. Legislation to constrain
Social Security and Medicare spending to sustainable levels is required
to prevent spiraling deficits in the next century.
Compounding the problem for policymakers, who must rely on specific
budget projections, is the volatility of federal spending and revenues.
As recent experience has vividly demonstrated, projecting federal
revenues and spending accurately is a difficult job, even in the
current fiscal year.
Recent CBO Estimates
Last year at this time, CBO estimated that the 1997 deficit would
be $124 billion. The actual deficit was only $22 billion. Although that
outcome was good news for the budget, budget estimators, including
those at CBO, were surprised by the turn of events.
Three major factors contributed to the lower-than-estimated deficit
in 1997. First, the economy performed much better than expected,
raising the level of taxable income as measured by the government's
national income and product accounts. Second, a soaring stock market
also expanded the tax base through increased realizations of capital
gains; moreover, a growing share of income was earned by people at the
top of the income ladder who are taxed at higher rates. Those two
factors led to revenues that were $72 billion higher than CBO had
estimated a year ago in January. Third, outlays were $30 billion less
than expected, primarily as a result of lower costs for a variety of
entitlement programs.
Estimating errors as large as $100 billion are unusual. But with
total revenues and outlays each approaching $1.7 trillion, small
percentage deviations from the amounts projected at the beginning of
the year can easily swing budgetary outcomes by tens of billions of
dollars. An examination of the historical track record for both CBO and
the Office of Management and Budget shows that a 2 percent error for
both revenues and outlays is not uncommon.
We have made every effort to learn from last year's estimating
mistakes, yet it seems inevitable, given the perils of projecting, that
large errors will occur from time to time. However, we are taking steps
to provide an early-warning mechanism that will signal when actual
receipts and outlays are deviating from our estimates for the current
fiscal year. In that regard, we are making public our analysis of the
Daily and Monthly Treasury Statements, which appears in our Monthly
Budget Review report.
cbo on the world wide web
In response to requests for additional access to its information,
CBO is now making its documents available on the World Wide Web (at
http://www.cbo.gov/). Our Web site was launched in September following
a year-long development effort. (The Web site replaces a gopher server
that CBO has used since 1995 to distribute electronic versions of its
published studies and reports.) CBO now offers four electronic file
formats at its Web site and has expanded the types of documents it can
make available.
In addition to published reports and studies, CBO is making all of
its general work products available on the Web, including papers and
memorandums, testimonies, unfunded mandates statements, and federal
bill cost estimates, as well as special analyses such as the Monthly
Budget Review and reports on the current status of discretionary
appropriations. In the future, we hope to increase the usefulness of
the site by offering appropriate data in spreadsheet format.
Our first priority for posting at our site is currently produced
material. However, as time and resources permit, we are also including
certain CBO publications issued before last September.
Work on the CBO Web site has been closely coordinated with the
developers of the Legislative Information System (LIS) to ensure
technical compatibility of Congressional systems and responsiveness to
the needs of the Congress. The recent redesign of the cost estimates
section of the site uses as its model the search interface of the LIS
and Thomas Web sites. Additionally, we incorporated suggestions from
the staffs of the budget committees that will allow them to design
their searches to retrieve the cost estimate information they want
most. Further, the site is equipped with a notification feature that
alerts subscribers by E-mail when a document in their area of interest
has been added to the site. At this time, more than 300 CBO documents
are available on-line.
The response to the Web site has been quite positive, both from
technicians, such as those developing the LIS, and from visitors, who
find it easy to use. In terms of demand, we have received nearly
100,000 requests for information since September. Many of those
requests come from civilian or military employees of the federal
government, although most visitors to the site are from the private
sector and educational institutions. We have also had numerous requests
for information from users in countries around the world, including
Japan, Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia,
the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy.
fiscal year 1999 request
As I indicated previously, Mr. Chairman, CBO's fiscal year 1999
request is for $25,938,000, an increase of 4.6 percent, or $1.1
million, over our fiscal year 1998 appropriation. That request funds
our staff ceiling of 232 full-time-equivalent positions. We are not
asking for any additional positions. Specifically, our request includes
the following:
--$1,404,000 in pay and benefit increases, the major components of
which are (a) $606,000 for the annualization of fiscal year
1998 pay raises; (b) $471,000 for a projected 3.1 percent
employment cost index adjustment in January 1999; and (c)
$267,000 for merit increases (the increases are budgeted at 3.4
percent of base salaries, with 27 percent of the increases
assumed to be offset by turnover savings, resulting in net
costs of 2.4 percent of CBO's total pay base);
--$62,000 in various price increases ranging from printing to ADP
time-sharing; and
--a reduction of $305,000 (13 percent) in spending for equipment,
primarily ADP hardware and software, which would return such
spending to its historical level after an increase of 14
percent in fiscal year 1998. The increase in 1998 resulted from
the two ADP projects that triggered the reprogramming request
recently approved by the Committee. The projects involve
replacing the collection management system in the CBO library
and completing the upgrade to our network wiring that was
started by House Information Resources (HIR).
Personnel costs account for 85 percent of the total CBO budget.
Nearly 96 percent of the $1,466,000 in cost increases facing CBO in
fiscal year 1999 are increases associated with pay and benefits. CBO
has reduced other parts of its budget to absorb more than 20 percent of
the increases, primarily by cutting spending for ADP equipment by one-
third. At 8.1 percent of CBO's budget, ADP spending is at a historical
low. Moreover, administrative expenses--6.5 percent of the total
budget--are below their historical average.
Areas of Concern Surrounding CBO's Budget Request
Although CBO should be able to maintain its current workload with
the funds requested here, the agency, as I noted earlier, confronts
several uncertainties in fiscal year 1999. Principal among our concerns
is our ability to offer the salaries and benefits needed to remain
competitive in today's tight labor market.
The current job market compels CBO and other employers to worry
about both the recruitment of new workers and the retention of current
employees. CBO's staff includes economists and other quantitatively
skilled professionals, all of whom are in particularly high demand.
Newly minted economists now command surprisingly high salaries.
Recruitment has become a time-consuming and frequently frustrating
process as more and more often we lose qualified people to employers
who can sometimes pay as much as 50 percent more in compensation.
Paralleling our recruitment activities is our need to retain
current employees. CBO's reputation for high-quality analysis and
budget work has made our experienced analysts the focus of other
employers' recruiting efforts. As an example, in the past few months
CBO has lost three of its managers to more senior and higher-paying
positions. We are not suggesting that because of our turnover rates we
deserve extraordinary consideration. Nevertheless, we operate under
something of a disadvantage compared with other federal employers that
can provide locality pay raises and lump-sum bonuses to attract and
retain exceptional workers. Given those circumstances, we believe CBO's
merit pay request for fiscal year 1999 is a critical element in our
remaining competitive in the employment market.
A further concern for CBO is the uncertain costs associated with
relocating important ADP systems. Currently, CBO relies on the
mainframe computer of House Information Resources (HIR) to run its
budget database applications. However, the HIR mainframe is slated to
be retired, and CBO, along with other users, will have to make other
arrangements. CBO uses the HIR mainframe for a variety of analytical
work, but the applications related to our budget database are
particularly critical for providing timely support to the House and
Senate Budget and Appropriations Committees. We use such applications
to track and analyze Presidential spending proposals and subsequent
Congressional action. The HIR mainframe is the repository of the
President's annual budget, CBO's baseline budget projections, numerous
data sets used by the House and Senate Budget Committees in developing
annual budget resolutions, and data sets that track appropriation and
other spending bills along with associated CBO estimates of outlays.
HIR and its mainframe computer have provided excellent service,
with the following attributes being of particular importance:
--Computer response time, for both interactive and batch turnaround,
is very good.
--The computer is extremely reliable; it almost never goes down.
--HIR and CBO are in the same building, making it much easier to
retrieve large reports quickly for delivery to the budget and
appropriations committees as well as other Congressional
clients.
--HIR has been helpful in expediting printing and in extending
service hours during periods of heightened Congressional
activity.
--HIR technical support staff are excellent and very responsive.
With the scheduled retirement of the HIR mainframe, CBO's challenge
is to duplicate, as closely as possible with a new vendor, the service
it currently receives from HIR. We believe we can accomplish that by
moving our budget analysis applications to the same provider of
mainframe services that the HIR Legislative Information Management
System (LIMS) intends to use, and we are currently discussing the
feasibility of that option with the House. In general, CBO believes
that a mainframe computer provider serving both the House and CBO will
be better able to ensure that we can continue to meet the special needs
of the Congress. However, if for some reason CBO's computer
applications cannot follow the remaining HIR mainframe work, we will
seek the assistance of the HIR systems programming and communication
staff to move our operations to another vendor.
We do not yet have a firm estimate of how much it will cost to
evaluate our options for moving CBO's systems or to prepare for the
transition; both types of costs are likely to occur in fiscal year
1999. Our request includes $100,000 for those purposes, although that
could prove to be a conservative estimate.
Finally, some Members of Congress have voiced the intent to expand
the scope of the information that CBO provides under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 regarding the costs of private-sector
mandates. We do not anticipate at this time that those increased duties
will necessarily require additional resources or a further diversion of
resources from our regular budget work. We would continue to do our
best to provide the Congress with good mandates cost data, although in
certain cases, some information may be slow in coming or less specific
than might be desired.
Costs Associated with CBO's Web Site
Designing, developing, implementing, and maintaining a World Wide
Web site requires a commitment of significant resources. CBO devotes
two full-time employees to the operation, maintenance, and further
development of the site, with other employees around the agency also
contributing their time. In addition to those direct costs, CBO may
soon face some indirect costs associated with the Web site.
It is unclear, for instance, how the increased availability of CBO
documents in an electronic format will affect demand for paper copies
of our products. It could cut demand, in the same way that more
widespread availability of fax machines reduced the need for couriers.
Or it could stimulate demand: by raising the visibility of the many
different types of products available from CBO--which the Web site is
likely to do--the demand for paper copies of those products could rise.
That last effect has been the experience of the National Academy of
Sciences. As we assess the impact of the Web site on demand for paper
documents, we will continue to manage our printing and mailing costs
very closely. Last year, we culled our mailing list significantly,
which should reduce both printing and mailing costs on a per-
publication basis this year. Also, during this start-up period for the
Web site, we can respond to any increase in demand for paper copies of
our published reports and studies by asking the Government Printing
Office to make more of them available for sale in its bookstores.
Operating a public Web site has made us more aware of the
opportunities that Internet technologies afford for sharing information
among different kinds of computers and systems. That capability can be
particularly useful in an organization such as ours, in which the basic
currency is information but the means used to produce it comprise a
wide variety of computers and applications. Another attractive feature
of the Internet technologies is the ability to standardize and share
administrative information and functions electronically. We plan to
begin assessing the value of a CBO Intranet this year.
Year 2000 Update
CBO, like other computer users, must make sure that its systems can
accurately recognize and accommodate dates beyond 1999--the so-called
Year 2000 problem. To that end, we have established a committee
composed of representatives from all of CBO's divisions. Given the
nature of CBO's work and its reliance on other agencies for its
administrative support in such areas as personnel, payroll, and
contracting, CBO's Year 2000 problem is small relative to that of other
agencies. Nevertheless, 11 of our 39 computer systems are critical to
our budgetary and analytical mission, and we are working to make the
changeover as smooth and as trouble-free as possible. To date, four of
the 11 mission-critical systems have been reprogrammed, six are
awaiting assessment, and one is being repaired.
The Budget Analysis Data System, which runs on the HIR computer, is
the largest of the four systems that have been reprogrammed. However,
that work is still to be tested because the operating system of the HIR
computer is not yet Year 2000 compliant. Once the HIR computer has been
reprogrammed, we will begin testing to ensure that our systems are
ready for operation under the new requirements. In the unlikely event
that the systems fail those tests, we have contingency plans ready to
prevent any interruption in the services we provide to the Congress.
In addition to the activities just noted, CBO has taken other steps
to prepare for the coming transition. Beginning in fiscal year 1998,
all of our purchase orders and contracts relating to hardware,
software, and data have called for Year 2000 compliance. Our computer
personnel have also tested all of our microcomputers to ensure their
readiness, and those that were found not to be compliant have been
repaired. We will also test any new computers that we receive and
return any that fail such testing to the manufacturer. During fiscal
year 1998, we plan to establish a Year 2000 testing facility for
network-related hardware and software. Finally, CBO subscribes to the
Gartner Group's Year 2000 service and will use that consulting resource
during the Year 2000 transition period.
CBO's Response to the Committee's Directive on Financial Management
The Committee included language in last year's report encouraging
all legislative branch entities to adopt the goals and objectives of
the Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council, which was formed to
promote effective financial management practices across the legislative
branch. CBO has participated in the Council's activities since its
inception, and we have recently adopted its statement of vision and
goals. Accordingly, our budget request includes funds for preparing and
issuing audited financial statements for fiscal year 1999.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, CBO is keenly aware of the Congress's intention to
balance the budget and downsize the federal government, including the
legislative branch. In response, CBO's recent budget requests have been
quite modest, with requested increases usually being less than the
projected rate of inflation. Our present proposal represents our best
estimate of the amount necessary to maintain our budget at the current-
services level. It is a prudent budget in which we absorb over 20
percent of our mandatory pay and benefit increases through reductions
elsewhere. We believe, however, that our requested increase of 4.6
percent is necessary if we are to continue to serve the Congress in the
manner it has come to expect.
______
Additional Committee Questions
Question. In testimony you mentioned that CBO has experienced some
problems in retaining and hiring qualified economists due to the tight
labor market and CBO's inability to remain competitive with salaries
and benefits. However, there is no request for funds or legislative
language to alleviate that problem. Is this a problem Congress needs to
consider and if so, what are some of the possible options?
Answer. We believe that our having the authority to provide lump-
sum bonuses for recruitment and retention would make CBO more
competitive with other federal employers. But the House does not appear
to agree.
In terms of pay and benefit privileges, according to our enabling
legislation, CBO employees are treated as if they work for the House of
Representatives. The House does not provide moving expenses for new
employees, nor does it give lump-sum bonuses to its workers. We have
requested lump-sum bonus authority in the past, but the House has not
been disposed to make that change or to make an exception for CBO.
Salary compression is another problem. The annual salaries for
CBO's Director and Deputy Director are tied to Executive Levels III and
IV, respectively. As a result, our division directors are now paid more
than the Deputy Director. The recent 2.3 percent pay raise awarded to
Executive Schedule staff provided a small cushion, but federal salaries
for senior managers and executives lag well behind private-sector pay
for comparable positions.
Starting salaries for economists, especially in the fields of
health and macro-economic analysis, are a further problem. The salaries
offered to new Ph.D. economists in 1998, especially by consulting
firms, are much higher than the salaries paid to comparably trained CBO
staff with two or three years of experience. For example, Charles River
Associates and the National Economic Research Association offer
starting salaries of over $90,000. Starting salaries at the Federal
Reserve Board are in the $70,000 to $72,000 range. The top salary
offered by the executive branch (GS-12, step 10) is $61,190. We are
offering salaries in the $60,000 to $65,000 range.
As our statement notes, the current job market compels CBO to worry
about the recruitment of new workers as well as the retention of
current employees. We would rather not propose a quick fix that might
result in unintended, longer-term consequences. Pay inequities such as
those described above can exacerbate turnover rates.
Question. How much do you estimate to be the cost of preparing and
issuing audited financial statements for fiscal year 1999? Is this
amount included in your budget request?
Answer. We have included $30,000 for the audit of our fiscal year
1999 financial statements. That preliminary estimate is as low as it is
because we assume that the audit will be done by the same accounting
firm that audits the financial statements of the Library of Congress
and that its testing of the financial management system we share with
the Library will reduce the final cost.
Question. The House has decided to eliminate its mainframe computer
by the year 2000. CBO relies on the House mainframe computer for its
data processing systems and has included $100,000 in its budget
proposal to evaluate options and prepare for the transition. Has a
decision been made as to when the HIR systems will be replaced and
whether CBO will continue to run these critical applications on the
replacement system? If this decision has not been made, why not?
Answer. The House has given us a response that makes the answer to
your question subject to interpretation. At this time, we are uncertain
about exactly what Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Jay Eagen means
by the following:
CBO'S use of the HIR mainframe computer for budget
analysis.--HIR can provide technical assistance to CBO in
following a systems development life cycle policy and
procedures to ensure the most effective solution for your
needs. HIR can also work with your staff to identify vendors
who can assist in the relocation of your system and then
provide technical information concerning your existing system
to your vendor.
That same response (word for word) was given in answer to our
request to use the House Information Resources (HIR) mainframe computer
for statistical analysis.
The CAO may be saying that HIR will help CBO move its applications
to the same location used by the Legislative Information Management
System (LIMS). Our objective is to follow the LIMS, but currently we
have no commitment for support from the CAO. If that commitment is not
obtained, we may have to move our applications to a location different
from where LIMS will ultimately reside.
Question. When do you expect to have a plan in place?
Answer. At this point we are dependent on HIR, which is apparently
waiting for the House Inspector General to issue the report of a study
performed by Price Waterhouse on the future of the HIR mainframe
computer. Before devising a plan, we would need to clarify the CAO's
response; then, assuming that we are permitted to follow LIMS, we would
need to review the Inspector General's report. However, we believe it
is necessary to decide soon about whether we should count on following
LIMS or develop a plan to strike out on our own.
Question. Is it realistic to think that $100,000 will be adequate
to resolve this problem in fiscal year 1999--waiting until the fiscal
year 2000 budget to request the funds necessary to implement the change
would leave only 3 months for installation of a new system before Jan.
1, 2000.
Answer. If CBO's applications can follow LIMS and we receive
support from HIR staff, then $100,000 should be enough. However, if we
must hire a vendor to assist us in moving our systems, then no matter
where they are moved, $100,000 will be too small a sum. If we cannot
follow the LIMS migration and are left to obtain our own service
outside of a House contract, we expect to see an adverse impact on our
future budget requests.
As you note, waiting until fiscal year 2000 to implement another
plan would not leave us enough time. This decision must be made in the
very near future--certainly during this fiscal year.
Question. CBO has expanded the use of its Web site to include
testimony, cost estimates, and reports. Obviously there is an increased
cost associated with this function. Does CBO publish everything it
produces on its Web site? If not, what is the criteria for whether an
item will be posted?
Answer. Our first priority for posting on our site is all general
work products as they are released. As time and resources permit, we
are also including certain CBO publications issued before the Web site
was activated, as well as expanding the available file formats in order
to post spreadsheets, where appropriate. Although the response to our
Web site has been quite positive thus far and we have received nearly
100,000 requests for information since September, it is not yet clear
whether the demand for printed copies of our publications will drop.
The growing use of the Internet as both a source of and
distribution tool for information has affected our budget primarily
through the purchase of the hardware, telecommunications services,
software, and Web development expertise needed to establish and
maintain our link to the network.
Question. Your testimony notes that you plan to assess the value of
a CBO Intranet this year. What type of functions do you envision the
Intranet serving?
Answer. CBO plans to move existing systems--some of which are
automated, some manual, but all of which are antiquated--to the Web-
based Intranet technology. For example, CBO currently tracks its
incoming correspondence using an old microcomputer database program;
that correspondence-monitoring system would eventually be moved to the
CBO Intranet. In the process, the system would be enhanced to meet new
requirements that have emerged since the original system was developed
and to exploit features offered by the newer technology. Another
example is the way CBO currently satisfies internal requests for
administrative support. Under the present system, requests for support
are made via phone or E-mail to the unit within CBO that is responsible
for providing the requested goods or services. With an agencywide
Intranet application, CBO users could use their computers and a
standard interface (an Internet browser) to request service. The system
would determine who should receive the work order and would
automatically provide internal management controls such as notifying
the responsible manager when a request was made and tracking its
fulfillment (including who does it and how long it takes). The system
would also provide a real-time summary of requests; in addition, aging
reports would be available to identify any outstanding requests that
had not been completed. All of that information could be requested by
authorized CBO personnel through the CBO Intranet. Yet another planned
application is the redesign and relocation of the CBO project
information control system, which is currently a mainframe-based
system. There are other applications, internal to individual divisions,
that are also envisioned for the CBO Intranet.
CBO has established an internal World Wide Web steering committee
with representatives from all divisions within the organization. All
requests for Internet or Intranet applications must be presented to and
approved by the committee before any development activity begins.
Question. Does CBO have a plan to make its systems year 2000
compliant?
Answer. CBO does have a plan to make those of our systems that are
under our direct control Year 2000 compliant. Some portions of that
plan have been presented verbally to the General Accounting Office
(GAO), and some have been provided in writing. The plan is currently in
a format that is more informal than the one prescribed by GAO in its
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide. Moreover, we have not
carried out all of the recommended Year 2000 activities outlined in the
guide. Because of the nature of CBO's information systems and the
agency's small size, we do not currently have the resources nor do we
feel it necessary to produce the same response expected of a larger
agency.
Many of our important systems operate by means of interagency and
commercial computing resources. For example, our Budget Analysis Data
System runs on the House Information Resources computer, our payroll
and personnel systems are handled by the National Finance Center, and
our financial management system runs on a Library of Congress computer.
We have other systems that rely on proprietary data models provided by
commercial vendors. To the extent that we can influence the Year 2000
compliance issue through contracting language, we have done so. We also
plan to send letters of inquiry to all interagency and commercial
vendors concerning their Year 2000 status and plans, which we will
monitor. On the one hand, we have little control in the final analysis
over whether those systems will or will not be Year 2000 compliant. On
the other hand, we have contingency plans for some of those systems
that will be activated if necessary. For the other systems, such as
payroll, personnel, and financial management, we are forced to rely on
the service agency. For the systems that are within our control, we
have developed compliance plans, some of which were addressed in our
hearing statement.
Question. What is the strategy for testing renovated systems for
compliance?
Answer. We plan to simulate the year 2000 by advancing the system
clock; we will then run the software on a program-by-program basis.
However, until HIR supports an operating system platform that is Year
2000 compliant, we are unable to test those of our renovated programs
that require that computing resource.
Question. How many data interfaces does CBO have with external
organizations? Describe how CBO is working with those organizations to
develop mutually agreed-to data formats for exchanging information
after Jan. 1, 2000.
Answer. Current CBO systems exchange data with the following
interagency organizations: HIR, the House Appropriations Committee, the
National Finance Center, the Library of Congress, the Treasury, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Census Bureau. Of those
systems, only the OMB and HIR systems are critical to CBO's mission.
The OMB interface currently allows for a four-digit year, and the HIR
interface has been renovated and awaits testing.
Although CBO has many data interfaces with commercial vendors, only
three are mission critical: Haver Analytics, General Electric Data
Services, and Data Resources Incorporated. We believe those systems are
Year 2000 compliant already because they provide economic forecasting
data beyond 2000.
CBO is also a member of the Legislative Year 2000 Committee
sponsored by the House and Senate. The committee identifies and
monitors Congressional systems that interact and share information for
the purpose of determining whether they need Year 2000 renovation.
We are satisfied that no changes are needed in the data format. We
have included Year 2000 language in our contract renewals that make
compliance a condition of the contract.
Question. What is your estimated total cost to address the year
2000 problem?
Answer. We have no accurate estimate at this time, given the
uncertainty of the HIR mainframe relocation and whether we will follow
LIMS with HIR assistance.
Question. What has been spent to date?
Answer. To date, we have spent funds only for personnel. But we
have budgeted $180,000 to replace our library collection management
system during fiscal year 1998.
Question. What is requested in your fiscal year 1999 budget?
Answer. We are not requesting separate funds for Year 2000
activities at this time. However, we have asked for $100,000 for the
mainframe conversion, and some of that effort will include Year 2000
activities.
Question. What is your cost estimate beyond fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Given the uncertainty surrounding the move of our key
mission-critical system, which currently runs on the HIR mainframe
computer, we have no estimate beyond fiscal year 1999 at this time. The
decision regarding our request to follow the House Legislative
Information Management System will strongly influence that matter. If
CBO must obtain vendor support to move its mainframe systems and cannot
benefit from HIR's work in the Year 2000 area, additional funds will
certainly be necessary.
Question. When will CBO publish the reestimate of the President's
budget?
Answer. The projected release date for CBO's analysis of the
President's budget is March 31, 1998. A preliminary report of our
analysis was released on March 4.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan
Question. Dr. O'Neill, would you explain to the subcommittee what
is meant by dynamic scoring and to what extent CBO does it now?
Answer. The term ``dynamic scoring'' has several interpretations.
Many people mistakenly believe that estimates prepared for the Congress
of the budgetary effects of spending or tax proposals do not take into
account the changes in behavior that could result from passage of those
proposals. In fact, all Congressionally mandated budget estimates--
whether the spending estimates required of CBO or the estimates of
receipts prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation--employ the same
basic estimating conventions. Such conventions incorporate assumptions
about how changes in taxation or government spending might change
individual behavior in response to new economic incentives.
Those behavioral and other estimating assumptions cover a wide
variety of microeconomic effects and reflect the best available
research and estimating methods. For example, the estimate for a
proposal to subsidize health insurance for early retirees would include
the additional costs that would result from the likely increase in the
number of early retirees. Similarly, the estimate for a proposal to
increase the excise tax on tobacco products would take into account the
resulting decrease in cigarette consumption.
In most instances, the estimating conventions used in producing
cost estimates of bills are not controversial. However, questions may
arise in two types of situations. First, estimators sometimes disagree
about the magnitude of microeconomic responses, such as the extent to
which an increase in excise taxes would reduce consumption. Second,
some proposed legislation could give rise to macroeconomic effects,
which are not included in routine cost estimates. That is, a major tax
or spending measure might affect saving, investment, or work effort and
thus affect the potential growth rate of the economy. In that sense,
critics sometimes argue that the assumptions used for budget estimates
are not dynamic enough.
Although estimating the effect of proposed legislation on the
macroeconomy may appear desirable, it is impractical, particularly for
routine bill cost estimates, for a number of reasons. In some cases,
little or no research may be available on which to base an estimate. In
other instances, even when research bearing on a topic is available,
economists disagree so much about the magnitude of macroeconomic
effects that no single estimate can be meaningfully treated as a
consensus. In addition, CBO often lacks sufficient time and resources
to produce the complex estimates required. And finally, long-run
changes in macroeconomic variables could be invisibly small in the
five- or 10-year period used for budget estimates, even if they were
likely to be significant in later years. In consequence, routinely
incorporating macroeconomic effects into budget estimates would create
considerable uncertainty and possibly endless controversy.
CBO has, however, provided information about the possible
macroeconomic effects of major legislation in a number of its
analytical studies. Those studies were feasible because an extensive
economics literature was available for reference and because CBO had
sufficient time and resources for proper analysis. Moreover, unlike
bill cost estimates, studies allow for a range of results. For example,
CBO included an analysis of the macroeconomic effects of the 1997
budget reconciliation package in the updated economic and budget
outlook published last September. Last year, CBO also published a study
of the possible economic effects of comprehensive tax reform. In
addition, the budget resolution for fiscal year 1998 incorporated
assumptions made by CBO on the macroeconomic effects of balancing the
budget. That produced a so-called fiscal dividend that reduced the
magnitude of the policy changes needed to reach budgetary balance.
Question. You mentioned in your prepared statement that some
Members of Congress have proposed expanding certain provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Would you describe some of these
proposals and tell us which ones might have an impact on your budget.
Answer. The proposal that has garnered the most attention is S.
389, the Mandates Information Act of 1997 (sponsored by Senator Abraham
and others). S. 389 would set new procedural constraints for private-
sector mandates and direct CBO to provide additional types of cost
information about those mandates. Specifically, for any private-sector
mandate with estimated costs above the threshold of $100 million a year
(in 1996 dollars, adjusted annually for inflation), CBO would be
required to analyze the impact on consumers, workers, and small
businesses, including any disproportionate impact on particular regions
and industries. The analysis would cover the effects on consumer
prices, workers' wages and benefits, employment opportunities, and the
profitability of small businesses.
In previous testimony, we have indicated that we do not expect
those increased duties from S. 389 to necessarily require additional
resources or a further diversion of resources from our budget work.
Some other bills, however, could pose a more significant burden.
H.R. 2591, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 1997 (proposed by
Congressman Lamar Smith and others), would impose significant new
duties on CBO to prepare regulatory cost analyses. That bill would
expand the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in three important ways: by
broadening the definition of costs to include ``social, environmental
and economic'' costs; by including indirect effects of private-sector
mandates; and by requiring cost analyses of existing rules and
regulations when legislation is reauthorized. CBO could not fulfill
those requirements without sustaining substantial damage to its primary
functions. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that meeting those
requirements might be an impossible task, particularly considering the
short time frame that characterizes most legislation.
In addition, the following bills could have relatively minor
effects on CBO:
H.R. 1704, to establish a Congressional Office of Regulatory
Analysis, would allow the director of the proposed office to obtain
information from CBO and to utilize CBO's ``services, facilities, and
personnel with or without reimbursement.''
H.R. 62, the Unfunded Federal Mandates Relief Act of 1997
(introduced by Congressman Herger), would require CBO to prepare an
annual report estimating the total amount of additional costs that
state and local governments would incur as a result of regulations
promulgated during the previous year.
H.R. 2708, to provide a framework in which the legislative and
executive branches could consider unilateral economic sanctions
(introduced by Congressman Hamilton and others), would identify a bill
that imposed such sanctions on a foreign country as a private-sector
mandate and require CBO to analyze the likely short-term and long-term
costs to the U.S. economy from those sanctions.
subcommittee recess
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Dr. O'Neill, for your
testimony.
At this time, if there is no further business to come
before the subcommittee, the hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., Thursday, February 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:39 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Bennett and Dorgan.
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY CHRIS FRENZE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will come to order. I
apologize for being tardy. You are not interested in my
explanations but you should get my apologies.
This morning we are going to hear from the joint
committees, the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. Senate, the
Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, and
the Office of Compliance, so we have a fairly full schedule
ahead of us.
I want to highlight for the agencies testifying today my
particular interest in the year 2000 problem. Those who follow
my activities are discovering that this is something of a
broken record with me, but I am convinced that this is a very
serious challenge not only for the Government but for the
economy as a whole.
The majority leader has asked me to take the lead in seeing
to it that both the legislative and executive branch agencies
are prepared for this challenge and I will use this forum and
any other that I can appropriately get to respond to that task
from Senator Lott.
Now, our first witness this morning is Hon. Jim Saxton,
chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, and he will be
followed by Hon. John Warner, chairman of the Joint Committee
on Printing, and I appreciate the attendance of both of our
colleagues here.
Senator Dorgan, do you have any opening comments?
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an opening
comment. Let us hear from the witnesses. I am pleased that we
are holding the hearing today, and we have some interesting
statements, so let us get on with it.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Congressman Saxton, we welcome you, and appreciate you
coming across the Capitol to testify. I should say that when he
arrives our third witness will be Senator Bill Roth, who is
chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Congressman Saxton, we appreciate you being here and look
forward to your comments.
Mr. Saxton's opening statement
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Dorgan. I
am pleased to be here today to bring you up to date on our
activities, and to talk for just a minute about our budget
request for the next fiscal year.
In light of the fact that Senator Warner is here and it
sounds like you have a busy schedule, I will ask unanimous
consent that my entire statement be placed in the record and
just say a couple of things.
Senator Bennett. Without objection, it will be inserted.
Mr. Saxton. The budget request this year will enable the
Joint Economic Committee to continue its mission of providing
quality research and policy analysis for the Congress as well
as for the public. The committee has been very, very
productive, and we are naturally pleased that the Joint
Economic Committee research projects and hearings have been
well-received.
The Joint Economic Committee's research and activities have
been cited in the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Wall
Street Journal, the Washington Post and Time magazine, among
other publications. Over the last 12 months the Joint Economic
Committee has been busy. We have released more than 25 studies
and reports, and we have held 17 hearings. The JEC studies
covered a variety of topics, including taxation, the budget,
monetary policy and other issues such as the IMF, with which we
are currently very much engaged.
The research program of the committee was designed to
ensure that these studies provide useful information related to
the policy issues before Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I will just leave the rest of my statement
for the record, and just say that the recent history of the
funding of the JEC has been interesting and, perhaps, in some
respects unique.
In fiscal year 1995 we had a total budget of just over $4
million. By 1996, the total budget that we had to operate with
was about $3 million. We took an additional $250,000 reduction
in fiscal year 1997, and have been steady through fiscal year
1998.
prepared statement
This year, we are asking for a small increase of $46,000 to
keep pace with inflation, that is about 1.6 percent.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Jim Saxton
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a
pleasure to present my strong support for the fiscal year 1999
budget request of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC).
This budget request will enable the JEC to continue its
mission of providing quality research and policy analysis for
the Congress and the public. The goals of maximum efficiency,
quality, and productivity have guided the Committee in meeting
resource constraints and managing Committee functions and
procedures.
As a result, the Committee has been very productive, and we
are naturally pleased that JEC research products and hearings
have been well received. JEC research and activities have been
cited in The New York Times, The Financial Times, The Wall
Street Journal, The Washington Post, Time and many other
publications.
Over the last 12 months, the JEC released more than 25
studies and reports and held 17 hearings. These JEC studies
covered a variety of topics including taxation, budget,
monetary policy, and other issues. The research program of the
Committee was designed to ensure that these studies provided
useful information related to the policy issues before
Congress.
A number of JEC studies have analyzed various tax issues
from an economic perspective. This series of tax papers has
examined the economic criteria that should guide tax policy,
and applied them to specific tax issues before Congress. For
example, several studies examined the taxation of personal
saving and capital gains, and how this might be affected by
proposed changes in tax law. The JEC also recreated a Treasury
Department data base to show in a more complete way its
measurement of distributional effects under the 1997 tax law.
Another JEC study analyzed the economic effects of broad versus
narrowly targeted tax incentive policies.
A special research program in monetary policy generated six
studies on various issues related to maintaining low inflation
and low interest rates. In brief, this research found that the
thrust of Federal Reserve monetary policy in recent years has
been to bring inflation and interest rates down, improving the
operation of the price system, and sustaining the economic
expansion and its associated employment gains. This research
also suggested consideration of inflation targeting, a
procedure used formally by several central banks in other
nations. In testimony before the JEC last fall, Chairman
Greenspan indicated that he agreed that this was essentially
the approach used by the Federal Reserve in recent years, and
that he was sympathetic with legislation that provides for
inflation targeting.
In recent months, the JEC has examined the complicated
issues associated with the financial problems in Asia and the
efforts of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to contain
them. In recent weeks, the JEC held a hearing on IMF financing,
and also issued a study on this subject. Our research concludes
that the IMF should become more open and should discontinue its
practice of subsidizing its loans with below market interest
rates.
We have planned an aggressive research agenda for 1998 that
builds on our 1997 research program. Several new studies on
various tax issues are under preparation, as are new studies on
monetary policy, regulation, and the impact of government on
the economy. The need for quality information and policy
analysis in the years ahead will continue to require adequate
funding of the Joint Economic Committee.
Thank you.
Year 2000 issue
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
I talked about the year 2000 issue. Have you looked into
your computers and have a feel for how compliant your committee
may be with respect to year 2000 issues?
Mr. Saxton. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Chris Frenze
is with me. He is the executive director of the committee, and
let me just ask, if it is all right with you----
Senator Bennett. Surely.
Mr. Saxton [continuing]. If he might respond to that
question.
Mr. Frenze. We have been contacted by some of the same
people who likely have contacted you about this. Our own
internal computer system has some of the same problems that
other congressional entities have.
I would suggest that the committee, in the next Congress,
would be an ideal forum for looking into the larger economic
impacts of this problem as we lead up to the year 2000.
Senator Bennett. That was going to be my next comment.
Experts that have appeared before my subcommittee on banking,
where we are focusing primarily on financial systems, have told
us that there is approaching a 50-50 chance that the year 2000
problem will trigger a worldwide recession.
It would seem to me that the Joint Economic Committee is
concerned with economic trends in the business cycle should be
paying some attention to this, so I will use this opportunity
to put in a plug for that kind of a hearing and assure you that
if it takes place I will be there.
I appreciate serving on that committee. It has been one of
the more interesting challenges I have had since I have come to
the Senate.
Senator Dorgan, do you have any questions?
Staffing level
Senator Dorgan. Just a quick question. What is the current
staffing level on the Joint Economic Committee?
Mr. Frenze. The amount of slots that we have informally
allocated from the House Appropriations Committee is about 38.
My understanding is the accounting system is a little different
in terms of the way the Senate views the staffing issue, but 38
staff slots reflect a significant reduction from about 50 just
a few years ago. As with all committees, the staff goes up and
down, and right now it is around 30, committeewide.
Senator Dorgan. All right. Thank you
Senator Bennett. I understand you have an aggressive
research agenda for this year, Mr. Chairman. Studies on tax
issues, monetary policy, regulation, impact of the Government
on the economy. As I say, I would hope you would add to that a
hearing on the year 2000 situation.
Mr. Saxton. We will be happy to do that. It is obviously a
very important issue which, as you suggest, has all kinds of
implications for the economy. It is something that we are
certainly willing to look at, in which we would like to be a
partner. We will be happy both to take the lead on the House
side if you think that is appropriate, and to work through this
with you beginning this year.
Senator Bennett. Very good.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just ask one additional question, if
I might. I, too, served on the committee some years ago, and I
got the feeling--I do not know what it is now, but I got the
feeling at one point in time that the committee staff kind of
divided into two camps and were putting out competing different
studies and results to serve partisan ends on both sides.
Has that abated some? Because the committee in years past
used to be a very respected committee that was very bipartisan,
and I think it changed some some years ago. What is the
situation there now?
Mr. Saxton. I think the fact that you asked that question,
suggests that you have probably noticed that we have tried to
make it a more bipartisan effort. There is no question that
there are differences of opinion on economic issues, and those
differences of opinion manifest themselves from time to time,
but by and large the tone of the committee has been much more
bipartisan.
I cannot think of a time this year when we had rancor in
the ranks of the committee, in either public hearings or in
private. We work well together with Members of both parties
and, as I said, have from time to time expressed different
opinions on economic matters, but we do it in as good-natured
and as bipartisan a way as is possible.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I think that is helpful. I think it
is an important committee and an important forum in which to
evaluate some very difficult economic issues, and I think the
tradition over many years has been that Congress in a
bipartisan way sinks their teeth into these things and tries to
get the best analysis possible, and I kind of regretted there
was a period of time, probably rather short period, in which it
kind of became a ping pong ball back and forth for partisan
purposes.
But I appreciate your answer, and you are right, the reason
I asked the question is I have not heard much in that respect
recently, and I think that is good news.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Frenze. I would like to add that our research agenda is
very carefully designed to avoid any conflicts of that kind. If
you look at our reports you will see--you may not agree with
what we are saying, but it is presented in a nonpartisan way.
We are focusing on economics, not on politics at the
committee. Just yesterday a JEC report was released that was
co-released by two Democratic and two Republican Senators, and
one House Member, the majority leader of the House, Mr. Armey,
with Congressman Moran also participating. That is the kind of
thing that we are trying to do.
Senator Dorgan. Well, the Asian financial crisis and the
uncertainty that it provides for our economy and a range of
things like that represent the reasons I think we ought to have
a committee of this type, so I am glad to hear your response
and wish you well.
Senator Bennett. I can comment that when I went on the
committee as a freshman Senator 5 years ago I was a little bit
stunned and appalled at the shouting matches that went on both
publicly and privately when we met as members of the committee
to discuss committee administration.
I will say that it was all confined to the House side.
[Laughter.]
I did not notice any Senators yelling at each other, but
there were calls for abolition of the committee if the chairman
did not change his position and responses in kind, and since
some of the leadership has moved on to other challenges at
least in the period that Congressman Saxton and before him
Senator Mack have presided over the committee there has been a
serious diminution in that kind of activity, and I for one
welcome it tremendously. I appreciate your raising it.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
coming. We appreciate your request. We appreciate your
responsibility in holding the line on the budget. You set a
good example for the other committees with which we deal.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY ERIC PETERSON, STAFF DIRECTOR
Senator Bennett. Chairman Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your wonderful
staff instructed me to submit my testimony and answer one
question. The answer to the question is, I hope in a few weeks
we will be able to.
Senator Bennett. We would not instruct you to do anything,
Mr. Chairman. We would respectfully request.
Senator Warner. You see that picture on the wall behind
you? I have had to deal with him for 19 years, a little longer
than you. Why is it your witnesses sit down on the floor so
that they can barely look over the table? Did we not give you
some good chairs for this room? [Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, it was a fast shutter that
caught him smiling. [Laughter.]
He is a good guy, but that is an unusual pose. [Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. I will not comment on any of this.
Senator Warner. You should have been with us last night to
finish up the highway bill. Oh, boy. That is about it.
This is Mr. Peterson, our wonderful staff director, and we
are moving to disestablish the committee. It has been in
existence a long time. How long has it been in existence?
Mr. Peterson. Over 150 years.
prepared statement
Senator Warner. Oh, really, over 150 years, so a little
progress is being made. Title 44, I hope we will be able to
move that. My distinguished ranking member, Senator Ford,
indicates that he is working through some problems on his side.
We do not have any problems on our side, so there she be.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator John Warner
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch
Appropriations, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on
behalf of the Joint Committee on Printing.
Last year, when I came before this committee, I outlined four key
initiatives the Joint Committee would undertake. Those initiatives
included:
--Improved compliance by Executive Branch agencies with Title 44 of
the U.S. Code;
--The development and implementation of a standard generalized markup
language to facilitate electronic creation and retrieval of
legislative information and documents;
--An accommodation on a privatization study requested by this
subcommittee from the Government Printing Office; and,
--The writing of legislation to reform Title 44.
Today, I am pleased to inform you that real progress has been made
on each of these initiatives. By the end of my tenure as chairman of
the Joint Committee on Printing, I am confident that all these
initiatives will be complete.
As part of the effort to reform Title 44, the Committee has devoted
much attention to preparing the Government Printing Office (GPO) for
the day when there will be no Joint Committee on Printing to oversee
GPO operations, or to run interference for the agency with its
customers and potential customers.
The management review, which was ordered in GPO's fiscal year 1998
appropriation, is an important part of this transition. On behalf of
the members of the Joint Committee, thank you for your support of that
important undertaking.
I believe that when the General Accounting Office and its
contractor complete their work, the GPO will have a sound plan which
will enable it to successfully operate in a business-like fashion,
providing for the printing needs of Congress, procuring publishing
services for Executive and Judiciary branch agencies, and assuring
permanent public access to the Government's publications.
Over the past year, the staff of the Committee, working closely
with the staff of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, has
labored to craft a proposal reforming Title 44. As advertised from the
outset, this effort has been a consensus building process in which all
interested parties have been invited to participate.
With much patience and determination, the staff has listened
carefully to the suggestions, comments and concerns of all who sought
input. As a result, a solid, workable proposal which offers something
for everyone concerned has been developed.
The measure will solve the Constitutional issue of separation of
powers raised by the Justice Department.
It will provide a transition to enable the government to take full
advantage of the rapid evolution in electronic publishing and
dissemination technology.
It will ensure that the Government's publications are produced and
disseminated in the most cost effective manner possible, placing heavy
emphasis on giving the private sector full and fair opportunity to
compete for the government's printing and publishing needs.
And it will ensure that the Government's publications continue to
be permanently accessible to the American public.
It is my hope that in the next few weeks this proposal will be
unveiled. Following a hearing, markup, and Senate passage, and
consideration and passage in the House of Representatives, I have
confidence the President will sign this reform measure into law.
The Congress has a unique opportunity to complete the work of
hundreds--if not thousands--of people who, for at least three decades,
have labored to reform Title 44. With good will and honest intentions,
I believe the job will be done this year.
Senator Bennett. We appreciate your desire. Do you have any
questions, Senator Dorgan?
Senator Dorgan. No; whatever works for the Senator works
for me. He is one of the more distinguished Members of our
body, and we are pleased by the numbers we see in the request.
It is a very responsible budget request. We are very pleased
with it.
Senator Warner. Hopefully, we can return it all back.
Title 44
Senator Bennett. It is my understand that you plan to
introduce your bill to revise title 44 in a couple of weeks?
Senator Warner. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. That is the one question we were focusing
on. Thank you very much.
Senator Warner. Thank you, and I thank your staff for
working with us in preparation for this hearing.
Senator Bennett. Your full statement will be included in
the record.
Senator Warner. Thank you. We will all stand, salute, and
depart. [Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. With Senator Warner's unsenatorial
dispatch we have not eaten up the time that would normally keep
us occupied until Senator Roth appears.
Senator Dorgan. Let us skip ahead. What do you think?
Senator Bennett. Shall we move ahead to the Sergeant at
Arms, with the understanding that when Senator Roth appears you
would give way to the distinguished chairman of the Joint
Committee on Taxation, not to mention the chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee.
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
STATEMENT OF GREGORY S. CASEY, SERGEANT AT ARMS AND
DOORKEEPER
ACCOMPANIED BY LARRY HARRIS, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
summary statement
Senator Bennett. Our next witness is Hon. Greg Casey,
Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. Senate.
Mr. Casey has been very busy this year reorganizing his
operation, like everything else it needs to be reorganized from
time to time and brought up to date. This is not a criticism of
past Sergeants at Arms, but Mr. Casey has been very vigorous in
accepting the responsibility that comes with this position, and
we are grateful to him.
Mr. Casey, I understand you found some additional savings
in your budget. This is always good news, and we look forward
to hearing from any witness who thinks he can help save the
Senate some money.
Senator Dorgan, do you have any comment, or should we go
directly to Mr. Casey's statement?
Senator Dorgan. Why don't we proceed to the testimony.
Mr. Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a very brief
statement that I will make even briefer. You are correct that
we have been working over the last year to basically enact what
we told you we were going to do last year. As I said last year,
we had about 20 years' worth of consultant reports saying we
had to change things. We appeared here last year and told you
what we intended to do to make that change. I am very pleased
to be able to come before you today and tell you that the
reorganization of the Sergeant at Arms office is complete. We
think what we have structured now is going to be able to
provide excellent customer service, the kind of support that we
need for our mission-critical systems we will talk about in a
moment, and to assure you that these systems are secure from
threat, available on demand, and year 2000 compliant.
Senator Bennett. Very good.
Mr. Casey. It is worth remembering, though, that we are
building this reorganization on three basic management
principles. One is, understand our customer needs and keep in
touch with those expectations, two, develop and maintain a
motivated and skilled work force, and three, use best
management practices and rigorously evaluate what we do against
those beset management practices.
To do the first, which is dealing with our customers, we
have developed a customer relations department which is now in
place, which provides a single point of contact for all
services and products that the Sergeant at Arms provides.
We have an ongoing quality assurance council comprised of
representatives from Member offices, committees, and other
support units here in the Senate. Their job is to make sure we
continually improve. We have a reinvigorated human resource
operation to provide management training. We have pay,
performance, retention, and recruitment programs for our
employees, while we are still meeting the rather rigorous
standards of the Accountability Act.
To do the third, which is the management part, evaluation
part, we are migrating some of our financial operations, as you
know, to the Secretary of the Senate in his role as the chief
financial officer, and we are converting our financial
operations office into a management review office.
This is a project tracking activity report that we are
trying to get out quarterly. Obviously, one of the major
functions of our management office is to make sure that you get
the kind of information on tracking our projects and the
expenditures of our dollars on a quarterly basis. That is
helpful to you. It is also helpful to us in managing this
operation.
During the course of last year, we have actually
consolidated our operations division and eliminated a lot of
duplication of services. That is where some of that $3 million
in our reduced budget comes from. We have added two new
departments, however. We have added the office of project
management, which adds a new discipline to the way in which we
actually manage projects up here in the Senate, and the office
of the systems architect.
It is that systems architect's job to make sure that the
technology infrastructure of the Senate remains visionary, not
only with an eye to what we have to accomplish today, but to
try to get us on the cutting edge for what we have to do in the
decade to come.
We are also pursuing and trying to finish the joint office
of education and training.
As we discussed here last year, one of our primary
objectives is to try to invest in our human resource, something
we have not done as good a job as we should have. That is what
part of this education and training program is all about.
We have also been tasked as part of the ongoing strategic
plan with the accomplishment of four goals.
Mr. Casey. As part of that strategic plan--I will not go
into those in great detail--we did have----
Senator Bennett. Can we interrupt here and come back to you
Mr. Casey? This is an appropriate time. Senator Roth has just
come in and we want to accommodate his schedule, so we will
suspend the Sergeant at Arms presentation and go to the Joint
Committee on Taxation.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY:
LINDY PAULL, CHIEF OF STAFF
MARY SCHMITT, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, LAW
BERNIE SCHMITT, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, REVENUE ANALYSIS
MICHAEL BOREN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Senator Bennett. We welcome the distinguished chairman of
that committee, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee,
Senator Roth from Delaware.
Senator Roth. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Dorgan. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today before
this Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch on behalf of the
fiscal year 1999 appropriation request for the Joint Committee
on Taxation.
Congressman Bill Archer and I submitted a written
statement, and I ask that this statement be made a part of the
record.
Senator Bennett. Without objection, it will be part of the
record.
Senator Roth. Mr. Chairman, the operations of the Joint
Committee on Taxation are vital to the tax legislative process.
For example, the Joint Committee staff played a critical role
last year to help the Congress enact the Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997, which began the process of returning to the American
people some of their hard-earned dollars.
This tax bill, which provided the biggest tax cut Americans
received in 16 years, included such major tax benefits as the
child tax credit, the opportunity to save for retirement in
tax-deferred IRA's, significant education tax incentives,
relief from confiscatory estate and gift taxes for small
businesses and family farms, as well as substantial reductions
on capital gains.
During 1997, the Joint Committee staff prepared more than
2,000 revenue estimates in response to Member requests and in
connection with committee markups drafted 14 committee and
conference reports, drafted 8 tax treaty executive reports,
published 92 documents made available to the Congress and the
general public, as well as reviewed the work of the IRS on more
than 600 large income tax refund and 64 large deficiency cases.
During 1998, the Joint Committee staff will be front and
center on our efforts to reform and restructure the IRS.
The Joint Committee staff has also been devoting
significant resources to analyzing the various proposals to
restructure the Federal tax system and will take a lead role in
providing assistance to the Congress as we consider fundamental
tax reform, hopefully, in the not-too-distant future. These tax
reform proposals will require the Joint Committee staff to
provide comprehensive economic and legal analysis of a wide
range of issues, including complex transition issues.
Revenue estimates
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak just a minute on the
important role of the Joint Committee on Taxation in the
preparation of revenue estimates for pending revenue
legislation.
As you know, under the Congressional Budget Act, the Joint
Committee on Taxation has the sole responsibility for preparing
revenue estimates for all tax legislation considered by the
Congress. As I mentioned, during 1997, the staff responded to
over 2,000 requests for revenue estimates from Members of
Congress, including estimates prepared in connection with
committee markups.
Current staffing levels permitted the Joint Committee staff
to respond to approximately 66 percent of the requests received
from Members. During 1998, the Joint Committee staff expects to
receive at least 1,500 requests for revenue estimates.
In addition, during 1998, the Joint Committee staff will
continue to proceed with the work necessary to develop the
capability to incorporate macroeconomic effects into the
revenue estimates of major tax legislation. I think this is a
very important initiative, and as part of this effort, the
Joint Committee has contracted with two major macroeconomic
forecasting firms to help in the development of a prototype
macroeconomic model.
In addition, the Joint Committee staff consults regularly
with the economists who serve on the Joint Committee's revenue
estimating advisory board with respect to this important
effort.
As I said, I want to emphasize the importance that I place
on developing macroestimating capabilities. I think it is
crucial to our efforts to restructure the Federal tax system
that we have the ability to understand how the economy will
perform when we replace the current income tax system.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to address specifically a
concern raised by this subcommittee during last year's
appropriation process: that the Joint Committee on Taxation
staff did not respond adequately to requests from Members of
Congress who do not sit on the tax-writing committees. Included
in my written testimony is a table that provides information on
the Joint Committee staff responses to revenue estimate
requests during the 104th Congress, and for the first session
of the 105th.
The Joint Committee on Taxation staff receives a large
number of requests each year, and responds to approximately, as
I said, two-thirds of them. As attachment D to my testimony
shows, the response to nontax-writing committee members during
the last Congress was pretty close to that of tax-writing
committee members. However, I am concerned that the data for
the first session of this Congress is showing some disparities
in the response to nonwriting committee members.
I believe it is imperative that the revenue-estimating
process of the Joint Committee be above criticism. Therefore,
when I recently named Lindy Paull, who is our new chief of
staff, to take over as chief of staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation, I directed her to undertake a review of the revenue-
estimating function of the Joint Committee and closely monitor
requests so that all Members are treated fairly.
Fiscal year 1999 request
Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, the fiscal year 1999
appropriation request for the Joint Committee is $6,018,000.
This amount is a net increase of $202,500 over the fiscal year
1998 appropriation, and $1,000 less than the fiscal year 1995
appropriation for the Joint Committee. This increase is
attributed solely to projected cost-of-living adjustments as
provided to the Joint Committee by the House Finance Office,
and a 1-percent merit increase for personnel expenses for the
Joint Committee staff.
The funding we have requested for the Joint Committee on
Taxation represents, we believe, the minimum amount necessary
to finance the operations of the committee for fiscal year
1999. The Joint Committee provides essential services to the
Congress that are not duplicated by any other congressional or
executive branch office.
prepared statement
In closing, I want to thank the subcommittee for its
continued recognition of the important role that this committee
plays. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Bill Roth and Congressman Bill Archer
introduction
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to submit this written
testimony to the Subcommittee on Legislative of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations on behalf of the fiscal year 1999 appropriation request
for the Joint Committee on Taxation (the ``Joint Committee'').
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 1999. The Joint Committee provides
essential services to the Congress that are not duplicated by any other
Congressional or Executive Branch office. Failure to provide the
requested funding will jeopardize the ability of the Joint Committee to
provide these necessary services.
We want to thank the Subcommittee for its continued recognition of
the important role that the Joint Committee plays in the development of
revenue legislation. We are pleased that the Subcommittee has
repeatedly acknowledged the needs of the Joint Committee, and we hope
that the Subcommittee will understand the critical need for funds for
the Joint Committee for fiscal year 1999.
Key points relating to the appropriation request are as follows:
We are requesting a fiscal year 1999 appropriation for the Joint
Committee of $6,018,000. This amount is a net increase of $202,500 over
the fiscal year 1998 appropriation and $1,000 less than the fiscal year
1995 appropriation for the Joint Committee. This increase is
attributable solely to cost-of-living adjustments and a 1-percent merit
increase for personnel expenses for the Joint Committee staff.
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 and the review of large income tax refund
cases, 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. As you know, the Joint Committee staff identified
over 70 provisions in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that were limited
tax benefits and the President exercised his authority under the Line
Item Veto Act to cancel two of these provisions.
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, comprised of highly
qualified lawyers, accountants, and economists, is involved in the
development, marking up, and drafting of tax bills and in 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 Joint Committee is
charged by statute with oversight of the administration of the Federal
tax system. The services of the Joint Committee are central to the tax
legislative process.
Additional details relating to this appropriation request are
provided below.
summary of fiscal year 1999 budget request
The following summarizes the Joint Committee's budget request for
fiscal year 1999:
Personnel Funding....................................... $5,433,000
Non-Personnel Funding:
Travel.............................................. 12,000
Rent, Communications, Utilities..................... 88,000
Other Services...................................... 95,000
Supplies and Materials.............................. 130,000
Equipment........................................... 260,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total fiscal year 1999 Request.................... 6,018,000
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 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 was
$5,470,000. The fiscal year 1998 appropriation for the Joint Committee
is $5,815,500, which is still below the fiscal year 1995 funding level.
details of fiscal year 1999 appropriation request
Personnel Expenses
We are requesting an appropriation for fiscal year 1999 for the
Joint Committee that is $202,500 more than the fiscal year 1998
appropriation, but only $1,000 more than the fiscal year 1995
appropriation. This increase is attributable solely to cost-of-living
adjustments to current personnel expenses plus a 1-percent increase for
merit pay increases. As instructed by the House Finance Office, we are
requesting $52,606 (attributable to a 1-percent merit increase) and
$149,622 (which represents annualization of the fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 1999 cost-of-living adjustments). These amounts are
determined for the Joint Committee by the House Finance Office because
they provide to us both the compensation base and the percentage
adjustments.
This request does not include any specific requested amount for
possible overtime pay. During calendar year 1997, the Joint Committee
on Taxation paid over $13,000 in overtime pay. The Joint Committee has
a policy of minimizing the amount of overtime pay that support staff
employees earn by utilizing compensatory leave to the extent permitted
under the law.
Nonpersonnel expenses
We are requesting no increase in nonpersonnel expenses for fiscal
year 1999.
The amount requested for travel expenses ($12,000) will be used to
reimburse the economists who comprise the Joint Committee on Taxation
revenue estimating advisory board for their expenses to travel to
Washington, DC for advisory board meetings. In addition, this amount
will be used to send Joint Committee attorneys and economists to
educational conferences to improve their understanding of the Federal
tax laws and to reimburse Joint Committee employees and prospective job
applicants for travel expenses incurred in connection with the
recruitment of new employees.
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. In addition, the Joint Committee has contracted with a
number of firms to help investigate issues involved in incorporating
macroeconomic effects in the revenue estimates of certain major
proposed tax law changes.
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 staff utilize the most sophisticated and
technologically advanced equipment. Thus, the staff finds it necessary
to upgrade computer software and hardware frequently to enable the
staff to provide the service required and expected by the Members of
Congress.
review of joint committee on taxation operations during calendar year
1997
Attachments A through D provide a summary of the activity of the
Joint Committee for calendar year 1997. During 1997, 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 eight tax
treaty Executive Reports for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A
list of these committee reports and treaty Executive Reports is
contained in Attachment A.
In 1997, the Joint Committee staff was actively involved in
preparing materials for numerous tax committee hearing and markup
documents, as well as committee and conference report explanations on
tax-related legislation and tax treaties.
Tax legislative reports worked on by the Joint Committee staff
relating to legislation enacted in 1997 included:
--Temporary extension of Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes
(H.R. 668).
--Taxpayer Browsing Protection Act (H.R. 1226).
--Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (H.R. 2014), which included tax credits
for children and college education expenses, other education
tax incentives, expansion of IRA's, capital gains and
alternative minimum tax provisions, estate and gift tax
revisions, extensions of certain expiring tax provisions, D.C.
tax incentives, a welfare-to-work tax credit, expansion of
empowerment zones, extension and modifications to the Airport
and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes, certain corporate and other
tax reforms, numerous tax simplification provisions, pension
and employee benefit changes, extensive Line Item Veto Act
analysis, and technical corrections for 1996 tax legislation.
--Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (H.R. 2015), which included revenue
provisions relating to Medicare Medical Savings Accounts, tax
treatment of certain hospitals, unemployment tax provisions,
and increased tobacco excise tax rates.
--Temporary extension of Highway Trust Fund (sec. 9 of S. 1519).
In addition, the Joint Committee staff worked on several other tax
committee reports on legislation that were considered by the tax-
writing committees in 1997 but not enacted as of the end of the First
Session of the 105th Congress. These included the following areas of
tax legislation (also listed in Attachment A):
--H.R. 2513 (restore and modify two revenue provisions canceled under
the Line Item Veto Act in H.R. 2014), which was passed by the
House.
--H.R. 2621 (revenue offset provision to the Reciprocal Trade
Agreement Authorities Act of 1997).
--H.R. 2644 (revenue offset provision to the United States-Caribbean
Trade Partnership Act).
--H.R. 2645 (Tax Technical Corrections Act of 1997), which was
included as an amendment to H.R. 2676 as passed by the House.
--H.R. 2646 (Savings Act for Public and Private Schools Education),
which was passed by the House.
--H.R. 2676 (Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of
1997), which was passed by the House.
--S. 1173 (Intermodal Surface Transportation Revenue Act of 1997),
which was approved by the Senate Finance Committee.
Further, the Joint Committee staff prepared hearing pamphlets and
executive reports on 8 tax treaties for the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. On a less formal basis, the Joint Committee staff assisted
various nontax-writing Committees of the House and Senate during 1997.
Specifically, the Joint Committee staff prepared certain written
materials for the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services
with respect to certain HUD programs (and Joint Committee Chief of
Staff Kenneth J. Kies testified before that Subcommittee). In addition,
the Joint Committee staff prepared a study on utility restructuring for
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and provided
extensive support to the House and Senate Committees with jurisdiction
over the District of Columbia in connection with the work of the
Congress relating to the District, in addition to testifying before the
House Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.
In addition to its work on committee and conference reports, the
Joint Committee staff published 92 documents during 1997, including
pamphlets and other documents prepared for committee hearings and
markups and conference action (see Attachment B). Included in these
documents was the General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in
1997, a 549-page comprehensive explanation of all tax legislation
enacted in 1997.
The 1997 publications included the Joint Committee staff's annual
report on estimates of Federal tax expenditures for fiscal years 1998-
2002. Other publications included an analysis of the provision of the
Line Item Veto Act relating to limited tax benefits, a staff study of
entity classification and partnership tax issues, and a staff review of
Federal income tax issues arising in connection with proposals to
restructure the electric power industry. Also included in 1997
publications was a document regarding the Joint Committee staff's Tax
Modeling Project and Tax Symposium Papers, which discussed the
feasibility of incorporating macroeconomic effects into Joint Committee
staff revenue estimates.
During 1997, Joint Committee staff members spent extensive time
conducting an investigation of whether the Internal Revenue Service's
(``IRS'') selection of tax-exempt organizations described in Internal
Revenue Code sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) (and individuals
associated with such organization) for audit has been politically
motivated, including an analysis of the selection of such tax-exempt
organizations for audit for reasons related to their alleged political
or lobbying activities. We, along with Senator Moynihan and Congressman
Rangel, directed the Joint Committee to conduct this investigation in
March 1997; this investigation represents an important exercise of the
Joint Committee on Taxation's statutorily prescribed duty of oversight
of the administration of the Federal tax system. The Joint Committee
staff spent extensive time during the spring and fall of 1997 on this
investigation. The investigation involves the review and inspection of
several hundred boxes of IRS case files, as well as the interview of
IRS personnel, taxpayers, and taxpayer representatives. While much of
the work can be performed in Washington, D.C., travel to other parts of
the country to interview witnesses and review files is also required.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 imposed 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 1997, the Joint Committee received over 2,000 requests for
revenue estimates (see Attachment C). Many of the requests received in
1997 involved complex proposals relating to alternative tax structures
and proposals under consideration as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act,
the Balanced Budget Act, and restructuring of the IRS, all of which
required significant time on the part of the Joint Committee's legal
and economics staff. In the course of considering the Joint Committee's
fiscal year 1998 appropriation request, questions were raised as to
whether the Joint Committee staff was providing adequate assistance to
all Members of Congress requesting it. We are attaching (Attachment D)
to this letter a summary of Joint Committee responses to revenue
estimate requests broken down by Ways and Means Committee, Senate
Finance Committee, Non Ways and Means Committee, and Non Senate Finance
Committee and subdivided further into Democrats and Republicans.
Current staffing and funding levels for the Joint Committee on Taxation
enable the Joint Committee staff to respond to approximately 66 percent
of revenue estimate requests; Attachment D demonstrates that the Joint
Committee staff responds to requests received from all Members of
Congress. Although the Joint Committee staff response rate is slightly
higher for tax-writing committee members, we believe this is
principally attributable to the large number of amendments that are
considered when either of the tax-writing committees marks up revenue
legislation.
One of the statutorily mandated functions of the staff of the Joint
Committee is the review of IRS refunds or credits of income tax, estate
and gift tax, or any tax on public charities, foundations, pension
plans, or real estate investment trusts in excess of $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 1997, the Joint Committee refund staff reviewed 602
cases involving $6.1 billion in proposed refunds. The Joint Committee
staff raised concerns in 88 cases (or approximately 15 percent of the
cases). Errors identified by the Joint Committee staff produced a net
reduction in refunds of $14.3 million in 1997; the average annual
reduction in refunds for the last 7 years is $9.8 million. One IRS
region reported to the Joint Committee refund review staff that savings
in excess of $20 million had been achieved from corrections made before
cases were submitted to the Joint Committee as a result of memoranda
that had been written in earlier cases. A copy of the Joint Committee
staff's 1996 Refund Review Operations Report (other than sections
containing confidential taxpayer information) is included as Attachment
E.
summary of anticipated workload of the joint committee on taxation for
calendar year 1998
During 1998, it is expected that the Congress will return to
consideration of various alternatives to the present income tax laws
(such as flat taxes and different types of consumption taxes) that have
been or will be introduced. Some background work on such tax
restructuring proposals has been done in recent years, but we expect
that this work will be intensified in 1998, 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.
It is also expected that legislation to reform and restructure the
IRS, which was passed by the House in 1997, will be considered by the
Senate and enacted in 1998. This is a major piece of legislation,
involving the complete restructuring of the way in which the IRS is
managed by the Executive Branch and Congress, and contains, as well, an
array of taxpayer rights and protections and the modification of
present-law IRS procedures relating to collection and enforcement of
taxes. Not only will the Joint Committee staff be responsible for the
development of this legislation, but, if enacted with provisions
similar to those in the House bill, the legislation will place new
burdens on the Joint Committee staff. The Joint Committee has estimated
that the version of the legislation passed by the House will initially
require the resources of a minimum of 3.5 FTE's. Over the long term, we
estimate that this legislation would require on an ongoing basis a
minimum of 2.5 FTE's. The new burdens that would be placed on the Joint
Committee staff include the requirement to prepare new studies and
reports, oversee joint hearings of Congressional committees with
jurisdiction over IRS matters, and prepare a tax complexity analysis
with respect to every piece of tax legislation.
As mentioned above, along with Senator Moynihan and Congressman
Rangel, we have directed the staff of the Joint Committee to
investigate whether the IRS's selection of tax-exempt organizations
described in Internal Revenue Code sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)
(and individuals associated with such organization) for audit has been
politically motivated, including an analysis of the selection of such
tax-exempt organizations for audit for reasons related to their alleged
political or lobbying activities. This investigation was initially
begun in 1997, and it was initially expected that the investigation, as
well as the written findings, would be completed during 1997. However,
work on the investigation had to be suspended during the summer of 1997
because of the work of the Congress on the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
Work on the investigation is again continuing, and will be completed in
1998. The investigation involves the review and inspection of several
hundred boxes of IRS case files, as well as the interview of IRS
personnel, taxpayers, and taxpayer representatives. While much of the
work can be performed in Washington, D.C., travel to other parts of the
country to interview witnesses and review files is also required. The
investigation and preparation of the written report involves the work
of approximately 5.0 FTE's.
The Joint Committee devotes substantial resources to the
preparation of revenue estimates, distribution analyses, and other
economic analyses relating to proposed revenue legislation. During
1997, 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 1998. 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 staff 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
of Congress, determining whether proposals are likely to have
significant macroeconomic effects, consultation with the Joint
Committee on Taxation revenue estimating advisory board as to the
feasibility of incorporating macroeconomic effects in revenue
estimates, and contracting with macroeconomic forecasting firms for the
purpose of developing estimating models that might be used to estimate
the macroeconomic effects of certain proposed major changes in the
Federal tax laws. The Joint Committee staff held a conference of
economic advisors in 1997 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
staff. The ability of the Joint Committee staff to continue these
efforts in 1998 will be impaired if funding at the requested level is
not provided.
The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 imposed a new statutory
responsibility on the Joint Committee staff to identify limited tax
benefits contained in any Conference Report considered by the House or
Senate and to prepare a statement for inclusion in every Statement of
Managers to identify any limited tax benefit. The Joint Committee was
required to exercise this statutory responsibility for the first time
in 1997. While the amount of time the Joint Committee is required to
devote to complying with the requirements of the Line Item Veto Act
will vary depending on the nature of tax legislation considered and
adopted by the Congress, the experience of the Joint Committee staff in
1997 demonstrates that the Act imposes substantial burdens on the Joint
Committee. Identifying the list of limited tax benefits for inclusion
in the Statement of Managers involves complicated analyses by almost
every member of both the legal and economics staff of a nature not
generally otherwise required in the consideration of revenue
legislation. In addition to preparation of the this statement, Members
of Congress have begun to request determinations of whether proposals
under consideration would be identified as limited tax benefits.
Providing this information to Members involves the same analysis
required in preparation of the formal list of limited tax benefits.
Finally, in the event items identified as limited tax benefits are
vetoed by the President, the Joint Committee staff is involved in the
reconsideration and modification of the vetoed provisions.
After the publication of the President's fiscal year 1999 budget,
the Joint Committee will be required to provide its own analysis and
revenue estimates of the revenue provisions of the budget.
During 1998, 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 Congressional
Budget Office 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 House Ways and
Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have asked the Joint
Committee staff 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.
To fulfill the goals of the House and the Senate to make
Congressional information more accessible, the Joint Committee recently
set up its own internet web site. This enables individuals not only to
obtain information about the Joint Committee and certain Joint
Committee publications and activities, it also provides links to the
sites of Members of the Committee. It is expected that work perfecting
this web site will continue in 1998, and that regular updates will be
provided in order to make current information available. Although this
is not a significant component of the Joint Committee staff work,
maintaining this web site in order to provide current information about
the work of the Joint Committee for the benefit of Members of Congress,
their staffs, and the general public will require some additional staff
time.
As always, the Joint Committee staff will continue to have an
integral role in tax aspects of Federal budget deliberations and in any
tax legislation considered by the Congress. It is anticipated that the
Joint Committee staff will assist in the development and analysis of
legislative proposals, and prepare markup documents, Committee reports
and conference reports (Statements of Managers) with respect to any tax
legislation.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, 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 1999 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.
We respectfully urge the Members of your Subcommittee to respond
favorably to the Joint Committee's request for funding for fiscal year
1999.
______
Attachment A.--1997 Tax-Related Legislative Reports Worked on by the
Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation
tax committee and conference report explanations
H.R. 668 (Airport and Airway Trust Fund Reinstatement Act of 1997).
H. Rept. 105-5 (House Ways and Means Committee report on bill to
provide temporary extension of Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise
taxes).
H.R. 1226 (Taxpayer Browsing Protection Act of 1997). H. Rept. 105-
51 (House Ways and Means Committee report on bill to prevent
unauthorized inspection of tax returns or tax return information).
H.R. 2014 (Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997). H. Rept. 105-148 (House
Budget Committee report on revenue reconciliation provisions as
approved by the House Ways and Means Committee).
H.R. 2014 (Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997). H. Rept. 105-220
(Conference report on the Taxpayer Relief Act).
H.R. 2015 (Balanced Budget Act of 1997). H. Rept. 105-149 (House
Budget Committee report on revenue provisions of budget reconciliation
provisions as approved by the House Committee on Ways and Means).
H.R. 2015 (Balanced Budget Act of 1997). H. Rept. 105-217 (Revenue
provisions of conference report on the Balanced Budget Act).
H.R. 2513 (Restore and modify revenue provisions canceled under the
Line Item Veto Act). H. Rept. 105-318, Part I (House Ways and Means
Committee report on restoring two revenue provisions canceled under the
Line Item Veto Act).
H.R. 2621 (Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act of`1997). H.
Rept. 105-341, Part I (House Ways and Means Committee report on revenue
offset provision in trade ``fast track'' bill).
H.R. 2644 (United States-Caribbean Trade Partnership Act). H. Rept.
105-365 (House Ways and Means Committee report on revenue offset
provision of Caribbean trade bill).
H.R. 2645 (Tax Technical Corrections Act of 1997). H. Rept. 105-356
(House Ways and Means Committee report on tax technical corrections).
H.R. 2646 (Savings Act for Public and Private Schools Education).
H. Rept. 105-332 (House Ways and Means Committee report on bill to
allow tax-free expenditures from education accounts for elementary and
secondary school expenses).
H.R. 2676 (Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of
1997). H. Rept. 105-364, Part I (House Ways and Means Committee report
on bill to restructure the IRS and reform IRS procedures).
S. 949 (Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997). S. Rept. 105-33
(Senate Finance Committee report on revenue reconciliation provisions).
S. 1173 (Intermodal Surface Transportation Revenue Act of 1997).
Explanation for the Congressional Record of Senate Finance Committee
amendment to S. 1173, providing a revenue title to extend the Highway
Trust Fund and Trust Fund taxes.
tax treaty executive reports
Taxation Agreement With Turkey. Exec. Rept. 105-6 (Executive report
for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
Taxation Convention With Austria. Exec. Rept. 105-7 (Executive
report for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
Taxation Convention With Luxembourg. Exec. Rept. 105-8 (Executive
report for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
Taxation Convention With Thailand. Exec. Rept. 105-9 (Executive
report for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
Tax Convention With Switzerland. Exec. Rept. 105-10 (Executive
report for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
Tax Convention With South Africa. Exec. Rept. 105-11 (Executive
report for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
Tax Protocol With Canada. Exec. Rept. 105-12 (Executive report for
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
Tax Convention With Ireland. Exec. Rept. 105-13 (Executive report
for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
______
Attachment B.--Joint Committee on Taxation
jcs-97 documents
JCS-1-97--Analysis Of Provisions Contained In The Line Item Veto
Act (Public Law 104-130) Relating To Limited Tax Benefits. January 3,
1997
JCS-2-97--Description And Analysis Of Tax Proposals Relating To
Individual Saving And IRA's. Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Senate
Committee on Finance on March 6, 1997. March 3, 1997
JCS-3-97--Analysis Of Proposed Tax Incentives For Higher Education.
Scheduled for a Hearing Before the House Committee on Ways and Means on
March 5, 1997. March 4, 1997
JCS-4-97--Tax Treatment Of Capital Gains And Losses. Scheduled for
a Public Hearing by the Senate Committee on Finance on March 13, 1997.
March 12, 1997
JCS-5-97--Description And Analysis Of Tax Proposals Relating To
Savings And Investment (Capital Gains, IRA's, And Estate And Gift Tax).
Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the House Committee on Ways and
Means on March 19, 1997. March 18, 1997
JCS-6-97--Review Of Selected Entity Classification And Partnership
Tax Issues. April 8, 1997
JCS-7-97--Description And Analysis Of Proposals Relating To Estate
And Gift Taxation. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Senate
Committee on Finance on April 10, 1997. April 8, 1997
JCS-8-97--Impact On Individuals And Families Of Replacing The
Federal Income Tax. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the House
Committee on Ways and Means on April 15, 1997. April 14, 1997
JCS-9-97--Analysis Of Proposed Tax And Savings Incentives For
Higher Education. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Senate
Committee on Finance on April 16, 1997. April 15, 1997
JCS-10-97--Description And Analysis Of Certain Revenue-Raising
Provisions Contained In The President's Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Proposal. April 16, 1997
JCS-11-97--Comparison Of Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 2014 As Passed
By The House And The Senate. Prepared for the Use of the House and
Senate Conferees. July 10, 1997
JCS-12-97--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The
United States And The Republic Of Austria. Scheduled for a Hearing
Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate on
October 7, 1997. October 6, 1997
JCS-13-97--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty And Proposed
Protocol Between The United States And The Republic Of Turkey.
Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate on October 7, 1997. October 6, 1997
JCS-14-97--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The
United States And The Grand Duchy Of Luxembourg. Scheduled for a
Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate
on October 7, 1997. October 6, 1997
JCS-15-97--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The
United States And The Republic Of South Africa. Scheduled for a Hearing
Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate on
October 7, 1997. October 6, 1997
JCS-16-97--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty And Proposed
Protocol Between The United States And The Swiss Confederation.
Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate on October 7, 1997. October 6, 1997
JCS-17-97--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty And Proposed
Protocol Between The United States And Ireland. Scheduled for a Hearing
Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate on
October 7, 1997. October 6, 1997
JCS-18-97--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The
United States And The Kingdom Of Thailand. Scheduled for a Hearing
Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate on
October 7, 1997. October 6, 1997
JCS-19-97--Explanation Of Proposed Protocol To The Income Tax
Treaty Between The United States And Canada. Scheduled for a Hearing
Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate on
October 7, 1997. October 6, 1997
JCS-20-97--Federal Income Tax Issues Arising In Connection With
Proposals To Restructure The Electric Power Industry. October 17, 1997
JCS-21-97--Joint Committee On Taxation Tax Modeling Project And
1997 Tax Symposium Papers. November 20, 1997
JCS-22-97--Estimates Of Federal Tax Expenditures For Fiscal Years
1998-2002. Prepared for the House Committee on Ways and Means and the
Senate Committee on Finance. December 15, 1997
JCS-23-97--General Explanation Of Tax Legislation Enacted In 1997.
December 17, 1997
jcx-97 documents
JCX-1-97--Description Of Title III (``Affordable College Act'') Of
S. 1 (``Safe And Affordable Schools Act Of 1997''). January 21, 1997
JCX-2-97--Description Of S. 2 (``American Family Tax Relief Act'').
January 21, 1997
JCX-3-97--Background Information On Federal Air Transportation
Excise Taxes And The Airport And Airway Trust Fund. Scheduled for a
Public Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Finance on February 4,
1997. February 3, 1997
JCX-4-97--Background Information On Federal Air Transportation
Excise Taxes And The Airport And Airway Trust Fund. Scheduled for a
Public Hearing Before the House Committee on Ways and Means on February
5, 1997. February 4, 1997
JCX-5-97--Reinstatement Of Air Transportation Excise Taxes And
Transfer Of Excise Tax Revenues To The Airport And Airway Trust Fund.
Scheduled for a Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on February
5, 1997. February 4, 1997
JCX-6-97R--Description Of Revenue Provisions Contained In The
President's Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Proposal. February 10, 1997
JCX-7-97--Reinstatement Of Air Transportation Excise Taxes And
Transfer Of Excise Tax Revenues To The Airport And Airway Trust Fund.
Scheduled for a Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means on
February 12, 1997. February 10, 1997
JCX-8-97--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Revenue Provisions
Contained In The President's Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Proposal. February
27, 1997
JCX-9-97--Comparison Of Certain Proposed Tax Incentives For Higher
Education. Scheduled for a Hearing Before the House Committee on Ways
and Means on March 5, 1997. March 4, 1997
JCX-10-97--Description And Analysis Of Certain Revenue-Raising
Provisions Contained In The President's Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Proposal. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the House Committee on
Ways and Means on March 12, 1997. March 11, 1997
JCX-11-97--Unauthorized Inspection Of Tax Returns Or Tax Return
Information. Scheduled for Markup Before the House Ways and Means
Committee on April 9, 1997. April 7, 1997
JCX-12-97--Description Of S. 436 (The ``Intercity Passenger Rail
Trust Fund Act Of 1997'') And Of Present-Law Provisions Relating To
Federal Excise Taxes Imposed On Transportation Motor Fuels. Scheduled
for a Public Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Finance on April
23, 1997. April 21, 1997
JCX-13-97R--Present Law And Legislative Background Relating To The
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before
the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means
on May 1, 1997. April 30, 1997
JCX-14-97--Description Of The Administration's Proposals Relating
To The Earned Income Credit. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the
House Committee on Ways and Means on May 8, 1997. May 7, 1997
JCX-15-97--Written Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
Taxation Regarding President Clinton's Tax Proposals For The District
Of Columbia for a Hearing of the Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
105th Congress on May 22, 1997. May 22, 1997
JCX-16-97--Oral Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
Taxation Regarding President Clinton's Tax Proposals For The District
Of Columbia for a Hearing of the Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
105th Congress on May 22, 1997. May 22, 1997
JCX-17-97--Description Of Health-Related Tax Proposals. Scheduled
for Markup Before the Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on
Ways and Means on June 4, 1997. June 3, 1997
JCX-18-97--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Health-Related Tax
Proposals. Scheduled for Markup Before the Health Subcommittee of the
House Committee on Ways and Means on June 4, 1997. June 4, 1997
JCX-19-97--Description And Analysis Of Proposals Relating To The
Deduction For Health Insurance Expenses Of Self-Employed Individuals,
Worker Classification, Taxation Of Home Office Expenses, And Electronic
Filing. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Subcommittee on
Taxation and IRS Oversight of the Senate Committee on Finance on June
5, 1997. June 4, 1997
JCX-20-97--Description Of Chairman's Mark Relating To Revenue
Reconciliation Provisions. Scheduled for Markup Before the House
Committee on Ways and Means on June 11, 1997. June 9, 1997
JCX-21-97--Description Of Chairman's Mark Relating To Tax
Simplification Provisions. Scheduled for Markup Before the House
Committee on Ways and Means on June 11, 1997. June 9, 1997
JCX-22-97--Description Of Chairman's Mark Relating To Technical
Correction Provisions. Scheduled for Markup Before the House Committee
on Ways and Means on June 11, 1997. June 9, 1997
JCX-23-97--Estimated Budget Effects Of Chairman's Mark Relating To
Revenue Reconciliation Provisions. June 9, 1997
JCX-24R-97--Description Of Human Resources-Related Tax Proposals.
Scheduled for Markup Before the House Committee on Ways and Means on
June 10, 1997. June 9, 1997
JCX-25-97--Estimated Budget Effects Of Chairman's Mark Relating To
Earned Income Credit Compliance Proposals. June 9, 1997
JCX-26-97--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Chairman's Mark In The
Nature Of A Substitute Regarding The Budget Reconciliation Human
Resources Subcommittee Items. Scheduled for Markup Before the House
Committee on Ways and Means on June 10, 1997. June 10, 1997
JCX-27-97--Description Of The Modifications Contained In An
Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To The Chairman's Mark Relating
To Revenue Provisions As Released To Members Of The Committee On Ways
And Means On June 9, 1997. Scheduled for Markup Before the House
Committee on Ways and Means on June 11, 1997. June 11, 1997
JCX-28-97--Estimated Budget Effects Of An Amendment In The Nature
Of A Substitute To The Chairman's Mark Relating To Revenue
Reconciliation Provisions. June 11, 1997
JCX-29-97--Description Of Senate Finance Committee Chairman's Mark
Relating To Revenue Reconciliation Provisions. Scheduled for Markup
Before the Senate Committee on Finance on June 19, 1997. June 17, 1997
JCX-30-97--Description Of Senate Finance Committee Chairman's Mark
Relating To Tax Simplification Provisions. Scheduled for Markup Before
the Senate Committee on Finance on June 19, 1997. June 17, 1997
JCX-31-97--Description Of Senate Finance Committee Chairman's Mark
Relating To Technical Correction Provisions. Scheduled for Markup
Before the Senate Committee on Finance on June 19, 1997. June 17, 1997
JCX-32-97--Estimated Budget Effects Of Chairman's Mark Relating To
Revenue Reconciliation Provisions. June 17, 1997
JCX-33-97--Estimated Budget Effects Of Chairman's Mark Relating To
Tax Simplification Provisions. June 17, 1997
JCX-34-97--Distributional Effects Of The Revenue Reconciliation
Provisions Contained In The Senate Finance Committee Chairman's Mark.
Scheduled for Markup Before the Senate Finance Committee on June 19,
1997. June 17, 1997
JCX-35-97--Estimated Budget Effects Of The ``Taxpayer Relief Act Of
1997''. Scheduled For Consideration By The House Of Representatives On
June 26, 1997. June 25, 1997
JCX-36-97--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Revenue Provisions In
H.R. 2014 As Passed By The Senate On June 27, 1997. July 1, 1997
JCX-37-97--Comparison Of The Estimated Budget Effects Of The
Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 2014 As Passed By The House And The Senate.
July 10, 1997
JCX-38-97--Disclosure Report For Public Inspection Pursuant To
Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(3)(C) For Calendar Year 1997.
July 14, 1997
JCX-39-97--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement On
The Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 2014, The ``Taxpayer Relief Act Of
1997''. July 30, 1997
JCX-40-97--Summary Of Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 2014 (``Taxpayer
Relief Act Of 1997''). August 1, 1997
JCX-41-97--Distributional Effects Of The Conference Agreement On
The Revenue Reconciliation Provisions Of H.R. 2014, The ``Taxpayer
Relief Act Of 1997''. September 4, 1997
JCX-42-97--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 September 11, 1997. September 9, 1997
JCX-43-97--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Trade-Related Tax
Proposals. Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Finance Committee on
September 11, 1997. September 9, 1997
JCX-44-97--Description And Analysis Of Proposals Relating To The
Recommendations Of The National Commission On Restructuring The
Internal Revenue Service On Executive Branch Governance And
Congressional Oversight. Scheduled for Public Hearings Before the House
Committee on Ways and Means on September 16, and 17, 1997. September
16, 1997
JCX-45-97--Written Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
Taxation With Respect To Certain Provisions Of H.R. 2292 (the
``Internal Revenue Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1997'')
Before a Hearing of the Committee on Ways and Means. September 17, 1997
JCX-46-97--Written Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
Taxation Regarding Federal Income Tax Aspects Of Proposals To
Restructure Certain FHA-Insured Multifamily Mortgage Portfolios for a
Hearing of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the
House Committee on Banking and Financial Services on September 17,
1997. September 17, 1997
JCX-47-97--Description Of Legislation To Restore And Modify
Provisions In The Taxpayer Relief Act Of 1997 Canceled Pursuant To The
Line Item Veto Act. September 19, 1997
JCX-48-97--Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute
Relating To Provisions In The Taxpayer Relief Act Of 1997 Canceled
Pursuant To The Line Item Veto Act. September 23, 1997
JCX-49-97--Background And Description Of Proposals Relating To
Taxpayer Protection And Rights (Title III Of H.R. 2292). Scheduled for
a Public Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House
Committee on Ways and Means on September 26, 1997. September 25, 1997
JCX-50-97--Extension of Highway Trust Fund Excise Taxes and Related
Trust Fund Provisions. Scheduled for a Markup by the Senate Committee
on Finance on October 1, 1997. September 29, 1997
JCX-51-97--Estimated Revenue Effects Of An Extension Of Highway
Trust Fund Excise Taxes And Related Trust Fund Provisions. Scheduled
For Markup By The Senate Committee On Finance On October 1, 1997.
September 29, 1997
JCX-52-97--Revised Estimated Revenue Effects Of An Extension Of
Highway Trust Fund Excise Taxes And Related Trust Fund Provisions.
Scheduled For Markup By The Senate Committee On Finance On October 1,
1997. October 1, 1997
JCX-53-97--Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
Taxation Before The Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Hearing On
Tax Treaties And Protocols With Eight Countries. October 7, 1997
JCX-54-97--Revenue Offset To Trade Bill. Scheduled for Markup by
the House Committee on Ways and Means on October 8, 1997. October 8,
1997
JCX-55-97--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Revenue Offset For H.R.
2621. Scheduled for Markup by the Committee on Ways and Means on
October 8, 1997. October 8, 1997
JCX-56-97--Description Of Chairman's Mark Of The ``Tax Technical
Corrections Act Of 1997''. Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee
on Ways and Means on October 9, 1997. October 8, 1997
JCX-57-97--Revenue Offset For U.S. Caribbean Basin Trade
Partnership Act. Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways
and Means on October 9, 1997. October 8, 1997
JCX-58-97--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Revenue Offset For The
``United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act''. October 8,
1997
JCX-59-97--Description Of Education Savings Act For Public And
Private Schools And A Revenue Offset. Scheduled for Markup by the House
Committee on Ways and Means on October 9, 1997. October 8, 1997
JCX-60-97--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The ``Education Savings Act
For Public And Private Schools''. Scheduled for Markup by the Committee
on Ways and Means on October 9, 1997. October 8, 1997
JCX-61-97--Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To
H.R. 2646 Relating To Definition Of Qualified Education Expenses.
October 9, 1997
JCX-62-97--Description Of The ``Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1997''. Scheduled for Markup by the
House Committee on Ways and Means on October 22, 1997. October 21, 1997
JCX-63-97--Description Of Changes To JCX-62-97 Made By The
Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To Be Offered By Chairman
Archer. October 22, 1997
JCX-64-97--Estimated Revenue Effects Of An Amendment In The Nature
Of A Substitute To H.R. 2676, The ``Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1997''. October 22, 1997
JCX-65-97--Description Of The Tax Provisions Of The Empowerment
Zone/Enterprise Community Program And H.R. 1031, The ``Renewing
American Communities Act Of 1997''. Scheduled for a Hearing Before the
Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means on
October 28, 1997. October 24, 1997
JCX-66-97--Description Of Revenue Offset In Amendment To H.R. 2621,
The ``Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act Of 1997'' As Reported
By The Committee On Ways And Means. November 7, 1997
JCX-67-97--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Revenue Offset In An
Amendment To H.R. 2621, The ``Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities
Act Of 1997,'' As Reported By The Committee On Ways And Means. November
7, 1997
JCX-68-97--Description Of Amendment To H.R. 2513 As Reported By The
Committee On Ways And Means. November 7, 1997
JCX-69-97--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Amendments To H.R. 2513, As
Reported By The Committee On Ways And Means, To Restore And Modify
Provisions In The ``Taxpayer Relief Act Of 1997'' Canceled Pursuant To
The Line Item Veto Act. November 7, 1997
______
Attachment C.--Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimate requests
Calendar year No. of requests
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
1997.............................................................. 2,079
______
ATTACHMENT D.--CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST AND REPLY DATA \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104th Congress 105th Congress (as of Dec. 18,
--------------------------------- 1997)
Requestors --------------------------------
Requests Replies Percent Percent
replies Requests Replies replies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ways and Means Committee:
Republicans............................... 627 394 62.8 367 190 64.3
Democrats................................. 360 216 60.0 196 106 69.9
Senate Finance Committee:
Republicans............................... 1,053 731 69.4 516 305 70.5
Democrats................................. 421 268 63.7 291 156 73.2
Non-Ways and Means Committee:
Republicans............................... 308 210 68.2 272 152 61.4
Democrats................................. 226 141 62.4 153 57 54.9
Non-Senate Finance Committee:
Republicans............................... 200 136 68.0 207 106 59.9
Democrats................................. 209 128 61.2 133 72 61.7
Others........................................ 31 25 80.6 24 15 62.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 3,435 2,249 65.5 2,159 1,159 65.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals include both revenue and non-revenue requests.
______
Attachment E.--Memorandum
December 18, 1997.
To: Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation
From: Senior Refund Counsel
Subject: Refund Section--Calendar Year 1998 Operations Report
This is a report on the more significant developments in this
Office during the past calendar year.
summary
Volume.--Refund Cases--602 reports were received during the year.
The total dollar amount of refunds was $6,101,259,628.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports received 1994 1995 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examination Division............ 482 425 375 457
Appeals Division................ 147 132 101 124
Department of Justice........... 18 20 25 18
Chief Counsel................... 6 2 5 3
---------------------------------------
Total..................... 653 579 506 602
=======================================
Concerns \1\.................... 69 79 104 88
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 8 post review deficiency cases for 1994, 12 for 1995, 16
for 1996 and 4 for 1997.
Post Review.--The Service reports 64 large deficiency cases to us
annually for post review. Four of these cases generated concerns this
year.
Other Action.--(1) We transmitted for consideration of legislative
action 10 issues that arose in various cases.
(2) We transmitted 2 memoranda suggesting corrections were needed
in computer programs to ensure correct reporting of tax liability.
Exhibits and Appendices provide detailed information on most of the
foregoing.
Errors identified by us in 1997 and prior years, and agreed to by
the Service in 1997 produced a net reduction in refunds of $14.3
million. The average annual reduction for the last 7 years is $9.8
million. Such corrections also reduced ATNOLCF's, $355.9 million,
AMFTC's $23 million, and regular tax FTC's $8.5 million. In addition,
one region informed us of savings in excess of $20 million from
corrections made before cases were submitted to us, that resulted from
memoranda we had written in earlier cases.
We hope that in spite of our decreased staffing we are
satisfactorily accomplishing our assigned portion of the Committee's
mission and meeting your expectations. We look forward to a productive,
challenging year.
______
EXHIBIT I.--REPORTS TO JC AS REQUIRED BY IRS CODE SECTION 6405
[Calendar year 1997]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Cumulative
Month cases Cumulative monthly Dollar receipts Cumulative
received total average dollar receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January.................................... 48 48 48 $1,260,468,739 $1,260,468,739
February................................... 46 94 47 347,028,954 1,607,497,693
March...................................... 40 134 44 518,379,068 2,125,876,761
April...................................... 55 189 47 342,716,526 2,468,593,287
May........................................ 59 248 49 701,795,817 3,170,389,104
June....................................... 54 302 50 520,878,723 3,691,267,827
July....................................... 81 383 54 824,954,395 4,516,222,222
August..................................... 54 437 54 547,160,557 5,063,382,779
September.................................. 40 477 53 370,329,743 5,433,712,522
October.................................... 56 533 53 210,074,744 5,643,787,266
November................................... 26 559 50 179,610,623 5,823,397,889
December................................... 43 602 50 277,861,739 6,101,259,628
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
EXHIBIT II.--JOINT COMMITTEE CASES RECEIVED IN BY TYPES OF TAXPAYER AND SOURCE--1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Percent Amount Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPES OF TAXPAYERS SOURCE OF REPORTS
Individuals.............................. 26 4.32 Examination................. 457 75.91
Estates.................................. 7 1.16 Appeals..................... 124 20.60
Trusts................................... 2 .33 Justice..................... 18 2.99
Corporations............................. 567 94.19 Tax Court................... 3 .50
--------------------- -------------------
Total.............................. 602 100.00 Total................. 602 100.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
EXHIBIT III.--JOINT COMMITTEE MONTHLY RECEIPTS--REFUND REPORTS FROM EXAMINATION AND APPEALS
[Calendar year 1997]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Examination Cumulative Appeals Cumulative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January......................................................... 31 31 13 13
February........................................................ 39 70 6 19
March........................................................... 33 103 6 25
April........................................................... 44 147 10 35
May............................................................. 36 183 17 52
June............................................................ 44 227 9 61
July............................................................ 60 287 19 80
August.......................................................... 38 287 14 94
September....................................................... 31 356 8 102
October......................................................... 45 401 9 111
November........................................................ 20 421 6 117
December........................................................ 36 457 7 124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT IV.--1997 JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION CONCERNS \1\ ON REFUND REPORTS FROM IRS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total No. of
Examinations Appeals concerns
issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of concerns issued....................................... 54 29 83
Percent of total concerns issued................................ 65 35 100
Total reports received.......................................... 457 124 581
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of Concerns does not include 4 on deficiency cases and 1 on a Justice case.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are
appreciative of your efforts to be fiscally responsible and
hold down your expenses, and this committee is particularly
appreciative of your focusing on our request of last year
dealing with requests for estimates from those who are not
members of either the Ways and Means Committee or the Finance
Committee.
We had something of a wrangle in the subcommittee with your
predecessor over this issue, and I at least know of Lindy
Paull's background and great talent. I think you have made a
very wise choice----
Senator Roth. Thank you. I think so, too.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. In putting Ms. Paull in this
assignment.
I will note the percentage, at least, of response to
requests for estimates has gone up from the 104th Congress to
the 105th Congress on the part of members of the tax-writing
committees. It has unfortunately gone down with respect to
other members, and that was the source of the concern we had
last year.
You undoubtedly read the language that we put in the
conference report. The conferees expect the Joint Committee to
be both responsive and timely in its responses to Members of
Congress who do not serve on the revenue committees. It is the
intent of the conferees to carefully monitor the responsiveness
of the Joint Committee to determine if statutory language will
be required next year.
The wrangle was, are we going to force the committee to
accept additional FTE's with the understanding that they would
be dedicated solely to responding to Members of Congress who
are not members of the tax-writing committees?
Your predecessor said, give us 1 year to prove ourselves,
and interestingly they did not say, give us the additional
people. They were willing to give up the additional people in
order to avoid the restrictive language.
As I say, statistically the responsiveness has gone down. I
think the one area that is statistically the largest decline is
the House non-Ways and Means Committee Democrats which went
from 62 percent replies in the 104th Congress down to 55
percent in the 105th, and others, although the number is very
low, 80 percent reply in the 104th has gone down to 62 percent
in the 105th.
The Senate non-Finance Committee Republicans are the second
group that has had the biggest decline, from 68 percent in the
104th down to roughly 60 percent in the 105th.
I am willing to accept your assurances of focus on this
issue, again as an expression of my confidence in Ms. Paull and
her background and history in working with Members of the
Senate, but we will, true to the comment in the conference
report, continue to monitor this very closely because it is a
matter that we have heard from other Members of Congress about,
and we would be derelict in our duties if we did not stay on
top of it.
Senator Dorgan, do you have any questions?
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I think the budget request is
very reasonable and it reflects some real prudence here. I
served on the House Ways and Means Committee for 10 years, so I
know a fair amount about the service given Members, especially
tax committee members, by the Joint Committee on Taxation, and
I also know that there is a fair part of the year when they
work literally day and night, and they do not have a huge
staff, but they put in about as many hours as anybody on
Capitol Hill during certain periods, and I have always deeply
appreciated the sacrifice and the effort they make.
I think the expression that we made last year as a
subcommittee was very important, however. I discovered that
there are several stages of responses. Chairmen of the House
Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee always get
immediate responses.
Members of the tax-writing committees get pretty good
responses, and other Members had a little more difficult time,
and I think all we were trying to say was that Members not able
to serve on the tax-writing committees also need that service,
and I think what we did last year and your response to that has
been helpful and thoughtful, and we very much appreciate it.
Senator Roth. Mr. Chairman and Senator Dorgan, I appreciate
what you are saying and fully agree as to the importance that
everybody have access. I have some of the same experiences
sometimes with CBO, so I know of what you speak.
Senator Bennett. You want us to pass that on to CBO when
they appear for their appropriation?
Senator Roth. You might give them a nudge.
But let me say that Senator Dorgan is 100 percent correct
when he talks about the workload on these people. First of all,
I think we are very fortunate in being able to maintain the
quality personnel that we have and the fact that they work day
and night at times I think is not understood or appreciated on
the part of many, so I would just like the record to reflect
that we are fortunate in having a group of economists,
accountants, and lawyers that do great work, and we will
certainly try to watch this and make sure that there is fair
access to everybody.
Obviously, when there is a markup and some of those
situations, a priority is established, but if you have any
problems during the year I would hope both of you gentlemen
would call it to either Lindy or my attention.
Senator Dorgan. Could I ask one additional question?
Senator Bennett. Surely.
Senator Dorgan. This is one of the areas in which
institutional knowledge I think is critical. To the extent that
you have people on your staff who are permanent and have been
there a long while and understand not only what happened last
year but 5 years ago and 20 years ago in some of these
difficult tax issues is very important, and we are going to
have testimony a little later this morning by the Congressional
Research Service in which they are concerned about the
retirements that will occur, and what it will take away from
their agency in terms of institutional knowledge.
Have you taken a look at your staff? Is your circumstance
such that you have a pretty good feeling about the continuation
of institutional knowledge, given the permanent staff you have?
Ms. Paull. We have quite a few members of our staff who
have been on the staff for at least a decade and then we have a
mix of people. We have a few senior people who have been on
even longer than that, so we do have really good institutional
knowledge, a very high quality professional staff, and we will
try to maintain that.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.
Senator Roth. I asked Lindy to introduce some of our top
people who we have here.
Ms. Paull. We have some of our top people here. Mary
Schmitt, who is in charge of all our legal staff, and Bernie
Schmitt, who is in charge of our economic and revenue-
estimating function, and Michael Boren, who is our top
administrator.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. Very good. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your efforts and congratulate you
again on your choice of a chief of staff.
Senator Roth. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
U.S. SENATE--Continuing
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper--Continuing
Senator Bennett. All right. We now will go back to the
Sergeant at Arms. They are about to make a chart presentation
and, as I said, Mr. Casey, you need not feel quite as rushed as
you might of before, because Senator Roth has come and gone. We
appreciate your courtesy in allowing us to accommodate the
chairman.
Mr. Casey. It is not everyone who gets to be sandwiched in
between Senator Warner and Senator Roth. That is not bad
company, actually.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergeant at Arms Strategic Planning Goals
Provide the Senate with technologies that are year-2000 compliant.
Provide the Senate with a secure IT environment that protects
sensitive information and ensures data integrity.
Provide the Senate with:
--outstanding IT service and support
--responsive computing and communications technology
--optimum use of emerging technologies, including internet
--improved IT management processes.
Establish a centralized procurement function which will assure
performance that satisfies customers, protects Senate interests, and
obtains best values.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I was just discussing at the moment of the break that we
had four strategic goals that were assigned to us by the
ongoing Senate strategic plan. That is that chart there. We
reported to the Rules Committee on those goals the first week
in February. I would be glad to make available to you the
substance of our report on the progress of meeting that
strategic plan, if the committee would like to have that----
Senator Bennett. Thank you. We will put it in the committee
files.
Mr. Casey. You will note the first of those goals, Mr.
Chairman, is year 2000.
We can talk a lot about the organizational items in the
Sergeant at Arms, but I think there are a couple of these items
like year 2000 of particular interest to this committee, so let
us get to that.
We feel there is no more important task for us to be
successful at than making sure that the Senate is year 2000
compliant. Experts have suggested to us--and we have ongoing
consultants working with us on year 2000. They suggest that
what is complicated about this particular problem is not the
technical fix to either the hardware or the software, but the
complexity and the enormity of the task of managing year 2000
compliance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA12.000
In October 1996 we began using the GAO model, the five-
phase structured model on how to approach the year 2000
problem.
The five phases are awareness, assessment, renovation,
validation, and, of course, the last one is implementation.
Phase 1 is awareness. That is what everybody has been
doing, what we continue to do. We have got an ongoing outreach
program to Senate offices not only to be aware of what the
overall systems are, year 2000, but what unique applications
they may have on their own systems that are year 2000 that they
are going to have to take a look at as well.
We have an outreach page on Webster, so we are continuing
to try to drive home the message to be aware of what is going.
We have identified in the second phase, our core business
applications, our systems. We have done an inventory of our
computers and our vulnerabilities, and we have prioritized
their conversion and their replacement.
As a side note in response to a question asked by
Congressman Saxton, the Joint Economic Committee has 77
computers in the Senate side, 28 of which are already
compliant, 24 of which are compliant-ready, and 5 which are
not, so that is his status. That comes about by the assessment
phase that we have completed.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA12.001
Phase 3 is renovation. Obviously, the renovation is the
conversion, the replacement, the elimination of either the
applications, the systems, or the hardware that causes the
problem.
Our renovation strategy for four of the mission-critical
statements is as follows. On the office automation networks and
desktop computers, we will basically make them compliant
through routine life cycle replacements, or BIOS upgrades.
In plain English, the vast majority of all of our desktop
systems and computers will only require an upgrade on the
software.
I notice everybody looking at that chart. That which is
green is good. It is done. That which is yellow is not quite as
good, but pretty good. It means that they are compliant-ready
and they will be ready to take the upgrade. That which is red
is bad. As you can see in the PC's and gateways, 15 percent are
already completed.
In terms of numbers, Mr. Chairman, that is 1,370 of our
PC's are compliant. You are right to say that in December we
were at 63. We are now capable and turning PC's that are
compliant-ready into compliant to about the tune of 500 a week.
The yellow, that which is compliant-ready, is the universe
we are working on now, and the red, of course, is that which is
noncompliant, which means they have to be replaced or retired.
And the MAC's you see up there, I know there are some MAC
offices. Basically we have 15 MAC's.
Mr. Ciccolella. Twelve that are not compliant. The others
are compliant.
Mr. Casey. It is 500 a month, is how we are turning the
compliant-readies.
Senator Bennett. Do you have enough months? I guess you do.
Ten months gives you 5,000, so you end this year with 2,200.
Mr. Casey. We basically have 15 months to go.
Senator Bennett. OK.
Mr. Casey. Laptops are the largest noncompliant area.
Mainly that is because of the nature of the laptop. Laptops go
places, go home, get in the car. They do not become the
critical device that people use for computing. Basically the
red is going to be replaced. Those are the 286's and 386's. We
cannot make them compliant-ready. They will be replaced.
The file servers, the same situation there exists. We will
replace 14 of them. We have got 8 percent already compliant,
and the others are getting ready to be compliant.
In the core business applications, here we are talking
about our financial management, legislative information, et
cetera. Both Mitretek and GAO tell us that this is where our
greatest problems lie.
Our strategy here, however, is total replacement, and we
are in the process of doing that. From a hardware perspective
the necessary mainframe hardware upgrade has been accomplished
and is being tested now, so it is the applications that we have
to put on that hardware system.
Data and telecommunications networks are being addressed in
a previously approved and previously funded 5-year plan, and
generally they are compliant. As you can see there, there is a
very small sliver at both the data network and the voice
network where we have problems in the States, and the State
PBX's and modems will just simply have to be replaced.
There are a couple of items up there. There is a large red
box at the bottom. During the course of the assessment we
basically isolated those things that are critical mission core
functions. Those are the ones we are looking at now.
Obviously, when the year 2000 comes there will be some
things that will not make it through the window. We would like
to address them. We would like to take care of all that, but in
terms of the red at the bottom, those are those that are
nonmission critical. If we finish the rest of our mission-
critical on-time, and the way we hope we can get it
accomplished, we will be addressing those.
The last one up on top, core business applications and
mainframes, there was the issue of the Capitol Police. We found
a patch, or a way to bring the Capitol Police's mainframe
networks into compliance for the year 2000, so we found a way
to fix that problem.
Phase 4 is validation. We are not there yet. And phase 5 of
this program is the full implementation, or the use of
contingent plans where necessary.
So currently we are in the process with Mitretek on board
and GAO validating our methodologies to address the year 2000
issue. There are the numbers.
prepared statement
I have a secret weapon as well. We hired a chief of
operations, Mr. Chick Ciccolella, who comes to us after a
distinguished career in the Army. He is a world-class manager.
He has taken over the operations division. He has a task force
at the highest level in the operations division whose sole
purpose it is to continue focusing on the year 2000 issue.
I can answer questions at the end, if you want me to stop.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gregory S. Casey
Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to appear before the committee
today to discuss the operations and budget of the Sergeant at Arms and
to restate our commitment to quality service to our Senate customers.
First, a brief status report on our operations. In my testimony a
year ago, I summarized twenty years worth of consultant reports
recommending changes in the way the Senate Sergeant at Arms does
business. I also outlined how we intended to reorganize the Sergeant at
Arms organization to make it the customer focused, quality driven
operation described in the Senate's emerging strategic plan.
Today I am pleased to report this reorganization is complete. We
believe today's Sergeant at Arms is structured to provide outstanding
customer service to support the Senate's mission critical systems, to
provide state of the art office automation, constituent response
programs, and assurance these systems are secure from threat, available
on demand, and are Year 2000 compliant.
Our success in meeting both the Senate strategic plan and our own
admittedly ambitious objectives is based on remaining focused on three
management principles: understand customer needs and keep in touch with
those expectations; use best management practices and rigorously
evaluate every process; and develop and maintain a motivated and
skilled workforce.
We have created a new Customer Relations Department that will
provide a single point of contact for all customer concerns about
services, quality, and new product and support requirements. We have a
Quality Assurance Council, comprised of representatives from member
offices, committees, and other service and support offices within the
Senate; their chief function is focused on continuous improvement.
We have a reinvigorated Human Resource Office providing management
training, establishing career ladders, pay for performance, recruitment
and retention programs for our employees, and meeting the requirement
of the Congressional Accountability Act.
As we migrate some of our financial operations to the Secretary of
the Senate, we are converting our financial operations office to a
management review office to ensure our Quarterly Report will become
increasingly more detailed and valuable--for you and for us.
We have consolidated our Operations Division and eliminated
duplication of services. To this division, we added two new
departments: (1) the Office of Program Management, adds new discipline
to project management, (2) the Office of the Systems Architect will
ensure our information technology infrastructure remains visionary with
an eye toward, not only our current, but future technology needs.
And, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Senate, we are
developing a Senate Joint Office of Education and Training. As we
discussed here last year, we must invest much more in our human
resources.
In addition to doing that which we do to support our Senate
customers, we've also been tasked with implementing our share of the
emerging Senate Strategic Plan. The Sergeant at Arms has the
responsibility for implementing these four (on chart) specific goals as
well as providing all the technology for the Secretary's mission
critical systems.
Mr. Chairman, each of our strategic goals were discussed in great
detail with the Strategic Planning Task Force in February. I would be
pleased to make a copy of our report available to you.
Operationally speaking, this is not the same Sergeant at Arms it
was a year ago. But rather than talk generally, I know a couple of the
tasks we are currently involved with that are of particular concern to
you.
There isn't a task more important for us to succeed at than meeting
the challenges of making the Senate Year 2000 compliant. Experts
suggest, what is so complicated about the Year 2000 problem is not the
technical fix to a particular computer or piece of software--but the
complexity of managing the enormous scale of the project.
In October of 1996 we began implementation of a structured and
disciplined Year 2000 program which comports to best practices as
identified by the General Accounting Office.
The program is a five phase approach (chart).
Phase one is Awareness.--On this, we have been working with Senate
offices over the past year to make them aware of Year 2000 issues
including those which may be unique to their offices.
Phase two is Assessment.--We have identified core business
applications and systems, completed a hard inventory and prioritized
their conversion or replacement. These are the systems and tools that
support the critical operations of the Senate.
Phase three is Renovation.--Converting, replacing or eliminating
applications and systems and modifying their interfaces. Our renovation
strategy for the mission critical systems are as follows:
--Office automation networks and desktop computers will be compliant
through routine life-cycle replacements and ``bios'' upgrades.
In plain English, the vast majority of our desktop computers
will only require a software upgrade to the operating system to
become compliant.
--Core business applications, like the Senate's financial management
and legislative information systems, have been identified by
our Y2K consultant, Mitretek, and the GAO, as our most
problematic Y2K issue. The Senate's strategy here is total
replacement of these applications and hardware. On the hardware
side, the SAA Operations Division, is already testing a newly
installed mainframe and related operating system.
However, the software for the financial management and
legislative information systems is complicated. The Sergeant at
Arms is working with the project sponsor and the project team
to develop contingency plans to mitigate the risk.
--Data and telecommunications networks are being addressed in our
previously approved 5 year network upgrade program. They are
generally compliant or are being upgraded with assistance from
our network vendors.
Phase four is Validation.--Test, verify and validate applications
and systems.
Phase five is Implementation.--Follow our plan or, if need be,
implement contingency plans if necessary.
We are currently validating our methodologies and project status
with our Y2K consultant, Mitretek, and the GAO. Additionally, we have
completed the ``hard'' inventory developed in the assessment phase. The
ongoing effort at renovation allows me to advise you today, of the
8,258 desk and laptop computers currently in the inventory, 615 are
already compliant, 6,184 are compliant ready.
Second to Y2K in importance to the Senate Community, is Information
System Security or INFOSEC. Consultants and GAO have been recommending
an INFOSEC initiative for years.
Last year my office obtained the services of an exceptional
professional from the National Security Agency, who has spent several
months assisting us in developing policy, structure, guidelines and
recommendations. The Rules Committee recently authorized the
implementation of an Information Systems Security plan based on that
work and we are now in the process of selecting an INFOSEC Director.
I also want to touch briefly on the issue of the Internet. We've
been using one of the nation's foremost Internet consultants in helping
us understand where technology will take us in the next millennium. One
of their comments bring a shocking perspective to our task in this
area. ``The Internet will swallow up telephone and TV * * *.''
Last year, we facilitated 15 million outside email contacts with
Senate offices. This year, we expect that number to double as the
volume of Internet users in the United States doubles.
How we accommodate this increase, and harness this communication
tool, will be critical to the success of every Senate customer from now
on.
Last week we put the finishing touches on an ambitious tactile plan
for putting the Senate at the front end of this technological marvel
before the beginning of the next Congress. We think this $2 million
initial effort can be funded through the existing Sergeant at Arms
budget.
Now, speaking of the budget, this is where the rubber meets the
road. Are you getting what you pay for?
First, in terms of efficiency, our original fiscal year 1999 budget
request developed last fall, was the same as this year's budget--$97.9
million, that number was a real $2 million less than the previous year.
Since then, we have settled our reorganization and began to more
fully reengineer what we do. That has lead to a revised budget request
for $94.9 million--a full $3 million less than our original request.
This savings results from a combination of operational efficiencies and
the re-evaluation of projects. The reduced fiscal year 1999 budget
request of $94.9 million consists of $34.4 million in salaries and
$60.5 million in expenses. Salaries increased by $1.4 million or 4
percent from last year, with a corresponding decrease in expenses. The
expense request is for $60.5 million, $4.4 million or nearly 7 percent
below fiscal year 1998. Expense savings are achieved by better managing
ongoing activities and a careful evaluation of new technology projects.
We have deferred several initiatives in favor of more cost effective
solutions and have deferred others for which there is insufficient
customer demand.
Second, we will operate with the same 780 FTE's we had this year--
47 FTE's less than 1997, while still implementing a new Education and
Training Office, an all new project management office, a new INFOSEC
office, a new systems architect, a fully staffed customer service
division, and a new office dedicated to inter and intranet development.
Third, we continue to make progress on our new strategic projects,
including year 2000 compliance, improved information security, and
upgrades to our infrastructure which allows us to take full advantage
of current and emerging technologies.
To understand how we link our strategic initiatives to the budget,
you first need to understand the budget.
--35 percent supports state offices ($22 million);
--16 percent D.C. office equipment and communications;
--13 percent supports CSF ($8 million); and
--9 percent produces the ID's, issues the parking permits, produces
graphics, televises the Senate, and pays the Doorkeepers.
In other words, 86 percent of the fiscal year 1999 budget request
is consumed in day-to-day operations.
Key to linking dollars to the strategic plan is implementing
strategic updates as a recurring business strategy. Included in the
above is exactly that. Replacement of non-Y2K compliant desktop
computers with those that are Y2K, etc.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say how proud I am of the managers and
employees of the Sergeant at Arms. We embarked on an ambitious
organizational remake less than a year ago. We set out to change the
structure and culture.
That asked a lot of our people and they have performed wonderfully.
Few will ever know or appreciate how difficult this task has been--but
I do--and I thank them all.
Senator Bennett. I congratulate you on the thoroughness and
specificity of your assessment. We are, as Chairman Greenspan
told us in the Banking Committee--I know that is a name that
will get Senator Dorgan awake simply by invoking it.
We are engaged in a truly unique situation in history. We
have no prior experience with this, and I think Murphy is
probably predominant in all of these operations, so the more
time you can give yourself for testing at the back end of this
process the better off you are going to be.
You may be in compliance with the GAO windows. The message
is that we have no idea that those windows are really the right
windows. We have never done anything like this before, and you
do everything you can to see that the testing phase of the
implementation and validation, to use their terms, is as long
as possible, because the concern that I have Government-wide as
I look at this is that everyone is saying, we can be ready by
this date to start, and you look at the amount of testing time
they have, and it is very narrow. Particularly, DOD has a very
narrow testing phase.
So, with that concern, Senator Dorgan, do you have any
questions on this before we go to the next?
Senator Dorgan. It was a good presentation.
Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Casey. Thank you, sir.
Second, too, the importance of year 2000 is another issue
that we need to take care of, which is systems information
security, or INFOSEC. This is something the GAO has been
telling us we have needed to do for a long time.
Last year, with the work of the Rules Committee, we brought
in a professional from the National Security Agency, Pam Kelly.
She spent several months preparing recommendations on how we
can put together an INFOSEC office for the U.S. Senate. The
Rules Committee recently authorized the implementation of that
plan. We are now in the process of selecting and hiring an
INFOSEC director.
I would like to touch briefly on the issue of the Internet,
and I know we do not have a lot of time. Suffice it to say we
have got a world-class consultant also dealing with us on
intranet and Internet. One of the comments that they made to us
sort of puts this into a stark perspective, as well: The
Internet will soon swallow up television and telephones.
So we are aware of that. And we have put the finishing
touches on an ambitious tactical plan for putting the Senate on
the sort of leading edge of the Internet technology before the
beginning of the next Congress. There is a $2 million
initiative that we are funding inside the budget of the
Sergeant at Arms.
Speaking of budget, first, in terms of our efficiency, Mr.
Chairman. This year's budget was $97.9 million, which itself
was a $2 million reduction over last year. Since we submitted
our original request for the same as we had last year, we have
settled our reorganization. And because of that, we have been
able to fully reengineer some of our services. This has led to
a revised budget request of $94.9 million, or $3 million less
than we asked for last fall.
The savings result from a combination of our operational
efficiencies and the reevaluation of some of the projects. It
consists of $94.9 million; $34.4 million of it is salaries--
that is an increase of 4 percent, or $1.4 million; and a
decrease of $4.4 million, or 7 percent, in the area of
expenses. And on the expense side, we have achieved that,
again, by better managing some of our ongoing projects and by
analyzing and deferring some of the initiatives or eliminating
or reducing some of those initiatives where we simply found no
customer or insufficient customer demand.
We will operate at the same 780 FTE's in the coming year
that we had last year. That is 47 FTE's less than we had the
year before. We are going to be able to do that with the 780
FTE's while at the same time bringing online the new Office of
Education and Training, the new Project Management Office, the
new INFOSEC Office, the new systems architect, a fully staffed
customer service division, and a dedicated Internet and
intranet department.
Third, we will continue to make progress on our strategic
initiatives, including year 2000, basically, by making sure
that the dollars that we spend are strategically linked to the
dollars that we spend on our ongoing activities. And in my
prepared text I talk to you about how our budget basically
breaks down. It basically works this way: 86 percent of all the
money that we expend are in the day-to-day operations. That
leaves a very small sliver of dollars to address strategic
initiatives. So what we are doing is linking those dollars to
our reoccurring business strategy.
Year 2000 is a perfect case in point. As we move the old
computers, the old systems, out, we bring in those that are
part of the strategic initiative. And that is what we are using
Mr. Chris Day, who was our financial officer, who is now our
management officer, to make sure that we do--that we bring some
of our discipline on our strategic planning to our everyday
operational expenses.
Also, we are pursuing the IT protocol, which we believe is
a partnering effort with all of the Senate family, the Senate
offices, who have initiatives that they would like to see in
their individual offices. That helps us develop a picture of
the architect for the future, and helps us expend dollars
through the individual office CSF accounts, computer accounts,
to also help us meet the strategic planning objectives.
Mr. Chairman, that would conclude my prepared testimony. I
stand ready to answer any questions you may have. But I would
like to say that I have been blessed with a tremendous staff.
We started a very, very aggressive reorganization in the last
year. We set out to change the culture and the structure of a
very large organization. We asked a lot of our people. And our
people performed magnificently, and sometimes under very
difficult circumstances. Those people are here. And if I could
ask them to stand so that you could see who these people are.
Senator Bennett. Very good.
Mr. Casey. Thank you.
They have done a very magnificent job, and I am very proud
of what they have been able to accomplish in the last year.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SERGEANT AT ARMS FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET REQUEST
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Original Revised
---------------------------------------- fiscal fiscal
Description year year
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries............................................ $32.7 $31.9 $34.0 $33.0 $34.4 $34.4
Expenses............................................ 74.9 61.3 65.9 64.9 63.5 60.5
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total Budget.................................. 107.6 93.2 99.9 97.9 97.9 94.9
===========================================================
Staffing (FTE's).................................... 888 824 827 780 780 780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I am impressed by the numbers
on your chart. I notice that all of the numbers are down except
the FTE's and the salaries. I would be interested to know, if
by maintaining the FTE's at the same level and the salary
number at the same level, how you are handling the mandatory
COLA increases?
Mr. Casey. It is built into the budget. The mandatory COLA
is built into the budget.
Senator Bennett. Well, how does that work, if you have the
same number of people as you had last year?
Mr. Casey. We are increasing the salary component. As we
did last year, we increased it.
Senator Bennett. Well, here, the salary component is flat.
Oh, I see. I apologize. I am going from original to revised. I
should go from 1998 to revised. OK. That helps me. Thank you. I
apologize for missing that point.
Senator Dorgan, do you have any questions?
Senator Dorgan. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Casey has
done a good job as Sergeant at Arms. And I think this
presentation is an effective presentation. You certainly
continue to exhibit some restraint. I like the reforms that you
have implemented.
Let me also say that this office was extraordinarily
helpful last spring when our State was hit with this disaster.
They were quick to help us provide some mobile office space,
and it was enormously helpful. And we appreciate that.
But you not only gave an effective presentation on the year
2000 issue, but I think that all of us take some heart in
recommendations that hold the line on staffing and pretty much
hold the line on salaries, with the exception of the COLA. We
appreciate that kind of recommendation. And I think that you
are making some much-needed improvements in the organization.
And I do not have any tough, probing questions.
To the extent that I go through and find some additional
inquiries, I would like to be able to send them to you. But,
generally speaking, I am pleased and impressed with the work
that your office has done.
Mr. Casey. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. We had a question last year. It is a
ticky-tacky kind of question.
Mr. Casey. It will come out. It will go to the GPO next
week. [Laughter.]
It will be in the hands of everybody within 30 days. But
all the current numbers are currently posted daily on Webster.
Senator Bennett. OK. So that the record will be clear, I
was indeed going to ask the question about the updated phone
book. [Laughter.]
Beauty and barber shops
Another area that has attracted some attention, I think far
beyond that which it deserves, in terms of the amount of money,
but for some reason has attracted publicity. Will you comment
on the consolidation of the beauty and barber shops?
Mr. Casey. I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman.
At the direction of a number of individuals on the Rules
Committee, we looked into trying to eliminate what had become a
rather significant deficit. We had a couple of recommendations
on how to proceed. One of them was to consolidate the
operations, eliminating duplicative administrative staff,
eliminating duplicative reception staff, combining the two
shops basically into one shop, so that we could obtain some
efficiencies in ordering product and scheduling customers, or
going to an outsourcing.
It was determined by the Rules Committee that the proper
way to go was to try to get the operation on a break-even basis
or close to a break-even basis without outsourcing those
services. We proceeded to do that. And on January 1, we
switched over to the new process.
Now, although a couple of months does not a year make, we
have seen the monthly deficit go from roughly $39,000 in the
first month that we have figures, to about $9,000. So we have
turned the corner on that, and I hope are still able to provide
a high level of service.
Senator Bennett. And you raised the prices, which I noted.
Mr. Casey. We did a survey as to what our prices looked
like compared to the private sector and found out that in not
all segments, but in some segments we were low, and we raised
the prices to a competitive basis.
Senator Bennett. Well, I appreciate your attention to that.
I know it can be a highly emotional issue for Members back
home, who like to grandstand on their willingness to accept
austerity. But many times they get carried away with campaign
rhetoric and get away from reality. So I appreciate your
willingness to focus on that and bring it to the competitive
arena the way you have.
Now, I am going to raise a really small issue, but,
nonetheless, it could be symptomatic of the challenges of
running a bureaucracy, even as lean as you are running this
bureaucracy. And I certainly compliment you on the direction
and efficiencies that you have established. But this is the
price you pay for responding to a public body like the Senate.
Cellular phones
The Appropriations Committee--I cannot resist, sitting
under the portrait of our chairman--recently received quotes
for a Startac cellular phone. And the Senate Telecommunications
Office provided a quotation of $800 for a Startac phone, with
lithium battery, vibrate ring, two lines, and a 3-year
warranty. And members of the Appropriations Committee got on
the telephone, called around. Bell Atlantic Mobile quoted over
the phone a price of $600 for an identical phone.
This is not the Pentagon, with a $700 toilet seat, but,
nonetheless, this is the kind of thing that also gets into
newspapers if it does not get addressed and dealt with. And I
am giving you an opportunity to respond here.
You are familiar with this disparity?
Mr. Casey. We are.
Senator Bennett. I thought you might be.
Mr. Casey. We are. You said a 3-year guarantee if I am not
mistaken, there is also a 3-year signup charge to use it. No?
He has an answer.
Senator Bennett. OK, fine.
Mr. Ravenberg. Yes, Senator. Usually there is a signup
charge for these, depending upon the pricing. Companies do
offer special pricing as an incentive for you to sign up for
it. If there is not a minimum amount of time that you have to
sign up for, there is usually a minimum billing amount for each
month.
Other things that you do not get with the Bell Atlantic
special, if you will, you do not get the ability to dial 5-
digit numbers on the Senate and Hill with that. You also do not
get the ability to dial 0 and get the Capitol operator or any
of the other services that the Senate plan offers.
I can tell you that our people are constantly pressuring
the vendors to get the prices down, so that there is a standard
price. We do not offer specials, but the price you get through
the Sergeant at Arms is the same price every single day.
Senator Bennett. Well done.
Mr. Ravenberg. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Casey. That was a guest appearance by Duane Ravenberg,
Deputy Chief of Operations.
Procurement operation
I would also comment. One of the goals that we are charged
with, under the strategic plan, is to develop a state-of-the-
art, cutting-edge procurement operation. We have hired a
procurement specialist, with about 20 years of practice in this
area. We have found that we do have some outdated procurement
policies and procedures--severely outdated. And we are in the
process of rewriting those procurement processes such that when
there is an opportunity for us to take advantage of lower costs
or other alternatives, we will be able to move to that.
Right now, we simply cannot do it as easily as we would
like. We recognize that. And one of the things we find out from
our customers is while they may be happy with a lot of the
service they get, once they buy the Startac, it is the entry
into getting that product that is providing us some problems.
So we are aware of that and trying to fix that on a broader
scale.
disposal of surplus Equipment
Senator Bennett. Let us go to the other end of the
equation, the disposal of items. What is the procedure for
items to be surplused?
Mr. Casey. That is a difficult situation. We have a number
of computers that are beginning to back up now, and we have
guidance, legislative guidance, to make sure that those go to
educational institutions. It is vague as to how we are supposed
to do that. And we are currently just storing them at the GSA
pending a solution to that.
Mr. Harris. And we are currently in negotiations with GSA.
There is an executive branch program for computers to schools.
We are working out, with GSA, a process by which the Senate, in
the legislation which Mr. Casey referred to, that we are
meeting the spirit and the letter of that law.
One thing we did not want to do is replicate the
administrative process, and bring on another responsibility,
where we could leverage an asset within the executive branch.
Mr. Casey. Simply speaking, we could give these to GSA, and
they could go ahead and send them wherever they wanted to. What
we would like to do is to have a little bit more specific
control as to where these items go. There is a cost involved in
moving them. And we would like to have a little more
clarification of that. So that if there is some needy school in
Utah, we would be able to excess them a little more
specifically.
Senator Bennett. I hesitate to burden you with personal
experience, but I cannot resist. GSA is not the most efficient
way of getting rid of surplus equipment. When I was in the
Nixon administration, the Under Secretary in the Johnson
administration of the Department of Transportation had a
particular chair that he wanted. And he got GSA to buy it for
him. It was a magnificent Herman-Miller piece of furniture. The
then-Under Secretary, when I was serving, did not like the
chair. He wanted something more traditional. And he disposed of
it in the very efficient way of putting it in the hall.
Well, he got the kind of chair and desk that he wanted. I
saw it, lusted after it, and asked if I could have it as my
chair. I was told, absolutely, we want to get it out of the
hall. And I wheeled it into my office and sat it in the glory
for the 2 years that I served in the Nixon administration.
When I left, I was told no one else wanted this particular
chair, because it was completely nonstandard of anything in
Government, and I said, fine, let me buy it. No; it had to go
to GSA. It had to be put in a warehouse. It had to be put up
for bids. There had to be proposals all the way around it. And
I was told that the chair will be worn out by the time you can
get your hands on it, and the cost will be enormous.
I think, if you can stay out of the clutches of GSA when it
comes to disposing of furniture or other items, you are going
to be a lot better off.
Mr. Casey. Could you describe the chair, Mr. Chairman?
[Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. I have done my best, Herman-Miller,
leather and chrome. It was really wonderful.
One comment back on the disposal of the computers. Does
this mean the schools are going to get computers that are not
year 2000 compliant?
Mr. Casey. If they are 386's and before; that is correct.
Senator Bennett. So we are giving them something that will
be good for about 12 months?
Mr. Casey. Well, I would say that we have a lot of non-
386's. Of course, there will probably be 486's that are
noncompliant, too.
Senator Bennett. OK.
Senator Dorgan, do you have any other questions?
Senator Dorgan. No.
Senator Bennett. Fine. Thank you very much.
Mr. Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan. I
appreciate it.
Additional committee questions
Senator Bennett. Once, again, Mr. Casey, we congratulate
you on the job you and your staff are doing. And these are very
good numbers, indeed.
Mr. Casey. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
Question. When will the Senate be able to produce auditable
financial statements?
Answer. The first auditable financial statements will be for fiscal
year 2000. During fiscal year 1999, the Disbursing Office will install
the new Senate general ledger and procurement systems, convert to
obligation- and accrual-basis accounting, and conform back office
policies and procedures as the first phase of FMIS. The next phase will
incorporate other modules of an integrated system necessary to produce
financial statements, such as a fixed asset module which will enable
determination of the cost basis and depreciation schedule of assets to
be capitalized on the balance sheet of the Senate.
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the
appointment of a new Comptroller General of the United States.
Answer. The Comptroller General is appointed to a 15-year term by
the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Because the
General Accounting Office, which the Comptroller General heads, exists
primarily to provide research, review, and analysis for Congress, the
applicable statute, 31 U.S.C. 703, establishes a bicameral commission
to recommend three or more individuals to the President for
appointment. I am assisting the Majority Leader in his capacity as
chairman of the commission. The commission has carefully reviewed the
qualifications of a large field of candidates, and, on January 22,
1998, recommended three individuals to the President. All three are
highly-qualified and are supported by a majority of the commission. To
date, the President has not acted on the commission's recommendation.
Question. The Secretary's testimony indicates that some statutory
changes may be required to modify the way in which expense categories
for Senators are prepared in order to convert to an OMB object
classification. Are there any other changes of this type which may be
required in order to implement FMIS? When do you expect to submit
recommendations?
Answer. At this point, the system design and requirements and the
project plan for FMIS are not ready. When a draft project plan is
ready, we will prepare a list of statutes and practices of the Senate
that could be reviewed in connection with the FMIS implementation,
whether to meet current federal financial accounting standards or to
facilitate use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software. That list
will be transmitted to your Committee and to the Committee on Rules and
Administration. Close consultation with both Committees will lead to
recommendations as to whether the Senate should consider changing
existing statutes or practices, or should modify the project plan.
Question. In your testimony you mention that succession planning
will be important for your office to fulfill its constitutional
responsibilities in the future. Do you have a plan? Does your fiscal
year 1999 budget request include any funds for your succession
planning? If so, how much? What will this cost in future years?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Office of the
Secretary does not include any funds specifically for succession
planning. We have, however, requested authorization for up to fifteen
new positions, primarily in the Disbursing Office to implement FMIS,
but partly to plan for succession in selected departments. To the
extent possible, the costs of these new positions will be absorbed
within the requested budget. The basic plan is to ensure that each
department, and particularly the thirteen in which the department head
is already eligible to retire, is staffed with one and preferably two
individuals who have the institutional knowledge, skills, and abilities
required to assume the responsibilities of the department head; in many
cases, to acquire such knowledge, skills and abilities takes several
years of on-the-job training and experience. To that end, we are
promoting from within as much as possible, and we are selecting highly-
qualified new hires who are committed to the Senate as a career. We are
also studying other employee development and progression alternatives
with a view toward developing generalists in the legislative
departments who could be capable of succeeding more than one department
head. Succession planning will impact future years' budgets in that
staffing requirements in some departments will be determined by both
the immediate workload and the need to ensure that one or two
individuals are trained to assume the department head position.
Question. What is the status of S. 1508, the Visitor Center
legislation? What is the House's position?
Answer. The Capitol Visitor Center Authorization Act has been
introduced as H.R. 20 by Representative John Mica, and as S. 1508 by
Majority Leader Trent Lott, Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle, and
Chairman John Warner of the Committee on Rules and Administration. S.
1508 is now before the Rules Committee. H.R. 20 was the subject of a
hearing before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
on Public Buildings and Economic Development on May 22, 1997, at which
witnesses from inside and outside Congress all agreed on the need for
the visitor center.
While both the House and Senate bills contemplate that the capital
construction costs (including the initial furnishing and equipping)
will be provided by the existing Capitol Preservation Fund, and by
additional private fund-raising overseen by the appropriate House and
Senate committees, questions continue to be raised concerning the
Capitol Visitor Center's follow-on costs, including care, maintenance,
staffing, and educational programs. In the successful effort to
eliminate the federal budget deficit, Congress has set the example by
holding the line on Legislative Branch appropriations. Accordingly,
there may be some reluctance to proceed with the project if to do so
would incur substantial operating expenses with long-term impact on the
Legislative Branch budget. Both H.R. 20 and S. 1508 take this concern
into account by providing that the Capitol Visitor Center will not
become a new item in the Legislative Branch appropriations. Rather, a
new account for visitor center revenues and expenses is to be
established, separate from the existing House, Senate, and joint item
accounts. The visitor center will produce substantial revenue from
retail operations serving the public, specifically restaurants and a
sales shop, and a preliminary assessment by the Architect of the
Capitol indicates that those revenues, estimated conservatively, will
more than offset operating expenses. Moreover, the visitor center is a
vital part of the Capitol Police Board's long-term plans for the
security of the Capitol Building and Grounds. If it is not constructed,
post-2000 expenditures for security, which must be funded from
Legislative Branch appropriations, will be significantly higher than
amounts reflected in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bills.
To resolve these questions, last October, Chairman Walsh of the
Legislative Branch subcommittee of the House Committee on
Appropriations, recommended the hiring of an independent consultant to
prepare a detailed evaluation of the full costs of the Capitol Visitor
Center project, considering all relevant matters including the costs of
operating the center as intended, the projected revenues from retail
operations, and the costs and benefits of integrating the security
plans. I am advised that the Senate Rules Committee, concurring with
Chairman Walsh and in order to expedite the overall project, intends to
contract for the study from the Senate contingent fund, possibly before
the end of March 1998.
Question. Congratulations on your progress with LIS. It is a system
which will be very useful for the Senate far into the future. Given
that it is relatively new and you are continually making significant
improvements, what efforts are being taken to keep staff informed about
developments with this new resource?
Answer. Thank you for your complimentary remarks. LIS is one the
very most important technological innovations in the history of the
Senate. When the system is fully implemented and its capabilities are
fully known on the part of Senate staff, LIS will be an extremely
valuable tool to virtually every individual staff member who has
legislative responsibilities. The Office of the Secretary is,
therefore, building upon and expanding its efforts to fully inform the
entire Senate community of the LIS features and capabilities. We are
also making special efforts to publicize new developments in the
system.
One such effort is to conduct surveys, which serve the dual
purposes of informing Senate staff of available features and assessing
user needs. About half of all Senate offices participated in the most
recent survey, with detailed responses coming from legislative
directors, legislative assistants, legislative correspondents, research
assistants, and others. The responses clearly confirm that the ability
to retrieve information on-line is a significant requirement for Senate
staff to carry out their duties, as two-thirds of respondents use the
existing services multiple times each day and virtually all do so at
least several times a week. The survey asked detailed questions about
the types of legislative information that offices need on-line. Nearly
all respondents say that they ``always need'' or ``often need''
summaries and analyses of legislation, votes taken, and legislative
status and calendar information. Most indicate that they ``always'' or
``often'' need full texts of legislation, full texts of reports, full
texts of the Record, member statements in the Record, and news
articles.
The survey further found that the existing LIS, even with its
limited capabilities at this stage of development, is used by 87
percent of respondents--a far higher usage rate than for any commercial
source. Asked for one preferred source of on-line legislative
information, more respondents indicated LIS than the combined responses
favoring the three commercial sources in use in the Senate (Lexis-
Nexis, CQ/Westlaw, Legi-Slate). The reasons given for preferring LIS
included ``easy use,'' ``quick response time,'' ``has the information I
require,'' and ``the search system does what I need.''
In another effort to promote LIS, the Project Office has prepared
an LIS brochure, describing the system services that are currently
available. The brochures have been distributed to all Senator and
Committee offices, the cloakrooms, and the Democratic and Republican
Policy Committees, and are also available at convenient sites such as
the Copy Center. The Project Office has also circulated ``Quick Cards''
that briefly and conveniently instruct how to access the Amendment
Tracking System, Committee Scheduling Information, and Vote
Information. An innovation still in progress is an electronic mailing
list, to be used to inform staff of new developments and upgrades to
LIS, and also inform staff of scheduled training classes.
Training classes, a function of the Project Office and the Senate
Computer Center, provide instruction geared to Senate staff at all
levels. Attendees receive LIS training materials and reference manuals
that they may retain as information sources for use by the entire staff
in their offices.
Because of the critical importance of LIS, the Office of the
Secretary is adding two staff positions to focus on LIS communications,
education and training.
Finally, and in addition to all of the organized efforts, I will
continue to brief Senators personally concerning the progress of LIS,
and will be pleased to arrange LIS demonstrations for Senators.
Question. $5 million of fiscal year 1997 funds were provided for
LIS to remain available until September 30, 2000. How much of those
funds have been obligated to date?
Answer. $3,051,903. The total obligations for LIS to date are
$4,104,000. In fiscal year 1997, however, $1,052,917 was obligated and
expended for LIS from other appropriations to the Office of the
Secretary, with the Committee's approval. The use of other available
funds in fiscal year 1997 reflected an effort to minimize any
possibility that we may have to request additional appropriations
earmarked for LIS before the system is implemented.
Question. $7 million of fiscal year 1992 funds were provided for
FMIS to remain available until September 30, 2000. How much of those
funds have been obligated to date?
Answer. $204,574; however, new contract terms awaiting finalization
will immediately obligate an additional $536,000.
Question. Last year this Committee questioned whether the Office of
Reporters of Debate and Captioning Services would be consolidated. Have
you taken any action in that regard?
Answer. Consolidation of the Official Reporters and the Captioners
was considered by my predecessor, but no action was taken. It is my
feeling that any possible consolidation of these two departments should
be considered in conjunction with the new technologies that are
appearing on the fairly short-term horizon. Technological change that
allows for continuous speech recognition holds out the prospect of
revolutionizing the way in which the Record is produced. For the
present, it seems that the most appropriate course is to defer any
permanent restructuring of the reporting function while we monitor
progress in the technologies.
Question. Has the SAA completed an inventory of all information
systems supporting the Senate, including the 161 Senate offices?
Answer. Yes, the SAA has a completed inventory of all information
systems supporting the Senate. Attachment I contains the overall
inventory as requested by GAO during their audit.
Question. Does the Office have a documented project plan for year
2000 compliance? If not, when will it be completed? If so, does this
plan include schedules for renovating, validating, and implementing
each mission critical system, including mainframe applications?
Answer. Yes, the SAA has a documented project plan for year 2000
compliance. We are providing a copy of it to the General Accounting
Office and will submit it to the Committee. The plan does include
schedules for renovating, validating, and implementing each mission
critical system, including mainframe applications. As specified below,
some areas of the plan are more detailed than others.
Utilizing the GAO five-phase approach, the Senate's status on each
of those phases is listed below.
Awareness
This phase began in August, 1996, when the initial Year 2000
compliance project was initiated. Letters were sent to each Senate
office informing them of the Year 2000 project and requesting
information on any non-standard products that might be in use in their
office. Letters were sent to departmental directors requesting that
each establish a Year 2000 program.
Since that time, a new user outreach program has been initiated
with the Customer Relations Department. This program will include
monthly columns in The Inkwell, a briefing of key Senate user groups
such as the Senate Systems Administrators Association, periodic updates
to the user community, a Y2K page on the SAA's Intranet site, Webster,
and more. This program will be ongoing throughout the Y2K project.
Assessment
Preliminary and follow-up inventories of PC hardware and mainframe
applications have been conducted. Risk assessments are now an ongoing
function at the individual project level to ensure that contingency
plans are developed and implemented if needed. The project office
continues to update all inventories to reflect current status.
The Senate's strategy is to replace the major or core business
systems that reside on the mainframe. To this end, the Senate has
established two major development projects--LIS and FMIS and is
creating two additional, non-mission critical projects--HRIS and MIS.
In addition, we have begun the upgrade of the Senate payroll system to
a Year 2000 compliant version.
As the Senate has standardized on Compaq equipment, the majority of
our desktop and LAN-based systems are Year 2000-ready and can be made
fully compliant by applying a simple software upgrade currently
available free-of-charge from Compaq. We currently have 1,480 pieces of
fully compliant hardware in the Senate and that number increases daily.
Based on our current rate of installation, all OA equipment should be
fully compliant by August 1999.
Our contract with Mitretek Systems, to conduct an independent
assessment of our inventories and Y2K strategies, will be expanded in
scope to include assistance with development of Y2K testing and
validation methodologies as well as compliancy definitions and a more
formal framework in which to work. While they are still in a fact-
finding mode, Mitretek has completed a preliminary assessment and we
anticipate a final report on their findings and recommendations in
April.
Renovation
In preparation for supporting Year 2000 compliant applications, we
are upgrading our mainframe. The installation of mainframe components
for the new OS/390 year 2000 compliant upgrade to the operating system
was completed in November, 1997. Customization and integration testing
of system components are currently ongoing. A fully operational system
will be available by the original March deadline.
Our core business systems applications (LIS and FMIS) are already
undergoing renovation by doing a full-scale replacement of these
mainframe legacy systems. The development phase of these replacement
programs should be shortened by our use of COTS, or commercial off the
shelf, software products. In addition to these major system
replacements, our current payroll system is also undergoing renovation
solely to make it Year 2000 compliant. The scheduled completion date is
the fall of 1999.
Validation
The Senate has not reached this stage for any of its core business
software applications. However, the need for confirming test and
validation plans is clear and will be addressed shortly under the
auspices of the Year 2000 program. With regard to the OA equipment
portion of Y2K compliancy, our Technical Review personnel have begun a
project to validate and test the efficacy of the Compaq-provided BIOS
upgrades which are necessary to make some of our older Compaq hardware
compliant.
Implementation
Implementation plans are currently the responsibility of each
application project. Guidelines for acceptance testing, data conversion
and exchange issues, and contingency planning will be provided to
project managers and system users by the Y2K project office.
Question. The budget states that the Operations Division will
increase its staff by 3, primarily for year 2000 compliance. Please
explain what functions those staff will perform.
Answer. The additional staff will support the Y2K project and the
establishment of an information security (INFOSEC) initiative. The
staff will consist of a director and professional staff. They will be
responsible for implementing the information security plan recommended
by a specialist from the National Security Agency. They will provide
turn-key solutions, technical and policy advice to Senate offices.
Question. Last year the Sergeant at Arms indicated that he would
look into eliminating areas of overlapping management between his
office, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Architect of the Capitol.
What has come of that inquiry?
Answer. The Sergeant at Arms remains committed to the efficient
delivery of services to the Senate community. As the Committee
correctly suggests, redundant and overlapping responsibilities lead to
poor service and unnecessary costs to the taxpayer.
--Internally, the Sergeant at Arm's has completed a reorganization
and is in the process of reengineering its operations. We have
already identified and eliminated numerous redundancies between
the various Sergeant at Arms departments. This includes the
consolidation of technical, administrative and customer support
units which have led to reduced costs, increased productivity
and higher quality of service.
--The Sergeant at Arms has also been an active participant in the
Rules and Administration Committee's effort to ``strategically
align'' the services and operations of the Senate's support
offices. This has included a review of functional
responsibilities of the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of
the Senate.
As a result of this review, the Sergeant at Arms will transfer
several financial functions to the Secretary of the Senate in
his role as chief financial officer. Additionally, human
resource management functions will be consolidated under the
Secretary of the Senate. Information technology functions have
been consolidated under the Sergeant at Arms.
The need for Senate wide education and training will be met by
establishing a single office of Education and Training. This
office will be jointly managed by the Sergeant at Arms and the
Secretary of the Senate.
--Additionally, the Sergeant at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol
are developing plans to consolidate and or transfer duplicative
support functions like furniture and cabinet shop services.
The Sergeant at Arms and the Architect have also agreed to
develop a single unified customer service and ``help desk''
operation which will result in a single point of contact for
all service available to the Senate community.
The Sergeant at Arms will submit each of the final plans to the
Committee on Rules and Administration and the Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch Appropriations prior to their implementation.
Question. The Appropriations Committee has noticed that certain
standard equipment supplied by the Sergeant at Arms is more expensive
and more fully featured than some of the more basic, non-standard
equipment that is available on the open market. For example, the
Committee has found lower cost, non standard cell phones and fax
machines that might be sufficient for occasional, low volume usage.
Does the SAA plan to make available more basic, lower cost equipment?
Answer. It is our policy to provide the highest quality and most
reliable equipment that is available. We believe that is what is
required by most Senate offices. We will over the next year review our
standard products and services with the goal of increasing flexibility
to satisfy the needs of Members and Committees.
Question. What are the current procedures and policies surrounding
when an office returns to inventory the following items: cellular
phones, computers, office furniture? What is the procedure for items to
be surplused?
Answer. We follow the same procedures and policies for cellular
phones, computers, and office furniture. When equipment is returned
from a Senate office to the SAA inventory, each item is examined to
determine if it is re-usable. A permanent record is created for every
disposed item.
If items are obsolete, damaged beyond repair, or in poor working
condition, they are disposed of using one of the methods listed below.
These procedures are also followed for items declared surplus and made
available to Senate staff.
--Sale through GSA.
--Transfer through GSA to another government agency.
--Salvage all usable parts with remainder to be ``Junked''.
--Trade-in to Vendor.
--Sale to a Senator or Senate employee.
--Sale to a Firm or Individuals other than a Government Agency.
If items are re-usable, they are cleaned, checked for proper
working order and re-issued as needed.
For your information, we have included the disposal policy as
listed in the Senate Handbook:
TITLE 2--THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 4--OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF SENATE AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Sec. 59c. Disposal of used or surplus furniture and equipment.
Effective October 1, 1981, the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of
the Senate is authorized to dispose of used or surplus furniture and
equipment by trade-in or by sale directly or through the General
Services Administration. Receipts from the sale of such furniture and
equipment shall be deposited in the United States Treasury for credit
to the appropriation for ``Miscellaneous Items'' under the heading
``Contingent Expenses of the Senate''. (Oct. 1, 1981, Pub. L. 97-51,
Sec. 118, 95 Stat. 964.)
Question. Please provide a copy of the charts used at the hearing.
Answer. The information follows:
ATTACHMENT I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office
Mainframe automation Communication
applications systems--PC's, networks--data
and operating laptops, file and voice
environment servers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of agency systems.................................. 34 10,612 2
Number of mission-critical systems.............................. 6 10,612 2
Total number of mission-critical systems........................ 6 10,612 2
Number already compliant........................................ 1 1,480 ..............
Number being replaced........................................... 4 1,019 2
Number being repaired........................................... 2 8,113 ..............
Number being retired............................................ .............. .............. ..............
COMPLETED
Milestones for mission-critical systems:
Assessment.................................................. 6 10,612 2
Percent................................................. 100 100 100
Renovation.................................................. 1 1,480 ..............
Percent................................................. 16 14 ..............
Validation.................................................. .............. 1,480 ..............
Percent................................................. .............. 14 ..............
Implementation.............................................. .............. 1,480 ..............
Percent................................................. .............. 14 ..............
===============================================
COST
Fiscal year:
1996........................................................ NA NA NA
1997........................................................ $2,000,000 $7,600,000 $1,700,000
1998........................................................ 5,900,000 4,600,000 900,000
1999........................................................ 6,500,000 5,400,000 1,900,000
2000........................................................ NA NA NA
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 13,900,000 17,600,000 4,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
opening remarks
Senator Bennett. Our fifth panel is headed by the Honorable
James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, and Mr. Dan
Mulhollan, Director of the Congressional Research Service
[CRS]. General Scott, you are going to join us, and we
appreciate that, as well.
Gentlemen, we thank you for your patience as we have worked
through the other witnesses.
We understand from the GAO, Dr. Billington, that the
Library has been working hard to solve its year 2000 problem.
And we commend you for getting in front of the curve on this
issue. We understand that the Library has been busy taking
steps to respond to all of the requirement of the electronic
age, not just the year 2000.
I should report that I have had a meeting with the CRS,
outside of this formal hearing process. And I have been
impressed with how the CRS is managing its work force to be
responsive to the Congress, and designing a plan to address the
problems of responsiveness. We look forward to hearing the
details of that plan, particularly with respect to the
succession problem that has been referred to otherwise.
Now, with the darkening of the room, I understand you have
some show and tell, in the true spirit of the electronic age,
in electronic fashion, so, Dr. Billington, we are in your
hands, unless, Senator Dorgan, you have any comments.
Senator Dorgan. Why don't you proceed.
Welcome, Doctor.
opening remarks of Dr. James H. Billington
Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Senator.
First, I think everyone who is here has previously appeared
before the committee, with the possible exception of Elizabeth
Zaic, Acting Director, Integrated Support Services, in the
Library. And I do have, first, an announcement, Mr. Chairman.
We have just received in writing from the General Services
Administration confirmation that our rent bill will be reduced
by $800,000. And as a result, our budget request for fiscal
year 1999 can be reduced by subtracting the $800,000 from our
``Rental of space'' account. We ask that this savings be
applied to our request for additional talking book machines. We
will provide the committee with further information on this
matter.
Senator Bennett. I congratulate you for reducing the budget
by the full $800,000. There are many agencies that would reduce
it by $200,000, and consider they are a hero.
Dr. Billington. Well, thank you.
Senator Bennett. According to the clock and the buzzers,
we're going into the end of morning business. All right, good.
Dr. Billington. Well, let me just highlight just a few
points from my full statement before showing the committee a
very short video on the electronic aspects of the Library, and
then asking our magnificent Deputy, General Scott, to make a
few brief remarks, if that is agreeable, Mr. Chairman. We will
try to keep this very short.
Library's mission
The Library is, as you know, a totally unique institution,
with a national mission to serve the Congress and to facilitate
the creative use of the world's knowledge for the good of our
Nation.
Senator Bennett. There is a rollcall vote. And I think the
best thing for us to do is simply recess the subcommittee, run
over and vote, and return as quickly as we can.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will come to order.
Our apologies. The business of the Senate sometimes does
intrude on the business of the Senate. That is one of the
scheduling problems we wish we could solve, but we cannot. So
we are in your hands, Dr. Billington.
Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A key problem in our time is that the very nature of
collections is changing. Knowledge is increasingly being
generated and communicated in electronic and ephemeral forms.
With a growing flood of unsorted electronic information that is
becoming available today, the Congress and the Nation, I
believe, needs more than ever, a trusted knowledge navigator--
which is what we believe the Library of Congress to be--to help
sustain our knowledge-based democracy.
Our public culture, moreover, is, Mr. Chairman, in danger
of moving back down the evolutionary chain from knowledge to
information, from information down into miscellaneous and often
totally unfiltered broad and unverifiable raw data, and
perhaps, beyond that even, just to an unsorted and often
ungrammatical stream of consciousness that is flooding into the
Internet. So there is really a major problem here.
We may be sinking down rather than rising up to the twin
peaks of wisdom and creativity that rise above a plateau of
knowledge and which have really made democracy dynamic in this
country. After all, the whole country was invented by people
who were rooted in knowledge and had some of those qualities.
Library's challenges
To sustain all this, basically, a knowledge-based
democracy, in an information-inundated and unvalidated world,
the Library of Congress has to collect, preserve, make secure
and accessible this rapidly proliferating, often confusing,
electronic universe, while still protecting intellectual
property rights--our constitutional mandate--and, at the same
time, continuing to collect and service nonelectronic
materials, the volume of which also continues to increase, as
whole new streams, cultures, participants in the intellectual
knowledge-generating business come all over the world.
This gives us a daunting set of challenges. And I am glad
to report that, overall, we are doing more, for more people,
with 12 percent fewer staff than in 1992. We are enormously
grateful for this committee's support, and particularly for the
integrated library system last year, which is enabling us to
build a platform on which all further progress will be based.
The institution is, however, severely stretched by its
necessary commitment both to sustain traditional services and
to effect our transition to an increasingly electronic world.
We are, I think, in many ways, national leaders, and even
world leaders, in some of our electronic delivery activities.
We are getting 500,000 hits internally, here in Washington, and
another 2 million hits every day more broadly from around the
Nation and the world. We need the committee's continued
support, including funding mandatory pay increases and
unavoidable price level increases, which is well over one-half
of our increased request this year, plus $2 million for the
replacement of personal computers that will not work after the
year 2000.
General Scott will talk more about that in a minute.
Library's bicentennial
Last year, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the
Thomas Jefferson Building, so magnificently restored by the
Congress, and inaugurated the Library's bicentennial efforts
for the year 2000, which will be our 200th anniversary. They
are being carried almost entirely by private funds.
Our theme for the bicentennial is gifts to the Nation,
which is what the Congress has done by creating, sustaining and
sharing with the broader American public both the mint record
of America's creativity, through the copyright deposit, and the
greatest collection of knowledge ever assembled in one place on
this planet, which is one way of defining the nearly 113
million items in all formats and languages the Library has.
We hope to both dramatize and demonstrate the essential
role that the Library of Congress and all libraries of our
unique library system, of which we are an integral key part,
play in keeping democracy dynamic. I hope we can have the
committee's support. We appreciated your support in the past,
and I would appreciate it continuing so that the Library can
head into the 21st century, with expanded digital holdings and
with the systems in place that can maximize service to the
Congress and to all Americans in the localities where they live
across this Nation.
Each of you have a packet of materials providing further
information about the Library. We have a short video to give
the committee a quick look at the real progress we are making,
and explaining one of our emerging electronic services to the
Congress and to the Nation.
prepared statements
And then General Scott will have a few words. And then we
will be glad to answer your questions, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, a videotape was shown.]
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of James H. Billington
The Library of Congress, the oldest Federal cultural institution in
the country, will be 200 years old on April 24 in the year 2000. With
congressional support and direction, the Library has developed a
massive collection of more than 113 million items, a superbly
knowledgeable staff, and cost-effective networks for gathering in the
world's knowledge for the nation's good.
The Library has a proven record of making knowledge and information
accessible to users everywhere--evidenced by the exponential rate of
growth in the Library's Internet transactions and the wide public
acclaim of its website. The Library directly serves the Congress and
the entire nation with the most important commodity of our time:
information. The Library's critical role as a trusted knowledge
navigator for the Congress and the nation is made more important than
ever by the growing flood of unsorted information available today.
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 continues to acquire,
organize, preserve, secure, and sustain its incomparable collections
for present and future use. These are the top priorities in the
Library's 1997-2004 Strategic Plan (see attachment 1), closely followed
by the imperative to make the Library's unique collections and
resources maximally accessible to the American people.
Funding the Library's fiscal 1999 budget request is critical to our
current efforts: to provide and enhance service to the Congress, to add
content to the National Digital Library, to continue arrearage
reduction, to maintain a modern copyright system, to ensure strong
collections security, to maintain service to blind and physically
handicapped people, and to implement preservation improvements,
particularly for the Library's audio-visual materials. The Library's
budget request for fiscal year 1999--$369.3 million in net
appropriations and $27.7 million in authority to use receipts--supports
these and other strategic priorities. This is a net increase of 6.5
percent over fiscal 1998, which includes $12.8 million to fund
mandatory pay raises and unavoidable price-level increases and $9.6
million to meet critical growing workload increases (net of program
decreases).
As the Library moves towards its Bicentennial in the year 2000, we
are working to develop a substantive program focused on leveraging
private-sector support that will result in significant Gifts to the
Nation. The Congress has made its Library over the years a cornerstone
in our unique national library system. The Library provides services
that save other libraries millions of dollars a year: inexpensive
cataloging information, free surplus books, free inter-library loans,
and 23 million free items every year to the blind and physically
handicapped. All of this and more are directed to, and reach the
American people through, other libraries.
The historic investment the Congress has made in the Library's
staff, collections, and facilities is now bringing rapidly increasing
benefits to people in their localities all over America as access grows
daily to the Library's information about the Congress and to the
content of the Library's collections via the Internet. In the scant
three-and-one-half years since we launched on-line the National Digital
Library, the popular response to the content we are offering has
continued to astound us. In fiscal 1996, our Internet transactions
numbered 134 million; in fiscal 1997, they more than doubled to 345
million. By late 1997, the Library was receiving some two million
Internet electronic transactions every day (in addition to more than
500,000 internal electronic transactions that are handled every
workday).
The National Digital Library program is our major gift to the
nation, which will make millions of interesting and important items in
a variety of media available on-line in local communities throughout
America by the year 2000. Open access is the basic principle of our
public library system--and is more important than ever in helping
prevent a division between information ``haves'' and ``have-nots'' in
the electronic age. The Congress, through its library, is ensuring that
the tools of learning--and of learning about America--will be
universally accessible in the next millennium.
To continue to move forward--for the Congress and the nation--the
Library requests funding for the following major new items or
initiatives in the fiscal 1999 budget: (1) additional automation
hardware, software, and services to ensure that the Library's
operations continue and that on-line access is available electronically
after the Year 2000 century change; (2) implementation of key elements
of our security plan, including additional security aides to operate X-
ray scanners at public building entrances and anti-theft devices for
the collections; (3) additional funds for the Congressional Research
Service to support a staff succession plan to help ensure continuity of
high-quality congressional services; (4) funding for off-site
collections storage at Fort Meade, Maryland (print materials) and
Culpeper, Virginia (audio/visual materials); and (5) the purchase of an
additional 5,000 talking book machines to ensure their reliable
availability for blind and physically handicapped people.
In this time of budget constraints, the Congress has continued to
be very supportive of the Library, increasing our budget over the past
several years. However, the actual number of appropriated full-time
equivalent (FTE) positions has declined by 539 or 11.9 percent since
fiscal 1992. The Library's fiscal 1999 budget asks for a partial
recapture of the FTE's lost since fiscal 1992 by requesting funding for
42 additional FTE's (net of program reductions)--a level that is still
9.3 percent lower than fiscal 1992. The Library is not requesting
additional FTE's to operate off-site collections storage sites. We plan
to use contract support for these new activities.
The Library is working on ways to carry out its mission in a more
economical manner by re-engineering major business processes. Because
the Library's services are extremely labor intensive (some 70 percent
of our budget is for payroll costs), future economies must come
primarily from redesigning or modifying our major operations and from
investing further in automation; both will improve the productivity of
our staff. Implementation of the Legislative Information System (LIS),
the Integrated Library System (ILS), the Electronic Cataloging in
Publication (ECIP) system, the Copyright Office Electronic
Registration, Recordation and Deposit System (CORDS), and the Global
Legal Information Network (GLIN) will make it possible for the Library
to do more for less in the future. However, these initiatives will not
provide significant financial savings in fiscal 1999.
Funding our fiscal 1999 budget request, including provisions for
mandatory pay and price-level increases, will enable the Library to
sustain its basic services while continuing to build more modern
operations needed for an increasingly electronic future. In short, we
believe the Congress should sustain its fruitful investment in the
Library, which has historically been a gift to the nation and will be
even more important for the next millennium.
major accomplishments during fiscal 1997
During fiscal 1997, the Library developed a 1997-2004 Strategic
Plan, a Security Plan, and a Year 2000 Plan; provided objective,
timely, nonpartisan, and confidential legislative support to the
Congress on a wide range of issues; reduced our uncataloged backlog by
another million items; completed key provisions of the Library's long-
standing Cook class action settlement agreement--making back-pay
awards, promotions, and reassignments; received an unqualified
``clean'' audit opinion on the Library's fiscal 1996 consolidated
financial statements; strengthened the security of our collections;
celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Thomas Jefferson Building; and
inaugurated the Library's Bicentennial efforts.
The Library improved services to the Congress and the nation
through technology--installing the first release of the legislative
information retrieval system, recording dramatic increases in Internet
usage, and receiving many Internet awards (see attachment 2). The
Library is making tangible progress towards meeting our Strategic Plan
objectives and preparing for the 21st century.
library's bicentennial and the information age
Planning for the Bicentennial commemoration in 2000 began in 1997
with the appointment of a steering committee of senior Library managers
under the leadership of the Librarian of Congress. The Bicentennial
goal is ``To inspire creativity in the century ahead by stimulating
greater use of the Library of Congress and libraries everywhere.'' The
Library's 200th anniversary is a unique opportunity to revalidate the
historical role of libraries as centers of learning and to reinvigorate
the nation through greater use of libraries and wider access to
knowledge. The Bicentennial theme of ``Libraries--Creativity--Liberty''
reflects the essential role that the Library of Congress and all
libraries play in a dynamic democracy.
To ensure that the Library's operations continue and materials
remain available electronically after the Year 2000 century change, to
improve automation security and planning, and to continue critical
automation projects, the Library is requesting an increase of
$3,281,395 (net of a $2,040,000 planned reduction for the Integrated
Library System). Major elements of this increase are:
Computer Workstations and Equipment.--The Library is dependent on
computer workstations as the primary tool to perform most tasks and
requires an increase of $2,000,000 to fund the replacement of 700
computer workstations. The Year 2000 century change makes a number of
early model computers unusable and requires the Library to accelerate
their replacement. The Library also requires $1,200,000 to purchase
additional server and storage equipment. The growth in on-line content
and the transition from the traditional computer mainframe environment
to the more modern client/server-model which utilizes large UNIX
servers and magnetic disk storage devices require more equipment to
store, process, and deliver ever-increasing quantities of current and
historical information.
Computer Security.--Increased use and dependence on computer
technology and integration and connection of automated systems via
networks have increased the importance of computer security. The
Library is requesting $668,784 to fund two FTE's, software, and
disaster recovery contract services. The Library needs to focus
additional resources on both preventing a potential disaster through
improved security and implementing disaster recovery plans.
Information Technology Services FTE's.--The Library's workload has
increased in areas such as legislative information retrieval system
support, technology planning, and electronic mail support. The Library
requests funding for six FTE's and $506,352 to ensure that critical
automation projects for the Congress and the Library have sufficient
technical support.
Law Library Automation Support.--The Library is requesting three
FTE's ($240,201) and $100,000 in contractor support to make possible
the Law Library's ability to make the transition to an increasingly
digital environment. Twenty percent of legal information used to
respond to congressional requests is now available only in electronic
form; and this percentage is growing. Automation support is crucial if
the Law Library is to keep up with this rapid change and provide more
access to more information with limited resources.
Integrated Library System.--Implementation planning for an
Integrated Library System (ILS) began in 1997. An ILS will provide a
computer platform that is Year 2000-compliant and will improve Library
operations and collections security. Library staff are evaluating
responses to the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued last year and will
present an implementation plan for Congressional approval prior to
procurement of the system. The fiscal 1999 budget includes $3,544,000
(a reduction of $2,040,000 from fiscal 1998) for annual system
maintenance charges and software fees, for additional computer
equipment, and for contract services to convert massive manual files.
security of library staff, collections, and facilities
A highlight of fiscal 1997 was the completion of a comprehensive
Library Security Plan, which was approved by the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration on February 2, 1998. The plan provides a
framework for the physical security of the Library's collections,
facilities, staff, visitors and other assets. Collections security is
the centerpiece. The plan was developed by a team of security
professionals, curators, and senior librarians. The plan articulates a
collections prioritization scheme that establishes five different
levels of risk, providing the strongest protection for the Library's
Treasures and other rare items and appropriate degrees of security
controls for other parts of the Library's collections. The process of
assessing the status of collections security within custodial divisions
has been initiated, and the completed assessments enable the Library to
prioritize the use of limited security resources.
Consistent with security planning, the Library is requesting an
increase of $2,458,331 to enhance entry security, to record ownership
markings on materials as early in the acquisition process as possible,
and to conduct additional detailed risk assessments within areas that
process, store, serve, and transport collections materials.
For entry security, the Library needs 13 additional FTE's
($355,331) to staff X-ray scanners and metal detectors at public
entrances, which would bring our entry security up to the standards
outlined in our plan. The budget also includes funding for X-ray
scanners and upgraded metal detectors ($627,000).
The security plan highlights the vulnerability of items that are in
process prior to their marking and tagging. The Library is requesting
$993,500 in the Copyright Office appropriation for theft detection
devices and contract staff to apply them.
off-site storage and preservation
The Library's preservation and arrearage reduction efforts are
linked to the development of secondary storage sites to house processed
materials and to provide for growth of the collections through the
first part of the 21st century. The first storage module at the Fort
Meade, Maryland campus, which employs cardboard boxes on wide-span
shelving and houses paper-based collections (primarily books) is
scheduled for occupancy by the end of fiscal 1999. In addition, the
Library's Audio Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia is
scheduled for acquisition by gift during 1999. The Library is
requesting $1,320,724 for start-up costs at Fort Meade, Maryland and
for six months' funding at both of these off-site storage locations.
The Architect of the Capitol is also requesting a new operating
allotment for the Culpeper Center in the amount of $119,000 and an
increase of $81,000 for electricity and fuel oil costs in the ``Capitol
Power Plant'' appropriation to cover the Culpeper facility's utility
costs.
audio/visual equipment
The Library is requesting an increase of $643,000 for the Motion
Picture Broadcasting and Recorded Sound (MBRS) equipment base (from
$232,700 to $875,700) to replace old, failing equipment. MBRS equipment
provides research access for media formats which are no longer
produced, and the replacement of equipment is critical to continuing
access to audio-visual materials for researchers and staff. The current
base cannot handle the replacement of 70 equipment pieces that are
either in danger of imminent failure or approaching that category.
law library
The Law Library of Congress maintains the largest collection of
legal materials in the world and also houses a unique body of foreign-
trained lawyers to supply legal research and analysis, primarily for
the Congress on the laws of other nations, international law, and
comparative law. More than 200 jurisdictions are covered or some 80
percent of the sovereign entities of the world that issue laws and
regulations. The Law Library utilizes this talent to maintain and
develop the breadth and depth of a demanding collection, as well as to
provide reference services whenever and for as long as either chamber
is in session (as mandated by the Congress). These are daunting
responsibilities. The U.S. Courts, the executive branch, and the legal
community also depend heavily on the Law Library's collections.
The Law Library's FTE's have declined from 98 in fiscal 1992 to 91
in fiscal 1998. While the Law Library has been creative in attempting
to meet its responsibilities, particularly with the development of its
Global Legal Information Network (GLIN), a multinational legal
database, funding for five FTE's ($251,750) is crucially required. The
five FTE's would restore reference services to an acceptable level,
increase the number of legal research courses taught to congressional
staff, improve book retrieval services (which improves all activities),
and expedite legal report preparation for the Congress.
copyright office
The Library's Copyright Office promotes creativity and effective
copyright protection--annually processing more than 620,000 claims, of
which 560,000 are registered for copyright, and responding to more than
420,000 requests for information. More than 850,000 works received
through the copyright system are transferred to the Library, forming
the core of the Library's immense Americana collections.
The Library is requesting an increase of $1,266,000 to improve the
security of the collections by tagging and marking Copyright Office
materials upon receipt, by conducting additional risk assessments, and
by implementing the automated reader registration system. All of the
Copyright Office's security initiatives are consistent with the
Library's security plan (discussed above) and are critical to the
protection of the nation's intellectual heritage.
The Library is requesting two changes in its authority to use
Copyright Office receipts. First, a reduction of $2,340,000 is
requested to reflect the end of receipts accompanying filings from the
GATT Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465). Second, an
increase of $1,000,000 is requested for additional discretionary fee
charges (e.g., special services). The Library is requesting authority
to use the additional $1,000,000 in projected receipts to support the
Copyright Office Electronic Registration, Recordation, and Deposit
System (CORDS) project ($356,058) and to improve the registration
process ($643,942). The additional receipts for CORDS would expand
development and testing efforts.
CORDS is the electronic future of the Copyright Office and provides
the public with an electronic means to submit copyright claims and
documents which streamline internal processing. Development as well as
testing will continue through successive phases culminating in a
significant number of electronic registrations over the Internet in
fiscal year 2000. In the year 2004, the Library expects to receive at
least 100,000 works in digital form: census data, films, music,
encyclopedias, scientific papers, legal documents, and much else.
The Congress revised the structure by which statutory fees are
determined four months ago (Public Law 105-80, November 13, 1997). The
new law authorizes the Register of Copyrights to increase statutory
fees; to do this, a cost study is required along with an economic
analysis of the proposal, which explains the various considerations,
for example, in addition to cost, operational factors, and public
policy concerns. Taking into consideration the timetable for comments
from public hearings, the economic analysis, and Congressional review,
the Library did not include a statutory fee increase in the fiscal 1999
budget.
congressional research service
As a shared source of nonpartisan analysis and information, CRS is
a valuable and cost-effective asset to the Congress. CRS provides every
Member and committee with support at all stages in the legislative
process, from the formulation of ideas through oversight of programs
previously created. In expanding the CRS mission in 1970, Congress
embraced and implemented the concept of a cost-effective, pooled
research effort in support of lawmaking at all stages. Now more than
ever, CRS's importance to the Congress has grown as Congress grapples
with increasingly complex legislation, does so with fewer Committee
staff, and seeks efficient ways to acquire the objective analysis and
information needed to conduct its legislative business.
The Library is requesting $871,770 to support the hiring of 20
additional CRS analysts to ensure the continuity of congressional
services. Half of CRS's staff will be eligible to retire by the year
2006, and according to a staff survey, nearly two-thirds of those
eligible plan to do so in that time period. The loss of such a large
number of experienced staff poses a threat to CRS' ability to maintain
the current level of service to Members and committees in a wide
variety of subject areas. The succession plan is designed to provide
time to train entry-level staff and build their expertise and knowledge
of the legislative process in time for them to take over from
specialists who have provided such research and analysis for 20 to 25
years.
I am continually impressed with the uniqueness of the services that
CRS provides and its importance to the Congress. No one else does or
can do what CRS provides you daily: namely, impartial analysis of the
full variety of the knowledge and opinion bearing on legislation. It
combines true objectivity with a range of opinion representing diverse
scholarship. The expertise required to provide these services has to be
learned in the act of doing it--because this type of work is simply not
done anywhere else. Therefore, if we are to provide future Congresses
with what you have today, we must be able to initiate this replacement
process and mentoring plan.
national library service for the blind and physically handicapped
The Library administers a sixty-six-year-old cooperative effort
with state and local agencies and the United States Postal Service to
provide a free national library program of braille and recorded
materials for blind and physically handicapped persons. The Library
selects and produces full-length books and magazines in braille and on
recorded disc and cassette and provides special playback equipment.
Reading materials and playback machines are distributed to a network of
cooperating regional and subregional (local) libraries where they are
circulated to eligible borrowers and returned to libraries by postage-
free mail.
The current budget level (fiscal 1998) for talking book machines
would provide for the purchase of some 56,000 cassette book machines
(CBM) in fiscal 1999, but the Library projects that $1,250,000 is
necessary to purchase another 5,000 CBM's to ensure the continued
availability of the machines for blind and physically handicapped
individuals.
library buildings and grounds
The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the
structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library's
buildings and grounds. In coordination with the Library, the AOC has
requested a capital budget of $6,474,000, an increase of $3,964,000.
The AOC capital budget includes funding for 11 projects totaling
$4,002,000 in appropriations that were requested by the Library. In
addition, the Library is proposing, as another project, the transfer of
$1,500,000 in gift funds to the AOC for the National Audio-Visual
Conservation Center at Culpeper, Virginia. Library-requested projects,
as well as AOC identified projects, are prioritized based on critical
need and in accordance with both the Library's Strategic and Security
Plans. The projects (1) improve the security of our staff and the
collections by providing additional electronic card readers, sensor
devices and other protections; (2) support the preservation of the
Library's collections including improved environmental conditions; and
(3) ensure the life and safety of the Library's staff and visitors.
Properly storing the Library's collections in a secure, safe, and
environmentally sound facility is the most important step toward
preserving our collections for future generations.
I urge the Committee to support the Architect's Library Buildings
and Grounds budget and his position that reinvestment in the existing
infrastructure is necessary and a prudent measure to support program
operations and to avoid future costly facility costs.
proposed legislation
The Library has submitted three legislative proposals to our
authorizing committees. First, the authorization for the American
Folklife Center (AFC) expires on September 30, 1998. The AFC's Board of
Directors and the Library are seeking permanent authorization for the
AFC. There is consensus within the folklore community on the need for
this legislation.
Second, in connection with its Bicentenary, the Library is seeking
legislation that would provide appropriate Congressional oversight for
the observance and all activities associated with it.
Third, the Library has requested authorization of a revolving fund
for fee-based activities as recommended by the General Accounting
Office. The Library appreciates the Committee's support last year of a
new revolving fund for the Cooperative Acquisitions Program, and we
believe that more comprehensive revolving fund authority will permit
the Library to operate its fee-based activities in a more businesslike
manner, while enhancing the accountability of these programs.
summary
The Library's proposed fiscal 1999 budget supports the Library's
mission and strategic plan. The leadership role that the Library
requests the Congress to support in the new electronic environment is
the needed and logical extension of the historic role that the Library
was asked to play in the era of print for the nation: championing
public access to knowledge, setting bibliographic standards, and
supplying bibliographic data to all libraries. Broadening access to
knowledge is increasingly important to any responsible democracy and
modern economy, which must be increasingly information-based. Libraries
are a link in the human chain that connects what happened yesterday
with what might take place tomorrow; they are the base camps for new
discovery in the Information Age.
By funding the Library's fiscal 1999 budget request, the Congress
would prevent further staff reductions, ensure continued operations
after the Year 2000 century change, enable the Library to improve the
security of its staff and collections, and permit the Library to head
into the 21st century with expanded digital holdings to provide the
maximum service to the Congress and to Americans in the localities
where they live across the nation.
For fiscal 1999, we submit a budget request that will enable the
Library of Congress to continue to make major contributions to the work
of the Congress and to the creative life of the American people.
______
Attachment 1.--Library of Congress Strategic Plan (1997-2004)
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.
values
The eight values of the Library of Congress are: Service, Quality,
Effectiveness, Innovation, Fairness, Participation, Communication and
Excellence.
priorities/objectives
The first priority of the Library of Congress is to make knowledge
and creativity available to the United States Congress.
--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.
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.
--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.
The third priority of the Library of Congress is to make its
collections maximally accessible to Congress, the U.S. government more
broadly, and the public.
--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.
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 to the
nation's well-being and future progress.
--To foster creative scholarship in the Library's unique collections
including foreign-language and special-format materials; and
--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.
The Enabling Infrastructure.--To accomplish its mission the Library
must have an efficient and effective infrastructure.
Financial Services
To provide financial services (budget, accounting, disbursing 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.
______
Attachment 2.--Library of Congress Selected Listing of Awards to
National Digital Library Program
[American Memory, including Learning Page and Today in History]
Time Magazine Best Web Site of 1996 Award (one of ten sites).--Time
Magazine rated American Memory among the ten best Web sites of 1996.
December 23, 1996, page 84.
New York Times ``Internet Hit''.--New York Times, Article about
LCWeb and American Memory, ``Library of Congress Is an Internet Hit''.
Sunday, Feb. 16, 1997, p. A18. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/ (Select
``search''; then enter ``congress'' ``internet'' ``hit'' select ALL
words.)
PC Magazine Top 100 Web Sites Hall of Fame.--PC Magazine, Includes
both American Memory and THOMAS in its Top-100 list, Hall of Fame.
American Memory and THOMAS are two of twenty-four sites listed as
``Five time champs'', making the cut every time, from the first Top-100
listing in July 1996 to the current Top-100 listing in August 1997.
URL: http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/special/web100/__halloffame.htm.
American Memory Review: URL: http://www8.zdnet.com/pcmag/special/
web100/lcweb.htm.
Britannica's 40 Best Sites on the Web.--Britannica's Internet Guide
selected 40 websites, out of the 64,000 they indexed, as the ``best of
the web''. American Memory is one of the forty. URL: http://
www.ebig.com/best.html.
Lycos Top 5 percent of the Internet Award.--Lycos award given to
websites, judged to be in the top five percent of the Internet. The LOC
web site, including American Memory, received an overall rating of 97
based on a scale of 0-100. URL: http://point.lycos.com/categories/.
NII Finalist for Education.--1996 National Information
Infrastructure (GII) Awards recognized and honors superior
accomplishments in applications of the Internet. American Memory was
one of six National Finalist in the Education Category. URL: http://
www.gii.com/nii/.
Magellan Internet Guide Four Star Reviews.--Magellan Internet Guide
rated American Memory four stars out of four. URL: http://
www.mckinley.com/magellan/Reviews/News__and__Reference/ (select
``Libraries and Reference'', select ``Libraries'', select ``US/Public
Libraries'').
Net Guide Best of the Web.--Five stars awarded to American Memory.
URL: http://www.netguide.com/Site/Detail?siteId=12712. Three stars
awarded to the Learning Page. URL: http://www.netguide.com/Site/
Detail?siteId=95532.
American Library Association 50+ Great Sites for Parents and
Kids.--American Library Association guide to quality family-friendly
websites for kids. American Memory: URL: http://www.ssdesign.com/
parentspage/greatsites.50.html. Today in History is listed. URL: http:/
/www.ssdesign.com/parentspage/greatsites/50.html.
History Channel Recommended Web Site.--The History Channel On-line
includes American Memory in: U.S. History, General Resources section of
its ``recommended'' history websites. URL: http://
www.historychannel.com/histlists/us.html.
Blue Web'n Library of Blue Ribbon Learning Sites on the Web.--
Pacific Bell, with its Education First initiative and its Knowledge
Network Explorer rated the Learning Page a five-star Resource
application. URL: http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/bluewebn/.
Web Top 40 Education Sites.--Syllabus Web, published by Syllabus
Press, lists the Learning Page in its Syllabus Web Top 40 Education
Sites. Syllabus Press is an educational publisher. URL: http://
www.syllabus.com/top40.htm.
The Scout Report.--The Scout Report, published by Internic, is a
weekly publication offering a selection of new and newly discovered
Internet resources of interest to researchers and educators, featured
The Learning Page on March 15, 1996. URL: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/scout/
report/archive/scout-960315.html.
______
Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress Home Page
congress this week
Floor Now: Senate (internal only), House
Senate Leadership: Majority, Minority
House Leadership: Majority, Minority
Bills This Week: Senate, House, CRS Alert
Floor Amendments Pending: Senate
Floor Schedules: Senate, House
Committee Schedules: Senate, House
bills, votes, and laws
Bill Summary & Status: 105, 104, 93-Current
Roll Call Votes: Senate, House
Legislation Full Text: 105, 104, 103, 102, 101
Public Laws: 105, 104, 93-Current
U.S. Code
congressional record
CR Full Text: 105, 104, 103, 102, 101
Browse Text: Most Recent Issue
CR Index: 105-2, 105-1, 104-2, 104-1, 103-2
Congressional Activity: 105, 91-Current
major legislation
Definition of Major Legislation
105th: Title, Topic, Bill Type/Number, Laws
104th: Title, Topic, Bill Type/Number, Laws
Appropriations: Status, Background
government links
Senate (public)--Webster (Senate only)
House (public)--Intranet (House only)
Legislative Reference Sources
Law Resources; Supreme Court Opinions
Executive Branch; Federal Regulations
State and Local Government
quick search
Bill/Amendment/Law Number
Word/Phrase
Member
Committee
Stage in the Legislative Process
Roll Call Votes: Senate,
House Bill Number (105th):
committees
Committee Reports Full Text: 105, 104
Committee Schedules: Senate, House
Selected Committee Transcripts: House
Committee Home Pages: Senate, House
support agencies
CRS: Home Page, Issue Briefs, Reports
CBO: Home Page, Documents, Cost Estimates
GAO: Home Page, Documents
GPO: Home Page, ACCESS
LOC: Home Page, THOMAS, Books
publications
CRS Public Policy Literature Abstracts
Cloakroom (Hotline, Greenwire, etc.)
Historical Documents (Constitution, etc.)
directories and guides
Senate Member List: by name, by state
House Member List: by name, by state
Member Home Pages: Senate, House
CRS Guide to the Legislative Process
How Our Laws Are Made
Enactment of a Law
LEGACY SYSTEMS MIGRATION PLANS: HOUSE, SCORPIO
______
Congressional Research Service Home Page
crs this week
Legislative Alert Products
Weekly Update: New/Updated Products
Television Programs
Seminar Announcements
full text of crs online products
All CRS Issue Briefs
Selected CRS Reports
CRS FY 1999 Appropriations Products
CRS Electronic Briefing Books
crs services
How to Place Requests to CRS
Phone Numbers and Contacts
Reading Rooms and Reference Centers
Customized Research
Confidential Consultations
Orientations, Seminars, and Institutes
CRS Info Packs (Complete list)
CRS Audio Visual Products (Complete list)
Congressional Interns and Volunteers
search crs and loc files
All CRS Issue Briefs (Full text)
Selected CRS Reports (Full text)
CRS Public Policy Literature Abstracts
Books Catalog (Search and order)
Search CRS Web Pages (Search this site)
SCORPIO/SCORPIO Migration Plan
legislation
Legislative Information System (Congress only)
CRS Guide to the Legislative Process
Bill Summary and Status for 105th Congress
CRS Legislative Alert Products
CRS FY 1999 Appropriations Products
CRS Electronic Briefing Books
Legislative Reference Sources on the Internet
congressional staff reference desk
Basic Reference (dictionary, directories, lists, ...)
Constituent Services/Media Services
Scheduling/Speechwriting
Other Reference Desks/A-Z Index to Reference Desk
internet resources by topic
Budget
Economics
Elections and Campaigns
Environment and Natural Resources
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Law
Science, Medicine, and Technology
library of congress
Selected Services of the Library of Congress
Books Catalog (Search and order)
Borrowing Books from the Library of Congress
LOC Home Page (Public access)
THOMAS (Public legislative system)
This Page: http://www.loc.gov/crs/crstext.html
CRS Home Page: http://www.loc.gov/crs
Disclaimer: CRS makes every effort to provide a fair and
responsible selection of material on its Home Page from a diverse range
of resources. From the CRS Home Page you can enter other, independent
Web sites. CRS is not responsible for either the content or nature of
those sites.
Warning: The CRS Home Page is for use only by Members of Congress
and their staffs. Unauthorized use, tampering with, or modification of
this system or its supporting hardware or software may violate federal
and/or local statutes, and may subject the violator to criminal and/or
civil penalties. In the event of unauthorized intrusion, all relevant
information regarding possible violations of law may be provided to law
enforcement officials.
______
United States Copyright Office Home Page
``To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries'' (U.S. Constitution, Article I,
Section 8)
welcome
Hours of service and location
Speeches & testimony, Press releases, international meetings,
seminars, lectures
what's new
Project Looking Forward, Copyright Office
Creates Online News List, Copyright
Legislation, New and Pending
u.s. copyright office general information and publications
Copyright Basics
Copyright Law
Compendium II Copyright Office Practices
Copyright Registration
Copyright Application Forms
Copyright Information Circulars
Form Letters--In Answer to Your Query
Mandatory Deposit Requirements of the U.S. Copyright Law
Copyright Office Records--How to conduct a search
Copyright Office Announcements, including Federal Regulations
CARP & Licensing Information
Fax on Demand--Copyright information via fax
U.S. Copyright Office Creates Online News List
Copyright Office FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
other copyright topics
Copyright Office Reports
Copyright Legislation--New and Pending
World Intellectual Property Organization Diplomatic Conference
Preparatory Documents
World Intellectual Property Organization Diplomatic Conference--New
Treaties
CORDS (Copyright Office Electronic Registration, Recordation &
Deposit System)
URAA, GATT amends U.S. law
Internet Resources Related to Copyright
______
Copyright Office Electronic Registration, Recordation and Deposit
System Home Page
Goal.--The goal of the CORDS project is to develop and test a
system for copyright registration and recordation with copyright
applications, copies of works, and copyright related documents
transmitted in digital form over communications networks such as the
Internet.
The Copyright Office and the Library of Congress will also
cooperatively establish the policies and operating procedures necessary
for both the Office and the Library to create secure digital
repositories to store, retrieve, and use digitized copyrighted
materials in accordance with the terms and conditions of access and use
established by copyright owners.
Benefits.--Creators will register their works electronically,
transmitting both the application and the works in digital form, with
registration information then incorporated into the centralized online
database of copyright registration records.
--Copyright owners and agents will record electronically documents
pertaining to transfers of copyright ownership (such as
assignments, licenses, and security interests) which will be
accessible in an online database.
--CORDS will test a Copyright Office repository for registered
digital works where access will be governed by the law and
regulations. CORDS will also test a Library of Congress
repository for digital works selected for its collections.
Access to the repository may be available in accordance with
the authors' or other copyright owners' terms and conditions.
--Copyrighted works in digital form will be available for the benefit
of research, education, and other purposes.
Background.--Since the establishment of the U.S. Copyright Office
in the 1800's, the Office has manually handled all the materials
submitted for copyright and deposit, as well as the documents submitted
for recordation of ownership transfers such as assignments and
exclusive licenses.
Description.--Since fiscal year 1993, the U.S. Copyright Office,
the Library of Congress, and the Corporation for National Research
Initiatives (CNRI) have been cooperating on the development of the
testbed Copyright Office Electronic Registration, Recordation & Deposit
System (CORDS). CNRI is developing the testbed system under contract
with the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and the Library of
Congress.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA12.002
The system architecture includes these components:
1. Electronic Registration and Recordation System.--This system
consists of the hardware and software that will enable copyright
applicants to prepare their copyright applications and deposit
materials in machine readable formats, to sign their submissions
digitally using public key/private key encryption technology, and to
send applications, deposits, and documents to the Copyright Office via
the Internet, using Privacy enhanced Mail (PEM). This system will
enable the Copyright Office to receive digital submissions via the
Internet, verify that each one is authentic and complete, debit fees
from the applicant's deposit account with the Copyright Office, create
an electronic tracking record, acknowledge receipt of the application
or document, provide for online processing of applications, deposits,
and documents by examiners and catalogers, and notify applicants
electronically that the registration or recordation has been completed.
The Copyright Office digital repository will hold these digital
copyright deposit materials in a secure and verifiable manner.
2. Existing Copyright Office Systems.--The system components that
process digital applications will interface with existing Copyright
Office in-process (COINS) and cataloging (COPICS) automated systems.
CORDS records will be compatible and integrated with existing automated
Copyright Office records.
3. Handle Management System.--Each digital object registered with
the Copyright Office will have a single unique identifier called a
``handle.'' The handle is used to locate the digital object and its
associated rights and permissions information.
Testbeds.--A testbed copyright registration system with electronic
deposits will be available in mid to late 1995 for trial use for
copyright registration of a limited number of digital works.
Thereafter, a testbed recordation system will be developed and tested
as well. As part of the testbed process, the Copyright Office will
define the policies and procedures that permit the Office to receive
and process copyright registrations and recordations of documents
electronically.
Future plans.--After completion of the registration and recordation
testbeds, the Copyright Office plans to build on the basic system if
sufficient funds are appropriated and available in fiscal year 1996 and
thereafter to support further development. After analyzing the testbed
project results, the Office plans to incorporate necessary changes and
to expand the program systematically in phases, testing electronic
submission of other formats of copyrighted materials submitted by
representative groups of copyright owners.
______
The Library of Congress Home Page
american memory
Documents, photographs, movies, and sound recordings that tell
America's story. Resources for Educators: The Learning Page. New
Collections: America from the Great Depression to World War II: Photos
from the FSA-OWI, 1935-1945 and An American Ballroom Companion: Dance
Manuals, ca. 1490-1920. Collection Previews: Railroad Maps: 1828-1900
and Buckaroos in Paradise: Ranching Culture in Northern Nevada, 1945-
1982. New Feature: Today in History.
thomas: legislative information
Full text access to current bills under consideration in the U.S.
House of Representatives and Senate.
exhibitions
You may have missed them on display in Washington, D.C. but now
open indefinitely on the Internet. Updated: American Treasures of the
Library of Congress.
library services
Resources for libraries, information professionals, and
researchers. These include: Acquisitions, Cataloging, Cataloging
Distribution Service, Preservation, Reading Rooms, Research and
Reference, Special Programs and Services, Standards, Library of
Congress Catalogs, Access to Catalogs at Other Libraries.
research tools
Resources for researchers and information professionals. These
include the catalogs of the Library of Congress and other libraries,
databases on special topics, and other Library of Congress Internet
resources.
______
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS FISCAL 1999 BUDGET
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Library of Congress salaries and expenses.... $239.4 60.3
(Receipts)............................... (6.5) ...........
Copyright Office salaries and expenses....... 35.3 8.9
(Receipts)............................... (21.2) ...........
Congressional Research Service salaries and 68.5 17.3
expenses....................................
National Library Service for the Blind and 48.1 12.1
Physically Handicapped salaries and expenses
Furniture and furnishings.................... 5.7 1.4
--------------------------
Total appropriated (BA) \1\............ 397.0 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $27.7 million in receipts.
Source: Fiscal year 1999 budget, p. 1.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS FISCAL 1999 BUDGET--ALL SOURCES
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOC appropriation............................. \1\ $397 75.3
Revolving funds............................... 12.8 2.4
Gift and trust funds.......................... 14.6 2.8
Reimbursable prog............................. 87.0 16.5
AOC appropriation............................. 16.1 3.0
-------------------------
Total funds available................... 527.5 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $27.7 million in receipts.
Source: Fiscal year 1999 budget, p. 7.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS YEAR 2000 PROJECT
[Percent of 103 Library of Congress mission-critical systems by
disposition]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems to be repaired........................ 33 32
System to be retired.......................... 1 1
Systems still being analyzed.................. 3 2
Systems already compliant..................... 34 33
Systems to be replaced........................ 32 31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights,
Copyright Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to present the budget request of the Copyright Office for
fiscal year 1999. 1997 was an important year; it was the 100th
anniversary of the Copyright Office and of the position of Register of
Copyrights. During these 100 years the role of the Office has been one
of leadership in the establishment of U.S. copyright policy and service
to the nation. The record has been one of solid achievement, and this
year is no different.
The Office processed 627,864 claims, registered 569,226 which
represented over 700,000 works, recorded 16,548 documents with more
than 250,000 titles, collected over $15,000,000 for our services and
obtained over 850,000 copies of works worth over $25,000,000 for the
collections of the Library. Additionally, we handled 421,150 requests
for information, and the Licensing Division collected approximately
$185,000,000 in royalty fees.
The copyright-based industries once again were at the forefront of
our economy. They grew twice as fast as the rest of the economy as a
whole and surpassed every other export sector except automotive and
agriculture. These creative industries depend on strong copyright
protection here and abroad.
Copyright protects works of authorship which comprise a wide
variety of products and services. These include traditional products,
such as print materials, films, sound recordings, photographs,
sculptures, maps and television programs and electronic products, such
as computer programs and databases. Digital technology and the growth
of computer and telecommunications networks, particularly, the
Internet, have posed many challenges to the protection and enforcement
of copyright. These are of critical concern to authors, owners of
copyright, as well as to users of copyright material, and the Copyright
Office as well as the Congress spent many hours on ``digital agenda''
issues in 1997.
In fiscal year 1999 the Copyright Office will focus on three major
initiatives--
--CORDS (the Copyright Office Electronic Registration, Recordation
and Deposit System)
--Security of materials
--Planning for a new schedule of statutory fees and revising the
discretionary fee schedule for special services.
With respect to CORDS, there were significant achievements in 1997.
Stanford University and MIT Press joined Carnegie Mellon University as
test sites and proved the concept of the system. The system's
capabilities were expanded to cover additional classes of works,
multiple hardware platforms and operating environments, as well as
multiple Internet browsers. Planning was done to begin accepting
electronic applications with traditional deposits, and a long-range
business plan analyzing the costs and benefits was completed. A batch
mode interface was created to support publishers who submit large
numbers of claims, and an extensive outreach effort to gain new
partners for the full or the partial system is underway.
The Copyright Office and its expert consultants will continue to
build on and enhance the basic production system, incorporating changes
from the test results as well as the latest advances in technology. The
Office must expand the program systematically in a series of carefully
constructed test phases; consequently, we are requesting authority,
funded through increased fee receipts, to add up to three program
analysts and three computer specialists to deal with an increasing
workload.
CORDS will play an important role in our networked digital world.
It is essential to the future of the Copyright Office. It will also
serve as an important electronic acquisition tool for the Library, and
an essential component in rights management systems throughout the
world.
Let me turn to security. Over a million copies of works come in to
the Copyright Office for possible use by the Library of Congress in its
collections or exchange programs. Keeping those copies secure is our
duty; this year we again made a number of improvements including naming
a Security Manager to coordinate our security initiatives, which are
part of the Library's Security Plan.
A key component of the plan is expanding the theft detection and
accession (ownership) marking programs, and the Office is seeking
$993,521 to ensure the application of anti-theft devices and the
marking of all materials. Additionally, when the Library installs its
reader registration system in the Madison Building, the Office plans to
automate its manual reader registration system in five public service
areas. Consequently we are requesting $47,000 for required computer
software and equipment.
Also, the Copyright Office is participating in the Library's Risk
Assessment program which will assess vulnerabilities of theft, damage
and physical deterioration to the Library's Heritage Assets. In 1997 a
risk assessment of CD's and CD-ROM's in the Office was conducted. We
are requesting $225,000 to conduct five additional assessments to
identify control weaknesses and develop a plan of action.
Last year I reported on our attempts to get additional fee setting
authority. I am happy to report that such authority was enacted into
law on November 13 in a technical amendments act (Public Law 105-80).
The Office can propose fees up to full cost recovery; however, these
fees must be fair and equitable and must give due consideration to the
objectives of the copyright system. The proposed statutory fee
schedule, which is to be accompanied by an economic analysis, is to be
given to the Congress; the fees can go into effect 120 days after the
schedule is submitted to the Congress unless during that 120 day period
a law is enacted stating in substance that the Congress does not
approve the fee schedule.
In anticipation of this legislation, the Copyright Office began the
process of determining the costs of registering claims, recording
documents and providing related services by hiring a consulting firm
with expertise in cost accounting and an expert in the new Federal
Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and establishing a Copyright
Office Fee Analysis Task Group. The Office believes that certain
expenses, e.g., those related to obtaining copies of works for the
Library through the mandatory deposit provisions of the law and the
Office's policy program are not, and should not be, recoverable through
fees. These activities would continue to be funded by appropriations.
The consulting firm was guided by the Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board (FASAB) cost accounting standards which require
measuring, recognizing and reporting the full cost of programs. Full
cost is defined as the value of all resources that were applied to the
production and delivery of an activity, good, or service. Thus, costs
must be identified and recognized regardless of which government entity
funded the expenses. This is true even if only a portion of the full
cost can be recovered.
With respect to the statutory fees, the Office plans to meet with
the copyright industries, authors' groups and other affected parties.
The fee structure is complicated; therefore, the Office will publish a
list of questions with one or more possible fee schedules and formally
seek input through public hearings and public comment. Some of the
questions are: Should the registration fee differ according to the type
of material being registered? Should a motion picture cost the same as
a newspaper or a song? Should a computer program cost the same as a
photograph? Should a distinction be made depending on whether the work
is published or unpublished or whether the work is one that is made for
hire? After considering the cost study, the operational and policy
issues as well as the input from the public, the Office will prepare
the required economic analysis and propose a schedule of statutory fees
to the Congress. Because of these various factors, the fiscal 1999
budget does not include statutory fee increases.
Another provision of the new law allows for a percentage of our
prepaid fees to be invested in U.S. securities and the interest earned
can be used to improve the Office's operational efficiency. We are
implementing this, and it will be operational in fiscal year 1999. The
potential annual interest is between $30,000 and $50,000.
The Office is also in the process of raising its discretionary fees
for existing special services and imposing several new fees. These
services are varied and include, for example, expedited handling and
first and final appeals of refusals to register. We anticipate that we
might receive as much as $1,000,000 in additional receipts from these
fees; however, we are reducing our request for spending authority by
$1,340,000 because of reduced GATT receipts. In 1995 and thereafter the
Office sought additional spending authority in anticipation of an
unknown but potentially large increase in work brought about by the
GATT Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809
(1994). Authors from World Trade Organization countries and countries
that are members of the Berne Convention for Literary and Artistic
Works had copyright protection restored for many of their works that
were in the public domain in the United States. During a specified two
year period owners of such works can file notices of intention to
enforce their rights with the Copyright Office. For most countries, the
filing period was January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1997; consequently,
it has expired. The Office requested spending authority for fiscal
years 1996, 1997, and 1998 based on potential filings that in fact
never materialized; thus, the Office had higher spending authority than
what proved necessary. Since few will be eligible to file notices of
intent to enforce their copyright, any future GATT filings will have
little effect on the budget. The bottom line is that due to higher fees
but reduced anticipated GATT receipts, we are requesting spending
authority of only $16,000,000.
Let me conclude with the provision in the technical amendments act
that authorizes the Copyright Office to pay arbitrators directly. As
you know, the Office oversees Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels
(CARP's), which handle distribution proceedings of royalties collected
under certain statutory licenses. In distribution proceedings, the
Copyright Office is now empowered to pay the arbitrators directly with
funds from the relevant royalty pool. Previously, the parties were
billed by the arbitrators, and the parties paid the arbitrators.
Because of this change we will need the authority Congress initially
approved in fiscal year 1998 to expend up to $1.8 million from
offsetting collections to pay the arbitrators engaged in distribution
proceedings in fiscal year 1999.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions which I would be pleased to
answer now or more fully in writing.
opening remarks by gen. donald scott
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
General Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to appear with Dr. Billington to present our fiscal year 1999
budget request.
This committee's approval of our fiscal 1997 and 1998
funding levels helped us to establish better management
practices and to develop our work force so that they will be
more efficient and effective in the new millennium. Mr.
Chairman, I would like to highlight a few of those
accomplishments that we had last year.
Library's accomplishments
First, we were able to take Dr. Billington's vision, and
the guidance provided by Congress, and to come up with a
strategic plan that takes us out to and through the year 2004.
As you saw in the video, we have made the Library's holdings
more available through electronic means, and we will continue
to migrate our systems, so that they can be more compatible
with the information age and technology in that regard.
The legislative information system that we put online at
the beginning of the 105th has dramatically improved
communication between the Congress and other legislative branch
agencies. We also managed to educate most of the 560 managers
and supervisors that we have in the Library of Congress. We
provided them techniques on how they can get better results and
improve the work environment at the same time.
We are currently offering a class for our staff. This is a
1-day class. They will have access to the same information that
we hope will help us to better prepare them to do the job for
now and the 21st century.
And in the area of financial management, we are very, very
pleased to announce that the Library achieved its first ever
unqualified, clean audit opinion on our consolidated financial
statements from an independent firm. This has been a lot of
work, but it helps us show that we are more accountable for the
funds that are entrusted to our care, whether appropriated or
gift or trust funds. We will work very hard to try to stay in
that elite fraternity.
We also managed to cut the arrearage by another 1 million
items during last year.
So, in short, Mr. Chairman, we have realized several goals
last year that helped our management practices. We think it
will continue to improve and modernize our work force so that
they can render better service to the Congress and to the
American people.
Priority budget items
Now, as Dr. Billington pointed out, we will continue to
need the support and assistance of this committee. Included in
this budget request, we have five items that we believe are
critical if we are to continue to make progress in this area.
First and foremost, we have placed at the highest priority our
effort to make sure that all of our automated systems are year
2000 compliant. In that regard, the integrated library system
that this committee approved for us last year, which is year
2000 compliant, is scheduled to be installed by the 1st of
October, 1999.
That is going to help us improve our collection security.
It is also going to help us have a better inventory and help us
connect the other operational processes throughout the Library.
Also, we have formed an integrated library system project
team that is headed up by a noted and respected librarian, who
understands computers. That system is moving ahead. We are
currently reviewing requests for proposals. We will present,
within the next month, an implementation plan for the Congress
to approve prior to us going out to purchase this system.
To complete our year 2000 compliance needs, we have also
included in this budget a request for $2 million, that will
purchase computers. The computers that we purchase will replace
a like number that we have assessed as not economically
feasible to fix. So we are asking for $2 million to help with
this effort.
We have four other items that we are asking for, that we
think are very important. In the area of security, we are
asking for $2.5 million to fund key elements in our security
plan. In the area of offsite storage, we are asking for $1.3
million to begin operations at two offsite collection and
storage facilities. And for talking books, we have reduced our
request from $1,250,000 to $450,000. We would like your
approval to apply the $800,000 in rental savings toward the
purchase of additional talking book machines for the blind and
physically handicapped.
Finally, in the area of congressional staff succession, we
are asking for $872,000 for the Congressional Research Service,
to support our staff succession plan, which we believe is very
necessary to provide the same high level of service that the
Congress now receives and has grown to expect from the
Congressional Research Service.
In total, we are asking for a 6.2-percent net increase,
which is $21.6 million over what we asked for last year. Now,
57 percent of that number is for wage and price increases,
which continues to be the largest portion of our budget.
Further details that you might ask for, Mr. Chairman, are
in Dr. Billington's formal statement and in our budget
justification. So my colleagues and I would welcome any
questions.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Mr. Mulhollan.
opening remarks by daniel p. mulhollan
Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan.
I am pleased to be here to discuss the fiscal year 1999
budget request for CRS. First and foremost, I want to assure
you that we will continue to focus our efforts on offering
support for the legislative work of the Congress within the
fiscal decisions you make.
I know your time is short; I will be brief.
CRS mission
Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, the CRS statutory mission is
to provide Congress with, and I quote, ``analysis, appraisal,
and evaluation of legislative proposals in estimating the
probable results of such proposals.'' In other words, what are
the unanticipated consequences of the measure?
To fulfill that mission, it is vital that we maintain
without further diminution our analytic and research capacity.
Crucial to that purpose, our budget has two requests. First and
most importantly, is our request for funding to cover our
mandatory costs for personnel, which constitutes 90 percent of
the service's total operating budget. The other 10 percent of
those costs are allocated for the tools required to perform
research and produce analysis. We are also asking that the
fiscal year 1999 appropriations cover cost increases due
directly to the effects of inflation.
Second, we are asking that the Congress help us to
implement part of our succession initiative. Let me stress here
that we are not asking the Congress to support the full
initiative. We are undertaking most of the activities in
support of succession within our current resources. What we are
asking, however, is that the Congress assist us for a limited
time to add 20 staff in each of the fiscal years, 1999 to 2001,
and allow us to use the subsequent 5 years to reduce staff back
to current levels.
We seek this assistance because, by 2006, one-half of CRS's
current staff will be eligible to retire. Nearly two-thirds of
those, about 250 staff, plan to leave in that timeframe. These
losses pose a major challenge to our ability to ensure the
continuation of our analytic services to you. Some of the
losses are right around the corner. By 2000, expert staff who
cover such areas as monetary affairs, crime and criminal
justice, congressional committee operations, global climate,
and defense policy and budget, will leave. These losses will
accelerate, affecting such areas as tax policy, Social
Security, and pensions, legislative and budget procedures and
processes, and Asian affairs.
By 2006, virtually all areas of legislative support that
CRS now provides will be in jeopardy.
Finally, as my written statement emphasizes, we are taking
full advantage of the efficiencies and opportunities that
existing and emerging technologies provide. As we do, we are
concentrating CRS resources on direct service to the Congress.
It is, therefore, my responsibility to call to your attention
the possible consequences of legislation introduced in both the
Senate and the House that, if adopted, could divert our focus
away from the immediate legislative needs of Members.
CRS issue briefs and reports online
This legislation would require CRS to make all of its issue
briefs and reports, which appear on our congressional web site,
directly available to the public. Now, we appreciate the
compliment inherent in the proposals. CRS has traditionally
played an important role in assisting Members in providing
their constituents with relevant information and analysis on
public policy, and remains committed to doing so.
Last year, 749,000 CRS reports and issue briefs were
distributed to Members and committees. A good portion of those
were used to inform constituents. Developments in web
technology make it possible for CRS to further assist Members
and committees in the electronic distribution of CRS products
at your election. I believe that the direct disclosure of the
information residing on the CRS home page could have
significant congressional, operational, and legal implications
both for the service and the Congress.
To briefly summarize this concern: First, the proposal may
affect your relationship with your constituents, who have
historically gone directly to you when they have questions on
legislation. Second, it may also change the way CRS frames and
analyzes legislative issues. Third, the proposal raises legal
questions, such as those related to protection of
confidentiality under speech and debate, and copyright
obligations. Finally, the proposal could have significant
operational costs for CRS.
Mr. Chairman, I would have similar concerns if we were
discussing direct public access to the legislative information
system. I would like to submit for the record and your
consideration, additional materials considering the estimated
cost of implementing the legislation, the history of
congressional actions on this issue, and legal and
constitutional issues involved for CRS and the Congress.
prepared statement
I would be pleased to discuss further any part of our
budget request, as well as answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am very pleased to
appear here today to discuss the fiscal year 1999 budget request for
the Congressional Research Service. I would like to outline briefly the
accomplishments of the Service, to discuss the challenges facing us in
the near future, and to assure you that we have and will continue to
focus our efforts on supporting the legislative work of the Congress in
an effective manner within the fiscal decisions you make.
sustaining the quality and scope of crs services
The budget we submit for your consideration today is based on our
statutory mission to assist the Congress in the analysis of legislative
proposals. To fulfill that mission, it is vital that we maintain,
without further diminution, our analytic and research capacity. To do
this, we seek funding for three purposes: first, to cover mandatory
personnel costs; second, to begin a succession initiative to address
the likely loss of a large number of CRS experts between now and 2006;
and third, to fund the price level increases which support the conduct
of our research and the delivery of our products.
Ninety percent of the CRS budget funds personnel; therefore, the
most significant item in our request is for mandatory personnel costs.
As part of a legislative civil service, we are required, by law, to
make mandated pay raises and to provide within-grade increases and
promotions when staff meet the standards of their position plans. As
you know, since 1992, CRS staffing has decreased by nearly 100 people
due to funding constraints. If these costs are not fully funded, we
will have no choice but to reduce our staff further. While we have
striven to manage reductions in the past so as to avoid dramatic cuts
in service, the cumulative effect of less than full funding for all
mandatories is a systematic reduction in our capacity to provide
analysis on legislative proposals. In short, further cuts to staff
threaten our ability to fulfill our statutory mission.
Succession initiative
Our budget request also seeks funding to assist us in carrying out
our succession initiative, which is designed to address an additional
threat to our analytic capacity. As I stated in my testimony before
this Committee last year, by 2006, half of CRS's current staff will be
eligible to retire. Nearly two-thirds of those eligible, about 250
people, have told us that they indeed plan to leave during that time
frame. These losses pose a major challenge to our ability to ensure the
continuation of our analytic services to the Congress.
The risk CRS faces today is the result of two circumstances. First,
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 expanded the statutory
mission of the Congressional Research Service to provide the Congress
with ``analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of legislative proposals''
in order to assist the Congress in: (A) determining the advisability of
enacting such proposals; (B) estimating the probable results of such
proposals and alternatives thereto; and (C) evaluating alternative
methods for accomplishing those results; and, by providing such other
research and analytical services * * * appropriate for these purposes,
otherwise to assist in furnishing a basis for the proper evaluation and
determination of legislative proposals and recommendations * * *.
Based on an underlying belief that the Congress needed this
expertise, and that it could most effectively and efficiently meet that
need through a nonpartisan, shared pool of experts, the Congress
subsequently provided funding for a significant increase in CRS staff
capacity to implement the Act. Many of the staff hired to fulfill these
responsibilities have stayed to make CRS what it is today and are now,
or will soon become, eligible to retire.
The second circumstance is the one which has prevented us from
fully addressing this demographic situation before now. As a result of
the budget constraints we have experienced since 1992, the Service has
been unable to fill behind most of the resignations, deaths or
retirements of analysts and specialists. Therefore, CRS does not have
sufficient staff ready to take over many of the complex areas of
analysis as our most experienced staff leave. But for this downsizing,
CRS would now have on its staff a greater number of junior and mid-
level analysts and information specialists developing their subject
expertise, analytic skills, and knowledge of the legislative process
and congressional environment. If we had been able to replace staff who
left as a result of normal attrition over this time period, we would be
in a better position to sustain our analytic capacity even as our most
senior people retired.
Our first step in managing such a wholesale loss of senior experts
was to develop and implement a continuous process to assess the risks
associated with this loss--a risk that is particularly threatening at a
time when the Congress faces relatively high turnover in staff and
Members, and the complexity of public policy debates increases. We
conducted a staff survey to determine the scope of the problem, and
undertook a subsequent assessment of the impact of each individual's
retirement plan on the Service's overall analytic capacity, by subject
area, between now and 2006.
The results of this risk assessment indicate that, as early as the
year 2000, CRS will experience diminished capacity in a growing number
of subject areas, including civil rights, crime and criminal justice
programs, congressional committee operations, executive management and
personnel, global climate change and earth science, and defense policy
and budgets. After the year 2000, the losses in analytic and research
capacity accelerate, affecting areas such as tax, legislative and
budget processes, elections, social security and pensions, and
expertise on Asia. By 2006 virtually all areas of legislative support
that CRS provides to the Congress would be affected.
The CRS staff eligible to retire in the next six years are our most
senior, independent, and authoritative analysts and specialists. Unless
we can get a ``head start'' on replacing them, we will have to wait
until the year they retire, and hire their replacements without
sufficient lead-time to bring those replacements up to the level of
competence necessary to sustain our current analytic and research
services. Under this scenario we would have to hire replacement staff
at the mid- or senior-levels to minimize service disruptions. Our
experience hiring at these levels results in concern that we would be
less likely to find a sufficient degree of diversity in the applicant
pool than would be the case with entry-level hires. In addition, mid-
and senior-level experts may not have all of the quantitative skills
that are now standard requirements in public policy graduate schools.
These skills have become increasingly critical to serving the Congress
as we analyze research and information and formulate methodologies to
analyze alternative methods for approaching public policy issues like
health, social security, transportation, and tax.
To address this risk, we have adopted a number of strategies within
our current resources. We developed procedures to provide more
flexibility in assigning work to staff on-board, including formal
assignments and professional details; we also have undertaken
organizational adjustments. We have provided upward mobility to staff
through formal programs including participation in the National War
College, the Industrial College, and the Fulbright fellowship program.
In addition, we have re-instated the Graduate Recruit Program--a
program that allows us to hire a limited number of students enrolled in
graduate programs who anticipate completion of their graduate degrees
during the subsequent academic year. We also are using a formal
resource allocation process to fill vacancies in the highest risk areas
and track the outcome of these hiring decisions.
In developing our succession initiative, we examined extensively
other public and private sector succession efforts. We were careful in
our design to minimize the likelihood of creating another workforce
cohort that would cause the need for future succession planning of this
scope. The combination of hiring at the entry-level (our intentions for
the succession plan included in the budget request), and hiring at mid-
and senior-levels (for some types of positions) will help us avoid
creating a similar ``bulge'' in the future. This initiative represents
our best thinking on how we can address the concentrated loss of expert
staff while sustaining our analytic capacity in those subject areas
most heavily affected.
Objectives and Structure of the Succession Plan
The plan is designed to bring new staff to CRS before our 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
can be passed on. We have tried to minimize the additional resources
needed from the Congress for this plan by managing most of the
succession initiative within current CRS resources. The assistance that
we are requesting from the Congress through our budget request for
fiscal 1999 would temporarily increase our staff by 60 over a three
year period (fiscal 1999-2001) then reduce staff by ten each year for
the following four fiscal years and by twenty in the final year of the
plan (fiscal 2006). By 2006 CRS would return to the fiscal 1997
authorized staff level. We believe that our succession plan is fiscally
sound and limited in scope--we are asking for only 60 staff to
transition through the potential loss of nearly 250. In addition, our
analysis supports the conclusion that we can achieve the out-year
reductions in staff through expected retirements. The Service's fiscal
1999 appropriation submission requests 20 FTE's and $871,770 to
implement Phase I.
During the fiscal 1999 to fiscal 2001 period the new staff hired
under the plan would work closely with senior analysts in an
apprenticeship capacity, whereby the senior staff could share their
knowledge and experience in their discipline within the legislative
context. While entry-level staff will come with strong analytic and
research skills, their academic training must be supplemented with on-
the-job training and experience within the legislative environment. To
maximize the development of subject expertise and knowledge of the
legislative environment, our experience has been that the best training
is working through budget and appropriation cycles and reauthorizations
of major legislation. This work exposes new staff to the type of
analysis that uniquely informs the various stages of legislation--from
policy formulation and conceptualization to introduction and analysis
of various bill proposals to hearings to committee reporting to floor
debates to conference consideration to final passage to implementation
and finally to oversight.
Our experience has shown that the development of these unique
skills takes four to five years. During this time staff learn how to
work independently. They acquire and refine skills and develop the
ability to (1) understand the legislative and budget procedures as
practiced; (2) examine issues from an unbiased, nonpartisan
perspective; (3) present analysis and research in a manner and form
that best meets the clients' legislative needs; (4) develop and
maintain contacts with subject experts in academia, government
agencies, and elsewhere; and (5) perhaps most importantly, develop
trust relationships with Members and staff. Each of these attributes is
critical if CRS is to continue the close support on which the Congress
has come to rely.
Price Level Increases
The third item in our budget request is for funding to cover price
level increases which support the conduct of our research and the
delivery of our products. A significant element of this support is
technology and the opportunities it provides to the Service to more
effectively carry out our statutory mission. It is in this context that
I offer the following summary of some of the many uses CRS is making of
our electronic resources:
The CRS Home Page.--This secure web site makes key CRS services
available to the Congress electronically through the CAPNET. We are
continually enhancing the CRS Home Page to offer the Congress a
dynamic, hyperlinked, and interactive platform that makes available the
latest information and analysis to assist the Congress in its
legislative work. Congressional users can access the full text of Issue
Briefs and selected reports and the weekly Legislative Alert. In 1998,
we hope to expand the Home Page to provide the Congress with the full
text of more of our congressional distribution products. We are also
designing ``Electronic Briefing Books''--a new concept that will
integrate key information and analysis on active legislative issues and
present them in easy to use electronic formats. In addition, we are
exploring new ways of preparing reports, taking advantage of electronic
capabilities in graphics, map designs, and interlinking among
information resources, particularly with the Congress' Legislative
Information System.
Enhanced security of computer and information systems.--CRS is
working diligently to protect information from unauthorized access, to
assure that congressional users will be provided uninterrupted service,
and to plan for disaster recovery. Work is well under way in this area
and is being led by a CRS Systems Security Team. This team has
undertaken an agency-wide security assessment and has consulted with
the National Security Agency; designed and delivered a program to
educate all CRS staff on security matters; developed a formal process
for reporting and tracking unusual activity on our electronic systems;
and instituted strict password protocols for all CRS systems.
Year 2000 Compliance.--CRS has been aware of the implications of
Y2K compliance for several years and has been formulating plans to
test, certify, and replace our systems for some time. CRS prepared a
report for the Congress in 1996 on the implications of Y2K for computer
systems nation-wide. This report is cited in S. 22, a bill to establish
a commission on the Year 2000 computer problem, sponsored by Senator
Moynihan. We also have been developing contingency planning to address
disruptions that might occur to the critical systems within our
control. Our goal is to confirm Y2K compliance for all our systems by
the end of this year.
The Legislative Information Retrieval System (LIS).--The Service
also remains committed to assisting the House and Senate refine its
Legislative Information Retrieval System, the LIS, to advance the
timely availability of and accessibility to critical legislative
information. The LIS offers a wealth of information to the Congress and
to legislative branch agencies on current legislation, floor action,
amendments, the full text of the Congressional Record, and its links to
other legislative agency Internet sites. The Senate Committee on Rules
and Administration and the Committee on House Oversight established
policies and provided oversight as CRS worked with the Library of
Congress' Information Technology Office to design, develop, and deliver
the first release of the retrieval system at the start of the 105th
Congress. CRS continues to work closely with these committees, the
officers of the House and Senate, and with congressional users to
enhance the system so that it can replace the previous systems by the
start of the next Congress. The most recent enhancements to the LIS,
specifically designed for the Senate, are links to information on
recorded votes and amendments pending on the Floor. I am also pleased
to report that the Congress has chosen to include in the LIS several
sites on the CRS Home Page, including our appropriations page, our
appropriations status table, the Legislative Alert, our Public Policy
Literature file, our guide to the legislative process, and our
legislative reference sources and law sources.
I also would like to draw your attention to the results of a recent
survey initiated by the Secretary of the Senate. The survey indicates
that 92 percent of the Senate respondents go on-line, either often or
always, for analysis and summary information about legislation. The LIS
is the most cited resource for that information. I also found
encouraging that when the respondents cannot find certain legislative
information on-line, they most frequently go to CRS for assistance.
distribution of crs written products to the public
As my testimony today has emphasized, we are making every effort to
concentrate CRS resources on direct service to the Congress and to take
full advantage of existing and emerging technologies. It is therefore
my responsibility to call to your attention the possible consequences
of a proposal which, if adopted, could divert our focus significantly
away from the immediate needs of the Congress.
As the Members of this Committee are aware, legislation has been
introduced--S. 1578 in the Senate and H.R. 3131 in the House--requiring
that all CRS issue briefs and reports, which appear on our
congressional Web site, be made directly available to the public by CRS
via the Internet. While my colleagues and I appreciate the compliment
inherent in the proposal for direct dissemination, I believe it is
important to bear in mind the implications of such a major change in
congressional policy.
Implications for Member-Constituent Relations
First and foremost, I am concerned that this proposal threatens the
important relationship that Members have with their constituents.
Historically, constituents have gone to Members of Congress when they
have questions about legislation. As such, the Congress has reserved
for itself the right to distribute CRS materials to the public (either
by utilizing the contents of a CRS analysis, forwarding the analysis in
whole or in part, or downloading sections of an electronic version of
the CRS analysis to be incorporated into the response). Likewise,
receiving constituent correspondence directly assists Members in their
understanding of constituent awareness, concerns, and preferences
regarding public policy decisions. The wholesale direct dissemination
of CRS products to the public would bypass this longstanding
relationship by denying constituents the benefit of their Members'
additional insights, party viewpoints, or regional perspectives on CRS
analyses.
Consequences for CRS Operations
In addition to these direct impacts on Members, CRS believes that
wholesale direct dissemination of CRS products would have serious
consequences for the Service itself, requiring us to divert scarce
resources away from our statutory mission. Our analysts inevitably
would have to shift the focus of much of their work away from the
direct needs of the Congress to address the much more diffused and
varied perspectives and interests of the public. Currently, CRS is the
only organization, public or private, that continually updates the same
product to focus our analysis on the point where congressional
decision-making in each Chamber is occurring at the moment. In order to
meet the immediate demands of a pressed congressional calendar, CRS
authors often provide minimal context and background in their analyses,
assuming the congressional reader's knowledge of the various stages of
the legislative process, the distinctions between authorizing and
appropriating decisions, and similar matters. Were CRS authors to
broaden the coverage and scope of their products to meet the needs of
an expanded, non-congressional audience, they would do so at the
expense of refined, concise analysis targeting the needs of Members and
staff working directly in the legislative arena. Simply put, working
for an audience of 535 Members is quite different from working for 535
million individuals, or whatever the world-wide Internet audience is
today.
Another consequence of wholesale dissemination is that much of the
efficiency envisioned in our business plan to deliver services in an
electronic environment would be lost. We have designed our Home Page to
make our reports, issue briefs, and services readily available and to
present them in a format that can be customized by each congressional
client, allowing the user to draw from it that information of greatest
value, modify it, and easily explore related topics both within CRS and
through links to outside sources. Increasingly, the analytic products
created by CRS are drafted with the full expectation of the
augmentation possible through those electronic links. As an evolving
interactive, interconnected and constantly updated resource tool for
the Congress, our Home Page is not merely a repository for completed
documents; nor is it primarily a document delivery system. Having a
second CRS Web site directly available to the public, which cannot take
advantage of such links will require us to establish two vehicles of
service, and, given limited resources, will diminish our effectiveness
in meeting your legislative needs.
Legal Issues
Additionally, S. 1578 and its companion House bill raise
significant legal issues for CRS. Wholesale dissemination of CRS
products could bring into question the availability of speech or debate
clause protection undermining the presumption of confidentiality, which
is so crucial to the trust relationship between CRS and our
congressional clients. Relevant Supreme Court rulings indicate that the
dissemination to the general public of CRS products would not be
considered a legislative act but would be viewed by the courts as an
exercise of Congress' representational function, for which speech or
debate immunity is not available. Those engaged in the preparation and
public distribution of CRS products could be vulnerable to a variety of
judicial and administrative proceedings. Wholesale dissemination also
carries with it the risk of copyright infringement claims. If access to
CRS products is broadened, our ability to use copyrighted material in
our reports might be restricted or denied altogether.
Cost Factors
A final concern posed by S. 1578 involves the costs to CRS of
implementing this legislation. Some of these ``costs'' are quite
difficult to quantify, such as the effects of possible loss of speech
or debate protection or the consequences of diminishing the
constitutional role of Members as direct providers of information to
their constituents. In other areas, although cost estimates may be more
feasible, they must be regarded as somewhat speculative, inasmuch as
CRS has no previous experience dealing with direct large-scale
dissemination of our products and thus cannot readily anticipate the
behavior of Members and the public in this context.
With these caveats, and recognizing that our analysis is still
ongoing, I can say to you with confidence that enactment of legislation
such as S. 1578 would require a substantial commitment of CRS resources
in four key areas:
First, staff time would have to be devoted to creating and
maintaining a separate CRS Web site for dissemination to the public.
Second, additional costs can be expected to handle the anticipated,
and indeed inevitable, large increase in direct contacts between CRS
and the general public resulting from wholesale direct dissemination.
Third, we anticipate that the heightened public profile of our
reports and issue briefs, combined with the fact that many non-
congressional users do not have the capacity to down-load documents or
may hear of CRS products but have no Internet access available to them,
will lead to an increased demand for the paper copy of CRS products in
the form of Member requests to CRS on behalf of their constituents.
Finally, Members themselves, concerned that our products will be
circulated far more extensively than in the past, would likely place
many more requests for tailored, confidential memoranda in order to
afford themselves the opportunity to reflect upon and consider
questions emerging from legislative proposals before having to respond
to public inquiries. Confidential memoranda designed for a single
client, which cannot be released to other Members without the
requestor's consent, are far more expensive on a per-unit basis than
products which can be available (either electronically or in hard copy)
to all interested congressional offices.
Mr. Chairman, in recent years the Congress has assumed
proportionately larger cuts than the Executive Branch, thereby reducing
the overall resources available for congressional operations. I am
deeply concerned that the enactment of S. 1578 would create a new
public mission for CRS that inevitably would divert precious funds from
what must remain our primary mission--to provide analysis and
information to assist you in understanding and assessing the
consequences, both intended and unintended, of the legislative
proposals before you.
To summarize our position on this issue, we believe that S. 1578
raises significant issues, both for the Congress and for CRS, which you
and your colleagues may wish to consider before you decide to change
the policy governing the dissemination of our products. My testimony
today does not represent a CRS position on this issue, for this
decision clearly rests with the Congress, However, it is my
responsibility to inform you of possible unintended consequences or
implication of such a change in policy. To assist you in your
deliberations, I would like to submit for the record additional
materials concerning the history of congressional action on this issue,
the legal and constitutional issues involved, the estimated cost of
implementing this legislation, as well as the more general question of
Members' potential liability for disseminating material over the
Internet.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, CRS submits to you today a budget that
takes into account the efforts throughout the legislative branch to
adapt to continuing fiscal constraints. We ask you today to consider
the three elements in our request: (1) to provide us funds to support
increases in mandatory staff costs; (2) to support our succession
initiative by permitting us to temporarily increase our staff size to
ensure the availability of expertise to the Congress; and (3) to fund
price level increases. The goal of this budget request is to support
our critical programs within limited resources, and allow us to
continue fulfilling our statutory mission. We want the Congress to turn
to CRS first when legislative research and analysis are needed, and we
keep this focus as we work each day with you and your staff.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to discuss these issues in more
detail and to answer any questions that Members of the Subcommittee
might have.
______
Congressional Policy Concerning the Distribution of CRS Written
Products to the Public--January 2, 1998
The following discussion reviews congressional policy concerning
distribution of CRS products to the public and addresses issues for
consideration by the Congress in determining whether to alter current
policy regarding public availability of various CRS products, such as
Reports and Issue Briefs.
As set forth below, CRS at present is precluded by law from general
public distribution of its materials without prior approval by a
congressional oversight committee. The Congress has actively exercised
its oversight authority regarding CRS publication practices and has
developed and promulgated standards to be applied in evaluating
specific proposals. Current guidelines from the Joint Committee on the
Library and other congressional bodies, issued in 1980, restrict the
vast majority of CRS written products to congressional use and
distribution to the public on a selective basis only.
Many years of congressional consideration of this issue reveal
serious concerns about the institutional and legal consequences likely
to result from the wholesale direct public distribution of CRS products
with a potentially large circulation (e.g., CRS Reports and Issue
Briefs).
background on current congressional policy concerning the distribution
of crs written products to the public
Summary
Congress has historically reserved to itself control over the
dissemination of CRS products to the public on the principle that CRS,
as an extension of congressional staff, works exclusively for the
Congress.
To maintain congressional control over dissemination, a provision
has been included in CRS annual appropriations acts since fiscal year
1952 requiring prior oversight committee approval for any CRS
publication (as noted above, ``publication'' refers to wholesale
release of CRS products directly to the public).
Congress has never authorized the wholesale public dissemination of
CRS analytical products such as Reports or Issue Briefs (and has seldom
authorized publication of other products), whether by CRS or the
Congress, but rather has preferred to rely on congressional release of
individual products on a case-by-case basis.
To further indicate the degree of congressional control over CRS
products, Congress, the courts, and administrative tribunals have
declared CRS communications to the Congress to be privileged under the
Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution and to be under the custody
and control of the Congress. These determinations have assured the
maintenance of confidentiality in CRS relationships with congressional
clients, a critical element of CRS effectiveness and an expectation of
those who seek its assistance.
Current Restrictions and Guidelines.
At present, CRS is precluded by law from general public
distribution of its materials without prior approval by one of its two
congressional oversight committees. This restriction results from a
limitation that has appeared in CRS' annual appropriations acts in each
year since fiscal year 1952. This provision reads as follows:
``Provided, that no part of this appropriation may be used to
pay any salary or expense in connection with any publication,
or preparation of material therefor (except the Digest of
Public General Bills), to be issued by the Library of Congress
unless such publication has obtained prior approval of either
the Committee on House Oversight or the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the current version of this provision, see Pub. L. 105-55,
111 Stat. 1190 (1997).
The most recent policy statement from Congress regarding the
publication of CRS written products came in 1980. In a communication,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dated March 21, 1980, the Joint Committee on the Library reaffirmed:
``Congressional policy that the circulation of CRS materials
prepared specifically for congressional use be limited to the
Congress, and that the long-standing policy of confidentiality
in the work of CRS for individual congressional clients should
be maintained. We believe that, as in the past, CRS and its
oversight committees should consider the publication of only
those CRS products whose release to the general public would be
compatible, both in terms of cost and product content, with the
CRS's obligations to the Congress.''
The 1980 guidelines were developed subsequent to a 1978 proposal to
CRS by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) under which
CRS would have received access to the files of State research materials
abstracted by the NCSL, and also would have had the opportunity to
order copies of desired items for use in answering congressional
inquiries. In return, CRS would have provided the NCSL with periodic
listings of CRS Reports (called ``multiliths'' at that time) and with
only one copy of those CRS Reports which the NCSL requested. Under this
proposal the NCSL also would have gained access to certain files from
the Library of Congress's SCORPIO system, including CRS Issue Briefs.
On September 27, 1978, the Joint Committee on the Library held a
hearing to consider the CRS-NCSL exchange proposal. At the hearing, the
Committee concluded that any transmission of CRS material contained in
SCORPIO to non-congressional users via computer terminal would
constitute a ``publication'' and thus, under the terms of the language
contained in CRS's annual appropriations legislation (noted above)
would require the prior approval of either the Committee on House
Administration or the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
Moreover, members of the Joint Committee expressed serious reservations
about any activity that might divert CRS resources and priorities from
its statutory responsibilities to Congress. Finally, members of the
Committee expressed the view that it was appropriate for Members of
Congress, rather than CRS, to determine whether and to what extent
various CRS products should be publicly disseminated. As a result, no
action was taken to implement the proposed CRS-NCSL exchange.
The March 21, 1980 guidelines were followed later that month (March
27, 1980) by enactment of a Senate Resolution. (S. Res. 396, 96th
Congress). The Senate resolved:
``That it is the determination of the Senate that the
communications of the Congressional Research Service to the
members and committees of the Congress are under the custody
and control of the Congress and may be released only by the
Congress, its Houses, committees and members, in accordance
with the rules and privileges of each House.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 126 Cong. Rec. 6892 (March 27, 1980). This Senate Resolution
directed the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Senate and CRS in
respect to a Federal Trade Commission administrative law judge's
``sweeping subpoena [on behalf of oil companies involved in a FTC
proceeding] to the Congressional Research Service for documents which
discuss the oil industry and governmental policy in relation to it.''
Id. The Resolution stated that ``the communications between the
Congressional Research Service and the members and committees of the
Congress are an integral part of the legislative process and privileged
under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.''
Senate Majority Leader Byrd, in introducing the Resolution, noted
CRS' role in advising members and committees on legislative issues and
that CRS ``thereby provides a service to the Members and committees of
Congress which is equivalent to that performed by the staffs of Members
and committees.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the years, and at the request of CRS, the Joint Committee on
the Library has authorized a very limited number of CRS publications
for broader distribution through depository libraries, the sales
program of the Superintendent of Documents, and to the public through
individual purchases. In addition, several CRS products are published
as the result of specific statutory authorization: the Digest of
General Public Bills and Resolutions (Bill Digest); \4\ and three
publications for which CRS has been given responsibility by the
Librarian of Congress: the Constitution of the United States of
America, Analysis and Interpretation (Constitution Annotated); \5\ and
the national high school and college debate topic manuals.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 2 U.S.C. 166(d)(6).
\5\ 2 U.S.C. 168.
\6\ 44 U.S.C. 1333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Accessibility of CRS Written Products
With few exceptions, congressional offices are the exclusive source
for distributing CRS Reports and Issue Briefs to the public. Member
offices use CRS products to develop their own understanding of policy
issues and options and to inform their constituents regarding these
issues and options. The principles of representative government and of
legislative accountability hold that representatives have an obligation
to provide their constituents with the information and understanding
required in order to exercise democratic citizenship; that is, the
democratic idea that the authority of those who govern rests on the
consent of those who are governed, calls for democratic consent to be
fully informed and enlightened.
It is well known, both in Washington, D.C. and by interested
parties throughout the country, that constituents may obtain copies of
CRS written products through a Member or Committee of Congress. In
addition, congressional offices often respond directly to constituent
requests for information on particular subjects by sending copies of
CRS Reports and Issue Briefs. For example, during fiscal year 1996,
690,000 copies of CRS Reports and Issue Briefs were sent to
congressional offices. Some percentage of these are sent on to
constituents--either because constituents asked for them specifically
or as a means of answering constituent requests for information.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ CRS has not undertaken to survey congressional offices to
determine this precise percentage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, current technology now enables Members and Committees to
make CRS products available to constituents in electronic format
through congressional Homepages. Recent enhancements to the CRS Issue
Brief system, initially released to Congress on the CRS Homepage and
now available also through the new Legislative Information System, make
CRS Issue Briefs available in World Wide Web format (HTML). This
upgrade makes it easier for Members and Committees to add Issue Briefs
to their own Homepages for their constituents to the extent such
availability is deemed appropriate by Members and Committees. Selected
CRS Reports are also available to the Congress electronically through
the CRS Homepage.
issues associated with the wholesale release of crs products to the
public
Institutional Issues
The direct, wholesale dissemination by Congress of Reports and
Issue Briefs would have significant effects on the policies, resources,
and institutional culture that CRS utilizes in serving the Congress.
First, CRS' mission is to support the Congress exclusively. Given
its limited resources, CRS can undertake services to non-congressional
entities (such as the public) only at the expense of direct support of
the Congress. While the direct and indirect costs associated with
disseminating Reports and Issue Briefs are difficult to estimate with
precision, it is clear that significant resources would have to be
diverted from congressional services. For example, with wider product
distribution, particularly to users of the Internet/World Wide Web, CRS
is more likely to get calls, comments, and requests for additions and
changes that would place a burden on CRS analysts, distracting them
from their work for Congress. In particular, outside parties may judge
and question CRS papers on the basis of standards other than the
standards CRS has developed to meet congressional needs (e.g.,
timeliness, non-partisanship, balance, objectivity). It is reasonable
to anticipate that the volume of communications between CRS and the
public, currently manageable, would rise substantially and affect the
Service's ability to meet the needs of congressional requester. Any
mechanisms developed by CRS to shield analysts from these demands would
of course also involve resource commitments.
Second, CRS analysts now direct their writings, focused on
legislative issues, to congressional audiences. The closeness of CRS to
the legislative process and the sensitivity of the Service's
traditional culture of exclusively supporting Congress' legislative
needs shape the nature and content of its written products. If CRS
written products were routinely available on a wholesale basis to
academic and other professional peers outside the Congress, CRS
analysts might become more conscious of the need to address views,
methods, disciplines, and expectations of non-congressional
professional peers, with the result that CRS written work could shift
away, or appear to shift away, from its current emphasis on the
congressional audience.
With an awareness that a CRS Report would be disseminated to the
public, Members may increase the number of confidential requests that
they place with CRS in order to ensure that they are provided an
opportunity--should they so desire--to reflect and consider questions
that emerge from evolving legislative proposals before they have to
respond to public inquiry about the resulting issues. This increase in
confidential requests requiring more tailored responses would diminish
the ability of CRS analysts to prepare reports that are generally
available to Congress and that serve a broader congressional audience.
With this increase in tailored analysis would come the necessity of
duplicating more analysis because of the demand of those Members who
request that their examination of a legislative proposal remain
confidential at that point in the legislative process.
A third, related concern is potentially increased pressure from
interest groups and lobbying organizations on CRS analysts concerning
the content of their reports and the impact this pressure may have on
serving the direct needs of the Congress for analysis and information
that is non-partisan, objective, and balanced. Enhanced internal
mechanisms would have to be developed to ensure that communications
with interested parties did not deflect CRS analysts from producing
products that are free from advocacy and bias, resulting in a further
diversion of resources from direct service to Congress.
Fourth, CRS staff serve by statute as an extension of Member and
committee staff. The release by Congress of CRS Reports and Issue
Briefs may set a precedent leading to greater pressure to have studies
prepared by congressional staff for Members' exclusive use (e.g.,
committee staff studies distributed to entire committee membership) to
be disseminated directly to the general public. It might be difficult
for Congress to articulate a convincing rationale for granting public
access to the Service's work but denying equivalent access to materials
prepared by other shared staff (e.g., committee staff) that are
distributed to more than one Member. Thus, a policy of providing
Members' constituents with the same materials that Members themselves
draw upon to make legislative decisions could have serious implications
for the functions of staff and their relationship with Members.
Legal Issues
This section considers three pertinent legal issues associated with
the wholesale dissemination of CRS products to the public. The first
two issues involve the speech or debate clause of the Constitution and
the third deals with intellectual property questions.
1. Widespread electronic dissemination to the general public of CRS
Reports and Issue Briefs would be more likely than dissemination
pursuant to current policy to precipitate litigation in which speech or
debate clause immunity would not be a defense.
Since its 1972 ruling in United States v. Brewster, the Supreme
Court has limited the immunity afforded under the speech or debate
clause \8\ to ``legislative acts,'' which were distinguished from a
range of activity described as ``entirely legitimate'' but unprotected
by the speech or debate clause because it was considered to be
``political in nature.'' \9\ In several cases relevant to the
applicability of speech or debate immunity to the public distribution
of CRS products, the Court has relied on the dichotomy established in
Brewster to hold that congressional activities intended to inform the
general public are outside the scope of the speech or debate clause.
Notably, in Doe v. McMillan, the Court found that the clause might not
protect the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents from
liability for distribution of a committee report, which contained
material alleged to have invaded individual privacy rights, beyond
``the legitimate legislative needs of Congress * * *.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S.Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 6, clause 1.
\9\ 408 U.S. 501, 509, 512 (1972).
\10\ Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 324 (1973) (emphasis added).
The Court remanded for a determination as to whether the extent of
distribution by the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents
had exceeded ``the legitimate legislative needs of Congress, and hence
the limits of immunity.'' Id. On the remand, the lower courts upheld
the claim of immunity as to the Public Printer and Superintendent of
Documents (374 F. Supp. 1313 (D.D.C. 1974), aff'd, 566 F.2d 713
(D.C.Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 969 (1978)), but the court of
appeals expressly reserved the question of the availability of immunity
``in a case where distribution was more extensive * * *.'' 566 F.2d at
718. Apparently the only copies distributed outside the federal
government in the events that precipitated the suit in McMillan were
approximately 172 of 796 copies that had been distributed to various
federal agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dissemination (by Members and/or their aides, by CRS, or by a
congressionally designated entity) to the general public of CRS
products would not be viewed as a legislative act but would be
considered to be an exercise of Congress' representational function,
for which speech or debate immunity is not available.\11\ Those engaged
in public distribution of CRS products, as well as CRS analysts who
prepare the products, may be vulnerable to a variety of administrative
and judicial proceedings. In such actions, litigants might seek, for
purposes of discovery, the files of CRS analysts or litigants might ask
for damages or injunctive relief barring further distribution of a
particular report or issue brief. Litigants might also claim damages in
suits alleging copyright infringement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., Doe v. McMillan, supra; Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443
U.S. 111 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would seem that these kinds of actions would be more likely to
occur as a result of widespread electronic dissemination to the general
public of CRS products than from the current practice of limited
distribution (e.g., dissemination by a congressional office of a single
hard copy of a particular CRS product to a constituent or incorporation
of a CRS product in a committee report or hearing).
2. Widespread electronic public dissemination of CRS products would
jeopardize the confidentiality of CRS files and hamper a claim of
constitutional immunity by CRS.
Widespread electronic circulation of CRS products to the general
public could set CRS on a course accompanied by uncertain legal
consequences.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As one legal journal has observed, in addressing the Internet
and other computer-related issues, the courts are on ``uncharted
water.'' Thou Shalt Not Trespass--Even in Cyberspace, New Jersey
Lawyer, Sept. 1, 1997, at p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An inevitable consequence of widespread distribution of CRS
products to the general public would be an increase in public awareness
of the research and analysis prepared by the Service for Congress,
which could escalate the efforts of litigants to obtain, for purposes
of discovery, CRS analysts' files. These discovery attempts might seek
not only information and data used to develop CRS Reports and Issue
Briefs but also related material from the Service's files.
Speech or debate immunity may provide a valid defense in such
discovery proceedings if the subject of the proceedings is a protected
legislative act.\13\ However, it is noted that, even in those cases in
which CRS succeeded in defending against discovery efforts, the
litigation would place a burden on CRS and other congressional
resources \14\ and could put judges in the position of arbitrating
disputes concerning the confidentiality of communications between CRS
and Congress.\15\ Claims of speech or debate immunity would be subject
to review by the courts, potentially including in camera inspection of
material as to which a claim of privilege is made \16\ and segregation
of protected from non-protected material.\17\ Arguably, this type of
judicial sifting of legislative branch materials would impinge upon the
interest in confidentiality served by the speech or debate clause.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62
F.3d 408 (D.C.Cir. 1995).
\14\ Discovery attempts to obtain CRS file materials have often
been defended by the offices of House General Counsel or Senate Legal
Counsel. See, e.g, S. Res. 291, 101st Cong. (resolution directing
Senate Legal Counsel to represent a CRS attorney in Smith v. IRS, No.
3778-89 (Tax Ct. 1990)).
\15\ See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d 589 (3d Cir.
1978); United States v. Eilberg, 507 F. Supp. 267 (E.D.Pa. 1980).
\16\ See, e.g., Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 98 F.R.D. 42
(D.Md. 1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. In Re Guthrie, 733 F.2d
634 (4th Cir. 1984).
\17\ See, e.g., United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 488 n.7
(1979).
\18\ The courts are divided on the question of whether the speech
or debate clause was intended to ensure confidentiality for
legislators. Compare Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 62 F.3d at 420
with In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d at 597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, for two reasons, it is uncertain whether Congress would
prevail in litigating such matters. First, it is possible that a court
would not precisely differentiate among the information in the
superficially similar types of documents in a CRS subject file and
would grant litigants access not only to publicly available information
but also to confidential communications between the Service and
congressional offices. Second, in previous instances in which CRS has
been involved in litigation or agency proceedings, the judicial or
agency decision has emphasized that CRS performs a legislative function
and that its staff functions as an adjunct of Member and committee
staff.\19\ With wider dissemination of CRS products to the general
public, this longstanding perception of the Service and the nature of
its communications to the Congress could be altered, eventually putting
at risk speech or debate protection for the Service's confidential
work. In other words, extensive involvement by CRS in the direct public
information function could lead courts and administrative agencies to
reconsider their perception of CRS as playing a significant and unique
support role in the legislative process, and thus some day might hamper
a claim of immunity even in an instance in which CRS was fulfilling its
legislative function.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Webster v. Sun Oil, 731 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir. 1984) and 790
F.2d 157 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (communications to CRS analyst are within
scope of common law privilege for communications to a legislative
body); In re Exxon Corporation, 95 F.T.C. 919 (1980) (FTC subpoena for
CRS documents barred by speech or debate immunity and separation of
powers doctrine; CRS performs an ``essentially legislative function'').
\20\ See, Doe v. McMillan, note 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. There is some risk of assertion of copyright infringement if CRS
materials are made available online to members of the general public.
United States copyright protection is not available for U.S.
Government works.\21\ Those portions of a public document authored by
the U.S. Government are in the ``public domain''--freely and widely
available to the public without restrictions placed on their
dissemination. However, the government's inclusion of copyrighted
material in a government publication does not thrust that material into
the public domain or impair the rights of the copyright owner.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. 105.
\22\ The legislative history of the Copyright Act contains the
following statement:
The committee here observes: (1) there is nothing in section 105
that would relieve the Government of its obligation to secure
permission in order to publish a copyrighted work; and (2) publication
or other use by the Government of a private work would not affect its
copyright protection in any way. (H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d
Sess. 60 (1976)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS may incorporate preexisting material in its written responses
to congressional requests. Although such material is often from public
domain sources, in certain instances the material, appropriately
credited, may be from copyrighted sources. To the extent that the
material is copyrighted, CRS either: obtains permission for the use;
\23\ considers its information-gathering function protected by the
speech or debate clause; or believes that the use falls under the
``fair use'' doctrine of the Copyright Act \24\ as applied in the
context of the legislative process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Although CRS obtains permission to reproduce certain
copyrighted works, the permissions are generally based on legislative
use and the expectation that dissemination is limited to Members of
Congress.
\24\ Copyright Act of 1976, Act October 19, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-
553 (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 101 et seq.). See 17
U.S.C. Sec. 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exclusive rights \25\ of the copyright owner are qualified or
limited by enumerated exceptions.\26\ Unless excused by a statutory
exception, the unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is considered an
infringement. Fair use is one of the limitations on the copyright
owner's exclusive rights and may be invoked as an affirmative defense
to a claim of copyright infringement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 106, 106A.
\26\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 107-120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The copyright statute does not expressly include congressional use
of copyrighted works as a fair use. However, both the House and Senate
Reports on the Copyright Act of 1976 include the ``reproduction of a
work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports'' among examples
of fair use.\27\ The legislative history also contains an observation
that publication of copyrighted material in Congressional documents
would constitute fair use ``[w]here the length of the work or excerpt
published and the number of copies authorized are reasonable under the
circumstances, and the work itself is directly relevant to a matter of
legitimate legislative concern * * *.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 65 (1976); S.
Rep. No. 473, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 61-62 (1975) quoting REPORT OF THE
REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT
LAW, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (Comm. Print 1961) (hereafter REGISTER'S
REPORT).
\28\ See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, Id. at 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, in an infringement action, a court might regard the
publication of copyrighted material in a Congressional document for
legitimate legislative purposes as a ``fair use.'' If, however, the use
is outside of such legislative purposes, it is possible that a
traditional fair use analysis might result in liability for copyright
infringement. Wider dissemination outside the confines of Congress
would further complicate the ``fair use'' question.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Moreover, if CRS products were generally available to the
public, the construction of these products may be affected, with the
potential consequent loss when material, such as copyrighted maps or
graphs, may be withheld in the writing of the paper with the
foreknowledge that the paper could be widely disseminated and thereby
subject to different ``fair use'' guidelines than those applicable to
work for legislative use only. Therefore, public availability may
perforce shape selected CRS products so that their contents no longer
bring to bear the best information and analysis to assist Members in
their decisionmaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The copyright laws do not contain an exemption from copyright
infringement for unauthorized use of copyrighted materials by the U.S.
Government. Subsection 1498(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides
that the exclusive remedy of a copyright owner for copyright
infringement by the United States is an action against the United
States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ``for the recovery of * * *
reasonable and entire compensation * * * including the minimum
statutory damages * * *.'' Speech or debate clause immunity is not
waived under Sec. 1498(b); however, activities outside of the
legislative sphere would not be shielded from a copyright infringement
action.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ As originally enacted, Sec. 1498 applied only to suits for
patent infringement against the United States. In 1960, Congress
amended Sec. 1498 to give its consent to suits for copyright
infringement against the United States; Section 2 of Pub. L. 86-726
provided:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to in any way waive any
immunity provided for Members of Congress under article I of section 6
of the Constitution of the United States.
Section 2 was added to the House bill by Senate amendment in order
``to emphasize the fact that no immunities for Members of Congress
under article I of section 6 of the Constitution shall be waived by the
enactment of this legislation.'' See S. Rep. No. 1877, 86th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1960) as reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.A.A.N. 3444. Presumably, speech
or debate clause protection would protect Congressional use of
copyrighted material that is used to further legitimate legislative
activities that are part of the legislative processes (e.g.,
copyrighted material inserted into the Congressional Record or
congressional document). See Copyright Office Memorandum of May 26,
1958 reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.A.A.N. at 3456. Congress did not waive its
speech or debate clause immunity when it amended Sec. 1498. However,
insofar as activities outside of the legislative sphere (e.g.,
political activities or public information activities) are concerned,
it would appear that Sec. 1498(b) would not shield Congress from a
copyright infringement action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, where permission has been granted to CRS to use
copyrighted material, it has likely been based on legislative purpose
and limited to selective distribution of hardcopy by Members of
Congress. If access is broadened to wholesale release to members of the
general public, such release may be outside the scope of ``legitimate
legislative purpose.'' If a CRS product, containing substantial
copyrighted material (albeit with appropriate credit) is made available
to the general public without permission and outside the confines of
traditional fair use, liability is possible. In this regard,
distinctions can be made between the selective distribution of hardcopy
CRS products by Members and Committees and wholesale, potentially
world-wide distribution of CRS products on the Internet. Violation of
any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner may give rise to an
action for copyright infringement. Although the extent of copyright
owners' rights in the online environment is still evolving, wholesale
distribution of CRS products via the Internet--unlike the current
practice--would likely implicate copyright owners' performance and
public display rights,\31\ as a matter of direct infringement, and may
implicate rights of reproduction and public distribution \32\ either as
a matter of direct, vicarious or contributory infringement. On the
other hand, under a ``fair use'' analysis, there is likely less effect
upon the potential market of the copyright owner in the case of
selective hardcopy distribution than in the case of wholesale
distribution on the Internet. Selective distribution of hardcopy CRS
products by Members may not constitute ``publication'' in the copyright
sense.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 106(4),(5).
\32\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106(1), (3).
\33\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 101,106(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
To review, Congress has historically regarded CRS as an extension
of its own Member and committee staff. CRS' relationship with Congress
is confidential and exclusive; in order to preserve this relationship,
Congress has determined as a matter of policy that CRS products are to
be distributed to non-congressional users through congressional offices
on a selective basis. Proposals to disseminate CRS products directly to
the public would fundamentally change this longstanding congressional
policy, with potentially significant institutional and legal
consequences for CRS and current congressional operations and
practices.
______
Legal Issues Presented by Proposals for the General Release of CRS
Products to the Public--February 24, 1998
This paper considers significant legal issues implicated by
proposals involving the general release of Congressional Research
Service (CRS) products such as Reports and Issue Briefs. (Issues of
policy and technology posed by the general release of CRS products are
beyond the scope of this analysis.) Specifically, attention is given to
three pertinent legal issues, the first two involving the Speech or
Debate Clause and the third dealing with intellectual property
questions. This study assumes that CRS products would be published by
CRS itself and identifies adverse legal consequences that would result
from such publication. Publication of CRS products by the Congress
would have corresponding legal consequences but these would be
exacerbated in the case of direct public dissemination by CRS
itself.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ This study addresses, inter alia, issues relating to the
speech or debate clause that were raised in the statement of Senator
McCain upon introduction of S. 1578, 105th Cong. (providing that the
Director of CRS is to make specified CRS products, including Reports
and Issue Briefs, available on the Internet) and in a letter inserted
by Senator McCain in the Congressional Record from Stanley Brand,
former General Counsel to the House of Representatives (hereafter,
Brand letter). 144 Cong. Rec. S123-25 (daily ed. Jan. 28, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dissemination of CRS products on the Internet \35\ would not be
cloaked with constitutional immunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The Internet has been described by the Supreme Court as ``a
unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication.'' Reno
v. American Civil Liberties Union, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 2334 (1997).
Commentators have observed that ``novel and unsettled'' legal questions
are raised by cyberspace (Decisions Reflect Nature of Media, National
Law Journal, Aug. 11, 1997, at p. B8) and that in addressing the
``Internet and computer-related issues'' the courts are on ``uncharted
water.'' Though Shalt Not Trespass--Even in Cyberspace, New Jersey
Lawyer, Sept. 1, 1997, at p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members of Congress are protected by art. I, Sec. 6, cl. 1, of the
Constitution, which provides in part that ``for any speech or debate in
either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in
any other place.'' The clause performs two related functions. First, it
protects the ``independence and integrity of the legislature,'' and
second, it ``reinforce[s] the separation of powers * * *.'' \36\ The
clause ``applies not only to a Member but also to his aides insofar as
the conduct of the latter would be a protected legislative act if
performed by the Member himself.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 178 (1966)(footnote
omitted). See also United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 507 (1972).
\37\ Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 618 (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In early decisions, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause
broadly and considered it as protecting activity beyond the walls of
the chamber.\38\ However, in recent years the Court has constricted the
range of actions shielded by the constitutional provision.\39\
Beginning with its decision in 1972 in United States v. Brewster, the
Court has limited the protection of the clause to ``legislative acts.''
\40\ In that case, the Court explained that ``a legislative act has
consistently been defined as an act generally done in Congress in
relation to the business before it. In sum, the Speech or Debate Clause
prohibits inquiry only into those things generally said or done in the
House or the Senate in the performance of official duties and into the
motivation for those acts.'' \41\ In another frequently quoted
description of the scope of the privilege, the Court declared that, in
addition to actual speech or debate in either House, the clause applies
only to acts which are ``an integral part of the deliberative and
communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and
House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or
rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters
which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either
House.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 180 (1966);
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 203-04 (1880).
\39\ For a detailed historical review of the restricted reading
placed upon the clause by the courts, see Walker, Constitutional Law:
Narrowing the Scope of Speech or Debate Clause Immunity, 68 Temple L.
Rev. 377 (1995).
\40\ 408 U.S. 501, 509 (1972).
\41\ Id. at 512.
\42\ Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Brewster, the Court distinguished protected legislative acts
from a range of activity described as ``entirely legitimate'' but
unprotected by speech or debate immunity because it was considered to
be ``political in nature.'' \43\ In several cases of relevance to the
applicability of speech or debate immunity to the general public
distribution of CRS products, the Court has relied on the dichotomy
established in Brewster to hold that congressional activities intended
to inform the general public are outside the scope of the speech or
debate clause.\44\ Thus, the Court has held that the clause did not
protect a Member from liability for allegedly defamatory remarks in
newsletters and press releases based almost entirely on the Member's
statement to the Senate, which had appeared in the Congressional
Record.\45\ The Court has further held that the clause did not preclude
a grand jury from questioning a Member's aide in regard to possible
criminal liability for arranging for the private publication of the
Pentagon Papers, which previously had been inserted by the Member in a
subcommittee hearing record.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 408 U.S. at 512.
\44\ In dicta in Brewster, the Court indicated that newsletters to
constituents, news releases, and speeches delivered outside of Congress
would not be protected by speech or debate immunity. Id.
\45\ Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979). See also Chastain
v. Sundquist, 833 F.2d 311 (D.C.Cir. 1987) (Member's press release and
communications to executive branch not protected by speech or debate
immunity or common law official immunity), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1240
(1988). In a recent ruling in a defamation suit based on a Member's
statement in a television interview concerning the status of an
appropriations bill, speech or debate immunity was not available but
the Member successfully invoked a statutory mechanism (28 U.S.C.
Sec. 2679 (Westfall Act)) providing for substitution of the United
States as the defendant. Williams v. United States, 71 F.3d 502 (5th
Cir. 1995).
\46\ Gravel, 408 U.S. at 609-10, 622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps most importantly, in Doe v. McMillan, a suit filed against,
inter alia, various Members, their staffs and consultants, the Public
Printer, and the Superintendent of Documents, seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages based on the publication of an official
committee report that included material alleged to invade plaintiffs'
privacy, in an opinion written by Justice White, the Court held that
individuals ``such as the Superintendent of Documents or the Public
Printer or legislative personnel, who participate in distribution of
[legally] actionable material beyond the reasonable bounds of the
legislative task, enjoy no speech or debate clause immunity.'' \47\
Justice Douglas, in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Brennan and
Marshall, would have extended speech or debate immunity to ``a
legislator's function in informing the public'' because that task ``is
essential to maintaining our representative democracy.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 412 U.S. 306, 315, 324 (1973). However, the Court held that
the actions of the Members, their staffs, and consultants in preparing
the report and ordering that it be printed were protected by speech or
debate immunity. Id. at 313.
\48\ Id. at 328. Justice Blackmun, in an opinion concurring in part
and dissenting in part that was joined by Chief Justice Burger,
considered the informing function to be ``an essential attribute of an
effective Legislative Branch,'' and believed that the opinion of the
Court effectively curtailed that function and thereby violated ``the
historical tradition signified textually by the speech or debate clause
and underlying our doctrine of separation of powers.'' Id. at 334. The
suggestion in Justice Douglas's concurrence that speech or debate
immunity should protect the informing function has not been adopted by
the Court in subsequent cases. In fact, in Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443
U.S. at 130, the majority opinion approved the views expressed in
Justice White's opinion for the Court in McMillan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court in McMillan remanded for a determination as to whether
the extent of distribution by the Public Printer and the Superintendent
of Documents had exceeded ``the legitimate legislative needs of
Congress, and hence the limits of immunity.'' \49\ On the remand, after
a detailed factual inquiry which revealed that there had been quite
limited public distribution of the report, the lower courts upheld the
claim of immunity as to the Public Printer and Superintendent of
Documents.\50\ The court of appeals on the remand expressly reserved
the question of the availability of immunity ``in a case where
distribution was more extensive, was specially promoted, was made in
response to specific requests rather than standing orders, or continued
for a period after notice of objections was received.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 412 U.S. at 324-25.
\50\ 374 F. Supp. 1313 (D.D.C. 1974), aff'd, 566 F.2d 713 (D.C.Cir.
1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 969 (1978). Based on affidavits submitted
by the Public Printer, other material in the record, and a memorandum
of the Public Printer filed upon appeal of the district court's ruling,
``it was determined that in addition to 2,557 copies of the report
distributed within the Congress and its staff, 796 copies were
distributed to various federal government agencies based on statutory
requirements and standing orders. Another 796 copies were retained in a
security cage [and were not distributed because of the litigation]. * *
* About 54 `extra' copies were retained by the Printer for internal use
and for distribution in case of spoilage.'' 566 F.2d at 715. Apparently
the only copies distributed outside the federal government were
approximately 172 of the 796 copies that had been distributed to
various federal agencies. Specifically, ``about 92 copies were
distributed to members of the public who maintained standing orders for
all committee reports'' and ``about 80 copies were automatically
delivered to foreign legations with standing orders for all committee
reports under 44 U.S.C. Sec. 1717 * * *.'' Id. at 716.
\51\ Id. at 718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the caselaw reviewed above, the dissemination to the general
public of CRS products--by CRS \52\ or by Members and/or their aides
\53\--would not be considered a legislative act \54\ but would be
viewed by the courts as an exercise of Congress' representational
function, for which speech or debate immunity is not available.\55\
Those engaged in public distribution of CRS products, as well as CRS
analysts who prepare the products, may be vulnerable to a variety of
judicial and administrative proceedings. In such actions, litigants
might seek, for purposes of discovery, the files of CRS analysts or
litigants might ask for damages \56\ or injunctive relief barring
further distribution of a particular report or issue brief.\57\
Litigants might also claim damages in suits alleging copyright
infringement. It would seem that these kinds of actions would be more
likely to occur as a result of widespread electronic dissemination to
the general public of CRS products than from limited distribution
(common under current practice) by a congressional office of a single
hard copy of a particular CRS Report or Issue Brief to a constituent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. at 318 (immunity of
Superintendent of Public Documents and of Public Printer was
coextensive with that of Members of Congress whom they served).
\53\ Under the Court's holding in Gravel, 408 U.S. at 618, speech
or debate immunity applies to a Member's aide ``insofar as the conduct
of the * * * [aide] would be a protected legislative act if performed
by the Member himself.''
\54\ In determining whether the extent of distribution exceeds the
legislative needs of Congress, and thus is outside the bounds of speech
or debate immunity, the courts may consider various factors relating to
the distribution, including the number of copies circulated and the
purposes for which they were circulated. See Doe v. McMillan, 374 F.
Supp. 1313 (D.D.C. 1974), aff'd, 566 F. 2d 713 (D.C.Cir. 1977), cert.
denied, 435 U.S. 969 (1978).
\55\ In his remarks upon the introduction of S. 1578, Senator
McCain observed that, by providing for the dissemination of CRS
research products via the Internet, Members would be fulfilling their
role of informing the public. Senator McCain recognized that an issue
exists as to the applicability of speech or debate immunity to
exercises of the informing function. 144 Cong. Rec., supra note 1, at
S123.
\56\ See Doe v. McMillan, supra (invasion of privacy).
\57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been suggested that speech or debate clause concerns raised
by legislation providing for the dissemination of certain CRS products
via the Internet might be addressed by including in such legislation
language stating that ``nothing herein shall be deemed or considered to
diminish, qualify, condition, waive, or otherwise affect applicability
of the Constitution's speech or debate clause, or any other privilege
available to Congress, its agencies or their employees, to any CRS
product made available on the Internet under this bill.'' \58\ The
effect of the suggested language is uncertain. (1) Would the courts
characterize the language as ``self-serving'' and disregard it? (2)
Even if not disregarded, would the effect of the language be to deny
immunity to the dissemination of CRS products on the Internet? The
suggested language would not immunize CRS products but would simply
seek to have the courts treat ``any CRS product made available on the
Internet'' in the same way that they would treat any other information
disseminated by Congress or its agents to the general public--i.e., as
unprotected.\59\ (3) Because the proposed language applies only to CRS
products made available on the Internet, would it have any impact on
concerns with regard to the effect of dissemination of Service products
to the general public on attempts to gain access to CRS files? \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The Brand letter proposes that the quoted language be included
in S. 1578, 105th Cong. See note 1, supra.
\59\ See notes 11-18 and accompanying text, supra.
\60\ See pp. 5-8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Public dissemination of CRS products might jeopardize the
confidentiality of CRS files and hamper a claim of constitutional
immunity by CRS.
Extensive distribution of CRS products to the general population
would increase public awareness of the research and analysis prepared
by the Service for Congress and could thereby intensify efforts by
litigants to obtain, for purposes of discovery, the files of CRS
analysts who prepare the products. These discovery attempts might seek
not only information and data used to develop CRS Reports and Issue
Briefs but also related material from the files.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See In the Matter of Exxon Corporation, et al., FTC Docket No.
8934, Application of November 6, 1978, at p. 18 (at request of
respondents in agency proceeding, FTC administrative law judge issued
subpoena seeking discovery of, inter alia, CRS ``reports on the oil
industry in connection with House and Senate subcommittee studies of
the oil industry and in connection with congressional preparation of
bills relating to energy matters''), subsequent ruling, In re Exxon
Corporation, 95 F.T.C. 919 (1980); Chapman v. Space Qualified Systems
Corp., 647 F. Supp. 551, 552 (N.D.Fla. 1986) (seeking discovery from
GAO investigator of various materials, including ``all working
documents'' related to a GAO investigation conducted at the request of
a congressional committee, executive branch inspector general reports
provided to GAO, and communications to GAO from Congress or
congressional staff). See also Smith v. IRS, No. 3778-89 (Tax Ct. 1990)
(litigants obtained subpoena calling for the testimony of an attorney
in the American Law Division of CRS and for the production of
background materials used by the attorney in preparing a memorandum for
a Member of the Senate). It might be noted that, with some frequency,
litigants are seeking in discovery not only documents and depositions
from congressional support agencies but also from Members of Congress
and congressional staff. See, e.g., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v.
Williams, 62 F.3d 408 (D.C.Cir. 1995); In the Matter of the
Applications of the City of El Paso, Texas, 887 F.2d 1103 (D.C. Cir.
1989); Minpeco, S.A. v. Conticommodity Services, Inc., 844 F.2d 856
(D.C.Cir. 1988); Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524 (9th
Cir. 1983); United Transportation Union v. Springfield Terminal Ry.,
132 F.R.D. 4, 6 (D.Me. 1990) (litigant who had previously engaged in
``sweeping discovery,'' including depositions from, and document
production by, House and Senate aides, also sought internal
congressional communications); Common Cause v. Bolger, 574 F. Supp.
672, 673-74 (D.D.C. 1982) (three-judge court), aff'd mem., 461 U.S. 911
(1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The speech or debate clause may provide a valid defense in such
discovery proceedings if the subject of the proceedings is a protected
legislative act.\62\ However, even in instances in which CRS succeeded
in defending against such discovery efforts, such litigation would
place a significant burden on congressional resources \63\ and could
make judges the arbiters of disputes concerning the confidentiality of
communications between CRS and Congress.\64\ Claims of speech or debate
immunity would be subject to judicial review \65\ which might include
in camera inspection of material as to which a claim of privilege is
made \66\ and segregation of protected from non-protected material.\67\
Such judicial screening of legislative branch materials arguably
impinges upon the interest in confidentiality served by the speech or
debate clause.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See, e.g., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., supra (exercise
of Congress' investigative power). The speech or debate clause has been
held to be a valid defense in an attempt to obtain access to CRS
materials prepared to aid Congress in considering legislation. See In
Re Exxon Corporation, supra. The role of the speech or debate clause as
a defense in such litigation is discussed in the Brand letter, supra
note 1.
\63\ In actions in which litigants have sought access to its files,
CRS has generally been represented by the Office of Senate Legal
Counsel or the House General Counsel. For example, in Smith v. IRS,
supra, the CRS employee involved was represented by the Senate Legal
Counsel pursuant to S. Res. 291, 101st Cong.
\64\ See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d 589 (3d Cir.
1978); United States v. Eilberg, 507 F. Supp. 267 (E.D.Pa. 1980).
\65\ In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703-05 (1974), the
Court rejected the President's contention that the separation of powers
doctrine barred judicial review of a claim of executive privilege, and
in support of judicial authority in such a case the Court cited several
speech or debate clause cases in which it had interpreted the immunity
of Members. Id. at 704, citing Doe v. McMillan; Gravel; Brewster; and
Johnson.
\66\ ``Courts have conducted in camera hearings, with participation
by adverse parties, to determine whether materials subpoenaed from
Members of Congress were within the speech or debate privilege.''
Raveson, Unmasking the Motives of Government Decisionmakers, 63
N.C.L.Rev. 879, 968 n.523 (1985) (citing In Re Grand Jury
Investigation, 587 F.2d 589, 596-97 (3d Cir. 1978); In Re Possible
Violations of 18 U.S.C. 201, 371, 491 F. Supp. 211, 213-14 (D.D.C.
1980)). The Brand letter, supra note 1, states that in camera review is
not routinely used by the courts to settle disputes concerning the
applicability of speech or debate immunity. If in camera review is
employed relatively infrequently, congressional concern over the
judiciary's use of this technique may be alleviated but not eliminated.
The case of Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 98 F.R.D. 42
(D.Md. 1983), was cited in a previous CRS discussion of the possibility
of in camera inspection of material when a claim of privilege is
raised. The Brand letter comments that in camera inspection of House
documents was not ordered by the court in that case. It is correct that
the court did not order such an inspection. However, in denying a
congressional committee's motion to intervene to obtain a protective
order from a litigant's subpoena seeking in discovery material as to
which speech or debate immunity was claimed, the district court stated
that it ``should examine the relevant documents * * * in camera * *
*.'' Id. at 45 n.2. (The opinion in Benford is convoluted because of
the procedural complexity of the lengthy litigation involved. However,
the court's position with regard to in camera review is clarified by a
subsequent ruling in the same litigation, in an opinion by the same
judge. Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 565 F. Supp. 139, 141
(D.Md. 1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. In Re Guthrie, 733 F.2d
634 (4th Cir. 1984). In that subsequent ruling, the court expressly
reserved ``the right to examine in camera'' documents as to which a
claim of speech or debate privilege was raised. Id. at 143.)
\67\ The Court in Nixon upheld the authority of the district court
to segregate privileged material (to be returned to the President) from
material that would be admissible in the judicial proceedings for which
they had been subpoenaed. 418 U.S. at 714-16. Segregation of protected
from non-protected material has also been upheld in the speech or
debate context. See, e.g., United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477,
488 n.7 (1979).
\68\ See generally Evidentiary Implications of the Speech or Debate
Clause, 88 Yale L.J. 1280, 1286-87 n.30 (1979). The courts are divided
on the question of whether the speech or debate clause was intended to
ensure confidentiality for legislators. Compare Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d at 420 with In re Grand Jury
Investigation, 587 F.2d at 597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, there is no assurance that CRS would prevail in
litigating such matters. Two concerns might be highlighted. The first
stems from the mix in CRS files which commonly include, inter alia,
material from research sources in the public domain, confidential CRS
memoranda for Congress, and communications between Congress and the
Service. Because the information contained in the different types of
documents in a particular CRS subject file is superficially similar,
and because the Service's work for Congress is cumulative in nature
(i.e., a CRS Report often builds upon the general analysis developed in
response to specific requests from Members and congressional
staff),\69\ there may be a risk that a court would not precisely
differentiate among the types of documents and would grant litigants
access not only to publicly available information but also to
confidential communications between the Service and congressional
offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ For example, an analyst may prepare a CRS Report on the
economic implications of a tax cut on the basis of, inter alia,
academic studies on the subject and some of the general factual
information and analysis that had been included in a confidential
memorandum previously prepared for a Member of the Ways and Means
Committee who requested an assessment of a draft bill. Of course,
because of the confidential relationship of CRS with its congressional
clients, none of the specific analysis of the draft bill included in
that memorandum would appear in, or be reflected, in the CRS Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second concern arises from the fact that, in previous instances
in which CRS has been involved in litigation or agency proceedings, the
judicial or agency decision has emphasized that CRS performs a
legislative function and that its staff functions as an adjunct of
Member and committee staff.\70\ With wider dissemination of CRS
products to the general public, this longstanding perception of the
Service and the nature of its communications to the Congress could be
altered, eventually putting at risk speech or debate protection for the
Service's confidential work. In other words, extensive involvement by
CRS in the direct public information function could lead courts and
administrative agencies to reconsider their perception of CRS as
playing a significant and unique support role in the legislative
process, and thus some day might hamper a claim of immunity even in an
instance in which CRS was fulfilling its legislative function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See Webster v. Sun Oil, 731 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir. 1984) and 790
F.2d 157 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (communications to CRS analyst are within
scope of common law privilege for communications to a legislative
body); Smith v. IRS, No. 3778-89 (Tax Ct. 1990) (protecting from
compulsory process background materials used by CRS staff in preparing
reports and memoranda for Members); In re Exxon Corporation, 95 F.T.C.
919 (1980) (FTC subpoena for CRS documents barred by speech or debate
immunity and separation of powers doctrine; CRS performs an
``essentially legislative function''). Cf. Browning v. Clerk, U.S.
House of Representatives, 789 F.2d 923, 929 (D.C.Cir.) (personnel
actions held to be protected by speech or debate immunity if the
``employee's duties were directly related to the due functioning of the
legislative process'') (emphasis in the original), cert. denied, 479
U.S. 996 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. There is some risk of assertion of copyright infringement if CRS
materials are made available on-line to members of the general public.
CRS may incorporate preexisting material in its written responses
to congressional requests. Although such material is often from public
domain sources,\71\ in certain instances the material may be from
copyrighted sources.\72\ To the extent that the material is
copyrighted, CRS either: obtains permission for the use; \73\ considers
its information-gathering function protected by the speech or debate
clause; \74\ or believes that the intended use falls under the ``fair
use'' doctrine of the Copyright Act.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ For example, prior CRS Reports; other government publications.
\72\ CRS's uses of copyrighted material are appropriately credited.
\73\ Although CRS obtains permission to reproduce certain
copyrighted works, the permissions are generally based on legislative
use and do not explicitly cover electronic dissemination.
\74\ U.S. Const., art. 1, Sec. 6, cl. 1. Speech or debate clause
protection extends to activities within the sphere of legitimate
legislative activity (generally considered to be matters that are an
integral part of the deliberative process by which members participate
in legislative proceedings) rather than activities that are
representational or political in nature. When CRS performs a
legislative function, the speech or debate clause shield provides
protection from copyright infringement claims. See CRS's purposes and
duties as set forth in 2 U.S.C. Sec. 166(d); see also Webster v. Sun
Oil, supra n.27.
\75\ Copyright Act of 1976, Act October 19, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-
553 (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 101 et seq.). Fair use
is a judicial doctrine codified for the first time in the Copyright
Act. See 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107. Although the Act does not define ``fair
use,'' the Act lists four illustrative factors, based on prior case
law, to be considered when determining whether a use made of a work is
a fair use: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and
substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work
as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for
or value of the copyrighted work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States copyright protection is not available for U.S.
Government works.\76\ Those portions of a public document authored by
the U.S. Government are in the ``public domain''--freely and widely
available to the public without restrictions placed on their
dissemination. However, the government's inclusion of copyrighted
material in a government publication does not thrust that material into
the public domain or impair the rights of the copyright owner.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. 105. Sec. 101 defines a ``work of the United
States Government'' as ``a work prepared by an officer or employee of
the United States Government as part of that person's official
duties.'' While works of the U.S. Government are not protected under
U.S. copyright laws, protection may be available under the statutes of
certain other countries.
\77\ The legislative history of the Copyright Act contains the
following statement:
The committee here observes: (1) there is nothing in section 105
that would relieve the Government of its obligation to secure
permission in order to publish a copyrighted work; and (2) publication
or other use by the Government of a private work would not affect its
copyright protection in any way. (H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d
Sess. 60 (1976).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exclusive rights \78\ of the copyright owner are qualified or
limited by enumerated exceptions.\79\ Unless excused by a statutory
exception, the unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is considered an
infringement. Fair use is one of the limitations on the copyright
owner's exclusive rights and may be invoked as an affirmative defense
to a claim of copyright infringement.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 106, 106A.
\79\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 107-120.
\80\ A bright-line approach to fair use is difficult if not
impossible; courts examine the fair use defense on a case-by-case
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The copyright statute does not expressly include congressional use
of copyrighted works as a fair use. However, both the House and Senate
Reports on the Copyright Act of 1976 include the ``reproduction of a
work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports'' among examples
of fair use.\81\ The legislative history also contains an observation
that publication of copyrighted material in Congressional documents
would constitute fair use ``[w]here the length of the work or excerpt
published and the number of copies authorized are reasonable under the
circumstances, and the work itself is directly relevant to a matter of
legitimate legislative concern * * *.'' \82\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 65 (1976); S.
Rep. No. 473, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 61-62 (1975) quoting REPORT OF THE
REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT
LAW, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (Comm. Print 1961) (hereafter REGISTER'S
REPORT).
\82\ See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, Id. at 73. A ``matter of legitimate
legislative concern'' is not defined. In a speech or debate clause
context, protection extends to activities within the sphere of
legitimate legislative activity which is generally considered to be
matters that are an integral part of the deliberative and communicative
processes by which members participate in legislative proceedings. Such
matters are distinguished from those activities that are political in
nature and further interests distinct from legislative responsibility.
See Gravel v. United States, supra n.2; United States v. Brewster,
supra n.1. The republication of intra-Congressional material outside
Congress has been held not to be a protected legislative activity. See
Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., supra n.21; Hutchinson v.
Proxmire, supra n.10 at 127-28 (1979). Although obtaining information
pertinent to potential legislation is one of the ``things generally
done in a session of the House'' concerning matters within the
``legitimate legislative sphere'' (see Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S.
168, 204 (1881)), Congress's ``informing function'' protected by the
speech or debate clause as part of the legislative function is that of
informing itself about subjects susceptible to legislation, not that of
informing the public. See Hutchinson v. Proxmire, at 132-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an infringement action, a court might regard the publication of
copyrighted material in a Congressional document for legitimate
legislative purposes as a ``fair use.'' If, however, the use is outside
of such legislative purposes, it is possible that a traditional fair
use analysis might result in liability for copyright infringement.
Wider dissemination outside the confine of Congress would further
complicate the ``fair use'' question. While courts appear to be
applying the same fair use analysis in infringement actions involving
the electronic environment as in more traditional environments, the
application of fair use in the electronic environment is still
developing.
The copyright laws do not contain an exemption from copyright
infringement for unauthorized use of copyrighted materials by the U.S.
Government. Subsection 1498(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides
that the exclusive remedy of a copyright owner for copyright
infringement by the United States is an action against the United
States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ``for the recovery of * * *
reasonable and entire compensation * * * including the minimum
statutory damages * * *.'' \83\ Speech or debate clause immunity is not
waived under Sec. 1498(b); however, activities outside of the
legislative sphere would not be shielded from a copyright infringement
action.\84\ The one case interpreting Sec. 1498(b) narrowly construed
the governmental waiver--relying on general construction of such
waivers and on prior interpretation of a similar provision.\85\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Damages are limited to ``reasonable and entire compensation.''
The available remedies do not include the other remedies for
infringement available under the Copyright Act against infringing
parties such as: injunctions; impoundment and disposition of the
infringing articles; recovery of full costs and attorney's fees.
The subsection provides that before such an infringement action is
instituted, ``the head of the appropriate department or agency of the
Government, as the case may be, is authorized to enter into an
agreement with the copyright owner in full settlement and compromise
for the damages accruing to him by reason of such infringement and to
settle the claim administratively out of available appropriations.''
\84\ As originally enacted, Sec. 1498 applied only to suits for
patent infringement against the United States. In 1960, Congress
amended Sec. 1498 to give its consent to suits for copyright
infringement against the United States; Section 2 of Pub. L. 86-726
provided: Nothing in this Act shall be construed to in any way waive
any immunity provided for Members of Congress under article I of
section 6 of the Constitution of the United States.
Section 2 was added to the House bill by Senate amendment in order
``to emphasize the fact that no immunities for Members of Congress
under article I of section 6 of the Constitution shall be waived by the
enactment of this legislation.'' See S. Rep. No. 1877, 86th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1960) as reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.A.A.N. 3444. Presumably, speech
or debate clause protection would protect Congressional use of
copyrighted material that is used to further legitimate legislative
activities that are part of the legislative processes (e.g.,
copyrighted material inserted into the Congressional Record or
congressional document). See Copyright Office Memorandum of May 26,
1958 reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.A.A.N. at 3456. Congress did not waive its
speech or debate clause immunity when it amended Sec. 1498. However,
insofar as activities outside of the legislative sphere (e.g.,
political activities) are concerned, it would appear as if Sec. 1498(b)
would not shield Congress from a copyright infringement action.
\85\ Auerbach v. Sverdrup Corp., 829 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
(holding that the government only waives immunity under Sec. 1498(b)
for third-party infringements that are authorized or consented to by
the government rather than for any copyright infringement that a third
party may choose to undertake). The Auerbach case, relying on the
legislative history of this provision, is the sole case construing
Sec. 1498(b). Sec. 1498(a), the sister provision waiving immunity for
patent infringements, has been interpreted more often--courts holding
that such waiver is limited to direct governmental infringement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The protection of intellectual property rights in the information
age and the balance between copyright owners' exclusive rights to
control the uses of their creative works and the public's right of fair
use of and access to copyrighted works are being addressed by Congress
\86\ and the courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ In December 1996, the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) adopted two new intellectual property treaties--the WIPO
Copyright and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaties. The Copyright
Treaty covers copyright protection for computer programs and for
databases as intellectual works, and uses of copyrighted works in
digital electronic environments, including transmissions over the
Internet. The Administration's treaty implementation bills (S. 1121 and
H.R. 2281) were introduced at the end of July 1997. Alternative WIPO
implementation bills (S. 1146 and H.R. 2180) also address additional
Internet policies issues. See U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional
Research Service. World Intellectual Property Organization Performances
and Phonograms Treaty: An Overview (CRS Report for Congress 97-523A);
and U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Online
Service Provider Copyright Liability: Analysis and Discussion of H.R.
2180 and S. 1146 (CRS Report for Congress 97-950A). See also H.R. 3048,
introduced in November 1997, which implements the WIPO treaties and
updates United States copyright laws to accommodate the developments of
digital technology (addressing, e.g., ``fair use,'' ``first sale,'' and
distance learning). H.R. 2652, the ``Collections of Information
Antipiracy Act'' would create sui generis protection, distinct from
copyright protection, for collections of facts, data or works of
authorship. Government collections of information are excluded.
Exceptions address acts such as the extraction of insubstantial parts
of collections of information; independent gathering of information;
non-profit educational, scientific or research uses; and extraction for
news reporting. The bill responds to the Supreme Court's decision in
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
which held that comprehensive collections of facts arranged in
conventional formats were not protected and could not be
constitutionally protected under copyright. For an overview of
legislative proposals introduced in the 104th Congress, see U.S.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Copyright
Proposals for the National Information Infrastructure (CRS Report for
Congress 95-1166A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, where permission has been granted to CRS to use
copyrighted material, it has likely been based on legislative purpose
and limited to the print (rather than the electronic) environment.
If access is broadened to members of the general public,
congressional release may be outside the scope of ``legitimate
legislative purpose.'' In such cases, a traditional fair use analysis
may not provide an affirmative defense to an infringement action and
liability could attach.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Liability, however, would be limited by the exclusive remedies
provided for in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1498(b). Copyright owners may not wish
to assume the costs associated with Sec. 1498(b) litigation in light of
the limited damages that are available under this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The copyright law is intended to foster the creation and
dissemination of intellectual works for the public welfare and to
reward authors for their contribution to society. Striking a fair
balance between the authors' exclusive rights to control the
dissemination of their works and the public interest \88\ is ever more
challenging in the electronic environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ REGISTER'S REPORT, supra n.39 at 6:
Within reasonable limits, the interests of authors coincide with
those of the public. Both will usually benefit from the widest possible
dissemination of the author's works. But it is often cumbersome for
would-be users to seek out the copyright owner and get his permission.
There are many situations in which copyright restrictions would inhibit
dissemination, with little or no benefit to the author. And the
interests of authors must yield to the public welfare where they
conflict. * * * While some limitations and conditions on copyright are
essential in the public interest, they should not be so burdensome and
strict as to deprive authors of their just reward * * *.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public interest in dissemination of government documents must be
weighed against the legitimate governmental purposes that are served in
the Government's exercise of due diligence in not infringing copyrights
(e.g., restricting the public's use of proprietary information
incorporated in a government document). Although it may be possible to
limit liability to some extent by taking certain diligent measures,\89\
some degree of liability may continue to exist. There is some risk of
assertion of copyright infringement if CRS materials containing
proprietary material (and intended to support congressional needs) are
made available on a wholesale basis on-line to members of the general
public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ For example, notifying the public that although there are no
restrictions on the replication of CRS materials--copyrighted materials
contained therein may not be used without permission of the copyright
owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Memorandum
February 24, 1998.
Subject: Immunity Issues Related to Dissemination by Members of
Material on Their Home Pages
From: Jay R. Shampansky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division
The Supreme Court recently described the Internet as ``a unique and
wholly new medium of worldwide human communication.'' \90\ Cyberspace
is new technology which raises ``novel and unsettled'' legal
questions.\91\ This memorandum provides a brief overview of some of the
major immunity issues potentially raised in a case in which a Member
uses his home page to disseminate materials (e.g., legislative
documents, legislative agency products, executive branch reports,
information about state governments, press releases, newspaper and
magazine articles) to the general public or to provide links to other
Web sites. The same basic legal issues discussed below may be presented
when Members use means other than their home pages to disseminate
information to the general public. However, the potential for liability
may be increased when documents are circulated on the Web because of
the vast audience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 2334
(1997).
\91\ Decisions Reflect Nature of Media, National Law Journal, Aug.
11, 1997, at p. B8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speech or Debate Clause Immunity
Dissemination of material via the Internet would not be cloaked
with constitutional speech or debate clause immunity.\92\ The Supreme
Court in recent years has narrowed its interpretation of the speech or
debate clause so as to limit its protection to ``legislative acts.''
\93\ Dissemination by a Member of material on the Internet would not be
considered a legislative act, but would be viewed as an exercise of
Congress' informing function, for which constitutional immunity is not
available. In the absence of constitutional immunity, a Member and/or
his aides engaged in public distribution of materials would be
vulnerable to a variety of proceedings in which plaintiffs might seek
damages or injunctive relief barring further distribution of a
particular document.\94\ Litigants might also claim damages in suits
alleging defamation or copyright infringement, or they might seek
discovery of documents from congressional files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Art. I, Sec. 6, cl. 1.
\93\ United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 509 (1972). See also
Walker, Constitutional Law: Narrowing the Scope of Speech or Debate
Clause Immunity, 68 Temple L. Rev. 377 (1995).
\94\ See, e.g., Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973), a suit filed
against various Members, their staffs and consultants, the Public
Printer, and the Superintendent of Public Documents, seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief and damages based on the publication
and distribution of an official committee report that included material
alleged to invade plaintiffs' privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Possible Defenses
In some cases defenses other than the speech or debate clause may
be raised. Of course, the defenses asserted will depend on the
particulars of a case. Two of the major defenses are sketched below.
Absolute and qualified immunity.--In several cases, Members have
argued that although certain official communications (such as with the
press and constituents) are not protected by the speech or debate
clause, they are nonetheless shielded by the judicially-created
absolute and qualified immunity doctrines available in certain
circumstances to executive branch officials. Such a claim of immunity
by a Member in a defamation action was rejected in the leading case of
Chastain v. Sundquist,\95\ in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit found that this immunity would not be
warranted in light of Supreme Court treatment of suits against Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ 833 F.2d 311 (D.C.Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1240
(1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Westfall Act.--The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort
Compensation Act,\96\ commonly referred to as the Westfall Act, allows
for the substitution of the United States for individual federal
employees in certain tort suits and provides for immunity for the
defendant employees. However, the immunity afforded by the Westfall Act
is of limited scope. (1) It applies only to common law torts (e.g.,
defamation), not to actions alleging violation of constitutional or
statutory rights. (2) The immunity only affects a suit for money
damages. It does not preclude a suit seeking injunctive or other
equitable relief against the United States or an individual federal
employee. Thus, it would not bar a suit to enjoin distribution of
material on a Member's home page. (3) Application of the act is
contingent upon certification by the Attorney General that the
defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or
employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose.
Although it appears that Members are covered by the Westfall Act, it is
uncertain to what extent the act may apply to Members' communications
with the public. In Williams v. United States,\97\ it was held that the
defendant Member ``was acting within the scope of his employment * * *
at the time he allegedly made defamatory statements * * * [about the
plaintiff] during a television interview * * *.'' The Member's comments
concerned the status of an appropriations bill.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Pub. L. No. 100-694, 102 Stat. 4563 (1988), 28 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1346(b), 2671-80.
\97\ 71 F.3d 502, 503 (5th Cir. 1995).
\98\ The Westfall Act was recently successfully invoked in a
Member's defense of a defamation action based on remarks he had made to
the media in regard to pending legislation. Operation Rescue National
v. United States, 975 F. Supp. 92 (D.Mass. 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Memorandum
February 25, 1998.
Subject: Estimate of financial costs of implementing bills which would
require publication of certain CRS products on the Internet.
From: Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director
This memorandum is a response to congressional requests for an
estimate of the costs CRS would incur in implementing legislation (S.
1578 and H.R. 3131) which would require the Director of CRS to make
various specified CRS products available to the general public on the
Internet.
This estimate is based on three major components: costs of meeting
technological requirements for implementation; costs of handling
increased direct contacts with the general public; and costs resulting
from changes in the number and type of congressional requests for CRS
services. Before proceeding to the estimate, however, it is important
to summarize explicitly the premises and the framework on which this
analysis is based, as well as certain limitations resulting from the
nature of the issues presented.
First, certain significant costs associated with the bills--indeed
the most significant ones in terms of CRS' continued ability to serve
the Congress efficiently and effectively--cannot be quantified and thus
are not included in these estimates. Important costs of this type
include the possible loss of Speech or Debate protection for CRS'
confidential communications to Members. Another significant non-
quantifiable cost is the loss to the Congress and the nation resulting
from the diminution of the role of Members as direct providers to their
constituents of information about legislative proposals. Yet another
cost of the proposal appears likely to be long-term and not readily
measured: the shift in the mission of CRS, from serving the Congress
directly and exclusively by meeting evolving congressional needs
throughout the legislative process to serving broader, more diffused
objectives, including preparing products informative to and suitable
for the general public.
Second, certain of the cost estimates which we have prepared must
be regarded as somewhat speculative, inasmuch as CRS has no previous
experience dealing with large-scale direct dissemination of its
products to the public and thus cannot readily anticipate the behavior
of Members and the public under such circumstances. (It is reasonable
and prudent, however, to anticipate that wholesale dissemination on the
Internet would vastly increase the circulation of CRS products over the
volume that circulates to the public under the current policy of
selective dissemination by Members). This analysis presents the
assumptions on which the estimates are based. We believe these
assumptions are consistent with very conservative cost estimates and
that actual financial costs could be substantially greater, perhaps on
the order of multiples of estimated amounts. The estimating approach
used throughout assumes that we would maintain current services to the
Congress, except for the attending, non-quantifiable reductions in the
quality and character of service noted in the previous paragraph.
Third, we have not undertaken an analysis of all possible options
which might be available to CRS in implementing these bills. Instead,
we have limited ourselves to what we currently regard as our most
feasible course of action, based upon the need to maximize the use of
our resources in directly supporting congressional legislative needs,
as well as the importance of complying with the language and intent of
the bills. If these bills were enacted, CRS management would
necessarily conduct a thorough examination to develop options and
strategies for implementation. Based upon our review to date, however,
we believe any alternative approaches would likely be accompanied by
substantial financial costs.
Costs of Technological Requirements for Implementation
We currently provide CRS products to the Congress via the Web in
several ways: (1) as electronic documents in HTML format that allows
congressional users to move from CRS products to other continually
updated information sources (e.g., Bill Digest); (2) as electronic
documents (HTML) that link to each other and to static sites and
references; and, (3) as stand-alone products displayed in PDF format
for viewing, downloading, and printing.
All CRS issue briefs, and 13 appropriations reports are displayed
on the Web in both PDF and HTML formats. An additional 200 to 300 CRS
reports that are also available via the Web are in PDF format only.
(These reports are replaced and updated to reflect changing legislative
developments). The PDF version is ``stand alone'' and does not ``link''
out to other documents or places; the HTML version on the other hand is
really an electronic road map that links to other documents and sites
within and outside of CRS.
A challenge in providing the public with the HTML version of CRS
products is the 30-day delay contained in the bills. While we are
withholding the HTML document from distribution, the status of the
legislation discussed is marching ahead and the bill status
``connection'' is faithfully recording its progress. Thirty days later
the HTML document is made available, linked to the status site, and is
``still'' discussing the situation as it existed 30 days earlier while
the link now reflects current information such as the status of
legislation today.
The only format that is common to all CRS Web products is PDF. This
is the prime format for the 200 to 300 ``flat'' reports we maintain on
the Web, and is also an alternative format we offer for issue briefs
and the appropriations papers. Our PDF documents have no internal
links: they are facsimiles of the hard copy. The PDF format has certain
features that could be used in implementing the bills. PDF displays
documents as they appear in print, and includes all tables, charts,
graphs, and pictures. This format prints at remote locations, and can
be viewed using free Adobe software now in wide use. At this time, the
PDF format of our Web products is the one we could offer the public in
the event the bills were enacted. A limitation of making a commitment
to the PDF format, however, would be reduced flexibility in developing
products for the Congress whose usefulness might depend on live links
to sources which could not be made available to the public such as
subscription data bases and full texts of copyrighted sources.
In implementing the bills we would distribute the designated CRS
products in a PDF format from the CRS public Web site. The 30-day delay
restriction, however, is a serious consideration and introduces
complexities we have not encountered before. We have not yet determined
the actual technique we would use to delay releasing public versions
while continuing to provide Congress with the most recent versions. In
estimating the cost, to the Library's Office of Information Technology
Services (ITS) and to CRS, in very general terms, we assume that the
public versions of products would be exactly the same as the
congressional versions, that no editing would be required for the
public versions to address copyright concerns or to limit public access
to CRS authors. ITS and CRS would need to design and program a system
to display the PDF files with an index of some kind and also develop a
maintenance system to keep track of the various dates of release. We
estimate initial building efforts would require a GS-14 level
programmer devoting full time for at least three months, at a cost of
about $21,000. ITS and CRS would need to build a transfer and
maintenance capacity to the public location; work the uploading and
updating activities into the existing production streams; and develop a
capacity to maintain the files, i.e., check, correct, add, delete,
move, etc. For the continuing maintenance aspect of the project, we
estimate it would occupy one person at the GS-13 level assigned to work
full-time on this project, at an annual salary and benefits cost of
about $72,000. Should it be determined to be necessary to edit products
to create public versions, the costs of maintaining the public CRS Web
site would be substantially greater.
Costs of Increased Direct Contacts between CRS and the General Public
Although S. 1578 and H.R. 3131 seek to preclude the general public
from submitting comments directly to CRS about its products, we
nevertheless anticipate increased public telephone calls and e-mail
communications as a result of greater awareness of CRS and its
publications. Our conclusion that CRS cannot in fact prevent such an
increase in non-congressional calls is based on two considerations.
First, we doubt that the Congress would wish CRS staff to summarily
terminate all public callers without providing information of any sort.
Second, we assume that many callers who were not satisfied by CRS would
contact their Members' offices, and that in most cases their concerns
or questions would ultimately be assigned to CRS as constituent
requests, to which we would be obligated to respond.
We currently receive over 7,000 telephone calls annually from the
public, 5,000 of which are automatically routed to recorded
announcements through a phone tree. The remaining 2,000 callers reach
the main congressional inquiry telephone line with questions which
cannot be satisfactorily answered by these announcements. Public
callers want: to express their comments about the substance of CRS
products; to speak directly with CRS analysts about products and to
discuss research strategies; to invite CRS staff to speak to their
organizations about public policy issues; to ask CRS to consider
additional material or points of view in products; to obtain
information on when new products will be available or updated; and to
learn about CRS products on particular issues.
CRS inquiry staff often spend up to 10 minutes or longer with each
public caller and therefore are less able to assist congressional
callers with urgent requests for research and analysis. With increased
public awareness of CRS products on the Web, we would likely receive a
higher volume of public calls with questions such as those described
above. In addition, we would expect public calls for technical
information or ``troubleshooting'' assistance. For example, questions
about which search terms to use to find reports on particular topics,
how to download and print reports and tables contained in them,
requests for hard copy of reports for public callers who do not have
printers, and so forth. Because the Web is accessible globally, we also
expect a volume of international callers. Responding to
noncongressional calls would require additional staff time or result in
delays when congressional callers try to reach CRS.
To estimate the number of additional public contacts that might be
generated, one useful comparison can be made to the THOMAS legislative
information system. The Library's Office of Information Technology
Services (ITS) receives approximately 1,000 e-mail inquiries about
THOMAS every month and we expect that CRS could receive at least this
number of inquiries by telephone or e-mail. We estimate the annual cost
of this activity, based upon one staff member at the GS-11 level, at
about $55,000.
In addition to public calls and e-mail received and answered
through established, centralized processes, we anticipate that more
members of the public would want to contact CRS staff who have written
the reports. These added public calls could potentially distract CRS
staff from meeting pressing congressional deadlines. Further, the
public could also e-mail questions and comments to CRS analysts who
could potentially be swamped with comments and questions. The
complications resulting from mixing increased communications from the
public with those from congressional clients would require us to
consider modifying CRS communications systems and systems for recording
and tracking requests assigned to researchers/attorneys. Moreover, the
long-standing practice of identifying the authors of CRS products for
the convenience of the Congress, might need to be modified for public
versions of CRS products, a costly process as noted above.
Costs Associated with Changes in the Number and Type of Congressional
Requests for CRS Services
Increased Congressional Requests for Tailored Analyses
The closeness of CRS to the legislative process and the sensitivity
of the Service's traditional culture of directly and exclusively
supporting Congress' legislative needs currently shape the nature and
content of its written products. If, however, CRS written products were
routinely and readily available to the general public, including
academics, other professional peers, and interest groups outside the
Congress, CRS analysts would likely become more sensitive to addressing
views, methods, disciplines, and expectations of non-congressional
audiences. Congressional offices would be expected to contribute
directly and indirectly to this shift of focus and emphasis as they
would place more requests for CRS assistance in responding to
communications from non-congressional readers of CRS products. As a
consequence of accommodating needs of the general public, CRS written
work would shift away, or appear to shift away, from its current
emphasis on immediate, legislative needs of the congressional audience.
Members would be expected to meet their legislative needs more often by
relying on confidential memoranda and briefings which are
individualized and tailored to respond to their specific needs.
Members may also increase the number of requests for CRS
confidential analyses to ensure that they are provided an opportunity--
should they so desire--to reflect and consider questions that emerge
from evolving legislative proposals before they have to respond to
public inquiry about related issues. We recognize that the 30-day delay
provision included in both bills is intended to address this issue by
giving Members a period during which dissemination of CRS products
would be limited. In our judgment, however, the knowledge that
wholesale public distribution would ultimately occur within a
relatively short period of time (long before most legislative issues
are resolved) would persuade many Members to regard confidential
memoranda and briefings as preferred vehicles for meeting their
legislative needs.
Thus, expanding the audience for CRS products to incorporate the
general public simultaneously would diminish the value of one of our
most cost-effective activities in meeting the needs of the Congress
(creation of products intended for distribution to all interested
congressional offices) and magnify the demand for one of our most
costly labor-intensive activities (tailored analyses for individual
Members through memoranda or in-person briefings). With the increase in
tailored products would come the necessity of duplicating work because
of the demand of those Members who request that their examination of a
legislative proposal remain confidential at that point in the
legislative process.
Estimating Costs of Increased Congressional Requests for
Tailored Analyses
We acknowledge that the estimates of costs associated with
increased tailored analyses are imprecise, but we believe the
methodology is sound and the estimates of increased workload are
conservative. We assume that these tailored analyses would be in
addition to the work currently performed by analysts, which includes
the creation of approximately 1,000 CRS Reports and issue briefs per
year. We estimate that 50 percent to 75 percent of those products are
related to areas of active legislative interest; therefore, 500 to 750
products would generate proprietary interests on the part of some
congressional clients who would want confidential, tailored analyses
addressing their own concerns about the issues. We also make a
conservation assumption that each of the 500 to 750 products would
generate 2 to 5 added requests of this type across the Congress as a
whole, or a total of 1,000 to 3,750 additional requests for tailored
analyses. Actual demand in certain areas could be quite high, for
example, as many as 25 members of a congressional committee or
subcommittee might request individual tailored products on various
aspects of an issue at hand.
To estimate the additional staff required to handle this additional
workload (without sacrificing current services to Congress), we begin
with the average number of the tailored analyses prepared by the 300
CRS analysts/lawyers. For fiscal year 1997 the total number of such
responses in 5,680 and the average was 19. On this basis, we estimate
that it would take an additional 52 to 196 analysts/attorneys to meet
the added workload needs. Recognizing, however, that CRS staff spend
time producing both customized products and general distribution
products, we arbitrarily halve that number and estimate that CRS would
need an increase of 26 to 83 analysts to handle the estimated increased
workload. Based on average compensation (salary plus benefits) of
$87,700, total cost of the added staff would be from $2,280,000 to
$7,279,000.
Constituent Requests for New or Updated Products
We anticipate that congressional demand would result in an
increased workload with concomitant costs, some of which can be
estimated and some of which are unknown. For example, having CRS
products available to the public via the Internet is likely to result
in requests by constituents to their Members for new general
distribution products or updates to existing products. These
constituent requests might involve areas without legislative activity
for which no CRS products or updates are being considered. Costs for
these activities are unknown because it is difficult to predict how
many requests to CRS from congressional offices might be generated from
this constituent demand, or how much time would be spent in completing
the requests or negotiating with congressional offices if legislative
priorities and CRS staff resources preclude honoring the requests.
Similarly, it is difficult to predict how many complaints CRS might
receive from congressional offices on behalf of constituents or to
estimate the costs of time spent on dealing with such complaints.
Increased Demand for Paper Copies of CRS Products
Making even a limited group of CRS reports and issue briefs
available to the public on the Internet would raise the public profile
of both CRS and its products as sources of information. We recognize
that vast majority of the public who have Internet access and may be
equipped to print CRS products from their own PC's. Nonetheless, the
literature indicates that a significant percentage of the public would
not be able to print CRS products from their Internet workstations. The
heightened public profile and the problems associated with the public's
ability to print CRS products from the Internet combine to lead us to
assume that demand for the paper copies of CRS products would increase
in the form of Member requests to CRS on behalf of their constituents.
With no experience in responding to wholesale public awareness of CRS
products, it is difficult to predict how large an increase in demand
for printed copies might be, but the increase relative to current
demand would certainly be substantial. At the rate the public currently
uses Library's THOMAS legislative information system, if one-half of
one percent of accessions to CRS products on the Internet resulted in
just one additional printed copy of a CRS product, CRS distribution of
printed copies of its products would double. CRS currently distributes
about 750,000 copies of products to the Congress, about 550,000 of
which are printed copies.
Estimated added costs for personnel, paper and printing supplies
are $215,000 for a 50 percent increase in printing copies and
distributing them through established congressional channels. The cost
would be $416,000 for a doubling in the number of copies printed and
distributed. Printing costs are based on the following consumables (per
page): toner ($0.00183), staples ($0.000919), developer ($0.000323),
paper ($0.0044) and equipment cost ($0.0112519). A major factor in the
personnel costs is that CRS not only produces and maintains a large
number of titles, about 1,000 new titles each year, but also frequently
updates and revises products after their release. This aspect of
operations has evolved to support the special legislative needs of the
Congress and may be unique to CRS, at least on the scale at which CRS
carries out this practice.
Summary of Estimated Financial Costs \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These cost estimates must be regarded as somewhat speculative,
inasmuch as CRS has no previous experience dealing with large-scale
direct dissemination of its products to the public. We believe that the
assumptions on which the estimates are based are consistent with very
conservative estimates and that actual financial costs could be
substantially greater, perhaps on the order of multiples of estimated
amounts. Significant costs in terms of CRS' continued ability to serve
the Congress efficiently and effectively cannot be quantified and thus
are not included in these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs of Technological Requirements for Implementation
GS-14 level programmer for three months (a one-time cost): $21,000.
GS-13 level staffer full time (recurring cost): $72,000 annually.
Costs of Increased Direct Contacts between CRS and the
General Public
GS-11 level staffer, 500 hours per year (recurring cost): $55,000
annually.
Costs Associated with Changes in the Number and Type of
Congressional Requests for CRS Services.
26 to 83 analysts/lawyers full-time (recurring cost): range from
$2,280,000 to $7,279,000 annually.
Added printing costs including personnel, paper and printing
supplies would be $215,000 for a 50 percent increase in printed copies
and $416,000 for a doubling in the number of printed copies.
concerns of putting CRS reports online
Senator Bennett. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I regret I have to leave for something that is an
obligation that I just must get to. But I want to ask a couple
of questions. I met with both Dr. Billington and Mr. Mulhollan
yesterday. And I want to ask a question about this issue of the
CRS online.
When CRS does a report for Congress--lets say I intend to
ask CRS for a very brief report this afternoon on something--
when you do a report for Members of Congress, and I use that
report, it becomes part of the public domain, because I have
made it part of the public domain. If, however, someone had
access to that report this afternoon and you update that report
next Friday, when another Member asks a similar question and
events have transpired, the report is different, is it not?
Mr. Mulhollan. That is correct.
Senator Dorgan. The reports that you are doing for us
represent, effectively, staff work that changes over time. And
my concern about this online approach is that someone might
well take a CRS report that seems to be supportive of their
position, because they have pulled it off the computer, and
they discover that is something you have said, not
understanding or probably not caring that you said something
much different 1 month later because circumstances changed and
you had another report on the same thing that was vastly
different.
It seems to me that characteristic of your work for
Congress makes it much different than, for example, a GAO that
formally publishes a study, and that study represents exactly
what they did and for whom and what the study was about. Yours
is different, is it not?
Mr. Mulhollan. I would quite agree, sir. What I would like
to emphasize that the change is not so much in the analysis,
but the focus of the analysis. One may, at a committee design
stage, be talking about eight different options, but later you
are focusing on two, so you drop the other six options in the
discussion, and elaborated on the two. What CRS does on a
consistent basis is to try to focus on the stage of the
decisionmaking process, so that we can be as concise and timely
as possible.
And it differs. As a result, you can have, within 1 week's
period of time, an issue brief updated each day, if, in fact,
the issue is changing quickly from subcommittee, to coming out
of the committee, to moving to the other Chamber. It is our job
to help you with that.
Senator Dorgan. Dr. Billington, you are involved in a very
aggressive approach, one that this committee very much
appreciates, to try to move information and provide public
access to information through the Internet and so on. You know
of the case Mr. Mulhollan makes in the question I just asked.
What is your opinion of that?
Dr. Billington. Well, I share the concerns of the Director
of CRS. I think the difficulty with all of this is that the
Nation and our thought processes have not yet come to grips
with the implications of what this new technology is doing. I
mean there is a broader philosophic risk, that you might get
into a situation almost of plebiscitary democracy, where the
representational process gets almost cut out of the
decisionmaking process. There is already the rapid electronic
media, television, which has, in fact, changed the deliberative
processes of our form of Government.
I am not necessarily offering a net judgment on this
particular matter; it is for the Congress to decide how we
should serve it--but it does seem to me that the issue raises
real problems for the representational function, we have a
representative Government, we do not have a direct plebiscitary
system of Government. And the deliberative function of the
Congress will be altered, if the Members are, in effect,
responding not only to the running requests at different levels
of committee and individual Member deliberation and between the
two Houses, and if they are, in some sense, also responsive to
a direct communication with a national audience. If the public
can obtain such information without going through the
Representatives for whom we work, then the Representatives have
made a decision, in effect, to change the way they do business.
And it is going to change the nature of the reports,
necessarily, that the Congress will get.
And I think it could interfere, unless there is very great
expenditure involved. And it runs the risk of interfering with
their direct constant responsiveness to you. This is a system
that has been functioning for more than--well, it is 80 years
now. It is really unique. And it is fascinating to see how many
other countries are interested in finding some way of
replicating this kind of service--because legislation, more
than ever, has to be based on knowledge and analysis. Things
are so complex; there are so many players; there is so much
international interaction with our economy, and so forth.
So it seems to me that you should keep the focus on your
representational function. These are entirely decisions for you
to make--it is for you to decide how we best serve you. But I
do think it raises--and in a sense, risks prejudging the
effects before we really have any sense of, or any full
analysis or understanding of what the effects would be.
There is an old statement: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You have something that is not only not broke, but it is
functioning, I think, quite well and responsively for the
Congress in a time when you really need this kind of analysis
on a pooled, efficient basis.
So I would be reluctant to superimpose this added thing,
just thinking that it is a question of putting it up online,
because it is going to change the nature of the work that they
will do. And it is also going to change the expense of it,
because you will be flooded with all kinds of informational
requests and we will end up having to respond to all kinds of
things, whereas now we just respond to you, and you make the
decision as to how to further distribute it.
Senator Dorgan. Well, that is why I asked the question:
Will it change the nature of the work, and the type of work,
done by CRS? I mean I think the motives are just fine of people
who are asking this question. Because I think that much of what
we do and much of what we produce as a Government should be
made available as quickly as possible and as easily as possible
to the American people.
But, for example, if in the spirit of openness one
suggested that really everything that is written in Senator
Bennett's office with respect to any issue between him and his
staff and so on should be made available to anyone so they can
have a better sense of how he is making his decisions--what
kind of advice is he getting from staff and so on--I suspect he
would be troubled by that. I certainly would be. Because there
is a lot of informal communication back and forth.
And I am wondering here about the nature of CRS being
essentially a staff function of the Congress that produces
reports that are constantly changing--by necessity, constantly
changing, because the requests from Congress on different days,
with different nuances, on complicated issues--in some cases
dealing with foreign affairs and defense issues and weapons
programs and so on--I would worry very much about someone
saying, well, let us just shove all of this out there, and
wonder what the consequences would be if someone who next,
then, is answering a very technical and very difficult question
from Senator Bennett or myself, and thinking to themselves, how
can I write this now because I know this is going to be put up
on the web tomorrow; gee, I do not think I can say it quite as
candidly as I might have said it before because someone will
misinterpret it.
So the reason I ask this question is I think the people who
raise this do so in good faith, but I think this might be an
area where we want to be very careful about what we decide to
put on the web. Every Member of Congress has the capability of
taking this information, a CRS report, and putting it on their
web page or making it accessible in one way or another to their
constituents.
Dr. Billington. Senator, there is one other point that is
worth making. I think--because I am sure those that are
suggesting this are concerned with getting more information out
and getting as much as possible. The Library of Congress, as an
institution, is capable of directly responding to the public.
We answer 1 million inquiries a year from all over the country.
We are the library of last resort for most other libraries and
other sources of information needs. If people do not think they
are getting enough information, well, you can direct them to
the Library--that is part of our job as it exists.
Moreover, there is the Thomas system of getting
congressional information out, which we are making much more
user friendly. Usage quadrupled from September 1996 to
September 1997. We are getting out a great deal of information
about the Congress--but these are finished products of the
Congress, that are going to enable ordinary citizens to
decipher and get the kind of information they want to know
about voting records, about the status of bills, about the bill
digest, that kind of information.
So we are, in fact, getting a lot more information out. We
are able to answer, through our regular system, general
inquiries that people have. So I think we are not talking about
not getting more information out to the American people; we are
talking about a question of whether this particular dedicated,
unique service that CRS represents should be opened up, and if
so, in what manner and with what resources. Because the other
point does have hidden costs that you cannot anticipate until
you get into it. And so that should be taken into
consideration.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I thank you for your responses.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for your generosity.
Senator Bennett. Let me comment before you have to leave on
the same issue as I have thought it through. And I think Dr.
Billington's comments were very helpful.
The Library of Congress currently is staffed to the
Congress. The net effect of this proposal would be, in the eyes
of some, to make them the authority and us subject to charge if
we did not do what they told us ought to be done. I am thinking
of an experience where I made, for me, a fairly major speech on
the economy, and I turned to the Library of Congress for data.
Very appropriately, some of the people in the Library of
Congress who provided that data said the data demonstrates thus
and such. I said, no, the data does not. In my opinion, the
data demonstrates thus and such, and we hammered it out. And I
took the Library of Congress data as the basis of my speech,
but not necessarily the conclusion that the particular staffer
had come to.
I could see a situation where my opponent in the next
election grabs hold of this and says, you have deliberately
distorted the authoritative information--the Library of
Congress told you that is the way the economy works and you
chose to disagree with it, and make them the ultimate
decisionmaker when, in fact, we should be the ultimate
decisionmakers, and they function in a staff position.
This particular woman, very quickly, when she realized the
direction which I was trying to go, said, oh, you are right if
you are pursuing that part of the economy, this data does not
apply. But that was a conversation that was not evidenced in
the written report provided. And I think that is a very
dangerous position to put you in--you, the Library of
Congress--because we do get to the point where you have direct
democracy of the kind Alexander Hamilton was most afraid of: We
do not have a representative republic where we are the ones who
are responsive.
Dr. Billington. You will tend to get a more pablumized
product, basically.
Senator Bennett. Yes; to avoid that very thing.
Dr. Billington. To avoid that, so that nobody----
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. And that means less useful product, in my
judgment. And the reason I asked this question--I met with both
of you yesterday and talked a bit about your organizations--and
the chairman will likely have some questions about your
organizations--but both CRS and the Library of Congress provide
invaluable service to Congress and we very much appreciate
that.
I regret that I must leave. And I appreciate the chairman's
generosity.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I appreciate your question.
Let me run through a few of these rather quickly. Dr.
Billington, you are planning a celebration for the
bicentennial, as well you should. This is something that is
deserving of celebration. Can we anticipate a request for
appropriated funds to deal with that opportunity?
Dr. Billington. Well, we are relying primarily, certainly
up to this point, on private funding. We have raised, thanks
largely to the generosity of our Madison Council, about $1.5
million for this. And we would, I think, plan to primarily rely
on the private funding for this. I do not think we can
confidently give an absolutely categorical answer on that, but
we are certainly going to make every effort to fund this
ourselves. We have so far.
And we are very interested in congressional participation,
because we hope to have programs that will relate to every
congressional district in every State in the country. Because
the theme is gifts to the Nation. And so we want to work very
closely with the Congress on this. We have asked for
authorization for an official recognition by the Congress of
the bicentennial. The Joint Committee on the Library is the
oldest joint committee of the Congress. We came into being as
the Congress did--and for nearly a century in the Capitol
Building.
So we will want to work very closely with the Congress on
this. And I would not absolutely say that we may not have some
needs that we would want to discuss with you. But our plan has
been, and so far, we have been dealing only with private funds.
Senator Bennett. OK. Thank you.
Congress has provided you authority for a transfer of a
facility in Culpeper, VA, to the Library. We need not address
it here, but I would hope you would submit for the record a
summary of the Culpeper transaction so that we can have it as
part of our record.
Dr. Billington. Yes, sir, I would be glad to do that.
[The information follows:]
Summary of Culpeper Audio-Visual Conservation Center Transaction
Legislation authorizing the Architect of the Capitol (AOC)
to acquire the property in Culpeper for use as the National
Audio-Visual Conservation Center was signed by the President on
December 15, 1997. The Packard Foundation is proceeding to
secure necessary environmental and due diligence studies under
the direction of the AOC and anticipates purchasing the
property by April 1998. A master plan, which will describe the
work necessary to make the facility fully operational, is due
in June 1998. Once the AOC and Library have analyzed the master
plan, we will present options to the appropriate committees for
a date of transfer of the property from the Packard Foundation
to the AOC. At the request of the Senate Rules Committee, the
Library and AOC will provide joint monthly status reports on
the Culpeper project to the appropriate Congressional
committees.
The Culpeper facility will enable the Library to centralize
in a secure and environmentally suitable facility all of its
existing audio-visual collections--now stored in five
locations: Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; Suitland, Maryland;
Boyers, Pennsylvania; Landover, Maryland; and Capitol Hill.
Senator Bennett. And you are requesting slightly over $1
million to begin operation of your first offsite collection
storage facility at Fort Meade. When do you expect to occupy
the Fort Meade facility?
General Scott. We have projections from the Architect of
the Capitol that the first module would be ready by July 1999.
Our plans are to move in and take occupancy of that space by
September of that year, 1999.
Senator Bennett. And do you plan additional storage
modules? And if so, on what time schedule?
General Scott. In our strategic plan, we have one more
module scheduled for fiscal year 2001--module No. 2. And then,
following that, in fiscal year 2003, module three and module
four are scheduled.
prepared statement of the american bar association
[Clerk's note.--The statement submitted by the American Bar
Association previously mentioned will be inserted in the record
at this point.]
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of the American Bar Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the American
Bar Association (ABA) appreciates the opportunity to provide
written testimony supporting the fiscal year 1999 budget of the
Library of Congress and its Law Library. 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 Jerome J. Shestack, President of the Association.
With over 391,000 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 an important
role in ensuring that our government is committed to leadership
in the development and maintenance of a first-rate library. It
is the ABA's hope that you will continue to grant adequate
funding for the Library to continue to build its leading
presence on the Internet and preserve its treasures for future
generations.
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,
complemented by a unique corpus of foreign-trained lawyers that
apply expert legal research and analysis on laws of other
nations, international law and comparative law, making it also
a living resource that reflects and helps to exert 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, the world's reliance on the Law
Library of Congress becomes more imperative. Congress'
continued support of the Law Library of Congress is a testament
to other countries of our devotion to freedom of information
and access to the laws of our land. Lawmakers of other
countries increasingly are relying on the resources of the Law
Library of Congress as they attempt to use the American legal
system and its commitment to transparency as a role model for
their own lands.
Since 1993, the Library has creatively absorbed the impacts
of a flat budget, but it has been forced to reduce valuable
staff and services, and now, as it prepares for the challenging
information demands of the next century, there is no
flexibility left. While we appreciate Congress' continued
interest and support for the Library of Congress during these
austere fiscal times, the ABA urges you to prevent further
erosion of its workforce and resources by granting the Library
of Congress the resources it needs to address these demands.
The Law Library, bolstered by its masterful inroad into the
electronic age through the development and leadership of an
international cooperative effort for a multinational legal
database--the Global Legal Information Network (GLIN), in
effect represents the Congress in a global outreach project to
bring all of the world's legislative bodies into closer and
more informed exchange of legislative solutions to worldwide
problems. GLIN is an innovative effort involving government
partners throughout the world who share via the Internet the
full, official 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. The funding requested for the Library's
automation projects including GLIN will undoubtedly strengthen
and enhance its efficiency and effectiveness internally and
globally, in serving the Congress, in expanding public access
to its invaluable collections, and in sustaining its leading
role as steward of this vast knowledge.
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,
information technology simultaneously is providing unlimited
opportunities to be not only cost-effective, but also
innovative. GLIN, a promising part of the entire digital effort
of the Library of Congress, reflects the Law Library's
commitment toward that end. Moreover GLIN, a true multinational
database, enables the Law Library of Congress to enhance its
leadership role in providing expertise on legal 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
continue to search for ways to contain the Legislative Branch
budget, but I hope that you will spare our nation's Library in
that search. During the last several years, the Library has
creatively coped with a flat budget as it joined the campaign
for a smaller government, but the bottom line has been that
important services are now lacking and there are too few staff
to strategically plan for the rapidly increasing demands of its
resources in an increasingly digital world. Giving the Library
of Congress and its Law Library the support it now needs to,
for example, restore depleted reference services, expedite
legal analysis and report preparation, and strengthen the Law
Library's presence on the Internet would be a significant and
timely gift to our nation.
As we celebrate the valiant restoration and reopening of
the Thomas Jefferson Building and approach the Library's
Bicentennial in 2000, 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
submit this testimony. We hope that you will look most
favorably upon the budget request of the Library of Congress
and its Law Library. The information concerns of the next
century demand it.
Additional committee questions
Senator Bennett. OK. Well, we may have some other questions
that we would submit to you in writing, but we thank you for
your presentation here today. We thank you for your diligence
in presiding over what truly qualifies as a national treasure.
There was a time in the rhetoric of this country when those
words were somewhat debased with overuse. But the phrase
``national treasure'' certainly applies here if it applies
anywhere.
And you have a most significant stewardship, Dr.
Billington, and you have discharged it well. And we in the
Congress are grateful to you for that.
Dr. Billington. Thank you. I would just like to say that
the biggest treasure we have is the people that work at the
Library. I mean when you consider that our staff set the
world's record of cataloging, with many less people than they
have had in the past. Just to take one example of the kind of
work of the people that do not get to appear here, but behind
me are not only these wonderful people that are leading the
different divisions of the Library, but a very, very dedicated
staff.
And I know that all of them tremendously appreciate the
support and the encouragement they get from all of you here in
the Congress. So we do thank you. And thank you for this
opportunity to be here.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
General Scott. Sir, thank you.
Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
integrated library system
Question. Congress provided $5.5 million for an Integrated Library
System in fiscal year 1998. Please update the Committee on the progress
and status of that project. Please address how requirements identified
in the conference report were/will be met. In addition, please provide
an updated time line for the project.
Answer. Beginning with management issues, an Integrated Library
System (ILS) Project Office has been established, headed by a senior-
level staff person reporting directly to the Deputy Librarian and
Associate Librarian for Library Services. The Office Director has
created a robust project management structure, and has already filled
three key ILS management positions. An RFP has been issued and
responses have been received. Vendors have presented on-site capability
demonstrations to the Library's technical evaluation committee, who are
completing their final reports and scores. Vendors' ``best and final''
offers are scheduled to begin March 30, 1998, and run three to four
weeks. The Library plans to award a contract in late April or early
May.
Regarding the requirements of the conference report, the ILS
Program Office is completing the ILS Implementation Plan for
presentation to Congress in April. The plan will address all
requirements in the Conference Report, including tracking and reporting
benefits and costs.
The ILS time line follows:
--March-April 1998--Form implementation teams
--April 1998--Brief Congressional committees
--Late April-early May 1998--Award Contract to ILS vendor
--May 1998-October 1999--Deliver schedule products (Milestones from
Schedule F--Delivery Schedule--from the RFP)
--October 1999--Make all ILS modules operational; turn off legacy
systems
--November 1999--Begin Business Process Improvement analysis
Question. Please explain how the new Integrated Library System
(ILS) schedule slippage affected your Year 2000 program.
Answer. The ILS Program remains on schedule for implementation in
October 1999, before the Year 2000. The only change in the ILS schedule
was a minor adjustment in the date for awarding the contract; and the
Library made this change to accommodate requests from vendors. In our
opinion, that short extension of time to allow vendors to prepare
extensive on-site capability demonstrations was necessary and will
shorten the time required for ILS implementation. The Library is
developing contingency plans for mission-critical automation functions.
The Library expects the ILS to be operational in October 1999.
legislative information system
Question. Working with Senate staff, the Library and CRS have
developed an integrated legislative information retrieval system to
provide better access to information needed for congressional work. The
Library is requesting two additional positions in the 1999 budget to
continue development of this system. What is the status of the
Legislative Information System and why are two additional positions
needed?
Answer. The Library absorbed the cost of developing and operating
the Legislative Information System (LIS) which depends heavily on the
design and development work done to create and maintain THOMAS. There
are currently 10 FTE's (in ITS) and another 2.5 FTE's (in CRS) assigned
to LIS/THOMAS. The LIS has been operational since the start of the
105th Congress, and is being steadily expanded with new information
files and new functionality--especially enhanced searching
capabilities. LIS will replace some of the current House and Senate
legacy systems as they are retired over the course of next year. A
detailed plan projecting the LIS development schedule for new
capabilities has been reviewed by Senate Rules and will be presented to
House Oversight soon. Two additional positions are needed to deliver
this projected development workload and to absorb the increased
maintenance workload which results from new development and the
consequent larger base system.
global legal information network
Question. The Law Library is developing an automated network to
receive the laws of other nations. Eleven nations are now sending their
laws to the Library's network electronically via the Internet. The
Library's request includes $356,000 to support the Law Library's
automation efforts. What are the Library's plans for expanding the
legal network and how will the additional funds be used?
Answer. A significant expansion of the Global Legal Information
Network (GLIN) is proposed by:
--The Law Library working with the Parlamento Latinoamericano (Latin
American Parliament comprising 22 nations of Latin America and
the Caribbean) to encourage all their members to join GLIN.
These countries would contribute their own current laws, and as
that potential is realized, Law Library staff can concentrate
on adding retrospective material from the Law Library's
collections as part of its overall digitization effort.
--The Law Library working with the U.S. Department of State to
encourage GLIN membership for the 18 economies of APEC.
The additional requested funds will be used to establish the
minimum level of technical support within the Law Library to sustain
and enhance the digital Law Library. The new automation staff will:
Maintain and enhance the Law Library's Internet site including the GLIN
application which provides for input, update and retrieval of official
legal information and digitized documents; and develop capabilities to
acquire and to control an increasing number of legal sources that exist
only in digital form (currently established at 20 percent of total).
year 2000
Question. Has the Library initiated the development of contingency
plans to be prepared in the event of systems failure on Jan. 1, 2000.
Please explain.
Answer. Yes, contingency planning has been initiated at the
Library. The Deputy Librarian designated Library business unit leaders
as responsible for contingency planning associated with each of the
Library's mission-critical systems. GAO has just issued, as an exposure
draft, their guidance on contingency planning. We are studying that
draft and are using that guidance in preparation of our contingency
plans.
congressional research service
Question. At the Library's hearing before the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Legislative, the issue was raised whether CRS is
duplicating estimating work done by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Is
there a duplication?
Answer. CRS complements the work of the Joint Committee on Taxation
(JCT) but does not duplicate it. Official revenue estimates are
provided exclusively by the Joint Committee on Taxation. If CRS is
asked for revenue estimates, it provides those issued by the Joint
Committee.
CRS provides economic and legal analysis on tax issues for Members
and committees, including the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Ways and
Means Committee, and the Finance Committee. It supports the JCT by
providing technical or factual information in areas requiring expertise
available in CRS but not routinely needed by the committee staffs (e.g.
the relationship of tax provisions to campaign financing). CRS also
uses tax and subject area expertise to analyze the total Federal
commitment and approach to specific public policy areas (e.g., child
care).
CRS and the Joint Committee have differing and unique roles--as do
CBO and GAO. Individual Members of Congress, in placing their requests,
make the judgment as to who can best meet their support needs. CRS
staff remain in contact with staff of the Joint Committee as well as
staff of other committees and agencies in order to provide support and
to avoid duplication. When CRS gets questions which clearly fall within
another entity's unique mission, CRS refers the requester to that
entity to avoid duplication.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan
library security
Question. Dr. Billington, two years ago, this subcommittee directed
the Library to develop an extensive security plan. My understanding is
that you have submitted that plan and that it was recently approved by
the Senate Rules Committee. Accordingly, the Library is requesting $2.5
million to improve the security of its staff, collections, and
facilities. The Architect of the Capitol is requesting another $2
million in addition to your request of $2.5 million, to improve Library
security. How do the funds requested address the tasks listed in your
security plan? What has the Library done to address the recommendations
contained in GAO and consultant reports?
Answer. The funding addresses three top priorities cited in the
Library Security Plan: $982,000 for entry security to bring the Library
up to the standard used by other Capitol Hill Buildings--which includes
the use of x-ray scanners and metal detectors; $993,000 to mark and to
apply detection devices on 1.2 million items received through the
Copyright Office; and $435,000 to conduct eleven risk assessments of
key processing and custodial divisions.
The Library responded to GAO recommendations and consultants by
implementing over 200 specific recommendations listed in the 1996
Computer Science Corporation security survey and by developing a
comprehensive collections security plan. The plan identifies potential
threats and vulnerabilities and calls for specific minimal thresholds
of security for segments of the collections. While the Library reacts
to instances of theft and mutilation of the collections by seeking
identification and prosecution of the criminal, the Security Plan is
now the basis for comprehensive decision-making.
Part of the funds sought by the Library will be used for collection
risk assessments. The risk assessments are an intensive examination of
all the controls and processes in place to protect the collections.
Recommended actions based on the risk assessments will be integrated
into the Library Security Plan for implementation.
collections security
Question. Last year, a theft of materials from the Library's rare
book collection was uncovered when a book dealer in Massachusetts
reported that someone was trying to sell items belonging to the
Library. How is the Library responding to this theft and what steps are
being taken to prevent future thefts?
Answer. The Library's policy is to pursue aggressively instances of
theft or mutilation of its collection. The specific case was resolved
on March 12, 1998, when the court accepted a guilty plea; sentencing is
scheduled for July 8, 1998. Within the Rare Book and Special
Collections Division, controls have been tightened by changing
processing activities. Items are now stamped with Library ownership
marks immediately upon accessioning; signature are required as items
move through the processing phases. During the past year, 600,000 items
have been stamped and a complete inventory of the collection has
commenced.
The overall security for the collections is outlined in the
Library's Security Plan approved by the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration. The Security Plan categorizes the Library's collections
into a hierarchy of five risk levels, with the strongest protection
accorded the Library's ``Treasures'' and other rare items. Lesser
degrees of security controls are applied to the general collections.
The Library is currently applying the minimal standards to all
collections on Capitol Hill; the results of the analysis will be used
to assess any vulnerabilities and to rank protective remedies.
national digital library
Question. Dr. Billington, the National Digital Library was approved
by the Congress in 1996 with the understanding that for every Federal
dollar the private sector would contribute three dollars. In total, the
$45 million of the estimated $60 million project was to be funded by
private contributions. What is the status of the private sector
contributions towards this project?
Answer. At the close of fiscal 1997, we had raised $28 million.
Further, we are proud to report that with recent pledges, we will meet
our $45 million goal well ahead of schedule. Just last month, John
Kluge, Chairman of our James Madison Council, issued a challenge at our
Madison Council meeting in by pledging up to $5 million in a $2 match
for every $1 we raise to complete the funding for this phase of the
NDL.
copyright office
Question. Ms. Peters, late last year, the Copyright Office was
given new authority to adjust statutory registration fees after the
completion of a cost study and final review by the Congress. Higher
registration fees would lower the need for appropriations. The
Library's fiscal 1999 budget does not include a request for additional
authority to spend receipts from registration fees. When does the
Copyright Office plan to adjust its registration fees?
Answer. I will propose a schedule of statutory fees to Congress in
fiscal 1999, to go into effect July 1, 1999--these fees not reflected
in the fiscal 1999 budget. We need to evaluate the sensitivity of
higher statutory registration fees on the public demand and to consider
operational and policy issues. The fiscal 2000 budget submission will
reflect these new statutory fees. New discretionary fees will be
implemented on July 1, 1998, and are reflected in the fiscal 1999
budget submission.
Statutory fees are filing fees for registration of claims and
recordation of documents. The legislation permitting the Office to
increase statutory fees requires a cost study, economic analysis and
that consideration be given to the objectives of the copyright system.
Public hearings will be conducted to solicit comments from the
copyright community. Revised statutory fees may be instituted after the
end of 120 days after the schedule is submitted to the Congress, unless
within that 120-day period, a law is enacted stating the Congress does
not approve the schedule. Due to the complexity of this process, the
Copyright Office does not plan to implement new statutory fees until
July 1, 1999. Discretionary fees are service fees for special or
expedited handling that account for approximately 10 percent of fee
revenue. Since they do not involve public hearings, economic analyses
or mandatory congressional review, they will be implemented in July
1998.
year 2000
Question. Dr. Billington, I know the Library is taking steps to
ensure that its automated systems will work after the Year 2000 century
change. GAO has reported that a number of agencies are not fixing their
mission critical systems fast enough which may result in program
failures in the year 2000. Please provide the subcommittee with a
description of the steps that the Library is taking to ensure that the
Library's systems will be working in the Year 2000?
Answer. The Library is devoting maximum available resources to its
Year 2000 effort, and has tasked its Information Technology Services
group with leading this initiative and performing the central
coordination function. In addition, Library managers in each of the
other service and support units have also been assigned responsibility
for Year 2000 planning and results specific to their units.
The steps being taken to ensure that the Library's systems will be
working in the Year 2000 follow GAO guidance, and are: inventory;
analysis; modification or upgrade; testing; and implementation. Each
step involves a series of tasks with target completion dates.
Dependencies have been identified as part of the inventory and analysis
phases, so that tasks associated with subsequent steps can be
accomplished in parallel, as much as possible.
GAO guidance indicates that all agencies should complete all phases
or steps several months before Library plans indicate will be possible.
While the Library would like nothing better than to plan for completion
of all Year 2000 renovation work earlier, it is simply not realistic to
do so. Some Library systems are already Year 2000 compliant, some will
be completed well within GAO's suggested targets, and some will be
completed several months later than GAO suggests. Because we have made
every effort to prepare realistic plans, we cannot honestly report that
we will meet the GAO targets in every case. However, we fully expect to
complete all renovation, upgrade, or replacement of all Library
mission-critical systems, before Year 2000 program failures become a
problem.
congressional research service
Question. Mr. Mulhollan, last year the Congress did not fund your
proposal to hire additional staff for a succession initiative. CRS is
again requesting funding of the succession initiative which would
overlap critical analytical staff slated for retirement. Why do you
believe the succession initiative is a critical budget item? Since last
year's budget, do you have additional information that would further
support your request?
Answer. We resubmitted the succession initiative for a number of
reasons. We understood that Congress' decision not to fund the
succession initiative last year did not necessarily speak to the merits
of the proposal but rather reflected the severe budgetary constraints
on the fiscal 1998 Legislative Branch budget. By 2006, half of CRS's
current staff will be eligible to retire. Nearly two-thirds of those
eligible, about 250 people, plan to leave during that time frame. These
losses pose a major challenge to our ability to ensure the continuation
of our analytic services to the Congress. In many dozens of meetings I
have had with Members over the last year, I have heard great concern
over the impending loss of CRS experts on whom Members rely. Many
Members have expressed their support for the initiative the Service has
shown to deal with this serious problem, as well as for the specifics
of the plan. While we recognize that budget constraints are still a
concern, as we move a year closer to those retirements, it is our
responsibility to address such concern of Members, and to avoid, if at
all possible, a significant reduction in our analytic support to
Members.
The CRS staff eligible to retire in the next six years are our most
senior, independent, and authoritative analysts and specialists. Unless
we can get a ``head start'' on replacing them, we will have to wait
until the year they retire, and hire their replacements without
sufficient lead-time to bring those replacements up to the level of
competence necessary to sustain our current analytic and research
services. Under this scenario we would have to hire replacement staff
at the mid- or senior-levels to minimize service disruptions which
raised concerns that we would be less likely to find a sufficient
degree of diversity in the applicant pool than would be the case with
entry-level hires. In addition, mid- and senior-level experts may not
have all of the quantitative skills that are now standard requirements
in public policy graduate schools and which are needed as we analyze
research and information and formulate methodologies to analyze
alternative methods for approaching public policy issues like health,
social security, transportation, and tax.
Question. As you are aware, Senator McCain has introduced a bill,
S. 1578, which would make certain information available for access and
retrieval by the public--on the Internet--through the Congressional
Research Service web site. Please provide the subcommittee your views
on this legislation and any ideas you have on an alternative to this
issue.
Answer. As I indicated in my written testimony before your
Subcommittee, we believe that S. 1578 raises significant issues, both
for the Congress and for CRS, which you and your colleagues may wish to
consider before you decide to change the policy governing the
dissemination of our products. I should emphasize that CRS has no
position on this issue, for this decision clearly rests with the
Congress. However, it is my responsibility to inform you of possible
unintended consequences or implications of such a change in policy. For
more detailed information on this matter, I would refer you to the
materials which I submitted for the record with my statement concerning
the history of congressional action on this issue, the legal and
constitutional issues involved, the estimated cost of implementing this
legislation, as well as the more general question of Members' potential
liability for disseminating material over the Internet.
Implications for Member-Constituent Relations.--First and foremost,
I am concerned that this proposal threatens the important relationship
that Members have with their constituents. Historically, constituents
have gone to Members of Congress when they have questions about
legislation. The wholesale direct dissemination of CRS products to the
public would bypass this longstanding relationship by denying
constituents the benefit of their Members' additional insights, party
viewpoints, or regional perspectives on CRS analyses.
Consequences for CRS Operations.--In addition to these direct
impacts on Members, CRS believes that wholesale direct dissemination of
CRS products would have serious consequences for the Service itself,
requiring us to divert scarce resources away from our statutory
mission. Our analysts inevitably would have to shift the focus of much
of their work away from the direct needs of the Congress to address the
much more diffused and varied perspectives and interests of the public.
In order to meet the immediate demands of a pressed congressional
calendar, CRS authors often provide minimal context and background in
their analyses, assuming the congressional reader's knowledge of the
various stages of the legislative process, the distinctions between
authorizing and appropriating decisions, and similar matters. Were CRS
authors to broaden the coverage and scope of their products to meet the
needs of an expanded, non-congressional audience, they would do so at
the expense of refined, concise analysis targeting the needs of Members
and staff working directly in the legislative arena.
Another consequence of wholesale dissemination is that much of the
efficiency envisioned in our business plan to deliver services in an
electronic environment would be lost. We have designed our Home Page to
make our reports, issue briefs, and services readily available and to
present them in a format that can be customized by each congressional
client, allowing the user to draw from it that information of greatest
value, modify it, and easily explore related topics both within CRS and
through links to outside sources. Having a second CRS Web site directly
available to the public, which cannot take advantage of such links will
require us to establish two vehicles of service, and, given limited
resources, will diminish our effectiveness in meeting your legislative
needs.
Legal Issues.--Additionally, S. 1578 and its companion House bill
raise significant legal issues for CRS. Wholesale dissemination of CRS
products could bring into question the availability of speech or debate
clause protection undermining the presumption of confidentiality, which
is so crucial to the trust relationship between CRS and our
congressional clients. Relevant Supreme Court rulings indicate that the
dissemination to the general public of CRS products would not be
considered a legislative act but would be viewed by the courts as an
exercise of Congress' representational function, for which speech or
debate immunity is not available. Those engaged in the preparation and
public distribution of CRS products could be vulnerable to a variety of
judicial and administrative proceedings. Wholesale dissemination also
carries with it the risk of copyright infringement claims. If access to
CRS products is broadened, our ability to use copyrighted material in
our reports might be restricted or denied altogether.
--Cost Factors.--A final concern posed by S. 1578 involves the costs
to CRS of implementing this legislation. With the caveat that
some of these ``costs'' are difficult to quantify (e.g. the
possible loss of speech or debate protection), and recognizing
that our analysis is still ongoing, I can say to you with
confidence that enactment of legislation such as S. 1578 would
require a substantial commitment of CRS resources in four key
areas:
--First, staff time would have to be devoted to creating and
maintaining a separate CRS Web site for dissemination to
the public.
--Second, additional costs can be expected to handle the
anticipated, and indeed inevitable, large increase in
direct contacts between CRS and the general public
resulting from wholesale direct dissemination.
--Third, we anticipate that the heightened public profile of our
reports and issue briefs will lead to an increased demand
for the paper copy of CRS products in the form of Member
requests to CRS on behalf of their constituents.
--Finally, Members themselves, concerned that our products will be
circulated far more extensively than in the past, would
likely place many more requests for tailored, confidential
memoranda in order to afford themselves the opportunity to
reflect upon and consider questions emerging from
legislative proposals before having to respond to public
inquiries. Confidential memoranda designed for a single
client, which cannot be released to other Members without
the requestor's consent, are far more expensive on a per-
unit basis than products which can be available (either
electronically or in hard copy) to all interested
congressional offices.
Alternatives.--We believe that greater public access to CRS
products could be obtained under the current policy of selective
congressional dissemination, without encountering many of the costs,
legal issues and institutional difficulties attendant upon legislation
such as S. 1578.
Under present guidelines, congressional offices serve as the
disseminators of CRS products to the public. During fiscal year 1997,
CRS sent almost 750,000 copies of our Reports and Issue Briefs to
congressional offices. We believe that a significant proportion of
these were used in responding to constituent inquiries, including
specific requests for our products as well as general inquiries on
various topics.
Moreover, current technology now enables Members and committees to
make appropriate CRS products available to constituents in electronic
format through their respective congressional home pages. We learned
from a recent informal survey that all 100 senators, 350 House Members,
and 44 committees now have their own Web sites, evidence that there is
ample capacity to make our materials widely available to the public on
a selective basis within current policy guidelines.
To assist in achieving this objective, CRS is prepared to assist
our oversight committees in working with Member offices and committees
in identifying those of our products which would be suitable for
placement on their Web sites. CRS can also provide advice on the
technical aspects of transferring CRS documents to congressional web
sites. Finally, CRS is available to advise congressional offices of any
possible issues of legal liability which might arise from the
dissemination of any materials over the Internet.
A final point is that this alternative does not present several of
the issues and concerns raised by S. 1578. To summarize briefly:
--Since Members themselves would continue to make our products
available, their direct relationship with constituents would
not be affected.
--Continuation of a policy of selective dissemination would limit
direct dissemination to products appropriate for such
treatment, thereby reducing the need for major changes in the
content and focus of our materials.
--Eliminating the requirement for a Web site maintained by CRS, and
preserving a policy of selective congressional dissemination,
make it less likely that the confidentiality of our products
under the speech or debate clause would be successfully
challenged.
--Retention of current policy eliminates the costs associated with
maintaining a separate CRS public web site, and lessens the
likelihood that Members would request many more confidential
memoranda.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
STATEMENT OF RICKY SILBERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Senator Bennett. Our final witness of the day is Ms. Ricky
Silberman, the Executive Director of the Office of Compliance.
We thank you for your patience. It has been kind of a long
morning.
We note, Ms. Silberman, that you are proposing a reduction
of 7 percent from your fiscal year 1998 level. That always
comes as a pleasant surprise. And we commend you for adjusting
your request to reflect actual needs.
We will be happy to hear from you.
Ms. Silberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At this time I would like to also introduce two of our
statutory appointees, who have been here before, and also we
have a new General Counsel whom I would like you to meet. Pam
Talkin, our Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, you are
all familiar with; Jim Stephens, our Deputy Executive Director
for the House; and Gary Green is the new General Counsel. And
we are delighted to have him on board and to have the benefit
of his 27 years in this field. And then, Beth Brown, who works
very closely with this committee, is our Administrative
Officer.
I am pleased to present our 1999 budget request of $2.286
million, the 7-percent decrease, which you noticed, from our
fiscal year 1998 appropriations.
Senator Bennett. We always notice decreases.
Ms. Silberman. Well, we tried.
As you know, Congress established the Office of Compliance
in 1995. And as a new institution, with neither track record
nor even direct model, our first two budget requests were
necessarily based on guesstimates. And we did them kind of
holding our breath. Happily, we are now able to rely on 2
years' experience with the actual workload and, more
importantly, on our analysis and evaluation of what it takes to
get the job done efficiently and effectively.
I would call to your attention the two reports for calendar
years 1996 and 1997, on employee use of the office, which are
attached to the submission. These reports are required by the
Congress under 301(h) of the act. And they demonstrate the
efficiency and effectiveness of the counseling and mediation
process which Congress provided legislative branch employees in
the CAA.
Counseling and mediation processes
In this process, our counselors are always available to
give informal advice and information to both employees and
employing offices on the procedures of the office and the
rights and protections and responsibilities under the act. It
is important to note that if an employee goes further in the
process and files a formal request for counseling, which is
what actually begins the process, these counselors then
evaluate the alleged violation, advise the employee of his or
her rights and responsibilities under the CAA, and attempt to
facilitate the early resolution of disputes, which is such an
important feature of the act.
The fact that the vast majority of employees who contact
our office do not initiate formal proceedings is, I believe,
testimony to the effectiveness of the counselors' work.
The mediation program has proved similarly effective and
efficient. Early on, we decided that the mediation function was
best outsourced to recognized, experienced, independent
mediators upon whom we could call on an as-needed basis. The
mediations which have taken place under that system have a very
high rate of settlement. But one of the things that I wanted to
bring to your attention is that we can always do better. And to
that end, we have identified several factors which we believe
create the most favorable climate and environment for
settlement.
For instance, we have found that mediation works best when
the decisionmakers in employing offices actively participate in
all mediating sessions. In this way, the mediator works with
the employee and employing office in finding ways to resolve
the dispute short of adjudication or litigation. We are,
therefore, looking at how to ensure that decisionmakers are
present at all mediation sessions conducted under the auspices
of the Office of Compliance.
A Senate employee actually said it best in a letter which
she wrote the office earlier this year. She wrote, and I quote,
that the Office of Compliance counselor had saved her life and
sanity. Because of the efforts of our office, she said, her
employer had participated in the mediation. The dispute was
resolved. And she remains happily and productively on the job.
Mr. Chairman, we have resolved scores of cases. And each
case represents the realization of the promise of the CAA. And
I can think of no better illustration of the good work of this
office.
Before closing, I just want to reiterate the caveat that
has been included in each of the office's three budget
submissions. Our projections are based on present workload. And
that present workload is based on what the CAA has given us to
do in terms of the Congress. The instrumentalities have come on
on a serial basis. The 1999 budget request takes into account
that the Library of Congress and the General Accounting Office
are presently covered only under certain provisions of the CAA.
However, the reason I bring this up is that a question has
been raised as to whether employees of these instrumentalities
have not only the substantive rights conferred under the CAA
but also procedural rights, which would mean that we would
receive their charges. We have issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking so that interested parties can comment on the
question.
Whatever the outcome of that rulemaking, should Congress
decide--and the Congress is the one that is going to have to do
it--that the GAO, the GPO, and/or the Library should fall under
the purview of the office more comprehensively than they do at
present, we probably will need additional staff and funding.
And we will be coming to you at that point.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify
here today, and I really want to express my appreciation to
Christine Ciccone and to the staff of this committee. Their
unfailing assistance has made it possible for us to be able to
do the job that we have done. And we appreciate it very much.
[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 1999. The Office was established as an independent agency
within the legislative branch by the Congressional Accountability Act
of 1995 (CAA), which generally applies the rights and protections of
eleven labor and employment laws to more than 20,000 covered
congressional employees and employing offices. The CAA vests authority
in the Office to administer and enforce the Act, to establish a
confidential, timely and neutral dispute resolution and adjudication
process for claims arising under the Act and to provide education and
information about the rights and protections provided under the Act.
To carry out these functions, the Office is requesting $2,286,000
for fiscal year 1999, a 7 percent decrease from the agency's fiscal
year 1998 appropriation, with no increase in staff. This budget request
is based on the agency's actual expenditures during its first two years
of operation. 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 7 percent in personnel benefits, and a 17
percent reduction in other services, primarily for hearing officers,
mediators, and court reporting services.
As mandated in the CAA, the Office is, as of January 1, 1998, fully
operational. On January 23, 1996, most 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. Additional
provisions involving labor management relations went into effect on
October 1, 1996, the OSHA and ADA public access provisions on January
1, 1997, and the section relating to safety and health was applied to
the Library of Congress (Library) and the General Accounting Office
(GAO) on December 30, 1997. The reports on the use of the Office by
covered employees during calendar years 1996 and 1997 that were
mandated by section 301(h) of the CAA are attached to this submission.
These reports document the efficiency and effectiveness of the systems
and processes which have been put in place.
As in our prior submissions, this request is based on two
assumptions: that the Office of Compliance will remain in its present
location in the Library of Congress; and that our caseload will remain
at roughly current levels. Additional funding and staffing will be
requested should either of these assumptions change. Further, this 1999
budget request takes into account that employees of the Library of
Congress and the General Accounting Office will be covered under
certain provisions of the CAA in fiscal year 1999. However, should
Congress decide that GAO, GPO and/or the Library are to fall under the
purview of the Office of Compliance more comprehensively than at
present, additional funding and staffing will be required.
office of compliance's authority and responsibilities
The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 established the Office
of Compliance as an independent agency 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 an alternative dispute resolution process which provides
counseling, mediation and 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. 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.
dispute resolution process
requests for information, counseling, and mediation
The Office provides covered employees in the legislative branch
with a neutral, confidential, 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.
Before filing a formal complaint alleging a violation under the
CAA, employees must request counseling and mediation which is provided
under the auspices of the Office of Compliance in a neutral,
confidential setting. During the 30-day counseling period, the
counselor evaluates the alleged violation, advises the employee of his
or her rights and responsibilities under the CAA, and facilitates
resolution of the problem. If the counseling does not resolve the
employee's concerns, 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.
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 files 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.
Accomplishments in fiscal year 1997
Dispute Resolution Process.--Fiscal year 1997 was the first full
fiscal year of operation of the Office's alternative dispute resolution
process. The vast majority of workplace disputes received by the Office
of Compliance are resolved in the first stages of the dispute
resolution system prior to adjudication or litigation. During fiscal
year 1997, a total of 1,716 calls for information were made to the
Office directly, or to the Office's information line. In fiscal year
1997, a total of 165 formal counseling requests were filed, compared to
61 in our first 8 months of operations (in fiscal year 1996). Of the 61
filed in fiscal year 1996, 15 cases were pending in counseling as of
October 1, 1996. A total of 158 requests for mediation were received in
fiscal year 1997. Of the 184 cases that were either pending in
counseling or mediation at the start of the fiscal year, or received as
new requests for counseling, many of the cases (i.e., 75) were resolved
during, or were not pursued past, this stage of the alternative dispute
resolution process. At the end of fiscal year 1997, there were 14 cases
in which the mediation period had recently ended and the period for
filing a complaint remained open, and 32 cases which remained in
mediation.
A total of 12 complaints were pending on October 1, 1996, and 6 new
complaints were filed during fiscal year 1997. Six hearing officer
decisions were issued on 13 cases; 5 appeals of hearing officer
decisions were filed; and 2 Board decisions were issued on 9 cases.
Labor Management Relations.--The Office carries 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. The Office achieved several additional significant
accomplishments related to union representation matters in fiscal year
1997. Four representation petitions were filed, and two pre-election
investigatory hearings were held. Based on records developed during the
pre-election investigatory hearings, two Board Decisions and Directions
of Election were issued. One election agreement was entered into by the
parties and approved by the Executive Director on behalf of the Board.
Elections were held in all three of these cases, in addition to a
runoff election in one of the three. Two cases were pending at the end
of fiscal year 1997: a representation petition seeking to organize a
unit of approximately 35 employees, and a unit clarification petition
seeking to include additional employees in a unit certified in fiscal
year 1997.
Plans for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
The number of mediations conducted in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal
year 1999 is projected to increase from fiscal year 1997. The number of
mediation requests received in the last half of fiscal year 1997 was
much higher than in the first half. This may indicate a trend which
would result in a moderately increased workload in this area. An
increase in the number of mediations may also result in a higher number
of unresolved disputes. Accordingly, the numbers of complaints and
hearings are also projected to increase.
In fiscal year 1998, as collective bargaining agreements are
negotiated and as parties begin the bargaining process, disputes may
arise as to an employing office's duty to bargain over a proposal. If
an employing office declares a proposal non-negotiable, the labor
organization may petition the Board for review, and the Board will
issue a decision in the matter. After the collective bargaining
agreements are in place in fiscal year 1998 or in fiscal year 1999, the
Board may be called upon to review arbitrators' awards. Either party to
an arbitrator's award can file an exception to the award claiming that
the award is deficient under section 220 of the CAA, and the Board will
make a determination on the matter.
Additionally, under Section 220 of the CAA, the Board exercises the
authorities of the Federal Services Impasses Panel to resolve impasses
which may arise in the collective bargaining process in the legislative
branch. The Board may exercise that authority in a number of ways: the
Board can ask the Executive Director to appoint a mediator; Board
members can also act as arbitrators or hold hearings. Since the Board
has not yet been called upon to make determinations in these areas, it
is difficult to project if additional resources will be required.
inspections, technical assistance, and investigations
occupational safety and health
Periodic Inspection.--The CAA requires the General Counsel of the
Office of Compliance to inspect facilities in the legislative branch
for compliance with safety and health standards at least once each
Congress, and report the findings to Congress. The first inspection is
taking place during the 105th Congress, a two-year period that runs
from January, 1997 through December, 1998.
Approximately 20 million square feet of space are included in the
inspection, including the Capitol Power Plant, and numerous carpentry,
paint finishing and metal shops. Questionnaires survey the safety and
health conditions of more than 1,000 District offices throughout the
country. Employing offices are informed of any deficiencies identified,
so that hazards can be corrected as soon as possible. As mandated in
section 215 of the CAA, the report to Congress will describe the status
of compliance with safety and health laws and identify those violations
that have not been corrected. Section 215(e)(3) of the CAA requires
that citations be issued for violations identified in the inspection
that have not yet been corrected by the time the report is submitted.
Requests for Safety and Health Inspections.--On January 1, 1997,
the CAA's safety and health provisions became effective, including a
provision giving covered employees the right to request inspections of
possibly hazardous conditions in work areas. Except for situations
involving imminent danger, when a request for an inspection is
received, the General Counsel notifies the employing office of the
allegation. Employing offices are given the opportunity to resolve the
alleged violation and provide the Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
with the information necessary for the Office to determine that
appropriate action has been taken.
In the event that the employing office responsible for abating a
condition that violates an OSHA standard is unable to correct the
problem within a specified time, the OGC inspects and issues citations
and/or notifications, as appropriate. If, after issuing a citation, the
General Counsel determines that a violation has not been corrected, the
General Counsel may file a complaint with the Office which is submitted
to a hearing officer. If correcting hazardous conditions frequently
results in cases going to hearing, additional personnel may be needed
for such litigation.
Technical Assistance.--Like OSHA, the OGC has the responsibility
for providing compliance assistance to employing offices and covered
employees. The OGC also provides interpretations of OSHA standards to
employing offices upon request, as well as information about proposed
OSHA regulations that affect their operations.
Accomplishments in fiscal year 1997
During fiscal year 1997, virtually all of the non-office space was
inspected, including the Capitol Power Plant, off-site warehouses at
Blue Plains, Fort Meade, and Alexandria, electrical rooms, and
mechanical shops; these are the areas in which most deficiencies would
reasonably be expected to be concentrated. In the inspections conducted
to date for the 105th Congress, some 50 conditions serious enough to
constitute violations of OSHA safety and health standards have been
identified. If these hazards are not remedied in a timely fashion,
citations will be issued and litigation to enforce the citations could
be necessary.
During the last nine months of the fiscal year, the OGC received 15
requests for inspection, and resolved ten of the cases.
During fiscal year 1997, the OGC responded to 72 requests for
technical assistance about workplace safety and health concerns, such
as the need for respirators to protect against harmful chemical
exposures and the need for building evacuation plans. The OGC has also
recently prepared information explaining OSHA's proposed new
requirements to control the spread of tuberculosis to employing
offices, including the Office of the Attending Physician and the
Capitol Police.
Plans for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
As of January 1, 1998, both the Library of Congress and the General
Accounting Office are covered by the safety and health provisions of
the CAA. Thus, an additional 5.5 million square feet of space are now
required to be in compliance with the safety and health standards, and
the number of employees who are covered by the safety and health
provisions is increased over 40 percent, from 20,000 to 28,000. For
this reason, an additional $20,000 has been requested for the safety
and health consultant, both for conducting the inspections and for
providing the technical assistance necessitated by the additional 8,300
covered employees. For example, the OGC plans to assist in the
development of programs to reduce occupational injuries in legislative
branch agencies that have high lost time injury and illness rates.
If citations and litigation are necessary in cases of
noncompliance, the workload of the OGC could necessitate increased
funding. This will be addressed in a supplemental request for funding,
should it become necessary.
The number of requests for inspections may be higher in fiscal year
1999. In the first five months of fiscal year 1998, nine requests have
been received, as compared to the 15 received in the last nine months
of fiscal year 1997. In addition, as of January 1, 1998, the 8,300
additional employees of the Library and the GAO have been added to the
pool of potential complainants, which will likely result in an increase
in requests for inspection. If citations and litigation are necessary
in cases of noncompliance, an increased workload for the OGC could
necessitate additional staff and/or funding in the future.
public services and accommodations under the americans with
disabilities act
Inspections.--Pursuant to section 210 of the CAA, the Office of the
General Counsel conducts inspections at least once each Congress to
determine compliance with the rights and protections against
discrimination in the provision of public services and accommodations
established by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The inspection
cycle is similar to the cycle for the safety and health inspections
described above. However, since only public areas, and not those areas
used exclusively by employees, are subject to this provision of the
CAA, less space is inspected--an estimated 8 million square feet rather
than the 20 million feet inspected for safety and health.
Technical Assistance.--The CAA directs the OGC to provide employing
offices with technical advice to assist them in complying with
disability access requirements. In addition, the OGC routinely answers
questions from and provides information to Congressional offices on
disability access laws.
Accomplishments in fiscal year 1997
In fiscal year 1997, the OGC received 67 requests for information
about disability access requirements. These included questions such as:
the wording that should be used in notices for town meetings about
accommodations available for individuals with disabilities, the type of
auxiliary aids that Congressional offices are required to make
available upon request, and whether disability access laws require that
District offices in inaccessible buildings relocate.
The OGC also prepared and distributed materials explaining the
disability access requirements that typically apply to Congressional
offices and the public services and activities they undertake. This
information is also published on the Office of Compliance web page
(www.compliance.gov).
Plans for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
Funding to fulfill the disability access provision of the CAA is
expected to remain at roughly its current level in fiscal year 1999,
unless CAA coverage is expanded to the Library or GAO. In fiscal year
1997, considerable assistance was received from the Department of
Justice and the Access Board. If this assistance were no longer
available to the OGC, it is estimated that an additional 150 consulting
hours at roughly $80 per hour would be necessary to fulfill the
mandatory functions. This will be addressed in a supplemental request
for funding, should it become necessary.
unfair labor practices
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.
Accomplishments in fiscal year 1997
A total of ten charges of unfair labor practices were submitted to
the OGC for investigation during the fiscal year. The OGC also received
22 requests for assistance or information about labor-management
relations issues covered by section 220.
Plans for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
The trend in charge filing indicates that the OGC's unfair labor
practice workload will likely increase in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal
year 1999. During the first five months of fiscal year 1998, nine
charges were submitted, nearly as many as were submitted in all of
fiscal year 1997. Additionally, during fiscal year 1997, none of the
charges filed proceeded to the complaint and hearing, either because
the parties resolved the dispute or because the General Counsel
determined after investigation that the evidence was insufficient to
warrant the filing of a complaint. Although the policy of encouraging
settlement prior to the filing of a complaint is expected to continue,
there will most likely be cases in which settlement cannot be achieved.
In this event, after the General Counsel files a complaint, the
Executive Director will assign a hearing officer to hear the complaint.
education and information
Under the CAA, the Office of Compliance provides education and
information to Congress, other employing offices of the legislative
branch, and covered employees. In order to fulfill its mandate to
inform covered employees and employing offices of their rights,
protections and responsibilities under the CAA, the education and
information program distributes written materials and publications,
conducts briefings, maintains a web site on the Internet and provides
counseling, referrals, and information to employees and employing
offices on an individual basis.
Accomplishments in fiscal year 1997
The first annual report, presenting statistics on the use of the
Office of Compliance, was submitted to Congress on October 1, 1997. The
report covers the period from January 23, 1996, when the CAA went into
effect, to December 31, 1996.
The CAAnews, a newsletter published quarterly and containing
updated information on the CAA and the Office of Compliance, was mailed
to the residences of 20,000 covered employees throughout the year.
Briefings were presented twice a month by the Office to new Senate
employees in order to familiarize them with the CAA and the Office of
Compliance. Regularly scheduled monthly briefing were conducted for
House employing office senior staff. These briefings have focused on
specific areas of the CAA, including Office of Compliance dispute
resolution procedures, the mediation process, the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The Office of Compliance world wide website disseminates
information via the Internet. The website (www.compliance.gov), located
on a GPO server and accessible via GPO's Access system, is updated on
an ongoing basis. It currently includes the 400 page ``Guide to the
Congressional Accountability Act'' manual, employee rights and
protections brochures, regulations promulgated by the Board of
Directors, decisions by the Board, and information on ADA public access
and accommodations and OSHA compliance.
The Office reference manual, ``A Guide to the Congressional
Accountability Act'', includes summaries of the laws applied by the
CAA, question and answer sections for each law, and a complete set of
the Office's procedural and substantive rules. Updates to the manual
were distributed throughout the year. Two copies of the manual were
provided to newly elected members of the 105th Congress, for their
Capitol and District offices.
A new rights and protections brochure containing summaries of the
three laws applied by the CAA after January 23, 1996 was mailed to all
covered employees. On a monthly basis, the Office mailed its two rights
and protection brochures to all new covered employees. The Office of
Compliance revised procedural rules were published in booklet format.
In addition, several Office publications advising employees of their
rights and notifying them of upcoming elections were developed, and
they were translated into Spanish for one of the union elections held
in fiscal year 1997.
An interactive telephone information line directed callers to
recorded information (this data was included in the annual report to
Congress), or to an Office staff member who discussed claims and
provided resource referrals.
Plans for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
In fiscal year 1998, for the first time, approximately 8,300
employees of the General Accounting Office and the Library of Congress
will be covered under certain sections of the CAA. The Office will
prepare, publish and distribute new written materials to meet its
congressional mandate to ``educate and inform'' this specific group of
covered employees. Employees will be mailed a separate rights and
protections brochure, a special edition of the Guide to the
Congressional Accountability Act resource manual will be produced for
GAO and the Library, and informational posters will be printed and
distributed to GAO and the Library for posting.
The CAAnews, with additional information on the CAA and the Office
of Compliance, will continue to be published on a quarterly basis and
mailed to covered employees' residences.
The ``Guide to the Congressional Accountability Act'' manual will
be distributed to new members of the 106th Congress and updated as
needed. Throughout the year, new employees covered under the CAA will
be mailed employee rights and protections brochures.
In fulfilling its statutory responsibilities, the education and
information program will continue to update, reprint and distribute
existing materials and produce new publications, fact sheets, posters
and updates for more than 28,000 covered employees and employing
offices (a 40 percent increase in covered employees from fiscal year
1997).
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 sections of the CAA that apply
rights and protections 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.
Accomplishments in fiscal year 1997
The regulations for the implementation of two of the laws made
applicable by the CAA, i.e., OSHA and Titles II and III of the ADA,
were finalized and adopted by the Board in December, 1996. The Office
developed amendments to extend those provisions of its substantive
regulations that relate to the CAA sections made applicable to GAO and
the Library of Congress, and proposed them in September of 1997. (The
Board subsequently adopted these amendments in October, and they are
currently awaiting Congressional approval.) Amendments to the
procedural rules to include GAO and the Library were also developed,
and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was signed by the Executive
Director on September 30 and published for comment in the Congressional
Record on October 1, 1997. As a result of the submission of the Library
of Congress, the Office has published a further notice of proposed
rulemaking requesting further comment on the issues raised by the
Library.
Plans for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
The Board's substantive regulations will be periodically reviewed
and updated to take into account any amendments made to the executive
agency regulations on which the Board's regulations are based. In the
first such update, signed on October 31, 1997, the Board adopted
amendments to update its regulations implementing section 215
(Occupational Safety and Health).
Further, if Congress amends the CAA to expand the Office's
responsibilities with respect to GAO and the Library of Congress, or to
give the Office responsibilities with respect to GPO, amendments to the
Board's substantive regulations and to the Executive Director's
procedural rules will be needed. The nature, extent, and timing of
these amendments would depend on the terms of the statutory amendments
by which the Office's expanded responsibilities are established.
studies and reports
Section 230 of the CAA mandates 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.
Section 102(b)(2) of the CAA requires the Board to submit a report to
Congress on the applicability to the legislative branch of any
employment laws not contained in the CAA, beginning on December 31,
1996, and every two years thereafter.
Sections 210(f)(2) and 215(e)(2) of the CAA require 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. This
study, 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.
Accomplishments in fiscal year 1997
The section 102(b) and section 230 studies were submitted to
Congress in fiscal year 1997. The Board is conducting an additional
study to examine in-depth those sections of the laws applied to the
legislative branch by the CAA that were not originally applied in the
CAA, and make recommendations, as necessary. This study was begun in
fiscal year 1997, and it will be issued prior to December 31, 1998.
Plans for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
Section 102(b) requires that the Board submit a report to Congress
every two years, on whether and to what degree federal employment and
public disability access laws apply to the legislative branch, and
whether such laws that do not apply should be made applicable. At a
minimum, the December 1998 report will address those federal laws that
were enacted or amended since the issuance of the December 1996 report.
The Board may also consider whether to focus in-depth on one or several
categories of laws that do not now apply to the legislative branch as
part of the 1998 or subsequent biennial studies. It may then make
recommendations to Congress to apply additional provisions of law to
the legislative branch.
The reports required by sections 210(f)(2) and 215(e)(2) of the CAA
will be submitted by the General Counsel, at least once every Congress,
to Congress and the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; these
reports will contain the results of the periodic inspections required
by the CAA.
administrative and financial improvements
Accomplishments in fiscal year 1997
The Office developed and distributed to all staff a Financial
Directive on procurement procedures that ensures that appropriate
checks and balances are maintained on expenditures of appropriated
funds, and that such expenditures comply with Financial Acquisition
Regulations (FAR). All contracts and contracting procedures were also
standardized to comply with the Financial Directive and FAR.
The Executive Director approved the Vision, Goals and Strategies
statement prepared by the Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council
and endorsed by the House Appropriations Committee in its report on the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill. Preliminary steps were taken to
comply with its tenets, including cross-servicing disbursements and
other financial services with the Library. In addition, a five-program
budget structure was developed and implemented that facilitates both
tracking expenditures and accurately projecting future costs, devised
as a first step to eventual compliance with FASAB cost accounting
standard 4, i.e., ``Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards
for the Federal Government.'' Finally, in partnership with the Library,
an auditable consolidated financial statement is currently being
prepared using fiscal year 1997 data.
To prepare for Year 2000 system demands, the Office started to
upgrade its equipment and software during fiscal year 1997. Previous
equipment had been obtained from the former Office of Technology
Assessment, and it was inadequate to make the transition to year 2000
data, and unable to run 32-bit Windows 95 software. The Office procured
a new Compaq server for its local area network that is equipped with
RADE technology (i.e., technology by which data files are redundantly
stored on multiple hard drives) to protect against data loss, and began
to replace its 486 computers with pentium computers. The Office's
furniture and equipment inventory was completely updated, as well.
The Office also developed and installed external e-mail as well as
dial-up connectivity with the Architect of the Capitol. These system
enhancements are via stand-alone computer, in order to continue to
protect the strict confidentiality required by section 416 of the CAA.
The Office of the General Counsel developed its own data entry and
database management application for the OSHA and ADA questionnaire
data, using Access software.
In order to ensure consistency with statutory timeframes,
efficiently manage and report to Congress as mandated, the Office's
extensive computerized case-tracking system was completed. This system
generated the first report to Congress on the use of the Office by
legislative branch employees, as mandated by section 301(h) of the CAA.
Building on the early accomplishments of the Office, several cost-
containing measures we initiated in this fiscal year. Printing costs
were reduced significantly by having the Office's publications
published through contracts negotiated by the Government Printing
Office; a group contract rate was negotiated with Westlaw Publications,
which significantly reduced the costs anticipated in last year's budget
for this purpose; the Office replaced the large Kodak copier we had
procured earlier with three small Kodak copiers at no additional
expense, facilitating more in-house copying and resulting in
considerable savings.
Plans for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
The Office has entered into a partnership with the Library of
Congress Financial Services Division to prepare a consolidated
financial statement for fiscal year 1997. This agreement was included
in our Interagency Agreement with the Library for fiscal year 1998, and
it is the Office's next step in implementing the Vision, Goals and
Strategies of the Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council.
The letter writing capability of the Office's case tracking
application will be upgraded in fiscal year 1998 to be compatible with
Windows 95 and the new 32-bit Paradox and WordPerfect software. Pentium
computers will be procured and installed for staff who have not yet
received the Office's upgraded software and hardware, thus ensuring
that the Office is prepared for the challenge of the year 2000.
The Office's employee manual will be revised to incorporate
additional information, including the Office's flexiplace, travel and
e-mail policies and procedures.
awards and settlements appropriation
Section 415 of the CAA established ``an account of the Office in
the Treasury of the United States for the payment of awards and
settlements * * * under this Act,'' and further authorized to be
appropriated ``such sums as may be necessary to pay such awards and
settlements.'' Section 415 stipulated that awards and settlements under
the CAA should only be paid from that account, which is to be separate
from the operating expenses account of the Office of Compliance
established under section 305 of the CAA. The Executive Director
approves all such awards.
The Legislative Branch Appropriations Acts of 1996, 1997, and 1998
have appropriated funds for awards and settlements under the CAA.
Section 305 of the fiscal year 1998 appropriation bill contained the
following language:
Such sums as may be necessary are appropriated to the account
described in subsection (a) of section 415 of Public Law 104-1
to pay awards and settlements as authorized under such
subsection.
Awards and settlements are paid by means of a disbursement process
designed to safeguard the confidentiality of the settlements and the
parties involved. Only one non-Office employee (who has signed a
confidentiality agreement) has access to information about claimants.
In fiscal year 1997, a total of $39,429 was awarded and disbursed
under six settlements made under section 415 of the CAA. To date in
fiscal year 1998, a total of $73,700 has been awarded and disbursed
under 11 settlements.
office of compliance's budget request for fiscal year 1999
The Office of Compliance's fiscal year 1999 budget request of
$2,286,000 reflects a $193,000 (-7 percent) decrease from the fiscal
year 1998 appropriation of $2,479,000.
Staffing levels are projected at the same level as in fiscal year
1998. However, additional staff would be required, should Congress
decide to expand the coverage of employment and safety laws in the CAA
for employees of the General Accounting Office, the Government Printing
Office, and the Library of Congress.
Employee benefit ratios for the Office continue to be lower than
those experienced by most federal agencies for several reasons. More
employees are covered by the FERS retirement system than are covered by
CSRS, and neither workers' compensation payments nor payments to
retirees have been made to date. For these reasons, $27,000 less is
requested for employee benefits than in fiscal year 1998.
A decrease of $8,000 is requested for travel in fiscal year 1999
based upon fiscal year 1997 actual expenditures. The request for rent,
communication and utilities is $21,000 less than in fiscal year 1998 as
a result of the agreement negotiated with Westlaw Publishing. Virtually
all online services Westlaw provides are covered within a group rate
under this agreement.
In the fiscal year 1999 request, a total of $114,150 is requested
for mediators, $19,000 more than the actual fiscal year 1997
expenditures of $95,150. This request is higher because the number of
mediations requested in the last half of fiscal year 1997 was much
higher than in the first half, which indicates a trend which is
expected to result in an increased workload in this area.
Based on actual expenditures, we are requesting a total of $90,780
for hearing officers, and $23,180 for the services of court reporters.
Although these costs are slightly higher than the actual costs for
fiscal year 1997 of $75,780 and $19,200, respectively, they are about
half of the fiscal year 1998 budget request for these services. They
are projected to increase in response to the trend in requests for
mediation discussed above.
The Office is requesting an increase of $7,000 for supplies
primarily for materials needed to fulfill our statutory mandate for
education and information. Every report as well as all new and revised
regulation must be produced and distributed for all Members of
Congress, and other employing offices. As discussed above, provisions
of the CAA now apply to 8,300 additional employees of GPO and the
Library, all of whom will receive publications as well.
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 the basis of this occupancy, 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
1999, additional funding will be sought in a supplemental request.
conclusion
In the two years since this Office was established much has been
accomplished. As of January 1, 1998, the Office is fully operational,
all regulations have been approved by the Board, procedures are
established, and all systems are up and running. Whereas in the past we
have had to rely largely on conjecture, this year's budget request is
based on almost two years of experience with what our actual workload
is, and what it costs to do the job efficiently and effectively. The
effectiveness of the alternative dispute resolution process that
Congress envisioned and set forth in the CAA has now been documented.
All of 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.
______
Office of Compliance Section 301(h) Report to Congress--January 23,
1996-December 31, 1996
introduction
The Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) generally applies
provisions of eleven federal labor and employment laws to over 20,000
covered congressional employees and employing offices. The CAA
establishes the Office of Compliance (Office), an independent agency in
the legislative branch of government, to administer and enforce the CAA
and provide a process for speedy, confidential resolution of workplace
disputes. Section 301(h) of the CAA requires that the Office of
Compliance:
``* * * compile and publish statistics on the use of the
Office by covered employees, including the number and type of
contacts made with the Office, on the reason for such contacts,
on the number of covered employees who initiated proceedings
with the Office under this Act and the result of such
proceedings, and on the number of covered employees who filed a
complaint, the basis for the complaint, and the action taken on
the complaint.''
This first report provides the information for the period from
January 23, 1996 through December 31, 1996. Future reports will be
issued soon after the end of each calendar year, beginning in January
1998. The report begins with a summary of the authority and
responsibilities of the Office of Compliance.
office of compliance authority and responsibilities
The CAA establishes the Office of Compliance with a Board of five
members, who serve on a part-time basis, and four statutory appointees:
the Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director for the Senate,
Deputy Executive Director for the House, and the General Counsel. The
Office is charged with providing alternative dispute resolution
procedures, as well as adjudicative hearings and appeals, for covered
legislative branch employees and education and information on the CAA
to members of Congress, other employing offices, and employees of the
legislative branch. The Board is required to adopt substantive
regulations for implementation of certain provisions of the CAA. The
Executive Director is required to adopt rules governing the procedures
of the Office. The Office of the General Counsel enforces the
provisions of sections 210 and 215, relating to health and safety and
public access requirements, including investigation and prosecution of
claims under these sections, and periodic inspections to ensure
compliance. Additionally, the General Counsel investigates and
prosecutes unfair labor practices under section 220 of the CAA.
The CAA applies the rights and protections of provisions of the
following eleven labor and employment statutes to covered employees
within the legislative branch: title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, title I of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988,
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, chapter 43 of
title 38 of the U.S. Code (relating to veterans' employment and
reemployment), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 relating to
public services and accommodations, the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970, and chapter 71 of title 5 of the U.S. Code (relating to
federal service labor-management relations).
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.
use of the office of compliance
Section 301(h) of the Congressional Accountability Act mandates
that the Office of Compliance:
``* * * compile and publish statistics on the use of the
Office by covered employees, including the number and type of
contacts made with the Office, on the reason for such contacts,
on the number of covered employees who initiated proceedings
with the Office under this Act and the result of such
proceedings, and on the number of covered employees who filed a
complaint, the basis for the complaint, and the action taken on
the complaint.''
The following statistics provide this data on the use of the Office
by covered employees from January 23, 1996, when the CAA generally took
effect, to December 31, 1996. (Given the statutory time frames,
proceedings initiated in 1996 may still be in the dispute resolution
process as of December 31, 1996.)
Number and Types of Contacts Received: 1,677
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.
1,677 requests for information from covered employees, employing
offices, the public, unions, and the press were made by phone and in
person from January 23, 1996 to December 31, 1996. Contacts were made
by:
Employees......................................................... 652
Employing offices................................................. 603
Public............................................................ 107
Unions............................................................ 36
Press............................................................. 44
Recorded information line......................................... 235
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total requests for information.............................. 1,677
Reasons for Employee Contacts
652 covered employees contacted the Office asking questions under
the following sections:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Aggregate numbers will not necessarily match totals as a single
contact may involve more than one section or subsection of the CAA,
and/or more than one issue or alleged violation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Description Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
201Rights and protections under title VII of the Civil 112
Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, and title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990
202Rights and protections under the Family and Medical 26
Leave Act of 1993
203Rights and protections under the Fair Labor 155
Standards Act of 1938
204Rights and protections under the Employee Polygraph .........
Protection Act of 1988
205Rights and protections under the Worker Adjustment 73
and Retraining Notification Act
206Rights and protections relating to veterans' 3
employment and reemployment
207Prohibition of intimidation or reprisal 8
210Rights and protections under the Americans with 1
Disabilities Act of 1990 relating to public
services and accommodations; procedures for remedy
of violations
215Rights and protections under the Occupational Safety 4
and Health Act of 1970; procedures for remedy of
violations
220Application of chapter 71 of title 5, United States 13
Code, relating to federal service labor-management
relations
230Study and recommendations regarding General 9
Accounting Office, Government Printing Office, and
Library of Congress
CAAQuestions regarding the general application of the 128
CAA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the office received 150 questions from employees on
matters which were not cognizable under the CAA.
The 652 employee contacts were for information regarding:
Assignments....................................................... 4
Belo contracts.................................................... 14
Benefits.......................................................... 1
Compensatory time off............................................. 9
Compensation...................................................... 29
Demotion.......................................................... 8
Discipline........................................................ 2
Equal pay......................................................... 1
Evaluation........................................................ 2
Exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act..................... 42
General questions regarding statutory requirements................ 102
Harassment........................................................ 14
Hiring............................................................ 3
Hours of work..................................................... 28
Inspections....................................................... 1
Interns........................................................... 1
Leave............................................................. 14
Leave eligibility................................................. 4
Office operations................................................. 1
Overtime pay...................................................... 32
Promotion......................................................... 12
Reasonable accommodations......................................... 12
Record keeping.................................................... 4
Recruitment....................................................... 1
Reinstatement..................................................... 6
Rulemaking........................................................ 3
Scheduling........................................................ 34
Severance......................................................... 1
Termination....................................................... 119
Terms and conditions of employment................................ 14
Time-off.......................................................... 1
Requests for written materials.................................... 58
Number of Proceedings Initiated by Covered Employees: 95
Pursuant to title IV of the CAA, the Office of Compliance provides
dispute resolution in the form of counseling and mediation. A
proceeding under the CAA is initiated by a request for counseling
alleging a violation of the CAA.
95 employees from the following offices filed requests for
counseling:
The Architect of the Capitol...................................... 34
Capitol Guide Service............................................. 6
Capitol Police.................................................... 2
Congressional Budget Office....................................... 1
House of Representatives (non-member or committee offices)........ 39
House of Representatives (member offices)......................... 7
Senate Committee.................................................. 1
Senate (non-Senator offices)...................................... 2
Senator........................................................... 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total employee counseling requests.......................... 95
These 95 requests for counseling alleged violations under the
following sections of the Congressional Accountability Act: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See footnote 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Description Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
201Rights and protections under title VII of the Civil 82
Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, and title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990
202Rights and protections under the Family and Medical 8
Leave Act of 1993
203Rights and protections under the Fair Labor 12
Standards Act of 1938
205Rights and protections under the Worker Adjustment 35
and Retraining Notification Act
207Prohibition of intimidation or reprisal 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workplace issues raised by the 95 employees requesting counseling
fell into the following categories: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See footnote 1.
Assignments....................................................... 7
Compensatory time off............................................. 1
Compensation...................................................... 24
Discipline........................................................ 13
Fair Labor Standards Act exemptions............................... 2
Harassment........................................................ 20
Hiring............................................................ 4
Hours of work..................................................... 5
Leave............................................................. 2
Overtime pay...................................................... 3
Promotion......................................................... 11
Reasonable accommodation.......................................... 1
Reassignment...................................................... 1
Reinstatement..................................................... 1
Termination....................................................... 47
Terms and conditions of employment................................ 17
Results of the Proceedings
Counseling.--Of the ninety-five counseling requests received
between Jan. 23 and Dec. 31, 1996: twenty-six cases closed during or
after counseling with no request for mediation; twenty-nine cases were
pending at various stages in the counseling process at the end of 1996;
and forty requests for mediation were filed.
Mediation.--Of the forty mediation requests received between Jan.
23 and Dec. 31, 1996: fourteen cases closed during or after mediation
(eight cases were formally settled and in six cases, no further action
was taken by the covered employee after mediation ended); five cases
were in mediation on December 31, 1996; eight cases had completed
mediation and were in the time period when a complaint could be filed;
and thirteen complaints were filed after mediation.
Complaints and Hearings.--If the dispute remains unresolved after
counseling and mediation, an employee may elect to file a civil action
in the district courts of the United States or to file a complaint with
the Office. If a complaint is filed with the Office, a Hearing Officer
is appointed to hear the case and issue a decision.
Of the thirteen complaints filed after mediation (between Jan. 23
and Dec. 31, 1996): five hearings were scheduled for twelve cases (8
cases being consolidated for one hearing); and one complaint was
pending.
Of the five hearings: four hearings were completed, covering eleven
cases, and Hearing Officer decisions were issued in those four
hearings; and one hearing was scheduled but not completed as of
December 31, 1996.
Basis of Complaints
The thirteen complaints filed involved the following issues: Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act: eleven complaints; alleged
sexual harassment, reprisal, and hostile work environment: one
complaint; and alleged denial of promotion because of color and
religion and discrimination based on gender: one complaint.
Action Taken on Complaints
Any party aggrieved by a Hearing Officer's decision may file a
petition for review of the decision by the Board of Directors of the
Office.
As of December 31, 1996, of the four Hearing Officer decisions
issued: two petitions for review had been filed with the Board; and the
appeal period for the other two decisions was still open.
No Board decisions were issued in 1996; to our knowledge, no civil
actions were filed in Federal Court in 1996 by covered employees.
______
Office of Compliance Section 301(h) Report to Congress--January 1,
1997-December 31, 1997
introduction
The Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) generally applies
provisions of eleven federal labor and employment laws to over 20,000
covered congressional employees and employing offices. The Office of
Compliance (Office), an independent agency in the legislative branch of
government, was established in the CAA to administer and enforce the
Act and provide a process for the timely and confidential resolution of
workplace disputes. Section 301(h) of the CAA requires that the Office
of Compliance:
* * * compile and publish statistics on the use of the Office
by covered employees, including the number and type of contacts
made with the Office, on the reason for such contacts, on the
number of covered employees who initiated proceedings with the
Office under this Act and results of such proceedings, and on
the number of covered employees who filed a complaint, the
basis for the complaint, and the action taken on the complaint.
This second annual report provides information for the period from
January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997. The report begins with a
summary of the authority and responsibilities of the Office of
Compliance.
office of compliance authority and responsibilities
The CAA establishes the Office of Compliance with a Board of five
members, who serve on a part-time basis, and four statutory appointees:
the Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director for the Senate,
Deputy Executive Director for the House, and the General Counsel. The
Office is charged with providing alternative dispute resolution
procedures, as well as adjudicative hearings and appeals, for covered
legislative branch employees and education and information on the CAA
to members of Congress, other employing offices, and employees of the
legislative branch. The Board is required to adopt substantive
regulations for implementation of certain provisions of the CAA. The
Executive Director is required to adopt rules governing the procedures
of the Office. The Office of the General Counsel enforces the
provisions of sections 210 and 215, relating to health and safety and
public access requirements, including investigation and prosecution of
claims under these sections, and periodic inspections to ensure
compliance. Additionally, the General Counsel investigates and
prosecutes unfair labor practices under section 220 of the CAA.
The CAA applies the rights and protections of provisions of the
following eleven labor and employment statutes to covered employees
within the legislative branch: title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, title I of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988,
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, chapter 43 of
title 38 of the U.S. Code (relating to veterans' employment and
reemployment), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 relating to
public services and accommodations, the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970, and chapter 71 of title 5 of the U.S. Code (relating to
federal service labor-management relations.)
second annual report--january 1, 1997-december 31, 1997
Number of Contacts Received by the Office of Compliance: 1,439
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.
1,439 requests for information from covered employees, employing
offices, the public, unions, and the press were made by phone and in
person from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997. Contacts were as
follows:
Employees......................................................... 501
Employing offices................................................. 263
Public............................................................ 69
Unions............................................................ 12
Press............................................................. 11
Recorded information line......................................... 583
Reasons for Employee Contacts
501 covered employees contacted the Office asking questions under
the following sections: (note: aggregate numbers will not necessarily
match category totals as a single contact may involve more than one
section or subsection of the CAA, and/or more than one issue or alleged
violation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Description Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
201Rights and protections under title VII of the Civil 211
Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, and title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990
202Rights and protections under the Family and Medical 50
Leave Act of 1993
203Rights and protections under the Fair Labor 105
Standards Act of 1938
204Rights and protections under the Employee Polygraph 1
Protection Act of 1988
205Rights and protections under the Worker Adjustment 1
and Retraining Notification Act
206Rights and protections relating to veterans' .........
employment and reemployment
207Prohibition of intimidation or reprisal 14
210Rights and protections under the Americans with 1
Disabilities Act of 1990 relating to public
services and accommodations; procedures for remedy
of violations
215Rights and protections under the Occupational Safety 4
and Health Act of 1970; procedures for remedy of
violations
220Application of chapter 71 of title 5, United States 29
Code, relating to federal service labor-management
relations
NAQuestions regarding the general application of the 87
CAA
NAQuestions on matters not cognizable under the CAA 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 501 employee contacts were for information regarding:
Assignments....................................................... 11
Belo contracts.................................................... 4
Benefits.......................................................... 1
Compensatory time off............................................. 10
Compensation...................................................... 13
Demotion.......................................................... 4
Discipline........................................................ 15
Evaluation........................................................ 3
Exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act..................... 23
General questions regarding statutory requirements................ 120
Harassment........................................................ 37
Hiring............................................................ 28
Hours of work..................................................... 9
Interns........................................................... 2
Layoff............................................................ 1
Leave............................................................. 50
Leave eligibility................................................. 4
Notice posting.................................................... 1
Overtime pay...................................................... 30
Promotion......................................................... 13
Reasonable accommodations......................................... 15
Reassignment...................................................... 5
Recordkeeping..................................................... 3
Reinstatement..................................................... 5
Rulemaking........................................................ 1
Scheduling........................................................ 10
Termination....................................................... 44
Terms and conditions of employment................................ 38
Requests for written materials.................................... 26
Number of Proceedings Initiated by Covered Employees: 152
Pursuant to title IV of the CAA, the Office of Compliance provides
dispute resolution in the form of counseling and mediation. A
proceeding under the CAA is initiated by an individual employee's
request for counseling alleging a violation of the CAA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It should be noted that the alleged unlawful application of a
single policy of an employing office may involve multiple individual
claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
152 formal requests for counseling were filed by employees from the
following employing offices:
The Architect of the Capitol...................................... 77
Capitol Guide Service...................................................
Capitol Police.................................................... 42
Congressional Budget Office....................................... 2
House of Representatives (non-member or committee offices)........ 8
House of Representatives (member offices)......................... 8
Senate (non-Senator or committee offices)......................... 11
Senate (member offices)........................................... 4
These 152 requests for counseling alleged violations under the
following sections of the Congressional Accountability Act: (please see
note above regarding aggregate numbers).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Description Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
201Rights and protections under title VII of the Civil 134
Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, and title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990
202Rights and protections under the Family and Medical 4
Leave Act of 1993
203Rights and protections under the Fair Labor 30
Standards Act of 1938
207Prohibition of intimidation or reprisal 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workplace issues raised by employees requesting counseling under
the CAA fell into the following categories: (please see note above
regarding aggregate numbers).
Assignments....................................................... 23
Classification.................................................... 2
Compensatory time off............................................. 1
Compensation...................................................... 63
Demotion.......................................................... 1
Discipline........................................................ 10
Harassment........................................................ 19
Hiring............................................................ 11
Hours of Work..................................................... 27
Layoff............................................................ 1
Leave............................................................. 5
Overtime Pay...................................................... 28
Promotion......................................................... 16
Reasonable accommodations......................................... 13
Reinstatement..................................................... 1
Retirement........................................................ 1
Termination....................................................... 27
Terms and conditions of employment................................ 7
Results of the Proceedings
Counseling.--Of the 152 counseling requests received between
January 1, 1997 and December 31, 1997, and the 29 counseling requests
pending on January 1, 1997: 13 cases closed during or after counseling,
but before mediation--1 was settled and 12 sought no further action; 11
cases were pending at the end of 1997; and 157 requests for mediation
were filed.
Mediation.--157 mediation requests were received between January 1,
1997 and December 31, 1997. In addition, on January 1, 1997 there were
5 cases pending in mediation, and 8 cases which had completed mediation
and were in the open period for filing a complaint. Of those 170 cases:
139 cases closed during or after mediation (62 cases were settled; in
20 cases, no further action was taken by the covered employee after
mediation ended; and 57 civil actions were filed in District Court); 11
cases were pending in mediation on December 31, 1997; 14 cases had
completed mediation and were in the time period when a complaint could
be filed; and 6 complaints were filed after mediation ended.
Complaints and Hearings.--If the dispute remains unresolved after
counseling and mediation, an employee may elect to file a civil action
in the district courts of the United States or to file a complaint with
the Office. If a complaint is filed with the Office, a Hearing Officer
is appointed to hear the case and issue a decision.
Complaints.--6 complaints were filed between January 1, 1997 and
December 31, 1997 and 2 complaints were pending on January 1, 1997.
Basis of Complaints.--The complaints filed during 1997 involved the
following issues:
--alleged harassment and discrimination in terms and conditions of
employment based upon race and religion and in reprisal for
opposition to practices made unlawful by the CAA: 2 complaints
--alleged retaliation against an employee for having initiated a
proceeding under the CAA: 2 complaints
--alleged discriminatory discharge based on race: 1 complaint
--alleged discriminatory discipline and termination based upon age
and race and in reprisal for having taken family and medical
leave: 1 complaint.
Action Taken on Complaints.--Any party aggrieved by a Hearing
Officer's decision may file a petition for review of the decision by
the Board of Directors of the Office.
Hearings.--3 Hearing Officer decisions were issued; 4 cases were
settled before the hearings concluded; and 1 complaint was pending with
a hearing scheduled for early 1998.
Appeals.--4 petitions for review of Hearing Officer decisions
covering 11 cases were filed with the Board (in addition, 2 petitions
were pending on January 1, 1997); and 1 Hearing Officer decision was
not appealed and became the final decision of the Office.
Board action.--3 Board decisions were issued in 1997 covering 10
cases; and 3 petitions for review of Hearing Officer decisions were
pending on December 31, 1997.
Judicial review.--1 petition for review was filed; and no court
decision was issued.
Labor-Management Relations
The Office carries out the Board's investigative authorities under
section 220 of the CAA, involving issues concerning the appropriateness
of bargaining units for labor organization representation, the duty to
bargain, and exceptions to arbitrators' awards.
January 1, 1997-December 31, 1997.--3 representation petitions were
filed; 1 pre-election investigatory hearing was held; 2 Board decisions
and Directions of Election were issued; 1 election agreement was
entered into by the parties and approved by the Executive Director on
behalf of the Board; 3 elections were conducted and one case required a
run-off election. (As a result of the elections, 3 different labor
organizations were certified as the bargaining representatives of
employees in the three units in which the elections were conducted);
and 2 petitions were pending on December 31, 1997: a representation
petition filed by a labor organization seeking to represent a unit of
approximately 35 employees, and a unit clarification petition seeking
to include additional employees in a bargaining unit certified in 1997.
The Office of the General Counsel
The Office of the General Counsel is responsible for matters
arising under three sections of the CAA: section 210--Public Services
and Accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
section 215--Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and section
220--unfair labor practices under chapter 71, of title 5, United States
Code.
JANUARY 1, 1997-DECEMBER 31, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Description Requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for Information and Technical Assistance
210Public Services and Accommodations under the 60
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
215Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 89
220Unfair labor practices under chapter 71, of title 5, 23
United States Code
------------
Total requests 172
============
Requests for Inspection, Charges Filed with the
General Counsel
210Cases filed .........
Cases closed .........
Cases pending as of December 31, 1997 .........
215Requests for inspection filed 22
Cases closed 10
Cases pending as of December 31, 1997 12
220Unfair labor practices charges filed 18
Cases closed 10
Cases pending as of December 31, 1997 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional committee questions
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I appreciate your courtesy in
mentioning that. We appreciate Christine, as well, on this side
of the table.
We have some additional questions that we will submit to
you for a written response.
Unfortunately, I have another conflict, as well, and I am
going to have to move along. But I want to thank you for
highlighting your past success and the manner in which you go
about your duties. And as one of the strong supporters of the
Congressional Accountability Act, I am delighted to have this
report that indicates that things are, in fact, working out.
So thank you for your statement. And I look forward to
receiving the answers to our questions, which I am sure you
will be responsive to.
[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 you state that if you are required to
move out of the facilities provided by the Library of Congress, you
will need additional funds. Is there talk of the Office moving?
Answer. The Office of Compliance has been located within the Adams
Building of the Library of Congress since the Office opened. This
arrangement has not been formalized, therefore we make note of it each
year in our budget submission. Should we have to move, we have
estimated that the cost of rent and utilities for this agency would be
approximately $268,000 per year.
Question. Funds are provided to the Office of Compliance for
witness fees and mileage. The Congressional Accountability Act requires
that witnesses be paid for fees and mileage. The Office of Compliance
has refused to pay witness fees or expenses for Senate witnesses. It
has taken the position that it has the discretion whether to pay and
has adopted a policy not to pay. Please explain the reason for that
policy.
Answer. The Congressional Accountability Act authorizes the
expenditure of funds for employing offices to pay for witness fees and
allowances. Such funds are not expressly provided to the Office of
Compliance for the use of covered employing offices. In July 1997, the
representative of an employing office asked the Office of Compliance to
pay for witnesses who were being called to testify by and on behalf of
the employing office. An Office of Compliance staff attorney researched
the request and prepared the attached memorandum. The memorandum
reflects the rationale underlying the Office's decision not to pay fees
for witnesses appearing before the Office, whether those witnesses
appear on behalf of a covered employee or an employing office.
[The information follows:]
memorandum
July 30, 1997.
To: Ricky Silberman
From: Nicola Goren
Re: Payment of Witness Travel Expenses under Section 305(c) of the CAA
Issues Presented
(1) Is the Office of Compliance (Office) required to pay the travel
expenses for covered employees under section 305 of the CAA?
(2) Are former employees ``covered employees'' under section 305(c)
of the CAA?
Background
In the context of a case before a Hearing Officer of the Office of
Compliance (Office), the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (SCCE)
decided to call several former employees, including one who currently
resides in Arizona, as witnesses. The SCCE called the Office to arrange
for payment of travel expenses for those former employees. The Office
maintained that those expenses were not the Office's responsibility.
The SCCE informed the Office that they had checked with an auditor at
the Senate Rules Committee who informed them that no appropriation
other than the Office's was available to pay for travel expenses of
witnesses in cases before the Office. The SCCE then petitioned the
Hearing Officer in the case to order the Office to pay the expenses.
The case settled before the issue had to be finally decided.
In light of the legal research and analysis below, section 305(c)
should not be read to require the Office to pay for travel expenses of
covered employees who serve as witnesses. Moreover, legal precedent and
policy arguments dictate against such a reading.
Review and Analysis of the SCCE's Arguments
The SCCE argues that, pursuant to section 305, the Office must pay
the travel expenses for the former employees in question.
Section 305(c) of the CAA reads as follows:
Witness Fees and Allowances.--Except for covered employees,
witnesses before a hearing officer Board in any proceeding
under this Act other than rulemaking shall be paid the same fee
and mileage allowances as are paid subpoenaed witnesses in the
courts of the United States. Covered employees who are
summoned, or are assigned by their employer, to testify in
their official capacity or to produce official records in any
proceeding under this Act shall be entitled to travel expenses
under subchapter I and section 5751 of chapter 57 of title 5,
United States Code.
(The SCCE's petition involves solely the second sentence of this
section, with respect to covered employees. The SCCE makes no argument
on the issue of who should pay witness fees and expenses for non-
covered employees.)
``Covered Employees'' Includes Former Employees
The SCCE claims that the former employees in question should be
treated as covered employees under the second part of section 305(c),
because the CAA defines ``covered employees'' as including former
employees. The SCCE argues that section 101 of the CAA defines covered
employees as including former employees, ``[e]xcept as otherwise
specifically provided in this Act.'' The SCCE notes further that
nothing in section 305 specifically provides that the term ``covered
employee'' is to be interpreted differently than throughout the rest of
the CAA.
Although ordinarily this argument would prevail, here the context
of section 305(c) requires a different reading of the statute. The
first sentence of section 305(c), by its terms, applies to non covered
employees, and entitles them to witness fees and travel expenses when
called as witnesses before a Hearing Officer or the Board. The second
sentence of the section applies to covered employees, and entitles them
only to travel expenses under title 5, United States Code, in
connection with their appearance as witnesses in any proceeding under
the CAA. Title 5, United States Code, covers rights and protections of
federal employees. The difference in treatment between employees and
non employees stems from the fact that, under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5537,
government employees, including most legislative branch employees, may
not receive fees for ``service as a witness on behalf of the United
States or the District of Columbia.'' The prohibition stems from the
prohibition against being on two government payrolls simultaneously.
Thus, government employees called as witnesses as part of their
official duties cannot accept a witness fee for their participation--
only travel expenses. On the other hand, non government employees are
entitled to a witness fee as well as travel expenses. The drafters of
section 305(c) could not have intended that ``covered employees'' be
read to include former employees in this context, entitling individuals
no longer on the legislative branch's payroll only to travel expenses,
and not the witness fee that ordinary non-government employees earn as
witnesses.
Section 305 does not require the Office expenses
If one assumes that the individuals in question are covered
employees under section 305(c), who is authorized and/or required to
pay their expenses as witnesses? As indicated above, the second
sentence of section 305(c) states that ``[c]overed employees who are
summoned, or are assigned by their employer, to testify in their
official capacity or to produce official records in any proceeding
under this Act shall be entitled to travel expenses under subchapter I
and section 5751 of chapter 57 of title 5 of the United States Code.''
The CAA, itself, is silent as to who bears fiscal responsibility for
those expenses. Section 5751 of title 5, United States Code, however,
provides the answer to this question.
5 U.S.C. Sec. 5751 and appropriations law
Section 5751 of title 5, United States Code, entitles employees
summoned, or assigned by their agency, ``to testify or produce official
records on behalf of the United States,'' to travel expenses under
subchapter I of title 5. Section 5751 then specifies the following:
If the case involves the activity in connection with which
[the employee] is employed, the travel expenses are paid from
the appropriation otherwise available for travel expenses of
the employee * * *. If the case does not involve its activity,
the employing agency may advance or pay the travel expenses of
the employee, and later obtain reimbursement from the agency
properly chargeable with the travel expenses.
This section clearly indicates the following: if an employee is
called as a witness to testify in his official capacity in a case in
which the employing office is being sued (or is suing), the employing
office would be responsible for that employee's travel expenses.
However, if, for example, an employee of an agency is called to testify
in his official capacity in a case brought by the Department of Justice
against a private sector company, perhaps as an expert witness, the
Department of Justice ultimately would be responsible for the travel
expenses, although the employing agency would be authorized to pay the
expenses and then obtain reimbursement from the Department of Justice.
Consequently, either the employing office, or the office responsible
for the legal action, may have to pay the expenses. However, in no
event is the court, or other venue, required to pay them.
This reading of the statute is supported by several Comptroller
General opinions interpreting 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5751, as well as the
Department of Justice's regulations issued pursuant to that section. In
23 Comp. Gen. 47, 49 (1943), the Comptroller General held that ``the
employing agency is required to pay * * * the traveling expenses
incurred by the witness * * * where the information or facts
ascertained by the employee as part of his official duties forms the
basis of the case * * *.'' In 39 Comp. Gen. 1, 2 (1959), the
Comptroller General determined that if an employee testifies to facts
and information he or she acquires in the course of his or her assigned
duties, the employing agency is responsible for the payment of that
employee's travel expenses. (Both these cases are cited in 28 C.F.R.
Sec. 21.2(d)(1) supporting the Department of Justice's interpretation
that these expenses are payable by the employing agency.)
In 66 Comp. Gen. 269 (1990), the Comptroller General held that
``the statutory provision in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5751, authorizing
reimbursement of travel expenses of government employees called as
witnesses * * * [is] applicable to discrimination hearings before an
Administrative Judge of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC).'' In that case, a current employee of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) was summoned to testify at the EEOC regarding his
official duties at his former agency, the Coast Guard. The VA contended
that the Coast Guard should pay the travel expenses for the employee.
The Coast Guard argued that either the EEOC (the venue for the
proceeding) or the other party to the case should pay for travel
expenses. The Comptroller General held that the Coast Guard, the
employing office whose activity was at issue in the case, was
ultimately responsible for paying the travel expenses for the employee
but that the VA could pay them initially to avoid disrupting the
process and then obtain reimbursement from the Coast Guard. The EEOC
was never considered as a potential payor of these expenses.
In short, the CAA specifically cites 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5751 as the
applicable standard for payment of travel expenses. That section and
Comptroller General precedent establish that the employing office must
pay the travel expenses for their employees summoned as witnesses to
testify before a Hearing Officer at the Office. In this case, the
Capitol Guide Board should ultimately be responsible for paying these
expenses, as it is the employing office whose activity is in question
here and in connection with whom the employee would be testifying in
his or her official capacity.
The Office's appropriation is not the only available
appropriation
The SCCE contends that neither it, nor any other Senate office, has
authority to pay for these travel expenses. This is erroneous.
First, as discussed above, the cases interpreting 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 5751 indicate that travel expenses for an employee testifying in
this type of situation are to be paid out of the employing office's
appropriation for official employee travel. Virtually every employing
office in the legislative branch, including the Capitol Guide Board and
the SCCE, is authorized to spend funds on official employee travel.
Second, the U.S. Senate Handbook specifically authorizes the
payment of legal expenses (which would include travel expenses for
witnesses) by Senate offices. See p. 11-30.
Section 305 authorizes expenditures by the Office as well
as other expenditures in connection with activities
under the CAA
The SCCE contends that section 305 authorizes expenditures by the
Office and thus requires the Office to pay witness travel expenses as
well, by virtue of section 305(c). This is erroneous.
Section 305 is entitled ``Expenses'' and not ``Expenses to Be Paid
by the Office''. The drafters clearly did not intend section 305 only
to cover expenses to be paid by the Office. Each subsection of section
305 authorizes specific expenditures and indicates what appropriation
is available to pay for them. Subsection 305(a) authorizes
appropriations for the Office's expenses. Subsection 305(b) authorizes
the Office to contract for goods and services pursuant to the same
authorization as agencies in 31 U.S.C. 1535 and 1536. This subsection
specifically states that this is an expense of the Office and, thus,
expenses would be paid out of the Office's appropriation for expenses.
Subsection 305(c) authorizes expenditures to be made for witness fees
and expenses for non-covered employees, as well as witness expenses for
covered employees pursuant to the same authorization as in 5 U.S.C.
5751, which, as discussed above, specifies that the employing office is
to be responsible for these expenses. Further, nowhere in that
subsection is there any indication that this is to be an expense of the
Office.
Office Policy Concerns
The SCCE's contention that the Office should be responsible for
paying travel expenses for covered employees called as witnesses raises
several important concerns.
First, the sentence entitling covered employees to payment for
travel expenses incurred when serving as witnesses does not limit the
entitlement only to cases before the Office. The section entitles
covered employees to travel expenses ``in any proceeding under this
Act.'' If one accepts the SCCE's position that the Office is to pay for
these expenses, this would require the Office to pay for travel
expenses for covered employees testifying in court, when the Office is
no longer even involved in the case in any capacity. The drafters could
not have intended such a result.
Second, shifting the responsibility for payment of these expenses
to the Office would essentially remove any check on the employing
office's ability or need to call witnesses. The employing office would
be free to call as many witnesses as it liked, without having to be
accountable for the cost. This would put the Office in the untenable
position of having to subsidize unlimited numbers of witnesses from a
very limited appropriation, and would potentially tie up the system
with innumerable witnesses. The drafters could not have intended this
result either.
Third, reading the statute as requiring the Office to pay the
travel expenses of witnesses would necessarily include covered
employees called as witnesses by both the employee and the employing
office. Again, this could potentially subject the Office to enormous
unforeseeable expenditures.
Finally, if the statute, or the appropriations act, is amended to
require the Office to assume responsibility for these expenses, this
may result in the Office being responsible for witness fees and
expenses for non-covered employees under the first sentence of section
305(c) too--which clearly was not intended in the CAA.
Conclusion
The law and policy concerns require that the Office not be held
responsible for payment of travel expenses for covered employees called
as witnesses in proceedings under the CAA. The employing office, as
well as the SCCE, have authorization and the responsibility to pay
these expenses in this case. If the purpose of the CAA is for Congress
to be treated like private sector employers, the statute cannot be read
to require the Office to pay travel expenses for witnesses: private
sector (and other public sector) employers do not enjoy that benefit.
settlements and awards
Question. Under the Congressional Accountability Act, funds are
provided for the payment of settlements and awards. It is this
committee's understanding that there have been instances when the
Office of Compliance has refused to pay all costs associated with a
settlement agreement. For instance, fees associated with training
required as part of the settlement agreement. Please explain the Office
of Compliance's policy in this regard.
Answer. Section 415(a) of the Congressional Accountability Act
provides for the establishment of an Office of Compliance account for
the payment of awards and settlements. Settlements requiring any
expenditure of funds from that account must be approved by the
Executive Director under section 414 of the CAA. Under the terms of
various settlements approved over the past two years, covered employees
have received payment of back pay and attorney's fees from the account.
Such payments were made only when the parties to the approved
settlement specifically agreed to the precise amounts to be expended
for those purposes.
In addition to the payment of awards or fees, employing offices
often agree, as part of a settlement, to undertake other efforts and
obligations in the workplace in order to amicably resolve disputes and
comply with the CAA. For example, employing offices have agreed to
provide training, revise personnel policies and manuals, re-evaluate
and reconsider employees, and issue guidance and memoranda to staff.
Such activities often involve some personnel or budgetary expenditures
for employing offices. In one instance, an employing office agreed to
provide sensitivity training to a disabled employee's co-workers.
Several months after the matter was settled, the employing office
submitted an ``invoice'' to the Office of Compliance requesting payment
to the consultant the employing office had retained to conduct the
training. The attached letter to the employing office's representative
from this Office's General Counsel (redacted to protect the
confidentiality of the matter and the parties) reflects this Office's
policy with respect to the payment of costs associated with complying
with the CAA, as opposed to payment from the awards and settlements
account for specified, agreed upon amounts to individuals and/or their
attorneys.
Office of Compliance,
Washington, DC, February 11, 1998.
Jean M. Manning, Esq.
Senate Chief Counsel for Employment, Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Manning: Ms. Silberman has forwarded your February 5
letter to me for response. In that letter, you note that [deleted]
agreed, as a condition of the July 1997 Settlement Agreement herein, to
conduct one or more training seminars for all [deleted] employees
regarding subjects specified in the Agreement. Your letter contains an
invoice from the consultant retained by [deleted] for this purpose, and
requests that the Office of Compliance arrange for payment of this
invoice by the Treasury of the United States, pursuant to Section
415(a) of the Congressional Accountability Act, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(a).
Your request is hereby denied. While your letter asserts that
Congress approved such funds ``* * * to pay settlement expenses * *
*'', the CAA expressly limited the use of such appropriated funds to
the payment ``* * * of awards and settlements under this Act.'' To
interpret the language of 415(a) as your letter does seems
impermissibly to expand upon the reach of the Act.
On the other hand, Section 415(b) expressly authorizes certain
``expenses'' of employing offices ``* * * which are needed to comply
with this Act.'' The funds to pay the training program invoice
therefore appear to be authorized pursuant to Section 415(b) for the
employing office to pay. Indeed, it may well be that the parties to the
Agreement had this in mind when they agreed that the ``Employer shall *
* * conduct one or more training seminars * * *'' (Agreement, Sec.
2.7), especially since the Agreement provides, in Section 6.4, that
``each party shall bear his/its own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees
* * *.''
Sincerely,
Gary Green,
General Counsel.
subcommittee recess
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee stands in recess.
Ms. Silberman. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., Thursday, March 12, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Bennett and Dorgan.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, AIA, ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL
ACCOMPANIED BY:
STUART PREGNALL, BUDGET OFFICER
HERBERT M. FRANKLIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
LARRY STOFFEL, SUPERINTENDENT, SENATE OFFICE BUILDINGS
AMITA POOLE, SUPERVISING ENGINEER, CAPITOL BUILDING
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. This is the last of our subcommittee
hearings on the fiscal year 1999 budget, and this morning we
will hear from the Architect of the Capitol, the General
Accounting Office, and the Government Printing Office.
It will come as no surprise that I will be talking about
the year 2000 problem. I think each agency knows in advance,
and is prepared to address it.
Before we begin I will note that the American Bar
Association has provided testimony to be included in the record
in support of funding for the Law Library of Congress. If there
is no objection, it will be included at the end of the Library
of Congress hearing.
Now, our first witness this morning is the Honorable Alan
Hantman, Architect of the Capitol.
Mr. Hantman. Good morning.
Senator Bennett. We are grateful to have you here, sir. We
thank you for your efforts. You have been here, what----
Mr. Hantman. One year.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. One year, and it has been a
long year in some ways, but you have done an excellent job. We
appreciate your willingness to listen to the concerns of this
committee, and become personally involved.
The good news that I will share with you publicly, is that
GAO has given us an analysis of all of the agencies under the
Legislative Branch Subcommittee's jurisdiction with respect to
the year 2000, and the Office of the Architect of the Capitol
comes out on top as the best prepared.
You started the earliest, and have the best plan in place,
as well as some contingency plans, and we are delighted to note
that, and appropriately issue thanks to you for it.
Senator Dorgan, do you have any----
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I do want to make a comment
when the GAO comes before us, and it is relative to the
selection of the Comptroller General. You know my frustration
with that process.
Senator Bennett. Which I share.
Senator Dorgan. I may have a suggestion or two, but we will
talk about that in the future, because I do not want to take up
a great deal of time. At this time, I look forward to the
testimony of the Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Hantman.
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Agency overview
Senator Bennett. Mr. Hantman.
Mr. Hantman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to
come before the subcommittee again.
May I introduce, please, Stuart Pregnall, our Budget
Officer; Larry Stoffel, our Superintendent, Supervising
Engineer for the Senate office buildings; and we have some of
our other staff to answer specific questions that you may have.
As you are aware, I have been immersed in learning and
evaluating the complexities of this agency, while also
initiating concrete action in response to Congress' imperatives
to find cost-effective quality service in support of its day-
to-day activities.
I have heard Congress' mandate loud and clear, and I have
focused in on rebuilding this agency into a unified and
flexible, responsive, and quality-oriented instrument of the
Congress.
With that philosophy of openness and shedding daylight on
our operations, I have presented a two-part presentation, one
basically to give a kind of a state-of-the-agency overview;
some issues that are not quantifiable in purely budget terms,
but they are important, I believe, to hear; and then we will
get into the budget area itself.
If I need to talk more quickly, please let me know, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Bennett. You are doing fine.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you.
With respect to last year's budget, we were given some $33
million by this committee last year to deal with capital
projects. We have initiated the planning, drawings, contracts,
and construction work for that $33 million, some $4 million in
design at this point in time, $12 million under contract for
construction, some $16 million in project development.
Also, we have completed construction documents for
renovation of the U.S. Botanic Garden Conservatory, and this
project is now being advertised for bidding, and we have better
than 20 bidders at this point in time.
We expect to award that in June of this year, as well as
the contiguous privately funded National Garden, which is in
the process, and will also follow shortly.
Another significant project is the rehabilitation of the
U.S. Capitol dome. Initial portions of the study for necessary
renovations of the dome have been completed, while others are
still in process.
I would like to thank you Mr. Chairman and Senator Dorgan
for supporting the inclusion of this project in the emergency
supplemental bill.
As you know, the $7.5 million will perform the complex task
of removing lead-based paint in the interstitial space between
the inner and outer domes, and after study, repainting of the
metal. This will permit the necessary detailed inspection of
all cast iron elements to clearly define the total scope of the
work for subsequent phases.
On the operations side, we have initiated programs to
select and begin the introduction of a computer-aided facility
management system to track and coordinate, record, and evaluate
work management costs and staffing data throughout the campus,
as well as to provide enhanced space management capabilities.
We have also improved communications between this agency
and our oversight entities, our clients, and other arms of the
Congress, something which clearly is an ongoing process.
We have upgraded our internal administrative systems, as
you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, for the year 2000 fix. We have
initiated an agencywide strategic planning process, reorganized
our central staff to better support the work of all of our
jurisdictions.
And we are rebuilding our human resources management
division to fulfill the imperatives of the AOC Human Resources
Act, and the Congressional Accountability Act. We have also
created task forces to investigate alternative means of
providing more cost-effective quality services in many areas of
the agency.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important to know the
philosophical underpinnings of these efforts, the foundation we
are building on, because there is no quick fix to the solution
for rebuilding and reengineering business practices in this
agency.
Strategic planning
Through our strategic planning process we are building an
organization that will be able not only to support the day-to-
day workings of both Houses of the Congress, but one that will
go on performing its duties long after all of us in this room
are gone.
Our new vision statement, which is the first board over
here, basically talks about our philosophy, our vision.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Architect of the Capitol Vision Statement
We will be an innovative and efficient team dedicated to service
excellence and to preserving, maintaining, and enhancing the national
treasures entrusted to our care.
Core Values
Service Excellence
Stewardship
Integrity
Professionalism
Creativity
Loyalty
Respect and Diversity
Teamwork
----------------------------------------------------------------
It states that ``We will be an innovative and efficient
team, dedicated to service excellence, to preserving,
maintaining, and enhancing the national treasures entrusted to
our care.''
We also have a set of core values that go along with this,
service excellence, stewardship, integrity, professionalism,
creativity, loyalty, respect and diversity, and teamwork.
Mr. Chairman, change is necessary to ensure that this
agency makes these values and this vision part of our corporate
culture, so that all staff members truly make them the
foundation of how we work, the basis for how we do business.
This agency is undergoing an intensive review of its
operations, with the goal of continuously refining and
improving the quality of our services to Congress and to our
visitors. As part of this review we are investigating how to
keep costs down, and most efficiently deliver our services in
fulfillment of our fiduciary responsibilities to the American
taxpayer.
If any of these initiatives involve staffing reductions, it
is our recommendation that this agency be authorized to
implement early-out and buyout programs for affected employees.
As you are aware, this was a successful program that we used
with the Senate restaurants this year, and we should actually
be in the black by $200,000 this year and $600,000 next year,
instead of a consistent loss.
fiscal year 1999 Operating and capital budget
I would like to turn now, if I can, specifically to our
budget for fiscal year 1999. Our first board shows the
operating and capital budgets by categories, on the left side,
the capital budget of $87.5 million, which we will talk about
in a little while. I would like to start off with the operating
budget of $153.8 million.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA19.000
This is basically a 5.8-percent increase over last year. It
would basically be 5 percent, if we did not have an election
move cycle included in the costs right now, and about two-
thirds of the costs here, the increase, is due to COLA's,
mandated pay, and benefits increases.
We also have some 6 percent in there for an agencywide
uniform program. I am not sure if we have any of our staff in
here with our uniforms. It has been a very successful program,
and we are hoping to extend that throughout the campus to
instill a sense of pride, organization, and quality service
from all of our people, and recognition of who is providing
those services.
On our next chart, let us talk a little bit about our FTE
employee budget.
Architect of the Capitol full-time equivalent employment budget
[16.4 percent reduction from 1992-99]
Fiscal year FTE's
1992.............................................................. 2,407
1993.............................................................. 2,383
1994.............................................................. 2,347
1995.............................................................. 2,311
1996.............................................................. 2,151
1997.............................................................. 2,034
1998.............................................................. 2,012
1999.............................................................. 2,012
FTE employment
This indicates that there has been a 16.4-percent reduction
in FTE count from 1992, to date, a very significant decrease,
and many very positive reengineering efforts have been achieved
to continue providing quality service to the House and the
Senate in a responsible manner, shop consolidations to reduce
supervisors, crosstraining, so that air-conditioning system
people on the second and third shifts can also do electrical
and plumbing work, and not have overtime for lots of other
people as well.
This chart represents a maximum number of FTE's for fiscal
year 1999. If we can, let us go to our next chart.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL FISCAL YEAR 1999 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------------------
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital.......................................... 32.8 23.6 27.9 17.3 47.9 33.9 62.1
Operating........................................ 137.0 141.3 148.3 141.1 139.0 145.4 153.8
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................... 169.8 164.9 176.2 158.4 186.9 179.3 215.9
==============================================================
Security......................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 25.4
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 169.8 164.9 176.2 158.4 186.9 179.3 241.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Operating and capital budget
This chart basically deals with our operating and capital
budget, and shows that operations costs have been relatively
level over the past 6 years. Most of the inflationary costs,
utility increases, COLA's, et cetera, have been absorbed
through decrease in work level forces.
The more significant changes have occurred in the capital
side of the budget. In fiscal year 1999, a major component of
the increase is shown for some $25 million in security-related
projects.
Let us take a look at the breakdown on the capital side
requests.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA19.001
Capital projects
It is broken down into two basic areas. On the left side we
see new facilities, some 18 projects, representing $26.9
million.
A part of this, of course, is the proposed Capitol square
perimeter security project, accounting for some $20 million of
these costs. I, as a member of the Capitol Police Board, would
like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Dorgan, for your
support of this project in the supplemental bill.
The larger portion of the pie chart represents some 142
reinvestment projects, worth some $60.4 million, from which
also we can subtract the $7.5 million for the Capitol dome,
which, again, is part of the supplemental now.
All of these areas are broken down by ADA, life safety,
capital projects, cyclical maintenance projects, technology and
management, and we can review each one of them with you
relative to its merits, and they have been structured this way
so that we can take a look at priorities. The requested
increase in the capital projects portion of the budget is very
significant, but the magnitude of the total for reinvestment
cyclical maintenance projects is very much in line, Mr.
Chairman, with the benchmark analysis we discussed last year
with you.
That analysis indicated that a campus-like complex of this
age, monumental quality and magnitude, could expect to
conservatively expend approximately 1.7 percent of the
replacement value of the buildings and infrastructure.
This is the same chart we talked about last year, and at
that time, Mr. Chairman, you asked us to verify that relative
to other major Federal projects.
Architect of the Capitol benchmark data
[Fiscal year 1999 funding levels]
Current Facility Replacement Value...................... $3,600,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Annual renewal
percentage
AOC Benchmark (Based on Universities of Illinois,
Michigan, and Stanford and the Army Corps of
Engineers).......................................... 1.7
Army Corps of Engineers (Budget Objective).............. 1.75
University Federal Research Cost Recovery (OMB A-21).... 2.0
Conservative Commercial Depreciation at 40 Years (IRS
will accept a faster depreciation rate)............. 2.5
National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences:
Low Range........................................... 1.5
High Range.......................................... 3.0
Fiscal year 1999 Capital Request (Request $60,478,000
Less $27,000,000 Security and Additional Facilities) 1.7
Reinvestment benchmark
We, in fact, checked out the Ronald Reagan International
Trade Center, and if we would have used the type of benchmarks
for cost of data approved for their project, this cost would
be, rather than $3.6 billion for the appraised value, more like
$4 billion.
We also took a look at GSA standards and measured them
relative to the different quality of spaces they use for their
courthouses, et cetera, and that cost would be in the range of
$3.1 billion.
So we are very comfortable with the concept of $3.6 billion
as a base number, and the 1.7 percent basically, as we
discussed last year, we also feel very comfortable with that
number.
The next chart basically updates last year's presentation,
and plots the 1.7 percent reinvestment benchmark against actual
reinvestment, from 1993 to 1998, and it adds in the 1999
request for cyclical maintenance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA19.002
Cyclical maintenance reinvestment
It shows that the 1.7 percent in 1993 equated to $49.6
million, and escalated at 3 percent per year, to $57.5 million
in 1998.
This totaled some $321 million in potential need for
reinvestment for this period, but the red line plots actual
reinvestment, from some $25.3 million, down to $14.5 million in
1997, including the $33.5 million for the Botanic Garden, that
brought it to $47.9 million.
In 1998, it shows an increase from $14.5 million to $33.7
million, which this committee allocated, reversing the downward
trend in recognition of the very real need to be responsible
stewards of these national treasures.
I think it is important to note, however, that the total
reinvestment made in the Capitol complex between 1993 and 1998
amounts to just under $175 million, some 54 percent of the $321
million benchmarked for that period.
The approximate $150 million difference between the
benchmark and the actual expenditures accounts for the pent-up
need for so many long deferred projects to finally be funded.
I believe that we would be in a lot worse shape, Mr.
Chairman, if the day-to-day maintenance efforts by Larry
Stoffel and our staff had not helped to extend the life
expectancy of building systems and components way beyond what
could reasonably be expected.
As this chart shows, our 1999 request for reinvestment
funding of $60.5 million is within 2 percent of the $59.3
million benchmark. Each project must, of course, stand on its
own merits and needs, but the overall magnitude is in line. We
stand ready to discuss the validity of the projects at your
convenience. The next chart basically breaks it down into the
areas of life safety, ADA, security, et cetera.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET REQUEST BY CATEGORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluding House office buildings
Fiscal year ----------------------------------------
Category 1999 Percent No. of Percent Fiscal year
request projects 1999 Percent No. of Percent
request projects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life safety................... $11,025,000 12.6 30 18.8 $7,796,000 10.4 23 17.8
ADA........................... 2,125,000 2.4 7 4.4 1,725,000 2.3 6 4.7
Security...................... 25,382,000 29.0 14 8.8 25,382,000 34.0 14 10.9
Cyclical maintenance/ 13,320,000 15.2 6 3.8 11,670,000 15.6 4 3.1
improvement..................
Cyclical maintenance.......... 22,258,000 25.4 65 40.6 15,958,000 21.4 49 38.0
Technology/management systems. 2,035,000 2.3 8 5.0 2,035,000 2.7 8 6.2
Improvement:
AOC....................... 3,655,000 4.2 13 8.1 3,480,000 4.7 11 8.5
Client.................... 7,660,000 8.8 17 10.6 6,658,000 8.9 14 10.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 87,460,000 100.0 160 100.0 74,704,000 100.0 129 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
prepared statement
I readily acknowledge that the amount requested is large
and understand the pressures to achieve a balanced Federal
budget in fiscal year 1999. As you are well aware, however, Mr.
Chairman, the need for these projects do not go away, since
they are needed to maintain our aging infrastructure.
I would be more than happy, Mr. Chairman, to address any
questions, comments, whatever.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, AIA
general introduction and executive summary
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to once again appear before this
Committee to present the budget for the Architect of the Capitol, one
year, one month and sixteen days after I officially assumed my duties
on February 3rd of 1997. As you are aware, I have been immersed in
learning and evaluating the complexities of this agency, while also
initiating concrete action in response to Congress' imperative to
provide cost effective, quality service in support of its day to day
activities. I heard Congress' mandate ``loud and clear'' and have
focused in on rebuilding this agency into a unified, yet flexible,
responsive and quality oriented instrument of the Congress. A brief
summary of actions to date includes:
Capital Projects.--Initiating the planning, drawings, contracts and
construction for work on the $33 million of capital projects funded in
fiscal year 1998 such as:
--$3 million in projects under contract for design: Senate
Legislative Garage; Capitol Dome; and Dirksen Building
Telecommunications and Fire Sprinkler
--$12 million in projects under contract for construction: Jefferson
Building Roof and Elevator Modernization
--$18 million in project development: Power Plant East Chiller
Replacement and ADA Improvements
Also, we have completed construction documents for renovation of
the U.S. Botanic Garden Conservatory, and this project is now being
advertised for bid. The contiguous privately funded National Garden is
in process and will follow shortly. Another significant project is the
rehabilitation of the U.S. Capitol Dome. Initial portions of the study
for necessary renovations of the Dome have been completed while others
are still in process. This fiscal year 1999 budget recommends
allocating $7.5 million to perform the complex task of removing lead-
based paint in the interstitial space between the inner and outer
domes, and, after study, repainting the metal. This will permit the
necessary detailed inspection of all cast iron elements to clearly
define the scope of work for subsequent phases.
Operations, Personnel Policies and Procedures.--On the operations
side we have initiated programs to:
--Select and begin the introduction of a computer aided facility
management system (CAFM) to track, coordinate, record and
evaluate work management cost and staffing data throughout the
campus, as well as to provide enhanced space management
capabilities
--Improve communications between the agency and our oversight
entities, our clients, and other arms of Congress
--Upgrade internal administrative systems to achieve a Year 2000 fix
for our procurement, financial and inventory operations
--Initiate an agency wide strategic planning process
--Facilitate initiatives with the Senate Sergeant at Arms, the
Secretary of the Senate, as well as their counterparts on the
House side, and the Capitol Police, to coordinate services, and
eliminate overlapping functions
--Reorganize Central Staff to better support the work of all of our
jurisdictions
--Rebuild our Human Resources Management Division
--Create task forces to investigate alternative means of providing
more cost effective and quality services in many areas of the
agency
--Develop standardized policies and procedures for use by all AOC
jurisdictions across the campus
--Provide management training programs for managers at all levels, as
well as developing training opportunities to further enhance
the trade and professional skills of our employees.
Vision and Goals
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is important for the Congress to
know the philosophical underpinnings of these efforts, the foundation
we are building upon, because there is no ``quick fix'' solution to
what is needed in rebuilding and re-engineering business practices in
this agency. Through our strategic planning process, we are building an
organization that will be able not only to support the day to day
workings of both houses of the Congress in an equitable and
professional manner, but one that will go on performing its duties long
after all of us in this room are gone. It is important for us to build
not only for today but also for the future--not only in our capital and
maintenance projects, but also to build the proper team to perform the
necessary day to day functions and services of this agency. This would
include developing the proper mix of in house staff, vendors,
indefinite quantity service contracts, and temporary employees to be
called upon as work load necessitates. Our new Vision Statement commits
us to this: ``We will be an innovative and efficient team dedicated to
service excellence and to preserving, maintaining, and enhancing the
national treasures entrusted to our care.''
Our ongoing strategic planning process also produced a set of core
values that we will use to guide us in our planning and our day to day
activities: Service Excellence; Stewardship; Integrity;
Professionalism; Creativity; Loyalty; Respect; Diversity; and Teamwork.
Congressionally Mandated Changes
Change is necessary to assure that this agency makes these values
and the vision part of our ``corporate culture'' so that all staff
members truly make them the foundation of our work, the basis for how
we do business. Many issues were identified and mandated for change in
the Architect of the Capitol Human Resources Act, and in the
Congressional Accountability Act. These include the requirement to
develop human resources management programs consistent with the
practices common among other federal and private sector organizations.
In response, this agency has begun initiatives to:
--more clearly define job descriptions and job expectations so that
everyone will know the requirements to successfully perform
their jobs.
--create a viable job performance and evaluation system so that
constructive feedback can be given to improve performance where
necessary, and to recognize and acknowledge those who provide
quality service and work towards the achievement of our vision
and goals.
--assure that uniform and fair standards are developed, implemented
and used throughout the Agency to the greatest extent possible
with respect to working conditions, job postings, upward
mobility, etc.
--create a viable equal employment and conciliatory programs function
that can fairly and efficiently address employee concerns in
line with the Congressional Accountability Act.
--provide training opportunities to further enhance the trade and
professional skills of our employees, including helping
supervisors better communicate with, and monitor the work of,
those who report to them.
These initiatives are all in process and are part of the foundation
that this Agency is being rebuilt on. The Congressional Accountability
Act also created the Office of Compliance with the powers to monitor
compliance with the intent of the Act, and also granted the employees
of this agency, among others on Capitol Hill, the right to form unions.
As you are aware, at this point AFSCME Council 26 has been designated
to represent over 600 of our custodial and labor employees, and we are
in the process of working with the union on a range of issues.
Review and Evaluation Methodology
In order to address these realities and comply with these laws,
this Agency is undergoing an intensive review of all of its operations
with the goal of continuously refining and improving the quality of our
services to Congress and our visitors to Capitol Hill, while at the
same time responding to the imperatives of the laws discussed above. As
part of this review we are investigating how to keep costs down and
most efficiently deliver our services in fulfillment of our fiduciary
responsibilities to the American Taxpayer.
This is in line with House recommendations over the past two years
regarding future restructuring of the Office of the Architect of the
Capitol, which discussed looking for sensible ways to streamline the
Architect's operation and logical areas in which to involve the private
sector. Specifically, consideration of the private sector was suggested
for routine maintenance and remedial work, in addition to the major AOC
projects for which this is now routinely done. Our on-going
investigation therefore includes in-depth evaluations of: Logical areas
in which to involve the private sector; internal opportunities to re-
engineer and consolidate existing staff; and opportunities to eliminate
duplication of services with other arms of the House and Senate.
If any of these initiatives result in staffing reductions, it is
our recommendation that this agency be authorized to implement early
out and buy out programs for affected employees. There are three basic
components to this review and evaluation: Impartial peer group
benchmarking for best business practices; Intra-Agency information
gathering and assessment; and customer feedback.
These will be discussed in more detail under Goals and Processes
for Sensible Agency Re-engineering.
Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Overview
I would like to briefly address our fiscal year 1999 budget
request. The Operating Budget requested for fiscal year 1999,
$153,812,000, represents a 5.8 percent increase in operating costs,
two-thirds of which are due to mandated pay and benefits costs, 12
percent to election move cycle costs, and 6 percent to an agency-wide
uniform program based on the pilot program currently underway in the
Senate. Cost savings will be achieved through re-engineering efforts
planned in fiscal year 1998 and implemented in fiscal year 1999, and
will be reflected in savings in subsequent budgets.
The requested increase in the Capital Projects portion of the
budget is significant, but the magnitude of the total for cyclical
maintenance projects is very much in line with the benchmark analysis
discussed last year. That analysis indicated that a ``campus-like''
complex of this age, monumental quality and magnitude could expect to
expend annually approximately 1.7 percent of the replacement value of
the buildings and infrastructure. Based upon an estimated replacement
value of $3.6 billion, 1.7 percent would equate to a target
reinvestment level of $59.3 million with 3 percent escalation to fiscal
year 1999. Each project must of course stand on its own, but the
overall magnitude of our request of $60.5 million, correlates directly
with the 1.7 percent benchmark of $59.3 million and we stand ready to
discuss the validity of each of the 228 projects at your convenience.
They have been categorized into Life Safety, Security, etc., for the
purpose of analysis and decision making.
There have been unanticipated project cost increases included in
this request, such as the Capitol Square Perimeter Security
Improvements. Further, the ongoing study of the necessary repairs and
repainting of the Capitol Dome has led to the conclusion that this
project also has increased in complexity, scope, and therefore, cost.
These two projects alone account for $27.5 million of the fiscal year
1999 budget request. The overall budget request is discussed in detail
below.
I would like at this point to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the
members and staff of this Committee for providing your support and
input during this process. The dialogue that we began last year has
continued unabated and I believe that together we have created a
foundation of communication and commitment to efficient quality service
that has already begun to show positive results. I look forward to
working with you and this Committee in the coming year.
role of the office of the architect of the capitol
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a brief moment to describe
broadly the role of the agency before I describe our fiscal year 1999
budget request and the changes that I see on the horizon. By law, 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 the alteration of existing
facilities.
Over the past year, this agency has focused significant energy on
its first strategic planning process. The first steps of this process
involved seeking and considering guidance from this Committee as well
as our other oversight bodies, and have led to the development of a
vision of how we should proceed to structure our organization to
deliver quality services to the Congress. The next steps in this
process include developing specific action plans to achieve our stated
goals. A guiding philosophy in this strategic planning process includes
the need to be responsive to our oversight bodies.
In performing our mission, 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 facility maintenance, professional design,
technical and other 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. I might
add parenthetically at this time that I have learned in the past year
that institutional knowledge does in fact run deeply in this agency. In
a sensitive operation such as ours, those who provide the services are
our greatest asset in carrying out our mission to the Congress. Any re-
engineering efforts we undertake should recognize the devotion and
service of our employees to the agency over many years and treat them
in a considered, caring and humane manner.
It goes without saying that many of the Congressional buildings are
national treasures and require intimate knowledge and significant
planning 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 of ``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, and will continue to do
so.
fiscal year 1999 operating budget
Last year's appropriations request was based on a comprehensive
agency-wide planning and coordination process including all cyclical
maintenance projects and building system enhancements. The thorough,
systematic and programmed analysis led to a proposed five-year capital
budget based on that planning. At the House Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch Appropriations direction, I evaluated the five-year capital
budget and especially the projects requested for fiscal year 1998 to
determine if the previous effort was valid and the resulting request
realistic. I did so, personally evaluating each of the 205 projects in
the five year plan. I also re-prioritized the request, re-defining them
into categories such as Life Safety, Security, Cyclical Maintenance,
Technology and Management Systems, etc. This is the same approach I
have taken this year and I will now discuss our fiscal year 1999 budget
request in detail. 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
$241,272,000, comprised of $153,812,000 for operating costs and
$87,460,000 for capital costs.
Increases in the costs that comprise the operating budget totaling
$153,812,000--that is, those costs that support operations and
maintenance, including salaries, are relatively small, 5.8 percent
overall. If the one time election year costs totaling $1,000,000 for
all activities are reduced from the operating request for fiscal year
1999, the increase amounts to approximately five percent. The operating
budget also reflects several years of gradual declines in real dollars
appropriated for operating the Capitol complex. Although there are
several small increases requested for various operating allotments, the
majority have been continued at the current funding level without
adjusting them for inflation. Of our 170 annual allotment lines in this
request, which include personnel compensation and benefits, 95 lines or
56 percent were either reduced or are unchanged from the current fiscal
year.
There are opportunities for savings within our operations budget,
some of which will require modest investments to achieve, and others
which we are proceeding with at this time. Under the overall category
of ``utilities,'' we are confident that investing in modern automated
control systems at the Power Plant will lead to more efficient use of
fuels, and eliminate the need for staff that presently manually monitor
the heating and cooling equipment. Additionally, we are nearly complete
with the installation of energy efficient lighting fixtures across the
campus. These lighting fixtures are already saving electrical energy.
But the true savings will not be realized until after the contractor is
reimbursed for the installation cost. Clearly the largest portion of
our operating budget is invested in our budget for salaries and
benefits, and that is where the greatest opportunity for savings lies.
I will have more to say about the operating budget and describe how we
are exploring specific options that may lead us to achieve greater
efficiency and cost effectiveness later in my testimony.
The requested increase for fiscal year 1999 falls into several
categories. Nearly two-thirds of the requested operating increase is
due to mandated pay costs and the government's share of benefits costs.
Nearly twelve percent of the requested operating budget increase
relates to the one time election move cycle costs: these occur every
other year to meet the need to house Senators and other staff based on
room assignments arising out of the elections. An agency-wide uniform
program is being proposed based on the pilot program now underway in
the Senate, and this accounts for six percent of the requested
increase.
The following table indicates these increases by appropriation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Change
budget request -----------------------
Base costs --------------------------------------------
FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Buildings: Operating Budget......... 388 $29,977,000 388 $33,165,000 ...... +$3,188,000
Capitol Grounds: Operating Budget........... 75 4,966,000 75 5,313,000 ...... +347,000
Senate Office Buildings: Operating Budget... 609 37,063,000 609 38,831,000 ...... +1,768,000
House Office Buildings: Operating Budget.... 649 28,906,000 649 31,042,000 ...... +2,136,000
Capitol Power Plant: Operating Budget....... 97 32,382,000 97 32,627,000 ...... +245,000
Library Buildings and Grounds: Operating 144 9,063,000 144 9,665,000 ...... +602,000
Budget.....................................
Botanic Garden: Operating Budget............ 50 3,016,000 50 3,169,000 ...... +153,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 2,012 145,373,000 2,012 153,812,000 ...... +8,439,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 1999 five year capital budget
The fiscal year 1999 capital budget request I present to you today
flows from the first five-year capital budget presented last year by
this agency. It is grounded in a comprehensive and systematic agency-
wide planning effort with in-depth involvement by all of the agency's
clients. On the Senate side we included the Sergeant at Arms and the
Secretary of the Senate. On the House side, we included the Sergeant at
Arms, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Clerk of the House. The
U.S. Capitol Police provided a detailed outline of their needs, and the
Librarian of Congress was also extensively involved. A total of 228
capital projects have been identified for the five year period.
As discussed last year, there is a need to provide the Congress
with such 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. We reviewed all of the
projects that were requested and not funded last fiscal year to
determine if they should be included in this year's request. We also
closely examined all those projects that, based on last year's plan,
had been projected for this fiscal year's request to make sure that
their inclusion was also still valid. As stated above, also included
are several significant new projects that were not even envisioned last
year. We have adjusted the out years accordingly and I will continue to
evaluate these needs and to update them to ensure that the capital
budget is responsive to budgetary issues, programmatic changes, the
condition of the buildings and their systems, and any other needs that
may arise.
At last year's hearing, we discussed the potential of a future
``balloon payment'' that might result from the accumulated costs of
deferred maintenance. I indicated that based on several infrastructure
reinvestment models we were targeting approximately 1.7 percent of the
replacement value as an order of magnitude funding level for the
Capitol complex. Last year that figure amounted to roughly $52 million,
which was in line with the $52,151,000 that we had requested for
reinvestment. The actual funding that was approved totaled $33,872,000,
thus leaving a reinvestment funding gap of $20,279,000. Once that
figure is adjusted for the Botanic Garden Conservatory request of
$8,300,000, which was provided for in the fiscal year 1997 emergency
supplemental, the reinvestment gap reduced to $11,979,000. We have
reinitiated our request for $8,235,000 of these projects in the fiscal
year 1999 request.
The capital budget that is being presented today is part of a
multi-year funding plan that provides 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 and it is sometimes
difficult to spread these costs out over time in order to avoid
significant peaks in the budgeting process. 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.
As discussed above, these projects have been categorized into
similar types of projects that reflect various initiatives that we are
now faced with. These include categories such as Life Safety, ADA,
Security, Cyclical Maintenance, Improvement, and Technology--Management
Systems. When a particular project category has been requested to meet
specific client needs, the category will note ``client.'' When a
particular project category has been initiated by this office, it is
noted ``AOC.'' A more detailed explanation of these categories follows.
Life Safety.--These are programs essential for complying with the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, environmental and hazardous
material protection, fire code compliance, and other regulatory matters
affecting the general health and welfare of building occupants. The
Congressional Accountability Act has placed significant emphasis on
ensuring that the Capitol complex is free of hazards to the Senators,
Members, staff and visitors.
ADA.--These are programs essential for complying with the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990. Passage of the Congressional
Accountability Act has reinforced the resolve to ensure that the
Capitol complex is free of barriers to the Members, Senators, staff and
visitors.
Security.--These are programs to meet the needs created by
increased terrorist activity throughout the world. As a result there is
a heightened sensitivity toward threats to security at the Capitol
complex. In addition there are security needs to protect property such
as the collections at the Library of Congress.
Cyclical Maintenance.--Several of the buildings in the Capitol
complex are reaching an age and condition that necessitate major
renovation or replacement of building systems. Various improvements are
recommended to assure that these building systems continue to provide
service to occupants.
Improvement.--Technology is changing far more rapidly than our
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.
These are programs that reflect either the replacement of existing
building systems to generate a significant operational improvement or
benefit, or the installation of a new type of technology or system to
create such an improvement or benefit.
Technology--Management Systems.--These are programs that reflect
the internal (AOC) use of computer applications and telecommunications
systems to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of operations.
It is important to note that over $34 million of the nearly $87
million requested in fiscal year 1999 is for capital projects related
directly to client requests, i.e., $4,022,000 for the Library of
Congress and $23,745,000 for the U.S. Capitol Police. In fact two major
costs account for 30 percent of the budget: the Perimeter Security
Project ($20 million)--and the first year major increment for the
Capitol Dome Project ($7.5 million), which is based on the part of the
ongoing project studies that has been completed to date.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Architect of the
Capitol also has been prioritized as directed by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. I have sub-divided the former three-
tiered system further to give greater detail to the Committees for
their decision-making. The requested items now are identified by the
following priority levels: 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, and 2-A, 2-B, and so on
through 3-C at the lowest end of the priority scale.
Both the categories and priorities will assist the Committee in its
decision-making process. Clearly this request is large, and I am aware
of the overall budgetary constraints and the realities of additional
funding beyond modest increases. I want to assure the Committee that we
will work with you and provide our best recommendations as the budget
review process proceeds.
It is also important to recognize that these requirements do not
simply disappear if deferred. If projects requested for fiscal year
1999 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 2000 funding
need much as the 1998 deferred projects are adding to this budget.
In last year's testimony, I detailed many of the reasons that there
was such a large increase in the funding level required for the
maintenance of our campus infrastructure. Rather than repeat those
reasons verbatim, I will highlight them here:
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.
Technological Advances.--Technology, especially in
telecommunications, is changing far more rapidly than our existing
building infrastructures can support and adapt to.
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 due largely to passage of the
Congressional Accountability Act.
Security.--Terrorist activity throughout the world has increased,
and as a result there is a heightened sensitivity toward threats to
security at the Capitol complex.
Infrastructure Reinvestment.--Replacement Value--We have developed
an annual investment rate of 1.7 percent of the replacement value of
the Capitol complex as an order of magnitude guide for capital funding
levels. In comparison, the fiscal year 1999 request related to existing
facilities of $60.5 million is right on target.
The following table summarizes the funding levels presented in the
five-year capital budget by category. Again, these categories include
Life Safety, ADA, Security, Cyclical Maintenance requirements,
Technology and Management Systems, and infrastructure Improvements.
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 CAPITAL PROJECTIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Category ----------------------------------------------------------------- Five year
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life Safety....................... $11,025,000 $9,734,000 $10,848,000 $2,247,000 $400,000 $34,254,000
ADA............................... 2,125,000 1,545,000 1,225,000 1,225,000 1,225,000 7,345,000
Security.......................... 25,382,000 3,095,000 6,905,000 500,000 ........... 35,882,000
Cyclical Maintenance-Improve- 13,320,000 12,220,000 12,220,000 2,450,000 2,225,000 42,435,000
ment.............................
Cyclical Maintenance.............. 22,258,000 31,655,000 23,065,000 14,372,000 13,012,000 104,362,000
Technology/Management Sys- tems.. 2,035,000 2,210,000 840,000 840,000 391,000 6,316,000
Improvement--AOC.................. 3,655,000 7,536,000 10,560,000 6,470,000 2,180,000 30,401,000
Improvement--Client............... 7,660,000 43,941,000 27,850,000 34,800,000 5,000,000 119,251,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 87,460,000 111,936,000 93,513,000 62,904,000 24,433,000 380,246,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 project such as
upgrading the cable television system, roof fall protection,
optimization of the chilled water distribution system, and window
replacement in the Capitol Building. Only design funding is requested
for these large capital projects in fiscal year 1999 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 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Capital projects 1998 budget 1999 request Change Major projects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Buildings: Capital Budget-- $7,000,000 $22,177,000 +$15,177,000 Capitol Dome, Ph. 1--
49 projects. $7,500,000; Design,
Senate Chamber--
$1,500,000; Upgrade
Cable TV System--
$1,000,000;
Infrastructure for
Security Installation--
$1,000,000.
Capitol Grounds: Capital Budget--10 150,000 21,310,000 +21,160,000 Perimeter Security--
projects. $20,000,000.
Senate Office Buildings: Capital 14,958,000 16,925,000 +1,967,000 NA.
Budget--28 projects.
House Office Buildings: Capital 7,704,000 12,756,000 +5,052,000 Replace LHOB Roof 6th
Budget--31 projects. and 7th Fl.--
$3,200,000; Sprinklers
and
Telecommunications,
RHOB--$2,564,000;
Electrical and
Telecommunications,
CHOB--$1,200,000; and
Garage Floor Repairs,
CHOB-- $1,000,000.
Capitol Power Plant: Capital Budget-- 1,550,000 7,752,000 +6,202,000 East Plant Chiller
10 projects. Replacement--$5,000,00
0; and Optimization of
CPP Operations--
$2,000,000.
Library Buildings and Grounds: 2,510,000 6,474,000 +3,964,000 Additional Security
Capital Budget--30 projects. Readers--$652,000;
Exterior Security--
$600,000; HVAC
Improvements--$600,000
; Design Screening
Facility--$500,000;
and Design Copyright
Facility--$500,000.
Botanic Garden: Capital Budget--2 ............... 66,000 +66,000 NA.
projects.
----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 33,872,000 87,460,000 +53,588,000
Less Perimeter Security............. ............... -20,000,000 -20,000000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 33,872,000 67,460,000 +33,588,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA: Not available.
Mr. Chairman, I should point out that there is one project that is
specifically not included in this capital budget request, and that is
the Capitol Visitors Center. At this point, as you are aware,
legislation has not yet been approved that would permit us to proceed
with this project.
I assure you that I will continue to work closely with you and the
Committee to review these requests to achieve a rational and adequate
funding level to support the needs of Congress.
strategic business planning effort: goals and processes for sensible
agency reengineering
Clearly one of the greatest challenges facing this agency has been
to respond to the question of how to determine the appropriate resource
levels necessary to meet our customers' needs. How many FTE should we
have and what funding level is needed to maintain and operate the
Capitol complex? In terms of FTE levels, it should be noted that over
the past six years we have cut FTE by over 16 percent. It is necessary
to determine if this means we are as ``lean and mean'' as we can get,
or are there areas where we should see further re-engineering?
Conversely, are there areas where we have cut too far? What funding
levels are necessary to meet customer demands in a timely manner, and
how well are we doing at providing quality service? In order to find
answers to these questions we began a thorough re-examination of our
agency through a management-wide strategic planning process. A second
major aspect of this process has been to strengthen lines of clear and
open communications between this agency and other support agencies as
well as key Committees and staff. A third aspect of this process has
been to begin implementation of necessary modern and efficient business
procedures and systems to bring this agency into the 21st century.
Over the past year, we have addressed these concerns at every
level, and I would like to describe in some detail the results of our
efforts thus far. In order to make reasoned and balanced
recommendations to Congress I initiated a review and evaluation of
three basic sources of information, each of which is required in order
to develop a balanced profile of how the agency should be constituted
and what policies and recommendations should be formulated. The first
source of information was to speak with every individual within the
agency. I met personally with every key manager, and scheduled ``town
hall'' type of meetings with all other members of the agency. I sought
to hear what every AOC person thought about the present status of the
agency and what the future direction of the agency should be. I
encouraged communication, in private if necessary, on areas where staff
were aware or suspicious or fraudulent, wasteful or abusive actions,
and I also encouraged open expression of their views of how the
agency's policies, procedures and management level respected employee
rights and promoted a productive and positive workplace.
The second source of information was through meeting with Members
and their staffs to see how well we were performing in terms of
customer satisfaction. I also opened dialogues with my fellow Senate
and House officers, including the Senate Sergeant at Arms and the
Secretary of the Senate, seeking areas where we might together improve
service delivery, or align our missions and structures more logically
to eliminate duplicative efforts. Finally, the third source of
information was to continue reviewing and analyzing outside impartial
resource information. I have broadened the scope of our preliminary
peer group benchmarking analyses to include virtually all maintenance
and technical functions. To carry out this peer group benchmarking, we
have embarked on a series of interviews with major corporations,
building management and trade research organizations, and government
agencies to see how we compare in terms of organizational philosophy,
the relative mix of in-house and outsourced functions, the use of
computerized facility management systems, and the types of maintenance
and operations standards and performance metrics they use. I will
provide for the Record a compilation of all the government, and private
sector organizations we have consulted with to date. Benchmarking and
information gathering efforts will continue and be constantly updated.
Over the past year, I have been reviewing and evaluating our
operations, especially as they relate to quality service delivery,
efficiency and who delivers each service. The process has involved a
task force composed of the Superintendents of the Senate and House
Office Buildings, and the Capitol Building, as well as the other
jurisdictional areas within the agency. What I found was that
significant re-engineering has already occurred throughout many areas
of our jurisdiction. Some general examples include:
--Changing tours of duties to accommodate reduced FTE's and still
respond to Congressional needs
--A consolidation of shops within both the Senate and House office
buildings allowed for a reduced number of supervisors
--A cross-trained workforce in areas such as the Senate upholstery
shop which has been trained to handle window treatment and
carpeting requests, and the House air conditioning shop, which
has been trained to handle electrical, plumbing, and elevator
service calls during the second and third shifts
--Increased internal controls over inventory, tools and equipment
--By using a consolidated shop approach, we are able to respond to
service calls after hours with the consolidated shop staff
rather than having to have each separate shop keep staff late
unnecessarily
--Also, we are now using Job Order Contracts to perform small
renovation projects where it is more advantageous to have
private sector involvement rather than using our in house
forces
--We have outsourced many areas of technical expertise, using private
sector contractors for design, estimating, legal and dispute
resolution services
--We have increased our use of the private sector vendors for
custodial services, having contracted out Webster Hall and
Postal Square on the Senate side, the Ford Building on the
House side and at the U.S. Botanic Garden as well
--We also use temporary staff for seasonal, short term, and
renovation work rather than staffing with long term FTE.
These new processes have been tested and implemented, best business
practices confirmed with other facility managers, economic savings
verified, and will be used as models as we continue our evaluations.
I believe that the final configuration of this agency will maintain
continuity of services by using a balanced mix of core staff with their
institutional knowledge, quality assurance and dedication of service,
as well as a flexible mix of outside vendors, private sector
contractors, and temporary staff to provide cost effective, quality
service to the Congress.
Steps taken toward this goal also include acting to improve
customer service within the Capitol itself. In our other areas of
jurisdiction, further changes in operations are being investigated and
their associated recommendations for several pilot initiatives are
being prepared by the task force. I will be happy to provide this
Committee with the detailed proposals once the pilot programs have been
crafted. Any proposals that might impact the role of the agency or how
it relates to other Congressional entities will be brought to the
appropriate oversight bodies for consideration.
human factor
Last year the Senate authorized a limited two year buy out and
early retirement program for the Senate Restaurants. The goal was to
quickly reduce the number and cost of FTE supporting that function
since reductions through attrition were minimal and the operation was
losing money. That process was sensitively handled in conjunction with
OPM, and many employees opted to take early outs and buy outs. The
process successfully reduced our losses and yielded an expected savings
of $250,000 in 1998--projected savings in 1999 total over $600,000. We
learned through this experience that with proper planning and
implementation these are effective tools for re-engineering, and I
propose using this program as a model should it be necessary for future
efficiency initiatives. The existing buy out authority covers only the
Senate Restaurants. I will be providing requested modifications to that
buy out authority to remove the cap of 50 positions, make that coverage
available for all AOC employees, and to extend the availability of the
program two additional years, through 2001.
I have already stated that as a result of our strategic business
planning efforts we have some specific pilot actions underway to
validate results in areas that we have identified as having the
potential for more efficient or cost effective service delivery. We
intend to test those pilots during the balance of this fiscal year, and
it is projected that the portion of the budget presented here today
related to staffing and operating costs thus will be a worst case
scenario for fiscal year 1999. Clearly if we identify areas that could
be re-engineered, we need funding for existing staff until the re-
engineered functions are in place. At that point, we also would require
funding, although at a hoped-for reduced level, for the re-engineered
functions. Further, if the results of our pilot initiatives determine
that a re-engineered and smaller workforce may be more cost effective
while delivering quality service levels, then we would need to
implement a buy out and early out program to reduce the workforce. As
with the Restaurant program, funding for early out and buy out packages
would be derived from the existing staff's budgeted costs for that
fiscal year. The following fiscal year would be the point where any
significant cost savings would begin to accrue as a result of such re-
engineering. Once the results of our pilot strategic business planning
initiatives are known and evaluated, I will present them for your
consideration.
This type of program has been successfully used by the Library of
Congress, the Government Printing Office, and especially by the General
Accounting Office, which has given us much valuable information for
their recent re-engineering efforts. The success already experienced in
these several areas demonstrates that such programs are a valid way to
achieve re-engineering and staffing mix and grade level adjustments.
Significant re-engineering must take into account succession planning
to retain skills and knowledge lost when senior and long term staff
leave. Some of that succession planning requires retraining existing
staff to become multi-skilled workers to take on a multitude of tasks.
Some retraining is also needed to respond to new technologies that are
advancing, especially in the areas of computer aided facilities
management.
There are two reasons why buy out and early out programs might need
to be made available to our employees, one legal, one philosophical.
First, our employees, unlike those in the Senate and House, are covered
under title 5 of the U.S. Code, the AOC Human Resources Act of 1995,
and other statutes governing our employees' rights. The philosophical
difference between our employees and those of the Senate and House is
that our employees are employed as civil service career employees: they
are hired, earn their pay, contribute to the government retirement
fund, and after a long career, retire with federal pensions. On the
other hand, many Senate and House employees come and go as their
Senators and Members are re-elected.
conclusion
The task of completing the assessment of the agency's strengths and
weaknesses, viewing them from a fresh perspective and striving to
implement sensible and realistic conclusions is complex, but much
progress has been made. I will continue with this rigorous examination
of our services, how they compare with the private sector, and how the
delivery of those services is viewed by our clients. This is an ongoing
process.
In conclusion, with respect to the capital budget, I readily
acknowledge that the amount requested is large, and understand the
pressures to achieve a balanced Federal budget in fiscal year 1999. The
nature of our aging facilities, security and technology improvement
needs, life safety and other mandated issues, all legislate for the
recommended projects. I know that this Committee and the Congress
realize, that many of these projects are clearly necessary to properly
conserve the ``peoples building'' and supporting structures for future
generations.
With respect to the operations budget as it relates to our mission
and services, I am committed to continuing the process of re-
engineering the agency to develop an organization that will deliver
efficient and cost effective services in an equitable and bicameral
manner. If the requested modifications to the authority for buy outs in
the Senate Restaurant are granted, we will be able to use it agency-
wide to promote quality service in a cost effective manner. There may
be additional legislative adjustments identified as this process
unfolds. However, I will not propose them if I am not convinced of
their need.
I will continue to report periodically on our progress as we
examine these issues. I believe that we can become more effective and
more cost-efficient and still continue to fulfill the core mission of
the agency. With respect to our dedicated employees, I believe that we
can be sensitive and humane as we proceed. 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.
Future shortfall
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. Let's go back one
chart. Looking at this chart by itself, you can say we got away
with staying under the $1.7 million, and only began to approach
it in fiscal year 1997 and again in fiscal year 1999.
I would like, if not here, then at some future point, for
you to go out a few years, I realize this will require some
guesswork, and we will not hold you to the exact specifics, but
I have the feeling, from what you are saying, that the years of
shortfall are going to produce spikes above the blue line in
future years.
If that is not true, we cannot justify going to the blue
line, just because it is a nice statistical measure, but if it
is true that we are going to have red spikes that go up above
that, then the blue line becomes a prudent management kind of
tool. I think this committee needs that sort of predictive
analysis in order to justify a $1.7 million automatic kind of
number.
Just because that is what it costs to keep up the
University of Illinois, or whoever, it does not necessarily
mean that is what it should cost us.
Intuitively, I think you are right. I think the $1.7
million makes sense. But I would like some guesses as to where
the spikes are going to come from in the future to make us pay
for the shortfall. If they are not there, then we ought to
rethink the $1.7 million number.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, your instincts are right on
line. We, in fact, have information going forward for a 5-year
master plan, which do indicate significant spikes, and we would
be more than happy to sit down and explain what the nature of
those projects are, and what fits with that 1.7 percent line.
Senator Bennett. We need to be forewarned about them,
because we are going to have to come up with the money for the
spikes.
I remember some criticism when we came up with the money
for the Botanic Garden, because people have their eye on the
lower red line there on the chart and said, What is the matter?
We give you chairmanship of this committee, and you run right
out and spend an extra $30 million.
The forewarning will be very helpful to us, as we deal with
the challenge that you have.
Mr. Hantman. We will come back to you with that
information, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
The table below indicates the current projections for the
total funding related to the five year capital budget. A
similar table is presented in our Opening Statement. The total
capital budget includes not only reinvestment costs but new
facility and security projects as well. The new facility and
security costs in the table below have been subtracted out of
the totals at the bottom of the table, leaving just the
reinvestment costs required to maintain existing facilities. As
noted by the Chairman, there is clearly a ``spike'' in the out-
years. The fiscal year 1999 request of $60,478,000 is right in
line with the benchmark reinvestment level of $59.3 million. In
fiscal year 2000, the projected benchmark level is $61 million,
and the currently projected reinvestment request would exceed
$92 million. This large spike is largely due to the number of
reinvestment projects that are currently under design with
funding appropriated in fiscal year 1998; once design is
completed accurate cost estimates can be made and the present
``marker'' estimates will be replaced with accurate cost
projections based on complete design. The projected benchmark
level for fiscal year 2001 is $62.9 million and the currently
projected reinvestment funding request ``marker'' estimate
would total $64,258,000, which again exceeds the benchmark.
Clearly, as decisions are made with respect to the fiscal
year 1999 request, a re-evaluation of the out-year portion of
the budget will be made. Some projects that may be deferred
during action on the fiscal year 1999 request will have to be
re-requested in fiscal year 2000, adding to the spike.
Likewise, some projects now programmed for fiscal year 2000 may
be moved out one more year depending on actual circumstances.
But the general point of there being a budgetary spike in the
current planning is real and must be dealt with in order to
prevent deterioration to the Capitol complex infrastructure.
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROJECTIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Category -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Five year
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life Safety............................................. $11,025,000 $9,734,000 $10,848,000 $2,247,000 $400,000 $34,254,000
ADA..................................................... 2,125,000 1,545,000 1,225,000 1,225,000 1,225,000 7,345,000
Security................................................ 25,382,000 3,095,000 6,905,000 500,000 .............. 35,882,000
Cyclical Maintenance-Improvement........................ 13,320,000 12,220,000 12,220,000 2,450,000 2,225,000 42,435,000
Cyclical Maintenance.................................... 22,258,000 31,655,000 23,065,000 14,372,000 13,012,000 104,362,000
Technology/Management Systems........................... 2,035,000 2,210,000 840,000 840,000 391,000 6,316,000
Improvement--AOC........................................ 3,655,000 7,536,000 10,560,000 6,470,000 2,180,000 30,401,000
Improvement--Client..................................... 7,660,000 43,941,000 27,850,000 34,800,000 5,000,000 119,251,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................................... 87,460,000 111,936,000 93,513,000 62,904,000 24,433,000 380,246,000
Less: New Facility and Security Costs................... -26,982,000 -19,635,000 -29,255,000 -15,800,000 -500,000 -92,172,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Reinvestment Funding Required............... 60,478,000 92,301,000 64,258,000 47,104,000 23,933,000 288,074,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A graphic presentation of the projected benchmark
reinvestment level and the funding currently included in the
five year capital budget follows.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA19.003
Botanic Garden project
Senator Bennett. Senator Dorgan, do you have any questions?
Senator Dorgan. Can you tell us the status of the Botanic
Garden project? My understanding is that the time situation has
slipped. Were we not talking about completion of the structure
before 1999? What is the reason that the time line has slipped
on that?
Mr. Hantman. Lynne Theiss, who is our Executive Officer,
and responsible for that specific project.
Ms. Theiss. Senator, the original time line for
construction was a 2-year construction project itself. What was
not calculated in the original presentation given to the
committee was the time it takes for the bid and to put all four
phases of the original drawings into a good-sized package.
If you recall, the original presentation said that we had
four different projects going on at one time. When that
material was put together we realized that the time for our
consultants--DMJM is the acronym that we have for them--to get
their team assembled and our team assembled, extended that time
line, so we are on track right now for completion including
replanting, for September of the year 2000.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. Will the slippage in the completion date
for the Botanic Garden project result in any cost increases?
Ms. Theiss. No; the Botanic Garden project will be complete
on time and within budget.
Emergency supplemental funding
Senator Dorgan. Are there recommendations in the
supplemental that deal with security and also repairs to the
dome, or investment there that will be taken out of this budget
if the supplemental passes and, if so, how much?
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely. There are $20 million in for the
perimeter security program, $4 million of which will be sent
over to the Capitol Police themselves for their electronic
components of that. There is also $7.5 million for this study
of the interstitial space that is also in this budget right
now, so $27.5 million comes right off--off of----
Senator Dorgan. Assuming the supplemental is passed.
Mr. Hantman. Assuming the supplemental is passed.
Senator Dorgan. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Capital project management
Senator Bennett. Thank you. You have funding for a number
of capital projects here, and you have made your case for the
money, now, without questioning about your capability to manage
that many projects simultaneously, do you want to make a
comment on that point?
Mr. Hantman. There are really three ways that we are
planning to deal with whatever level of funding you give us for
these new capital projects.
The mission of our architects, our engineers, our
construction management people needs to change, it needs to
change to be more project management oriented, rather than
being on the boards and doing the drawings themselves. So we
are training some of our people in both architecture and
engineering to do just that.
We also are requesting in this budget additional funds to
retain architectural and engineering firms in indefinite
quantity-type contracts, so they can do some of the drawing for
us, and have us oversee them on that work.
We have also included in some of these projects the issues
of having actual design funds as part of the projects
themselves, so, again, the design work will be taken away from
our people, and we will be able to monitor them more
effectively through that staff.
We have the capability of increasing our core staff of
about 30 project contract managers in our construction division
right now. These are temporary employees, and we can hire
people and charge them to the projects themselves to oversee
these, and have those people come on as long as we need them.
We are going to be expanding our staff with temporary
people, as opposed to adding permanent people to our staff, to
accomplish this.
Auditable financial statements
Senator Bennett. OK. When do you anticipate having
auditable financial statements?
Mr. Pregnall. Mr. Chairman, we are currently working with
the financial management division of the General Accounting
Office. We presented them with a plan that will have an
implementation of a standard general ledger sometime in fiscal
year 1999.
We propose, if that were feasible, to have an audited
financial statement made available for fiscal year 2000. That
is our current timetable.
Senator Bennett. What is your estimated cost to address the
year 2000 problem? What downward dip can we look for at some
future point, when that problem is taken care of? Do you have a
single number for it?
Mr. Pregnall. We do not have a single number for all of the
aspects that were covered in the GAO report for collecting that
data; we can provide that for the record.
I have spoken with our director of IRM, who has headed up
this very important project. Most of the funds that they have
expended have come out of our maintenance budget.
On our local network, we have a cyclical life cycle
replacement process where older PC's are changed out regularly
to keep up with technology. We have used the FAR language to
make sure that all our new PC's acquired are year 2000
compatible. Rick Kashurba and his staff have made sure that all
of the operating systems are year 2000 compatible. We are still
catching up on some of the engineering functions.
We do have maintenance funds for most of those systems and
the vendors do have fixes in place where they are developing
them. And as you know, we are monitoring that, we are creating
contingency plans just in case the vendors do not come through.
Senator Bennett. OK. Thank you. I salute you for your
diligence on that.
Additional committee questions
Mr. Hantman, again, we thank you for a year's worth of good
stewardship and a fast learning curve. It is not a criticism of
your predecessors to say that you inherited a serious
challenge, because this job always carries with it a serious
challenge, but you did come into a situation that did not allow
any coasting, and we are grateful to you for the professional
manner in which you discharge your duties.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you very much.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Architect for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
uniform program
Question. The AOC has requested approximately $575,000 for an
agency-wide uniform program. This was based on a pilot project
providing uniforms for Senate Office Building employees. Please
summarize for the record the results of that pilot project, and if a
final report was issued, include the final report for the record.
Answer. Approximately 60 percent of the employees in the Senate
Office Buildings are currently in uniform. In general the employees are
pleased with the uniforms. Twenty-six boxes of uniforms are missing
from the vendor with no time estimate of when this will be resolved.
Several factors contributed to a rugged start, such as: the absence of
a secure area to issue and control the distribution of uniforms, some
fitting problems, white identification embroidery on all the uniforms
including those with white shirts, and the Contractor's (Cintas)
organization and support was not up to what was expected by the
Architect's office.
privatization
Question. Last year the Architect indicated that the Office was
still collecting data about possible areas of privatization. Please
update the Committee on the results of this effort.
Answer. The Office has continued to collect data over the past year
about possible areas of privatization. At this time, the Office has
compiled enough data to develop firm scopes of service in order to
implement controlled pilot programs in the areas listed below. It is
anticipated that implementation will begin as early as April 1998 in
some areas.
Capitol Grounds--Out Parcel Maintenance; Parking Lot Maintenance;
Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Charging; Chandelier Cleaning;
Restaurant Support; and Plant growing for the Capitol grounds.
Additional data is still being collected in order to develop firm
scopes of services in the following areas.
Custodial; Shuttle Service; Vehicle Maintenance; Elevator
Inspection and Maintenance; and Re-Lamping.
fort meade project
Question. When will the Fort Meade project be completed and
available for occupancy by the Library?
Answer. The drawings are nearing completion and bidding is expected
to start in April. Occupancy is slated for the end of summer 1999.
strategic planning
Question. When do you anticipate presenting your strategic business
planning initiatives?
Answer. Last Fall the agency embarked on its first ever Strategic
Planning effort. After a series of preparatory meetings, nearly 30
senior managers met for three days and developed a Vision Statement,
Mission Statement and Core Values. The group also identified several
Critical Success Factors necessary to meet the Goals and Objectives.
Since that time, the group has been extended to lower level management.
It is fair to say that the agency's program is gaining momentum. As of
April 3, 1998 the newest suggestions and concerns will have been
incorporated into the Plan for evaluation by the entire group of 60. We
will be happy to share both the information on our process, our
programs and our proposed implementation as they develop.
computer-aided facilities management
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the computer
aided facilities management system (CAFM) project. The AOC's Office
indicated recently that it is estimated to save 10-15 percent in
maintenance costs. Please identify how those savings will be
accomplished.
Answer. Two phases of CAFM are currently in the implementation
phase.
Phase 1 will implement Space Management for the Senate Office
Buildings and Senate side of the Capitol. It is now 85 percent
complete. Currently the AOC is working with the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration to finalize ad hoc and customized reports.
Phase 2 which will implement Work Management and development is 30
percent complete in the Senate Office Buildings. Recently a
reprogramming was requested to implement Work Management in the Capitol
and House Office Buildings as well. Currently work processes are being
standardized. The automated work management module will be implemented
during June 1998. The first part of this module which is work requests
(year 2000 problem with existing system) will be operational by August
1998.
With respect to the reported possibility of a 10-15 percent
savings, a projection of actual savings cannot be currently determined
until workload data is collected and analyzed to determine areas where
preventive maintenance and service work requests can be made more
efficient.
renovation of the canine facility
Question. Last year the Police Board requested and the AOC included
in its budget request $350,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $350,000 for
fiscal year 1999 to fund the renovation of the K-9 facility. The
Appropriations Committees provided $200,000 in fiscal year 1998. Since
last year, the police officers have done a substantial amount of the
work at the K-9 facility themselves. Has the AOC's Office done any work
with the $200,000 provided? Has the cost of that project been
reevaluated in light of the work that has been done?
Answer. Although the U.S. Capitol Police have performed a
creditable job in cleaning out the existing facility, none of the
mechanical, electrical, plumbing or other repairs have been undertaken.
These are presently under design. The plan for fiscal year 1998 is to
renovate the portion of the building that accommodates the canines by
replacing the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system,
upgrading the electrical system, installing adequate kennel drainage
and plumbing, resurfacing the floor, and replacing doors, door frames,
windows, etc. as required to permit housing of canines in the building.
During fiscal year 1999, the administrative portion of the building
will be renovated with the $200,000 funding increment programmed for
that year. The fiscal year 2000 increment will focus on exterior site
problems, especially drainage around the building and the training
field. The final programmed increment of $100,000 in fiscal year 2001
will complete the site work by addressing the parking, relocation of
the trailers, and any final work required.
off-site delivery center
Question. In fiscal year 1998, Congress provided $100,000 of a
$150,000 request for OSHA repairs to the off-site delivery facility.
The budget requests the additional $50,000 this year. Of the original
$100,000 provided, what work has been completed by the AOC's Office to
date? Is the total $50,000 still required to complete the project?
Answer. A preliminary survey of the off-site delivery facility (P
St. Warehouse) has been completed and a scope of services has been
developed. An architect/engineer will be retained to complete a phased
plan for implementation of the OSHA repairs and related improvements.
Phased implementations of the repairs will begin in late spring or
early summer. The additional $50,000 requested in fiscal year 1999 will
be required to complete the project.
capital project management
Question. The Architect indicated in the hearing that it is the
Office's intention to manage, if provided, the increase in projects and
funds, with outside contractors. Are the funds required for these
contractors provided in the budget as a separate management cost, or
are they built into the cost estimate provided for each project?
Answer. Funding for the hiring of consultants for planning, design
and estimating of some projects is requested as a separate budget item
and as a specific phase of the project. For example, design for the
Senate Chamber improvements project has been requested as a separate
budget item in order to fully develop drawings, specifications and cost
estimates for that project. This process is followed when a project is
of such a magnitude in cost or scope that a specific consultant is
needed to bring particular expertise to carry out the design. For other
more routine type projects, in the past in-house staff were tasked with
performing actual design work. However, in order to more efficiently
utilize existing staff resources, we are refocussing our staff into
more of a project manager role. In this role, our staff will oversee
several different design efforts undertaken via indefinite quantity
(IDQ) service contracts for architectural, engineering and estimating
services. There are similar contracts in place with the General
Services Administration (GSA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). The AOC is looking into the possibility of using
existing IDQ contracts with these agencies rather than going through a
similar procurement process. Funds totaling $350,000 have been
requested as a new operating allotment in the Capitol Buildings
appropriation to support contractual services for architectural and
engineering services, and funds totaling $80,000 have been requested in
the same appropriation for contractual estimating services.
Once design is completed and funding is made available for actual
work, the cost of managing the construction process is charged against
the project funds and is accounted for within the project estimate and
budget. The AOC's Construction Management Division (CMD) is composed
largely of temporary project managers, inspectors and other
construction project administrative staff whose costs are borne by
actual projects. In this manner, the staffing level can be added to
when more projects are being performed, and reduced when fewer projects
are funded.
auditable financial statements
Question. What has been accomplished by your office in the area of
financial management for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 to date.
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the agency developed the first AOC
Financial Management Improvement Program (FMIP) Strategic Plan. The
FMIP Plan will be revised annually to reflect current and future
strategy.
Also the AOC is the first Legislative Branch agency to complete a
Y2K upgrade of existing support software for its financial operations
(accounts payable, inventory, procurement, funds control). Existing
staff accomplished the design, development, testing, data conversion,
and installation of software in only six months (4/1/97-9/30/97). Staff
accomplished the effort while maintaining critical day-to-day financial
operations at the same time they supported the necessary Y2K upgrade
effort. The Y2K upgrade was accomplished with minimal vendor support
costs. This upgrade improved financial operations by migrating from a
``home grown, stovepipe'' financial system environment to an off-the-
shelf integrated processing environment. The new system will help to
create a framework for more timely and useful budget and other
financial information, and enable the AOC to reduce duplicate data
entry and data redundancy within its systems and financial processing,
especially in the areas of funds control and accounts payable.
In fiscal year 1998, the agency will strengthen the AOC financial
organization, both in terms of personnel and operations. We are
currently working with the General Accounting Office to prepare an
implementation plan for installing a JFMIP-compliant Standard General
Ledger (SGL) that seamlessly integrates with other AOC financial
applications. Financial software currently available on Financial
Management Services' (FMS) Financial Management Systems Software (FMSS)
Schedule will be reviewed to ensure that a JFMIP-compliant SGL (and
related contract support) is purchased by the AOC. In addition, the AOC
will explore cross servicing possibilities. This plan will identify the
need for necessary staff, contractor and vendor resources.
Also, the agency will work with the current environment to employ
more refined cost finding techniques for improved AOC project cost
reporting and for improved AOC facilities management operational cost
reporting.
Question. In fiscal year 1998, $650,000 was provided for financial
management. Please identify where those funds have been spent or are
expected to be spent.
Answer. Approximately half of the funds have been obligated for
continued technical support by the vendor and creating a redundant
environment for the Y2K compliant system. Technical support of the
system will be shared by the existing AOC IRM staff once full
transition of all applications off the Unisys mainframe is
accomplished. The balance will be used to continue refining reports
generated from the system as well as pursuing the installation of a
Standard General Ledger.
Question. The AOC budget request for fiscal year 1998 included a
total cost of $1.650 million for an integrated management system
(financial management system). The budget request for fiscal year 1999
includes a total cost of $2.850 million for the same project. Please
identify what has changed to increase the cost of this project.
Answer. There are several reasons for the increase in the cost of
the project. The interim Year 2000 fix for the core financial systems
used in the agency temporarily delayed the development of IMS
requirements. The agency has now presented to the GAO a draft
accelerated implementation plan for adopting a JFMIP-compliant Standard
General Ledger system that will lead to the ability to develop and
audit financial statements. At the recommendation of several
Legislative Branch agencies who had already gone through similar
conversion processes, an additional year of implementation funding was
reflected to provide sufficient resources to this effort. At the same
time, the agency has accelerated its implementation of a computer-aided
facility management system (CAFM). The complexity of capturing data
from both financial and facility management systems and incorporating
it into an overall Integrated Management System (IMS) led to an
increased out-year support cost.
Based on the pending recommendations from the GAO related to the
implementation of an SGL, it is anticipated that the AOC will revise
its initial implementation costs and out-year projections. These
revised costs will be presented to the Committee as soon as possible.
year 2000 problem
Question. What is your estimated total cost to address the year
2000 problem? What has been spent to date, and what is requested in
fiscal year 1999? What is your cost estimate beyond fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The following table summarizes the estimated costs to date
and beyond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRM......................... ......... $193,000 $100,000 $293,000
ENGR........................ ......... 35,000 ......... 35,000
ACCTG....................... $112,500 ......... ......... 112,500
SEN REST.................... ......... 50,000 ......... 50,000
TECH. SUPP.................. ......... 30,000 ......... 30,000
-------------------------------------------
Totals................ 112,500 308,000 100,000 520,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The funding identified for fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999 are
provided for in the base maintenance accounts.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF JAMES F. HINCHMAN, ACTING COMPTROLLER
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
ACCOMPANIED BY:
BRIAN P. CROWLEY, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL FOR PLANNING
AND REPORTING
JOAN M. DODARO, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL FOR OPERATIONS
RICHARD L. BROWN, CONTROLLER
opening remarks
Senator Bennett. Our second witness is Mr. James Hinchman,
the Acting Comptroller General. It is no criticism of Mr.
Hinchman that he remains with that adjective.
Mr. Hinchman. You are very kind, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. Yes; I will say that over the last year
this committee has had to look to GAO for expertise in a wide
variety of areas just after this committee went through the
process of cutting you back by 25 percent.
For me, you have risen to the challenge extremely well, and
I am very grateful to you personally and professionally for the
way you have taken on this assignment, particularly with
respect to the year 2000 problem.
We continue to get in my other subcommittee chairmanship
first-class work out of GAO with respect to the year 2000
problem, and that is attributed, Mr. Hinchman, to you, and to
the dedicated people who assist you, and I will be grateful if
you would pass on to them my personal thanks for all they have
done.
Mr. Hinchman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to
do that. It is the greatest satisfaction of our work to know
that. I appreciate that very much.
Senator Bennett. Now, having said that, I will recognize
Senator Dorgan to give a speech with which I will associate
myself in advance.
need to appoint Comptroller General
Senator Dorgan. Well, you may or may not. Mr. Chairman, let
me just vent for a moment on this issue, and I will be very
brief.
Mr. Hinchman, I think, has done a remarkable job, and I
have great respect for his work for the organization, the GAO.
I think they serve Congress admirably, they do very
professional work, and we could not do without them.
The former Comptroller General, Charles Bowsher, left 19
months ago. We knew 1 year before that exactly when he was
going to leave, because his term was up and he was going to be
gone. So for 2\1/2\ to 3 years we have known that we need a
Comptroller General. Nineteen months after it became vacant, we
do not have a Comptroller General.
Mr. Hinchman is an awfully good leader, in my judgment, but
he is not a Comptroller General, because he has not been
appointed. It is outrageous, in my judgment, that we have not
found a mechanism or some method to appoint a new Comptroller
General.
Let me just read the people who are supposed to be doing
this, just so that we all understand: Speaker Gingrich, Senator
Thurmond, Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, Congressman Armey,
Congressman Gephardt, Senator Thompson, Senator Glenn,
Congressman Burton, and Congressman Waxman. They comprise the
commission that is responsible to develop the names to send to
the President for this appointment.
This commission, for whatever reason, has been unable to
reach agreement. It is true that the vice chair and chair of
the commission have now sent three names to the White House; it
is not true that the commission has sent names to the White
House, because they have been unable to agree.
I am thinking of a couple of suggestions, which I will not
offer today, but which I will intend to offer on the floor of
the Senate either when this subcommittee sends the bill to the
floor, or before.
One is, perhaps if this commission is unworkable, and maybe
19 months, or 29 months, demonstrates that, then we should
abolish this commission, and say, If you cannot do your job, we
will construct something that can do the job, so essentially
firing the commission, or second, simply say that those who
have not performed are not able to access information from the
GAO until they do.
Well, I say that, understanding that the chairman just said
he has agreed with everything I will say, knowing that he
likely would not want to join me in that recommendation, but--
[Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. I will take it under serious
consideration. [Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. I say to the leadership on both sides, who
construct this commission, that they have a job to do. They
have not done the job. It is embarrassing and it is outrageous.
And in my judgment, it shortchanges a very important agency.
This country deserves a Comptroller General. We ought to make
this selection.
There are men and women of great quality and high
character, and men and women that are of great distinction who
can become candidates for this, and among which we can select a
Comptroller General. And maybe your names are among that list;
I do not know.
But look, my point is, I want this group to do its job, and
if they will not do their job, I will recommend that we
reconstitute a different commission with people who can do the
job, and the sooner, the better.
Having said that, Mr. Hinchman, again, you have done an
excellent job, but we need whoever runs that organization to
have the title Comptroller General, and the full force and
authority of what that title implies.
Senator Bennett. I agree with everything you say. We will
take under consideration your proposal, and maybe the proposals
that you and I get to pick it after 60 days, or some such
number. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hinchman, we are looking forward to hearing what you
have to say.
Mr. Hinchman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared
statement, with your permission I would like to summarize
that----
Senator Bennett. Absolutely.
Mr. Hinchman [continuing]. And if that is acceptable, I
would ask that the statement be put in the record.
Senator Bennett. Without objection.
Statement highlights
Mr. Hinchman. With me is Joan Dodaro, our Assistant
Comptroller General for Operations, Brian Crowley, our
Assistant Comptroller General for Planning and Reporting, and
Dick Brown, our Controller.
I have only one brief point to make. GAO's mission is
service to the Congress. A year ago we told you that our
overriding internal management goal was to stabilize the
operations of our agency following our downsizing, so that we
could create the environment in which we could recruit and
retain the talented staff we need to fulfill that mission, and
provide the organizational and support structures that they
need to do that job successfully.
I want to thank this committee for the $8.5 million
increase which we received last year under your leadership.
With those funds we have been able to pursue that mission of
stabilization. In particular, we have instituted a limited
hiring program to address our most acute staffing shortages and
have also been able to begin modernization of our information
technology infrastructure.
Our budget request for this year continues that goal of
stabilization. To pursue that goal, we are again seeking an
increase in our budget. That increase would go for only three
purposes. One-half of it would go to meet mandatory and price
level increases we cannot control.
The second part would go to pay for a portion of the cost
of our information technology infrastructure modernization.
That modernization, by the way, is critical to our plans for
becoming year 2000 compliant. We are absorbing most of the cost
of that modernization within our current funding level, but we
do need some help.
The third component would go for a staffing increase to
help move us toward our goal of a 3,450 staff level. We
established that goal when we began our downsizing. It
represents a one-third reduction from our 5,300 level, which is
where we were at the beginning of that downsizing. We are
currently below that level, and it is becoming increasingly
difficult for us to meet growing demands for work in some
critical areas.
You have already referred to the most critical of those. We
have limited staff who can do the work we are trying to
accomplish in the area of the year 2000 compliance, both within
Government and our country as a whole. The demands for work in
this area are growing daily.
But there are other demand areas. We are being inundated
with requests for work in the area of telecommunications
policy, an area in which we have had little or no expertise
since we began our downsizing. The demands for us to do work in
the area of oversight of international and multinational
organizations has also been growing over the last couple of
years. We are facing exploding demands for work in the area of
Medicare financing, particularly since the creation of the
commission on the future of Medicare.
We know that resources are limited, and we are doing
everything that we can to control costs. For example, at your
suggestion, we entered into a lease with the Army Corps of
Engineers for one floor of our headquarters building so that we
can reduce the cost of maintaining that facility. We are also
working hard to improve productivity and, through process
reengineering, have made significant gains in that area.
But notwithstanding these efforts, if we are going to
continue to be a strong and viable organization that can
fulfill our mission of serving the Congress, we are going to
again need an increase in our funding for the coming year. We
are hopeful that it is going to be possible for us to get those
funds.
prepared statement
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to
answer any questions you have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James F. Hinchman
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to be here today to testify on the General Accounting
Office's (GAO's) fiscal year 1999 budget request. GAO's request
reflects a continuation of our effort to stabilize agency operations
following our downsizing. This year, with the resources provided by
this committee, we have begun taking the steps necessary to achieve
this end. In particular, we have embarked on a major modernization of
our information technology systems and normalization of our hiring,
promotion, and employee recognition programs. Our 1999 request will
enable GAO to sustain this effort and maintain its capacity to serve
the Congress effectively.
fiscal year 1997 accomplishments and highlights
GAO is proud of its long tradition of service to the Congress and
the contributions it has made toward improving federal government
operations. The issues we examined during fiscal year 1997 spanned the
breadth of national and international concerns, including aviation
safety and security, financial management and accountability, health
care financing, income security, information technology, national
security, tax administration, and many others. Eighty-three percent of
our work was done at the request of the Congress or in response to a
statutory mandate.
As a result of our audits and evaluations, the legislative and
executive branches took actions last year resulting in financial
benefits of nearly $21 billion--over $50 for every dollar that you
appropriated to GAO. 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. For example, the Congress and the Department of the Treasury
reduced the Internal Revenue Service's proposed fiscal year 1997 tax
systems modernization appropriation by a total of $514 million as a
result of GAO reporting on problems associated with the modernization
effort. As another example, the Congress terminated the Housing and
Urban Development's mortgage assignment program after GAO found the
program was not successful and was costly to run. The estimated
benefits over 2 years are about $1.3 billion.
We also had other findings and recommendations that resulted in or
contributed to improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of
government operations and services that cannot be quantified in
monetary terms. Their impact is nonetheless significant because they
lead to a better-run, more streamlined government. For example, as a
result of GAO's work, the Federal Aviation Administration has increased
its inspections of foreign air carriers to ensure that they comply with
international safety standards. In addition, to help ensure compliance
with the Government Performance and Results Act, we issued a guide for
the Congress and agencies to use in reviewing agency strategic plans
and reported on agencies' progress in implementing the act. Past
experience shows that about 75 percent of GAO's key recommendations
usually are implemented within 4 years, through the passage of
implementing legislation and agencies' corrective actions.
Overall, we produced 1,337 audit and evaluation products during
fiscal year 1997. These products included 975 reports to the Congress
and agency officials, 149 formal congressional briefings, and 182
congressional testimonies delivered by 65 GAO executives before 81
congressional committees or subcommittees. We also provided 14
statements for the record to congressional committees and
subcommittees. In addition, we produced 2,386 legal decisions on
matters involving government revenues and expenditures, such as
protests against the award of federal government contracts.
During fiscal year 1997, we undertook a wide range of initiatives
aimed at making GAO more responsive to the Congress and enhancing the
quality and timeliness of our products and the efficiency of our
services, while also expanding staff capability and improving human
resource management. In addition, we have further refined our quality
control program to ensure that high-quality products are consistently
produced and meet professional standards. We also fully implemented a
reengineered job process management system that has increased the
efficiency in which we conduct our reviews and the quality and
timeliness of the products created. Compared to fiscal year 1996, the
cost of our assignments in fiscal year 1997 was reduced by nearly 25
percent and their duration by about 20 percent.
fiscal year 1999 budget request
GAO's fiscal year 1999 request is necessary to maintain our
capacity to serve the Congress effectively and to support our efforts
to stabilize agency operations following our downsizing. We are asking
that the committee consider a fiscal year 1999 budget of $369.7
million. The increase included in this request is for three principal
purposes: mandatory pay and benefits and uncontrollable costs
increases; technology modernization and upgrades to replace outdated
technology and ensure year 2000 compliance; and funding to move closer
to our employment goal of 3,450.
Mandatory pay and benefit increases are the most important and
account for the largest part of our request. These increases are
necessary to cover uncontrollable costs, such as cost-of-living,
locality pay, and personnel benefits increases. GAO's staff, its most
valuable resource, accounts for about 80 percent of its budget dollars.
It is also important to offset other uncontrollable inflationary
increases, such as the higher cost of contract services, travel,
printing, supplies, and other mission essential support services.
Without additional funding to cover these costs, our capacity to
function effectively will be impaired.
We need to continue efforts to modernize our technology to maintain
the productivity and timeliness gains that such technology has thus far
made possible. Investments required in fiscal year 1999 will replace
outdated software and hardware and will ensure that GAO is year 2000
compliant.
This year, GAO has begun efforts to correct the skill imbalances
resulting from our downsizing. Our recruiting plan calls for us to
replace attrition and gradually move closer to the agreed upon 3,450
employment level by the end of fiscal year 1999. We are requesting
funds to provide for personnel compensation, benefits, and related
costs to make this possible.
GAO's fiscal year 1999 budget request does not include funding for
the GAO headquarters building renovation program. Last year, at your
request, we analyzed our facilities requirements to determine whether
we could lease any excess space in our headquarters building and use
the revenue generated from that lease to renovate the two remaining
unrenovated floors and supporting infrastructure of the building. On
the basis of that analysis, negotiations are now underway for the Army
Corps of Engineers to lease the entire third floor of the building.
This lease should provide the funds necessary to permit completion of
our renovation program.
concluding remarks
GAO's fiscal year 1999 budget request will position the agency to
move into the 21st century with the staff, technology, facilities, and
other resources needed to effectively and efficiently serve the
Congress and to contribute to the improvement of government operations
and services. The increase in our budget is essential to cover
mandatory increases in people-related costs and inflationary increases
in the prices of the goods and services we buy, continue GAO's efforts
to upgrade its technology and information systems, ensure year 2000
compliance, and stabilize GAO's workforce.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions the Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Year 2000 compliance
Senator Bennett. Thank you. It will come as no surprise
that with my dedication to the year 2000 issue I will do what I
can to see to it that you do not get shortchanged there,
because we repeat the obvious, we have no flexibility at the
back end of that.
Do you have a sense of the total cost it is going to take
for your 2000 problems?
Mr. Hinchman. I think the incremental cost above work that
we would do anyway is about $500,000, it is not a large cost.
This is principally because the biggest part of our compliance
plan is the replacement of our personal computers, the hardware
for the local area network, which links those computers, and
replacement of the software that operates on those computers.
We need to do this anyway to provide the level of
information technology support which our staff needs; that has
been the plan on which we have been working. Our current system
is not year 2000 compliant, but the new one will be, and that
is part of our information technology budget.
But there are other things that we have to do as well. As
you know, we need to repair other systems throughout our
agency. We need to do some work with other agencies and provide
for interfaces and data exchanges. In total, these efforts are
going to cost us about $500,000.
Desktop video
Senator Bennett. Last year you told us you were doing a
pilot program on desktop video in the Seattle field office and
in three sublocations. How did the pilot work out? Is it going
to save you any money?
Mr. Hinchman. The use of our video conferencing system
continues to grow. I think there are going to be questions, but
the use of those video systems is a success and has produced
significant savings in our travel budget, in addition, of
course, to staff time, which does not have to be spent on
airplanes.
Senator Bennett. Do you want to say anything specific about
the desktop?
Ms. Dodaro. The use of desktop video conferencing is
inconclusive at this point. Video conferencing in and of
itself, as Mr. Hinchman has said, has been very successful and
has been saving money. We have not yet reached a conclusion on
the desktop portion.
Senator Bennett. So you have not decided----
Ms. Dodaro. No.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. That it does not work, and
you----
Ms. Dodaro. No; we have neither decided it is nor have we
decided that it is not in any way appreciably better than our
agency facilities, the broad facilities that we have rather
than people having them locally at their desks.
Computer leasing
Senator Bennett. OK. You have been very creative about
leasing computers. Perhaps you could give us a comment about
that as an example for other agencies who are facing similar
kinds of problems.
Mr. Hinchman. When we decided we had to embark on a
replacement for our current computers, we, in consultation with
experts in the field, concluded we needed to study whether it
would be more cost efficient to buy new computers or lease
them. I think that it is fair to say that virtually all of our
consultants told us that the fiscally prudent thing to do is to
lease those computers so that you can avoid the substantial
investment in equipment that becomes obsolete so quickly.
When we lease equipment, it continues to belong, obviously,
to the lessor. When it becomes obsolete, it is the lessor's
problem and not ours; and we are free to move on to new
systems.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, part of the reality of the
information technology business today is that systems and the
software that operates on them are changing so rapidly. It is
very difficult to choose not to move with that change, because
you quickly find yourself in a situation in which you cannot
maintain your systems. After that study, we concluded that we
needed to lease our new equipment, and that is what we are
doing.
Senator Bennett. I concluded with my family, I just do not
need to buy it, it will be obsolete by the time we pay for it,
so then I do not need to buy the next one, because it will be
obsolete. My children disagree with that.
Additional committee questions
Thank you very much. Again, Senator Dorgan's comments, as
well as my own, demonstrate the confidence this subcommittee
has in your stewardship, and our gratitude for all the work you
are doing, and we will try to get a permanent title, either for
you or somebody else, between now and the next time we meet.
Mr. Hinchman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. 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
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of your Year
2000 conversion plans.
Answer. GAO has identified the Year 2000 problem as one of its most
serious operational challenges and ranks its Year 2000 Compliance
Project as the highest information technology priority. To date, GAO
has developed a detailed Year 2000 plan that includes schedules for
converting or replacing all mission critical systems that are Year 2000
non-compliant. We have completed an agencywide inventory of 66 systems
and identified 28 of those systems as mission critical. All mission
critical systems have been assessed for Year 2000 compliance: 9 are
compliant, 5 are being repaired, and 14 are to be replaced.
The main component of GAO's effort to repair or replace non-
compliant systems is its long-planned technology modernization project.
GAO plans to repair or replace all of the non-compliant systems well
before the Year 2000.
Other Year 2000 actions that GAO has taken include the
identification of all data exchanges and development of data exchange
agreements and plans for making external systems compliant. We have
also documented a Year 2000 test strategy, which includes approaches
for testing network-based applications and corporate information
systems, such as payroll and personnel systems run at the National
Finance Center. In addition, we have begun developing contingency plans
to ensure continuing core business operations in the event of Year
2000-induced failures.
Question. What did GAO spend in fiscal year 1997 for information
technology, and what do you plan to spend in fiscal years 1998 and
1999?
Answer. Our information technology budget funds a variety of
services underlying agency operations including mainframe computing
services, data and voice communications, video conferencing services,
network customer support, and maintenance and support for hardware and
software. In fiscal year 1997, GAO spent $21.9 million on information
technology (IT). The current estimate for IT spending is $26.4 million
for fiscal year 1998 and $27.8 million for fiscal year 1999.
GAO requested a $1.4 million increase in its technology budget for
fiscal year 1999, as part of continuing its technology modernization
project to replace outdated hardware and software and to ensure GAO is
Year 2000 compliant. The hardware and software replacements are for
GAO's existing information and communications infrastructure and are
needed to support the new workstation and network platforms to which
the agency is migrating. A very small amount will be used to fund
development efforts for GAO's mission tracking (audit work) systems.
Question. GAO cut 25 percent from its budget and reduced staff by
33 percent between fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The stabilization level
established at the beginning of the downsizing was 3,450 FTE's. GAO
effectively downsized and has operated with increased productivity
levels since fiscal year 1997. Given this experience, is 3,450 FTE's
the optimal level for GAO to serve Congress' needs?
Answer. At this point in time, GAO believes that 3,450 FTE's will
enable it to meet Congress' current needs. In fiscal year 1997, GAO
completed its downsizing efforts that began in fiscal year 1992 with a
GAO-wide hiring freeze. By the beginning of fiscal year 1997, GAO's
staffing had declined almost 35 percent from a 1992 level of 5,325 to
its planned stabilization level of 3,500 staff (3,450 FTE's). Since
then, higher than normal attrition has further reduced GAO staffing and
caused staff shortages in critical program areas, such as financial
auditing, information management, telecommunications' infrastructure,
and Medicare and Commerce-related issues.
In fiscal year 1998, GAO began implementing a recruiting plan to
replace attrition, correct the skills imbalance resulting from our
downsizing, and gradually rebuild to the 3,450 employment goal. GAO is
concerned about its ability to quickly respond to Congressional needs
in critical areas if unable to implement this recruiting plan.
Question. What is your estimated total cost to address the Year
2000 problem? What has been spent to date, and what is requested in
your fiscal year 1999 budget? What is your cost estimate beyond fiscal
year 1999?
Answer. Many of GAO's Year 2000 issues are being corrected through
its long-planned technology modernization project. This project is
replacing obsolete hardware and software and providing additional
capacity that would have been done regardless of Year 2000 issues.
Without the resources needed to implement the modernization project,
GAO will not be Year 2000 compliant.
In addition to the modernization project that indirectly addresses
most Year 2000 issues, GAO estimates that about $500,000 will be spent
directly for Year 2000 efforts related to upgrades/fixes for its
Financial Management System and a number of small database system, and
the replacement of voice mail processing systems. Of the $500,000,
$33,000 was spent in fiscal year 1997, while the remainder will be
spent in fiscal year 1998. There are no funds included in the fiscal
year 1999 budget, nor are there costs estimated beyond fiscal year 1999
that are directly attributable to correcting Year 2000 issues.
Question. What are the highest risk areas confronting GAO in
completing its Year 2000 program on time?
Answer. GAO believes the highest risk to timely completion of its
Year 2000 Project is with major systems that are outside of GAO's
direct control and that GAO relies on to carry out its functions. These
major systems include the pay computation and EFT systems;
telecommunications carriers that provide nationwide communications for
GAO's data, voice and video systems; and infrastructure utilities that
support our facilities--electrical, power, and water.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan
Question. As you are aware, a provision was included in the Fiscal
Year 1998 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, which
allows a six-month ``open-season'' for Federal employees who wish to
switch their retirement system from CSRS to FERS. I believe the
chairman of the committee was the sponsor of that amendment, and I
believe its purpose was to allow those who might somehow be
disadvantaged under CSRS to switch to FERS during this six-month window
this year. As I understand it, this could amount to a substantial cost
for large agencies and departments of the Federal government.
Do you have any ideas as to the number of GAO personnel who, at the
present time, are under CSRS and who might take this opportunity to
change to the FERS system?
What would be the cost, if any, to your budget for any employee who
did so, and what would be the total anticipated cost?
Answer. GAO projects that at July 1, 1998, the beginning of the 6-
month ``open-season'' period, it will have 1,880 employees covered
under the CSRS retirement system who could switch to the FERS system.
It is difficult to predict how many employees will switch when provided
the opportunity.
Currently, GAO's contribution towards Medicare and retirement
benefits for an employee who participates in the CSRS retirement system
is about 10 percent of the employee's annual salary. GAO's contribution
towards social security and retirement benefits for an employee in FERS
is about 23 percent of the employee's annual salary. Therefore, the
additional cost to GAO for any employee who switches from CSRS to FERS
could be about 13 percent of their salary. The actual cost per employee
will depend upon the employee's actual earnings and level of
participation in the Thrift Savings Plan.
To estimate the potential cost impact to GAO of the ``open-
season'', GAO has developed estimates assuming that 5, 10, or 20
percent of the eligible employees would transfer from CSRS to FERS.
GAO's estimate of the number of employees and the related cost impact
under these assumptions are shown in the following table. At the time
GAO's fiscal year 1999 budget request was submitted, the President's
veto of the open season provision had not been set aside. GAO's fiscal
year 1999 budget request, therefore, does not include any funds to
cover this potential cost increase.
ESTIMATED COST INCREASE IF GAO EMPLOYEES SWITCH FROM CSRS TO FERS DURING
JULY-DECEMBER 1998 ``OPEN SEASON''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If 5 If 10 If 20
percent of percent of percent of
eligible eligible eligible
staff staff staff
switch switch switch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number of staff 94 189 375
transferring from CSRS to FERS..
Annual cost increase beginning in $790,024 $1,595,186 $3,163,950
fiscal year 1999 \1\............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cost estimate assumes that eligible employees have transferred from
CSRS to FERS by the beginning of the fiscal year.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. DIMARIO, PUBLIC PRINTER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ROBERT MANSKER, DEPUTY PUBLIC PRINTER
FRAN BUCKLEY, SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
WILLIAM M. GUY, BUDGET OFFICER
Opening statement
Senator Bennett. Our third witness is the Honorable Michael
DiMario, the Public Printer, representing the Government
Printing Office [GPO].
Mr. DiMario. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. Good morning. In the last year there have
been some large projects involving the Government Printing
Office that I trust you will hear about. GAO has been
coordinating a management review, which is not before us, but I
understand will be completed shortly.
The Joint Committee on Printing has been working on title
44 legislation, expected to be introduced in a few weeks, which
will also affect your lives in a variety of ways. So we look
forward to hearing your testimony.
Mr. DiMario. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to be
with you this morning to present the funding requirements of
the Government Printing Office for fiscal year 1999. With me
are my Deputy Public Printer, Bob Mansker, to my right; the
Superintendent of Documents, Fran Buckley, to my left; and my
Budget Officer, Bill Guy, also to my right.
Both Bob Mansker and Fran Buckley are newcomers to GPO, Bob
spent many years as a staff member of the House, and later on
the Joint Committee on Printing. Fran comes from the library
community, where he was associate director of the Detroit
Public Library, and later director of the Shaker Heights Public
Library.
I am extremely happy to have them onboard at GPO, and I
believe that they will be a real asset in our day-to-day
dealings with both Congress and the public.
In the interest of time, I will summarize my prepared
statement, which I have submitted for the record.
Senator Bennett. Without objection, it will be printed.
Public Printer's statement
Mr. DiMario. For fiscal year 1999 we are requesting a total
of $114.2 million for those programs that require
appropriations directly through GPO. The request includes $84
million for the congressional printing and binding
appropriation, and $30.2 million for the salaries and expenses
appropriation for the Superintendent of Documents. This is an
increase of $3.5 million, or about 3.1 percent, over the level
of funding approved for fiscal year 1998, including the one-
time transfer of approximately $11 million from our revolving
fund to the congressional printing and binding appropriation.
The congressional printing and binding appropriation is
critical to the maintenance and operation of our in-plant
capacity, which is structured to serve the information product
needs of the legislative process in Congress. The majority of
the Superintendent of Documents salaries and expenses
appropriation is for the depository library program.
While some of the funding for this program is for salaries
and benefits, most is for producing and disseminating
publications to depository libraries, including publications in
CD-ROM's and online formats.
This appropriation also provides the majority of the
funding for the operation of GPO Access, which is the basis for
our ability to transition the depository program to an
electronic future.
We are cooperating with the General Accounting Office in
its efforts to assess the status of year 2000 readiness in all
legislative branch agencies following your direction, Mr.
Chairman. Our proposal to bring our mainframe operating system
into year 2000 compliance has been approved. We have formed an
internal year 2000 program management office to work with GAO,
and have appointed year 2000 coordinators throughout GPO.
We are undertaking efforts to convert, replace, or retire
existing systems to ensure that they are year 2000 compliant,
and we are assuring that all ongoing and planned improvements
to our computer systems are year 2000 compliant. We are
confident that the steps we are taking now will ensure the
continuity of product and service provision to Congress,
Federal agencies, and the public.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement, and I
will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[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 1999.
gpo keeps america informed
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,
U.S. Code, has been to fulfill the needs of the Federal Government for
information products and to distribute those products to the public.
Formerly, GPO's 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), which requires 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--print, CD-
ROM, and online. In GPO the Government has a unique asset that combines
a comprehensive range of conventional production and electronic
processing, procurement facilitation, and multi-format dissemination
capabilities to support the information life cycle needs of Congress,
Federal agencies, and the public:
--We provide print and electronic information products and services
to Congress and Federal agencies through inplant processes and
the purchase of information products from the private sector.
For Congress, we maintain a capability to fully support the
information product needs of the legislative process, working
in close cooperation with leadership offices, committees,
Members, and staffs in each Chamber.
--We disseminate Government information to the public in print and
electronic formats through a low-priced sales program and a
reimbursable program, and to Federal depository libraries
nationwide where the information may be used by the public free
of charge. We catalog and index Government information products
so they can be identified and retrieved by users.
--We also disseminate a massive volume of information online via the
Internet with GPO Access. Recent data show that more than 10.5
million documents are retrieved by the public every month using
this system. We strongly support the increased dissemination of
Government information in electronic formats, and GPO Access
today is one of the leading Federal sites on the Internet. Our
home page, at www.access.gpo.gov, provides free public access
to more than 70 Federal databases from all three branches of
the Government, a growing number of agency Government
Information Locator Service (GILS) sites, and associated
locator and Pathway aids.
We provide 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. We are committed to
achieving the greatest access and equity in information dissemination
through printed publications, CD-ROM, and online information
technologies. Our electronic and traditional technologies
simultaneously enable us to facilitate the re-engineering of
information products to satisfy the Government's changing information
requirements, and to preserve and protect public access to Government
information for all of our citizens.
At the bottom line, our programs reduce the need for duplicative
production facilities throughout the Government, achieve significant
taxpayer savings through a centralized production and procurement
system, and enhance public access to Government information, which is
increasingly valuable to all Americans in the Information Age.
More than a century ago, Congress in its wisdom designed a system
in GPO for keeping America informed. That system continues to serve a
vital purpose today.
fiscal year 1999 appropriations request
For fiscal year 1999, we are requesting $114.2 million for those
programs that require annual appropriations directly to GPO. The
request includes $84 million for the Congressional Printing and Binding
Appropriation and $30.2 million for the Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents.
Our total request is an increase of $3.5 million, or 3.1 percent,
over the level of funding approved for fiscal year 1998. Our fiscal
year 1998 funding includes a one-time transfer of approximately $11
million from our revolving fund to the Congressional Printing and
Binding Appropriation. As our budget submission shows on pages I-2 and
I-3, GPO's appropriations have remained relatively stable for several
years (in fact, declining by 7 percent from fiscal year 1993 through
fiscal year 1998), and have declined substantially in real purchasing
power.
The Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation is critical to
the maintenance and operation of our inplant capacity, which is
structured to serve Congress' information product 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. In fiscal year 1997, more than 1.3 billion copy pages of
congressional products were produced at an average cost of less than 4
cents per page, inclusive of all prepress work, printing, binding, and
delivery. This appropriation also covers database preparation work on
congressional publications disseminated online via GPO Access.
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
benefits, most is for printing and distributing publications (including
publications in CD-ROM and online formats) to depository libraries.
This appropriation also provides the majority of funding for the
operation of GPO Access.
congressional printing and binding appropriation
Our request of $84 million for the Congressional Printing and
Binding Appropriation is an increase of $2.3 million, or 2.9 percent,
over the total amount approved for fiscal year 1998, which includes the
transfer from the revolving fund. The items covered by the request are
as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Estimated
Category Requirement
Committee hearings................................................ 19.7
Congressional Record (including the online Record, the Index, and
the bound Record)............................................. 18.8
Miscellaneous Printing and Binding (including letterheads,
envelopes, blank paper, and other products)................... 15.4
Bills, resolutions, amendments.................................... 12.8
Miscellaneous Publications (including the Congressional Directory,
the U.S. Code, and serial sets)............................... 5.2
Committee Reports................................................. 3.2
Business and Committee Calendars.................................. 2.0
Documents......................................................... 2.0
Details to Congress............................................... 1.8
Committee Prints.................................................. 1.6
Document Envelopes and Franks..................................... 1.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 84.0
Product prices are anticipated to increase by approximately 4.7
percent overall due to the increased costs of employee compensation and
benefits, utilities, maintenance, materials, and supplies. We are
continuing to work to reduce these costs with savings from
technological improvements and adjustments to staffing requirements.
The impact of price increases will be offset by a 1.8 percent
reduction overall resulting from decreased workload volume in several
product categories. Based on historical data, in the first session of
the 106th Congress we expect to see decreases in workload for the
Congressional Record, business and committee calendars, details to
Congress, document envelopes and franks, committee prints, hearings,
and documents. Historical data suggest there will be increases in
miscellaneous publications (because of the production of the
Congressional Directory and other publications for the new Congress),
miscellaneous printing and binding, bills, resolutions, and amendments,
and committee reports. While these estimates are based only on
historical factors and represent our best estimates as to the projected
workload for the first session of the 106th Congress, actual workload
may vary.
We have been participating with both the House and the Senate in
the development of new legislative information systems that will expand
the capability to create and utilize electronic information products in
Congress and potentially reduce GPO's printing costs. One objective of
these systems is the adoption of Standard Generalized Markup Language
(SGML) to permit the submission of machine-readable keystrokes
requiring less processing by GPO prior to final production. We support
initiatives in both Chambers to facilitate the sharing of information.
In addition, we are now placing all Senate Appropriations Committee
hearings online.
salaries and expenses appropriation
Our request of $30.2 million for the Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents is an increase of $1.1
million, or 3.9 percent, over the amount approved for fiscal year 1998.
The increase is due to increases in mandatory pay and related costs,
price level changes, and workload changes. The component programs
covered by the request are as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Estimated
Program Requirements
Federal Depository Library Program................................ 25.8
Cataloging and Indexing Program................................... 3.5
International Exchange Program.................................... .5
By-Law Distribution Program....................................... .4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 30.2
Price level changes and cost increases due to pay raises and
related expenses represent $818,000, or about 73 percent of the
requested increase of $1.1 million. The majority of this amount,
$570,000, is for price level changes calculated at the assumed rate of
inflation for the year, or 2.6 percent. Approximately $225,000 is for
enhancements to GPO Access to facilitate the continuing transition of
the FDLP to a predominantly electronic basis. The balance is for
capital expenditures for GPO's Library Programs Service.
We are requesting the Appropriations Committees to increase the
statutory limitation on travel expenses under the Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation from $150,000 to $180,000, in order to fund increased
travel for depository library outreach, including instruction and
training on the use of GPO Access.
bound congressional record
House Report 104-657, accompanying H.R. 3754, the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act for 1997, directed GPO to reduce the
distribution of paper copies of the bound Congressional Record
beginning with the 105th Congress, and to produce a new CD-ROM format
for this publication. A total of $100,000 was earmarked for the fiscal
year 1997 Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation for a more
limited number of printed copies of the bound Record to be distributed
at the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP).
The JCP has directed the distribution of about 205 sets of the
bound Record to be funded from GPO appropriations, estimated to cost
about $313,000. This includes $179,000 from the Congressional Printing
and Binding Appropriation and $134,000 from the Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation. In addition, we estimate that about 190 sets will be
ordered and paid for by other Federal agencies and the public.
Consistent with the direction of House Report 104-657, we plan to
produce the sets on demand from an electronic database utilizing high-
speed reproduction technology. This strategy will produce the
relatively small number of copies required at a much greater savings.
We have received the approval of the House Subcommittee on Legislative
Appropriations to spend an additional $79,000 from our fiscal year 1997
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation and $134,000 from the
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation for this purpose. Sufficient funds
are available for this purpose.
congressional serial sets
House Report 104-657 also directed us to reduce the production and
distribution of bound Congressional Serial Sets beginning with the
105th Congress. The direction was to convert most sets to CD-ROM format
and to limit the distribution of bound sets to regional depository
libraries, plus one depository in each state without a designated
regional depository (including the District of Columbia), and to
international exchange libraries.
We formulated a plan for the implementation of this directive that
subsequently was approved by the JCP. The bound Serial Set will be
distributed to all designated regional depository libraries and one
library in each of seven states that do not have a designated regional
depository. In addition, the international exchange libraries, the
Library of Congress, the National Archives Library, the Senate Library,
the House Library, and the Public Documents Library Collection (now
housed within the National Archives and Records Administration) will
continue to receive bound versions of the Serial Set. An estimated 105
copies of each volume of the set will be produced and distributed to
these recipients. This quantity is 344 copies less per volume than was
distributed prior to the 105th Congress (a total of 128 volumes are
estimated for a Serial Set for an entire Congress).
The Superintendent of Documents has surveyed depository libraries
to allow them the opportunity to add the initial slip distribution of
the documents and reports of the 105th Congress in paper format, since
the bound Serial Set will not be an option for most of them. In
addition, we have accepted the suggestion of the Government Documents
Roundtable of the American Library Association to make available copies
of the Serial Set title pages (including the contents listing for each
volume) to depository libraries that request them. We are also offering
the bound Serial Set for the 105th Congress for sale through the
Superintendent of Documents sales program.
At this time, it is not possible to create a complete electronic
Serial Set with all the requisite capabilities, since many documents
and reports are not currently available electronically and are too
graphically intense to convert to an electronic format. We will work
with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the
Senate, as well as ongoing efforts associated with information systems
planning in both Chambers, toward the eventual production of a complete
electronic Serial Set.
transitioning the depository library program
We are continuing to transition the FDLP to a predominately
electronic basis, as directed by the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act for 1996, and as set forth in the plans contained in the Study to
Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More
Electronic Federal Depository Library Program (June 1996). The
transition process was estimated to require from five to seven years
beginning in fiscal year 1996. The transition includes the
dissemination of both tangible electronic Government information
products, such as CD-ROM's, as well as online databases and locator
services provided via GPO Access, our online Internet service. GPO
Access is the principal delivery vehicle for online Government
information to depository libraries and the public. Current trends
indicate that online formats will eventually be the dominant means of
electronic dissemination.
A key highlight of the transition process this past year was the
development of the ``collection management'' concept for GPO Access,
which establishes that we will manage the various electronic Government
information products made permanently accessible via GPO Access as a
library-like collection. This concept will consist of four elements:
(1) core legislative and regulatory GPO Access products that will
reside permanently on GPO servers; (2) other remotely accessible
products either maintained by GPO or other institutions with which GPO
has established formal agreements; (3) the tangible electronic
Government information products distributed to Federal depository
libraries; and (4) remotely accessible electronic Government
information products which GPO identifies, describes and links to but
which remain under the control of the originating agencies. Portions of
the collection, other than the core legislative and regulatory GPO
Access products, may be maintained at partner institutions, including
other Federal agencies, depository libraries, consortia, or other
institutions.
In 1997, we established the first partnerships under the collection
concept with the University of Illinois-Chicago, the University of
North Texas, and the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) Inc., to
handle permanent public access to databases originating with the State
Department, the now-defunct Office of Technology Assessment, and the
Education Department, respectively. We have also developed a
partnership with the Department of Energy for the electronic
dissemination of its reports in image format. In a related effort, we
are piloting a project with the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) of the Commerce Department to make available certain NTIS image
files to depository libraries.
revolving fund
Operation of the Revolving Fund.--Instead of receiving direct
appropriations to cover the cost of the products and services GPO
provides, our revolving fund accepts reimbursements from other
appropriations and the public that place orders for GPO products and
services. The fund pays for work performed prior to receiving
reimbursement from the customer. The fund must have sufficient cash to
pay private sector printers and GPO operating expenses prior to
receiving reimbursement from the ordering agencies or the public. In
the case of the sales program, the fund purchases copies of
publications for the sales inventory and receives payment when the
publications are sold. The fund also makes expenditures for equipment
and other capital improvements. The cost of capital improvements is
reimbursed gradually to the fund over their useful lives from the
benefiting customers. The four programs financed through the revolving
fund are plant printing, printing procurement, sales of publications,
and agency distribution services. The Congressional Printing and
Binding Appropriation is used to reimburse the fund for the cost of
services provided to Congress. The Salaries and Expenses Appropriation
of the Superintendent of Documents is used to reimburse the fund for
the cost of services provided in the distribution of publications as
required by law.
Fiscal Year 1997 Financial Performance.--We are pleased to report
that GPO's revolving fund generated consolidated net income from
continuing operations of $11.6 million for fiscal year 1997, compared
with a loss of $16.9 million for fiscal year 1996. However, the
Department of Labor (DOL) has revised its estimate of GPO's long-term
liability for workers' compensation, which could cause an increase of
$23.9 million in accrued expenses for fiscal year 1997. We have
requested a clarification of this estimate from DOL. In addition, the
General Accounting Office has stated, in decision B-259508 (April 4,
1996), that GPO, pursuant to section 8147c of Title 5, U.S.C., is not
required to pay an additional fee to the DOL's Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs (OWCP) to cover its administrative costs. We have
been seeking to obtain a refund of the amounts erroneously collected by
the OWCP.
DOD Payment Issues.--We have been experiencing payment problems
with one of our largest customer agencies, the Defense Department. In
our view, these problems stem largely from the creation of the Defense
Printing Service, now known as the Defense Automated Printing Service
(DAPS). At the end of fiscal year 1992, GPO's accounts receivable from
DOD were about $32 million. Unpaid DOD invoices over 60 days old
amounted to about $9 million, or 28 percent of the total. Since 1993,
total receivables and delinquencies from DOD have been increasing. As
of December 31, 1997, total DOD receivables reached $52.7 million with
unpaid invoices over 60 days amounting to $24.3 million, or 46 percent.
Since then we have received several payments from DOD, reducing their
receivables to approximately $37 million. Although we have made several
changes to our accounting system to assist DOD in improving their
payment record, none of these initiatives has been fully implemented by
DOD. DOD's payment record is directly impacting our cash flow and
creating the prospect of a cash shortage in our revolving fund. In an
effort to streamline the accounting practices at DOD and end the late
payment problems, GPO has developed an automated deposit account system
that virtually eliminates GPO invoices. If DOD would use deposit
accounts, it would save the taxpayers millions of dollars annually.
GAO Management Audit.--We are currently cooperating within the GPO
management audit ordered by Congress in House Report 105-254,
accompanying H.R. 2209, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for
1998. The audit is being conducted by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc.,
under contract with the General Accounting Office. We have also
implemented reforms to our sales program to assure that all disposals
of excess stock comply with established guidelines.
Year 2000 Compliance.--We are cooperating with the General
Accounting Office in its efforts to assess the status of year 2000
readiness in all legislative branch agencies, following the direction
of the Chairman of this Subcommittee in a letter dated October 30,
1997. Our proposal to the JCP to bring our mainframe operating system
into year 2000 compliance has been approved. We have formed an internal
year 2000 program management office to work with the GAO, and have
appointed year 2000 coordinators throughout GPO. We are continuing to
conduct a review of all GPO computer systems to determine which systems
will be converted, replaced, or retired. We estimate that the total
cost of assuring year 2000 compliance at GPO, including the cost of all
associated computer improvements that are either ongoing or planned--
and which also must be year 2000 compliant--will be $8 million this
fiscal year and $4 million in fiscal year 1999. These costs will be
financed through our revolving fund. We are confident that the steps we
are taking now will ensure the continuity of product and service
provision to Congress, Federal agencies, and the public.
Future Capital Expenditure Requirements.--Capital expenditures for
major building repairs and maintenance, information systems, and
production equipment will be a considerable drain on the revolving
fund. GPO's buildings are old and require substantial maintenance.
These services are not provided by the Architect of the Capitol but are
financed by GPO. Over the next two years, necessary capital investments
include about $6 million for replacement of air conditioning equipment.
Elevator, roof, and electrical systems need repair, which will cost
additional millions of dollars over the next few years. Information
systems also account for major capital investment requirements. This
year we will be implementing an information processing system for the
Superintendent of Documents, at a cost of about $10 million. We will
replace our mainframe computer with an enterprise server that will be
year 2000 compliant, at a cost of about $1.8 million. As noted above,
other significant expenditures will be required to bring all GPO
computers and software into compliance with year 2000 requirements.
Production equipment requirements include $1.6 million for computer-to-
plate systems and $3.6 million for a passport printing and binding
line. These expenditures will have to be funded either through GPO's
revolving fund or through an alternative mechanism such as a line item
appropriation, which was how GPO's air conditioning improvements during
the 1970's were funded.
Statutory FTE Limitation.--For fiscal year 1999, we are requesting
the deletion of the statutory limitation on our full-time equivalent
employment (FTE's). GPO has reduced employment by more than 25 percent
since early 1993. This reduction was accomplished through attrition and
successfully lowered our costs while preventing interruptions in
service to Congress, Federal agencies, and the public. However, some
critical GPO areas, including those that serve Congress, are now fully
reduced and cannot withstand further reductions without impairing
performance and service provision. GPO is now at its lowest employment
level in this century. Allowing us to manage our FTE resources within
the constraints of our available funding, rather than under a statutory
limit, will give us the flexibility necessary to continue providing
essential services.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
Revolving fund
Senator Bennett. Thank you. Did GPO report losses in fiscal
year 1997, and do you estimate any for fiscal year 1998?
Mr. DiMario. We did report losses in fiscal year 1997, as a
result of a recalculation that was done of obligations to the
Department of Labor, and I think Mr. Guy may be able to speak
more specifically to those.
Mr. Guy. In fiscal year 1997, the Department of Labor
indicated that we should increase our liability under workers
compensation by about $25 million. If we have to do that, and
we are looking at that very carefully, then that may cause us
to have to report a loss in 1997. If we do not have to increase
our liability by that magnitude, then we would not be reporting
a loss for 1997. As far as this year, we have lost some money
in the revolving fund, to date. We are hoping that we can turn
that situation around.
Senator Bennett. Let me go back to the $25 million. Is that
a one-time hit, or is that an indication you have to adjust
your allocation for the liability for all future years?
Mr. Guy. It is an adjustment of our estimated liability in
the future. The annual amount that we pay is about $6 million a
year, and we have already established a future liability of
about $25 million. The Department of Labor has given us figures
saying that we need to double that estimate of our future
liability.
Senator Bennett. But I am still not understanding. Can you
get to the future liability of, say, $50 million, total,
assuming they are correct, and I understand you are challenging
their number----
Mr. Guy. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. Let us assume for a moment they are
correct with the $50 million number, can you get there with a
one-time hit of $25 million, or are you saying you are going to
spread the $25 million out over a number of fiscal years, so
there will be, say, a $4 million hit for 1997, and so on, until
you get----
Mr. Guy. That is correct. We would actually pay it on a
cash outlay basis over a number of years into the future, but
they are telling us to recognize that liability now. It is a
change in estimate at this time, but we would be able to pay it
out over----
Senator Bennett. On your books, do you have it reserved for
the liability?
Mr. Guy. We do not have a cash reserve for it, no, sir. It
would have to be paid out of available revolving fund cash. We
have reported so far a $25 million liability, and we have taken
that out of fund equity, as we report it.
Senator Bennett. Do you have an existing $25 million----
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir; our revolving fund has a substantial
amount of assets. Against the total value of the revolving fund
we have certain obligations that are booked against it. The $25
million is among those obligations. The total revolving fund
assets includes a cash balance in Treasury, like a bank
account. There are limits to the amount of available cash that
we have. The fund is used to pay our contractors and others
before we get reimbursed for the work from the agencies.
Senator Bennett. I understand that.
Mr. DiMario. I think the answer is, in my mind at least,
there is not a specific cash reserve for the Department of
Labor issue, but we do have sufficient resources in the
revolving fund for that obligation.
Senator Bennett. Well, let me understand it. I do not mean
to get into arcane issues of accounting.
Mr. DiMario. Well, our accountant----
Senator Bennett. But how big is the amount of cash in your
revolving fund?
Mr. Guy. We have a cash balance of about $75 million.
Senator Bennett. OK. Now, what portion of that is
encumbered with requirements like this?
Mr. Guy. I would say that about one-half of that is
encumbered, and we feel that it is other people's money, in
that sense, and, in fact, GAO told us that some of that cash is
not available.
Senator Bennett. Now, can you use any of that in an
emergency, even though it is encumbered, in effect, borrow it?
Mr. DiMario. Some we can, and some we cannot. There are
moneys that we, as an example, have received from customers
against deposit accounts, and have not yet received
requisitions for work. That money is not available for us to
borrow. It is still the customer's money; it is just on deposit
with us.
At a point at which we receive an order the money becomes
available to us even though we have not yet paid a contract or
expended that money. We would be able to use that money.
Where we have sold subscriptions and have not yet fulfilled
the subscriptions, we have those moneys, and some of those may
be limited in terms of what we can do, and GAO has spoken to
that specific limitation.
Senator Bennett. Are you earning interest on those
balances, even though you cannot touch them?
Mr. DiMario. No, sir; they are just accounts against the
Treasury of the United States.
Year 2000 computer problem
Senator Bennett. I see. I see. How much in your current
budget do you think is going for the year 2000 problem?
Mr. DiMario. For fiscal 1996 it was estimated to cost
$328,000; in fiscal 1997, it was $5.9 million; and in fiscal
1998, the current budget, it is $8.2 million. We have scheduled
work over a period of time, reflecting what we believe is going
into the year 2000 problem. Most of that money is previously
allocated money for ongoing programs.
Senator Bennett. What incremental costs do you have? I
understand you are going to solve the year 2000 problem in part
with money that you would have spent anyway----
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. Only you are dedicating it to
the year 2000 problem, but there has to be some incremental
money on top of that. Do you have any, and do you know how much
it is?
Mr. DiMario. In a ball park sense, based on what we have at
this point, we believe that we are approaching $19 million in
total costs. Of those costs most are for upgrading existing
systems. Most projects have been approved, like the integrated
processing system for the Superintendent of Documents sales
program. That has already been delivered by the contractor, and
is, at this point, being tested. We are training on that. We
have approval, as I mentioned in the statement, for a new
mainframe. That is about $1.8 million.
So when you get to the incremental costs out of the $19
million in total costs for new hardware and software, not
associated with either existing labor costs or ongoing
projects, we are talking about $3.5 million. That is our best
estimate.
Senator Bennett. OK.
Mr. Mansker. Senator, if I could backup just a moment.
Senator Bennett. Sure.
Cash requirements
Mr. Mansker. When you were talking about the revolving
fund, I do not want us to leave with the impression that of the
$75 million in the revolving fund, we only have categories of
restricted funds.
The cash balance in the revolving fund is not readily
available where we can just feel free to spend it, because we
have also a committed unrestricted amount of funding for other
things that we would have to borrow against, as you say, to get
readily available cash to operate.
Our last report said, from our comptroller's office, that
the uncommitted, unrestricted funds that we have to use for
future investment and capital expenditures, and so forth, is
actually a negative figure in January. We are borrowing against
unrestricted committed funds at this time, and one of the
reasons for that, if I might get a little historical, is the
$11 million that was----
Senator Bennett. That was going to be my next question.
Mr. Mansker. That has put a very severe cramp on our
availability of funds for future capital expenditures. Right
now we are actually in a negative posture. We think that will
come around, to show a better situation, when Congress gets in
full gear, which they have not been for the first 5 months of
our fiscal year; but, we will start getting income to generate
that figure up into a positive mode. But----
Senator Bennett. Do you mean Congress will require more
services?
Mr. Mansker. Correct.
Senator Bennett. OK.
Mr. Mansker. Correct. And we could charge against the CP&B
fund. But right now, I would not want to leave you with the
impression that we have $40 million to spend for capital
expenditures; we do not have that. The cash availability for
future expenditures is very severely cramped.
Mr. DiMario. The revolving fund itself was established
primarily to take care of the peaks and valleys in printing,
and also to provide for capital funding. Over a period of time,
we have depleted that fund substantially, so we have reached a
point where we are very reluctant to put obligations against it
that we believe otherwise should be funded through a specific
appropriation.
Senator Bennett. I can understand that.
Additional committee questions
I have no further questions. Thank you very much. We
appreciate the hard work you have put in, and the service you
have provided Congress.
Mr. DiMario. Thank you very much.
Senator Bennett. 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
Question. Does GPO estimate losses for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Through January of the current fiscal year, the revolving
fund lost $7.8 million on revenue of $258.3 million. GPO's long-term
financial goal is to generate a small net income of about 1-2 percent
in order to allow for capital replacement. This goal may be very
difficult to attain this year, in view of the results to date. GPO's
plans to improve financial results include major information systems
upgrades, investments in more productive equipment and technology, a
strengthened marketing program, and continued cost reductions. Many
important external factors are largely beyond GPO's control, such as
congressional workload, compliance with printing statutes, and paper
prices. Rate adjustments may also be required.
Question. How much has GPO included in its budget request for the
year 2000 conversion?
Answer. For fiscal year 1999, we estimate that the year 2000
conversion cost for all GPO activities will be $4,390,500 in the
revolving fund.
Question. What is the status of the ESOP language that GPO
requested last year and was going to work with the Commerce Committee
to pass?
Answer. GPO anticipated that legislation would be passed in the
last session of Congress to include GPO in the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act provisions authorizing energy savings
performance contracts. Staff from the House Committee on Commerce were
in contact with GPO regarding this effort. However, this legislation
was not enacted and GPO is not aware of any current efforts in this
area.
Question. In response to Mr. DiMario's letter of November 25, 1997,
transmitting the Inspector General's Semi-annual report to Congress,
his letter states that GPO has initiated some corrective actions on all
four reportable conditions from GPO's fiscal year 1995 financial
statements. Please note for the record what corrective actions GPO has
not taken identifying where staffing constraints or operating
priorities have limited GPO's ability to completely resolve the
reportable condition. Please note where applicable what resources would
be necessary to resolve the condition.
Answer. Management's position is that two corrective actions
recommended by Arthur Andersen have not been fully implemented. They
would require that a centralized computer security function be
established to strengthen authorization and access controls over
applications and to strengthen contingency plans and backup procedures
for critical EDP systems. Full implementation of these recommendations
would require additional staffing and overhead cost. Moreover, a
complete back-up is not feasible at present. Additional time will be
required to replace old legacy systems for which a practical off-site
back-up is not available because the technology is obsolete.
Both Booz-Allen & Hamilton and KPMG Peat Marwick are assessing the
status of GPO's implementation of corrective actions related to these
reportable conditions. The Booz-Allen report draft is due to GPO for
comment in April 1998, and the KPMG review will be delivered in final
by then.
Question. Has the Inspector General completed his year 2000
assessment? If so, please provide the assessment for the record.
Answer. The Inspector General has not yet conducted a formal
assessment of the program. At the time of the last semi-annual report,
the Acting Inspector General indicated that the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) was preparing an advisory report to assess the current
posture of GPO's efforts to address the year 2000 problem.
Subsequently, the OIG became aware that GAO initiated a review. The
Inspector General Act requires that the OIG avoid duplicating the
effort of GAO.
Question. Does the year 2000 problem present any risks to GPO's
ability to print and distribute the Congressional Record?
Answer. No, the software used in the processing of the
Congressional Record was repaired, tested, and verified as year 2000
compliant in February, 1998. The hardware utilized for Record
processing was tested and found to be year 2000 compliant.
Question. What is your estimated total cost to address the year
2000 problem? What are the cost estimates for each of GPO's mission
critical systems? What has been spent to date on your year 2000 effort?
What is requested in your fiscal year 1999 budget? What is your cost
estimate to complete year 2000 work beyond fiscal year 1999?
Answer. At this time, we estimate that our total cost to address
the year 2000 problem will be about $19.3 million. The cost estimates
for each of GPO's mission critical systems are indicated in the
attached schedule, which shows the breakout of cost by fiscal year for
the various replacements, upgrades, and repairments.
Through fiscal year 1997, a total of $6.2 million has been incurred
for our year 2000 efforts. During fiscal year 1998, we estimate another
$8.2 million will be spent. Our fiscal year 1999 budget estimates for
the revolving fund include a total of about $4.4 million for Year 2000
efforts. At the present time, our cost estimates for year 2000 work
beyond fiscal year 1999 are about $431,000.
Question. Has GPO completed a documented plan for making its
mission critical systems year 2000 compliant, including schedules for
renovating, validating and implementing each mission critical system.
If so, please provide this plan for the record.
Answer. GPO has issued an agency directive that states its year
2000 plan for making all mission critical systems year 2000 compliant.
A copy is attached. We are also submitting two schedules which show for
each mission critical system the target date for completion and
implementation for all repairments and replacements.
Question. Has GPO developed a contingency plan in the event of
systems failures on January 1, 2000? If so, please provide a copy of
the plan for the record.
Answer. GPO's recently issued directive for the year 2000
establishes the requirement for the development of contingency plans
for all mission critical systems with a target date for completion
beyond March 31, 1999. The responsible managers are currently preparing
those plans for submission to the year 2000 Program Management Office
for consolidation in an overall GPO Contingency Plan. We will be glad
to submit this overall plan to the committee when it is finished.
Question. Please explain how GPO's printing procurement program
runs a deficit? Isn't there a surcharge placed on each printing job to
recover the cost of the program? Does GPO have a plan for turning this
situation around?
Answer. GPO's costs to administer the printing procurement program
are recovered from a surcharge on the cost of the procured printing.
The surcharge will recover GPO's costs if the dollar volume of printing
is about $500 million per year. While the program operated in the black
during fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996, it has had losses since
then because workload and paper prices declined. Some agencies are
sending less of their printing to GPO, which they either produce in-
house or purchase themselves, at higher cost and, in certain cases, in
conflict with law. GPO's plan for turning this situation around
includes the following elements:
--Increased marketing to our customers.
--Increased interaction with contractors and agencies to develop new
product lines, especially in the digital arena.
--Creation of simplified purchasing agreements.
--Continued cost reduction at GPO and information systems
development, including expanded use of the Internet for
electronic commerce.
Question. How much of the current GPO facility on North Capital St.
is actually in use for the printing, binding, and storage of materials
and products used in government printing? What are GPO's costs of
upkeep for any unused portion as well as used portion of the building?
Answer. Space within the current facility at North Capitol Street
is assigned to a program or is considered common area. Common areas
include Harding Hall, the Cafeteria, the Credit Union, the Blind Man
Stand, all aisles, halls, support columns, shafts, restrooms, and
elevators.
The total square footage of the 4 building Central Complex is
1,466,000 square feet. Total space assigned to GPO Programs, including
administrative functions is 966,000 square feet. The space is assigned
as follows:
Square Feet
Plant Production (including Materials Management Service and
Engineering).............................................. 715,000
Printing Procurement.......................................... 26,000
Sales Program................................................. 66,000
S&E Programs.................................................. 43,000
Administrative Areas (includes Customer Service).............. 116,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 966,000
The cost for cleaning used assigned space is approximately $2.1
million per year. In addition, there are about 500,000 square feet
classified as common area. The estimated cost of cleaning the common
portions of the building is approximately $1.1 million annually. The
unassigned space is necessary for common areas that indirectly support
operations.
We estimate that approximately 27,500 square feet of the assigned
space is currently unused because of attrition in the workforce. We are
considering the lease of space to other government agencies that may
need it for small groups. The cost to upkeep unused assigned areas is
minimal.
______
Attachment 1.--GPO Instruction 705.26, March 16, 1998
GPO Year 2000 Program Guide
Purpose.--To communicate general policies and procedures to define
a process for implementing a Year 2000 Program throughout the
Government Printing Office (GPO). It is intended to provide insight,
recommendations, and a uniform structured approach for planning,
implementing, managing, and evaluating GPO's Year 2000 Program to
ensure that all mission critical systems will be fully operational in
the year 2000.
Background.--Since their inception, computer systems have typically
used two digits to represent the year in an effort to conserve valuable
resources and reduce operating costs. However, when the year 2000
arrives, these systems may not be able to distinguish 2000 from 1900,
2001 from 1901 and so on. With less than two years left to accomplish
this enormous project, GPO must embark upon this substantial effort and
apply all the needed resources to successfully accomplish this project
well within the fast approaching deadline.
The year 2000 compliance is defined as the ability of information
systems to accurately process a date from, into, and between the
twentieth and twenty-first centuries, including leap year calculations.
The year 2000 date conversion problem is not unique to GPO and presents
a global challenge to the entire information technology industry. Every
organization, whether federal or private, must ensure that its
information systems are fully year 2000 compliant well before December
31, 1999. While the year 2000 problem is not technically challenging,
it is massive and complex. The date problem may not be solely confined
to application software, but may also exist in hardware (mainframes,
minis, desktops, file servers, etc.), firmware, operating systems,
compilers, languages, libraries of program software, database
management systems, telecommunication monitors, any equipment
containing microchip, etc.
Scope.--This guidance document addresses the conversion or
replacement of all Federal Information Processing (FIP) resources that
are affected by the year 2000 problem. The term FIP resources includes
hardware (mainframes, minis, desktops, file servers, etc.), software
(operating systems, compilers, languages, libraries of program
software, data base management systems, application systems, running on
different platforms), firmware, microchip components, operating
components, etc.
Policy.--It is the policy of GPO that information is a valuable
resource in support of its mission, and as such, must be managed
efficiently, economically, and effectively. As a valuable resource,
information must be planned, budgeted, controlled and managed; and to
that end, it is the intent of GPO to establish, implement, and actively
maintain an agency-wide Year 2000 Program to ensure GPO meets the
challenge of the new millennium and is year 2000 compliant by October
1, 1999.
The GPO Year 2000 Program will encompass five critical phases: (1)
awareness; (2) assessment; (3) renovation; (4) validation; and (5)
implementation.
In that context the GPO shall ensure that:
All GPO and/or external major systems/components supporting core
business activities or processes are certified as in compliance with
year 2000 requirements or are converted or replaced to become year 2000
compliant by October 1, 1999.
All information systems and components in each business area are
inventoried, and priorities are assigned to individual applications so
that a year 2000 compliance program plan can be developed.
All future acquisitions of FIP resources for GPO or its customers
are year 2000 compliant.
All conversion or replacement activity is performed to the extent
possible in accordance with the General Accounting Office (GAO)
conversion model outlined in the GAO's guidance document titled ``Year
2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide'' dated September 1997. The
conversion or replacement activity should follow all appropriate phases
in the GAO guide.
Year 2000 Program activities are given top priority. All new system
development activity should be assigned lesser priority unless it
replaces a non-compliant application or is needed to fulfill legal,
statutory, or mission-critical office requirements. Similarly, existing
system modification/enhancement activity should be limited to
production problems, or to fulfill legal, statutory, or mission-
critical office requirements.
Organizations are provided adequate resources to meet deadlines,
including inter-departmental reassignment of resources or contracting
out if necessary.
New information technology productivity tools are acquired to
facilitate and expedite the conversion, replacement, and testing
activities, if applicable.
Each organization establishes a validation phase testing group(s)
which is different than the one(s) that performed the renovation,
including any work that was contracted out; and that the validation
groups certify applications for year 2000 compliance.
All GPO organizations providing information processing services to
various customer entities shall develop software bridges to accommodate
non-compliant data exchanges with their external customer entities.
Responsibilities.--The GPO Year 2000 Program will be administered
through a closely coordinated network of management and supervisory
officials, with the Director of the Policy Coordination Staff serving
as the Year 2000 Program Manager. The principal management official
responsible for overall GPO Year 2000 Program is the Deputy Public
Printer. Policy guidance provided by the Deputy Public Printer through
the Year 2000 Program Management Office, GPO's executive management,
managers in core business areas, and personnel involved in the year
2000 conversion/replacement effort will work together in harmony and
bring GPO's Year 2000 Program to a successful conclusion by October 1,
1999.
The following is a detailed description of the various duties and
responsibilities for the GPO Year 2000 Program.
--Deputy Public Printer.--The Deputy Public Printer is responsible
for ensuring the development, implementation, and maintenance
of a GPO-wide Year 2000 Program and ensuring compliance with
applicable Federal laws and regulations and internal GPO
policies and procedures.
--Policy Coordination Staff (PCS).--The Director of PCS will serve as
the Program Manager for the GPO Year 2000 Program and provide
oversight and administration to the GPO Year 2000 Program
Management Office. The Director is responsible for
communicating GPO Year 2000 policy guidelines, coordinating the
year 2000 activity at the agency-wide level, and preparing
status reports for GPO executive management and other agencies,
as required. The Year 2000 Program Management Office, under the
direction of the PCS Director, is responsible for:
--Coordinating the planning and development of the GPO Year 2000
Program;
--Serving as the liaison to the various designated year 2000
coordinators for all of GPO's Year 2000 Program activities
to ensure requirements and needs are addressed by GPO
organizations to certify that GPO is year 2000 compliant by
October 1, 1999;
--Serving as the principal advisor to the Public Printer and the
Deputy Public Printer concerning year 2000 policy and
direction; and
--Developing and recommending GPO's Year 2000 policy, standards,
and procedures for the Public Printer's and the Deputy
Public Printer's approval.
--Office of the Inspector General (OIG).--In carrying out its
statutory requirements, the OIG may conduct periodic reviews as
desired to ensure that the project activity is following the
best program management practices, conforms to the policy
guidelines, and is on target to meet the project deadline.
--Department/Service/Staff/Office Heads.--Department/Service/Staff/
Office heads will carry out the intent of this Instruction
within their areas of responsibility. For the Year 2000 Program
to be successful and accomplished in a time and resource
constrained environment, it will require the total support and
commitment of management and transcend organizational
boundaries. In that regard, Department/Service/Staff/Office
heads are responsible for certifying that all GPO and/or
external major systems/components supporting core business
activities or processes within their areas of authority are in
compliance with year 2000 requirements or are converted or
replaced to become year 2000 compliant by October 1, 1999. This
responsibility can best be accomplished by:
--Appointing an employee(s) as designated contact point(s) for all
year 2000-related matters to assist in the overall
assessment, renovation, validation, and implementation of
the program in their specific areas of responsibility;
--Actively participating to resolve any year 2000 problems;
--Elevating the visibility of the program within their
organizations;
--Adhering to status and compliance reporting;
--Providing full cooperation with the Year 2000 Program Office;
--Ensuring that year 2000 requirements and needs are properly
defined, including reviewing and maintaining an inventory
of existing hardware, software, and support agreements for
their specific areas to make certain that year 2000
compliance is accomplished by October 1, 1999;
--Monitoring the effectiveness of the Year 2000 Program efforts in
their area of responsibility;
--Developing realistic contingency plans, including the development
and activation of manual or contract procedures, for all
mission-critical systems/applications which are not year
2000 compliant by March 1999, to ensure the continuity of
GPO's critical products and services; and
--Identifying and reporting the cost of all efforts and resources
used to achieve year 2000 compliance for their systems and
applications.
Effective Date.--This Instruction is effective upon issuance.
Inquiries.--Inquiries concerning this Instruction should be
directed to the GPO Year 2000 Program Manager on 202-512-0263.
Michael F. DiMario,
Public Printer.
______
Total number of agency systems.................................... 107
Total number of mission-critical systems.......................... 56
Number already compliant...................................... 11
Number being replaced......................................... 9
Number being repaired......................................... 22
Number being retired.......................................... 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestones for
mission- Percent
critical No. completed completed
systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment...................................................... 10/98 38 68
Renovation...................................................... 1/99 12 21
Validation...................................................... 2/99 11 20
Implementation.................................................. 3/99 11 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
Fiscal year:
1996................................................ \1\ $342,545
1997................................................ \2\ 5,886,340
1998................................................ \2\ 8,237,800
1999................................................ 4,390,500
2000................................................ 431,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 19,288,185
\1\ Cost figures for fiscal year 1996 include funds for internal costs
for the Integrated Processing System (IPS) and the Work In Process (WIP)
system.
\2\ Cost figures for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 include funds
for Integrated Processing for Documents ($7 million) and the conversion
of the Regional Printing Procurement Offices from system 36's to a PC
based network ($1.5 million). These projects were planned before Y2K
efforts but are included in the Y2K Program as replacements.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE Y2K COST BREAKDOWN
[As of March 19, 1998]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Description ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIRM
OIRM (Repair Programs)...... $47,805 $126,400 $385,000 $227,200 ............ $786,405
Integrated Processing System ............ 5,000,000 2,000,000 ............ ............ 7,000,000
(IPS)......................
IPS--Internal Cost.......... 41,400 259,500 174,000 ............ ............ 474,900
Engineering--JOTS ............ 54,000 149,800 70,000 $70,000 343,800
Replacement................
Mainframe/OS Replacement.... ............ ............ ............ 391,400 356,000 747,400
General Ledger (G/L)........ ............ ............ 203,000 120,000 5,000 328,000
Probe Replacement (Data ............ ............ 424,000 ............ ............ 424,000
Collection)................
Work In Process (WIP)....... 239,000 286,900 100,000 ............ ............ 625,900
Upgrade Banyan Servers...... ............ ............ 50,000 ............ ............ 50,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total OIRM............ 328,205 5,726,800 3,485,800 808,600 431,000 10,780,405
===================================================================================
Production
PEPS (Repair Programs)...... ............ 117,450 308,700 38,900 ............ 465,050
Production (Repair Programs) ............ ............ 629,000 791,000 ............ 1,420,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Production...... ............ 117,450 937,700 829,900 ............ 1,885,050
===================================================================================
GPO-Wide
NT Network Conversion....... ............ ............ 900,000 672,000 ............ 1,572,000
Replace Workstations ............ ............ 640,000 1,280,000 ............ 1,920,000
(Approx. 960)..............
PPD System 36 Replacement... ............ ............ 1,500,000 ............ ............ 1,500,000
IG Network Replacement...... 14,340 42,090 49,300 50,000 ............ 155,730
Y2K Program Office and ............ ............ 725,000 750,000 ............ 1,475,000
Coordinators...............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total GPO-Wide........ 14,340 42,090 3,814,300 2,752,000 ............ 6,622,730
===================================================================================
Agency Totals............... 342,545 5,886,340 8,237,800 4,390,500 431,000 19,288,185
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA19.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA19.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA19.006
Questions Submitted by the Committee on Rules and Administration
gpo finances
Question. At the end of fiscal year 1997 there was approximately
$31 million in unobligated funding for Congressional Printing and
Binding. Based on GPO's experience over the past several years,
wouldn't it be more reasonable to propose a Congressional Printing and
Binding appropriation of around $60 million, as opposed to the $84
million contained in GPO's fiscal year 1999 budget submission?
Answer. The $31 million was unexpended but was obligated to pay for
congressional work that remained uncompleted or unbilled at year end.
The requested level is necessary to avoid losses in fiscal year 1999
due to congressional work. The requested level is 6 percent below the
actual expenditures against the fiscal year 1993 appropriation. GPO
prepares estimates of fiscal year requirements for printing and binding
based on historical data. The data is adjusted for cyclical trends such
as first and second sessions of Congress and first year of a
presidential administration term. The volume of Congressional Printing
and Binding requirements for fiscal year 1997 was at an exceedingly low
point.
Question. How much of that $31 million in unobligated funding for
Congressional Printing and Binding remains unobligated? If the amount
is less than $31 million, please provide a detailed accounting of its
use.
Answer. At the end of fiscal year 1997 the Congressional Printing
and Binding (CP&B) Appropriation account had an unexpended but
obligated balance of $31 million. We estimated that the $31 million
would be required to complete the remaining 2,100 orders for which
obligation were established in fiscal year 1997.
The fiscal year 1997 CP&B account has made payments totaling $19
million since September 1997. Details of those expenditures are as
follows:
Fiscal year 1997 congressional printing and binding
[Expenditures, Oct. 1, 1997 through Feb. 28, 1998]
Amounts
Congressional Record Publications:
Daily Record..............................................$7,810,674
Microfiche Record......................................... 5,815
Electronic On-Line Record................................. 95,626
Record Index.............................................. 45,689
Record Indexers........................................... 53,040
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 8,010,844
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Miscellaneous publications.................................... 460,437
Miscellaneous printing and binding............................ 2,290,629
Details to Congress........................................... 408,414
Document envelopes and franks................................. 111,263
Business and committee calendars.............................. 242,614
Bills, resolutions, and amendments............................ 2,894,602
Committee reports............................................. 556,031
Documents..................................................... 518,207
Hearings...................................................... 3,521,784
Committee prints.............................................. 147,096
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total expenditures......................................19,161,921
This $19 million expenditure leaves a balance of $12 million in the
CP&B Appropriation account to allow for the completion of Congressional
work which originated in fiscal year 1997.
Question. You note that the Government Printing Office (GPO)
generated a consolidated net income from continuing operations of $11.6
million for fiscal year 1997. You further note that this net income
occurred primarily as a result of GPO fully recovering its costs as
required by law. Please tell the committee if GPO fully recovered its
costs in all areas of operation. If it did not, then please specify
which areas over-recovered, which under-recovered, and which broke
even.
Answer. GPO did not recover all of its cost in each area of
operation. The GPO plant showed a gain of $12.3 million. During fiscal
year 1997, GPO made an accounting adjustment to recover the portion of
prior years' unrecovered cost associated with printing for Congress and
the printing of publications for depository libraries, which resulted
from the congressionally-mandated freeze on GPO plant rates. Congress
had appropriated sufficient funds to cover all the cost but GPO was
prevented from billing the total cost during the prior years due to the
rate freeze. The amount of the adjustment was $12.8 million. Since the
books were closed for the prior years, the proper accounting treatment
was to record this money as current year income. This adjustment
accounts for the entire gain in fiscal year 1997.
The Regional Printing operation under-recovered its cost by
$544,000. The Printing Procurement program under-recovered its cost by
$2.3 million, which is four-tenths of one percent of total program
revenues. The Sales of Publications program over-recovered its cost by
$1.3 million and the Agency Distribution program over-recovered its
cost by $41,000.
Question. If GPO fully recovered its costs in fiscal year 1997,
then why does the agency's year-end financial overview show net income
of $12.28 million for the printing plant? Did GPO over recover from the
Congress, or from in-house printing done for other agencies of the
Federal government? Why and how was net income generated in this
particular area of GPO's operation?
Answer. The accounting adjustment of $12.8 million made to recover
prior years' cost was credited to the plant since the plant performed
the work. GPO did not over-recover from the Congress or from executive
branch agencies. In fact, the rate freeze caused the revolving fund to
incur losses for 5 years because GPO was prevented from raising prices
and therefore was unable to use the traditional mechanisms to fully
recover its costs during those years. Net income was generated in plant
operations due to the accounting adjustment for prior years amounting
to $12.8 million.
Question. For the last several years GPO has reported ``under-
recovery'' of costs for Congressional Printing and Binding. How can
this be, particularly in light of the requirements of Title 44 that the
Public Printer fully recover the costs for this service?
Answer. The under-recovery of cost for Congressional Printing and
Binding was due to the rate freeze which prevented GPO from billing its
total cost through the established rate structure. In addition,
congressional workload decreased which caused GPO's revenue to drop,
thereby further exacerbating the under-recovery of cost condition.
Question. Please explain how it is that GPO's printing procurement
program runs a deficit? Isn't there a surcharge placed on each printing
job to recover the cost of the program? Does GPO have a plan for
turning this situation around?
Answer. GPO's Printing Procurement Program has recently run a
deficit due to a decline in workload. GPO's pricing policy is to add $5
plus six percent to the commercial cost of the job to fully recover
program costs. In recent years, executive agencies either have reduced
their printing requirements or have chosen to bypass GPO and print on
their own. The impact on GPO is less revenue, which causes the Printing
Procurement Program to run a deficit. GPO is actively marketing its
services in an attempt to bring executive agency printing back to the
Printing Procurement Program, where customers can receive the best
product at the lowest possible price. If executive agencies continue to
bypass GPO, an increase to the surcharge may be warranted.
Question. In the area of the SuDocs, is the excess funds from the
sale of publication program used to help offset the cost of the
depository library program?
Answer. Excess receipts from the sale of publications are not used
to offset the cost of the depository library program. Excess receipts
are held by the revolving fund as retained earnings for capital
improvements and to absorb possible future under-recoveries. In the
past, excess receipts from the Sales of Publications Program were used
to supplement the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation. Special
appropriation language required GPO to do this. The last year this
occurred was fiscal year 1990.
Question. Please tell the Committee what GPO's average daily cost
for personnel is--assume a five day work week, and 52 weeks a year.
Answer. The average daily cost for personnel is $768,000, assuming
five days a week, 52 weeks a year.
regional printing plant
Question. Last year GPO closed all but one of its regional printing
plants, the Denver plant. Why wasn't the Denver plant closed, too, and
the printing from this plant outsourced to the private sector?
Answer. The Denver plant remains open to produce classified
documents for agencies who have lost that capability through closure of
their in-house facilities.
Question. How much longer is GPO going to sustain losses before the
Denver facility breaks even, and what plans does GPO have for causing
that facility to break even?
Answer. The Denver plant generates sufficient revenues to cover its
direct expenses as well as make a contribution toward GPO's overhead
expenses. If the Denver plant is closed, that contribution to overhead
will have to come from somewhere else. The objective of the plant is to
recover all costs, to reduce costs, and to provide service to core
customers. Over the past 5 years, staffing at this plant has been
reduced by 50 percent to the current level of 25 employees. This was
accomplished through attrition and by cross-training remaining staff to
perform multiple tasks. Plant prices are adjusted periodically to
recover costs. Plant space has been reduced 25 percent. Approximately
1,000 square feet of warehouse space was released to GSA in January
1998 and approximately 5,000 square feet of light industrial space will
be taken over by GSA in fiscal year 1999. There are 5 employees
currently eligible to retire who will not be replaced, representing a
potential savings of $175,000.
Question. What kind of work is done in the Denver plant?
Answer. The Denver plant is a secure facility. Over 50 percent of
the jobs and 70 percent of the revenue are derived from producing
classified/sensitive jobs. The plant's major customer is the Department
of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, and El Paso Intelligence Center.
The other major customers sending in classified/sensitive jobs are the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Defense, and
the Office of Personnel Management. The plant is currently working with
the Department of Energy to be a DOE-cleared facility. The DOE has
determined that they would like to use the Denver plant for work that
can no longer be produced in their in-house facilities because of
planned plant closures.
Question. Is GPO aggressively marketing the Denver plant's
capability, or just waiting for the work to come in the door?
Answer. Marketing is being done through the regional system by
managers referring customers to the Denver plant when they have
requirements for security work. This method had been very successful
over the past 5 years. It is difficult to market classified security
services publicly.
fugitive documents
Question. In recent years, a number of Federal agencies have
entered into so-called ``partnering programs'' with private sector, or
other non-federal organizations for the production of various
publications. These partnering arrangements have become an explanation
for declining sales and fugitive documents in the Superintendent's
various public access programs. If the Superintendent of Documents is
aware that various government publications are being produced in this
manner, why can't he make arrangements to get these publications into
the depository and sales programs?
Answer. Agency partnerships with private sector firms tend to
account for a low volume of fugitive products, but these tend to be key
publications of broad public interest.
With regard to the sales program, a 1977 opinion by GPO's General
Counsel cites Joint Committee on Printing Government Printing and
Binding Regulation 41-1 as follows: ``The Superintendent of Documents
will sell only those publications printed by the Government Printing
Office or ordered printed through the Government Printing Office or the
Government Printing Office Regional Printing Procurement Offices * *
*.'' This language remains in the current Regulations, so publications
printed by private sector partners of Government agencies are
prohibited for sale through GPO. This is an issue that could be
considered as a part of Title 44 reform.
When the depository program becomes aware of publications produced
through such arrangements, every effort is made to obtain copies for
the depository program. These efforts are often costly and time-
consuming compared with obtaining copies of publications printed or
procured through GPO. Examples of such efforts include:
--Big Emerging Markets.--Developed by the International Trade
Administration and printed by a private firm in a joint venture
with the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), this
product was originally offered to the FDLP in microfiche
format. This was unsuitable due to the presence of color charts
in the product. Only after several months of discussion and
congressional pressure did NTIS provide print copies.
--Journal of the National Cancer Institute.--This periodical is now
published by Oxford University Press under the terms of a
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) with the
National Cancer Institute (NCI). Initially the FDLP was told by
NCI that this arrangement rendered the Journal a non-Government
product, even though editorial work is still being performed by
NCI employees. After NCI officials discussed the matter with
the Joint Committee on Printing, Oxford University Press agreed
to furnish depository copies.
--Hispanics-Latinos: Diverse People in a Multicultural Society.--This
title was first published by a private sector trade association
based in Washington, DC. Although the data was gathered and
prepared at public expense, it was provided to this private
group, which then copyrighted the publication and sold it for
$10 per copy. Because Hispanics-Latinos was not printed through
GPO, it was not initially available to the Depository Program.
When this situation was brought to the attention of the Census
Bureau through Senate Rules and Administration Committee
hearings, the Bureau reprinted the book through GPO so
depository copies would be available.
--A Nation of Opportunity/KickStart Initiative.--The United States
Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure
issued two reports that were initially published by West
Publishing, a major private sector seller of legal publications
and databases, although they were prepared by the Commission at
public expense. Initially these publications were not made
available to either the Superintendent of Documents Sales or
Depository Programs. Once the Joint Committee on Printing was
apprised of this situation it contacted the Commission. As a
result, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration of the Department of Commerce reprinted the
publications through GPO in a much less elaborate black-and-
white format and both the Sales and Depository Programs
acquired copies.
--Population of States and Counties of the United States: 1790-
1990.--This Census publication was printed by NTIS rather than
through GPO. Through what was described by Census as a
``handshake agreement,'' NTIS asked that Census not make this
publication available to either the Depository or Sales
Programs for its first six months so as not to hurt its
exclusive sale by NTIS. As a result of Senate Rules and
Administration Committee hearings, GPO obtained a copy from
Census shortly after its publication by NTIS. The Depository
Program printed copies for its use and Sales acquired copies
for sale to the public.
Question. Which agencies are doing printing on their own, and of
these, which ones are not notifying the Superintendent of Documents of
their publishing activities? Has the Superintendent attempted to work
out an arrangement with known ``fugitive'' agencies? If so, what has
been the result? If not, why not?
Answer. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Defense are some of
the agencies that are procuring significant amounts of printing
directly rather than through GPO. NTIS solicits other agencies to
obtain printing through them rather than through GPO.
Whenever agencies procure printing other than through GPO, problems
tend to arise regarding their depository library responsibilities. Many
agencies, although using GPO for printing some publications, are remiss
in notifying the Superintendent of Documents of other documents.
Agencies that we must approach most often regarding notification to the
Superintendent of Documents include the Library of Congress, the
Environmental Protection Agency (particularly the regional offices),
the Central Intelligence Agency, some parts of the Department of
Defense, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(particularly the National Geophysical Data Center.)
When individual fugitive documents are identified, we make every
effort to include them in the FDLP and inform the issuing agency of its
obligation to provide copies for the FDLP. The majority of fugitive
documents, however, have been those of a scientific and technical
nature that have not been printed or procured through GPO.
Significant progress has been made with other Government
information disseminators to expand the range of content available at
no cost to depository libraries and the public. GPO has entered into
agreements with the Department of Energy (DOE) and NTIS which will
enable libraries to search and obtain U.S. Government scientific and
technical information in electronic image format via the Internet on
demand. The DOE project, a major step in the transition to a more
electronic FDLP, will provide electronic versions of approximately
15,000 reports each year which were previously available to depository
libraries in microfiche only. GPO and NTIS have worked out a pilot
project that eventually should make approximately 55,000 scientific and
technical documents each year available to depository libraries on
demand over the Internet.
Another problem, however, is the number of information products now
being published only on the Internet without notification to the FDLP.
We have addressed this issue in our legislative proposal for Title 44
revision, which was submitted to the Senate Rules and Administration
Committee on May 29, 1997. Meanwhile, we will continue working on the
establishment of arrangements for access to such information with
individual agencies.
Question. In fiscal year 1997, GPO's salary and expense costs for
the Superintendent of Documents shows a decrease of 14 percent from the
previous year. The rationale for this decrease includes agencies
discontinuing the printing of publications; agencies partnering with
private companies to privatize government information; agencies
circumventing Title 44 to create ``fugitive'' documents; and,
increasing electronic depository distribution through GPO Access.
Please explain to the committee how these factors reduced the salaries
and expenses of the Superintendent's program.
Answer. The largest single factor in the 15 percent decline in
fiscal year 1997 Superintendent of Documents salary and expenses costs
as reported by GPO's Comptroller is a 26 percent decline in printing
and reproduction costs. Our experience indicates that the greatest
impact on printing and binding expenditures has resulted from agencies
either discontinuing printed products or obtaining them elsewhere than
GPO. As noted above, agency partnerships with private sector firms
account for a low volume of fugitive products, but these tend to be key
publications of broad public interest.
The migration of printing to electronic publishing already in
evidence will continue. While this scenario increases the possibility
that information will not be provided to the FDLP in a tangible medium,
it also offers a unique opportunity to bring additional information
into the FDLP for no-fee public use. When the source information is in
electronic format, the agency can either make it available at no cost
on its own Internet Web site, or can ask GPO to make it available via
the GPO Access service. Either of these approaches would enable the
FDLP to provide more information to the public. In this scenario, the
projected decline in the amount of printed material would gradually
reduce printing costs to the Program. New costs will be incurred,
however, as the FDLP assumes the costs of providing current and
permanent public access to electronic products; costs that, with
respect to tangible products, were hitherto borne by regional
depository libraries.
cost and use of maintaining current gpo facilities
Question. How much of the current GPO facility on North Capital is
actually in use for the printing, binding, and storage of materials and
products used in Government printing?
Space within the current facility at North Capitol Street is
assigned to a program or is considered common area. Common areas
include Harding Hall, the Cafeteria, the Credit Union, the Blind Man
Stand, and all aisles, halls, support columns, shafts, restrooms, and
elevators. The total square footage of the 4-building Central Office
Complex is 1,466,000 square feet. Total space assigned to GPO Programs,
including administrative functions, is 966,000 square feet. The space
is assigned as follows:
Square Feet
Plant Production (including Materials Management Service and
Engineering).............................................. 715,000
Printing Procurement.......................................... 26,000
Sales Program................................................. 66,000
S&E Programs.................................................. 43,000
Administrative Areas (includes Customer Service).............. 116,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 966,000
Question. What are GPO's cost of upkeep for the unused portion of
the building? What are GPO's cost of upkeep for the used portion of the
building?
Answer. The cost for cleaning used assigned space is approximately
$2.1 million per year. In addition, there are about 500,000 square feet
classified as common area. The estimated cost of cleaning the common
portions of the building is approximately $1.1 million annually. The
unassigned space is necessary for common areas that indirectly support
operations.
We estimate that approximately 27,500 square feet of the assigned
space is currently unused because of attrition in the workforce. We are
considering the lease of space to other government agencies that may
need it for small groups. The cost to upkeep unused assigned areas is
minimal.
Question. In addition to the costs for new electrical switching
equipment requested last year, and new air conditioning equipment now
under review by the JCP, what other costs does GPO anticipate over the
next three years for the upgrading, and/or replacement of major
mechanical equipment and maintenance of the plant? In light of these
costs, and the amount of space actually used by GPO for printing,
binding and related activities, would it not be to GPO's financial
advantage to acquire a new, more economical facility?
Answer. Building projects foreseen at this time are: (1) additional
pollution control equipment for printing presses; (2) upgrade to energy
efficient lighting throughout the agency; (3) renovation of elevators
has been an ongoing project that will require a few more years to
complete; and (4) maintenance of the buildings' brickwork and roof.
Regarding the option for a new facility, a comprehensive study of
this option has not been done recently. The costs of construction and
re-installation of equipment would likely be high and it is unknown
whether the benefits would offset this additional cost. I would point
out that GPO has saved millions in recent years by consolidating
outlying operations from leased space (at Union Center Plaza and the
Washington Navy Yard in Washington, DC, and at warehouses formerly
located in the Alexandria, VA, area) into the Central Office facility.
Question. Several years ago, GAO reported that GPO had a 33 percent
spoilage rate on paper used for in-house printing as compared with
under a 10 percent spoilage rate in the private sector. What is your
present spoilage rate, and what does that cost the agency? What can be
done to reduce both the amount and cost of spoilage?
Answer. GPO's paper waste and spoilage tends to run higher than in
private industry because of its unique workload. In its September 1990
report on GPO (GAO/GGD-90-107; this study was based on fiscal year 1989
data), the GAO reported that ``GPO's waste and spoilage averaged about
12 percent above the highest private industry standard'' (p. 37). The
GAO stated that ``GPO's unique wide range of in-house plant operations
may not be strictly comparable to private industry activities'' (p.
37).
In the private sector, production quantities produced on high-speed
web presses are typically much higher than the quick turn-around,
smaller production quantities requested by the Congress and produced in
GPO. Newspapers, magazines, and most other commercial products have
much longer production runs on press than the average GPO job,
resulting in lower waste and spoilage percentages. Also, certain
characteristics of GPO production that are adopted to meet critical
congressional demand, such as lifting one job from a press to replace
it with another more critical job, can lead to comparatively higher
waste and spoilage data. The GAO report itself noted that part of GPO's
waste and spoilage rate is caused by ``the need for press changes to
respond to changing workload demands placed on GPO'' (p. 37).
GPO's present waste and spoilage rate is about 37 percent. The
estimated cost to GPO of paper waste and spoilage for fiscal year 1997
was $5.6 million (the cost of waste and spoilage in fiscal year 1989
was $7 million). The fiscal year 1997 cost was offset in part by
revenues of $334,500 from the sale of waste paper.
A certain amount of GPO's paper waste and spoilage rate is planned.
For example, some waste will result from paper trimmed to meet job
requirements. Press makereadies also result in planned waste. A
makeready will consume a standard amount of paper before a job is run.
If the job requires a long press run, the percentage of paper waste and
spoilage will be comparatively small. With shorter press runs, the
percentage will increase. As press runs for GPO work have been reduced
by ordering customers in recent years, the percentage of planned waste
and spoilage to actual paper consumed on printing jobs has increased.
There are other contributory factors to the waste and spoilage rate,
including paper handling procedures and back-to-press requirements.
Nevertheless, our objective is to minimize the waste and spoilage
rate by ensuring that it meets an acceptable level as determined by
current equipment capabilities and workload mix. An effort has been
recently undertaken by the Production Manager and our Quality Control
and Technical Department to reduce the paper waste and spoilage rate to
its lowest possible level.
Question. In light of the amount of unused space in the present GPO
buildings, has any thought been given to co-locating the Laurel
warehouse space at the plant?
Answer. Co-locating warehouse space to the GPO Central Office would
face several obstacles. Currently, unoccupied Central Office space
exists at various locations on several floors. The need to move
materials over relatively long distances using elevators which must
also be used to handle printing plant materials would be highly
inefficient. In addition, Laurel's ceilings are high enough to permit
``four-high'' storage, unlike the GPO Central Office, which would mean
that at least 400,000 square feet of space would need to be available.
The additional shipping and receiving required by such a consolidation
would also strain current Central Office facilities. The expense of
providing consolidated and renovated space, in addition to the purchase
of enough new storage racks and picking bins to permit the move without
an extended disruption of operations, would make the cost prohibitive.
marketing gpo
Question. Today, agencies have a variety of means available to
produce and disseminate their publications. They do not have to rely on
ink on paper. They produce and disseminate electronically via the World
Wide Web. They use print on demand technology, and some have found
other creative ways to make their information available to the American
public. Given this state of affairs, it strikes me that an agency like
the Government Printing Office (GPO) cannot rest on its laurels, and
expect everyone to beat a path to their door. GPO must give agencies a
reason and incentive to use them. Describe to the Committee GPO's
customer marketing program, as well as GPO's customer satisfaction
program. How does GPO win and keep agencies as customers?
Answer. I think that congressional entities, Federal agencies,
private sector printers who do business with GPO, depository libraries,
Government information users, and others who utilize GPO's programs and
services are very familiar and satisfied with GPO's products and
services. We have performed customer satisfaction surveys periodically
which substantiate this. We regularly reach out to agencies, the
printing industry, the library community, and Government information
users to inform them of our programs and services, and we also work
closely with congressional committees, Members, and the leadership to
make our latest programs and services known to them.
The recently concluded management audit of GPO conducted by Booz-
Allen & Hamilton found strong support in Congress for GPO's in-house
production operations for congressional printing, stating that GPO's
production area ``consistently meets a demanding congressional
production schedule.'' According to briefing materials distributed by
Booz-Allen on March 18, 1998, GPO's ``production functions are geared
to rapidly and consistently produce congressional products'' and are
``flexible and responsive to changing congressional needs.'' In
addition, the auditors said that GPO has ``developed strong and cordial
relationships with their contacts within congressional organizations
and offices,'' and GPO's ``communication with the congressional
customer is frequent and regular.''
The auditors also found strong support among executive branch
agencies for GPO's printing procurement program, characterizing it as
``an example of the best services that the government has to offer.''
They said, ``For some time now, GPO has been employing contracting
techniques that have recently become recognized as best practices
throughout the government,'' citing as examples GPO's use of past
performance data in making contract award decisions, its database of
approximately 10,000 potential vendors, the expertise of its staff, and
its use of term contracts for multiple agency use and direct deal
arrangements.
In addition, the auditors reported that GPO's depository library
program ``serves a necessary service of government'' in providing
government information for the use of the public free of charge, and
that GPO is using technology effectively to transition this program to
a more electronic basis. They noted specifically that GPO Access, GPO's
Internet information service, ``is one of the Federal Government's
largest and most active web sites and has been highly successful in
making Government information easily available to the public.''
GPO's capabilities for quick turnaround, quality, low cost
publications are well known throughout Federal agencies. We service our
customers' graphic arts needs. We meet regularly with the Interagency
Council on Printing and Publication Services to discuss concerns and
new developments. We also meet regularly with the representatives of
the Federal Publishers' Committee to discuss their concerns. We have an
entire organizational unit dedicated to providing customer service to
Congress and Federal agencies, staffed by congressional information
specialists and departmental account representatives who are intimately
familiar with customer requirements, Title 44 provisions, and GPO and
industry printing capabilities. Our Procurement Department is staffed
by experts in the printing industry and the printing procurement
process. Our Typography and Design area is staffed with award-winning
designers and graphic arts specialists who are constantly sought-out by
agencies to produce quality products.
In our Superintendent of Documents area, we provide both pre- and
post-publication marketing services for Government information
products, including electronic products. GPO Access is quickly becoming
the premier Federal online sight for access to Government information,
with more than 10 million documents downloaded monthly. It has become
the Government's leading GILS site. It has won several awards and was
recently the subject of praise one of the Government's most widely-read
computer publications. GPO has been singled out as one of the
Government's leading CD-ROM producers, a service also widely used by
Federal agencies. Not long ago GPO won a coveted Hammer Award from the
National Performance Review for its work in the creation of the new
electronic Commerce Business Daily. All of these factors are taken into
consideration by Federal agencies which call on us to support their
graphic arts and public information dissemination needs.
To attract new business, GPO is undertaking additional marketing
efforts with departments and agencies. The focus of these efforts is to
visit customer agencies with a team representing Customer Service,
Procurement, and Superintendent of Documents functions to market the
full range of GPO services available. Follow-up meetings will be
focused to address specific agency needs and services. Initial
reactions to such efforts have been very positive, with the
establishment of new contracts and the increased usage of GPO Access.
Question. Pricing is an important element in customer satisfaction.
The committee understands that agencies are charged a surcharge of up
to six percent on the first $200,000 of a job procured through GPO.
What services does GPO provide for that surcharge, and are agencies
satisfied that they are getting a good value for the money?
Answer. GPO charges customers $5 plus 6 percent on the commercial
cost of a procured job. For this, customers receive many services: the
benefit of Printing Procurement's database of commercial printers
nationwide which increases competition and lowers prices; contract
administration by contracting officers with a background in printing;
contract compliance and quality control testing; design and layout
assistance by visual communication specialists; on-site press sheet
inspections; payment administration of contractors and accounting
services; investigation of potential contractor irregularities by GPO's
Inspector General; and legal remedies for contractor defaults and
failures to meet specifications.
Question. An additional element in pricing is an assurance that the
actual bill will reflect closely the estimates provided. What is the
status of efforts by GPO to institute ``fixed pricing'' for its
customers? What has GPO found to be the advantages and disadvantages of
``fixed pricing,'' and have the advantages outweighed the
disadvantages? If the advantages have outweighed the disadvantages, how
long will it be before ``fixed pricing'' becomes the standard practice
for GPO?
Answer. GPO is willing to firm price many types of work, if the
ordering agency wishes to do so, and we are offering this as an option.
GPO has also undertaken a firm pricing pilot on certain repetitive
contract work. However, agency acceptance of firm pricing has been
unexpectedly mixed. Although agency accounting staff frequently welcome
it, agency printing and administrative management representatives are
less excited about it. GPO plans to continue offering this option and
hopes to gain some experience with this practice over the next year.
Also, a Windows-based improvement to GPO's procured job tracking system
will provide agencies with cost and status information more quickly in
an easy-to-use format. Another payment alternative that GPO has
recently developed to assist agencies with their billing concerns is
the GPO Deposit Account. This approach eliminates a number of agency
required labor-intensive process without losing accountability. GPO
feels that all of these improvements combined will go a long way toward
addressing customer concerns about costs and billing.
training
Question. One strategy for staffing the Government Printing Office
is to train personnel to perform more than one or two functions. Does
GPO have an aggressive training program which cross trains employees to
perform the various functions required to produce the Congressional
Record, or other publications produced in the plant? If so, how many
employees went through the program in the past fiscal year? How much
money was invested in the program, and what was the outcome?
Answer. GPO has several Production cross-training programs in
place. The cross-training programs train employees in a different trade
if we have found there may be a surplus in their particular position.
Cross-training of employees is essential if it expects to provide
services as it continues to downsize. Prior to beginning its last
apprentice program, in February of 1996, modifications were made to the
existing curriculum that provided 300 hours of cross-training time for
proofreading and keyboarding apprentices, respectively. This, coupled
with technological changes and an influx of outside hires with varied
skill, has helped eliminate traditional multicraft barriers in the
Electronic Photocomposition Division. As a result, on any given day or
night, many proofreaders will prepare copy, revise, read, and perform a
variety of computer operations while data entry personnel perform
proofreading and computer tasks. This has been accomplished as on-the-
job training without additional monetary investment. We are convinced
that these cross-training activities have allowed this division to
significantly reduce its manpower requirements. Plans for 1998 include
implementation of direct-to-plate printing. This new technology will
impact on a large number of prepress employees who will also be cross-
trained in other printing disciplines.
In the Press Division, the Negative Section and Copy Prep Section
have cross-trained their employees to perform various functions in each
section. The Press Section has a continuing program of cross-training
sheet-fed presspersons to perform as web presspersons. In the past
fiscal year we had seven employees in the program. The letterpress
cylinder presspersons are being trained in the offset process. The past
fiscal year we have trained five cylinder presspersons and promoted one
to second web pressperson. Fifty-three web presspersons have been
trained by the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation in proper web
practices and procedures at a cost of approximately $40,000. This
training was geared to the new presses that print the Congressional
Record and Federal Register. This training was completed in the past
fiscal year.
The Binding Division cross-trains bookbinders to ensure that all of
our processes can be accomplished as required. We cross trained
approximately 15 bookbinders last year.
Question. Congressional offices and committees which use GPO
detailees are increasingly expressing concern over how ill-trained
these detailees are to perform the tasks required of them. Does GPO
have a training program for detailees? What other steps is GPO taking
to respond to these concerns? Do committees have a choice or a voice in
the selection of detailees to do their work?
Answer. Traditionally, GPO was required to send only proofreaders
to Capitol Hill on detail assignments. This eventually evolved into
situations that required both data entry and proofreading skills. Now
that work processing and composition for printing are performed in
their entirety by many congressional committees, a more rounded
education is paramount. Recently, the Electronic Photocomposition
Division, having been informed of skill level deficiencies, initiated
an accelerated training class for Capitol Hill details. Volunteer
employees were given 4 days of intensive classroom training that
consisted of the following:
Basic computer familiarization (Windows 95 and XyWrite).
Copy Preparation: Knowledge of formats and copy standardization;
and coding with the necessary tagging scheme.
Use of MicroComp composition software.
Use of scanning equipment: Scanning images; and OCR and related
hardware and software as required.
Immediately prior to starting a detail, the employee will also be
trained in the needs of the specific committee or office. Detail
assignments will now be made from this group for any committee that
requires other than basic proofreading or keyboarding.
GPO explains to staffers that an initial familiarization period for
new detailees is needed, and notifies detailees that others already on
the Hill are resources on unfamiliar office procedures. They are also
advised that training or assistance from organizations like Graphic
Systems Development Division (GSDD) are available. Occasionally, GPO
receives a request for a specific detailee by name. These are usually
honored if the Committee can demonstrate that the specific employee
possesses previous experience in performing tasks particular to that
Committee. These assignments are normally for a previously defined and
usually short period of time. In the absence of a need for a specific
detailee, selection is made from the pool of volunteers mentioned above
in accordance with labor/management agreements. When a Committee
expresses dissatisfaction with the performance of a detailee, the
detailee is given additional training and assistance to improve his/her
skills. Committees are aware that should the detailee performance still
not meet their needs, they can release that detailee and request
another.
conclusion of hearings
Senator Bennett. If there is nothing further, the
subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 10:12 a.m., Thursday, March 19, 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, Gary L., Chief, U.S. Capitol Police..................... 1
American Bar Association, prepared statement of the.............. 183
Archer, Bill, Joint Committee on Taxation, prepared statement.... 93
Balderson, Stuart F., Financial Clerk of the Senate, Office of
the Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Senate....................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Bennett, Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah...................1, 79, 217
Billington, James H., Librarian of Congress, Library of Congress. 131
Prepared statement........................................... 134
Blum, James, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office........ 67
Boren, Michael, Administrative Assistant, Joint Committee on
Taxation....................................................... 91
Brown, Richard L., Controller, General Accounting Office......... 247
Buckley, Fran, Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing
Office......................................................... 257
Casey, Gregory S., Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, Office of the
Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate and member,
Capitol Police Board.........................................1, 6, 89
Prepared statement........................................... 115
Committee on Rules and Administration, questions submitted by the 276
Crowley, Brian P., Assistant Comptroller General for Planning and
Reporting, General Accounting Office........................... 247
DiMario, Michael F., Public Printer, Government Printing Office.. 257
Prepared statement........................................... 258
Dodaro, Joan M., Assistant Comptroller General for Operations,
General Accounting Office...................................... 247
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota............ 3
Questions submitted by.............................20, 76, 187, 254
Franklin, Herbert M., Administrative Assistant, Architect of the
Capitol........................................................ 217
Frenze, Chris, Executive Director, Joint Economic Committee...... 79
Guy, William M., Budget Officer, Government Printing Office...... 257
Hantman, Alan M., AIA, Architect of the Capitol...............1, 7, 217
Prepared statement........................................... 226
Harris, Larry, Administrative Assistant, Office of the Sergeant
at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............................ 89
Hinchman, James F., Acting Comptroller General of the United
States, General Accounting Office.............................. 247
Prepared statement........................................... 250
Livingood, Wilson, House Sergeant at Arms and Chairman, U.S.
Capitol Police Board........................................... 1, 4
Mansker, Robert, Deputy Public Printer, Government Printing
Office......................................................... 257
Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress..........................................131, 152
Prepared statement........................................... 153
O'Neill, June E., Ph.D., Director, Congressional Budget Office... 67
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Paull, Lindy, Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation........ 91
Peters, Marybeth, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office,
Library of Congress, prepared statement........................ 148
Peterson, Eric, Staff Director, Joint Committee on Printing...... 85
Poole, Amita, Supervising Engineer, Capitol Building, Architect
of the Capitol................................................. 217
Pregnall, Stuart, Budget Officer, Architect of the Capitol....... 217
Roth, Hon. William V., Jr., Chairman, Joint Committee on Taxation 91
Prepared statement........................................... 93
Saxton, Hon. Jim, Chairman, Joint Economic Committee.............79, 80
Prepared statement........................................... 80
Schmitt, Bernie, Deputy Chief of Staff, Revenue Analysis, Joint
Committee on Taxation.......................................... 91
Schmitt, Mary, Deputy Chief of Staff, Law, Joint Committee on
Taxation....................................................... 91
Scott, Donald L., Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library of
Congress.....................................................131, 150
Silberman, Ricky, Executive Director, Office of Compliance....... 193
Prepared statement........................................... 195
Sisco, Gary, Secretary of the Senate, Office of the Secretary of
the Senate, U.S. Senate........................................ 27
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska...................... 3
Stoffel, Larry, Superintendent, Senate office buildings,
Architect of the Capitol....................................... 217
Warner, Hon. John, Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing......... 85
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Zelaska, Sharon, Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Office of the
Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Senate........................... 27
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Page
Additional committee questions................................... 242
Agency overview.................................................. 218
Auditable financial statements.................................241, 244
Botanic Garden project........................................... 240
Canine facility, renovation of the............................... 243
Capital project management.....................................241, 244
Capital projects................................................. 223
Computer-aided facilities management............................. 243
Cyclical maintenance reinvestment................................ 225
Emergency supplemental funding................................... 240
Five year capital budget, fiscal year 1999....................... 231
Fort Meade project............................................... 243
FTE employment................................................... 221
Future shortfall................................................. 237
General introduction and executive summary....................... 226
Human factor..................................................... 236
Off-site delivery center......................................... 244
Office of the Architect of the Capitol, role of the.............. 229
Operating and capital budget..................................... 222
Fiscal year 1999............................................. 220
Operating budget, fiscal year 1999............................... 230
Privatization.................................................... 242
Reinvestment benchmark........................................... 224
Strategic business planning effort: Goals and processes for
sensible agency reengineering.................................. 235
Strategic planning.............................................219, 243
Uniform program.................................................. 242
Year 2000 problem................................................ 245
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
Additional committee questions................................... 73
Budget deficit outlook and recent CBO estimates.................. 69
Congressional Budget Office:
Areas of concern surrounding the budget request.............. 68
Fiscal year 1999 request..................................... 67
On the World Wide Web........................................ 70
Fiscal year 1999 request......................................... 71
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Accomplishments and highlights, fiscal year 1997................. 250
Additional committee questions................................... 253
Budget request, fiscal year 1999................................. 251
Comptroller General, need to appoint............................. 247
Computer leasing................................................. 253
Desktop video.................................................... 252
Statement highlights............................................. 249
Year 2000 compliance............................................. 252
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Additional committee questions................................... 267
Appropriations request, fiscal year 1999......................... 259
Cash requirements................................................ 266
Congressional printing and binding appropriation................. 260
Congressional Record, bound...................................... 261
Congressional serial sets........................................ 261
Depository library program, transitioning the.................... 262
Facilities, cost and use of maintaining current.................. 280
Fugitive documents............................................... 278
GPO:
Finances..................................................... 276
Keeps America informed....................................... 258
Year 2000 Program Guide...................................... 269
Marketing GPO.................................................... 282
Public Printer's statement....................................... 257
Regional printing plant.......................................... 277
Revolving fund.................................................262, 264
Salaries and expenses appropriation.............................. 260
Training......................................................... 283
Year 2000 computer problem....................................... 265
JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING
Title 44......................................................... 86
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
Appropriation request, details of fiscal year 1999............... 94
Budget request, summary of fiscal year 1999...................... 94
Fiscal year 1999 request......................................... 93
Revenue estimates................................................ 92
Review of operations during calendar year 1997................... 95
Workload, summary of anticipated for calendar year 1998.......... 97
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
Staffing level................................................... 82
Year 2000 issue.................................................. 81
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Additional committee questions................................... 185
Audio/visual equipment........................................... 137
Collections security............................................. 188
Congressional Research Service............................138, 187, 189
Distribution of written products to the public............... 157
Issue briefs and reports online.............................. 153
Mission...................................................... 152
Products to the public legal issues presented by proposals
for the general release of--February 24, 1998.............. 165
Reports, concerns of putting online.......................... 178
Sustaining the quality and scope of services................. 154
Written products to the public congressional policy
concerning the distribution of--January 2, 1998............ 159
Copyright Office...............................................137, 188
Fiscal 1997, major accomplishments during........................ 135
Global legal information network................................. 186
Integrated library system........................................ 185
Law Library...................................................... 137
Legislation, proposed............................................ 139
Legislative information system................................... 186
Library:
Accomplishments.............................................. 150
Bicentennial................................................. 133
And the information age.................................. 135
Buildings and grounds........................................ 138
Challenges................................................... 132
Mission...................................................... 132
Security..................................................... 187
Of staff, collections, and facilities.................... 136
National digital library......................................... 188
National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped 138
Off-site storage and preservation................................ 137
Priority budget items............................................ 151
Summary of Culpeper Audio-Visual Conservation Center transaction. 183
Year 2000......................................................187, 189
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
Additional committee questions................................... 211
Adjudication..................................................... 196
Administrative and financial improvements........................ 201
Americans with Disabilities Act, public services and
accommodations under the....................................... 198
Awards and settlements appropriation............................. 202
Counseling and mediation processes............................... 193
Dispute resolution process....................................... 196
Education and information........................................ 199
Information, counseling, and mediation, requests for............. 196
Inspections, technical assistance, and investigations............ 197
Occupational safety and health................................... 197
Office of Compliance:
Authority and responsibilities............................... 195
Budget request for fiscal year 1999.......................... 202
Regulation writing............................................... 200
Settlements and awards........................................... 215
Studies and reports.............................................. 201
Unfair labor practices........................................... 199
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
Additional committee questions................................... 16
Architect of the Capitol:
And U.S. Capitol Police, memorandum of understanding between. 8
Police-related projects...................................... 10
Security projects in the budget.............................. 10
Capitol Complex Integrated Security Facilities Program........... 25
Civilian Merit Increase Program.................................. 22
Crimes against persons and property.............................. 24
General expense budget........................................... 22
National Finance Center update................................... 22
Pay.............................................................. 21
Perimeter security plan.......................................... 9
Personnel increase............................................... 20
Unionization status.............................................. 20
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Secretary of the Senate
Additional committee questions................................... 63
Administrative Offices........................................... 43
Disbursing Office............................................ 43
Historical Office............................................ 56
Information Systems Department............................... 60
Interparliamentary Services.................................. 54
Office of Conservation and Preservation...................... 52
Office of Human Resources.................................... 49
Office of Public Records..................................... 55
Office of Senate Curator..................................... 57
Office of Senate Security.................................... 53
Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment............ 50
Senate Gift Shop............................................. 54
Senate Library............................................... 49
Senate Page School........................................... 58
Senate Stationery Room....................................... 53
Amendment tracking system........................................ 29
Budget request, fiscal year 1999................................. 27
Capitol visitor center........................................... 32
Committee scheduling............................................. 29
Financial management information system.......................... 31
Interparliamentary services:
Official foreign visitors in 1997............................ 61
Trips in 1997................................................ 61
Legislative departments.......................................... 34
Bill clerk................................................... 34
Daily Digest................................................. 35
Enrolling clerk.............................................. 35
Executive clerk.............................................. 35
Journal clerk................................................ 36
Legislative clerk............................................ 36
Office of Captioning Services................................ 43
Office of Official Reporters of Debates...................... 37
Parliamentarian.............................................. 38
Printing and Document Services............................... 38
Legislative information system................................... 28
Rollcall votes, automated........................................ 29
Strategic planning............................................... 28
Succession planning.............................................. 32
Summary statement................................................ 27
User response.................................................... 30
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
Additional committee questions................................... 123
Beauty and barber shops.......................................... 120
Cellular phones.................................................. 121
Equipment, disposal of surplus................................... 122
Procurement operation............................................ 122
Summary statement................................................ 89
-